Hi Jonathan:
PLATT (Previous post)
...if a meme has self "interests," i.e., purposes, goals, intentions,
ambitions, etc., then choices and values are implied.
JONATHAN:
This may all be red herring and tautology. If it is in the nature of a
meme or any other pattern to perpetuate, then it tends to
perpetuate. IMO it is largely semantic whether you call that an
ambition, purpose, or just a tendency (that is what my "causality"
essay is about).
PLATT:
The question remains, �Why does a pattern have a tendency to
perpetuate?� (Or, in MOQ terms, why does a pattern prefer a
�better condition.�)
As you pointed out in your �The End of Causality� essay, you can
view �cause� objectively or subjectively. In the objective sense,
cause means �the driving force behind some process of change.�
Viewed subjectively, cause indicates �an aspiration or a quest
towards which people may work.� You summed up, �Causality in
science relates to the objective definition.�
Unless I misunderstand, the objective view describes how
science looks for mechanisms (driving forces) to explain
phenomena. If it can�t find a mechanism, it ignores the question.
PIRSIG:
The reality science explains is that "reality" which follows
mechanisms and programs. That other worthless stuff which
doesn't follow mechanisms and programs we don't pay any
attention to. See how this works? A thing doesn't exist because we
have never observed it. The reason we have never observed it is
because we have never looked for it. And the reason we have
never looked for it is that it is unimportant, it has no value and we
have other better things to do. (Lila, Chap. 11)
PLATT:
I agree that most scientists such as yourself have better things to
do than ponder unprovable (in a scientific sense) �why� questions.
But, even among scientists there seems to be two schools of
thought on this. (See below)
JONATHAN:
Platt, I've said before in this forum that Pirsig may have overlooked
this aspect of Darwinism, which proposed that random
(directionless) change is one major cornerstone of evolution.
Random change means that it isn't directed in any specific
direction, but rather AWAY from whatever existed before. The other
major cornerstone is selection, which "chooses" certain random
changes over other random changes. It appears to me that Pirsig
hadn't thought this through enough to realise that his question
was one that Darwin dealt with a century before. This evolution
AWAY vs. evolution TOWARDS is essentially Darwin vs. Lemarck.
PLATT:
I think the MOQ encompasses both views--AWAY from
mechanisms TOWARDS freedom, i.e., greater awareness.
PIRSIG:
Good! The "undefined fittest" they are defending is identical to
Dynamic Quality. Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work.
There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of
Quality and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. Neither is there a
quarrel between the Metaphysics of Quality and the "teleological"
theories which insist that life has some purpose. What the
Metaphysics of Quality has done is unite these opposed doctrines
within a larger metaphysical structure that accommodates both of
them without contradiction. (Lila, Chap. 11)
JONATHAN: (Answering Pirsig�s question, �Why do the fittest
survive?�)
No reason, but then the things that don't survive won't be around to
ask the same question about. The quick answer is that the
question is a red herring. It's like the priest asking the few people
in church "Why are you the only ones here?", when the answer is
obvious - nobody else came!
A shorter answer is MU.
JONATHAN: (Answering Platt�s question, �What�s the difference
between a good meme and bad one.)
That's the same question. You can only ask that question about
memes that are good enough to survive, because the bad ones
didn't.
Platt, I'm not trying to be offensive, cute or funny. I am deadly
serious in questioning your questions, though there is an element
of humour involved. I hope that I'm not the only one who sees it.
PLATT:
I know your serious in questioning my questions (though I hope
not too deadly :-). Your position is solid among the scientific
community and I respect that. Still, there are few dissenters to your
stance, among them Martin Rees, Britain�s Astronomer Royal. In
an article in the current issue of �Discover� (available on
www.discover.com), Rees points to the improbability of life in the
universe because each of six numbers underlying the physical
properties of the universe had to be precisely what they are, an
improbability described as �the possibility of a Boeing 747 aircraft
being completely assembled as a results of a tornado striking a
junkyard.� But here�s what�s most relevant to our discussion:
DISCOVER:
Faced with such overwhelming improbability, cosmologists have
offered up several possible explanations. The simplest is the so-
called brute fact argument. "A person can just say: 'That's the way
the numbers are. If they were not that way, we would not be here to
wonder about it,' " says Rees. "Many scientists are satisfied with
that." Typical of this breed is Theodore Drange, a professor of
philosophy at the University of West Virginia, who claims it is
nonsensical to get worked up about the idea that our life-friendly
universe is "one of a kind." As Drange puts it, "Whatever
combination of physical constants may exist, it would be one of a
kind."
PLATT:
Am I correct that such �brute fact� arguments reflect your approach
to �why� questions?
>From the same article, here�s the other side:
DISCOVER:
Rees objects, drawing from an analogy given by philosopher John
Leslie. "Suppose you are in front of a firing squad, and they all
miss. You could say, 'Well, if they hadn't all missed, I wouldn't be
here to worry about it.' But it is still something surprising,
something that can't be easily explained. I think there is
something there that needs explaining."
PLATT:
It�s no mystery that I side with Rees and Leslie. I�ll leave it up to
the readers to decide where Pirsig stands.
Since I see no grounds on which to settle our opposing views,
Jonathan, I guess we will, as the cliche goes, �agree to disagree.�
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
