Hi, Platt, Matthew & alii, Since Platt asked me to comment your views, Matt, I put up a little paste of both posts and introduced a few comments. Despite a few (probably mainly esthetic) divergences, I believe we are in close agreement. Returns will be welcome. [Matthew] I. Platt Holden wrote: "Since according to your theory your unique predispositions and experiences dictated your answer to the free will/determinism question it would seem your answer was beyond your control. Thus, if I answer that there is indeed such a thing as free will, my answer would also be beyond my control." My (your) response: My answer wasn't beyond "my" control since "I" am only a collection of predispositions and experiences and it is these that dictate my answer. There is no "me" that is somehow lacking control. Free will isn't really the illusion, it is humankind's false sense of self that is. To me, this fits perfectly with MOQ. An individual is no more than a collection of biological, social, and intellectual value patterns that are shaped by predispositions and experiences. These patterns are then ever-changing due to Dynamic Quality. [Denis] Also my position. Absolute agreement here. II. Platt Holden wrote: "With both answers determined and beyond our control, which is true? Or is truth always relative to one�s unique predispositions and experiences?" My response: This seems to me to be a somewhat absurd question if I understand it correctly. Whether or not there is free will is completely independent of what you or I may think about it. I would argue that there is no free will, but this doesn't make it so. Truth is not relative to my beliefs or anyone else's. [Denis] Innuendo : truth doesn't exist in the way Matthew seems to infer. There is no "real" reality, only Quality, about which you can't say much except in the way of analogy. Perhaps this is what you meant Matt, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. III. Richard Chamberlain wrote: > This does not destroy humanity or the individual as some suspect, it merely > redefines them. An individual is no more than the sum of his or her > predispositions and experiences. "Hmmm - don't think so. What about the direct moments of quality perception? Though maybe the final goal is true awareness of predispositions and experiences and the transcendence thereof - like finally learning the rules and then throwing them away because - hey I can't be bothered living tethered to a list of rules and definitions. Some people go straight there anyway. " My response: "Direct moments of quality perception," as you call them, ARE experiences. They are the essence of life. Quality = experience. It not only makes us who we are, it IS who we are. In that sense, you are suggesting that we transcend Quality, and that's impossible. [Denis] Well, I agree, but I think the disagreement between you is artificial. You argue a static/dynamic split without saying so, and then disagree on fine points of distinction. If you were to precise your thoughts you'd probably find out you have the same conceptions (well, I think...). ;) IV. David Lind wrote: "Seems there's at least a third alternate to determined or random. What if life is "pre-programmed"? Neither random or up to us to choose what will happen. What if we are merely playing our parts in some grand cosmic play? (I don't necessarily believe this, but it's possible, isn't it?)" My response: I don't exactly know what you mean, but let me try to clarify my position and see if that helps. I don't think anyone would argue that human actions aren't determined by human will. That is, ultimately, human beings take actions that they wish to take. However, the question still remains as to what determines human will. Actually, the first question is whether or not it is determined at all. I think that the answer is obviously yes, because if something isn't determined, then it HAS to be random, and I don't think this is a viable position. Now, this doesn't give us the ability to predict future actions. Things are still based on probabilities, as quantum theory dictates and Pirsig recognizes, but these are still determined by Quality (predispositions and experiences in the case of humans) and aren't just random. [Denis] This sounds like a classic dilemma straight out from ZMM. If you choose Determinism, you're damned, and damned again if you choose Randomness. The answer is to go "between the horns". First thing, will. If "choice" is understood as the result of conflicting patterns, then there is no "will" to speak of. The self, abstracted from a collection of patterns sees the result of the conflict and of course attributes it to himself, calling his "decision" an act of his "will" (especially if he has been praised for it, of course...). At the intellectual level, this seems a coherent answer, but it is no more coherent than the view I present here. Of course I'm writing this post because I want to, but this only means that my intellectual patterns' needs have temporarily won the constant battle between the conflicting needs of the various levels that constitute "me". My desire to produce intellectual patterns (or to "re-produce" themselves, if you're into memetics) perhaps backed up by my desires for social representation, have overcome my biological desires for rest, food and nicotine... :) As for Determinism/Randomness, my answer is to look at what it means in MOQ terms. Determinism, from the point of view of experience, means that a phenomena unfolds in a way that doesn't contradict established patterns : a stone falls like it always did (or rather according to my belief it will always fall), or I'll choose strawberry over vanilla like I always did if I have the choice, since one flavour is of a higher value than the other (for me). Different levels with different capacities for change (dynamism), but same basic value interaction. Randomness, or the other end, means that no patterns have been, or can be, established for a particular phenomena. Therefore, those phenomenas unfold in a static void (intellectually speaking). Value interaction still happens, but beyond our intellectual "line of sight". David Lind speaks of a "grand cosmic play", but this isn't exactly my point. I still believe that evolution is a non-teleologic thing (it doesn't have a "goal", or direction). Rather, it seeks to escape already existing patterns, as to avoid stagnation. Life and Society and Intellect exist because it is better than not to, and because it allows more Dynamism than the levels below. In the end, our "selves" (holistic ones, not the little homonculus stuff) are part of this evolution, which isn't caused, determined or random. It just is. Determinism is a notion that springs from a SOM causation background. Stones fall because different inorganic values interact, rather than because one is the "cause" of the other. Same for us : choices are the results of the interactions, not their cause. Some interactions are of the static kind, because we've assigned intellectual patterns to the values, and some of dynamic kind, because we haven't, or just are about to, or because we already have but are about to assign new ones instead. You want to remember that the Static/Dynamic split isn't a "reality" (whatever this means) but a useful intellectual pattern of value, that enables us to make distinctions about our experiences, and the way we assign good or bad values to them. Man is the measure of things static and dynamic. Beyond this is Quality, about which the less said the better. Is there a disagreement between us, or isn't there ? I wonder. [Matthew in MD Truth] I've been asked to describe my position on the issue of truth. Well, here it goes: First of all, we have to distinguish between facts and theories. Getting them confused can get us into a lot of trouble. Facts are true propositions about the universe. Examples include "2 + 2 = 4" (an analytic fact) and "my desk is made of wood" (a synthetic fact). The truth of propositions is independent of belief. [Denis] Ouch ! I wonder if you're not a tad too extreme here. 2+2=4 is "true" if we all agree about the premises of mathematics, if we all share the same beliefs about numbers and their relations. We shouldn't start to confuse the internal coherence of a system with "Truth". If I define a system by saying : I posit that a sound X + a sound Y always equals a sound XY, then the proposition "ouchi"+"da"="ouchida" is a valid one for the system. In classic mathematics it simply has no meaning. Numbers don't refer to something "more real" than my stupid example (though I admit they are FAR more useful ;) ). They are intellectual patterns, that's all. You must understand that in both examples to say it is "true" means that since you state it is true then it is ! Well, in your mathematic example I suppose I must admit it's a bit more elaborated (you'd have to define a unit, an addition and all that) but at the core it is the same. I think you have the same opinion (I suppose it's what you meant by "analytic facts are true by definition") but it needs pointing out. Likewise, the proposition "My desk is made of wood" is a good belief about your desk, but wait until the wood has fossilized (is that english ?) and you'll see that the truth of this proposition has evolved with the patterns it describes. "Truth" isn't absolute, it's a good belief. Agreed, it is difficult to hold another view, or to term this belief "bad", but some "immaterial" things like morals have the same level of certainty : all societies have a taboo against killing, for example. The extent of it might be discussed (whether it applies to people outside your group, or to certain situations), but not its internal validity. Except, of course, if you start discussing the foundations of the belief system : "Society is not meant to protect its individuals", "wood is a part of a living organism, and your desk isn't a living organism,etc." It all depends on axioms, definitions, in the end. Which beliefs you hold. .. A proposition held as a belief is verified in one of two ways. If it is analytic, it is verified by logic, for analytic facts are true by definition. If it is synthetic, it is verified by sensation and perception, for this is the way in which we experience existence. Sensation and perception, of course, can be flawed, so we can never be absolutely certain of the accuracy of synthetic beliefs, but there are nevertheless facts "out there" that are independent of belief. .. [Denis] Well, that seems a bit confused. Since we can't be sure, how can you state that "there are nevertheless facts that are independent of beliefs" ? Either they are analytic and therefore their "truth" (I prefer "logical coherence") is conditioned by their being founded on beliefs (also called "axioms"), or they are synthetic, and therefore subject to falsification, like theories. .. Theories, on the other hand, are another can of worms. They are merely ways of explaining a group of facts (or propositions that we believe to be facts) and how they are related. Theories can be neither true nor false. They are merely either useful or not useful (or somewhere in between). The theory of gravity isn't true, it is just a way of explaining why objects seem to always stick to the Earth. It is highly useful in predicting future behavior, so useful, in fact, that it is now called a law. However, Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, is more useful than Newton's theory of gravity, because it explains and predicts facts more accurately. Pirsig notes how he believes that the same is true for MOQ as compared to SOM. It is only in this sense that "truth" is relative and philosophical pragmatism is a viable position. [Denis] Complete agreement. Except for a few points we seem to have similar beliefs. Yes, beliefs. That's all there is. ;) .. So, where does free will fit into this idea of truth. The first step, from my point of view, is to deal with our conception of self. I believe that the self is merely a collection of predispositions and experiences. This position logically rules out the possibility of free will in the traditional sense for there is no entity left to exercise such "freedom". Of course, the question of the existence of a self independent of predispositions and experiences is an empirical one, and the answer is that it is either a fact or a false proposition. In my view, there is no empirical evidence that supports it as a fact. This leaves us with two logical possibilities. Either human actions are determined by predispositions and experiences or they are completely random. Both could be held as theories, but one is infinitely more useful than the other. -Matt [Denis] Hey ! Which one ? That's no very nice to leave us here panting with anticipation !!! ;o) I'll continue with Platt. [Platt] Hi Matthew, Denis and Group: [...] I agree that the creative power that science attributes to randomness is a cop out due to ignorance. But the big question in a deterministic, cause and effect chain going all the back to quantum probabilities determined by Quality is: �What determined Quality?� Logic and reason inevitably lead to infinite regress. A strict determinist always ends up in a universe sitting on the back of the proverbial turtle with turtles all the way down. [Denis] Except if everyone agrees that Quality is all and cannot be determined by anything because it is determinism and randomness and free will and everything else : the basic MOQ assumption. Quality is pre-intellectual. Stop the discussion here. [...] Denis wrote: It is all a question of belief, after all. We don�t give �true� answers so in the largest sense there isn�t and �either...or� in a metaphysical sense. But inside a system of beliefs, if logical consistency is an accepted part of it (as in the MOQ) there can exist incompatible propositions. So once such a proposition has been determined to be the best, either by any individual or by a group, the logically opposed must be rejected as �bad,� or the MOQ is preaching for cultural relativism (which might be summarily described as a �yeah, whatever...� position.) This appears to be similar to Matthew�s version of truth, and to me it seems to come close to saying truth is mere opinion. But, I could be wrong. Denis, would you care to comment on Matthew�s version, and vice versa? Are we stuck with the self-contradictory statement: �It�s true we can never know what�s really true�? Platt [Denis] Been there. Done that. Thanks for the asking, Platt, I've pointed out where Matt's and my position are similar and where they differ. I think we've got more common points than differences, anyway. Is "Truth" mere opinion ? Hum, how comes I smell that fishy SOM perfume ? Truth must be understood in the MOQ as a good intellectual pattern of value. The best one given the intellectual environment of the question being asked. We must remember that the feeling that comes with DQ does not *decrease* objectivity, it *increases* it. A good intellectual pattern is the most accurate. Volumes could be written about why and it wouldn't make more sense : it is just confirmed by thousands of years of intellectual evolution. Truth isn't "mere opinion", it's the best one. If history is any guide, it won't be the best one forever, but at the moment it is discovered/created, it is. "What's really true" isn't a good question, it's a SOM one. What's really true is Quality, and it isn't intellectual, social, biological or inorganic. It's all of it and more. Our statements, propositions and facts are intellectual patterns. They mimic Quality, but aren't the whole thing. The statement you propose is only self-contradictory in a SOM background. Translate it into MOQ terms and the problem disolves : "It is a good intellectual pattern to assume we can never know the sole and only intellectual pattern that's good.". Under the purview that many truths exist under the MOQ, the answer would be : "The *sole and only* intellectual pattern that's good doesn't exist, there will always be a best one. The proposition is absurd." "Truth" doesn't exist in an ideal platonic plane of existence, it's a myth that drives intellectual evolution. It's just as well replaced by goodness, and if this "copernican revolution" takes place, it might solve a lot of problems. Or not. Only time will tell. I have hope. Denis ______________________________________________________ Bo�te aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
