Hi Platt:
P:
> I agree with everything you say, but feel obliged to point out that "Do it
> well now. With art." exhibits purposeful or "value" behavior.
M:
Indeed. But the fact I have a purpose does not mean that all universe has
one purpose. I don't delete purpose from universe. I state that a) there are
many conflicting purposes b) the existence of purpose does not delete the
existence of luck. They both exist.
P:
> .... As I
> interpret your view, the intrinsic purpose of evolution is to remain open
to
> DQ influences so as to take advantage of whatever "luck" DQ offers.
M:
If you want to interpret my view, stop assuming for sure that there is "a"
purpose of evolution. To remain open to DQ, or in other terms, open to take
the occasion of changing and evolving toward better, is not IMO a purpose.
It is a mean to survive, thrive, be healthy, enjoy life, investigate
reality.... these are purposes. And not the only mean: also preserving the
statically latched good is a mean to survive. They both are necessary.
Observing all that, we can see that the overall outcome of nature is a
movement toward better. You can see a purpose in all that, if you want. But
a purpose needs an intelligence designing that purpose. And in the MOQ
intelligence is the outcome of evolution, not the other way round.
P:
> Since all static patterns are patterns of value, I presume quantum
> particle patterns can act purposefully in response to DQ just as "we"
> can. Right?
M:
Let's say they don't follow necessarily a predetermined behavior. Like to
say, they have a certain degree of freedom.
P:
> Luck without a purpose? Is DQ just throwing out chances with no
> purpose at all? DQ, "the source of all things" tossing dice? Hmmm. IMO
> this question goes to the root of the MOQ..
PIRSIG:
«Dynamic Quality, the source of all things, the pre-intellectual cutting
edge of reality, always appears as "spur of the moment". Where else could it
appear? » (chapter 11)
M:
Remember Poincare, who produced the Fuchsian functions while entering a bus?
DQ is unexpected. How can purpose be unexpected?
DQ doesn't toss dice. DQ is there. When our filters are off, we can take the
occasion.
Well, sometimes tossing dice is a good way -not the only way- WE have to set
the filters off (example: you could vote a party tossing dice instead of
following your static political ideas.... you could be lucky or
not....surely more dynamic). Well, intellectually maybe we have better
solutions [I'm not sure], but apparently biology has assumed chance as a
good method in many of its "choices".
P:
> It strikes me that chance, randomness and/or luck has
> become, especially for those who worship science, the new, all-
> explanatory God, blocking further inquiry just as the Gods of old.
M:
Not all-explanatory. Explains something. As said, biology uses chance to
switch off the static filters.
P:
> Let's be realistic. The MOQ, like any metaphysics, presents an overall
> design. Also Darwinian theory. So too the "laws of physics." Even
> "many short-term competing purposes" represents an overall design.
> Any design can include "chance" as one of its design elements as well
> as 0 or nothing. The only way I know to avoid design is stop speaking of
> it all together, because as soon as you speak of it you "pattern it" i.e.,
> create a design. For example, if you claim "nature has no design" you
> automatically rule yourself out as being part of nature because your
> statement has a design--in fact it must have--in order to be meaningful.
>
> Maybe it all boils down to the less said about DQ, the better. We know
> what it is, but it eludes description. Trying to pin it down is like
trying to
> answer the question, "Who is the I that knows me?"
>
M:
If you want me on your side fighting those claiming that nature has no
purpose or design, I'm with you.
If you want me on your side supporting the idea that nature has ONE ONLY
purpose or design, I'm not with you anymore. "Many short-term competing
purposes" represents an overall design, still it is not the only design. It
is my design. You are free to design a different map. Could be that one is
better and will prevail. Could be that the best thing is that both survive
in competition.
Ciao,
Marco
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:19 BST