Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Tue, 14 Jul 1998 05:50:32 +0100
Hi all,
To start with the end of Magnus's latest message:-
>> Magnus, is anything clarified?
>>
>We're getting there.
>
> Magnus
That has to be good!
[snip]
>I see patterns, i.e. intellectual patterns, as expressions in a
>language,
>any language. Quality Events are needed to use, or access, intellectual
>patterns, and since Quality Events are dynamic, no intellectual pattern
>comes out the same every time. That goes for other levels of patterns
>too.
I agree absolutely.
>However, I do think that a totally static world, devoid of DQ, could be
>called objective. Quality Events of all four kinds would still occur
but
>they would be completely predictable and as such, dead. Such a
>world could of course never become, because that requires DQ.
I think that the whole idea is an absurdity. It is intrinsic to MoQ that
the world cannot exist without DQ - let's call that an axiom of MoQ.
>All patterns are patterns in themselves, not only as intellectual
>shadows.
And what is a pattern "in of itself"? I'm not going to argue the point
about intellectual or not. As I said before, I think that I don't need
to use the word intellectual at all.
>I assure you, every single animal 10 million years ago valued the
>quality of living and loving just as much as they do now, without
>scientists being there to observe and record their every move.
That is my perception too;-)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> while I claim that patterns are constructs
>> of mind created to summarize and understand experience. The reality
we
>> know is the summation of all those patterns.
>>
>So who created mind?
My understanding of "mind" is that it is a product of pattern
interaction and complexity. That's how I see it in my own mind;-)
>> It [Morality] is not unconnected to reality, but a part of the
reality we know.
>>
>Who or what is arranging the patterns with the guiding help of
morality?
>Pirsig? We? Reality?
This is another axiom. In Pirsig's terms, the "natural tendency" of any
system is morality. The more complex the system, the more difficult to
recognise the tendency. But Pirsig wants us to admit to a genuine
"value" judgement in defining morality. For something to be right, it
has to make sense, AND also to FEEL RIGHT (Coherence of Classical and
Romantic understanding).
>> As I noted earlier in this post, I do see patterns as constructs of
>> mind. But I also see matter as a pattern,
>>
>But not SQ, right?
Not at all, "matter" is completely SQ.
[snip]
>> I'll repeat, SQ is description.
>>
>This is where we disagree. Have a look at the SQ diagram in the SODV
>paper.
>It states that SQ is all four kinds of patterns, not only descriptions.
Please define for me the difference between pattern and description.
Which is the SODV diagram?
>> [snip]What's
>> interesting though is that all physical units for energy are somehow
>> related to matter. We have no other understanding of the energy
>> concept.
>>
>I really don't think we have a better understanding of what matter is.
>It's
>just a metaphysical assumption that we take for granted. Had energy
>been the assumption, the situation would have been reversed.
Historically, man grasped the matter idea long before we developed a
concept of energy. Just consider the antiquity of the concept of
mass/weight. In contrast, development of the energy concept developed
mainly in the last 3 centuries, first in mechanics, and then in
thermodynamics. I think that the average person has a much more
developed concept of matter than energy. As to them being the same
(E=mc^2), well that's practically beyond our perception.
Regards to all
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST