Hallo everyone,
In reaction to Tor's message:
> >B values A = newDQ + newSQ values DQ + SQ
> Yes, but perhaps we can't say "newDQ" because it's already gone;
> Perhaps it's only B values A = newSQ values DQ + SQ.
Your right, the "newDQ" is alredy gone. We only look back as in David T.'s
backwards walking exercise but then the event has already taken place and
there is only left newSQ
> If DQ creates a new idea at the intellectual level, a new/different
> neurological process would have to have been the reason for it. If
> the lower levels were behaving using static patterns, this shouldn't
> be possible because then everything upwards would be deterministic.
> I.e if the lower levels are all behaving deterministically, the
> higher levels have to too.
...
> My new idea is therefor that DQ ALLWAYS has to occur at the inorganic
> level to allow DQ to happen at a higher level; So some quantumly
> random process HAS to occur. The levels can pass it on without DQ
> themselves, the biological level doesn't know that there's anything
> special about a particular neuron firing, but at the intellectual
> level DQ can dig it.
...
> But does this actually mean that the DQ "spark" only occurs at the
> inorganic level? Yes, I think it does, but a Quality Event is still
> happening at whatever level it ends up.
This suggests that DQ "flows" into the system of static levels from the
bottom to higher levels. But a static level is defined as a "consistently
pattern of value migrating towards DQ" not migrating away from DQ. Altough
Pirsig states that evolution is migrating away from something not towards
something I think that "something" is not the DQ, but thats an other topic.
The higher levels are called higher because they are more dynamicly and thus
are closer to DQ.
And besides that causation sneaks in again suggesting that all events at a
certain level are caused completely by events at a lower level. Jonathan's
essay says that "causation-metaphysics" are looking for a "driving force".
In the idea of DQ coming in at the bottom you make DQ a kind of ultimate
driving force.
But I have to admit you have a good argument saying that a new tought can
not appear whitout an other neuron firing.
I would say a event on a certain level is created by the possibilities of
the underlying levels (SQ) and DQ. The possibility of firing that other
neuron is built in already in the biological level and the firing of a
neuron is in turn built on inorganic possibilities, and so on. Of course I
then could say that the actual firing of that neuron is caused by change, by
randomness. But then again there is a driving force: randomness, and next I
should explain randomness.
Instead I would say that the neuron is fired because DQ (or the 3rd or 4th
level which is valued by the 2nd as DQ) uses that possibility. (I'm not
happy with the "because" but it has to wait.) Let us stay with the example
of the new thougt. Let us say a new thougt is inspired by reading something.
That something as built from SQ but it's information is valued as DQ. But
that DQ uses the possibility of our intellect to understand the new
information, the possibility of our culture to (learn) read(-ing), the
possibility of our brains to fire neurons, the possibility our brains exist
and so on. Next you can say the event of firing that neuron is created by DQ
and SQ in the form of possibilities. Since the 2nd level values the quality
of higher levels as DQ this is the same as saying that the firing of that
neuron is partly created by the 3rd/4th level. (now the "because" is
replaced by "created" )
This is how I see it: DQ flowing trough the levels form the highest (active)
level downward.
I hope I made myself clear.
Greetings,
Jaap
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST