From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Thu Apr 15 2004 - 04:27:59 BST
Hi Platt (et al),
Deepest apologies for the tardiness of this response - I had
"connectivity problems" ... and now I have 200+ postings to ponder!!!
(Naturally I don't assume that these are in response to me :-), but as
yours in direct response to mine I will answer this (mostly)
irrespective of other postings)
Platt Holden wrote:
>Hi Jim,
>
>Thanks for a most 'informative' post. :-) A few comments.
>
>
>
>>However, I can also remember Pirsig when talking abut the Giant, the
>>...
>>
>Pirsig says the city is a static pattern. "This city is another static
>pattern left behind by the creative force." (Lila-17) (Note his
>description of DQ as the "creative force.")
>
>Further, Pirsig says individuals responding to DQ are responsible for
>bringing about change at the social level:
>
>"The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it
>weakens a society's Dynamic capability-its capability for change and
>evolution. It's not the "nice" guys who bring about real social change.
>"Nice" guys look nice because they're conforming. It's the "bad" guys, who
>only look nice a hundred years later, that are the real Dynamic force in
>social evolution. That was the real moral lesson of the brujo in Zuni. If
>those priests had killed him they would have done great harm to their
>society's ability to grow and change." (Lila-13)
>
>
Yes. I agree with you, but only insofar as this is a de facto
situation. Given other postings which I have skimmed to sort this into
a thread (my email client threading is not perfect) I think this problem
is a bit recurrent with regard to the DQ of puddles and rocks.
What we are dealing with is a situation where the collective DQ is still
exhibited largely by the constituents of the larger entity rather than
the entity itself. In terms of rock and puddles, the properties of the
larger entity are simply the collective dynamic behaviour of the
constituents.
It is accepted as "fact" (and think in the spirit of strong empiricism
that we should accept it) that at least one transition from collective
to individual existed - the transition from single cellular entities to
multicellular creatures. My opinion of the city is that it is a
"pre-self collective" - i.e. it is a coral skeleton rather than a human
skeleton, as yet. I can imagine certain technological advances that
will change the distinction of self. As yet the city is not self
aware. In 20 years, I am not so sure.
>
>
>>ertainly the interaction of social and intellectual static qualities with
>>dynamic quality is mediated only by human beings.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, I think that's the point.
>
>
I think we agree, but don't yet know it :-)
>>(There is a degree to
>>which some other animal species are social amongst themselves and even
>>interact with humans that way though I can't see any others being
>>intellectual irrespective of how much problem solving intelligence a few
>>species demonstrate. It is arguable whether artificial intelligence will
>>ever be considered 'intellectual'.
>>
>>
>
>An interesting comment by Pirsig about artificial intelligence, from his
>Notes to the book, 'Lila's Child:"
>
>"Since the MOQ states that consciousness (i.e. intellectual patterns) is
>the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that
>stand for patterns of experience, then artificial intelligence would be
>the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in a machine, that
>stand for patterns of experience. If one agrees that experience exists at
>the inorganic level, then it is clear that computers already have
>artificial intelligence. A question arises if the term "consciousness" is
>expanded to mean "intuition" or "mystic awareness." Then computers are
>shut out by the fact that static patterns do not create Dynamic quality."
>(Note 32)
>
>
I agree with this interpretation. I do not think that symbolic
manipulation, however fast, equals intelligence. I.e. I do not think
that (stupid)^(lots) == (clever) (^ means "to the power of" - I am
precluded use of superscipt in a text only posting). IMO it is the
dynamic quality that exists at the molecular inoganic level (i.e. the DQ
to which the static inorganic level(s) are capable of responding) that
generates the set of static molecular patterns we know as biochemistry.
And so on. The fact that human intellectual awareness can appreciate
eternal concepts like prime numbers does not mean that prime numbers are
DQ perceptive entities - and a similar argument applies to electrons.
In order to achieve awareness, I would argue that computer hardware must
in some way access DQ at the atomic/molecular level and amplify it.
Naturally current orthodoxy has no way of doing this as it does not
acknowledge anything other than static patterns of inorganic quality and
has great difficulty in dealing with the existence of intellectual
quality in association to them, let alone other patterns or DQ.
However it is clear that much of the dynamic of people is related to an
awful lot of simple information processing and the generation of a
fiction of consciousness upon which DQ appears to act - this is
empirically demonstrable - and deserves a thread of its own.
>>The possibility of extraterrestrial
>>intellectuals I will discount for the purposes of this discussion as I
>>don't think they affect us. ) This what I think he means by "only a living
>>being can do that": it's a de facto situation referring to those levels
>>which he's given a rhetorical slant, not a statement of a theoretical
>>absolute.
>>
>>
>
>I take Pirsig at his word. To suggest, "Well, he didn't really mean it"
>seems speculative.
>
>
Pirsig is a rhetoritician. I think he did "mean it" but only in certain
circumstances which he doesn't quote all the time. And short of direct
statements by the man, we have to interpolate. But even *if* Pirsig
disagrees with me, both he, you and I are humans. He has introduced a
useful concept and we are running with it from there: his vetos are to
be respected, but should not be considered gospel.
>>Again Pirsig also talks about atoms being static patterns of moral value
>>and the quality felt at the atomic level being a cousin of the quality felt
>>...
>>
>>
>
>Yes, one can argue that since humans respond to DQ and humans are
>made up of molecules then molecules respond to DQ, too. Perhaps. But my
>point is that the inorganic level, by itself, not part of a higher level
>organism, is no longer capable of responding to DQ's evolutionary force.
>Perhaps you know of evidence to the contrary.
>
>
I think I dealt with this later on in my posting, but for the record IMO
the DQ that biological systems are capable of responding to simply
swamps the DQ that pre-biological systems are (in deference to other
posts I'll avoid "inorganic" and the IMMHO somewhat useless assertion
that social structures are "inorganic")
>>We also have the problem here that Pirsig is (dare I say) not completely
>>correct in his identification of 'dynamic' and 'static' molecules when
>>...
>>
>>
>
>I think Pirsig's point is that DNA is now a static pattern, like a
>workshop manual, but was initially created by the evolutionary force of DQ
>seeking "betterness."
>
>
Agreed.
>>As far
>>as I am aware, there is no molecule that is dynamic (I suppose the media
>>would inevitably call it the "god molecule" if such a molecule was
>>hypothesised), just increasingly transient ones. The dynamic aspect of
>>this level is the chemical reactions.
>>
>>
>
>Chemical reactions occur in predictable static patterns. I see no dynamic
>aspect in mere changes.
>
>
I think I have seen other postings directing you at the work of the
Nobel prize winning chemist Ilya Prigogine and I will do the same.
Whilst his verbose, arty style may not be to your taste (i.e. hardly
plain English), he does give an excellent description of the
adaptability evinced in inorganic chemistry - this description is
available in the English translation of his work, entitled "Order Out Of
Chaos".
Suffice to say that one perspective observes randomness, another
observes volition.
>>The idea of panspermia is an alternative (where 'life' evolved
>>elsewhere to be brought to Earth in cometary bombardment), as are various
>>...
>>
>The initial life process as described by Pirsig could have taken place
>elsewhere. I join you in hoping the lander survives.
>
>
:-)
>>I'm not sure what you mean when you say "consciousness emerging from
>>bundle of nerve tissue". Current thinking (backed up by reproducible
>>research I hasten to add) tends to indicate that "common sense" ideas
>>involving consciousness are misleading and that consciousness is very much
>>a set of post-hoc adjustments to try and maintain an illusion of self. But
>>you might mean something completely different... ...and I need to read up
>>on a lot of that stuff anyway.
>>
>>
>
>All I meant was the brain consists of nerve tissue which mysteriously
>'creates' awareness, experience, memory. I put 'creates' in parens because
>even that notion is far from settled. The brain, like other bodily organs
>that respond to outside influences, may tap into a pre-existing field of
>consciousness as some have suggested. As a physicist you must have
>wondered why human observation appears to effect a particle's behavior.
>Much still to be figured out when it comes to consciousness.
>
>
From a physicist's PoV, I doubt the collapse of a particle's
wavfunction has to do with "consciousness" (whatever that is) rather the
sharing of information across diverse systems which becomes
irreversible. And the brain would be one of those systems. AFAIC all
systems are static patterns of quality interacting with DQ, whether we
are talking electrons or elections. From a MoQ PoV I would speculate
that the collapse of a quantum state is to do with the ability of the
associated SQ patterns to reform the quantum state. But that sort of
speculation is going to degenerate into gobbledegook unless backed up by
some serious mathematics. A good book on Quantum Physics and
speculation on that domain is "Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality" by
A.I.M. Rae, a lecturer at Birmingham University, England. I think he
takes this to the closest possible description to quality in the absence
of quality and tends to a MoQ PoV, but of course can't go there because
he lacks, or can't use, a MoQ.
> > >There's no evolution at the inorganic level that I know of other than what
>
>
>>>humans have created in the way of new compounds and such. Physics
>>>wouldn't be possible if the inorganic level didn't consist of static
>>>patterns that repeated themselves predictably in perpetuity.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Generally in mainstream physics - hypothesising about physical changes that
>>by definition you cannot measure (easily) is not much use in engineering.
>>...
>>
>That there's activity at the particle level with particles appearing and
>disappearing at an individually unpredictable fashion doesn't indicate an
>MOQ dynamic response. Unpredictability, such as what side of a mountain
>will erode first or which way an ant will turn is NOT the sole determinant
>of the presence of DQ or even an reliable indicator. DQ is the force of
>evolutionary creation. No possibility of evolution, no DQ.
>
>
However human behaviour is being modelled with varying degrees of
success with regards to financial markets, etc.
I often think that in looking at the physical universe, we are doing the
equivalent of trying to describe human behaviour by monitoring bank
accounts...
Randomness vs. volition deserves it's own thread. I think we could
resolve a lot of the discussions with regard to rocks and puddles with that.
>>As far as evolution at the inorganic level, as I've said previously, it
>>happens so slowly.
>>
>>
>
>True enough. Have you any thoughts at what might evolve at the inorganic
>level in the future if indeed evolution can occur there?
>
>
I don't think that inorganic (read pre-biological) evolution stands a
chance where biological or equivalent evolution exists. We are
constrained to the 2+ hours of the Huygens probe and whatever the Mars
landers turn up in that respect. A pity (well it was on a shoestring
budget) that Beagle 2 didn't make it because it had some experiments
specifically tuned to these sort of investigations. The conditions of
Venus and the Moon I would think preclude inorganic DQ to make the jump
to something analogous to biology - I could be wrong with respect to
core planetary conditions, but these are not testable in the lab. I
would speculate quite freely that "life" could exist on the giant
planets and even within the Sun - but we have as yet no means of
investigating or simulating such situations, except by asymptotic
mathematical modelling. All I would state is a "faith" if you will that
DQ is much more adaptable than the intellectual study of the conditions
of DQ in our immediate circumstances currently asserts. DQ will latch
onto *any* static encoding method to make itself more flexible if not
swamped by impossible odds.
>Thanks for a great post. In the interests of space, I've omitted some of
>your thoughts and hope you'll find no offense in that.
>
Absolutely none taken!
>I look forward to
>hearing from you again. A physicist interested in philosophy is somewhat
>of a rarity. We're fortunate to have your contributions.
>
>
You flatter me! In the interests of clarity I should state I have a
physicists training (and consequent degree), but a long departure from
that orthodoxy (I went into computers with AI interest). Mainly because
I can't conceive myself getting funding for my esoteric interests unless
a small fortune happens to come my way. I suppose that I am guilty of a
small misrepresentation :-/. However I will state to the best of my
understanding the current position of physics and other scientific
disciplines (I have no wish to see MoQ continually thrown in the bin of
junk science because of misinformation and allusion to astrology). But
I am not a slave to physics as currently understood; I am not a great
follower of dogma, but I should have learnt tact and diplomacy earlier
in life - this might have helped me be a "mainstream" physicist - i.e.
to appear to accord with a viewpoint contrary to my own in order to
further my own PoV.
>Best,
>Platt
>
>
And you,
Jim
Again - apologies for the extreme lateness of this post: "circumstances
beyond my control" and all that.
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 : Thu Apr 15 2004 - 21:35:03 BST