Hi David, thnx for the reply (hopefully horse doesn't see this = 5th post) I see you have noticed that i like to reduce everything to information and sensation. To me every component of information(as a composition of waves) is joined witt a component sensation( as a range of feeling from "I Like" to "I like not")
The million dollar question is: What's the point? All my life i noticed that there is a relation between the information i deal with and the feeling(sensation) i experienced. As a young boy I noticed this when I succeded in repairing my broken radio. I was overwehlmed by good feelings. Later I associated that with the concept Quality. Probably this inspired me to become an engineer later. Later I also noticed that the greek had a word for that experience called EUREKA! When i fell in love with a woman I only had that feeling when the information of that woman came to my mind So from a very young age on I was intrigued by the relationship between the information i had to deal with and the sensations(feelings) i felt at those moments. Understanding this relationship became even more importand during psychotic episodes when i noticed that That the amounts of sensation i had to deal with became so high that it had a distorting effect on the personality i was(as a collection of concepts in my subconscious mind). This made me even work harder to be able to understand this relationship. Now after twenty years i thought of a way to understand this, and this gives me tools in my head to regulate myself when the sensations tend to become to high. So "the point" to me has very personal value as it once had for Pirsig in his effort to understand the things he did. I learned a lot from his process but other parts of his process, the becomming a celebrity part, i dislike. Pirsig once wanted to go public because he believed his work could add something to society. I build for some part on the ideas of Pirsig and probably i used unknowingly a bit of Kants work too. (good of you to notice). And probably more philosophers and mathematicians and physists...etc. I just want to investigate if this idea i have is worth sharing and if so I would like it to be an open source idea. Like Linux once was. If this wave equation idea can be discussed and investigated it might have the potential to say something about the observer effect in quantum physics and the time problems in the Libet experiments. as two i can think of right now but there are probably more. Until now it's just philosophy but if in the end the numbers(relative numbers) add up it has potential to become science. That's my point Cheers Eddo P.S. Lets continue this discussion in the new thread i made "Quality defined!" because we are hijacking this thread which was started with another purpose by somebody else. 2013/4/4 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > > Eddo said to dmb: > ...How does a person "strip every bit of information from every emotion"? > The use of the word "every" emotion implies that there are more than one > and that there are differences between those emotions. Consciously you can > only be aware of those differences in terms of information. But the word > emotion also implies a feeling. If I see somebody cry I assume that this > person is overwelmed with feelings because i am when i cry. To me those > feelings are sensation. Sensations produced by our sixth "value" sense > organ. read essay "subject's, object's data and values. True! It's an > effort to build an abstract meta-physical/mathematical system. If > scientific Physics can use Mathematics as it's language why not Metaphysics? > > dmb says: > I don't think you answered the question. In fact, your answer only raises > more questions. (It also raises the hairs on the back of my neck.) Some > parts of it only state the obvious, as when you say there is more than one > emotion or that crying people have feelings. But what part of your answer > is relevant to the question? What does it mean to strip information from > feelings? How would you do that? Why would you do that? And how is it even > possible to use math as a language for metaphysics? > > > Eddo continued: > > What does it mean to say that "pure sensation" is "what we ..are at the > most fundamental level"? It's an assumption I made after twenty years of > thinking. Long ago i accedently saw this movie At First Sight (1999) - > [...] This gave me the idea that the human eye acts more like a mirror than > like a camera. A mirror that likes a balance between the information on > both sides of this mirror and dislikes an unbalance. This kind of mirror is > mathematically expressable with the wave equations of resonance. I > generalize this priciple to all five sense organs. The conscious mind i see > as the sixth sense organ as Pirsig called that the value sense organ. I see > this as an aggeregation of our five senses. same principle. Mathematicians > like symmetry ;-) > > > dmb says: > I think Kant is usually given credit for the idea that perception is > always shaped or mediated by the mind. The transcendental categories of > mind, as he called them, always prevent us from directly seeing the > world-in-itself. For Kant, these categories of the mind were innate, a > built-in structure. Your movie-inspired idea is a case of re-inventing the > wheel and, I think, quite badly too. Pirsig rejects the SOM premise behind > Kant's view and Pirsig rejects the notion that the categories of the mind > are innate too. Instead we get a picture of concepts as an evolving system > of humanly constructed analogies. They grow as we grow. > I just don't see how your wheel turns. Sure, mathematical symmetry is nice > and neat but how is it reasonable to infer that eyeballs (or any sense > organs) like to be so balanced? And how would one quantify sensations or > otherwise make them expressible in "wave equations of resonance"? Seems to > me that you are imposing order and symmetry is a way that is not only > inappropriate and ill-fitting but also wildly incoherent. The mathematics > of feelings, thoughts and sensations? Even if it were possible, why would > you want to? What's the point? > > > > > Eddo continued: > If you want i can walk you through the mathematical details but i'd rather > do that in another editor because i can only use plain text on this forum. > The reason I chose to understand this in Mathemathics is because i think > that mathematics can be seen as the most cultural independent language > there is. Just to avoid cultural sensitivities. > > > > dmb says: > Again, that doesn't answer my question. I don't want to scrutinize the > details of anything until sometime AFTER it makes sense on a much more > basic level. And justifying the use of mathematics as a way to address > cultural sensitivities sounds nice and reasonable as a presentation style > but that's not what I'm asking about. There seems to be a fundamental > disconnection between your tools of choice (math) and the subject matter > that you're working on (sensations, feelings, emotions). I don't see how > those things can be quantified at all? Ever heard the saying, "If all you > have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail"? I'm saying that > sensations and feelings are not nails and so it makes no sense to be > hammering them. How do I love thee, let me express that in an algebraic > equation? It's like using a ruler to measure my patience. > > I don't see how any of this clarifies or illuminate the MOQ in any way. Do > you think it does and if so, how so? > > > > > > > > > > > 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
