Re: MD Patterns (and consciousness)

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 22:33:47 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Noam Chomsky"

    Hi Mark

    As far as time as a static concept
    goes it is one of those that is incoherent and
    where SOM breraks down, hence problems
    with getting relativity to agree with quantum theory
    as you know. Once again I recommend Bergson on time
    also see his book on Einstein.

    regards
    David M

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
      To: moq_discuss@moq.org
      Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 9:08 PM
      Subject: Re: MD Patterns (and consciousness)

      Hi Mark

      I am not sure we should associate time with patterns.

      Mark 2-6-04: Hi David M, Pirsig suggests it may be a mistake to assign
    objectivity to anything. Where does this leave time? We have a sense of
    time from our biological patterning, and we have the provisional
    concepts of time in science. Thus, time has a history! If time has a
    history, what stops an infinite regression of previous notions of time?
      If you recourse to absolute time then Stephen Hawking is waiting to
    hear from you David. ;)

      I see patterns as a snap shot, perhaps an enduring one.
      There is a chair. It stays the same, in that sense it is timeless.
      When process kicks in, when the chair rots away we can experience
      time. Imagine nothing changing at all, would we cease to have time?
      So time perhaps should be linked to patterns breaking down and
      patterns emerging from nothing, and they go back to nothing.

      Mark 2-6-04: But you have just said, 'I am not sure we should
    associate time with patterns.' And now you are saying, 'So time perhaps
    should be linked to patterns breaking down and
      patterns emerging from nothing, and they go back to nothing.'

      For example a person dies, the same atoms will be lying in the
      death bed but the capacity to change dynamically will have departed.
      Make any sense?

      regards
      David M

      Mark 2-6-04: Atoms are scientific concepts. Concepts are provisional.
    Concepts are not the primary empirical nature of experience. The MOQ
    says Quality is the primary empirical nature of experience, with
    concepts forming a static hierarchy depending on their pragmatic value.
      The concept of time has high pragmatic value, but it is a static
    pattern non the less.

      I understand what you are saying about atoms and corpses, but atoms
    are Inorganic patterns of value in the MOQ. We know what the MOQ says
    about how Inorganic patterns form Organic patterns, and these aspects of
    the event stream are empirically verifiable postulations which are
    themselves part of the static intellectual pattern of value which is the
    MOQ itself.

      The best way i feel we may combine static patterns and DQ is in
    coherence. Increase in coherence is the MOQ's way of describing the
    processes you indicate with your example of atoms and corpse.
      A Human being is more coherent than a corpse.
      (Unless you happen to be Paul Wolfovitze?)

      All the best,
      Mark

    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 Jun 03 2004 - 00:14:52 BST