Hi Krim See comments David M
>> [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: yes, because it is not all DQ, thankfully > > 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. DM: Again, don't you mean causality? > >> [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 prediction why we want to keep projecting what > is therefore either a dream or an unevidenced assumption? > > [Krimel] > Because all gamblers seek to better the odds in their favor. DM: Something certain is not gambling. > >> [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 DM: Nietzsche didn't like grudgers you know. 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. DM: Certainly not that, too much is random, yet not so randomthat we get mush on mush > >> [Krimel] >> But I think projecting a future > > DM: It is not projected, it exists and is expanding or contracting, > a probability is a function of the future. > > [Krimel] > I see nothing to suggest that either the past or the future is fixed. DM: Past is more fixed than the future, otherwise I could get better parents. > >> [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? DM: It is what gives us variety to select from. A creative & dynamic source, flowing, overflowing. Fountain is a good alchemical image. > >>> [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. DM: I must be older than you. Think man is a machine. > 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 know 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. DM: I am characterising pre-recent & materialistic science. > >> [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. DM: Because you failed to bring it up until prompted. 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. DM: I think you are quite right to point out that there must be a dark side to DQ, it destroys SQ and results in extinctions, disemergence, death, chaos. Freud had it. 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/
