Good morning Marsha
I would imagine the conceptual pattern of fish (opposite-from-non-fish),
scales, vegetables, have long ago taken control of the experience of
such things. A fish cannot be separated from water without major
alterations separating it from interconnect processes. Or the fact that
nature knows nothing about "fish". It a name directly given to our
conceptualization. The system we use to measure weight is man-made, the
idea of weight itself is man-made, etc., etc., etc. I cannot see where
there would be much direct experience in that transaction at all. We
conceptualize. That's what we do. There is the experience of analog on
analog on analog.
I get kind of sad reading this, it seems you have given up on much of what
reality is about and only see it as dead, conceptualized static patterns, as if
you're seeing the world through a TV.
What I said was that the *scale* is experiencing the weight, not the human user
of the scale. The scale itself. It's man made, but so what?
Take another example, when an elephant wants to reach the leaves of a high tree,
or it wants to make those leaves reachable for a smaller elephant, it can bend
the tree by grabbing a branch by its trunk and use its own weight to bend the
tree. The weight of that elephant is quite real, even though the elephant may or
may not have conceptualized it. It may even be the difference between life and
death for the younger elephant. So don't think for a minute that weight is just
a man made concept.
Granted, we may have found out that weight is just a combination of mass and
gravity, but for that elephant, none of that matters. To her, it's simply a
means to reach those leaves.
Huh? No phenomenon? Perhaps you would change your mind if you tried
zero-G? Not that I have, but that way, you could first hand compare
gravity vs. no gravity. Just an idea.
Are you saying gravity is a tactile experience? Can I touch, see,
smell, hear or taste gravity? No? It must not be phenomenal entity. I
can think it. It must be a conceptional entity.
What? Is the fact that you can *think* something, proof of it being conceptual?
The experiences you mentioned, touch, see, smell, hear and taste, are just
biological value. Are you saying that only biological value are real to you?
See, this is where it gets sticky.
No Marsha, you only need to open your eyes to the possibility that other types
of value are just as real as biological value.
I would, for example, imagine that you would say that it's impossible to
conceptualize one your paintings, right? If I conceptualized it, i.e. took a
digital photo of it, that photo wouldn't be the painting, right? But since I can
take a photo and thereby conceptualize the painting, I can *think* the painting.
Turn this around at gravity and we see that gravity is, like your painting, the
original experience. We can conceptualize gravity into a "law of gravity", but
in doing so, we have also left the original experience of gravity behind, just
as we left the original painting behind when we photographed it.
I hope I didn't send you fleeing now.
Magnus
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/
