Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Thu, 23 Jul 1998 04:53:31 +0100
Hi Horse, Squad,
I wrote:
>> It is immoral to attempt to reverse the natural flow, but moral to
>> divert or attenuate the flow to facilitate it's movement down the
best
>> channel. Examples of this approach can be found in engineering
(drainage
>> design), medicine (toxic drugs), economics (government intervention)
and
>> probably many other systems. Thus it is moral for the LS to restrict
>> (censor) discussion to focus on selected topics.
>>
>
HORSE;
>The big problem, as I see it, with the above is that you are trying to
>anticipate the probable outcome of the effect of DQ in advance and
>as such limiting DQ. This is surely a case of intellect attempting to
>subjugate DQ for its own purpose, which is apparently immoral
>according to what Pirsig has written.
As soon as a pattern is recognised (SQ), that pattern extrapolates to
predict outcome. This is unavoidable.
That's not to impose a limit on DQ. What Horse is saying is that weather
forecasts limit what weather can subsequently occur!! If the prediction
is wrong, the SQ patterns are wrong.
No Horse, if we can't act in anticipation of outcome, there's no point
in doing anything at all.
>I'm not saying that P. is
>necessarily correct, just pointing out the already stated.
>
>What I do think is definitely wrong with the above is that you are
>not taking into account the effect of a possibly vast number of
>additional contributory factors that may undo any good that you are
>trying to pre-empt. This has definite tones of Utilitarianism. The
>short term effect may seem to what is required but the long term
>effects are unpredictable and could be worse than the condition
>you try to prevent. This is the basis of chaotic systems.
When I wrote about finding the path for maximum realization of
potential, I gave some simple examples. Because of your objection, I
will give a much more complicated one. Given the amino-acid sequence of
a protein, it is theoretically possible to calculate likely folding
patterns to find the conformation of minimum energy (greatest
stability). In practice, this turns out to be a computational problem of
immense magnitude. There are so many permutations of angles and
distances that often the only way to know if a given structure can be
improved on, is to actually find a better one. In the end, it often
turns out that there are a number of different solutions with very
similar energies. Interestingly, a very useful computational tool for
this type of problem is called the "genetic algorithm" which treats the
parameters of the problem like gene sequences, subjecting the values to
"mutations" and "transpositions" to help generate new possibilities
To get back to morality, the most "moral" solution to a problem is
sometimes just as elusive and ambiguous as a protein folding problem.
Furthermore, the chosen approach sometimes turns out to be wrong in the
long term (as you so rightly state). But that doesn't mean it is moral
to just stand back and let things take their course. In 1939, Gandhi,
true to his absolute pacifist stance, condemned the declaration of war
against Hitler's Germany. I don't question Gandhi's moral integrity, but
I disagree with his moral choice on this issue. IMO opinion violent
intervention against Hitler was justified to prevent much greater evil
in the long term.
Further comments on this most welcome!
Jonathan
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST