Hi Mary, In my post to Dan, I was trying to guess where Dan was coming from. As such, my questions were leading. I loved your post below and will discuss it.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Mark, > > [Mark speaking to Dan] > Yes, it is impossible to posses Quality as I understand it, things can > express Quality however, and as such I talk about the appearance of Quality. > I am not sure if you agree with this. > > You accept the premises imposed by your statement of 3.5 billion years of > evolutionary history. You then operate within that acceptance. > So, let's look at what this means. Evolution dictates that what is > currently present is the result of the interactions between the outside > environment, and the individual species. > > [Mary] > From a cause and effect perspective, I suppose, but there is a question > being begged here. Do you see what it is? [Mark] Is this kind of like the question "I am thinking of a number between 1 and 10, do you know what it is?" I was presenting current evolutionary theory, which really has not changed much since Darwin said evolution of species occurs through natural selection. I can think of many questions being begged, but those who subscribe to evolutionary theory seem to accept it as truth. For me it is somewhat teleological, incomplete, and makes too many assumptions. > > [Mark] > With regard to MoQ, we would then take the levels to be an individual > species as an analogy. Is this a correct interpretation of your > presumption? > > [Mary] > No, and if you do not see why I say so, feel free to ask. I cannot go into > all of this in one post. [Mark] Is it because biological evolutionary theory cannot be used in MoQ? Just a guess. I give up. Why? > > [Mark] > The selective force is then Quality instead of "Natural selection", which > selects between all possible levels to present us at this time with the four > levels. The pressures behind the survival of these levels is that they > progress towards dynamic quality better than any other configuration. > > [Mary] > Again, no, so call me an asshole now. :) [Mark] It would seem that if we are applying biological evolution to Quality, that this analogy would transfer. My point was that it doesn't > > [Mark] > Remember that biological evolution requires competition for a limited amount > or resources. Otherwise things would not change. > > [Mary] > Emphatically no, and this time I will tell you why. Species will change > whether there is selective pressure or not. Changes will occur seemingly > unbidden. Given our limited current state of knowledge, the most honest > thing we can say is that we do not understand the mechanism inspiring > biological evolutionary change, if indeed there even is anything systematic > about it at all. The capacity for random change is the only necessary > precondition. [Mark] Perhaps this can be logical, if you are saying that biological evolution needs the concept of random change. This has been shown to be incorrect in that genes can force mutations, thus making them less than random. I could find a reference if you are interested. > > Most biological change is counterproductive, not for the better, and thus > likely not replicated into the next population to any great extent. > However, this is not a given. There are many cases of counterproductive or > neutral biological evolutionary changes that are indeed replicated in > quantity into succeeding generations. Why are there type one diabetics, for > example? No one knows why. No one knows by what mechanism mutations of > this sort persist for millennia in a population. Generally, it is assumed > they arise randomly, but this is probably too simplistic an answer. > Background radiation? [Mark] You are correct in my opinion, there are many questions. In terms of counterproductive genetic expressions, I read a book on this a while back called "Survival of the Sickest" by Dr Sharon Moalem. It dealt with this subject in an interesting way with lots of examples. Basically, the idea was that sickness is indeed required for survival. A good example was that sickle cell anemia provides a survival advantage towards malaria. So, you are right, our definition of negative mutations is not all that clear. > > While it is certainly true that when 'evolution' stumbles upon a mutation > that infers some advantage to a breeding population, it is likely to spread > and spread quickly, the fact is that the vast majority of mutations infer no > environmental advantage whatsoever. For a Pirsigian, is this Dynamic > Quality - or Dynamic Curiousity? MoC anyone? Why not? It's where you are > going. [Mark] Many theories abound. It would seem to me that mutations are either benign or malignant for the most part. If benign, then it can continue on in the species without doing harm. It is quite possible that if enough benign mutations get together, that all it takes is a synergistic mutation to suddenly confir a selective advantage. I found the math for this in a remote place: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156877&cid=13153263 By this theory, evolution proceeds in jumps, and often the missing link is hard to find by paleontology since there is none. I see no reason why this is not a good analogy if one believes in evolution. > > In the argument you seem to be developing, you are willing to assign some > agency to random mutation beyond selective environmental forces. This is a > slippery slope. It leads inevitably to the argument for intelligent design > when the preponderance of evidence indicates that this is an entirely > unnecessary fiction. [Mark] My argument was that biological evolution as it stands cannot be applied to MoQ. If you are asking me whether evolution is a very good theory, I suppose it is alright as it goes, but I do not subscribe to it. I suppose I am a deviant biologist in this sense. In terms of intelligent design, I used to go back and forth with Krimel about this. It depends what your notion of intelligence is. Evolution proceeds through a process of trial and error. If it finds something that works, it keeps it. This is no different from how science is practiced by a number of intelligent scientists and biotechnologists. So, if man is considered intelligent, then so is nature. Of course, we are nature, and our intelligence is nothing unusual. If the concept is that there is some being which behaves like humans in terms of perception of the world, drive to betterness, and the need to multiply, then I don't think such a thing exists, that would be way to simple of an intelligence. I don't think it is easy to recognize the intelligence around us, because it is so different to our intelligence. So different, that we wouldn't even call it intelligence, anthropocentic as we are. However if one lists all the criteria for intelligence, it can be found all over the place. > > To be effective, evolution doesn't have to be smart and it doesn't have to > have a plan, goal, or target; it just has to have the capacity for random > mutation, a large enough population, and enough replicating generations. > As a biologist, you should know this. [Mark] As I stated above, it seems pretty smart to me. Just to create the machinery for mutating and filling niches is smart. Who would have thought that a hydrogen bond could be so useful. I don't think man could have come up with that one. At best, we imitate nature with our inventions. There are already nuclear power plants on the sun. If we could create something that has never existed before, I would also call that smart. And I am not talking of using natural inclinations to make an iPod or something like that, I mean new. Our intelligence is not something divinely provided, it is just part of a larger thing. We get to experience the human appearance of it. > > If you are going to make analogies between biological evolution and Pirsig's > evolutionary static levels, then you must be at least as canny as Pirsig, > who knew better than to assign intelligent agency to the evolution of SPOVs. > Now on the face of it, you can argue with me that Pirsig's SPOVs are all > about directed, or intelligent change and that Dynamic Quality, his 'force > for the good' is just that agency. I would argue that this is not what he > meant and is not even remotely necessary to evolve the 4 static levels he > proposes. He is much smarter than that. [Mark] Again, my original post in this thread was to ask what people meant by evolution. My opinion was that evolution as promoted by biologists does not, cannot, and should not be applied to MoQ. So yes, I agree with you. If somebody states that what we see are patterns of value and not matter, there is no way to apply the theory of evolution since that depends on matter. One problem I had with one of the quotes that Dan provided was Pirsig's assertion that the fact that life seems to go against the laws of thermodynamics was in good support of Quality. Since the laws would never apply to reality as Pirsig sees it, he cannot use a theory in physics to support his metaphysics. It would be like me finding a flaw in the Bible to support biological evolution. So, Pirsig cannot have it both ways. He can't first say that things are created out of value, and then use physics to support this. And, believe me, I know he is smart. ZMM helped me along for a few years when I reached a similar crisis that he came across in his life. I think that when Pirsig talks about evolution, he is not using it in the strict scientific sense, but using it rhetorically to help bring a concept across. I get the concept, and evolution is not required for it to stand. > Thanks for your input, that was fun. Cheers, Mark > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
