[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[markhsmit]

Mark:
I'm getting a little confused here.  Evolution, in the traditional sense,
occurred through natural selection.  That is, there was something
(environment) selecting which genes should survive.  By this analogy, 
what is it that is selecting for the evolution of Quality?  Quality may be
that which is, and that which isn't, and everything in between, but
even so, there has to be something greater than Quality that
is effectively bringing about evolution.

Terms change with the times, and many are hard pressed to 
remember the original use of evolution as it was applied to
living species.  It would seem that Evolution for Quality, just
means Change.  However, this change is directional.

To take up Platt's question, what is providing the direction
for the Evolution of Quality?  Also, why does it have to
be human communication that is at the pinnacle?  It would
seem to me that something created by the human mind is
trapped.  Intellect cannot form a higher level, anymore than
water communicating as it travels down a river.

So, why is Quality evolving the way it is proposed?  If it
is from moral order, then moral order is above Quality.  If
Quality encompasses morality, then morality is evolving
within Quality.  If Quality is the force which is creating
levels, it is analogous to the environment, which means
that Quality is separate from Morality.

Traditionally, one things creates evolution of another (this can
go both ways, of course, coevolution).  But you still need to have
two separate things.  Everything cannot be one, and still have
evolution.

Am I wrong?

Mark


On Nov 6, 2009, at 5:08:31 AM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
From:   plattholden at gmail.com
Subject:    Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness
Date:   November 6, 2009 5:08:31 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
On 6 Nov 2009 at 4:52, craigerb at comcast.net wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> [Platt] 
> > Why does hereditary work to insure survival? 
> 
> 
> 
> [Craig, previously] 
> Suppose there's an organism with 2 predators: one POWERFUL but slow, 
>  the other FAST & weak.  Suppose further there are 4 combinations of genes: 
> 1) fight POWERFUL & fight FAST 
> 2) fight POWERFUL & flee FAST 
> 
> 3) flee POWERFUL & fight FAST 
> 
> 4) flee POWERFUL & flee FAST 
> Those with gene 1) or 2) fall prey to P.  Those with gene 2) or 4) fall prey to F. 
> 
> The only survivor is the one with gene 3), that outruns the POWERFUL & fights off the WEAK. 
> 
> It's offspring inherit gene 3) which "works to insure survival". 
> 
> [Platt] 
> 
> > Why do genes work to insure survival? 
> 
> 
> First, notice this is a different question than before ("Why does hereditary work to insure survival?") 
> Genes as such don't "work to insure survival".  Genes just work to develope the organism in a specific way.  It is only HEREDITARY genes that "work to insure survival". 
> 
> Suppose you have 2 similar fit enough organisms, differing only that one has successful gene set A which is hereditary & the other has a non-hereditary gene set B , which has a  25% chance of reproducing a successful gene set & a   75% chance of reproducing unsuccessful genes.  Suppose further each organism that reaches maturity  always produces  4 offspring: 
> 
> In the 2nd generation: there are 4 offspring with gene set A, 1 offspring with a successful gene set  & 3 with unsuccessful gene sets. 
> In the 3rd generation: there are 16 offspring with gene set A, 1 offspring with a successful gene set  & 3 with unsuccessful gene sets. 
> In the 4th generation: there are 64 offspring with gene set A, 1 offspring with a successful gene set  & 3 with unsuccessful gene sets. 
> In the 5th generation: there are 256 offspring with gene set A, 1 offspring with a successful gene set & 3 with unsuccessful gene sets. 
> After just a few generations, organisms with hereditary gene set A dominate the successful 
> organisms, while the organisms with non-hereditary gene sets are one specimen from extinction.  
> Craig 

OK, then why do HEREDITARY genes work to insure survival? Why 
does a "successful gene set" work to insure survival? The word 
"successful" implies that survival is better than the alternative. Why?
Why wasn't nature content to remain at the inorganic level? You 
describe HOW evolution works. My question (and Pirsig's) is, "WHY?" 

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/