Hi Platt
> I don't see freedom of speech, trial by jury, freedom of religion and
> other intellectual victories over society applying to swarms of bees or
> herds of gazelles. Why add irrelevant groups to the MOQ?
Why is that a problem? I only claim that a beehive is a society, not that
there's any social-intellectual struggle going on in it. Such struggles
only arises when there's a strong intellectual force wanting to fight old
social habits.
> Nothing in the MOQ forbids an encounter with an alien race consisting
> of intelligent robots. I doubt if they will exhibit Victorian social
> sensibilities or be much concerned with our modern sexual mores.
> The question will be, "Do they experience?" No metaphysics, not even
> the MOQ, can answer that question within a comfortable zone of
> certainty. If you see a way to possibly construct such a system, please
> let us know. I don't think extending the MOQ social level to sub-atomic
> particles holds much promise along those lines. But, I could be wrong.
*I* don't think the MoQ forbids such an encounter, but many others do. You
said yourself the other day:
"society as used in the MOQ primarily refers to human society."
How would you like to rephrase that to allow intelligent robots? Not so
intelligent robots? Stupid robots? Is there a gradual line somewhere that
decides whether a bunch of robots or things is a society?
> Ah, is that what a metaphysics is supposed to do--make predictions? I
> really never thought of it that way. Now that I do think about it, you may
> be right. Still, doesn't the ability to make predictions presume a
> deterministic reality? And doesn't the MOQ say that DQ is anything but
> deterministic? That it comes as surprise? Like twins?
>
> Is it your goal to take the surprise element out of DQ? Or reduce it? An
> interesting challenge, Magnus. Just so you know, I'm open to the idea.
No, I would never suggest taking DQ, nor the surprise element of it, out of
the MoQ. I still feel a bit guilty about not answering your question some
months ago along the same lines. Hmm... here:
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0109/0011.html
You mentioned the "seeming sterility" of my view and rounded up with:
"Unless the enchantment aspect of the MOQ is acknowledged, only part of it
is communicated."
You're absolutely right, but the fault is not exactly in my view of the
MoQ. It's in my presentation of it. Too often, I fail to state that I'm
only talking about the static side of the static/dynamic split. I always
try to design my thought experiments without DQ but I'm fully aware that
if these experiments were carried out in the real world, DQ would certainly
be there to surprise me occasionally.
Magnus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:46 BST