To Platt
>From Rog
PLATT:
To call anyone who disagrees with Gould's view of evolution *naive*
seems arrogant to me and others who are open to the idea of
evolutionary progress. Not only does the word *evolution* imply
progress, but for every scientist you can name who agrees with Gould I
can name one who disagrees.
ROG:
That is why I wrote.....
"There are two competing camps on the subject of evolution. First, there are
those biologists, anthropologists and historians that insist that there is no
inherent direction to biological or social evolution. They can point to the
stability of bacteria, to devolution, to barbarian hordes , to the fall of
Rome and, most convincingly, to the Jerry Springer show. On the other hand,
there is also a contingent of each field that points out that there has
obviously been a general evolutionary direction toward increased complexity
and organization in both life and culture."
"As usual, they are both correct. What they seem to miss is that both
theories or views are not mutually exclusive. Evolution can lead to
increased organization and complexity without any inherent direction.""
PLATT:
Measured in survival terms alone, I believe the horseshoe crab ranks as
high as anyone. I would ask those who believe a horseshoe crab is a
higher evolutionary form than a man if they would prefer to be a crab, or
a beetle, or whatever long-surviving creature they admire. If the answer
is no, then another meaning of *higher* is being relied on which
common sense brings immediately to the fore.....Marty called it
*expansion of the ability to perceive quality,* and Roger nailed it by
saying *higher quality involves more experience and variety of
experience and more versatility of experience.*
ROG:
Again, I think I was offering an expanded view (below in more SOM terms)
which shows Gould can be actually be right, yet Pirsig and Wright can be
correct too.....
"As an
example, picture the starting place for biological or social complexity and
organization. By definition, they must start from zero -- or at least near
zero. Life must start from non life, and society must start from
individuals. From here, the 'no directionists' are correct. Both life and
society can vary or evolve in either direction, including back down to zero
toward non-life (aka death) and non-culture (aka solitary organism).
However, it can also go up toward more complexity, more organization and
better division of resources and efforts. Further, life and culture can also
change laterally, to something of similar complexity, but different. Wolves
can evolve into coyotes, tree frogs into pond frogs, Oprah can lead to Jerry
Springer, and so on. At any given time, zero complexity is the limit to the
low end. However, there is no limit in the other directions. Life and
society are boundless upwardly and laterally. In other words, random,
directionless evolution bounded at zero is indeed destined to gain in
complexity, organization and versatility. Further, this trend will continue
to occur over time."
.... Again, directionless or random or
undefineable change or evolution is mathematically guaranteed to gain
complexity. As long as something is as likely to evolve (in this instance
meaning gaining organizational complexity) as devolve (meaning the opposite),
SOMETHING is bound to evolve."
PLATT:
What Gould and other scientists of his ilk fail to take into account in
their paranoia to keep any hint of the supernatural out of evolution is the
interior development of life forms. Ken Wilber was the first to bring this
aspect of evolution to my attention. Many evolutionists are concerned
only with objective surfaces, the bones if you will, of the evolution story,
avoiding any comment on the development of interior, subjective
properties. An examination of these properties reveals definite progress
from irritation to sensation to impulse to image to symbol to concept. In
scientific terms, there has been progress in neurological capacity, or in
subjective terms, towards greater consciousness, awareness,
experience--or as the MOQ says, towards Dynamic Quality.
ROG:
Interesting observation, but it requires consciousness to consistently
increase. Evolutionists can bring out a very convincing argument that this
is not CONSISTENTLY the case. But statistically it is bound to happen given
enough time and species. Directionless evolution will gain in capacity due
to the very fact that there is a limit on the low end.
PLATT:
My hope would be that Roger in his forthcoming book will acknowledge
and answer legitimate alternatives to the Gould theory of evolution
(including Gould's rather odd notion of *punctuated equilibrium*) or at
least refrain from tagging Pirsig and others on the side of direction in
evolution with the pejorative term *naive.*
ROG:
I am no fan of Gould at all. In fact I try to avoid his books. My point was
that directionless evolution actually makes Pirsig's point without changing
the results in any science books. The *naive* term refers simply to someone
that believes that evolution is synonymous with inevitable and CONSISTENT
progress toward complexity or consciousness or whatever. Or as I wrote....
"The importance of fully understanding the nature of evolution's arrow is
that
it clarifies certain fundamental assumptions. If you assume that life
evolves toward more complexity and versatility [consciousness/awareness]
you would be right -- at least
in general. However, if you think humans or any other specific species are
destined to become more complex, you are wrong. They could become more
complex, less complex or just different. "
I hope this clarifies my view. What do you think?
Rog
(fellow flaming libertarian)
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
