[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[ian glendinning]

Platt said "I see no evidence"
(of evolution anywhere but in man)

The second monkey sees no evidence either Platt - you have to look first.

You need to read (and be prepared to understand) something like
Climbing Mount Improbable. In everyday life we humans have no concept
of the orders of magnitude of chance or timescales involved. It takes
real effort (and suspensions of disbelief) to see these.

Another fundamental point about evolution of species (about which
Darwin's famous book is in fact totally silent) is that they can only
ever be inferred from distant hindsight. They are impossible to "see"
in the current generation(s).

There is good sound reputable science to back that up. Many things
remote from everyday experience have to be believed to be seen. Fact.

In one sense you are actually correct - biological (and other
phsyical) evolutions are happening around us all the time - you (we)
just can't "see" them - but "the bitch is in the driving seat" now.
Evolution of ideas (mainly human at present) is so much faster and
more powerful than physio-bio-evolution that it is in fact effectively
controlling it.

Genetic evolution is as real as ever, just increasingly irrelevant as
memetic evolution dominates the (human dominated) world (through
environmental control mainly rather than genetic engineering per se.)

Your mind evolves so slowly Platt, you may have the advantage over the
rest of us of having skipped a complete generation :-) The exception
to the rule.

Ian

On 6/6/06, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> SA:
>
> >      Platt, I am assuming you support a universal
> > moral order.  Yet, you say cells and quantum particles
> > do not know the version of Dq definition going around
> > that states DQ is an inclination towards what is
> > better.  That is a moral choice.
>
> Yes, at one time cells and quantum particles responded to DQ towards
> betterness, resulting in evolution up to the social level. I see no
> evidence that they are playing any part in evolution now.
>
> > No matter what on
> > any level, according to your UNIVERSAL moral order,
> > everything inclines towards what is better, meaning
> > not towards what is worse.  I define Dq is "something
> > or nothing' undefinable.  I define Sq as "something"
> > definable.  What is moral for everything on a
> > universal moral order that has to include everything
> > since it is universal that you, Platt, advocate?
>
> The inorganic and biological levels are now static moral levels as part
> of the universal moral order. They respond to the present moment
> (Quality) instinctively and predictably. Their responses are thus
> static moral patterns. That's why the hard sciences have been so
> successful.  The social and intellectual levels are still evolving, led
> by individuals at the intellectual level responding to DQ. That's why
> the soft sciences (economics, social studies, history) have been so
> contentious.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Thanks.
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>