Hi DLT, Platt and Erin,
DLT:
Or: Does adding a purpose or goal to a theory make any real difference?
Well I guess if it makes the theory more closely align with and predict
experience, then Yes, it does. Pirsig suggests that this goal is
EVOLVING higher levels of stable patterns of value which provide greater
FREEDOM from the constraints or limits of lower level patterns.
ROG:
I firmly believe that evolution can and has often led to exactly this
freedom. The explanation isn't that it has a purpose or goal to reach such a
result though. It is that those living things which are more dynamic and
versatile are able to survive and replicate better than less dynamic and
versatile patterns. Your insertion of teleology adds nothing to the
explanatory value, it just introduces an absolutely unproven assertion, of
which I have dozens of questions.... How did evolution get this purpose? Who
or what gave it said purpose? Did it have this in mind from the get go? How
can you prove that we are dealing with a goal rather than a statistical value
pattern? Etc...
PLATT:
For starters, adding purpose helps solve some metaphysical puzzles,
like this from Chap. 7:
"The problems of free will versus determinism, of the relation of mind to
matter, of the discontinuity of matter at the subatomic level, of the
apparent purposelessness of the universe and the life within it are all
monster platypi created by the subject-object metaphysics."
ROG:
How does whether evolution has a teleological purpose have a bearing on free
will, mind/matter or quantum theory? Please be specific. Certainly it could
answer the purpose of the universe platypi, assuming we agreed there was one,
but no better than "God wanted one." Note I already agreed that life DOES
have a purpose, and I did so with no unproven teleological Ghost in The
Machine.
PLATT:
And this from Chap. 17:
"But it's as foolish to think of a city or a society as created by human
bodies as it is to think of human bodies as a creation of the cells, or to
think of cells as created by protein and DNA molecules, or to think of
DNA as created by carbon and other inorganic atoms. If you follow that
fallacy long enough you come out with the conclusion that individual
electrons contain the intelligence needed to build New York City all by
themselves. Absurd."
ROG:
So your solution is that New York City was one of the goals of the universe?
Or is it that electrons...with a little help from MYSTICAL DQ together
construct complex adaptive systems? Let me know what you are specifically
suggesting here Platt.
ERIN: still doesn't due it for me. Isn't it you in the progress thread
that argues the world is getting better. It is not as
directionless as you make it sound. what if the cars were slightly closer to
the North Pole each year.
ROG:
You guys are still assuming that direction implies teleology. This is not
true at all. As you noted, I am one of the premier advocate of PROGRESS --
biological, social and intellectual -- in this forum. But I don't "explain
away" the topic by saying that progress is some kind of divine purpose of the
universe.
Let's say that cars on average did tend to "drift" say 10 feet closer to the
North each year. We could approach the problem by analyzing it and seeing
what could contribute to this trend, or we could just explain the issue away
as "Cars seek North." One way leads to the scientific method, and the other
to dogma. Which of the two courses is more dynamic?
ERIN: a direction-- back to your car analogies I can be driving north
without a defined destination.
I was looking up Pirsig's quote about teleology when I came across
this on another website. I would like you to comment on it.
ROG:
I have no problem with recognizing that there are value attractors in
evolution. I am OK with the causation-as-evolution angle too. No teleology
or mystical purposes are required for either.
Rog
PS -- Please recognize that I am not denying the value of freedom,
creativity, dynamism, etc. Nor am I in any way denying that the universe has
indeed evolved toward more dynamic patterns of organization. It clearly has.
But lets not reject dynamic intellectual methodology for static, cheap, and
sloppy mystical Ghost In The Machine teleological thinking. The MOQ fails by
its own standards on this one.
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