Krimel said: ...I really do not see how imputing intention and volition into the inorganic level can be seen as anything other than theology. But maybe you have some sense of why it is not.
dmb says: The imputation is based on things like "probability distributions", as I already explained. [Krimel] As I recall the discussion went something like this: ____________________________________________________________ dmb said: What's the motive most reasonably applied to that assertion? Just what the assertion itself implies, namely the desire to explain unlaw-like behavior in physics, like "probability distribution" to use your example, in a way that also solves some other philosophical problems. [Krimel] I think you misunderstand. I am saying that "probability distribution" is a better philosophical term. Like James' percepts and pure experience it is continuous. It is empirically verifiable AND it is mathematically specifiable. As I have said before a Nobel Laureate claims that humans have the innate ability to estimate probability. He claims it is very much like our ability to judge distance and estimate the passage of time. Mostly we call this following our gut. Kahnamen and Tversky also have shown that our personal estimates of probability are skewed and sometimes downright misleading. When we see something as dynamic whether it is a quantum particle or our beloved, we are responding to something that is in some way changing unpredictably. We cannot predict is next state from its present state but we can give some kind of estimate of the range of variation. Often I cannot tell whether my beloved is going to laugh or cry but I am confident she will not turn into a petunia. You would assert that she "prefers" not to turn into a petunia. I would insist that thought never crosses her mind. But I know her better than you do. ______________________________________________________________ dmb replied: I disagree. "Probability distribution" can't be a better philosophical term because it's not a philosophical term at all. It's a data set. Yes, it's derived from empirical observations and the observed behavior is then quantified so as to see the pattern of behavior. [Krimel] I was right, you misunderstand. Who says the "probability distribution" is cannot be a philosophical term? You? Why not? The MoQ in fact uses as its primary terms, words that can be understood as and which describe distributions of probability. Static and Dynamic are both terms about relative probability. This description of experience in terms of probability is central to both the MoQ and to evolutionary theory. Understanding this puts the MoQ front and center as a viable metaphysic for scientific enquiry. _______________________________________________________________ I really don't think you have addressed the points I have raised. So again I will ask why isn't "probability distribution" a philosophical term. Mathematical ideas have had a profound impact on philosophers since the beginning. The influence of Euclid on Plato is obvious. British empiricism and Kant are responses to Newton. Logical positivism was rooted in physics. Rationality itself is derived from a purely mathematical term: ratio. [dmb] It agrees with the data and, as Andre pointed out, its just a matter of inferring backwards from chemistry professors to chemicals. [Krimel] The term preference agrees with the data to the extent that it is synonymous with "probability distribution." You have not shown how the addition of volition at the inorganic level contributes to our understanding. As I pointed out to Andre there are differences in the way things look from the top down it looks different than from the bottom up. I gave you fairly detailed illustration of probability that made the same point: ___________________________________________________________ [Krimel] Again you miss the critical point. A probability distribution is constructed from the bottom up. It is a description a collection of outcomes. Those individual outcomes may result from any number of "causal" relationships. Here is an example that might help. At President Obama's inauguration it was said that about a million people attended. As a thought experiment, image that all of them brought a quarter and that at some point in the ceremony everyone was asked to stand up and flip their quarter. All who have tales are asked to sit down. Everyone else is asked to flip again and everyone with tales, again is asked to sit down. The process continues like this: Toss People left standing 1 500,000 2 250,000 3 125,000 4 62,500 5 31,250 6 15,625 7 7,812 8 3,906 9 1,953 10 977 11 488 12 244 13 122 14 61 15 30 16 15 17 7 18 4 19 2 20 1 The odds of someone in that crowd tossing heads 20 times in a row is about 100%. It is guaranteed. But the odds of any individual in that crowd tossing 20 heads is about a million to one. Probability describes likelihood in both directions. I don't see how "preference" matters at all. Please explain how the concept adds to an understanding of the situation? ______________________________________________________________ I don't see how volition adds anything to the analysis. [dmb] I would also point out that our biological cousins exhibit basic moral sensibilities like fairness. Even rats show an aversion to cruelty. This is not a supernatural claim at all. It's based on what we can observe about how preferences work in our own experience and what we can observe in the social, biological and physical worlds. [Krimel] In mammals we see the development of the emotion centers of the midbrain and the addition of the vagus nerve. The vagus nerve is intimately connected to the perception and expression of emotion. In humans it influences the microexpressions of emotion identified by Paul Eckman. (You can see examples of this on the new TV show "Lie to Me"). It influences the vocal cords producing the emotional tone in our speech. It affects heart rate, respiration and digestion in preparation for emotion responses. It is also loaded with oxytocin a hormone that produces feelings of compassion and unity. These responses are indeed present in other mammals. They are critical evolutionary adaptations for all those in our lineage. Notice how much of the vagus nerve action is involved in the display of emotion. It gives us the ability to communicate emotion through facial expression and vocal tone. This form of communication is universally recognize not only within our own species but between species as well. But again where is the volition? These are chiefly biological responses. They are evolutionary adaptations that facilitate social interaction. But again I ask where is the volition? [dmb] It's only a reasonable extension or extrapolation from the macro into the micro. I thought you were all in love with fractals? That's all it is. Pirsig is only saying that when we zoom down into the inorganic, the same preference patterns continue on a smaller scale. [Krimel] Fractals illustrate self similarity across scale. A branch, a twig and the trunk of a tree all have the same level of complexity. There just differ in size. What you see, especially clearly, in the purely fractal form of the Mandelbrot set, is the ultimate shootout between static and dynamic quality. It is a metaphor of extraordinary clarity, precision and power. But again I ask where is the volition? [dmb] I understand that we normally draw the line that that the ability to "choose" a response begins only when life begins. [Krimel] Certainly, some would argue that "choice" at any level is a meaningless concept. I am agnostic on the matter. [Snip Dave's QM rant] [Krimel] As I said earlier with regards to quantum mechanics: "I don't understand it well enough to interpret it and it doesn't seem to me that most of the people who do use it understand it very well either. Thanks for the demonstration. All of the weirdness you talk about, which I would call dynamic quality, could mean anything but by the time we reach the scale of biology nearly all of those dynamic effects are static. You are choosing to focus on the use of the term "consciousness" as being involved at the quantum level. That is, as you know a highly controversial claim in a field that is used to controversy. Among the terms you will hear used and agreed upon by nearly everyone from every side of these debates are: probability distribution and uncertainty. Volition and consciousness are the kinds of terms they argue about. Krimel said: But a sense of "betterness" does not guarantee the "betterness" will follow. dmb said: That's true. There are no guarantees. But a sense of betterness sure does improve the chances. That's what I meant by saying preference adds a certain efficiency to the evolutionary process. [Krimel] In terms of health outcomes I agree. The data defiantly show that feeling better does improve your chance. Feeling that we are in control reduces stress. There are certainly evolutionary advantages to those who can generate such feelings. But one of the reason that intellectual, rational abilities evolved is that they enhance our emotional estimates. In the same way that mathematical reasoning improves our perception of space and time. This is what I would call adding efficiency to the evolutionary process. You seem to be arguing that, feeling better and having better health outcomes, are philosophical reasons? 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/
