Ken Clark, Bodvar and Magnus
>Glove and Bo and Magnus,
> Referring to Glove's msg of 1 29 99 at about 7:19 PM.
> There is a lot of obfuscation going on that needs to be cleared up
>somehow. Magnus is saying that two value patterns engaged in a Quality
>event constitutes observation. I agree with him.
> Glove is puzzled because he interprets observation to be "human"
>observation. He is also correct if we take the narrow view that the MoQ
>only applies to humanity.
> I think these misunderstandings can be cleared up if we look at the
>universe as being sort of like a biological syncytium-a quivering mass of
>energy and life permeated by Quality and Value in continual operation. In
>this view all happenings in the universe wold be observation and all would
>be "moral" at the non-sentient level. All would be connected, however
>tenuously and all would be "aware" in the Quality sense.
> We can also clear up the same obfuscation if we agree to look at Quality
>as being divided between non-sentient quality and sentient (human) Quality.
>I prefer this approach because it helps when we attack such questions as
>evil and such. This is so because when we reach the level of sentience we
>inject a factor into the universe which is entirely new and has never
>existed before. With sentience we have become capable of altering the
>normal flow of Quality and entropy (the time line) of the universe. We can
>no longer talk about all aspects of the universe without qualifying our
>statements. Look at the difference between Magnus' "observation and Gloves
>observation.
> I don't know how the "tree falling in the forest discussion came out but
>it would certainly be "observed" but it would not be heard unless a
>functioning animal ear were close. It would not be cut up for firewood
>unless a "sentient" human observed it.
> Ken Clark
Hi Ken
I have a particular liking for the koan of the tree falling (but any
observation will do) because if
it's delved into deeply, one will find that a sound is an observation too,
just like a sight, a taste, a feel or a smell. All are experienced
observations, made by
an observer. You say it is your opinion I am puzzled because I consider all
observations human observations...that is not quite right.
I consider all
observations as MY observations. Any other observing entity must communicate
their observations with me unambiguously for me to rely on them. This, btw,
is the essence of complementarity. Notice I am not saying nothing else
observes, be they human, plant, mineral or animal, it is simply that MY
observations are the only reality I have, the only reality any one of us
has.
Magnus:
We wouldn't "know". Knowing implicates intellectual patterns. But reality is
more than just intellectual patterns. The MoQ does not exclusively subscribe
to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am", it equally much subscribes to
"I interact with others, therefore I am",
"I sense, therefore I am" and
"I weigh, therefore I am". In short, there are four types of real things,
not just one.
Hej Magnus,
Now, you have proposed that any two patterns of value can be a Quality
Event should they meet. I would ask, how can Magnus "know" this without
either observing it or being communicated about said event in an unambiguous
fashion? How can Glove know it? Or Ken, or anyone? You are saying we wouldnt
"know", yet the only way we experience is to know. Even if there are 'four
types of real things', somehow, someway we must "know" that. I am not
saying that you are wrong, but I cannot see how you are right either. This
is a
puzzler and as far as I can see, only a leap of faith allows agreements to
arise on either side of that arguement.
This is precisely why Niels Bohr
refused to define where the observation being focused on originated. This is
complementarity's break with classical representational epistomology and is
the main reason complementarity was labeled as a subjective philosophy. It
is not, nor am I being subjective, although I can see that its very easily
mistaken that I am.
This is why my primary focus in the Metaphysics of Quality is on the Quality
Event itself. This is where experience arises. If this is ignored,
everything else is merely illusions of Quality. The Quantum Event and the
Quality Event are one and the same...there is no difference that I can see.
The Quantum Event does not take place in the inorganic level...it takes
place by means of agreements communicated unambiguously between
observers.
Best wishes,
glove
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST