[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[Mary]

[Mary]
I would think so, since it was human brains that invented them.

[Krimel]
Actually computers do not work at all like brains.

[Mary]
We have no choice about the form our logic takes.  It seems to be totally
hard-wired into us.  Like breathing.  We cannot escape it any more than we
can escape the S/O universe our scientists are struggling to understand.  

[ Mary]
>>    What is beyond the edge of the Universe?
>> This is what I want Pirsig to explain.
>
> If so, you are on a fool's errand.
> Craig

[Mary previously]
This is a question I have.  What makes us think we are capable of
understanding Quality or anything much about the nature of reality?  Our
minds are products of the very reality we are trying to understand.  Do we
have the necessary equipment to understand the nature of the predicament we
find ourselves in?  This goes to the "container logic" problem.  We only
have this one kind of logic to work with.  What if there are others?  Why
not? 
...
What if the matter and energy in the Universe is not the important thing,
but the empty space between it?  What is empty space anyway?  Maybe the
Universe is not expanding, but instead, empty space is growing?  Let me ask
you this.  If time in the Universe were speeding up or slowing down, would
we know that?  Would it make any difference if a second were longer now that
it was 10 years ago?  Inquiring minds want to know. :)

  
Hello Krimel, Magnus, Craig (and Bo),

Krimel, you are absolutely right.  My comment about computers being similar
to human brains was a toss-off remark.  

Perhaps you and Craig miss my point above?  Magnus has caught it precisely.


I contend that using the subject-object logic we are hard-wired with we
cannot ever know answers to the biggest questions we have.  I suspect this
is because we are asking the wrong questions; and, I further suspect that we
are asking the wrong questions because we are incapable of conceptualizing
the right ones.  Subject-object logic forces us down a rabbit hole that
limits our ability to ask all possible questions.

Here's an example.  When we think about the Universe, subject-object logic
forces us to view it as having an edge.  This begs the question, "What is
beyond the edge?", which begs the question, "What is beyond that?", etc.,
into infinity.  Infinity is the operative word here.  The human mind cannot
comprehend infinity.  We have a word for it; it is defined in any
dictionary, yet we do not know what it means.  It is an affront to our
logical sensibilities.  We have little catch-phrases to categorize it,
blithely saying things like, "God is infinite".  Even the Pope does not know
what that means.  Infinity is a logical conundrum.  Think about it long
enough and you'll get a headache.  Should this not suggest something to us?
There's nothing wrong with infinity.  Maybe there's something limited about
our brains?  

I find it fascinating to think about the world from the point of view of a
digital computer.  If you will suspend disbelief for a moment, imagine a
world composed of digital life-forms.  It doesn't matter what they look like
or whether they are carbon-based or not.  What I want you to visualize is a
world where every creature's brain is completely digital.  This universe
boils down to zeros and ones.  That's it.  The foundation of these digital
beings existence is the belief that everything can be understood in terms of
zeros and ones.  Infinity is a meaningless term because you cannot express
infinity in terms of zeros and ones.  Further, anything that is
indeterminate is equally meaningless because you can't express indeterminate
things in zeros and ones either.  There are no shades of grey in this world.
Yes, I hear your objections rising up, en masse.   

"You can certainly express shades of grey digitally!", you will say.  

Sure you can, but not all of them.

What would these digital beings make of Quality?  What would they think of
value?  They would probably have noticed that some of their digital friends
have different opinions about things than they do.  They might notice, for
instance, that one digital friend, who is a chef, values different digital
flavors, while another, a rocket scientist friend, values a study of motion,
and could care less what she eats.  They would probably have a definition of
value in their digital dictionary, but would they understand what it means?
It's just an opinion.  It's not important for understanding the Universe,
they would say to themselves.  In a digital Universe, everything that cannot
be described in terms of zeros and ones is thrown out.  It all goes into the
bit bucket; just junk, like the remainder left over after rounding.  Quality
and value do not exist because they cannot be quantified.  I wonder where
these digital beings think the edge of the Universe is?

Back from our fantasy we can be smugly superior to those poor, misguided,
digital beings.  We are analog!  We know there are infinite shades of grey.
We know that the Universe is expanding into nothingness.  Nothingness?  Wait
a minute.  "What is that", you ask.  Hmmmm, well, nothingness is the
opposite of something-ness.  It is no-thing.  No space, no time, no
beginning, no end.  "Really?  Sounds like it must be something."  After all,
subject-object logic tells us that the opposite of anything is something,
uh, else.  Something else can't be nothing?  This makes no sense.  

Subject-object logic can go on forever in an infinite loop with this
conundrum.  Does anyone else find this funny?  Subject-object logic can get
itself into an infinite loop trying to understand the infinite!  He He
Maybe we are not so superior to those poor digital beings after all.

Go with me one more step.  "There can't be any more steps!", you say,
"Because I am already running around on a treadmill in infinite circles
leading nowhere!"  Oh yeah?  It gets worse.  Remember our little digital
beings?  You know, the ones whose entire logic is based on zeros and ones?
Well, due to this infinite logical loop we've gotten ourselves into, you
could say that their entire civilization, their entire mode of thinking, is
based on a logical fallacy.  Zeros and ones.  But there are no zeros!  By
definition, zero (nothingness) does not exist.  

Any questions?

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Krimel
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:39 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[Bo] 
my belief is that the human (or any) brain capable of intelligence
works like computers.

[Mary]
I would think so, since it was human brains that invented them.

[Krimel]
Actually computers do not work at all like brains. Brains are analog
systems. They function as neural networks and the accuracy of their current
processing ability is a function of their ability to process in the past.
They do not have a fixed structure or follow rigid rule not even the rules
of Boolean logic.

Computers on the other hand are digital and follow algorithmic rules that
are relatively fixed. We may write programs for them to mimic human thinking
but they do so, at least most of them, in very different way.

The value of using computers as metaphors can be great. But, as with all
analogies (not the same as analog, Bo) we must always hold the differences
in mind as we explore the similarities.

[Mary]
We have no choice about the form our logic takes.  It seems to be totally
hard-wired into us.  Like breathing.  We cannot escape it any more than we
can escape the S/O universe our scientists are struggling to understand.  

[Krimel]
Among the hallmarks of what makes us human is our ability to take different
points of view. Among these are points of view outside of ourselves and the
ability to see ourselves, not so much as acting in the world, but as actors
in a world filled with other actors. I do agree that when it comes to
humans, thinking never stops, it only changes form.



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/