Got any more developed reasons than "perhaps" Marty?
Perhaps?
> From: "Marty Jorgensen" <mjorgensen@vpdinc.com>
> Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:13:23 -0800
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Subject: RE: MD Ubiquitous Quality, Universal Mind
>
> Perhaps Reality=Quality=Consciousness
> marty j
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 10:38 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD Ubiquitous Quality, Universal Mind
>
>
> Hi Everyone:
>
> As many of you know I’m a beauty nut. So it will come as no surprise
> that I seek out quotes from noteworthy people about what role beauty
> has played in their lives. One quote I came across the other day was
> attributed to Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Princeton
> Institute of Advanced Study. In answer to the question, “How can you
> tell when something’s interesting?” Dyson replied:
>
> “It’s a matter of aesthetics. I was trained as a mathematician. My tools
> are mathematics, so if it’s elegant mathematics that’s all I care about,
> and if it also happens to be useful, so much the better.”
>
> That sort of response is dear to my heart. It immediately reminded me
> of this passage from Lila:
>
> “But the Metaphysics of Quality also says that Dynamic Quality—the
> value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a
> laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing, inconclusive
> one—is another matter altogether.” (Chap.29)
>
> Since Dyson is attuned to DQ (as are many other mathematicians and
> scientists) I was curious if he’d written anything that might relate to the
> MOQ. An quick internet search brought forth a speech he made on
> receiving the Templeton Prize. In it he defines mind as “the capacity to
> make choices” i.e., to evaluate. And surprisingly, according to Dyson,
> this capacity to respond to values can be found in . . . well, let him tell
> you himself:
>
> “The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three
> levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see
> them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our
> direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is
> the universe as a whole.
>
> “Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents
> rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices
> between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum
> mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to
> make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom.
>
> “The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it
> hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction
> between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has
> passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a
> world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms
> and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in
> kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking, midway between the
> unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God. Atoms are
> small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of
> God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from
> atoms and from God.
>
> “This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is
> compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the
> experiments of modern physics. I don't say that this personal theology
> is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is
> consistent with scientific evidence. “
>
> Those who have been on this site for awhile will recall the “Are atoms
> aware?” discussions. It seemed to some of us that it was essential
> that the answer be “Yes” if the MOQ was to hang together as a viable
> explanation of reality. You can imagine my pleasure in finding a notable
> physicist agreeing with the “Yes” answer as well as a number of
> biologists (mentioned in previous posts) who support the “mind
> everywhere” (panexperientialism) theory.
>
> Another physicist who takes the “mind everywhere” view is David
> Darling who has written, “The brain is needed to produce
> consciousness, we assume. But the closer we look at this idea, the
> more fanciful it appears.” He continues:
>
> “Consciousness is not some side-effect, or epiphenomenon, of the
> objective world. It is an integral, irreducible part of reality.
> Consciousness is the subjective aspect of all things—the ever-
> present’ mind’ of the universe.”
>
> For values to make up the entire universe as Pirsig claims, the
> existence of mind or consciousness or a “mental apparatus”
> throughout seems crucial, for without “a capacity to make choices,”
> values are meaningless.
>
> We can never expect scientific evidence to support the MOQ because
> values, by science’s own definition of itself, cannot say anything about
> them. As Elephant has eloquently made plain, the essence of science
> is “numericism,” based on “the assumption that reality is countable.” If
> you can’t count it in some way, shape or form, science isn’t interested.
> But it’s important that the MOQ “be consistent with the scientific
> evidence” as a number of scientists indicate that indeed it is.
>
> In a letter available on the MOQ site, Pirsig wrote:
>
> "If Dynamic Quality were merely called "God" or "oneness" (scientists)
> would have it shoved out of bounds without question. But they can't
> shove Quality out of bounds. Mystic or not, they can't deny it exists.
> (letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, August 17, 1997)
>
> Now as further discoveries are made about man and nature, and the
> explanatory weakness of “emergent” theory becomes more obvious to
> all, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for scientists to shove mind out
> of bounds. To my mind that makes the MOQ all the more convincing.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:10 BST