From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 03:27:26 BST
Scott,
Your conveniently discussing my aside to David, ignoring the point I
made to you.
Anthropomorphism - agree about strong version, no use of He / She
personal pronoun stuff, I just meant more implicit, metaphorical, but
as I said, I didn't want the God debate in this thread - I think Sam
has started another ? (Details of what theism may be.)
Seeing "purpose" in evolution would "not be incompatible" with MoQ,
but now you're debating what evolution is or is not, not whether it's
as fundamental part of MoQ any more, so you're agreeing it is. I would
say Pirsig is no expert on evolutionary mechanisms, in the way that
Dennett, Jones, Gould, Dawkins, Pinker are say (or even me !)
Neo-Darwinism has come along way since the '50's. Personally - the
idea of directedness has some merits - patterns working with nature -
but we get led very quickly I find into a debate about causality
itself - which is where I'm up to with Chalmers and Deutsch at the
moment. However whatever the patterns are they are pre-evolved
patterns.
Consciousness can exist anywhere it has evolved, so that is "not
excluded" from existing beyond individual biological brains. But now
we're really into a debate about what consciousness / intellect /
intelligence is / are. But whatever it is, it's a part of the MoQ -
conscious experience.
In fact I didn't really want any debate in this thread, just a few
boxes ticked yeah or nay. Just trying to separate issues, find
latches.
Ian
On 8/11/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@cox.net> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> Ian said:
> As far as "God" is concerned - was just seeking agreement (or not) to
> the fact that MoQ is God-free (requires no anthropomorphic,
> purposeful, transecendent intelligent consciousness) as propounded.
> How hard a question can that be ?
>
> Scott:
> Just to narrow this down: no one that I recall has proposed an
> anthropomorphic requirement (proper theism rejects anthropomorphism). Pirsig
> says that seeing purpose in evolution as being compatible with the MOQ (and
> he rejects "blind operations of physical laws" as sufficient for
> evolution -- which should mean that physicalism is anti-MOQ, unless one
> stretches physicalism to allow for non-blind operations, that is, conscious
> ones). Whether one calls DQ transcendent or not is debatable (if the SQ
> responds to DQ, is DQ immanent or transcendent? It would appear to be
> transcendent relative to SQ at any rate). Some MOQists seem to allow for
> consciousness of a sort at all levels (When I tried to get a clear consensus
> on that from Ant, DMB, and Paul I didn't get one). So that just leaves
> intellect, which does put me at odds with the MOQ. But since I am not a
> theist, this involves a different line than the one you are drawing here.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Aug 12 2005 - 05:32:47 BST