> [Krimel] > The point that converges > from math, physics and biology is that all of the cause and effect > relationships can not be specified in advance.
DM: And probably do not give us determinism even if they could be. [Krimel] They give us a realistic assessment of probability. DM: And then there's that last molecular chain that has to slide apart for The drop, subject to when one specific electron jumps ship. Given this I think determinism becomes a misleading word. [Krimel] Again we see the probabilistic nature of determinism as currently conceived. This is exactly the point I was attempting to make. > [Krimel] > It is not a problem so much for determinism as for exact prediction which > has long been seen as the goal of determinism. DM: Without exact predictoin why we want to kep projecting what is therefore either a dream or an unevidenced assumption? [Krimel] Because all gamblers seek to better the odds in their favor. > [Krimel] > Perhaps but as I have said in the past I don't think a top down approach > works very well. DM: It is clearly 2 way. [Krimel] Up to a point I suppose but if the point is where some ideal future Omega Point is working backwards or some omniscient being is just screwing with us. I think not. But perhaps you have something else in mind. > [Krimel] > But I think projecting a future DM: It is not projected, it exists and is expanding or contrading, a probability is a function of the future. [Krimel] I see nothing to suggest that either the past or the future is fixed. > [Krimel] > The point of view of creation and dynamic emergence is evolution; pure and > simple. DM: Prior to the selection of what is actual in terms of adaptation is the selection of what is possible to become actual. [Krimel] Is this different then how evolution works? >> [Krimel] >> 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. > > [Krimel] > I would say that choice is largely an illusion. DM: On what grounds? In experience we find only choice, to magic it away is the illusion. This is the approach to science that dissects and finds nothing alive or even Being. [Krimel] I am unfamiliar with a science of this sort. You must fill me in sometime. As far as choice goes I am referring to what I would say is the majority of our interactions with the environment. They are for the most point emotional and biological in nature and there is no choice involved. Went someone sneaks up on you and scares you, you do not select an appropriate response. When break lights flash in front of you on a four-lane, you do not choose to have an adrenaline rush. When a loved one dies you do not choose to feel sorry. When someone is suffering a major depression they can not choose to be happy. > [Krimel] > It is the interplay of complex causal factors colliding in ways that make > final outcomes hard to predict. We are driven to believe in free choice, > but as John Searle points out this does not square well with what we know > about nature, biological or human nature. DM: Rather this is the illusion of SOM, where we seek knowledge by studying order, and so we knwo only order at the expense of DQ that is essential to make any sense of life and experience. [Krimel] Who says we are locked into studying only order? Order is SQ, DQ is chance and the flow of energy, change. As near as I can tell both are being studied diligently. > [Krimel] > Habits are static patterns of behavior. They are explained in the same way > as other static patterns are explained above. In the same way that fixed > action patterns and instinct evolve in species. Patterns of individual > behavior evolve as a response to events in the environment working on what > biology gives us. Biology provides the foundation and framework. > Experience builds on it. DM: And seeing only habit you see no emergence, no original act of response/ creation prior to any habit. [Krimel] I have no idea where you got this idea. Habit is a form of SQ. Behaviors can and are emitted spontaneously that may be novel. They may result for any manner of odd confluences of events. Emergence occurs when SQ become sufficiently reliable for new orders of interaction to occur. DM: I don't want to underplay causes, history, habit,DNA, etc, but I think the whole point of DQ is to big up the wiggle, it is half of the whole, SQ being the other half. [Krimel] Once you begin to see that DQ is that element of chance that can not be dismissed from even our most exacting modes of thought, you start to get the picture. As near as I can tell the hold up seems to be that Pirsig and so many others seem to demand that DQ is Good. I consider this to be a grievous error. 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/
