From: Erin N. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 14:22:56 GMT
>===== Original Message From email@example.com =====
>"Do they have machines that can detect [lies] on their own?"
>I don't know, but it's not relevant unless you interpret Pirsig's
>"no instrument can detect" to mean that the instrument must spell
>out what it detected on a ticker-tape or worse that the instrument
>is aware of what it detected. This stretches the common expectations
>of a machine or instrument, as does the expectation that it can
>complete the detection without anybody looking at the measurements,
>or looking at them but not making reasonable inferences from them.
No we can have a machine that beeps if a heart rate goes
below a certain rate so I would grant that the
machine detected a low heart rate.
Does this machine indicate when somebody is lieing?
When I see pictures of this I always see somebody
who is trained to intepret the readout decide whether
the person is a lieing.
GLENN: As David said, we all add something when we read a measurement off
>an instrument or a machine. All a machine might detect is a pounding
>heart, and from this we infer that a candidate doesn't have the right
ERIN: Yes I agree that the observer affects the
observed. Lost me on the pounding heat thing.
GlENN:When we read an outdoor thermometer, all we get
>is an inorganic account of the temperature, and from this we infer how
>hot or cold we'll feel when we step outside - a subjective biological
ERIN: WEll I agree there is a subjective and objective
aspect to feeling cold.
GLENN: If we don't allow this human element, then we can all agree
>that "no instrument can detect hot or cold", much less the President.
ERIN: Well here is the point. We can set a machine
to dectect when it is hot or cold (by beeping or whatever)
but yeah that hot or cold is relative to us.
I don't agree a machine can detect the President.
It can detect a fingerprint. You would have to
tell the machine what fingerprint is the President.
So yes this 'human element' is what I thought was
Pirsig's point so whats the prob?
GLENN:>By the way, MDers, there seems to be many examples of subjective
>biological patterns. Pirsig even mentions some, like the pain from
>a hot stove and the high from orgasm. But according to Pirsig in LC,
>the biological level is the province of the objective world. Apparently
>this isn't completely right, either.
>But let's see what we can deduce from Pirsig's statements:
>1) biological patterns are objects outside our minds
>2) the devil is a biological pattern
>Conclusion: the devil is running around the earth, incarnate.
>It's no wonder MOQ non-believers think the MOQ is spooky. It is.
I find your reasoning spooky. This makes no sense to me.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 26 2002 - 14:16:54 GMT