From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sun Aug 17 2003 - 14:35:38 BST
Jonathan, Scott, Ian,
> Steve
>>> I believe evolution is the best model of any kind of reality.
>>> MOQ layers are a good summary of just such a reality IMHO - stable layers
>>> building dynamically on layers over many generations.
>>> I see no conflict or paradox between MOQ and Darwin.
It was actually Ian who said that.
Scott:
>> You seem to be equating "Darwinism" with "evolution". Darwinism is evolution
>> by chance and natural selection. I reject that (and I think the MOQ does
>> too). Quality is not chance.
Jonathan:
> I strongly disagree with Scott - he needs to be careful where he puts the
> word "chance" in the above sentence. Darwinian evolution proceeds by
> mutation and selection. The mutation part has a random direction - or as I
> have said before, its only direction is AWAY from what came before. However,
> selection has a very definite direction - towards greater survivability, or
> to put it in quality terms, towards BETTERNESS.
Steve:
I agree with Scott's point that Darwinism does not mean the same thing as
evolution. Darwinism describes a specific mechanism for evolution, as
Jonathan said, of mutation and natural selection which is more consistent
with observation than other theories. I agree with Jonathan's
reconciliation of biological evolution and the MOQ, but I don't think that
the usage of the term Darwinism generally implies any place for quality and
in everyday usage usually means without purpose, without value, without
meaning, and by chance.
Rorty said:
"If Darwin is right, we can no more make sense of the idea of
such a tribunal than we can make sense of the idea that biological evolution
has an aim. Biological evolution produces ever new species, and cultural
evolution produces ever new audiences, but there is no such thing as the
species which evolution has in view, nor any such thing as the 'aim of
inquiry.'"
See, he says that evolution has no aim, whereas the MOQ says that evolution
aims for quality. Rorty also talks about chance and luck. I think Rorty
sees the role of chance in evolution in the same way that Scott suggests
that he does. He says there is change and there are new species and
cultures and new ideas, but he wouldn't want us to say there is evolution
toward betterness because he would think to say that we would need a "God's
eye view" from which to judge it all which he says we can't have.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Sun Aug 17 2003 - 14:34:50 BST