From: David Zentgraf (deceze@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 30 2005 - 09:25:44 BST
Hi Reinier,
> Well, applying your own cause and effect reasoning, can you have a
> thought that
> has no cause? If you answer no then thoughts are subject to cause
> and effect, if
> you answer yes then there is free will and the world is not
> deterministic.
I answer No. There is no thought without cause. Never said anything
else. What about the famous example used by Pirsig himself, about the
child born without senses living on life support? It's been said that
it could not develop any thought, because of missing input. That does
not only explain the principle of an "a priori" world, the reason why
Pirsig used the example, but it also follows that there's no thought
without cause and therefore no free will.
> The brain
> intellectualizes thoughts. It can certainly alter thoughts and thus
> produce new
> ones on an intellectual level.
I'd say thoughts = consciousness. Maybe even thoughts = consciousness
= DQ. It's what happens "now", what's right on the forefront of
experience.
> To apply it to the MoQ, a thought is an intellectual static pattern
> coming from
> DQ.
I'd say a thought is DQ based on external stimuli *and* already
present static patterns. DQ/thoughts create static patterns, which in
turn influence new "incoming" DQ/thoughts, sometimes producing new or
simply altered DQ/thoughts and thereby in turn new static patterns
(and so on).
> At the same time there is DQ that gets 'valued' on other levels and
> thus becomes
> part of the social, organic or inorganic level. It all comes from
> the same
> 'source', DQ, but the level on which it gets valued, creates the
> mental picture
> of it (This is the intellectual S/O division).
Yes, no, maybe. Not sure I get it correctly. I think DQ/thoughts in
the end only produce a physical reaction, i.e. behaviour (-patterns).
The "social level" is just an abstraction of the reactions of a large
group of people, which all behave more or less the same way (because
they've all been influenced by the same stimuli and therefore all
produce pretty much the same reactions, cause and effect). DQ doesn't
really get valued on different levels, it's just one and the same
level, but the results can be broken down into different levels if
you so wish.
Or maybe you need to clarify your definition of "different levels" to
me.
Chrs,
Dav
On 2005/09/30, at 8:59, platootje@netscape.net wrote:
> resending this because I believe it didn't came thru....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: platootje
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:03:44 -0400
> Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of
>
> Hello David:
>
>
>> Maybe physical was a bad word, but it still fits best I guess. I mean
>> that these things I called physical can be explained by a chain of
>> cause and effect. Except for your "picking up of thoughts", which is
>> not explicable by cause and effect chains. You either believe in it
>> or you don't, but nobody has found any prove that there are thoughts
>> out there waiting to be picked up (as far as I'm aware).
>>
>
> Well, applying your own cause and effect reasoning, can you have a
> thought that
> has no cause? If you answer no then thoughts are subject to cause
> and effect, if
> you answer yes then there is free will and the world is not
> deterministic.
>
>
>> As far as I'm concerned physics are based on quantum-physics.
>> Quantum-
>> physics explains more than physics does, because physics is a subset
>> of quantum-physics.
>>
>
> I would rather say that quantum-physiscs is a subset of physics.
>
> Which doesn't mean that the laws of physic are
>
>> invalid, they're just not universal enough to explain everything.
>>
>
> Some apply with large masses and large velocity (relativity) some
> apply at very
> microscopic level (quatum-physics).
>
>
>> [Reinier earlier]
>>
>>>>> Think about it.... you can because the stuff your brains made up
>>>>> off is able to sense the stuff that thougts are made up off. We're
>>>>> a kind of radio and we can pick up different frequencies,
>>>>> depending
>>>>> on which sense we use.
>>>>>
>>
>> [me]
>>
>>>> For that we'd have to believe that there's
>>>> something like "consciousness" or "thoughts" floating around which
>>>>
> we
>
>>>> are able to pick up through some non-explicable process.
>>>>
>>
>> [Reinier again]
>>
>>> No, thoughts are the result of experience or valueing, like every
>>> else is.
>>>
>>
>> Err... is there a contradiction in what you're saying or am I just
>> not getting this right? Either we pick up thoughts that are already
>> there, as you said earlier, or thoughts are created through the
>> process of experiencing. Which one is it?
>>
>
> I admit my mistake, I did not do a good job explaining what I
> meant. The brain
> intellectualizes thoughts. It can certainly alter thoughts and thus
> produce new
> ones on an intellectual level.
> To apply it to the MoQ, a thought is an intellectual static pattern
> coming from
> DQ. Since it is the brain that 'works' with it, we call it a
> thought and it
> becomes part of the intellectual level.
> At the same time there is DQ that gets 'valued' on other levels and
> thus becomes
> part of the social, organic or inorganic level. It all comes from
> the same
> 'source', DQ, but the level on which it gets valued, creates the
> mental picture
> of it (This is the intellectual S/O division).
>
> Kind regards,
> Reinier.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 30 2005 - 17:52:01 BST