[MD] MOQ & Evolution

[ian glendinning]

Hi David,

Clearly the basic Darwinian "selection" mechanism says nothing about
the existence of variety, just what happens to it. (Clearly the "too
much" "too long" counter-challenges are the subect of complicated
arguments, we should be careful to simply sloganise.)

That said, I agree with your paragraph except for some possible
interpretations of "agency, "motivation" and "experience". I'd a gree
the mechanism is DQ and that it's the interactions that expose the
quality. (Just nervous about any conscious-will implication behind
your choice of words.)

We agree MoQ adds to a whole basket of post Darwinian models of evolution.
Ian

On 9/16/06, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> I was not saying that evolution has a problem with too much
> variety rather that it offers a poor explanation if any of where
> the variety comes from. I think we need to see the explanation as
> DQ, and DQ as meaning access to the realm of the possible
> that lies beyond SQ and the actual. And also that selection has
> to be linked to an activity/agency that is motivated by experience/quality.
> Darwin is not wrong, just incomplete, and Pirsig offers to fill some
> of the gap I believe. You question my other challenges, OK but the
> opposite view is equally hard to support and are usually swallowed as
> assumptions.
>
> David M
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ & Evolution
>
>
> > Hmm, David, you have a point .... but I'd like to cast doubt on three
> > others first.
> >
> > You presume a problem with evolution ?
> >
> > Clearly MoQ helps explain many (all) aspects of reality, evolution
> > inlcuded, and includes evolution as part of its own explanation. So
> > where's the problem ?
> >
> > (1) "Too much" variety to select from ? Very subjective statement,
> > where do you get that from, too much relative to what ? The variety
> > isn't all sitting around waiting to be selected from anyway, it comes
> > and goes over long periods of time.
> >
> > (2) Selection via elimination is "too slow". Same kind of subjective
> > statement; too slow relative to what ? The "improbability" argument
> > has surely been done to death, where do you get your too improbable
> > case from ?
> >
> > Both the above are hugely complex over long timescales, so any simple
> > statement is going to be problematic .... but anyway.
> >
> > (3) Selection of the "fittest" has little to with fitness at breeding
> > (or even physical fitness in competition) ... its about "quality of
> > fit with the environment" .... those that succeed by breeding fast are
> > simply exploiting alternatives to their limitations elsewhere. Again,
> > many complex aspects of fit, over many generations and time-scales.
> >
> > (4) Built-in selection options .... now you may have a point.
> >
> > Dennett style "engineering view" of evolution (and our friend Terry
> > Bristol of ISEPP, over at Friends of Wisdom). There certainly are such
> > things, natural things, quality things, emergent things, coherent
> > things .... planes of weakness, lines of least resistance, patterns of
> > optimum efficiencies, music of the spheres, requisite varieties ...
> > none of which need higher causal agency than quality. (Though of
> > course once conscious will has arisen, all bets are off, as the agents
> > influence their environments in directed ... and perverse ... ways,
> > but the process doesn't seem to "require" intelligent agents, just the
> > quality of dynamic interactions.)
> >
> > Many natural processes influence the range and nature of options that
> > arise and await their fate in "de-selection". Darwin hadn't heard of
> > even 1% of them, but that doesn't mean he was 99% wrong.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ian
> >
> > On 9/8/06, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Hi MOQ folk
> >>
> >> I wonder, is the main problem with evolutionary theory
> >> is that whilst natural selection is plausible it fails to explain
> >> why there is so much damn good variety to select from?
> >>
> >> Does not DQ and the free selection of quality not help us out here?
> >>
> >> And also help with time frames, because selection via eliminating of the
> >> less fit is too slow and unevolving unless there is some built in
> >> selection
> >> of options
> >> via quality decisions/agency that might be able to build up more complex
> >> structures?
> >>
> >> Selection of fitest at breeding gets on just fine with just re-breeding
> >> lots
> >> of bacteria.
> >>
> >> David M
> >>
> >>
> >> 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/
> >>
> > 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/
> >
>
>
> 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/
>