Rog wrote:
>
> 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.
You say that evolution only has a tendency or
capability to lead to undefined fitness, when has
evolution not led to undefined fitness? That is the
whole point of evolution, survival of the fittest.
> 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?
Q1: The difference is that a step in a line of
reasoning is not all of the reasoning.
Q2: It helps (doesn't completely prove, only helps) to
prove that evolution has a purpose because by saying
that natural selection (the main mechanism by which
evolution works) is DQ at work, he is, at first, only
introducing the concept that DQ is involved evolution
, instead of just jumping right into his point that DQ
is the goal
Q3: It's not meant to totally convince the reader,
only to help, because, once again, it's only a step.
> 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.
Dynamic Quality is nothing 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?
Your point here is mu because your applying a bad
analogy for two reasons, a car is a thing, not a
process like evolution, and there is no intellectual
being like a person directing evolution so you can't
compare it to how a person directs a car. A person
driving a car is an outside influence controling a
thing, evolution is a process which has a goal of
Quality just like everything else in the universe.
> Since the majority of species
> become extinct, does this make the purpose of life
> "extinction"? No.
The majority of species become extinct because of
outside influences like environment or man.
> 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?
First of all, who said evolution leads to extinction
or stasis? I sure didn't. And isn't that SOM logic
anyways?
Q1: Once again, extinction is due to environmental
reasons. Why did you say evolution leads to
extinction? Evolution helps organisms to survive, it
doesn't destroy them.
Q2: If those patterns have already acheived a Quality
existence in their environment why would they continue
to migrate? Organisms evolve to a state that can
survive in its environment, if the environment doesn't
change, the organism will not need to change either.
And just because an organism has evolved to a state
where it no longer needs to evolve at the moment
doesn't mean evolution leads to stasis.
Q3&4: The point of evolution is to create static
patterns that have DQ, meaning an ability to thrive in
the current environment. I say DQ and an ability to
survive are equal because an animal needs to have
static patterns that are dynamic enough to handle
anything in its environment. A balance of static
patterns and dynamic ability means a Quality organism.
As any MOQist should know through the heirarchy of
static quality, the universe is evolving towards
Quality. In order to do this there must be a balance
of static quality and Dynamic Quality. Life is a
migration of static patterns towards Dynamic Quality,
meaning it is trying to acheive a balance of static
and Dynamic Quality because when it does have a good
balance it will have Quality. Now, the reason the
goal of evolution is DQ is because in order for life
to be as close to Qualty as possible, those static
biological patterns of value that make up life must
have DQ also. This is where evolution comes in, it is
what change those static patterns to a state that will
have the most DQ possible in their environment. If
evolution is a blind process, how does life obtain
Quality blindly?
> 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."
1. Ok, i can understand how "get around" or "disobey"
are bad terms to use when taken literally, i'll think
of a different way to say it but not now, this reply
is taking long enough as it is.
2. I never said that the article doesn't touch up on
the sun. Just as I said earlier, the article says
that the sun provides energy, but it doesn't determine
how that energy is used. It doesn't determine what
shape the complexity will take.
> 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?
Adding a purpose or goal doesn't add anything to the
theory!?! Did you really just say that!?!
Thanks,
Adam
__________________________________________________
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 - 16:02:29 BST