Dmb, I do not get your interpretation of what Steve is saying. Doesn't sound remotely familiar. Would you please point out the quotes you are using that point to "Steve's determinism is simply a return to amoral, scientific objectivity, where nothing is right or wrong. It just functions like machinery."
Thank you. Marsha On Jul 4, 2011, at 3:38 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > dmb said to Dan: > ....Determinism is the claim that our actions are caused by forces beyond our > control. It's a claim about the causes of our actions, not the predictability > of the consequences of our actions. In the former, our actions are the > effects of causes while in the latter our actions are the causes of effects. > See what I mean? > > > Dan replied: > Yes, I think so. But I am not sure that that is what I am getting at. If B > values precondition A, then our actions are determined by preconditions and > not by a chain of causality. Our actions are the effect of preconditions, not > choices, and those preconditions are beyond our control. But that doesn't > preclude moral responsibility for our actions if our actions are seen as a > (beginning) response to Quality. Right? > > > dmb says: > Well, no. If we say that our actions are the effects of preconditions beyond > our control, then we've still formulated these actions as the effects of > causes. The main idea of saying B values precondition A (instead of saying A > causes B) is to replace causality with the expression of preference. This > formulation gets rid of determinism and causality even at the inorganic > level, even in physics. At this level we then can say that even the so-called > "laws" of nature are better described as extremely persistent patterns of > preference. > > With each level the patterns of preference become increasingly less > persistent and more varied. By the time we get the question of free will, > we're talking about a person's capacity to express preferences. The > biological, social and intellectual levels are even less law-like, less > determined, and this is where it makes sense to talk about human freedom and > responsibility. > > We don't say subatomic particles have moral responsibility, of course. But in > Pirsig's very broad notion of morality, even the molecules that hold a chair > together are seen as a moral order. The MOQ paints everything as part of a > moral order from the ground up. And the reformulation of 'A causes B' is > meant to extend the capacity to respond to Quality all the way down. In the > MOQ's reformulation, B was not an inevitable, mechanical effect of A. > Instead, it's about what B values, what B prefers. > > To B or not to B? That is the equation. (Bad pun) > > > What concerns me is simply put. Determinism is a moral nightmare. It > precludes moral responsibility and denies freedom altogether. I'm fairly > certain that Sam Harris and Steve are wildly at odds with the MOQ and with > pragmatism on this one. If I tried to express Steve's determinism in MOQ > terms, this view would say that we are a complex forest of evolved static > patterns (so far, so good) and static patterns both proceed from and follow > natural laws. Unlike the MOQ, this view does not replace causality with > patterns of preference and it does not include the most vital ingredient: > Dynamic Quality. What we have in Steve's determinism is simply a return to > amoral, scientific objectivity, where nothing is right or wrong. It just > functions like machinery. > > > > > > > > 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
