[Willblake2] You pose one way of interpreting your experience of existence, that is from the bottom up, order arising into non-order. The sense of purpose that you describe is through manipulation, extrapolating current experience into future expectations. It is possible that this interpretation is not inconsistent with a greater organizational principle. That is, from the top down.
[Krimel] The top down view that I object to is the idea that the universe or some overriding consciousness is shaping and guiding destiny toward some desired future state. I see nothing in experience other that emotional longing that is consistent with this view. [Willblake2] I believe this is one of the problems that physicists have in unifying the current theories of the bottom up (quantum mechanics) with the top down (relativity-gravity). One belief is that there are fundamental forces which dictate the shape of the universe, the other belief would be that forces are incoherent principles and the result cannot be predicted. [Krimel] If one takes the overall forces that shape to the universe to be teleology I find that to be such a watered down definition as to be insignificant. I do not think that quantum mechanics in any sense means that particles are incoherent or unpredictable. In fact what makes QM useful, despite its apparent absurdity, is that is makes better and more accurate predictions than any alternatives. It has 'caused' us to see 'cause' in terms of probabilistic rather than absolute laws. [Willblake2] What does experience show? Well, it shows both. A ball thrown up must come down, but the choice to throw the ball may not have a greater force governing it. Feedback loops are interesting because they can be viewed from the inside or the outside. It is a matter of perspective. Is will or intent governed by some personal force or by a greater force? Are our minute to minute choices fulfilling the dictates of a larger order, or creating the larger order? [Krimel] I think James makes this point very well. He says that concepts arise from and are secondary to perception. However, concepts once formed interact with, guide and shape our perceptions. There is a whole field of psychology devoted to teasing out the differences between bottom-up (sensation) and top-down (perception) processing. [Willblake2] When a composer creates a symphony. Does the symphony already exist as a possibility or are the possibilities so endless that it doesn't make sense to say that it already exists. I would say that there are only a limited number of possibilities for how the symphony can turn out. This would mean that the final symphony is being guided is some way. [Krimel] Any piece of music results from our ability to mentally travel in time. We are three dimensional creatures gifted with the ability to transcend the limits of time. Just as we construct a three dimension world from two dimensions of visual imagery; we can construct representations of four dimensional space/time in the three dimensional structures of our brains. Music arise from the patterning of sound across a span of time and to construct such a work of art requires the ability to move backwards and forwards rearranging the notes into a final product. [Willblake2] There may be an overall guidance of emergence and the details are left to us. We are so limited in what we can do and think, we have to follow certain rules from a fundamental source (what governs the networks for feedback systems, for example). This force is highly manipulative, in exactly the same way we are manipulative when we create a symphony. To think that our "intelligence" is somehow different from other manipulative forces would be senseless. We are not separate from, but part of. [Krimel] Now you have put your foot into a huge pile. The idea that a conscious intentional force guides all this is exactly the kind of teleology your watered down view is 'intended' to disguise. All those external forces in the watered down teleology are static with respect to us. They are either constant or held and balanced in constant relationships relative to us. This is true of quantum probabilities, gravitational forces and the constant variety of annual temperature on the earth surface. It is those static qualities that allow dynamic interactions at the levels of biology. It does not "manipulate" life but life has the ability to adjust and change in response to feedback from the environment. This is nothing at all like creating a symphony it is more like sound of rain falling or the wind whistling through the trees. Indeed we are not separate from it we are the products of the static forces that surround us and the dynamic properties biological systems. [Willblake2] I am with you, Platt. [Krimel] That places you in a thankfully small minority of folks who would not feel the need to rinse with mouthwash after saying that. 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/
