Re: MD "Is there anything out there?"

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 21:12:56 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "RE: MD "Is there anything out there?""

    But Platt,
    Why is this the question ? "Why the connection, other than - It works."

    What is wrong with the answer "because the numbers, patterns statistical
    correlations etc in the processes happen to fit."

    Whilst the anthropomorphic words like "preference" are useful metaphors why
    does there have to be a sentient purpose being behind the reason "why"

    Ian

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
    Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 3:47 PM
    Subject: RE: MD "Is there anything out there?"

    > Hi Paul, MSH,
    >
    > > Paul:
    > > The mathematical formulae that have been selected for explanation of
    > > inorganic phenomena are selected and developed for that very purpose
    > > aren't they? Don't physicists keep trying until they can predict the
    > > results of an experiment with more and more precision i.e., with higher
    > > quality? As I understand it, there are always many competing formulae
    and
    > > theories for any given set of data. The best ones are kept. Is it really
    a
    > > mystery?
    >
    > It's no mystery that mathematical formulas are able explain and predict
    > inorganic phenomena. Obviously they do. The question is: Why the
    > connection, other than "It works."
    >
    > > I'll be honest though, I haven't given this that much thought and I
    > > would really need to read up on the history of science again to give you
    a
    > > better answer. As things stand, I dislike any explanation that requires
    a
    > > cosmic version of human intelligence because it must follow that e.g.
    rocks
    > > and plants sit around thinking to some degree. I see no evidence of
    this.
    > > However, saying that particles are a set of preferences is also
    > > questionable although as Pirsig says in LILA:
    > >
    > > "In classical science it was supposed that the world always works in
    > > terms of absolute certainty and that "cause" is the more appropriate
    > > word to describe it. But in modern quantum physics all that is changed.
    > > Particles "prefer" to do what they do. An individual particle is not
    > > absolutely committed to one predictable behavior. What appears to be an
    > > absolute cause is just a very consistent pattern of preferences.
    Therefore
    > > when you strike "cause" from the language arid substitute "value" you
    are
    > > not only replacing an empirically meaningless term with a meaningful
    one;
    > > you are using a term that is more appropriate to actual observation."
    [LILA
    > > p.130]
    >
    > Well, atoms and plants may not sit around thinking, but Pirsig posits that
    > they are "aware," not in the sense of being aware like we are, but in the
    > sense that they respond to their environment. This can be described as
    > "intelligence" of sorts, though not at the sophisticated level we like to
    > think ourselves capable of.
    >
    > Seems to me Pirsig would not find objectionable the following quote from
    > Donald Hoffman, cognitive scientist at the University of California and
    > author of "Visual Intelligence:"
    >
    > "I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Space-
    > time, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the
    > universe, but have always been, from the beginning, among the humbler
    > contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being. The world
    > of our daily experience -- the world of tables, chairs, stars and people,
    > with their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds -- is a species-
    > specific user interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose
    > essential character is conscious. . . . If this be right, if
    > consciousness is fundamental, then we should not be surprised that,
    > despite centuries of effort by the most brilliant minds, there is as yet
    > no physical theory of consciousness, no theory that explains how mindless
    > matter and energy or fields could be, or cause, conscious experience."
    >
    > If atoms "prefer" it's not much of stretch to say they are "aware" which
    > isn't far removed from what we consider "conscious," although of a most
    > primitive sort. That's why I think Pirsig wouldn't strenuously object to
    > Hoffman's view.
    >
    > But, I digress. The question still on the table is why the happy
    > explanatory relationship between intellectual level math and inorganic
    > level phenomena. MSH has tackled the issue with aplomb, which I take as
    > assurance that the question is not completely bogus.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 21:29:22 GMT