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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 13 Nov 2009 at 11:50, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Platt]
> "Stumbled upon." Oops. "Seen as 'good.'" By whom? Blank out.
> 
> [Arlo]
> By whom? By the patterns who stumbled upon whatever it is in the 
> first place. Like when humans stumbled upon the ability to make fire. 
> It was like "AHA! This is gooooood!"....  Or when those subatomic 
> particles stumbled upon an arrangement we call "carbon"...
> 
> AHA! is all about free-will, DQ as experienced throughout the four 
> levels of the MOQ, and about the subsequent latching (SQ) of that 
> which is deemed good.

So goodness is always there to be "seen" or "deemed" as such by 
quarks, atoms, molecules, amoebas, animals, colleges, nations, novels  
theorems, axioms and all other static patterns?          

> So tell me, since you didn't answer, did those quarks who decided to 
> value their attractions so that humans could inhabit and recognize 
> the cosmos, did they make a collective decision to do this? Or were 
> they commanded to do so by Qualigod?

Neither.

"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?" (Lila, 11)

Continue reading for the answer.