To: Platt, Jonathan and Elephant
From: Rog
ROGER
ARE ATOMS AWARE? and DOES THE MOQ REQUIRE THE ANSWER TO BE "YES" TO
HANG TOGETHER AS A VIABLE EXPLANATION OF REALITY?
JONATHAN:
Roger, I appreciate your focusing back to the question. We clearly agree in
so
many areas, and yet I still don't fully understand if and how we have a
disagreement here over "atomic awareness".
Let me split your question:
1. Is atomic awareness necessary to explain reality?
NO - there are plenty of alternative metaphysical systems.
2. Is the idea of atomic awareness consistent with the MoQ?
YES - that's my opinion (and Platt's). Roger? Elephant?
3. Is the idea of atomic awareness NECESSARY for the MoQ?
I believe YES, but we each seem to have our own personal ways of
understanding
it. Do we need an "authoritative" answer from RMP?
ROGER:
My Webster's 9th contains the following synonyms for AWARE: "cognizant,
conscious, sensible, alive, awake, and having knowledge of something."
Webster's continues on: "Aware implies vigilence in observing or alertness in
drawing inferences from what one experiences."
So, are atoms cognizant, conscious, alive, awake or sensible? Do they draw
inferences from their experiences?
So I answer that it is not necessary for the MOQ. In addition, it is not
consistent with the MOQ, other than as an overextended metaphor for quality.
(and I do acknowledge that Pirsig the novelist takes occasional poetic
license.)
JONATHAN:
Let me explain. I think that the following words are all linked:
RESPONSIVE-SENSITIVE-EVALUATING-AWARE-SENTIENT-CONSCIOUS-INTELLIGENT
They may carry additional semantic baggage, but they share VALUE as common
element.
ROGER:
I am fine with your chain, and with Maggie's chart (I miss Maggie too and
hope she rejoins us soon). But let me offer a tongue-in-cheek link of my own:
PERFORMERS - ACTORS - COMEDIANS - WOODY ALLEN
But all performers are not "Woody Allens" are they?
Don't bother answering, as I am being pointlessly argumentative and I
recognize your chain involves higher levels evolving out of lower levels, and
mine just goes from the general to the specific. (On the other hand, I could
draw out a chain of protozoa to humans, but that doesn't make it acceptable
to call protozoa proto-humans does it? ) Let me just add that I understand
the continuum, and I would even go as far as to say that bears are more aware
than viruses, which are more aware than rocks. But in keeping with Diana's
Texan theme "thars a mighty big spread 'tween them thar ...podner." By the
time you get to rocks, the "A" word doesn't fit at all.
It adds no value to box the MOQ into a corner requiring sentient quarks and
aware photons. We all agree on the idea of value chains of emergent
complexity and dynamic versatility, but let's not make the MOQ absurd.
Rog
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