Re: MD Scientific testing of the MOQ

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 07:56:32 BST


Marco and All.

Marco said:
> I just entered to show a possible role of chance in the evolution
> theory, and arguing that the MOQ is not really teleological
> (contrarily to what Pirsig claims).

I have followed the thread at a distance, but not joined it, feeling a bit out of
my depth here.

Me from before:
> > Back in the Devon(?) age when inorganic
> > value was the one that bordered on to the dynamic surroundings it
> > spawned biological value - THAT is MOQ's "creation" ....afterwards
> > life grew in complexity from the new value, that's MOQ's evolution,
> > thus it combines
> > the two.

> ok, but you have to explain whether you believe that in one or both
> phenomena there is an external intelligence, a design, God, or
> something like that.

It's exactly here I think the dog is buried (as we say!), but let it wait.

> Once they had no explanation for flashes and
> rain, they invented Zeus. Today it is risible to state that Zeus sends
> flashes.

Right, the ancient world was one where phenomena were seen as "moods"
with the forces (the world was personal), then came the intellectual era when
they became "objectivised (the emotion-reason shift), and now it's difficult to
get out of the intellectual rut, we insist on an objective explanation
...whether we call it purpose or chance seems insignificant, evolution (we
assume) is something that has to be pushed or pulled.

> Indeed, we have not a decent explanation of when, how and where life
> popped out from the inorganic level.

Don't we? Except you want a scientific (SOM) explanation. You will never get
one!

> And there is God. Well, it is
> at least sensible to state that we have the right to searching for a
> "scientific" explanation. A promising line of thoughts is Autopoiesis,
> indeed.

Still, intellect's search for an objective scientific explanation was an
enormous value increase, the negative effect is that (as SOM) this led to
relegating the social reality to the "subjective" scrap-heap ...because in
SOM there is no "social value".

> I think the MOQ would call evolution also the "creation" of a new
> level.

Er ... I take it to mean that all levels' emergence are "creations" which is
100% correct. There is nothing that sets the biological one apart, and
looking at the other "creations" we see that the design vs chance is
irrelevant. It's always the lower level's sophistication (an ambiguous pattern)
that gave foothold for the next development.

Turning back to the inorganic level, what is "sophistication" of matter?
According to the current theory the first stellar formation was of pure
hydrogen and as these relatively short-lived stars fused that "fuel" into
heavier elements and blew themselves apart, new stars formed with those
elements in them and (if my memory serves me) ended up with carbon as
the in-fusable "cinder" (yet supernovas managed to create all heavier
elements) and carbon became the step-stone for life.

> I think I'm with Rog here, and I think that inter-level relations can
> be cooperative.

According to Pirsig the next value started in the service of its parent value,
but took on a purpose of its own. How early life forms "served" the inorganic
level is hard to see, but let that be...

> Anyway, matter/life is maybe the best example of a
> hardware/software relationship. I don't see how can life "exploit"
> inorganic values. It just shapes matter as its support.

Yes, but it's an hardware/software relationship between all levels. Whether
life "exploits" matter can be discussed, at least it uses it for its own means
...not by altering inorganic values (as in Platt's experiment) but taking
advantage of them.
 
> Let me add something about the tests on "mind" affecting "matter": you
> are right, when I decide to move my hand, this is a clear example of
> mind moving matter.

Seen in a SOM context.... was my point, and also that SOM's mind/matter
divide is false. Matter moves mind just as easily!

> We also must remember that no one else can move my
> hand.

...still in a SOM context, but your limb can be biologically - um - "roused"
and you can be socially coaxed or forced to move.

> There must be a borderline between what I can move and what I
> can't.

Seriously it's the "I/body" (S/O) notion which is wrong.

> As Platt states that the scientific community does not want to
> investigate the possibility of affecting matter, I must inform you
> that a very serious scientific institution in Italy offers one million
> dollars to anyone can perform something of "paranormal". I think that
> showing that:
> «the human mind can influence REG machines built to perform a random
> electronic toss of the coin so that we can "will" the machine to
> produce more heads, say, than tails.»

May I just express my "idé fix" again? I see the MOQ as something beyond
Intellect and as each higher level has an affinity for the next lower (my
enemy's enemy is my friend) it follows that the MOQ will be sympathetic to
the Social reality (called "magic" in a derogated sense by Intellect) and long
for miracles and wonders.
 
Bo

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