hi Diana
i think you have some very good questions and believe it or not, i have been
attempting to question them as well, though i havent met with much success
as yet.
you wrote:
I've been trying to find a solution to the
discontinuity-of-matter-at-the-quantum-level platypus.
Diana, this is a very tough question which i attempt to look for within the
complement. i am unsure anyone saw that my triangle thought experiment leads
to that question.
Diana wrote:
While I'm not criticizes Pirsig's methods, if the MoQ is to be taken
seriously somebody has to come along and sort it out into some kind of
classical order.
Diana, if we sort out classical order within the MOQ, are we not turning
into classical science and away from what the MOQ represents? with my
thought experiment, i recieved no real responses, except for criticisms that
i was dealing a classical SOM hand in setting up the parameters of the
experiment (which i do not believe). perhaps the concept is too difficult to
grasp, or perhaps its just me that is thinking at the question from an odd
angle that no one else sees and is just plain wrong. i am willing to admit
that too.
still, to begin sorting out the MOQ i dont believe we should do it
classically. and that is why its so difficult, because we have to invent a
new way of sorting.
you wrote:
Externally the MoQ has an even harder task ahead: it has to explain the
nature of consciousness, nothing less. Pirsig has already given us the
idea that consciousness is value, but that's only a starting point. With
a fully realized MoQ we should be able to explain quantum phenomena,
artificial intelligence, even the nature of the self.
Diana, my thought experiment ties into consciousness, quantum phenomena, and
i can add a simple box to the experiment and examine the nature of artifical
intelligence as well. going back to my experiment, we have two triangles,
G-triangle and T-triangle, 'on' a two dimensional surface. they cannot
overlap, their awareness is contained only inside the boundaries of the
triangles, and they cannot communicate at a distance. they somehow use the
complementary triangle they each share to communicate, a real platypus if
you can see it. its hiding, but its there!
now i will put both triangles in a box. what have i done? before the box,
both triangles observed an open complement of themselves, but with the box,
the complement is reduced to the boundaries of box and is no longer open.
the triangles are no longer babies. they have grown up and they have bodies
now, represented by the box. objects also appear on the inside of the box.
i now have introduced both a subject and object into complementary. the
triangles, contained in their object boxes, still inhabit a complementary
triangle but that complement has been obscured by the object box. if we
examine boundaries of the actuality triangle and its complement, however, we
can perhaps examine the quantum phenomena occurring there by assigning a
plus-ness valueness to the inside of the actuality triangle, and a
minus-ness valuelessness to the outside of the triangle.
in doing so, we are ignoring the object box for now. this is perhaps where
some disagreement arises when thinking about this experiment. at the
boundary of the actuality triangles plus-ness and the minus-ness, lies zero
point. it seems to me that this is where quantum phenomena arises, within
zero point.
going back to the object box, we will notice artificial intelligence is an
object within the box surrounding the actuality triangle and not part of the
actuality triangle at all. computers cannot communicate at a distance
without some type of wiring system to tie them together. this wiring system
does not lie within the actuality triangle but in the object box surrounding
the triangle.
it is indicated to me by this analogy that artificial intelligence is
fundamentally different from our 'real' intelligence. it represents
something outside ourselves. this is of course only my interpretation and i
am open to further explorations with those who know more about AI than i do.
and it may lend credence to Horses theory of level 5 as well, though i still
think we should exhaust every other possibility first and keep the MOQ as
statically Dynamic as possible without destroying it.
well Diana, i offer this as an expanded way of thinking, but it will not
sort the MOQ in any classical way. that is why its being percieved in that
manner, because we have no other way to percieve it! can we build a way
together? that is my question. and as usual, i have no answers.
best wishes to all,
glove
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 - 16:02:34 BST