[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt, all

>>      Platt said:  "There is no way to separate ideas
>> from individuals."

It seems absurd to assert that an idea written down ceases to exist until someone reads it. I guess this is one of those "if a tree falls and no one is around" questions. 

RMP in LC:
"It is similar to the question, “If a tree falls in the forest and
nobody hears it, does it make a sound?” The historic answer of the idealists is, “What tree?” In order to ask this question you have to presuppose the existence of the falling tree and then ask whether this presupposed tree would vanish if nobody were there. Of course it wouldn’t vanish! It has already been presupposed."


Once we imagine this idea having been written down and forgotten, it seems silly to then also imagine that that this imaginary idea does not exist. Platt needs to go that route to support his primacy of the individual in his philosophy, and there is no way to argue that he is wrong about the idea that he's been asked to imagine. It's his imagination after all. But it seems clear that Pirsig wouldn't take that route.

also related is this from LC note 32:

"Since the MOQ states that consciousness (i.e. intellectual patterns) is the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of experience,then artificial intelligence would be the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in a machine, that stand for patterns of experience. If one agrees that experience exists at the inorganic level, then it is clear that computers already have artificial intelligence."

Steve:
If computers have intellectual patterns, then it seems that ideas can be separated from individuals in Pirisig's view of the MOQ

Regards,
Steve



 		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.