Hi TV, Thanks for the introduction. I have not read the supporting material yet, but you have explained it well enough for me.
I have a Ph.D. in meta-biophysics from the Imperial College in London. This is mainly an engineering school, similar in caliber to Caltech here in California, but I studied the engineering of metabolism in bacteria, as well as bridging the gap between life and the electrical circuit: a product coined as "biosensor". So all this together gives me a unique perspective into cognition. Also, in a previous Ph.D attempt, I studied receptors in the brain, particularly those of serotonin, which is the foundation of consciousness, and, I believe, the seat of the soul. I have not heard of CTMU or of Langan, and if he is that smart, then he should do a better job at promoting himself. However, IQ does not really measure anything but ability to perform tasks, and speed of such performance. There are better ways to measure cognition, principally through biochemical pathways accessed through electrodes, or by non-invasive techniques such as CT (not CAT, computers have progressed so that imagine no longer needs to be "assisted"). Ron is much better at logic than I, so I will leave that part up to him. I have approached "everything is Quality" through Venn Diagrams and infinite sets, but is is just a spacio-mathematical approach of the same thing. Tautologies have been dealt with in this forum in the sense of circular referencing. Quality is not difficult to define, and the MoQ has several definitions and breakdowns and levels. It is, however, impossible to describe. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko <[email protected]> wrote: > Has anyone heard of Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe, that is, > CTMU? Developed by Chris Langan (according to some, the smartest man in > America with regards to IQ), it features a concept called telic recursion, > which is quite similar to Quality in MOQ. CTMU features the > "supertautology", which seems quite different of ordinary logical > tautologies, but analoguous to the "everything is Quality" statement found > in MOQ. The theory is difficult to formalize in a way that is usually > expected of academic theories, which again makes it resemble MOQ, as Quality > is difficult or impossible to define exactly. > > Here's a paper on the subject: > http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf > > I think Langan is trying to do quite the same thing as Pirsig, but his > approach is too scientific to work as well. The problem with the scientific > approach is that he is too explicitly trying to formulate a theory that is > the truth, independent of context and beyond falsification. There can't be > such a theory (If in doubt, see: > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/ ). MOQ seems to suffer > from the same problem, but to a lesser extent, because it has a less > scientific or formal approach and it actually makes some conclusions (the > hierarchy of static value patterns) that are independent of this problem. [Mark] Yes, science proposes ultimate Truth, rather than "Relationalism", a term I coined for MoQ. In the MoQ we have a hierarchy of layers but they are static. MoQ operates through induction rather than deduction, again a matter for Ron, but it also uses lateral thinking and such an approach can appear independent of the problem, but isn't. > > CTMU is quite similar to MOQ in other respects, too. It seems to involve > replacing subject-object metaphysics with some sort of a loop. Dynamic and > static quality could also be perceived as a loop structure, with Dynamic > Quality trying to "make a leap forwards" but, after that, needing to turn > itself into some static structure in order to make the leap permanent. CTMU > also rejects mind-body dualism, like MOQ. [Mark] I am not sure if loop is the correct term, since this involves tautology. sq is a loop, but DQ lies outside and can be seen more as an will or intention (please refer to posts on Quality as Will). There are certainly leaps between layers which resemble Kierkegaard's models, and such congealing is also present with his existentialism. MoQ does not reject mind-body dualism, but divides them into DQ and sq respectively. But I know what you mean. > > CTMU rejects materialism altogether, while the theory of static value > patterns in MOQ could be said to correspond with emergent materialism, but > this is not explicitly stated. Whether emergent materialism is "true" > materialism is another thing [Mark] Yes, emergent materialism can be seen as Intent since it has direction, and this is a component of DQ. Materialism is sq, and emergent materialism is direction. > > Also, like the MOQ, CTMU does not really seem falsifiable. MOQ isn't > falsifiable, or at least any way of falsifying it, except finding a > contradiction, isn't really feasible, right? I'm not saying it's not > grounded on any empirical evidence - I'm just saying that since Pirsig > hasn't really made any statistics that would empirically justify the static > patterns of value (that Intellectual is highest, and everything builds > towards higher forms of quality), it would be a bit unfair to expect a > skeptic to have such statistics, so we could as well say that as of now > falsifying the MOQ is not feasible, except by finding a contradiction. [Mark] For something to be falsifiable, it needs to be considered "true". So MoQ and CTMU would agree on this. A contradiction points to a an enigma or paradox. We have also dealt with this in this forum. Empirical evidence is the foundation of Science and radical empiricism. Dmb could explain more on this. Statistic relies on chance which is really a false choice (so to speak). Statistically speaking, all patterns have their own statistical probability. For example, an electron is considered to be everywhere but here. Skepticism is based on statistics, and is founded on a "chance universe", which it is obviously not, unless you subscribe to determinism. Solving a paradox is a better way to falsify MoQ, but as I stated this is a Hobson's Choice. > > What do you think of this. How are MOQ and CTMU similar or different? I hope > I got everything right here. It sounds reasonable to me. You have presented many of the similarities, and I have responded with some minor differences. Let me know more about this and we can have a fruitful discussion that may progress the MoQ. Thanks! Mark > > -T. > 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
