From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 07:19:56 BST
Thanks Scott for answering the question ..
You don't buy the MoQ as a complete model / metaphysics.
You're on that side of the line.
You ask
Q : One such gap is the supposed development of consciousness from a
universe without it. Another is the supposed coming into being of
language. How has the MOQ explained those events?
A : Evolution.
(Which is also explicitly part of the MoQ, in my opening line.)
Next
Ian
On 8/11/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@cox.net> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Ian said:
> I don't think there are any significant gaps, and the MoQ itself
> claims not to have any gaps. You raised the gaps.
>
> Scott:
> You claimed that there are no gaps to be filled. ("I feel it is explicit
> that MoQ does not "require" god as part of its explanation, there are no
> gaps waiting to be filled." I replied "I fail to see how the MOQ has no gaps
> waiting to be filled". One such gap is the supposed development of
> consciousness from a universe without it. Another is the supposed coming
> into being of language. How has the MOQ explained those events?
>
> Ian continued:
> As it happens "valued information being meaningful if there is
> consciousness" is the kind of thing I do believe, and don't see any
> conflict within the (working definition of the) MoQ.
>
> Scott:
> You left out the "only", which changes the meaning considerably. If that was
> a mistake (and if it wasn't, your belief is obviously true), and you believe
> that "valued information being meaningful ONLY if there is consciousness",
> then can I conclude that you have changed your mind, and now agree with me
> that consciousness and intellect (conscious information-processing) are,
> along with value, ubiquitous? (I'm referring to an earlier post of yours in
> which you maintained that there is value and information at the inorganic
> level. I claimed that value and information imply consciousness, but you
> then claimed it didn't.)
>
> Ian said:
> It's the difference between saying "MoQ is wrong, it needs fixing" and
> "MoQ is right, and can only improve if we promote and use it." Both
> equally valid, just two sides of a line.
>
> Scott:
> Since my disagreements are at a very basic level, I agree that I am on the
> "wrong -- needs fixing" side of that line. But I think the fixing is not all
> that traumatic, once one gets over certain modernist habits of thinking. The
> moral message that intellect trumps the social is preserved, for instance.
> Indeed, it is strengthened.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Thu Aug 11 2005 - 10:54:04 BST