Hello everyone On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> 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.
Dan: I see what you mean. You're saying B values precondition A eliminates causality within the framework of the MOQ. I agree. You've linked causality to determinism too. I am not so sure about that though. Rather, it seems to me that the MOQ suggests static patterns of value, or preferences, if you will, are determined by preconditions of which we have no choice. Take gravity, for example... our existence is shaped, or determined (at the inorganic level), by matter valuing the precondition gravity, and gravity (as we understand it) is beyond our control. It is not that gravity caused the apple to hit Newton on the noggin, but rather the apple valued precondition gravity, which Newton (rightly) understood as a persistent pattern of preference. >dmb: > 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. Dan: Yes, that makes sense, although laws (as we understand them) exist not at the inorganic level but at the intellectual level, which is why gravity didn't exist before Newton discovered it. What bothers me about this is: If we equate the expression of preference as free will, it seems to undermine the notion of B valuing precondition A and lands us squarely back in a causal metaphysics. I understand that culture (a collection of social and intellectual patterns) can be seen as persistent and varied as nature itself. Species come into existence, and then go extinct. Civilizations rise, and then fall. It is the nature of static patterns of value to arise, flourish, and pass away. Scientists tell us the earth itself will one day perish. Now, I will agree that when we begin observing the scale of time (one of the first intellectual patterns to emerge), the levels seem to exhibit a preference for "speeding up" as we go from inorganic, biological, social, to intellectual. But I am not convinced that this can be likened to free will or a lack of determinism... only to the illusion of such. >dmb: > 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. Dan: Yes, that seems right. Still, by valuing certain preconditions over others, B exhibits preferences for the better. It is not a two-way street. That which doesn't evolve passes away. Within causal confines, determinism is bound up with mechanical effects. But within the context of B valuing precondition A, it seems to me that determinism becomes associated with the preference for what is better, or Quality. Do you follow my thinking? >dmb: > To B or not to B? That is the equation. (Bad pun) Dan: Actually, it's not that bad. I kind of like it... > >dmb: > 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. Dan: I don't believe Sam Harris puts it in MOQ terms, but his thinking seems sound (within the static confines of the Metaphysics of Quality). I am not sure Steve understands the significance of what Harris is saying... it is more like he's mouthing the words. And Harris does seem to be missing out on the most vital ingredient... Dynamic Quality. But so does pragmatism, from what I understand. That is RMP's great insight, is it not? Thank you, Dan 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
