Roger responds to John, Magnus, Diana, Rikus and Bo on the elusive ghost in
the machine
To Bodvar and Diana:
Thanks Bo for the kind words. In my earlier drafts of the post I specifically
mentioned you and your Solaqi, but then deleted it for fear that I would
misrepresent you.
You wrote:
>>>>Well, what do you - ALL - think? As I see it we have two main
courses. One is Diana's self as a convergence of all levels values,
the other is Roger's self as an intellectual abstraction. I back
Diana in a very general way (I don't think that all levels can be
self-centred simultaneously, but the infinitesimal time lapse is not
noticed). For a more easily defendable position I go for Roger's.>>>>
In an attempt to synthesize these views, I would say that the self is an
intellectual abstraction of this collection of patterns. Memories, body,
social standing, the current cells composing the body, etc. In rereading
Diana, I thought she said as much. I think I agree completely with her post.
*****************************
To Magnus and Rikus:
Magnus wrote:
>>>>>When we copy the original, we will take inorganic samples of it.
Each such sample is a Quality Event, or observation to use quantum
physics terms. As far as I know (anybody correct me if I'm wrong),
evidence indicates that our memory are stored using sub-atomic
quantum functions. This and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle means
that inorganic observations can't extract all information stored in
these functions, i.e. we can't extract our memory without distorting
it>>>>>>>.
I see. If this is so, then technically it would be impossible to do an exact
copy. Rikus’ whirlpool idea leads to a similar inability to duplicate. As a
chaotic structure, any error in duplication….even at a quantum level, would
lead to a different whirlpool.
By the way, I agree that Rikus’ analogy is a great one to the emergence of
life. A whirlpool is not the water or the energy or the bank, it is the
pattern created by energy and water flowing through the system. In
chaos/complexity terms, I believe it is referred to as a dissipative
structure. Life is also explained as such a structure. The difference is
that life is a chemical process where positive feedback loops allow the system
to maintain its pattern of organization while adapting within the universe
around.
The problem with freezing a dissipative structure, is that once frozen, it no
longer exists. A frozen whirlpool is not a whirlpool and a frozen life is not
living. In addition, I agree with John that the freezing process destroys and
changes the chemical structure, so that when thawed it is basically different
than before the freezing . We are back again to the technical impossibility
issue.
***************************
To John:
John wrote:
>>>I'm afraid I couldn't understand your question, Roger, "Is a copy of an
atom a real atom?" as
well as your suggestion that molecules "aren't the static materialistic things
of classic science
either". And this brings me to a number of your statements with which I was
uncomfortable.>>>>
I meant that the solid material objects of classic science have been replaced
with wavelike patterns of probabilities in quantum theory. To quote Henry
Stapp "An elementary particle is not an independently existing unanalyzable
entity. It is in essence, a set of relationships that reach outward to other
things." To quote RMP, a particle is an inorganic pattern of value.
John wrote:
>>>Roger says "Our minds are one of these theories", and "theories are just as
much a pattern
as any other static pattern of value in the universe", and earlier, "'self'
and 'body' and the
'world' are all value patterns inferred from Direct Experience." I feel a
similar disquiet when
Pirsig equates quality and value and ethics……
So with Roger's use of 'pattern', it is a great word and moves the debate in a
worthwhile
direction. However I am uncomfortable with lumping together my theories, my
self, my body
and the world, and and saying they are all somehow equally patterns. Perhaps
at one level
they are all patterns. If so, it is also apparent there are very real
differences between them
which need explanation. It all sounds too glib, like the New Age use of the
word 'energy' to
explain everything and nothing.>>>>>>>>
I thought Pirsig did a good job of explaining the world and the universe with
patterns of value and DQ. And I thought the differences between the levels was
explained in detail.
John wrote:
>>>I feel we risk tumbling into post modern relativity here, where your
fantasy is just as valid as
my fantasy, and we have no way of assessing the truth of either. Pirsig's MOQ
rescues us
from this by pointing to the immediacy of our felt experience of quality. I
know quality when I
encounter it. Now we need to develop a language that takes account of this
knowing as well
as the intellectual exploration of the MOQ.>>>>>>
I agree with your resolution to the above paragraph. The immediacy of Direct
Experience precedes these fictions and abstractions of the self and the
world. Quality is not something that we ‘just’ experience; quality creates us
and the world. Magnus has a great page in the forum on this Quality Event.
Roger
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:35 GMT