Krim said: Of course culture sets parameters on our experience. But so does biology. How are these incompatible?
DM: That's OK but I'd want to say more. Brains do not so much set parameters for the next level up so much as they create a platform that allows the emergence of new possibilities, in fact only some of those possibilities do not emerge only a small fraction of them do (just look at how some of the brains round here get used sometimes). [Krimel] True enough but what does emerge depends entirely on the stability of the static patterns that give rise to it. Those patterns establish a certain range for what is possible because any new emergent possibilities are constrained by those static relations that give rise to it. [DM] Obviously only certain possibilites could emerge based on brains but brains do not so much constrain the next level up as unleash it. Take genes as an example, the variation genes are capable of unfolding is vast, and the known life on Earth is only a tiny fragment of the possible combinations genes could actualise. Let alone genes based on different organic bases. Genes are not so much a constraint as an unleashing. And brains unleash incredible unpredictable behaviour and experiences. [Krimel] But genetic code does constrain the possibilities for variation. It can and obviously does allow tremendous variation but all most all animals about a certain size have nervous systems encased in bone. They respond to similar types of energy in the environment. Mammals are constrained to four limbs, etc. Creativity and the unleashing of potential occur because of constrain not in spite of it. The form of the three minute song produces endless variation on that constrain. As do the structure of sonnets, the narration of plot, the specific notes of the scale, as Joe would point out. [DM] Such is DQ: the actualising of the possible, an infinite resource barely explored/expressed by our actual universe. Of course as soon as any parameter is set, such as proton mass, 99.9999% of possible worlds are made impossible for us, but that still leaves alot of possible worlds to reduce by another 99.999999% when the next bit of contingency or SQ is established. Even this email means that this universe will never enjoy all the possible emails that I have just failed to create, collapsing another 99.99999% possible world wave functions. Thins is everytime you reduce the infinite by 99.999999% you still have a very large finite universe. [Krimel] As Vonnegut notes in Cat's Cradle, if you are stacking cannon balls the first layer you stack determines or at least constrains the possible shape of the final stacking. 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/
