Hi Magnus, Platt and all,
MAGNUS
> Well, I became a twin father this past May so I've been able to keep
myself
> occupied with other matters. :)
I couldn't let this pass without offering a big congratulations!!! Did I
miss this news, or were you too busy to tell us. Anyway, I hope that you and
your partner enjoy your double dose of joy.
Magnus, I want to persist with our argument, because somewhere, surely we
must hit common ground. I keep getting the feeling that you never quite
understood what I am getting at, but maybe it is the other way round. In
either case, this is something we should try to resolve.
TO EVERYONE ELSE - your input is most welcome. Magnus and I will probably
need some help.
> JONATHAN
> > I'm not sure I like [the idea 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.
>
MAGNUS
> No, it doesn't necessarily mean that cells are intelligent. If you read
> my answer to Marco yesterday, you'll see that the language and the society
> evolves simultaneously. This is such a case where the organs of the body
> have developed a language without showing intellect.
I think we should be careful to distinguish between intelligence and
intellect. IMO, intellect includes a socio-philosophic aspect that goes way
beyond mere intelligence. I don't have a problem with describing cells as
intelligent, but I do have a problem describing them as intellectual. I
re-read your answer to Marco, and conclude that what you call language
covers any aspect of interaction. Thus when a proton and electron attract,
they are speaking the language of electrostatic forces. By that definition,
EVERYTHING demonstrates intelligence - even that I can go along with, but I
repeat, intelligence is not intellect.
JONATHAN
> > To paraphrase Lao-Tzu, the meaning that can be expressed in language is
> > not the real meaning.
MAGNUS
> Then he was wrong. Intellectual patterns *can* be described using
language.
> Mathematics is such a beast.
Several philosophers have taken the path of searching for a mathematical
basis for philosophy. Then along came Goedel who essentially showed that no
mathematical construct is ever complete. You can use language to describe
whatever pattern you want, even your much loved Black Forest Gateaux, even
your undoubtedly beautiful twins, but that description will always be less
than the real thing.
MAGUS(4 Jan 2002)
<<<patterns of value at the quantum level are the basis for inorganic
quality. The inorganic world in built from them, and that the fact that they
contain meaning is demonstrated by the fact that they decode into the
physical world we see around us. >>>>
JONATHAN (5 Jan 2002)
<<<But it is WE who compartmentalize the world into separate entities that
interact and "decode" each other.>>>
MAGNUS (6 Jan 2002)
<<<It is not only 'WE' that 'compartmentalize the world'. It is quality
events at all levels that do.>>>
JONATHAN (7 Jan 2002)
<<<True, but first WE compartmentalize Quality into distinct quality
events!!!!!!>>>
MAGNUS
> We're going in circles here. My argument is just above. If reality is
> like you describe it, then quality events just started happening ~10
> years ago.
No Magnus, we are not just going round in circles. We are going down a
metaphysical spiral staircase, and you yourself show where we are headed . .
.
MAGNUS
> The MoQ, being a monism, has Quality as a non-compartmentalized starting
> point. But that is the starting point used when talking about the MoQ.
> It was not the starting point for our universe at the Big Bang. If
> you take the MoQ seriously, it was already at work when the Big Bang
> happened.
At last I see the real source of our disagreement. You have one starting
point for your physical world and a different starting point for your
metaphysical world. That is no monism at all.
I find the idea of a single metaphysical and physical Big Bang much more
satisfying.
JONATHAN
> > 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.
>
MAGNUS
> Your 3+1 idea makes the lower 3 levels into an organization chart, that's
> not a metaphysics. The levels are not about scale! Each level is
orthogonal
> to all other levels, i.e. extends in a 90 degree angle to all other.
I don't know why my topographical image of the levels is any less
metaphysical than Pirsig's or yours. In your scheme, Pirsig's levels just
don't stack up. Inorganicness, biologicalness, socialness and intellect are
just four different parameters - not levels at all.
I claim that Pirsig's first three levels represent increasing levels of
complexity. Intellect was the exception, and that is why I suggested that it
was perhaps better to regard intellect not as a level but as an abstraction.
MAGNUS
> So, what exactly is your criticism? That you know more than I do? Not much
> of an argument methinks. I may not use the most commonly used terms when
> writing about quantum mechanics but that's because I'm trying to use the
> MoQ plus what I know about QM to break some new ground.
No Magnus, I recognise that you DO use common terms, or rather, I think that
you MISuse them, throwing them around as jargon. I still don't see where you
are going with all this.
PLATT (to Magnus)
> > I admire your quest to unite quantum mechanics with the MOQ, but didn't
> > Pirsig already do a pretty good job of that with his SODV paper?
MAGNUS
> Not really, he doesn't directly mention quantum mechanics in connection
> with the MoQ, only the observation/Quality event connection. I think the
> MoQ has plenty of more things to say about QM.
I think that Pirsig's SODV paper was well focused on the central issue which
was not the mechanics of QM but the metaphysical implications. In the paper,
he described how Bohr had confronted this issue while others had ignored it.
I don't see much value in discussing the details of Quantum theory in a
forum where so few of us really understand it (me included). Furthermore, I
personally believe that the apparent weirdness of quantum mechanics stems
not from QM itself, but from our previous brainwashing with a metaphysics
that presented causality as an incontravertible absolute.
Over to you, Magnus (or whoever else wants to take a swipe).
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 - 16:01:46 BST