RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> 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.*
Pirsig does believe evolution has a purpose, which
would make his theory a teleological one, but the
purpose he proposes is quite different from
traditional (SOM) teleological theories. So just
because it is has a teleological theory I wouldn't
really say that the MOQ is consistent with all
teleological theories.
> 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.*
I agree completely, the MOQ doesn't support design,
but it does support a purpose to evolution.
> 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.
Correct again.
> However, I don't happen to agree fully with Pirsig.
And here is where I don’t happen to fully agree with
Rog. :)
> 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.
Pirsig only said that he GUESSED that that idea had
not been taken up at all, and for the most part he is
right. Despite what these people have said, the
scientific mainstream idea is that evolution has no
purpose whatsoever. This is what is taught, and this
is what has been traditionally accepted.
> 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."
That's because he didn't make that leap. Pirsig does
say that "Natural selection is DQ at work," but he
does not say "Natural Selection has a purpose."
Natural selection is just a mechanism by which
evolution works. Pirsig is stating that evolution has
a purpose, but this doesn't mean that natural
selection has a purpose. His idea that "natural
selection is DQ at work" is just a step in his line of
reasoning that evolution 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."
Exactly, this is what i've been trying to say in some
of my past posts. Evolution has a purpose, but as
with all things affected by the MOQ, you have to
expand you definition of the word "purpose" to include
an indefinable concept such as DQ.
> 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.)
And evolution is the means by which life survives and
reproduces. Evolution is what allows life to acheive
DQ (which allows life to continue and thrive) so
evolution's purpose is DQ because life's purpose is
DQ. When Pirsig says life is a "migration of static
patterns towards DQ," that "migration" is evolution.
> Fourth, if natural selection has a purpose to
> "migrate"...toward DQ" then why
> does it usually lead to death, extinction or stasis?
Because life doesn't have free reign. It is hindered
by its environment.
> Even those species
> which do survive often hit
> a wall where they no longer evolve -- at least in
> any apparent way.
Actually, those species that do "hit a wall where they
no longer evolve" is one of the main reasons why i
support Pirsig's idea of evolution. Take the shark
for example. It's been around since before the
dinosaurs with little change. That's because
evolution has found a set of static patterns that
allow for the animal to handle any situation in it's
environment, and that is the shark's Dynamic Quality.
So the shark is a set of static patterns that have
already migrated to a sufficient state that allows for
a good balance of DQ and sq.
> 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.
Pirsig doesn't say life violates the laws of physics,
he says it disobeys them. Life hasn't broken any
rules, it just finds dynamic ways of getting around
them. The article says nothing about the sun's energy
leading to the organization of life. The sun provides
energy, but it doesn't determine how that energy is
used.
> 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.
I think you getting random variation and natural
selection mixed up. Random variation is what has the
capacity to lead to undefined fitness. Natural
selection determines which of these attributes that
random variation has created will allow for an
organism to have "undefined fitness" or Quality in its
environment.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
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