STEM, STEMG, Other

[Leela]

…continued…

The evolutionist reply to Pirsig’s questions seems to be that in the scientific observation of the facts of the universe no goal or pattern has ever appeared toward which life is heading.

Pirsig responds, "This last statement so neatly sweeps the whole matter under the carpet one would never guess that it was of much concern to evolutionists at all. But a reading of the early history of the theories of evolution shows this is not true. The first major evolutionist, who was not Darwin but Jean Baptiste Lamarck, maintained that all life was evolving toward perfection,
a synonym for Quality. Alfred Wallace, who forced Darwin to publish by independently arriving at an almost identical theory, also maintained that natural selection was not enough to account for the development of man.

After Darwin many others continued to deny the goallessness of life.Those who rejected natural selection on religious or philosophical grounds or simply because it seemed too random a process to explain evolution continued for many years to put forward alternative schemes with such names as orthogenesis, nomogenesis, aristogenesis or the ‘Omega Principle’ of Teilhard de Chardin, each scheme relying on some built-in tendency or drive toward perfection or progress. All these theories were finalistic; they postulated some form of cosmic teleology or purpose or program. The proponents of teleological theories, for all their efforts, have been unable to find any mechanism (except supernatural ones) that can account for their postulated finalism."

But the possibility that any such mechanism can exist has now been virtually ruled out by science at this point. It seems clear that no mechanistic pattern exists toward which life is heading, but Pirsig then asks a question that I am not sure has ever been asked before…

“Has the question been taken up of whether life is heading AWAY from mechanistic patterns?” This sounds to me like a teleological theory that has never been studies. Evolutionists out there can correct me if I am wrong.

Pirsig speculates that it has never been studied because in a metaphysics of materialism in which static universal laws are considered fundamental, the idea that life is evolving away from any law just draws a baffled question mark. It doesn’t make any sense. It seems to say that all life is headed toward chaos, since chaos is the only alternative to structural patterns that a law-bound metaphysics can conceive. There is “no mechanism toward which life is heading. Mechanisms are the enemy of life. The more static and unyielding the mechanisms are, the more life works to evade them or overcome them. The law of gravity, for example, is perhaps the most ruthlessly static pattern of order in the universe. So, correspondingly, there is no single living thing that does not thumb its nose at that law day in and day out. One could almost define life as the organized disobedience of the law of gravity. One could show that the degree to which an organism disobeys this law is a measure of its degree of evolution. Thus, while the simple protozoa just barely get around on their cilia, earthworms manage to control their distance and direction, birds fly into the sky, and man goes all the way to the moon.”

"If life is to be explained on the basis of physical laws, then the overwhelming evidence that life deliberately works around these laws cannot be ignored. The reason atoms become chemistry
professors has got to be that something in nature does not like laws of chemical equilibrium or the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics or any other law that restricts the molecules’ freedom. They only go along with laws of any kind because they have to, preferring an existence that does not follow any laws whatsoever.

This would explain why patterns of life do not change solely in accord with causative “mechanisms” or “programs” or blind operations of physical laws. They do not just change valuelessly. They change in ways that evade, override and circumvent these laws. The patterns of life are constantly evolving in response to something “better” than that which these laws have to offer.

This would at first seem to contradict the one thing that evolutionists insist upon most: that life is not responding to anything but the “survival of the fittest” process of natural selection. But “survival-of-the-fittest” is one of those catch-phrases like “mutants” or “misfits” that sounds best when you don’t ask precisely what it means. Fittest for what? Fittest for survival? That reduces to “survival of the survivors,” which doesn’t say anything. “Survival of the fittest” is meaningful only when “fittest” is equated with “best,” which is to say,
science really is concerned with values."

What we have seen above, and what is an amazing philosphical breakthrough in my opinion, is that Pirsig with his value-based metaphysics has reconciled Darwinian evolution with the teleological notion that biological life has some purpose (not to evolve toward some specific form but to freedom from mechanistic laws and an undefined “betterness”). Keep in mind also that social and intellectual patterns being independent of biological patterns also have their own purposes.

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

Hi fhansen, evolutionists, antievolutionists,

The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn’t the sun’s energy. We just saw what the sun’s energy did. It has to be something else. What is it?"

to be continued…

Best,
Leela

My question is still, if something as relatively simple as NYC requires a designer, why wouldn’t something far more complex such as atoms and cats and dogs require one also? How could we exclude there being an intelligence behind the creation of these things, whether evolution is one of its creative mechanisms/processes or not? And of course this is also an answer to your questions above regarding cause. Even the idea of values being the driving force behind positive and apparently unnecessary change points in a partial way to the concept of God.

 

[Leela]

Hi fhansen,

My question is still, if something as relatively simple as NYC requires a designer, why wouldn’t something far more complex such as atoms and cats and dogs require one also?

NYC includes cats and dogs and atoms as well, therefore I see it as more complex than those things.

How could we exclude there being an intelligence behind the creation of these things, whether evolution is one of its creative mechanisms/processes or not?

As I understand it, intelligence is a rather late development. Atoms and cats and dogs came first. It’s not that an intelligence behind the creation of such things is proven false. It’s just that evolution shows how an intelligence is not required.

And of course this is also an answer to your questions above regarding cause. Even the idea of values being the driving force behind positive and apparently unnecessary change points in a partial way to the concept of God.

The creative aspect of the universe or “principle of betterness” Pirsig calls Quality and he does associate it with the Tao, God, the ground of being, mystical reality, etc. But his Quality is not a personal deity, though as I said before, an intelligence has not been proven false. Though I don’t believe in a personal God, I have met others who subscribe to Prisig’s value metaphysics and do believe in God–a Quaker, a Deist, an Episcopalian priest, and others.

Pirsig’s is not an atheist philosophy in the sense that it seeks to destroy it. In fact, he argues that his philosophy provides some reconciliation between science and religion.

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

Hi fhansen,

NYC includes cats and dogs and atoms as well, therefore I see it as more complex than those things.

Best,
Leela

Well, I have to differ here, Leela. I mean NYC we can build but as to creating the others, we haven’t got a clue.

 

[Leela]

Well, I have to differ here, Leela. I mean NYC we can build but as to creating the others, we haven’t got a clue.

Hi fhansen,

Do believe in biological evolution? If not, this is probably a discussion more appropriate to a different thread. If you’d like to continue it elsewhere, I’d be glad to. Though I am not an expert in evolution and may not have answers to all of your questions, I am convinced that cats and dogs don’t need designers while buildings do.

But note also that while a building has a designer, NYC as a whole does not have a designer with a final plan. The following excerpt of Lila explains what Prisig means by social patterns in his evolutionary hierarchy of inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual patterns:

"People look upon the social patterns [e.g. celebrity, status, etiquette, shaking hands, authority, ritual, etc.] in the same way cows and horses look upon a farmer; different from themselves, incomprehensible, but benevolent and appealing. Yet the social pattern of the city devours their lives for its own purposes just as surely as farmers devour the flesh of farm animals. A higher organism is feeding upon a lower one and accomplishing more by doing so than the lower organism can accomplish alone.

The metaphysics of substance makes it difficult to see this Giant. It makes it customary to think of a city like New York as a “work of man,” but what man invented it? What group of men invented it? Who sat around and thought up how it should all go together? If “man” invented societies and cities, why are all societies and cities so repressive of “man”? Why would “man” want to invent internally contradictory standards and arbitrary social institutions for the purpose of giving himself a bad time? This “man” who goes around inventing societies to repress himself seems real as long as you deal with him in the abstract, but he evaporates as you get more specific.

Sometimes people think there are some evil individual “men” somewhere who are exploiting them, some secret cabal of capitalists, or “400,” or “Wall Street bankers,” or WASPs or name-any-minority group that gets together periodically and has secret conferences on how to exploit them personally. These “men” are supposed to be enemies of “man.” It gets confusing, but nobody seems to notice the confusion.

Materialism makes us think that all evolution stops with the highest evolved substance, the physical body of man. It makes us think that cities and societies and thought structures are all subordinate creations of this physical body of man. But it’s as foolish to think of a city or a society as created by human bodies as it is to think of human bodies as a creation of the cells, or to think of cells as created by protein and DNA molecules, or to think of DNA as created by carbon and other inorganic atoms. If you follow that fallacy long enough you come out with the conclusion that individual electrons containthe intelligence needed to build New York City all by themselves. Absurd.

If it’s possible to imagine two red blood cells sitting side by side
asking, “Will there ever be a higher form of evolution than us?” and looking around and seeing nothing, deciding there isn’t, then you can imagine the ridiculousness of two people walking down a street of Manhattan asking if there will ever be any form of evolution higher than “man,” meaning biological man. Biological man doesn’t invent cities or societies any more than pigs and chickens invent the farmer that feeds them. The force of evolutionary creation isn’t contained by substance. Substance is just one kind of static pattern left behind by the creative force.
This city is another static pattern left behind by the creative force.
It’s composed of substance but substance didn’t create it all by itself. Neither did a biological organism called “man” create it all by himself.

This city is a higher pattern than either a substance or a biological
pattern called man. Just as biology exploits substance for its own
purposes, so does this social pattern called a city exploit biology for its own purposes. Just as a farmer raises cows for the sole purpose of devouring them, this pattern grows living human bodies for the sole purpose of devouring them. That is what the Giant really does. It converts accumulated biological energy into forms that serve itself.

When societies and cultures and cities are seen not as inventions of “man” but as higher organisms than biological man, the phenomena of war and genocide and all the other forms of human exploitation become more intelligible. “Mankind” has never been interested in getting itself killed. But the superorganism, the Giant, who is a pattern of values superimposed on top of biological human bodies, doesn’t mind losing a few bodies to protect his greater interests. "

Keep in mind that man as an individual “intellectual man” rather than “biological man” is a higher level pattern than a social level pattern like a city even as a social pattern is a higher level pattern than a biological pattern. Biological patterns are morally subordinate to social patterns which are morally subordinate to intellectual patterns.

So we have a collection of moral precepts called “human rights” that declare our (name removed by moderator)endence from oppressive social patterns and protect us from being devoured by the Giant.

Best,
Leela

 

[Fran65]

Intellect is independent of material and to a lesser degree independent of living beings and to a lesser degree independent of the culture, but independent nonetheless. Intellect is independent in the sense that the rules that govern intellectual patterns (the value that holds ideas together) are not the same ones that govern societies or living beings or atoms.

That *is *emergence. The argument has separated out from material but then goes on to argue that intellect is to some degree dependent on living beings and culture. As I described before, emergence can occur with the non physical - rememebr the example I gave you earlier of the synergy of teams? It is still emergence. We don’t know how it occurs, many think it is material based. Others do not. What you describe is not materialist, but is a variety fo emergence.

In addition, Dawkins has already talked about the evolution of memes. You might want to check it out. It sounds a lot like what you (Pirsig?) are describing.

BTW would you mind summarising Pirsig and excerpts from Lila into your own words? If I wanted to read extended excerpts from Pirsig or his book Lila myself then I would. Thanks!

 

[Michael_David]

I liked this Leela, “James defined truth from the pragmatic prospective as that which is good by way of belief. So true is a species of good. It is what we mean by good when talking about intellectual patterns, while “moral” is a word for good that we usually only use for social patterns, and “pleasure” is one word for good when talking about biological patterns, interestingly, as is the word “immoral” since what is good on one level could be considered evil on another.”

You see, I believe we live in a ‘static’ manner, in material and ideal at the same moment. In moral and secular at the same time.

Can you say your thoughts are unreal as you feel the keys on the computer typing them? Can you say you are only physical as you walk in the park and contemplate the scenery? And what level is making the choice when you come to a ‘T’ in the path?

And looking at the Bible, one is suppose to be ‘moderate’ in the physical but not ‘lukewarm’ in the spiritual. So what is good in the secular is bad in the spiritual, and visa-versa. Hence your term “immoral”.

We are living on all these levels all at once. We can look at the past and present at the same time, while contemplating the future outcome. We are living many different theories to-and-fro at any given time. Like saying “I am an idealist in the morning but a realist at night.” We change as we go… one is not “strapped” to being only ONE kind of thinker/doer while living life. Any more then the wind always blows from the north. If I am into intellectual thoughts and my stomach growls, it just put me into realism and I have to turn my thoughts over to survival. I see the mind as in the ‘middle’ trying to maintain peace on both ends while not neglecting any of the other levels one has.

All this brings into existence a ‘value’ system… based on a deeper level… I call it the soul.

So, what do I believe? At what point of time? In what setting? And if it does sway with conditions, yes, I am a Human (while) Being.

 

[JDaniel]

Pirsig’s brand of pragmatism may be more akin to James than Dewey. At any rate I am more acquainted with James. James defined truth from the pragmatic prospective as that which is good by way of belief. So true is a species of good. It is what we mean by good when talking about intellectual patterns, while “moral” is a word for good that we usually only use for social patterns, and “pleasure” is one word for good when talking about biological patterns, interestingly, as is the word “immoral” since what is good on one level could be considered evil on another. So this evolutionary hierarchy can be useful for understanding moral conflicts and the theological Problem of Evil.

William James. OK, now I know where you’re coming from. He was a psychiatrist with an MD degree, who dabbled in philosophy as well, as I recall.

I am having a problem though: if Truth is a Belief, then a triangle is a triangle ONLY because we believe it so? Or, from logic, that there cannot be a thing that we call an unmarried husband? On the other hand, using the logic you are describing, there could be, providing we believe it to be so.

Next, you describe “True as being a species of Good”. Would you explain for my feeble mind how it is that Good is the underpinning of a True syllogism, such as:

All mortal entities die.
All men are mortal entities.
Therefore, all men die.

Or, would this be an example of what you would call “neutral”? And, if it is neutral, of what benefit it is to us to have produced the Truism? In other words, if an expressed Truth is neutral, how does it have “value”, in the pragmatist’s system? (I used a very superficial example of a syllogism on purpose.)

Pattern is used in the mathematical sense of repetition. It is a perceived value relationship that can be more or less reliable or stable. It the sort of use of the word pattern when we say “pattern of behavior” or “pattern of thought.” Pirsig describes these four types of patterns as “patterns of value.” Everything can be understood in terms of relationships, valuation, or preference just as well as or perhaps better than with the far less empirical concept of causality which can be understood as a very stable pattern of value.

OK, I got it. IOW, not like a dress pattern, but rather, a “grouping” pattern of same or similar things.

So, an example of an unreliable, or unstable, pattern of behavior would be say, if the inhabitants of Minneapolis felt threatened by the inhabitants of St. Paul, soldiers of Minneapolis could undertake an action of genocide against the St. Pauleans (?) and the action. and its results, would be perceived to be both good (moral) and bad (evil)?

You further state (instead of “assert”, for civility sake) that the concept of causality is somehow not very empirical. From the generally accepted definition of “empirical”, how does the pragmatist’s theory arrive at that conclusion?

JD

 

[Michael_David]

JD quote: “So, an example of an unreliable, or unstable, pattern of behavior would be say, if the inhabitants of Minneapolis felt threatened by the inhabitants of St. Paul, soldiers of Minneapolis could undertake an action of genocide against the St. Pauleans (?) and the action. and its results, would be perceived to be both good (moral) and bad (evil)?”

On a lighter note, maybe it’s time for me to move to Iowa, since there is a civil war forming in the state I now live…

 

[JDaniel]

Intellect is independent of material and to a lesser degree independent of living beings and to a lesser degree independent of the culture, but independent nonetheless.

A huge part of our problem with the set of concepts you are presenting is that your philosophy requires the creation and re-creation, as well as the re-defining, of words. (Should you require examples, please request them and I will produce some.)

However, for our immediate purposes, your definition of “intellect” “states” that it is independent of matter. Here is one problem I have with this: if that is True, why does a particular physical trauma to the brain often produce the effect of loss of intellect (albeit in varying degrees), while in some, there appears that no loss has occured?

Intellect is independent in the sense that the rules that govern intellectual patterns (the value that holds ideas together) are not the same ones that govern societies or living beings or atoms.

Can you describe this “value”?

Your question is about whether the fact a building needs an intelligent designer says to me that atoms need an intelligent designer as well. Biological evolution demonstrates how complex order is created and problems are solved without a designer or intelligent problem solver.

This seems completely wrong to me, as a one time biologist, so, perhaps you can help. I know of no “demonstrations” from biological evolution where it creates complex order, etc. Biologists have only “seen” the results of some evolution, as we have never witnessed evolution. We infer that evolution took place, over millions of years, from fossil “records”. Some biologists believe this is enough, while many others believe that the total system is too complex for it to have simply evolved.

I believe that cats and dogs do not require a designer, so the far less complex atoms do not either. (Though buildings certainly do.)

This opinion creates, at least for me, another problem: an atom is an aggregate of parts. These parts consist of protons, neutrons and electrons, plus, virtual particles that prevent un-caused electron loss. And, these may not be limited to just this task. The positing of virtual particles, if in fact such forces do exist, is much more complex than a larger aggregate of atoms, such as a dog or cat. Now, I’m not saying that dogs and cats are not complex, but, I am saying that, in the scheme of things, atoms and virtual particles appear to be much more complex.

From what I understand about pragmatism, it is inspired by evolutionary thinking and would not be very convincing to someone who does not already believe in biological evolution. I’m not sure where you stand, but if we don’t already accept biological evolution, then that is a conversation that we would have to have first.

I’m not so sure your statement is correct. The important thing is that we first fully understand what biological evolution is and that our understanding is not full of misconceptions and erroneous conclusions. If we misunderstand it, then conclusions drawn from faulty knowledge could lead us into error.

What we all probably recognize is that there is a creative aspect of the universe (theists would prefer to say that I have that backwards, and that the universe is an aspect or product of a creative deity, but we are still pretty much on the same page for the purposes of this discussion . . .

I’m OK with this statement.

. . . that is necessary to explain why there is something instead of nothing, and how life was born of inorganic material, how this life evolves to create higher life forms . . .

Since there are two studies of chemistry, organic and inorganic, how can an organic life form evolve from inorganic chemicals?

What always seems so nonsensical to me about biological evolution is that it is not supposed to be evolving towards anything, yet the superiority of cats and dogs to paramecia and the superiority of human beings to dogs and cats is so obvious to me. But materialistic science has outlawed values. Nothing is supposed to be better than anything else. Life isn’t evolving toward anything. Life is just an extension of the properties of atoms, nothing more to materialistic science.

Most interesting. In fact, this is a Proof from Aquinas.

For me, Pirisg asked some interesting questions and came up with some satisfying solutions. In the Metaphysics of Quality, what is evolving isn’t patterns of atoms but patterns of value, and while that doesn’t change the data of evolution it completely up-ends the interpretation that can be given to evolution.

Here, I think, we have hit another obstruction. The philosophy you are describing postulates that Quality is in the realm of the metaphysical. I think that the majority of mankind find that the “recognition of quality” is rather something that we “learn” primarily from human beings older than us, and that one person’s Quality may not be another person’s Quality. To hyper-jump it to the realm of the Metaphysical, in my opinion, is a juxtaposition of non-tangential exigencies that can easily result in total confusion.

“Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world.” - Wikipedia

JD

 

[JDaniel]

JD quote: “So, an example of an unreliable, or unstable, pattern of behavior would be say, if the inhabitants of Minneapolis felt threatened by the inhabitants of St. Paul, soldiers of Minneapolis could undertake an action of genocide against the St. Pauleans (?) and the action. and its results, would be perceived to be both good (moral) and bad (evil)?”

On a lighter note, maybe it’s time for me to move to Iowa, since there is a civil war forming in the state I now live…

You are funny! Better get out quick!

JD

 

[JDaniel]

First, Pirsig points out that materialistic science goes into many volumes about how the fittest survive but never once answers the question of why.

The answer to the final cause question of “why” was not in the purview of those scientists. Also, as I stated in an earlier post, we are only looking at the possible “effects” of evolution. When you cannot study something evolving, it’s difficult to look for a final cause.

"This is the sort of irrelevant-sounding question that seems minor at first, and the mind looks for a quick answer to dismiss it. It sounds like one of those hostile, ignorant questions some fundamentalist preacher might think up. But why do the fittest survive? Why does any life survive? It’s illogical. It’s self-contradictory that life should survive.

How is our understanding of the meaning of “life” contradictory to that of “survival”?

If life is strictly a result of the physical and chemical forces of nature then why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to survive?

The words “struggle to survive” is an expression, a phrase that was created to help us understand the meaning of “survive”, so, it’s mischaracterized here. Survival is a dynamic - from Merriam - Webster: " . . .also dy·nam·i·cal -mi-kəl\ a: of or relating to physical force or energy b: of or relating to dynamics . . ." Thus, “suvival” is a “physical force” or “dynamic” that proceeds directly from “life”. I think is Persig simply “wrapped around the axle” here. But, maybe I’m wrong.

Either life is with physical nature or it’s against it. If it’s with nature there’s nothing to survive. If it’s against physical nature then there must be something apart from the physical and chemical forces of nature that is motivating it to be against physical nature.

Possibly.

Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry? What’s the motive? If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough the forces of nature will convert him into simple compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and small amounts of other minerals.

It’s a one-way reaction. No matter what kind of chemistry professor we use and no matter what process we use we can’t turn these compounds back into a chemistry professor. Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun’s heat, decay irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic
compounds. That’s a scientific fact.

These two paragraphs seem to be over-endowing Persig’s prior presented case. In a scalar value system of interest, it should be passed over quickly, by most intelligent people. Unless, all, or some, of those people believe that somehow, the universe is imbued with “intelligence”. I’m not now talking about a “postulated” intelligence, I talking about de re “intelligence”.

The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn’t the sun’s energy. We just saw what the sun’s energy did. It has to be something else. What is it?"

This is not a question I would ask. Why does this science/philosophy have to continuously misdefine “organic” and “inorganic”? That is the first question I would ask. This “spinning” of (rather universally) agreed upon definitions is what “cults” start out with in order to procure membership from the unsuspecting. This will produce opponents not allies.

Perhaps you can shed more light on this.

JD

 

[CatsAndDogs]

When mind and matter are viewed as eternally separate and eternally unalike, it becomes impossible to see how one can possily relate to the other. Everything has got to be object or subject, substance or non-substance, because that’s the primary division of the universe.

But if we think in terms of inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual patterns we can understand why mind and matter are so unalike–they are separated by two complete levels of evolution: biological and social patterns–but are still linked in the overall evolutionary hierarchy and supported by the same ground of being.

Right. So what we have here is a gnostic neo-platonic fuzzo-terminological (meaning: “be so vague as to render anything said possibly plausible but only ‘divinationally’ so” [technique used by “fortune tellers”]) religious practitioner’s “explanation”.

In other words, typical “new age” techno-babble. Welcome to the Matrix. If Leela could just find the appropriately colored “pill”, she could get to the REAL fight, and leave off arguing with us that the Matrix is real.

A straight answer to a question is impossible from practitioners of this “family” of religions.

:shamrock2:

 

[Fran65]

The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn’t the sun’s energy. We just saw what the sun’s energy did. It has to be something else. What is it?"

The answer for me is God and its not a reversal. Its creation.

BTW, carbon based compounds evolve on this planet, not inorganic compounds. Whilst they are used by carbon based cells they do not evolve.

Not on this planet anyway! I love Star Trek

 

[Leela]

The answer for me is God and its not a reversal. Its creation.

BTW, carbon based compounds evolve on this planet, not inorganic compounds. Whilst they are used by carbon based cells they do not evolve.

Not on this planet anyway! I love Star Trek

Hi Fran,

The idea is that at some point life emerged from nonliving material and physical laws, what Pirsig calls inorganic patterns. I think it is just a slip here when he says “inorganic compounds” since compounds implies the chemistry definition of inorganic rather than what he means with is the less technical usage where organic means “relating to or derived from living organisms” and inorganic means not derived from living organisms. Inorganic patterns is not intended to mean ones that do not contain carbon.

Best,
Leela

or·gan·ic (ôr-gnk)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter.
2. Of, relating to, or affecting a bodily organ: an organic disease.

a. Of, marked by, or involving the use of fertilizers or pesticides that are strictly of animal or vegetable origin: organic vegetables; an organic farm.
b. Raised or conducted without the use of drugs, hormones, or synthetic chemicals: organic chicken; organic cattle farming.
c. Serving organic food: an organic restaurant.
d. Simple, healthful, and close to nature: an organic lifestyle.
4.
a. Having properties associated with living organisms.
b. Resembling a living organism in organization or development; interconnected: society as an organic whole.
5. Constituting an integral part of a whole; fundamental.
6. Law Denoting or relating to the fundamental or constitutional laws and precepts of a government or an organization.
7. Chemistry Of or designating carbon compounds.

 

[Leela]

That *is *emergence. The argument has separated out from material but then goes on to argue that intellect is to some degree dependent on living beings and culture. As I described before, emergence can occur with the non physical - rememebr the example I gave you earlier of the synergy of teams? It is still emergence. We don’t know how it occurs, many think it is material based. Others do not. What you describe is not materialist, but is a variety fo emergence.

I’m glad that I’ve finally convinced you that I’m not talking about a brand of materialism.

In addition, Dawkins has already talked about the evolution of memes. You might want to check it out. It sounds a lot like what you (Pirsig?) are describing.

I’ll have to look into it. I’m not sure but I suspect that memes may be social or intellectual patterns.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

William James. OK, now I know where you’re coming from. He was a psychiatrist with an MD degree, who dabbled in philosophy as well, as I recall.

I am having a problem though: if Truth is a Belief, then a triangle is a triangle ONLY because we believe it so? Or, from logic, that there cannot be a thing that we call an unmarried husband? On the other hand, using the logic you are describing, there could be, providing we believe it to be so.

Triangles are triangles because of how the concept of triangle is defined. Truth is not what people believe but rather what is good to believe. It is not good to believe things that are self-contradictory. The laws of logic are codification of principles for taking good beliefs and applying rules that produce other things that are good to believe.

Next, you describe “True as being a species of Good”. Would you explain for my feeble mind how it is that Good is the underpinning of a True syllogism, such as:

All mortal entities die.
All men are mortal entities.
Therefore, all men die.

The pattern of thought you describe is a good one.
2+2 = 4 is valued above 2+2+7
Other intellectual values beyond truth include parsimony and coherence with other good beliefs.

You further state (instead of “assert”, for civility sake) that the concept of causality is somehow not very empirical. From the generally accepted definition of “empirical”, how does the pragmatist’s theory arrive at that conclusion?

“Assert” is fine with me.

I not much of a philosophologist, but I believe it was Hume who first brought up serious criticism of causality.

He simply pointed out that there is no empirical basis for causality. You never see it, touch it, hear it or feel it. You never experience it in any way. For example, you may see billiard ball A strike billiard ball B, and see that billiard ball B moves after being struck, but you didn’t see “cause.”

To tie in with Pirsig’s ideas that I’ve been talking about, values are directly experienced (empirical), and to say that “A causes B” or to say that “B values precondition A” is to say the same thing. The difference is one of words only. Instead of saying “A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,” you can say “Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.” Scientifically speaking neither statement is more true than the other. It may sound little awkward, but that’s a matter of linguistic custom, not science. The language used to describe the data is changed but the scientific data itself is unchanged.

You can always substitute “B values precondition A” for “A causes B” without changing any facts of science at all. The term “cause” can be struck out completely from a scientific
description of the universe without any loss of accuracy or completeness. The only difference between causation and value is that the word “cause” implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of “value” is one of preference. In classical science it was supposed that the world always works in terms of absolute certainty and that “cause” is the more appropriate word to describe it. But in modern quantum physics all that is changed. Particles “prefer” to do what they do. An individual particle is not absolutely committed to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an absolute cause is just a very consistent pattern of preferences. Therefore when you strike “cause” from the language and substitute “value” you are not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful one (since values are directly experienced); you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation.

Though it makes no scientific difference to make that mental substitution, I prefer think of the universe as based in values than substance. Doing so results in a more empirically based description that is also more accurate in light of quantum mechanics.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

Triangles are triangles because of how the concept of triangle is defined.

One could assert exactly the same thing about the concept and word, “cause”.

Truth is not what people believe but rather what is good to believe.

This would seem to leave the question of what is “good” open to individual interpretation. What is believed to be absolutely Good for the citizens of Minneapolis, is simultaneously believed to be absolutely un-Good for the St. Pauleans who are about to be slaughtered.

It is not good to believe things that are self-contradictory.

Why?

The laws of logic are codification of principles for taking good beliefs and applying rules that produce other things that are good to believe.

I have to disagree.

The pattern of thought you describe is a good one.
2+2 = 4 is valued above 2+2+7

Why is 2 + 2 = 4 better than 2 + 2 + 7?

Other intellectual values beyond truth include parsimony and coherence with other good beliefs.

Again, in the example of the waring cities in Minnesota, a perfectly “coherent” argument could be constructed, utilizing “parsimony”, to compel the good citizens of Minneapolis to commit genocide.

“Assert” is fine with me.

Good, because it is the more appropriate word.

I not much of a philosophologist, but I believe it was Hume who first brought up serious criticism of causality.

Alas, poor David, his philosophy lingers in the farthest back resources of my mind. You may be right, however, whatever influence his critique might have had, it didn’t endure.

He simply pointed out that there is no empirical basis for causality. You never see it, touch it, hear it or feel it. You never experience it in any way. For example, you may see billiard ball A strike billiard ball B, and see that billiard ball B moves after being struck, but you didn’t see “cause.”

Aristotle also points this out. But, I’ll go you one better: why use a word grouping that employes, as its predicate, the word “value”? Value, to me, is too soft. When I “see” a cue ball strike and numbered ball, I “see” that the numbered ball is “compelled” to fly off on a precise course, baring any unforseen obstacles. Why not replace the word “value” with the word “compel”? (I might be tempted to change my mind about the use of the word “cause”, although Cause appears to me to have a bit more compulsion attached to it than does Value.)

To tie in with Pirsig’s ideas that I’ve been talking about, values are directly experienced (empirical),

What does one look like?

and to say that “A causes B” or to say that “B values precondition A” is to say the same thing.

IOW, they are in the category of synonymous.

The difference is one of words only. Instead of saying “A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,” you can say “Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.” Scientifically speaking neither statement is more true than the other. It may sound little awkward, but that’s a matter of linguistic custom, not science. The language used to describe the data is changed but the scientific data itself is unchanged.

And, the reason for getting rid of the word “cause” is?

You can always substitute “B values precondition A” for “A causes B” without changing any facts of science at all. The term “cause” can be struck out completely from a scientific
description of the universe without any loss of accuracy or completeness. The only difference between causation and value is that the word “cause” implies absolute certainty whereas the implied meaning of “value” is one of preference.

Well, as I have stated, I am more compelled to substitute the word “compel” for “value”.

In classical science it was supposed that the world always works in terms of absolute certainty and that “cause” is the more appropriate word to describe it.

Because the word “value” was simply way too soft.

But in modern quantum physics all that is changed.

Actually, during all of my investigations, this past week, into virtual particles, the quantum mathematics of “infinity”, whatever Light" is, I came across the word “caused” innumerable times. The only times I came across the word “value” were when the article was presenting a numerical value of a number, or axis, in an equation or on a line or curve.

Particles “prefer” to do what they do.

To some extent, it would “seem” that there is “preference” from your statement but, I would see this as more of an anthropomorphism. By this I mean, giving un-human exigencies human attributes.

An individual particle is not absolutely committed to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an absolute cause is just a very consistent pattern of preferences.

This smacks of crude sophistry. Remember, the Sophists of ancient Greece were so good at “spinning” that it resulted in them earning lots of money. Soon, the citizenry came to hate them, and, later, they all turned into lawyers! :yup:

Therefore when you strike “cause” from the language and substitute “value” you are not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful one (since values are directly experienced); you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation.

As I previously said, perhaps “compel”, but not, “value”.

Though it makes no scientific difference to make that mental substitution, I prefer think of the universe as based in values than substance. Doing so results in a more empirically based description that is also more accurate in light of quantum mechanics.

I can place no value on this paragraph or its conclusion . . . sorry, it’s just that my preference is for a less soft word.

JD

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
The pattern of thought you describe is a good one.
2+2 = 4 is valued above 2+2+7

Why is 2 + 2 = 4 better than 2 + 2 + 7?

2+2=4 > good > 2+2+7, because an equation is “gooder” than an un-summed sum! Nobody knows quite what to do with an un-summed sum.

Four is also “gooder” than eleven, of course, because it’s smaller, and therefore “simpler”, as well as consisting of only one symbol instead of the two symbols necessary to represent base-10 eleven.

Of course four isn’t QUITE as “gooder” than eleven in base-4, as “10” has the same number of symbols as “22” in that base.

:shamrock2:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

2+2=4 > good > 2+2+7, because an equation is “gooder” than an un-summed sum! Nobody knows quite what to do with an un-summed sum.

Four is also “gooder” than eleven, of course, because it’s smaller, and therefore “simpler”, as well as consisting of only one symbol instead of the two symbols necessary to represent base-10 eleven.

Of course four isn’t QUITE as “gooder” than eleven in base-4, as “10” has the same number of symbols as “22” in that base.

:shamrock2:

sounds like the time i named all our farm cats in ascending oder based on which cat was closet to the person referencing them, drove the everybody nuts, it was great:thumbsup: