Hi Magnus,
I hope we aren't just arguing for the sake of it;-)
JONATHAN
> Let me remind everyone, however, that the naked DNA is meaningless
without a
> living cellular machinery around it. It would be like having a CD of
> Microsoft Windows XP 200 years ago - potentially full of information,
but
> meaningless.
MAGNUS
>Then I'd say that the information in our DNA is indeed intellectual
patterns.
>And it is written in the language of the cell microprocessor.
I'm not sure I like that. Does that mean that the molecules that read
the DNA and translate it into a protein are demonstrating intellect?
Those molecules are not reading "AUGCUCGGCUUA . . ." the way a
biochemist would. The different molecules are interacting in their own
non-intellectual way, and the way WE UNDERSTAND that interaction is the
intellectual pattern.
[snip]
MAGNUS
<<<
I'm not saying that quantum patterns are not quantized. I'm saying that
there's
no intellectual patterns there since I'm considering information to
require
intellectual patterns.
>>>
This is the same thing again. The "quantum patterns" are our
intellectual understanding of what we see. The physical world doesn't
speak that language - it just does what it does.
MAGNUS <<<
What it boils down to is our different interpretations of the MoQ. You
equals
quality to meaning which, I think, puts the first division of the MoQ
between the
social and intellectual levels.
>>>
I do indeed equate quality and meaning, but I don't think that
represents a division between any particular levels. Quality/Meaning
precedes any division into levels. The 4 levels themselves represent
Pirsig trying to explain the meaning of the world we experience.
<<<
I, on the other hand, think that meaning comes
from the social pattern we call 'language' and it's this language that
is needed
to read the intellectual patterns in the underlying media (or inorganic
pattern).
>>>
Magnus, I say the exact opposite. The primary meaning is there first and
the language evolves to encode it. I would say that the primary meaning
is experience itself, and any language dependent expression of that
experience is somewhat less than the experience itself.
To paraphrase Lao-Tzu, the meaning that can be expressed in language is
not the real meaning.
JONATHAN
> But it is WE who compartmentalize the world into separate entities
that
> interact and "decode" each other.
> I hope that I don't have to explain the significance of this in a
forum
> devoted to Pirsig.
MAGNUS
>This also points at our difference of opinion. It is not only 'WE' that
>'compartmentalize the world'. It is quality events at all levels that
do.
True, but first WE compartmentalize Quality into distinct quality
events!!!!!!
I think that the MoQ starting point must be a non-compartmentalized
Quality, and that has to come first. I regard anything else as a
complete misreading of the MoQ.
JONATHAN (on Shannon)
> The "information" itself is an abstract pattern. It makes no
difference
> whether it is inked letters on paper, holes in punch tape, magnetic
fields
> on a disk, microscopic bubbles in the plastic of a compact disk, bumps
in
> the groove of a gramaphone record or whatever. The only important
thing is
> that there is some sort of material media to carry the message.
MAGNUS
>You say "abstract pattern" (and BTW invents a new type of pattern
besides the
>four in the MoQ) and I say intellectual pattern which is already in the
MoQ.
>
>Ok, Shannon separated information and meaning, but in MoQese it would
translate
>into inorganic patterns and intellectual patterns respectively. It was
a good
>separation but we disagree because of our same'ol difference.
I go along with the abstract=intellectual. If you remember my "3+1" idea
from December 1998
(http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0049.html) it was
exactly that.
The abstraction of intellect from the other 3 levels makes it something
quite different.
JONATHAN
> Magnus, I think that you would have a hard time convincing any
scientist
> that you understand the jargon you are using. Please explain to us
what
> quantum patterns and why you think they are not bona fide inorganic
> patterns.
MAGNUS <<<
That's what I was doing on the MF this summer if I remember correctly,
let's see...
Yes, we were discussing "Entropy, information and time" on:
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/0106/date.html
>>>
I think it is a very good idea to keep going back to the archive. A
simple search on Google using a "MoQ", and "Information theory" brings
up several hits on old posts relevant to the current discussion.
MAGNUS <<<
Also, in the thread "Time: fixed vs. unfixed" I wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
the quantum
world is so vastly different from the inorganic. I really think it's
just as different from the inorganic as the biological from the
inorganic. The laws of nature simply doesn't exist anymore, just as
the laws of biology simply doesn't exist in the inorganic world.
It's that simple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Perhaps it won't convince many scientists but I would stand a better
chance if
he/she understood the MoQ, do you happen to know any?
>>>
Magnus, I looked back at the archive and my criticism stands. I don't
claim to be an expert quantum mechanic, but I do have some idea about
what quantum theory entails. I don't want to sound patronizing, but I
get the impression that you don't. As for the MoQ, I think I understand
it at least as well as you do.
All the best,
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:45 BST