Fintan Dunne (findunne@iol.ie)
Fri, 29 May 1998 02:19:11 +0100
Date: 27 May 98
Time: ....to Party!
Hi Squad,
>The Subject-Object Metaphysics is the assumption that the ONLY
>Subject (Pattern Recognition Algorithm) is Mind and the ONLY
>Object(Pattern) is Matter; that these two are of different substance
>and communicate by Entropy/Data from Matter to Mind.
>The Metaphysics of Quality says that Pattern Recognition
>Algorithm IS Pattern and grew from Pattern and both are products
>of Quality. They exchange Quality and Entropy/Data with each other
>across the boundaries of layers of increasing abstraction.
That definition i gave is more PHYSICS than metaphysics, and
good physics at that. Thanks to Johanthan for bringing up
patterns. But as Donny says:
> What's metaphysics?.....literary activities that take place in books"
Exactly. And hardly any philosophy takes place in philosophy
classes- just analysis of existing philosophy. But we are in an era
of re-integration of the many disciplines into which Western thought
has fragmented.
So that definition is not only good metaphysics and philisophy,
it is good RELIGION too, for it says that GOD IS IMMANENT.
Quality/Meaning is all pervasive from atom to mind.
I think we should be wary of defining SOM in purely 'trade' terms.
Yet, I maintain you can derive Dianas' classic metaphysical
definition of SOM from the above. After all I based it on Diana's.
Bo:
> This might be as good as gold Fintan, but aren't we reinventing
> the gunpowder over and over again? By so many ways have we
> reached the conclusion that the Subject-Object division is false,
> but what good does that do? Idealists and mystics has said so for
> ever and yet does matter appear different from thinking about
> matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, matter does APPEAR different from thinking about matter. But
they are both constructed from Pattern and Pattern Recognition
Algorithm(PRA), where mind is an abstraction of matter across the
MOQ layers. That is not my mystical opinion, but a demonstrably
valid PHYSICS model- using Pattern/PRA and the MOQ layers.
Subject and Object are both Pattern. The EXCLUSIVE S-O split
is gone, now it's INTEGRATED..
Not only that, but the question "did life emerge from the primordial
swamp by lucky chance or by pre-determination?" is ANSWERED.
There was no chance involved. When raw Pattern, in the form of
Light/X-ray etc. dips it's toe into the sub-atomic realm of matter it
AUTOMATICALLY becomes Pattern Recognition Algorithm(PRA),
and it now NEEDS to be a PRA, in order to defend it's energy level
against entropy. With this mechanism and Quality driving it forward,
the rest is, as they say- history.
Horse:
The MOQ would appear to suport a 'complimentary' concept in relation
to the A AND NOT A. The MOQ would say A AND COMPLEMENT A.
Or am i on the right track at all on this?
Donny:
Thanks for the healty dose of context evaluation of the SOM
question. I liked that "Religion is opposed to S-O Consciousness
as a PSYCHOLOGICAL experience of the world." But religions push a
pure explanation of the world too. You also said:
> They think that the goal of metaphysics is to ANSWER the
> question, "What really exists?" and thus offer a correct picture
> of the world (like science does), but the goal is to look at the
> question -- to ask what we mean by "exists" and, thus, what
> would COUNT AS a correct picture of the world (Correct in
> what way?).
Correct..... in that it should look 'beautiful' to the Pattern
Recognition Algorithm in YOUR head. Then mine, then
everyone's if it is that good. As Johathan said of my
'Pattern' definition, "You say it beautifully".
Blush.... He didn't focus on whether i was right (implied), but
valued the actual words used. A definition should have an
ecomomy of expression, clarity, accessability in it's terminology,
etc. These are as important as it's logical construction.
The definition is my poem in Physics.
i'm a mystic, poet and hard-nosed scientist. But, i can't separate
science, metaphysics and religion.
Regards
Fintan Dunne
findunne@iol.ie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST