Dear Wim,
Sorry for my weeklong silence, but here's my reply to your post.
--- Wim Nusselder <wim.nusselder@antenna.nl> wrote:
> Dear Patrick,
>
> I am interested by the connection you make 15/8 7:48 -0700 between
> plasticity of the brain, habits, growing complexity and progress. By
> suggesting that it is relevant to the (social) progress thread (I
> agree),
> you imply that you are connecting the versatility of biological
> patterns of
> values (brains), a way of describing and analysing social patterns of
> values
> (habits), a correlation of increasing strength between complexity and
> stability of social patterns of values and migration of social
> patterns of
> values towards Dynamic Quality (social progress).
Hm... migration of social patterns of values towards Dynamic Quality.
Okay, I like your formulation, but it mixes the (supposed) evolution
towards complexity with (better) _values_. It is a MoQ assumption to mix
these two assumptions into one, I suppose, because Roger makes the same
point, if I interpet it correctly.
>
> You then ask: 'Is evolution to increasing complexity "good"; does it
> signify
> progress?'
>
> The answer depends of course on the morality you want to apply, your
> way of
> assigning 'good' and 'bad' to things in general. Assuming a pragmatic
> morality, more complex patterns of values being more stable (surviving
> less
> complex patterns of values) and thereby creating this trend of growing
> complexity are indeed 'good'. Complexity 'works' where lack of
> complexity
> fails.
It takes a (subjective) point of view to make this assumption true. WE
observe that complex things sometimes work better than less complex
things. But it's precisely the nature of _our_ social or experiential
values that I want to explain from an objective point of view. Should
that start with our values and then end up via a loop towards our values
again? That's tautological. I'm using SoM language here, I know. It has
it's own assumptions. But here I see limitations of MoQ as well. Hm...
this reminds me very much of Goedel's theorem, which intrigues me very
much. Every system has some theorems which can't be explained within the
system; every system is forever incomplete. Truth (or Quality) maybe
complete, but then it's non-rational.
Uh, I'm wandering I notice.
Anyway, thanks for the reply; and thanks for reading mine.
Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
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 - 16:06:20 BST