Ham, Squonk, DMB, OK so "getting rid of people" is the (obviously) emotive bit.
It's a tolerable position to me (in a thought experiment) because the long-run point of all of this is to evolve something better (than humans as we currently know them) -if we / they are sufficiently different - ie special - they will be a new species by definition. (Terry Bisson's "Thinking with Meat" fiction similarly dismisses the current value of humanity .... in a thought experiment) But it's a baby and bathwater issue for me (excuse the dreadful pun). Human life is the most valuable thing available to any of us right now - hence the (good) reason there are so many ethical debates at the margins of abortion, foetal manipulation, human genetic engineering - as potential practical propositions. I think the key point you said here Squonk, is that nowhere are you suggesting any practical projects here - merely a thought experiment. DMB ? Regards Ian On 7/1/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello Squonk --? > ? > Your "thought experiment" (note the correct spelling) seems to be receiving > a lot of attention. Assuming that this is a serious proposal, I wonder how > you would implement your experiment in society. For example, who would you > appoint to administer it? Would it be set up as a commune in the manner of > B.F. Skinner's 'Walden Two', or would it be organized by the state using a > panel of consulting psychologists? > > Hello Ham, > Thanks for some common sense. > There is no intent to implement the experiment - it is presented with the > hope of stimulating thought?and encouraging new perspectives on familiar > issues. > By the way, apologies for the intrusive question marks in my texts. I have > no idea?why they appear. > ? > Ham: > Apart from the feasibility of such a program, I have some serious > reservations about the premises on which it is based. Here is how you > outlined them on 6/26, with modifications by Craig and Chris:? > ? > > 1a. The moq states that static patterns block DQ.? > >? > > 1c. Proposition B: Some static patterns are more dynamic than others.? > >? > > 2.(modified 26-6-08) Those static patterns which are more dynamic > > maximise DQ and potential for further evolution.? > >? > > 3. It is therefore a moral imperative to promote 2.? > ? > Your moral imperative would appear to be based on a speculative > interpretation of DQ, which was never clearly defined by the author and is > considered by many as a valuistic metaphor. > > s: That's right. Although i think it can be adequately supported by primary > texts and may therefore be implicit in them. I think it is also > contradicted. > > Ham: > Can Craig document Pirsig's? > statement that "static patterns block DQ"? In his interview with Baggini, > he said: "As to which is more important, Dynamic or static, both are > absolutely essential, even when they are in conflict. As stated in LILA, > without Dynamic Quality an organism cannot grow. But without static quality > an organism cannot last." (I'm not even sure that he accepts the idea that > DQ an exist independently of SQ patterns.) > > s: David?introduced the concrete example of becoming stuck on a problem in > one of his responses. I think this is an example of static patterns blocking > DQ. > That's the whole thing: to obtain static and Dynamic Quality > > simultaneously. If you don't have the static patterns of scientific > > knowledge to build upon you're back with the cave man. But if you don't > > have the freedom to change those patterns you're blocked from any further > > growth. (Lila) > The narrowing down to one brick destroyed the blockage because it was so > obvious she had to do some original and direct seeing. (zmm) > I agree with you that it is not certain if DQ can exist independently of sq > patterns. > This experiment assumes DQ can not exist independently of sq patterns. > > Ham:? > > 4. Proposition C. Mystical experience (of DQ) does not come? > > through the sense organs.? > >? > > 5. Sense organs are therefore not required.? > ? > Perhaps not, but most of what we value involves experience which definitely > involves the senses. Does isolating the child from experiential values > promote "mystical" cognizance? From what I've read on autism, social > isolation is at the core of this malady, and I know of no autistic or feral > child who has benefited psychically or intellectually from the condition. > > s: I would abandon any notion of babies and children, and narrow down the > focus to an isolated human brain prior to any development at all. > What?does this brain experience? > If it is unmediated DQ, can this be maintained? > If so, would it be moral to do it considering 2.?? > ? > Ham: > > (The following modified thanks to Chris)? > >? > > 6. From 3: Proposition A (modified 22-6-08): Isolating? > > organic brains from sense experience on an industrial scale? > > prevents static patterns from blocking DQ.? > ? > What, exactly, do you mean by isolating brains "on an industrial scale"? Is > this some kind of AI technology that I haven't yet heard about? > > s: No. AI would advance symbolic manipulation and so evolution would > progress. > The brains themselves would be maintained at that stage which is prior to > development induced by external stimulus, ie a dynamic state of pure > unmediated DQ. > >From 2 it would seem it is a moral imperative to have to do this given a > choice. > > Ham: > I've had enough physiology to know that the brain does not function 'in > vitro' but requires a central nervous system distributed throughout the > body. If you plan to isolate the brains of children in your experiment, you > might as well decapitate them. Better yet, if DQ can be gained by destroying > SQ, why not get rid of people and be done with it? > > s: If the central nervous system is required for a functioning brain then > the cns would have to be accommodated. > Re. getting rid of people: This makes sense! But the experiment assumes > there to be something relevant and special about undeveloped brains which > has direct access to DQ. > If this is not the case then?your suggestion that people could be done away > with induces a severe regression and we may as well consider doing away with > sq altogether. > > Ham:? > Sorry for the sarcasm, Squonk, but this is how your "thought experiment 1" > comes across to me.? > ? > --Ham? > > s: I think you have hit the nail on the head Ham: Bizarre thought > experiments may help to pin down a singe issue which is mundane and in need > of further thought. I think the issue this experiment may have thrown up is > way in which the word dynamic is used in apparently different and > incompatible ways. > squonk > > > I agree with you that it is not certain if DQ can exist independently of sq > patterns. > This experiment assumes DQ can not exist independently of sq patterns. > > Ham:? > > 4. Proposition C. Mystical experience (of DQ) does not come? > > through the sense organs.? > >? > > 5. Sense organs are therefore not required.? > ? > Perhaps not, but most of what we value involves experience which definitely > involves the senses. Does isolating the child from experiential values > promote "mystical" cognizance? From what I've read on autism, social > isolation is at the core of this malady, and I know of no autistic or feral > child who has benefited psychically or intellectually from the condition. > > s: I would abandon any notion of babies and children, and narrow down the > focus to an isolated human brain prior to any development at all. > What?does this brain experience? > If it is unmediated DQ, can this be maintained? > If so, would it be moral to do it considering 2.?? > ? > Ham: > > (The following modified thanks to Chris)? > >? > > 6. From 3: Proposition A (modified 22-6-08): Isolating? > > organic brains from sense experience on an industrial scale? > > prevents static patterns from blocking DQ.? > ? > What, exactly, do you mean by isolating brains "on an industrial scale"? Is > this some kind of AI technology that I haven't yet heard about? > > s: No. AI would advance symbolic manipulation and so evolution would > progress. > The brains themselves would be maintained at that stage which is prior to > development induced by external stimulus, ie a dynamic state of pure > unmediated DQ. > >From 2 it would seem it is a moral imperative to have to do this given a > choice. > > Ham: > I've had enough physiology to know that the brain does not function 'in > vitro' but requires a central nervous system distributed throughout the > body. If you plan to isolate the brains of children in your experiment, you > might as well decapitate them. Better yet, if DQ can be gained by destroying > SQ, why not get rid of people and be done with it? > > s: If the central nervous system is required for a functioning brain then > the cns would have to be accommodated. > Re. getting rid of people: This makes sense! But the experiment assumes > there to be something relevant and special about undeveloped brains which > has direct access to DQ. > If this is not the case then?your suggestion that people could be done away > with induces a severe regression and we may as well consider doing away with > sq altogether. > > Ham:? > Sorry for the sarcasm, Squonk, but this is how your "thought experiment 1" > comes across to me.? > ? > --Ham? > > s: I think you have hit the nail on the head Ham: Bizarre thought > experiments may help to pin down a singe issue which is mundane and in need > of further thought. I think the issue this experiment may have thrown up is > way in which the word dynamic is used in apparently different and > incompatible ways. > squonk > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
