Hi Horse and Squad
You wrote:
>
> Hi Magnus and Squad
>
> Before I get stuck into this reply I should re-iterate that this whole L5 idea is
> exploratory. Call it a thought experiment or whatever. One thing I don't want to do
> is produce bad feelings or resentment.
No bad feelings from Sweden, promise. I've been thinking a lot about this and have
more or less settled with a model of the levels. I guess I've been using you to get
feedback. I didn't, and don't, think you'd mind.
> So which universe is this intellect part of which is prior to the levels and if, as
> you say, a universe is ALL of reality then how can it not be part of the
> universe/reality where it is prior to these levels. If it is not part of that reality
> how does it obtain knowledge of another reality?
Fudge mode on:
A universe, or reality (I really think they are synonymous), is only as large as you
can perceive. The universe of the cow in Bo's "The Quality Event" is just as complete
as ours, but not as large. Since we can perceive the reality of the viruses, they are
part of our universe. But they can't, or at least they don't necessarily, perceive
our reality, so their universe begins with ones, zeros and the MLIR as the base
inorganic level.
Fudge mode off:
> I didn't know there was a strict or classical MoQ. There's the start of the
> MoQ as outlined in Lila (less than 1% according to P.) but apart from that
> there's very little else outside of the LS.
I guess not. I meant classical as opposed to romantic and strict as opposed to fuzzy.
> Inductivism is where you predict the future for ALL cases based on past
> experience and knowledge. It doesn't work well enough to found an entire metaphysics
> upon and any system based on it falls over on the appearance of a single counter-example.
> I've not suggested this as a basis for the MoQ so I'm not sure why you've mentioned it.
Perhaps I was unfair but I thought the computer virus was the counter-example that
triggered L5.
> However as you have, saying "because they are enough" is pure inductivism. You are
> using current, inadequate and incomplete knowledge to predict, for all time,
> that the 4 levels of the MoQ are sufficient to explain everything. This is
> dogmatism of the worst sort.
But the levels is a generalized description and as such, it can be used
deductively. Granted, it's roots are inductive but now we can use it in the
other direction.
> I agree that we should try and make the MoQ as
> complete as possible but this doesn't mean ignoring a possible next level or
> fudging an explanation because we don't like a possible outcome. I can't see that
> this will damage the MoQ or cause it to change into some other metaphysics. A
> metaphysics can and should grow as it produces greater understanding. The
> MoQ is not a stagnant body of thought. What we have so far is a tiny portion of
> the whole MOQ. Why are you trying to restrict it.
Ok, I'll rephrase "because they are enough" to "to avoid redundancy". Redundancy
causes, or at least makes contradictions possible. You said that "The ones and
zeroes and the MLIR are an ANALOGUE of the inorganic level and the 'laws' of
physics". I don't think it's merely an analogue, I think that if you generalize
them into metaphysical levels they become identical and redundant.
> I can accept that computer viruses may not be part of a higher level -
> remember I said this thread was exploratory - but the physical order of the
> universe also being the moral order of the universe does not preclude this in
> any way that I can see. If a computer virus is formed by L5 PoV's then, from it's point of
> view (and the MoQ) it is more moral than IntPoV's on down, but less moral
> that DQ.
Here's another proposed MoQ axiom:
Patterns of a lower level can't tell manipulations by a higher level apart
from DQ.
(It's not really fudging, we've talked about it before but I believe you're
not convinced.)
This means that since we're very well aware of the computer viruses and the
Internet and we're only 4 level beings, they can't be L5.
> Everything covered by the term Object. There is a different relationship between
> patterns of value of more advanced forms.
Now I'm curious! I'm extremely catholic about the dependency and will begin
fudging as never before if you find counter-examples.
> As a metaphysics is a philosophical investigation of the nature, constitution and
> structure of reality if you fail to take account of the physics - including it's
> shortcomings and inadequacies - when discussing the metaphysics then the two
> quickly come to bear no relationship to each other. They are too tightly linked for
> either to ignore the other.
Yes. Constructing a metaphysics is an iterative process, first you use induction to
make a general metaphysics. Then you test this metaphysics on reality deductively.
> > First try to understand the multi-dimensional view of the
> > levels, then criticize it.
>
> You mean your view. When you present a consistent and workable multi-dimensional
> view, supported by reason, and which can be experienced then I will.
It's not only my view. It's Bo's original dimension analogy and I saw lots of
it in Troy's rock last month. And I think it's consistent and workable in every
way. Where's the inconsistencies?
> In the meantime
> I'll continue to test the MoQ and see where that inquiry leads. My view may be
> different to yours but that doesn't mean that you are right and I am wrong. It is
> most likely that neither of us is completely correct. Hence the thought experiment
> to discover where the inconsistencies and mistakes lie.
I agree completely.
> > I accept the SOTAQI idea so far as to acknowledge that SO thinking values
> > the same things as intellectual patterns. That doesn't mean that SO thinking
> > is aware of that fact, it thinks it is objective.
>
> Sorry. That still isn't very clear. Does this mean that Q-Intellect values
> objectivity?
No, it means that Q-Intellect and SO thinking values Quality. Q-Intellect
is aware of that, SO thinking isn't.
Magnus
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:33 BST