From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 18:59:21 BST
On 18 October 2004 6:50 PM Jim writes to Joe:
> [joe:] Can evolution as an inquiry into morals mean 'the random mutation
> acted on by natural selection' is different for each level? Is that
> definition, then, a dogma covering different levels? E.g., if the organic
> level is formed of DQ purpose (I eat) then a purposeless mutation in the
> organic level is only immoral, and the individual ceases. A purposeful
> mutation prepares for the social level.
jl:
I would say not. My argument of randomness was down to the fact that I
believe genetic mutations to be random (haphazard, arbitrary) with
respect to the benefit of the genome of the organism in question - they
are amoral. When it comes down to things like the cell selecting which
part of the genome to use, or selection which other genome to mate with,
then I would say it is considerably less than random, merely perhaps
mistaken. My whole arguement with random mutation is that they provide
an underlying variation on which subsequent selection acts. It's what does
the selecting that is the 'moral' aspect and the context in which
it is done that provides the 'moral' aspect. The initial cause of the
variation is neither here nor there.
Hi Jim and all,
[joe] Thank You! for your thoughtful response to my post. I find a quietness
and thoroughness in your post that is very appealing. Normally when I
discuss 'evolution' and 'change' I am very noisy.
I see change as evolutionary in the construction of levels. I have no idea
how matter participates in the levels. Only the assertion that change is
important in four ways satisfies me. I find the argument, children learn
values, persuasive.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ledbury" <jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: MD Randomness & Evolution
> Hi Joe,
>
>
> Joseph Maurer wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim, Platt, Mark, Scott....
>>
>> Is random only a scientific principle?
>
>
> jl:
> Good question. I'd have to say that it varied from person to person and
> from theory to theory.
>
> In quantum mechanics, randomness is pretty much taken as principle (that
> is what is taught) although opinions may vary (most famously Einstein,
> less famously Bohm). As far as I am concerned, QM randomness is not
> really random as I with a thought I can influence the behaviour of matter.
> But if it's to do with a mechanism that's not coupled to my awareness,
> then I'd say that there is an independence that is best described by
> 'random'. This is mainly due to the fact that measuring matter in one way
> (say travelling through space) is not consistent with measuring it another
> way (at a point): although we can get a relationship between the
> probabilities of measurements from one sort to another sort. To date, all
> atempts at trying to explain this on inaccuracies in our measurement have
> failed: despite this, I'd have to say that although backed up by a lot of
> mathematical analysis and experiment, it is somewhat an article of faith.
>
>
> In chaos theory, 'randomness' is taken to derive from the impossibility
> of determining the state of a system after some point because it is
> impossible to determine exactly the initial state. However, chaos theory
> is generally taken to be a useful model of the physical world rather than
> yet an underlying 'truth' of matter (as say quantum mechanics). Given the
> fluctuating truths of science, this may change.
>
>
> My argument with regard to evolution is that 'random' in this context is
> not the same as QM or chaos theory, but that changes occur to the genome
> which have no regard to the consequence of the beneficial or other
> effects.
>
>> [joe:] Are individual scientists falsifying their evidence only
>> exhibiting 'random mutation acted on by natural selection'?
>
>
> jl:
> As far as I am aware nobody's falsifying this - quite likely because
> nobody is really trying to measure this. This was the source of the
> argument as to if current evolutionary thery is dogma or science. I would
> say that given our knowledge of genomes, our knowledge of the existence of
> random mutations and the evidence that evolution exists, it isn't actually
> dogma - and that the assertion of other positions are at least if not
> vastly more dogmatic. YMMV. There have been various measurements to
> natural selection (speckled butterflies...) but it's really very hard to
> pin down any mutation giving rise to a positive characteristic carried
> forward to natural selection (i.e. it is really hard to test). We work
> from imperfect knowledge.
>
>> [joe:] Can evolution as an inquiry into morals mean 'the random mutation
>> acted on by natural selection' is different for each level? Is that
>> definition, then, a dogma covering different levels? E.g., if the organic
>> level is formed of DQ purpose (I eat) then a purposeless mutation in the
>> organic level is only immoral, and the individual ceases. A purposeful
>> mutation prepares for the social level.
>
>
> jl:
> I would say not. My argument of randomness was down to the fact that I
> believe genetic mutations to be random (haphazard, arbitrary) with respect
> to the benefit of the genome of the organism in question - they are
> amoral. When it comes down to things like the cell selecting which part
> of the genome to use, or selection which other genome to mate with, then I
> would say it is considerably less than random, merely perhaps mistaken.
> My whole arguement with random mutation is that they provide an underlying
> variation on which subsequent selection acts. It's what does the
> selecting that is the 'moral' aspect and the context in which it is done
> that provides the 'moral' aspect. The initial cause of the variation is
> neither here nor there.
>
>
>>
>> Is morality meaningless or only a sense of betterness? Can a child know
>> what is moral?. IMO 'the random mutation acted on by natural selection'
>> applied to the level of DQ is a definition or limitation of DQ. How can I
>> know the random without DQ SQ? Is DQ a useful formulation or should it
>> be abandoned? Do I identify 'the random mutation acted on by natural
>> selection' to be the individual? Is there is no basis for a rational
>> morality, only likes and dislikes?
>
>
> jl:
> I'd say that randomness in this context is action at a lower level that
> has no awareness of a higher level: like a large asteroid wiping out most
> life on Earth. Morality would be involved if some entity aware of life on
> Earth could actually guide the asteroid to whatever end. SQ reaching DQ
> tries its best with what is given. It can be set back by random
> circumstances and immoral ones.
>>
>> IMO If I deny evolution into moral levels, I can only know 'the random
>> mutation acted on by natural selection' for existence. If existence is
>> the measure of order must I say that women and men have a different
>> existence? That mind and matter have a different existence? If everything
>> is the same in terms of existence, are mind and matter hopelessly
>> separated and 'value' not to be considered? Is 'the random mutation acted
>> on by natural selection' only a description of an intellectual pattern
>> (unfinished s/o) and changed by 'the random mutation acted on by natural
>> selection'? Is the moq 'the random mutation acted on by natural
>> selection'?
>
>
> jl:
> Again no. I was referring to a particular organisation: that of cells
> interpreting the genome. The morality is the construction of the cell and
> the obedience of the genome, and the selection of (what is best in) other
> genomes. That the genome may be subject to a bit of randomisation from
> time to time is down to happenstance. I suppose an analogy nearer to
> standard definitions of morality is the reading of a moral code that is a
> few thousand years old. Quite frankly much of it has little meaning. Its
> adoption in 2004 therefore tends to be a little haphazard.
>
> As for men and women having a different existence... :-) At the risk of
> provoking anyone's ire I'd say that there are intrinsic differences
> between men and women. But not ones which should be expressed legally.
>
> As far as mind and matter go... I'd say that matter corresponds to the
> more static aspects of mind and mind to the more dynamic aspects of
> matter.
>
> ATB
> Jim.
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:22:04 BST