From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Wed Jul 20 2005 - 20:49:58 BST
Ian,
Scott said "That may make Paul right de jure, but not de facto. Philosophy
is
mostly arguing over definitions."
Ian - But we're not arguing definitions here, just the fact that
Pirsig wrote the MoQ as people were intended to read it - that's the
not-complicated bit. Whether the MoQ is right or wrong or can be
improved upon is another matter - the complicated bit.
Scott:
So are you telling me that I shouldn't argue against the MOQ? Because I am
arguing over definitions.
Scott said : "I've given my reasons for why there is no "coming to be"
in re intellect,
sentience, and consciousness. Doesn't it seem that those reasons need to be
rebutted first?"
Ian - Sorry, no it doesn't. I prefer to build (constructively) from
ground of mutual agreement, not some speculation you have and I don't.
(There is ample evidence of intellect coming to be ...)
Scott:
Who is stopping you from that? Just don't expect me to contribute under your
assumptions. My intent is to argue against those assumptions, or at least
argue that an examination of them requires one to modify them.
Scott said [of evolution] : "I know of no evidence for calling it a fact."
Ian - So why your interest in the MoQ at all ? (I generally choose to
be dismissive of people who take the "evolution is just a theory"
stance, as you may have noticed. Especially as the MoQ is clearly a
Darwinian evolutionary model. Please let's not retreat to ground zero
again.)
Scott:
Your "[of evolution]" is an incorrect interpolation. Evolution is a fact.
Emergence (of consciousness from non-consciousness) is a speculation. I
would also say that the MOQ is not Darwinian, even though Pirsig says it is
compatible with Darwinism. Evolution through DQ is not the same as evolution
through chance mutation and natural selection, which is what I take
Darwinism to be.
Scott asked "Do you agree or disagree with my claim that the
inorganic, biological, and social levels are different manifestations
of conscious semiosis?"
Ian - Silly question - I completely disagree, until we get to
socio-cultural-intellectual levels.
Scott : 1. All is quality interactions of information.
Ian - OK
Scott : 2. It is meaningless to call an interaction informational (and
valuable)
unless there is informing, which implies awareness of the informing.
Ian - No such implication.
Scott:
Ok, this is the crux. I hold that it is meaningless to speak of valued
information in a context without awareness. You think it is meaningful. What
do others think?
Scott : 3. Semiosis is informational interaction
Ian - The meaning / semiosis only arises with the benefit of conscious
hindsight. Until then all we have is "fit" or quality.
Scott:
We also have, according to you, information.
Scott asked : "Where does [the MoQ] provide an account (an answering
of "how") to emergence of sentience, or language, or intellect?"
Ian - But that's exactly what MoQ is ... an account of how biological
is built on inorganic, social built on biological, intellectual built
on social. Sentience, language, intellect etc arise in the higher
levels. It is an account of evolution. Why look for anything more
complicated ?
Scott:
All the MOQ says is that DQ produces a new level out of an old. It doesn't
say how they are produced.
- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 20 2005 - 21:58:23 BST