From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 03:39:39 BST
Hi Scott,
On 26 Oct 2004 at 14:44, Scott Roberts wrote:
I raised an issue a while back, maybe it will serve. Given the
reality of value (since I experience it), what is the (rational
empiricist) justification for saying that value is meaningfully
applied to inorganic processes as well? Since we have no empirical
evidence that, say, a rock values falling down an incline, the
justification must be based on reason. The only argument I can see is
to claim that a monist philosophy is better than a pluralist one, but
I don't see how to convince someone of that. There may also be an
argument from mysticism, that mystics say that "all is One", and
since value is real, then everything must be value. But this raises
all sorts of issues. Is this an argument from authority? Also,
mystics have as commonly said that the One is God, or Mind, or
Consciousness, as much as they've said it is Quality (Goodness).
msh says:
I agree that this is a chink in the MOQ's rational empiricist armor.
I think Pirsig might say that the problem is not really a problem but
a matter of perspective, or preference really, in how one states
one's assumptions. The scientist will say "The force of gravity
draws the rock downward." But the force of gravity is really just an
assumed "force" which is in itself not empirical, but is convenient
in describing what is observed. We can just as easily assume that
the rock chooses or values sliding down an incline. This also
describes what is observed, and has the additional convenience (for
the MOQ) of allowing that value choices may be made by inorganic
processes, which is of course necessary for evolution to occur at the
inorganic level.
Anyway, that's one way to address the problem, maybe. Someone who's
spent more time studying the MOQ may have a better response. I'll
take a look at what Ant McWatt has to say about it in his
dissertation.
I believe there is another chink in the MOQ's armor. I believe there
is plenty of empirical evidence that many animals other than human
beings are capable of thought. (I won't go into the details here, but
will if someone wants to pursue this.) Yet, in the MOQ, only humans
are said to have this ability. I know the pure MOQer will say that
thought is the abstract manipulation of symbols, etc, etc. But I
believe there is evidence that even this occurs among chimps, and
perhaps others of the "higher" primates, the differences to humans
being quantitative not qualitative.
I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on these to "chinks."
Best to all,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 03:40:53 BST