Hi erin and Sketch,
ERIN:
I was agreeing with most of what you wrote but I thought your
snake-eyes analogy sucks.
ROG:
It obviously flopped, because I didn't intend to make the "chance" point at
all. Let me start over. I could have said that "just because virtually every
car goes North does not mean that cars are teleologically drawn to the
North." A car's purpose is not to go North. (I could alternatively argue
that an air particle's goal is not to be breathed, or that tuesday's purpose
isn't to follow monday, etc etc)
My intention was to criticize Pirsig for the large leap from his evidence
that there is a tendency or capability for evolution to lead to undefined
fitness and his supposedly proving that evolution has a purpose of leading to
undefined fitness.
Does this make sense? Do you think that possibility implies purpose?
SKETCH:
His idea that "natural
selection is DQ at work" is just a step in his line of
reasoning that evolution has a purpose.
ROG:
I could get off on irrelevent branches here, but will instead just get to the
point of "what is the difference?" How does this prove evolution has a
purpose? Does this convince you?
SK:
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.
ROG:
Yea, but you are expanding it so wide that it no longer implies anything of
interest.
SK:
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.
ROG:
And if I have a goal to use a car as a weapon to kill someone, does this
prove cars have killing as a teleological goal? Since the majority of species
become extinct, does this make the purpose of life "extinction"? No.
SK:
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.
ROG:
So, if evolution leads to extinction, it implies a goal toward DQ? If
evolution leads to stasis and no migration it means the purpose is DQ? And
if evolution leads to undefined Quality it means DQ? Is there any possible
scenario which doesn't imply DQ as the purpose or direction of the universe?
SK:
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.
ROG:
It doesn't "get around them" or "disobey them" or "circumvent them" or
"override them" it works within them. And the article most certainly does
touch upon the sun:
"...the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long
as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole
can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the
greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances
the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by
consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials."
SK:
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.
ROG:
Not at all. I am familiar with variation and selection and that evolution can
indeed lead to species that are well adapted to their environment. But this
isn't teleological. Adding a purpose or goal doesn't add anything to the
theory. Does it? What?
Thanks,
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 - 16:02:29 BST