Hello Squonk --? ? Your "thought experiment" (note the correct spelling) seems to be receiving a lot of attention. Assuming that this is a serious proposal, I wonder how you would implement your experiment in society. For example, who would you appoint to administer it? Would it be set up as a commune in the manner of B.F. Skinner's 'Walden Two', or would it be organized by the state using a panel of consulting psychologists?
Hello Ham, Thanks for some common sense. There is no intent to implement the experiment - it is presented with the hope of stimulating thought?and encouraging new perspectives on familiar issues. By the way, apologies for the intrusive question marks in my texts. I have no idea?why they appear. ? Ham: Apart from the feasibility of such a program, I have some serious reservations about the premises on which it is based. Here is how you outlined them on 6/26, with modifications by Craig and Chris:? ? > 1a. The moq states that static patterns block DQ.? >? > 1c. Proposition B: Some static patterns are more dynamic than others.? >? > 2.(modified 26-6-08) Those static patterns which are more dynamic > maximise DQ and potential for further evolution.? >? > 3. It is therefore a moral imperative to promote 2.? ? Your moral imperative would appear to be based on a speculative interpretation of DQ, which was never clearly defined by the author and is considered by many as a valuistic metaphor. s: That's right. Although i think it can be adequately supported by primary texts and may therefore be implicit in them. I think it is also contradicted. Ham: Can Craig document Pirsig's? statement that "static patterns block DQ"? In his interview with Baggini, he said: "As to which is more important, Dynamic or static, both are absolutely essential, even when they are in conflict. As stated in LILA, without Dynamic Quality an organism cannot grow. But without static quality an organism cannot last." (I'm not even sure that he accepts the idea that DQ an exist independently of SQ patterns.) s: David?introduced the concrete example of becoming stuck on a problem in one of his responses. I think this is an example of static patterns blocking DQ. That's the whole thing: to obtain static and Dynamic Quality simultaneously. If you don't have the static patterns of scientific knowledge to build upon you're back with the cave man. But if you don't have the freedom to change those patterns you're blocked from any further growth. (Lila) The narrowing down to one brick destroyed the blockage because it was so obvious she had to do some original and direct seeing. (zmm) I agree with you that it is not certain if DQ can exist independently of sq patterns. This experiment assumes DQ can not exist independently of sq patterns. Ham:? > 4. Proposition C. Mystical experience (of DQ) does not come? > through the sense organs.? >? > 5. Sense organs are therefore not required.? ? Perhaps not, but most of what we value involves experience which definitely involves the senses. Does isolating the child from experiential values promote "mystical" cognizance? From what I've read on autism, social isolation is at the core of this malady, and I know of no autistic or feral child who has benefited psychically or intellectually from the condition. s: I would abandon any notion of babies and children, and narrow down the focus to an isolated human brain prior to any development at all. What?does this brain experience? If it is unmediated DQ, can this be maintained? If so, would it be moral to do it considering 2.?? ? Ham: > (The following modified thanks to Chris)? >? > 6. From 3: Proposition A (modified 22-6-08): Isolating? > organic brains from sense experience on an industrial scale? > prevents static patterns from blocking DQ.? ? What, exactly, do you mean by isolating brains "on an industrial scale"? Is this some kind of AI technology that I haven't yet heard about? s: No. AI would advance symbolic manipulation and so evolution would progress. The brains themselves would be maintained at that stage which is prior to development induced by external stimulus, ie a dynamic state of pure unmediated DQ. >From 2 it would seem it is a moral imperative to have to do this given a >choice. Ham: I've had enough physiology to know that the brain does not function 'in vitro' but requires a central nervous system distributed throughout the body. If you plan to isolate the brains of children in your experiment, you might as well decapitate them. Better yet, if DQ can be gained by destroying SQ, why not get rid of people and be done with it? s: If the central nervous system is required for a functioning brain then the cns would have to be accommodated. Re. getting rid of people: This makes sense! But the experiment assumes there to be something relevant and special about undeveloped brains which has direct access to DQ. If this is not the case then?your suggestion that people could be done away with induces a severe regression and we may as well consider doing away with sq altogether. Ham:? Sorry for the sarcasm, Squonk, but this is how your "thought experiment 1" comes across to me.? ? --Ham? s: I think you have hit the nail on the head Ham: Bizarre thought experiments may help to pin down a singe issue which is mundane and in need of further thought. I think the issue this experiment may have thrown up is way in which the word dynamic is used in apparently different and incompatible ways. squonk I agree with you that it is not certain if DQ can exist independently of sq patterns. This experiment assumes DQ can not exist independently of sq patterns. Ham:? > 4. Proposition C. Mystical experience (of DQ) does not come? > through the sense organs.? >? > 5. Sense organs are therefore not required.? ? Perhaps not, but most of what we value involves experience which definitely involves the senses. Does isolating the child from experiential values promote "mystical" cognizance? From what I've read on autism, social isolation is at the core of this malady, and I know of no autistic or feral child who has benefited psychically or intellectually from the condition. s: I would abandon any notion of babies and children, and narrow down the focus to an isolated human brain prior to any development at all. What?does this brain experience? If it is unmediated DQ, can this be maintained? If so, would it be moral to do it considering 2.?? ? Ham: > (The following modified thanks to Chris)? >? > 6. From 3: Proposition A (modified 22-6-08): Isolating? > organic brains from sense experience on an industrial scale? > prevents static patterns from blocking DQ.? ? What, exactly, do you mean by isolating brains "on an industrial scale"? Is this some kind of AI technology that I haven't yet heard about? s: No. AI would advance symbolic manipulation and so evolution would progress. The brains themselves would be maintained at that stage which is prior to development induced by external stimulus, ie a dynamic state of pure unmediated DQ. >From 2 it would seem it is a moral imperative to have to do this given a >choice. Ham: I've had enough physiology to know that the brain does not function 'in vitro' but requires a central nervous system distributed throughout the body. If you plan to isolate the brains of children in your experiment, you might as well decapitate them. Better yet, if DQ can be gained by destroying SQ, why not get rid of people and be done with it? s: If the central nervous system is required for a functioning brain then the cns would have to be accommodated. Re. getting rid of people: This makes sense! But the experiment assumes there to be something relevant and special about undeveloped brains which has direct access to DQ. If this is not the case then?your suggestion that people could be done away with induces a severe regression and we may as well consider doing away with sq altogether. Ham:? Sorry for the sarcasm, Squonk, but this is how your "thought experiment 1" comes across to me.? ? --Ham? s: I think you have hit the nail on the head Ham: Bizarre thought experiments may help to pin down a singe issue which is mundane and in need of further thought. I think the issue this experiment may have thrown up is way in which the word dynamic is used in apparently different and incompatible ways. squonk 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/
