> > MP: > > But that is still not measuring *Quality.* Its measuring the > > *chances*, the > > *likelihood*, the *probability* of an experience having or resulting > in > > Quality. Its > > not measuring the Quality of the results. Its not saying "this is > > more Quality than another." > > > > [Krimel] > > Quality is a perception. It is a synthesis or a summation of > > experience plus an evaluation. > > MP: Quality is affirmed through perception, it is experienced through > perception, > but to say it *is* perception? I have to disagree based on what I have > gathered > about it. Perception is a biological process. One perhaps patterned on > Quality, > but not Quality itself. > > It also IMO does not in any way incorporate or contain "evaluation." > Evaluation > is an intellectual operation, in the realm of concepts. Quality is > pre-conceptual. > > Maybe the hard and fast MoQers can chime in here?
My cat UTOE perceives that he dish of food I put down is good as evidenced by his eagerness in putting it in his stomach. If I put down a dog instead, he perceives it as not so good as evidenced by his arched back, hissing sound and eventual fleeing under the sofa. Such evaluating behavior in response to the perceived environment is observed in all creatures great and small. Intellectual concepts need not apply. > > MP: > > Ergo, chance <> Quality. > > > > [Krimel] > > Well yeah. It's not equal to this or that. But it often seems to be > > a lot like some other thing. > > MP: The only question I was answering was the challenge to show any way > that > Dynamic Quality and Chance are different. Seems to me that while we can > debate how different they are, it is pretty clear they aren't the same > thing. That'd > be "different" yes? You bet chance and DQ are different. The former identifies ignorance of underlying cause. The latter identifies speechless, wondrous surprise. > I don't see how we can ever measure Quality itself. We can only measure > how > patterns react to it, in it, through it. Chance on the other hand, the > more I think > of it *is* measure and nothing more. Agree. A measure of probability is a measure of our ignorance of underlying cause. Platt 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/
