Krimel said to dmb: I think you misunderstand. I am saying that "probability distribution" is a better philosophical term. Like James' percepts and pure experience it is continuous. It is empirically verifiable AND it is mathematically specifiable. What you are trying to extend "all the way down" appears to be volition, the exercise of free will. At least that's what "preference" implies to me. I cannot think of anything in science that would suggest that inorganic matter has choice. ... If you mean that preference does not mean "choice" at the inorganic level then it cannot imply "choice" at the biological level either. If no "choice" is implied at either level, are you saying that "preference" is just another word for "probability distribution"?
dmb says: I disagree. "Probability distribution" can't be a better philosophical term because it's not a philosophical term at all. It's a data set. Yes, it's derived from empirical observations and the observed behavior is then quantified so as to see the pattern of behavior. The MOQ's assertion about "preferences" going all the way down are a comment about data sets like that one. It's an interpretation of the empirical findings, a claim about the implications of the data. Take Newtonian mechanics, for example. In the Newtonian world, physical reality behaves according to strict laws. Every action is completely determined by the laws of physics. This in turn implies a completely deterministic universe, which raises questions about free will. It's in that historical context that the discovery of things like "probability distributions" are revolutionary. Such un-lawlike behavior implies approximately the opposite universe and raises the opposite questions. "Preference" is the answer while "probability distribution" is one of the findings that raised the question. I should say "probability distribution", as I understand that the phrase, refers to the mathematical description of the fact that certain physical event sometimes occurs and sometimes doesn't and, basically, shows what the chances are. It shows the averages when things could go either way. "Preference" would be an explanation for the fact that outcome in each individual case remains unpredictable and unknown until it actually occurs. And the Quantum world is full is such outlaw behavior, no? So "preference" is an answer to the questions implied by contemporary physics, a way to explain the variations observed. In that sense, lots and lots of science suggests something like preference or choice. In the biological sciences, where "preferences" don't seem at all far-fetched, it adds a certain efficiency and internal directedness to old fashioned "survival of the fittest". When the course of evolution is at least partly directed from within and by the creatures themselves we don't have to sit around waiting for some random mutation to adapt, to be most fit. Instead, the will to betterness on the part of every living creature helps to drive the whole, overall process forward. I don't see why this should be at all controversial at the social level of evolution and intellectually speaking the formation of a scientific hypothesis serves as a great example of the kind of efficiency that comes with the ability to express preferences. Of all the gazillion possibilities, we somehow repeatedly pick the ones that end up working out. Without this capacity to guide it, scientific progress would crawl along like a snail through syrup on chilly day. 'We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms from the observation that chemistry professors are, in general, moral. If chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise choice too. The difference between these two points of view is philosophic, not scientific. The question of whether an electron does a certain thing because it has to or because it wants to is completely irrelevant to the data of what the electron does. So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness' - this beginning response to Dynamic Quality- is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based....ethics and science...integrated into a single system'. (Lila p 161) "RTA, which etymologically stands for 'course' originally meant 'cosmic order,' ... The physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe. RTA is both. This was exactly what the MOQ was claiming. It was not a new idea. It was the oldest idea known to man." "DHARMA is Quality itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding of the universe which life has created."(Lila, chapter 30) By so uniting everything, the MOQ remains a monism too. That's Neat. Very tidy. _________________________________________________________________ Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=TXT_MSGTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme 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/
