Hi Krim See comments
DM > David M > > Everything comes from nothing... > When there is nothing then everything is possible (certainly no rules > against it, nothing=no rules) How did the actual kick off? > When everything was no longer possible? > Is that a definition of being finite? > > The trouble starts as soon as you make the first move, same as noughts and > crosses but without the matrix on the paper! > > David M > > Imagine randomness as some here have suggested it to be. Total chaos > complete randomness in every possible meaning of the term. I think you see > this as a field of infinite possibility or if you will, a sort of stem > cell > for reality. I like the idea. But in such a field any patterns that emerge > act as constraints on future possibility. In such a field if anything can > happen something will. Relationships will form. As SA points out the first > rock thrown into the pond sets the rhythm of the waves. DM: Sounds fine. > The first waves limit the degrees of freedom available to any future > waves. > Each new wave is influenced by the ripples that precede it. This is the > origin of SQ. To say there is a pattern is to say that the limits of > variability are defined. A pattern is a range of probability. As we learn > in > pre-school for a pattern to hold it has to stay inside the lines. A Static > Pattern has to be stable over time. The longer it remains static the more > influence it has over future possibilities. DM: Agreed. > > While certain aspects of this resemble tic tac toe; it really isn't as > bleakly deterministic as that. DM: Determinism is way off the mark. Surely a fine balance between chaos and just enough past-imposed-limitation to give us an evolving and open actuality. The more complex the SQ becomes the more > possible interactions can occur between static patterns. The more > possibility is limited, the freer actuality becomes. As possibility closes > at the lower level it opens at a higher level. Or one might say new static > patterns arise dynamically from static foundations. DM: And vice versa > > Our experience of all of this is shaped primarily by our biology. DM: Yes upto a point, but just as much we are shaped by our openness to new possibilities emerging on the back of all these patterns.I see a person as having an expanding history and future. We are > organisms confined within certain biologically ordained limits. Each of us > has a range of possibility. DM: This range has increased from what is possible for a single celled organism to the range open to a thinking, socialised person. There are realised possibilities required (a history) to reach new and more complex possibilities. Our "values" are mainly emotional responses that > have evolved through biological process and are expressed as biological > responses. (Elevated heart rate, changes in the output of various glands, > redistribution of our blood supply, involuntary contraction of muscles, > especially in the face) Our emotions play a vital role in our survival as > individuals and as a species. They exist in use in kind and in proportion > to > their evolutionary Value. DM: Yes, as an organism our ability to respond and interact with our environment and its occupants evolves, new values/experineces have emerged in this process and have been retained via dna, bodies, institutions, culture, etc > > Emotions are for the most part, in most of us, purely autonomic and > outside > of conscious control. DM: From the point of view of habit and inheritance, but what about from the point of view of their creation and dynamic emergence? We do no choose to be happy any more that we choose > major depression. DM: Is not reaction and response not potentially open? My life coach and Sartre suggest that we always choose. We do not choose to fall in love or to be awed by a work > of art. DM: Are you sure? Is there no alternative to habit, if nothing else habits need their origins explained. While we might learn consciously to appreciate certain kinds of art > or a certain type of person; these learned preferences affect who > specifically we love or which pieces of art inspire us but they do not > alter > the fundamental nature of these biological responses. DM: Maybe consider the complexity of the organism as a self-changing system? It changes within itself whether or not stimulated to do so. It has an ability to change its response, this is key to flexibility and survival. Is this not what humans are very good at compared to animals. If approach 'a' does not work lets try 'b'. I think where you see the fixed space I am seeing the wiggle space. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
