Hi Jonathan and others,
> MAGNUS
> >The distinction between a pure
> >inorganic pattern and an inorganic pattern that is acting as media
> for
> an
> >intellectual pattern is sometimes hard to make. But in the
> dimensional
> model
> >of the MoQ, there's no need to. Things that we experience on the
> inorganic
> >level, for example a proton and an electron, *can* be a pure
> inorganic
> pattern.
> >It can also at the same time be an intellectual pattern provided
> there's a
> >language to map the inorganic pattern to its meaning.
Hm... I'm trying to get hold of Magnus' position he is taking in his
posts; but maybe I should read his essay first.
>
> I agree that there is no distinction. The electrons act as they always
> do, without reference to the fact that they may be part of a higher
> pattern. The same goes for an individual neuron. It will detect
> neurotransmitters released at the synapse, convert them to an
> electrical
> pulse that travels down the axon and release its own neurotransmitters
> at the other end, all this without any reference to the fact that the
> signal may be part of a complicated mathematical calculation, or
> simply
> the signal for a full rectum.
> I don't think we need to go down to quantum mechanics to explain this.
Irritating example, but you've made your point clear. Surely the brain
processes information and acts accordingly in some circumstances
unconsciously, but to be aware of thing you really need QM. The point
is, in your story you leave out such a thing as awareness, you only talk
about neurotransmitters and spiking and whatever. But we DO have
awareness. Newton thought there was a simultaneous, absolute now
everywhere in flat space. Someone a few centuries ago remarked that
physics is just worked-out-to-the-exact common sense. We all can
comprehend Newtonian physics rather easily. Why is that? And why did
Einstein spoil the commen sense intuition, and quantum mechanics even
more? They say QM is full of mysteries, but in a way, instead of making
things all the more complex after Einstein, QM has made things easier
and more close to our intuition; we only don't realize it. It's only
that the theories of QM and relativity collide, and that's our problem.
The thing is, QM has re-introduced an instantaneous Now, in accordance
with our common sense view. After a collision between particles, you can
have two photons emitting from it in opposite directions. And if you
measure one photon's spin, the other one *instantaneously* obtains the
exact opposite spin. O what a mystery; faster than light communication .
But isn't it a mystery than that we can picture such an event, and
indeed comprehend it? We can picture in our minds those photons in
slow-motion emitting from the source, and see them *instantaneously*
obtain opposite spins. How can we do that? That alone suggest that the
mind entails nonlocality somehow.
But okay, here's Hodgson's argument in a slightly different form: Could
you imagine just one 'grandmother'-neuron representing this picture of
these instantaneous events? I think not. So there must be different
neurons in the brain responsible for representing the picture of the
*instantaneous* events in your mind: We can at one moment be aware of
multiple things, and different *spatially seperated* neuronal events
(whatever those may be) must be responsible for that, as I just argued.
So to make our one visual eye and one mind, you need the same so-called
mysterious *instantaneous* correlations as with the *spatially
seperated* photons. The mind entails nonlocality.
Okay, please let me know if *anyone* gets this point. I would surely
appreciate it if I've been able to put across Hodgson's argument. It
can't be so hard, can it? I don't understand why some people are having
such difficulties to understand this.
> If you follow the movements of a single gas molecule among many, you
> will not be able to tell anything about the movements of the
> population
> as a whole. As a whole, the gas will diffuse from zones of high
> concentration to zones of low concentration, but you won't see that
> pattern in the movements of your chosen molecule - the diffusion is an
> emergent property, a pattern in the population but not the individual.
Yes, that's the standard reply. Believe me, I know. I don't feel like
getting into this now. But let me ask you this: Is a gas an emergent
thing to itself? Does a gas have a first-person point of view? Or does a
gas only exist in our minds? You can conclude the latter, and most
people would like to disagree with that, and so do I. But I think a
chair only exists in our minds. A chair surely isn't a chair for itself.
But what is it, in itself? I don't know.
Please, let me know if I've made some sense. I would surely appreciate
some mutual understanding of some sort.
What does all this has to do with the MoQ? Everything. I feel his levels
are divisions of reality that only exist in our minds. Platt I believe
recently quoted Pirsig saying a society made out of static qualities
can't perceive DQ, only a living being can. Life is difficult to define,
I would prefer: only a CONSCIOUS being can. And consiousness has to do
with first-person-perspectives, what it is like to be something. And a
society doesn't know what a society is. Just like Pirsig says. But
Pirsig does say, I think, that Static Qualities are 'out there'. That's
what I also would like to think, but of one thing I'm sure: What's
really out there is different than our perception of it.
Greetings, Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
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