Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 18:02:42 +0100
Hi, LS and Bo,
I have the urge to wield the knife again. I hope this post makes it to the group. If it's hard to read, I
apologize.
While "sentience" IS usually used to refer to interactions in which mind is involved, as far as the MoQ is
concerned, there's another way of looking at it, which can be consistent at all levels.
Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
> ... if you see the
> usefulness of the SOTAQI "transformation" you know that all
> mind-indicating terms means the Intellectual level of the MOQ.
Yes. But I see a contradiction. You gave several examples, and I want to use them. I'm chopping up your
sentence.
> On the
> other hand, the backdrop of it all, that which makes an atom "sensitive" to Inorganic values,
Wouldn't that "sensitiveness" be a function of static Inorganic values, ie relationships within and among
static inorganic patterns? At this level, the sensitiveness would be pattern matching-- following set
chemical reactions of attraction or repulsion. The Dynamic aspect at this level would be DQ, something that
allows change, escape from the rules, the formation of new patterns. (This also includes biological
patterns, which to the inorganic sensitivity, are not discernable as such).
Biological patterns maintain pockets of inorganic freedom, pockets of DQ within the shape of the biological
patterns. But, the only sensitiveness AT the inorganic level, seems to be pattern matching. This would be
the inorganic analogue to "sensation". There is also a function, something analogous to "sentience" at this
level, that involves influence by biological patterns.
So. DQ provides the mechanism, the engine, of "inorganic sentience", but it is the formation of a new
level, a new set of static patterns that contain and maintain this "inorganic sentience".
At the next level:
> and an amoeba "aware" of Biological values,
In the traditional meaning of the word "sentient", an amoeba seems to me to be the least sentient biological
organism I can imagine. It functions in the world of biological sensation.. An amoeba is not a biological
organism that has been shaped by higher-than-biological Quality. Not unless it's dead. Other biological
organisms HAVE the ability to be shaped by soc-, int-, or Dynamic Q and maintain themselves. These are also
probably considered progressively more "sentient".
The overall pattern carries through all the four levels: A function analagous to "sensation" within the
basic, unmediated patterns, and a function analagous to "sentience" that refers to a mediated pattern. The
mediated patterns have higher "awareness", higher information content, and ways to replicate the
mediation.Here it is at the social level: (human social, not other types of social)
>From the human (intellectually-mediated) point of view, social patterns are patterns of behavior that are
followed without "awareness" or "consciousness". "Sentience" refers to action that is mediated by the
existence of intellectual patterns. There should be a "sensation" analogue here, too, but it is NOT
"sensation" in the commmon usage. In the common usage, "sensation" refers mostly to biological-level
sensation. I don't know what the examples would be of social-level "sensing". (*)
> and us humans "conscious" of Intellectual values we must
> find a term for.
I think Fintan and Magnus described the "sensing" function within the intellectual level.
Fintan:
> "If I find something I am looking for, DQ is the flash of recognition
> when I find it - a matching to a well-defined pattern."
Magnus:
"As soon as you have noticed something, it means that you have already intellectualized it, i.e. made it
static. This new intellectual pattern might not fit in any of your compartments, which makes you look again.
I actually don't think that DQ is required in this case. It's an
intellectual quality event allright, but it needs no DQ. There are
good static pattern recognition programs that can do the same thing."
Together, they provide a generalization of "intellectual sensing". Notice that this is the same thing as
the "sentience" function from the social level point of view.
Up one more level:
Fintan said:
> But what about the DQ which makes us notice the dramatic or the bizarre?
> It's bizarre because it fails to match a pattern. ... or is NO pattern
> also a pattern?
I think Fintan asked whether theres is something happening that is beyond intellectual-level "sensing".
And Magnus, answered,,
"Aren't you confusing this realization that it doesn't fit anywhere with
DQ?"
Couldn't we say that the realization is indeed an intellectual pattern, BUT,
the actual formation of an intellectual pattern that doesn't fit prior
intellectual patterns is the instance of DQ mediation?
IF there's something other than randomness at work here, IF there is
pattern to this DQ occasion, than that would be Bo's "Q-mind", and I think
that would be an example of the next evolutionary level trying to form.
Bo said:
> Could we try to call it Q-mind? I am reluctant to
> use the DQ, because it is principally outside all patterns.
----------------------------------------------------
The contradiction that prompted this post is in the statement that the "backdrop of it all, that which makes
an atom "sensitive" to Inorganic values...could we call it Q-mind?" In my logic, that "backdrop" is at the
opposite end of a spectrum from "Q-mind". I tried to lay it out. From a point to a spectrum. I hope it was
worth the trip.
;-)
Maggie
*Once again, an instance of the "invisible" social level. It's invisible to our language and our habits.
We leave it out of our perceptions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST