Hello Mark and MOQers!
Mark Brooks wrote:
> Conscience is a loaded term. I would use "preference." Following one's
> preference does not imply consciousness, at least not in terms of the MoQ.
>
Preference as opposed to conscience does not work if one is to discuss
moral decisions on the intellectual level, at least as I understand the
MOQ.
Preference, for instance, dictates choice of color. Do I prefer blue or
red? Conscience governs the action of the individual with regard to his
interaction with society. Preference becomes weighted with social level
consideration. I may prefer red, but the society in which I live
believes wearing red is morally repugnant so I choose blue, or some
other color, instead. This is admittedly simplistic, but illustrative.
> > In a deterministic universe there is no choice but to follow the
> > dictates of morality. An amoeba will not choose to go to an acid
> > solution because it has no choice.
>
> This is where we start to disagree. The amoeba fundamentally has a choice,
> at least in terms of my MoQ definition of choice (see next post). He
> strongly *prefers* not to be in the acid. That's a simple scenario though
> because it is so polar. If there was one type of acid on one side and
> another type on the other, the amoeba would make a choice to go into one of
> the acid solutions. He would make a (moral) evaluation and then act.
>
The choice of the amoeba is still no real choice. It will go to the less
acidic solution because that is what it must do if it is to have any
chance at all to survive. Now if the amoeba could affect it's
environment and choose to live in one or the other then I would say that
that amoeba has a choice. As it is, the choice is "be" or "not be" and
the move to the less acidic solution is its attempt, however futile, to
"be."
> I posted the other day that, at least in my opinion, there is no
> implication of consciousness by using the word "choice."
Hmmm.
> This redefinition
> of choice is supported by Pirsig in many places, including:
>
> (Lila teal, p 180)
>
> "Of course it sounds peculiar at first and awkward and unnecessary to say
> that hydrogen and oxygen form water because it is moral to do so."
>
> That implied choice since morality implies choice. Also, he writes:
>
> (Lila teal, p 181)
>
> "The question of whether an electron does a certain thing because it has to
> or because it wants to is completely irrelevant to the data of what the
> electron does."
>
> > A sentient being might very well choose to enter a low quality
> > environment for many reasons, but it is important to remember that he
> > does so because he can make a choice.
>
> So can the amoeba and electrons, especially when the choices are close
> together and not polar extremes. Relegating choice only to sentient beings
> is a mistake in my opinion.
Hmmm.
> Certainly the monkey in my example the other
> day, the one caught in the trap, remained in a low quality environment out
> of choice. I also think that this showed a lack of sentience at the time.
> He certainly was not acting on the intellectual level.
Exactly my point. It valued the food inappropriately because it was
incapable of making an intellectual decision to remain free by letting
go. It was no real choice on the monkey's part. That's why such traps
work on animals better than they do on people.
>
> > The exercise of free will is a dynamic exercise and is what sets the
> > intellectual level apart from the lower levels. The three levels below
> > the intellectual cannot act to change themselves - they are static
> > unless changed from without.
>
> I disagree with this. All four levels are static to an extent and dynamic
> to an extent. Their hierarchy is based on their Dynamic-ness. Society can
> change itself. Yes, it requires humans for this, but that makes sense. A
> society cannot exist without humans.
Yes, it can, if we are to assume that animals that live in groups are
social level animals.
Humans consist of all four levels. We are, arguably, the only species in
the universe that can make reasoned decisions concerning the morality of
any situation and affect the outcome of the situation. Ants operate in
three of the levels. The social structure of the ant is not dynamic,
except in the course of evolution. No ant can decide to usurp the power
of the queen and set up a kingdom.
>
> If the ability to change is limited to the intellectual level, how did life
> begin?
I believe that comes down to the ultimately unknowable. Prime Mover?
God? Random accident in an alternate universe? It's here whether or not
we can say how, as Platt so eloquently wrote. I did not say that change
was not possible in the other levels, I maintain that an outside
catalyst is required.
>
> I agree with many of your conclusions, by the way. I just disagree with
> some of your premises. In some cases it is a fifth postulate of geometry
> kind of thing. Do rocks have free will? In my MoQ-based definition (see
> next post for my reasoning), they do. In your opinion, they do not. This
> does not matter to our conclusions about rocks as I maintain that rocks
> show less free will than men. Our actions and reactions towards rocks > are the same.
>
Agreed.
> > The MOQ is humancentric, Ken, because man is the measure. That statement
> > will hold true, I think, until we encounter another sentient species.
> > Then we can say sentience is the measure. The MOQ may well describe the
> > inorganic, biologic and social levels after we are gone, but the
> > intellectual level is reserved to sentient beings.
>
> This is basically agreed. I do not put choice or free will, at least in MoQ
> terms, in the intellectual level though. I also don't think sentient beings
> must act on the intellectual level.
I don't see how you could take free will out of the intellectual level.
I think "values" - (A "values" B) - and "choice" - (A "chooses" B) - are
two entirely different concepts.
>
> Oh, I'm also not sure that the MoQ would exist without a sentient being to
> know about it. <G>
MY bad. LOL!
drose.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST