/A, What is your definition of social relativism?
Marsha On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Alexander Jarnroth wrote: > Hello Mark. > > Two replies directly. > 1. A line parallel to the time-axis in some perpendicular dimension, would > have a constant value as a function of time in that dimension. > In an ordinary Cartesian plane, if time is the horizontal axis a line > parallel to that axis would have a constant value compared to the vertical > axis. > > 2. What I meant was that if all probabilities for a signal to follow a > certain path is equal to either one or zero, in the model, the probabilities > wouldn't change anymore, and then signals propagated would always use the > same paths. Such a system would be able to transmit signals, but it wouldn't > be able to change the way it transmits them: and such a system would have no > dynamic quality in the context considered. > > The interesting thing with entropy is that it is an abstract concept (you > don't talk about any field particles or anything, not even forces) and it is > defined in different ways in different contexts, sometimes it is an amount > of probability, sometimes it's heat, sometimes it's motion, sometimes it's > variance and so on. > When Shannon introduced the term in communication theory/information theory, > it was because von Neumann had advised him to use the term. Then they use > either Maxwell's Demon, or some concept of atomic proposed perpetuum mobile, > to infer the connection with statistical mechanics, but that was much later. > > Prior to reading Pirsig's work, I had some concepts of my own. > Regarding cognition, for instance, I had three levels: > 1. Instinctive (egoistic) > 2. Emotive (social) > 3. Rational (universal) > > Instinctive cognitions concerns drives, such as hunger, third, sleep, sex, > fright. Emotive concerns emotions which you express somehow, such as love, > hate, joy, sadness and so on. > Rational cognition was the servant of these two, trying to find the means to > satisfy them. > For values, which I thought was established arbitrarily by the social system > (but so as to preserve the particular social system imposing them) I had the > following questions to determine them at a personal level: > 1. For what are you ready to die? (the personal meaning of live) > 2. For what are you ready to perform work, without other profit than the > performance? (the meaning in life) > The idea was that you did all else you did in order to be able to do #2 and > self-sacrifice for #1. > Then, concerning science, from the "synthesist perspective", science is just > a special case of art, which concerns itself with what is useful (that is > rational). > > But here I was stuck. It felt as though I had to get into some kind of > social relativism, but I didn't like social relativism. And I was also > trying to go around the Cartesian dichotomy in this way. > > When I read Pirsig's first book, to me it seemed that he was just mystifying > his own values and feelings. I just thought of him as an "over-intelligent" > person, having lost contact with his emotional self and thus feeling a need > to mystify it, because he couldn't find a rational way to deal with it. > Perhaps this actually was so, I don't know. > But with Lila, he actually solved the problem of social relativism by means > of the MoQ. > That's why I came to like it. > > /A > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 118 > Sent: den 28 oktober 2010 00:41 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value > > Hi A/, > Nonsense or not, it's a fun read. I have some comments which I will place > in your thesis(?) below. -Mark > > [A/] > To Ham/Mark and others. > > To me that's just a way of categorization, and in MoQ, MoQ itself i sorted > under the same category. You shouldn't be surprised to find such maps. For > my part, I would probably have dismissed MoQ hadn't I been able to see any > such connections. You can't really explain why science "works", if you > reduce it to an intellectual pattern not corresponding to anything. > > [Mark's attitude] > MOQ is an analogy. It should be used for ones own positive purposes, and > dismissed if one does not find it useful. I have gained much from the > notion of Quality especially during my formative years. Personally, I use > it as a spring board for all sorts of nonsense. This do doubt annoys the > purists, but I do feel I have something to add, just in my own way. > > [A/] > Anyway. I actually expanded on the topic today. I had some different trains > of thought, but this was the analogy that seemed to work best. > In creating map between the two SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT (which is the way I > conceive them, such systems span statement spaces), we should first find the > analogy to the concept of Quality as a whole. After ponding some time, I > found it to be negentropy, which is also information (in the Shannon > concept). > > [Mark] > Seems like a good starting point. I believe Pirsig used this kind of > analogy and then was accused of being Theological. Some discuss posts I > contributed to in the past dealt with thermodynamics, and the apparent well > of negative entropy (the spark of life). > > [A/] > Why this? Well, first of all, in ordinary science information is what the > brain, as a concrete system is working with. A sound, for example, having > the highest entropy (the largest variation), would be perceived as noise. > The same with light, which would just be a "whiteness" and no colors. In a > word of "total entropy", there wouldn't be anything at all: everything would > be totally shattered and there would be no motion at all. > You don't perceive the Brownian motion of the molecules in the air, which is > high entropic, but you do perceive a wind, which is a low entropic motion. > And so on. So I just state the relation as axiomatic: Quality -> Negentropy. > Now, how should we map the division between static and dynamic? > In mathematic systems theory all dynamics are functions of time. How could > we conceive this? If we have a space-time (and the "space" doesn't have to > consist of spatial dimensions only), then anything dynamic, is moving along > some curve not parallel to the time dimension in that non-time dimension(s) > considered. > > [Mark] > Interesting use of information simplification. I have considered an > interpretation of the levels as harmonics, with noise in between. I believe > in your in your last sentence above you meant "static" instead of "dynamic". > If not, then I do not follow. > > > [A/] > Then of course, what is static and what is dynamic depends on which > dimension(s) you are considering (it's quite easy to imagine a > three-dimensional Cartesian space, were a curve is parallel to the time axis > in one but not the other of the other two). > This would, then, be the description of static and dynamic in the frame of > "static physical patterns". Which scale you chose to measure, would in any > case depend upon just what kind of pattern you study. > Because by measuring you are gaining some quantity of information, which it > just would be cumbersome to try to compare to some absolute scale. It's > better to choose some relative scale useful in the context. > The amount of some dynamic pattern, would straight of be the amount of > information/energy gained or paid for the measurement. A amount of a static > pattern would be the different ways it could be decomposed. > > [Mark] > I makes sense to separate DQ from SQ in terms of dimensional > characteristics, such as the two dimensional world from the three. I am not > quite sure where this would lead however. A similar notion could be seen in > the difference between a point and a vector. (SQ and DQ). > > [A/] > If I allow myself to oversimplify, consider the central nervous system for > instance. It consists of neurons and connections between those, called > synapses. The probability that a signal is propagated through any specific > synapse when a neuron fire is a number between zero and one. The total > number of possible connections between neurons would be a function of the > number of neurons, N, > > f(N)=(N(N-1)/2 > > In this simplified particular instance, I would term this number of a > maximally connected network, the amount of static patterns of the system > considered. The amount of change in the probabilities of the synapses, on > the other hand, would be the dynamics. > > To reduce the number of static patterns, you have to remove neurons, and to > reduce the dynamic patterns, the system must approach the state when all > probabilities are either one or zero (if you make it a discrete model, for > instance, you could make a probability increase every time the synapse > carries a signal and make it decrease every time the synapse hasn't carried > a signal for three iterations or more). > > [Mark] > It would be nice if the brain were that overly simple. I spent a few years > studying the brain (in rats), even got some publications out. The digital > analogy falls apart due to summation of input which is a result of density > of connections, constant changes (adaptations) of the synaptic cleft, and so > forth. There is also a chemical gradation between synapses that may delay > firing, and a transmitter clean-up which affects signal transduction. But > yes, either a nerve propagates an action potential or it doesn't, so a > binary system is appropriate, and I see your point of making the nerves > static for descriptive purposes. How information is stored by the brain is > a whole 'nother subject. Probabilities of one or zero, doesn't sound like > statistics to me, but what do I know. > > [A/] > Perhaps this is just nonsense, but anyway :-) > > [Mark] > Ditto > 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
