Platt and Lila Squad
PLATT:
Q1 "Does the MOQ support design or purpose in evolution?" Or to put it
another way,
Q2 "Is Pirsig a teleologist?" Or, another way,
Q3 " Would Pirsig agree with Susan Blackmore that evolution is 'mindless'?"
ROG:
He specifically says that the MOQ is consistent with teleological theories
and Natural Selection by equating the "fittest" with DQ. So the answer to the
2nd Q is *yes.*
As for the 1st Q, he says "life is heading away from mechanistic patterns,"
so I read this as implying that it does not support "design." However, he
does say that life's purpose is to pursue DQ or undefined fitness. So the
answer to the first Q is *no and yes.*
As for the 3rd Q, I can't think of any place where Pirsig resorts to the need
for "mindfulness" in DQ. I believe he would say "no" to this Q.
However, I don't happen to agree fully with Pirsig.
First of all, it is absolutely not true that scientists had not taken up the
idea that life evolves "away from mechanistic patterns". Specifically,
evolutionary theorists JBS Haldane, Theodsius Dobzhansky, Julian Huxley and
George Simpson have believed that evolution can lead to variability,
adaptiveness, freedom, creativeness and/or range of variety. Popper and
Whitehead are among the philosophers that integrated the concepts previously.
Second, I totally fail to see how one can make the leap from "Natural
selection is DQ at work," to "Natural Selection has a purpose." Certainly
that could show that it has a value, or an (undefineable) direction, but that
is not what people mean by a "purpose." Evolution has no more or less of a
purpose than water does to go downhill.
Third, note how Pirsig keeps jumping back and forth between natural selection
or evolution and "life". He is discussing the former, but he keeps sneaking
in the latter when it comes down to the "purpose" word. Saying that life has
a purpose is not the same as saying evolution has a purpose. (Personally, I
think that it is obvious that life DOES have a purpose. At the absolute
minimum it is to survive and reproduce.)
Fourth, if natural selection has a purpose to "migrate"...toward DQ" then why
does it usually lead to death, extinction or stasis? Wouldn't it be more
honest using Pirsig's logic, since most individuals, lineages and species hit
a dead end (99.9% of all species have already gone extinct) to say that the
purpose of life is extinction? Even those species which do survive often hit
a wall where they no longer evolve -- at least in any apparent way.
Fifth, it is absolutely not true that life violates the laws of physics nor
is it true that "It isn't the sun's energy," that leads to the organization
of life. See point nine in the Scientific American article.
In conclusion, the MOQ's take on evolution is Duck Squeeze. It is a mixture
of half truths, distortions, misunderstandings, unsupported leaps of logic
and mysticism. Natural selection is indeed dynamic. Natural selection does
indeed have the capacity to lead to undefined fitness. But it is also true
that a pair of die has the capability to come up "snake-eyes" (double ones).
It does not follow though that die have a goal or purpose to be "snake-eyes."
Wake up Squadies and smell the coffee! Corrections and counter-arguments
welcome!
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST