From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sun Dec 05 2004 - 23:46:40 GMT
Ham,
You're right I didn't give the answers you're looking for, but I answered
the questions you asked.
No I don't believe morality has (necessarily) advanced.
(I already said that - "no guarantee what direction it has evolved", I said)
Clearly no, I didn't give you my 50 years of empirical evidence in one 20
line e-mail, but before I do, I'm a bit baffled.
You say "I" (little old me) imply MOQ is a basis for judging morality ?
I thought that's why we were here on MoQ Discuss ?
To debate RMP's thesis.
Rolling eveything into one ball called quality ?
No, several distinct levels of different states / levels of quality.
Obviously I'm not saying physics and morality are one and the same thing.
I'm saying (as RMP does) that physics is one layer in the evolution of
morality.
You have read ZMM and Lila right ?
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: MD Is Morality Relative?
>
> Hello, Ian --
>
>
> You answered my two questions, as follows (my comments appended):
>
> 1. By what belief system or objective evidence do you believe that
morality
> evolves or progresses from lower to higher quality?
>
> > To what belief system ?
> > The MoQ and very nearly 50 years of personal empirical exprience.
> > Morality evolves - no guarantee in what direction, without some basis to
> > judge better or worse - like the MoQ oddly enough.
> >
> You haven't shown me any empirical examples to support the theory that
> morality evolves.
> For example, do you believe that morality has advanced to any extent over
> the last 100 years? Since the age of enlightenment? How would you
describe
> these advances? You imply that MoQ provides some basis to "judge better
or
> worse". Can you be more specific, since if we can't measure moral
progress
> we can't assume that it has advanced.
>
> 2. How does "learning more and more fundamental physics" relate to this
> evolution?
>
> > How does learning lead to evolution ?
> > That's almost a tautology, learning and evolution could be seen as
> > practically synonymous in many contexts. What I'm saying is that any
view
> > that any of us has now (even RMP himself) of any one of the MoQ levels,
> must
> > be revised as we learn more about them, even the seemingly fixed
physical
> > layer. The expansion of physical knowledge did not end with Newton, or
> > Heisenberg, or Stephen Hawking for that matter. Some people are backing
> > superstrings, I'm backing quantum information and holochory, but it's
too
> > soon to call :-)
> >
> That's a nice outline of scientific progress and the accumulation of
> empirical knowledge over the last century, but I don't see how it relates
to
> Morality. Are you saying that there is no difference between facts
gathered
> about the physical universe and the morality of man's culture? Or is this
> MOQspeak, again -- rolling physical laws, biology and intellect into that
> hypothetical ball called Quality? If that's the case, I'm afraid you've
> lost me.
>
> Thanks anyway,
> Ham
>
>
> > Ian
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: MD Is Morality Relative?
> >
> >
> > > Hello Ian --
> > >
> > > According to Platt, you said:
> > > >
> > > > No, the
> > > > MoQ is not absolute, just the best emergent framework we humans
> > currently
> > > > have - it will evolve like the rest of us - yes, not just the
> biological
> > > > and higher, but even the hard physical layer, as we learn more and
> more
> > > > fundamental physics.
> > >
> > > Two questions:
> > > 1. By what belief system or objective evidence do you believe that
> > morality
> > > evolves or progresses from lower to higher quality?
> > > 2. How does "learning more and more fundamental physics" relate to
this
> > > evolution?
> > >
> > > --Ham
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> 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 : Mon Dec 06 2004 - 00:06:43 GMT