[Joseph]
Hi Arlo and All, I want to discuss evolution in DQ/SQ
terms. Imho evolution is an hierarchical order in existence. Each
level has its proper DQ. At the inorganic level imho the DQ is gravity....
[Arlo]
I'd say that each level can be "defined" by the variance in agency
patterns have at that level to respond to DQ. I don't think "gravity"
is DQ, I think the inorganic level is (partially) defined by seeing
"gravity" as a specific response those patterns have to DQ. In other
words, "how are patterns able to respond to DQ?" is a basic question
for analyzing the levels.
I'd say an atom has very little variance in its agency, its range of
possible response to DQ is very small. As more complex inorganic
patterns attain greater variance (a greater range of possible
responses), we mark a radical jump in this variance by demarcating
the emerging patterns as "biological".
[Joseph]
Emotions are always dynamic and undefined.
[Arlo]
I'd agree that emotions precede rationality, but I'd say this is
because of emotions biological foundation. At high enough levels of
biological complexity, a neural-physiology will respond to certain
experience(s) by flooding the biological patten with adrenaline. This
occurs seemingly "instantly" before any symbolic manipulation or
review of the experience can be formulated. Often, the
physiologically induced "fear" will occur without an intelligent
redescription of the "reason" possible.
On that level I'd say that, prior to more sophisticated
socio-intellectual inculcation, emotions experienced by (sufficiently
complex biological) animals tend towards the "rough". Humans, and to
some degree sufficiently socially-mediating animals such as apes,
dolphins or dogs, are able to experience a wider range of emotions,
and also a greater subtle or "shade" of each emotion. This is because
of the assimilation of a shared history that then informs how
particular experiences are responded to, even on the
bio-physiological side. (I do think there is social->biological
feedback wherein the lower patterns are actually effected by the
higher patterns).
I remember once watching a dog react to its mother's death. It had
been circling the room nervously, crying, and stopping to lay down
next to his mother, licking her at times. It was obviously
distressed. If this isn't "emotion", and is just some clockwork
physiological wiring, then how can you say that watching the distress
of a human as its parent dies is anything other than this as well?
How can you attribute the distress of a human in this situation to
"consciousness", but to this dog its just something like an
input-output predictable biological function; emotionless and consciousless?
Like I said, I don't think all biological organisms experience
"emotion", or even experience it to the same degree, or with the same
variance. Before a certainly level of biological complexity in
neuro-physiology is reached, emotion may not be possible (say among
ants, or goldfish). And once that threshold is breeched, and emotion
is possible, it begins as very rough and very un-nuanced. As even
more biological complexity is met, and these organisms start
mediating their experiences socially (and later intellectually),
greater depth and variance of emotion becomes possible.
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/
