Krim & WB2, If we just see "teleology" as a direction towards betterness (in the Pirsigian quality sense) then why does it need to be either top down or bottom up ? There need be no ultimate end state nor any overriding agent directing "us" towards it, just natural law at work at all scales from sub-quantum to cosmological (and in all the patterns arising).
One area where don't share your confidence Krim, is in the better "causal" predictability (albeit probabalistic) of quantum mechanics models. I mean, I do, like you, fully believe QM is the best predictor model of physics, but it is clearly inexplicable at heart, without recourse to conjectures like many-worlds or god-particles. It's clearly just the most useful / pragmatic model we have, not necessarily the most fundamental. At levels above small-scale physics, the principle of levels of organization, arise from the systems view you describe and these provide the most pragmatic descriptions of the "apparent teleology". Any agent or "invisible hand" of god as the engineer of the teleology is simply metaphor. Regards Ian On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: > [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/ > 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/
