[MD] Chance v. Dynamic Quality

[Michael Poloukhine]

> MP: 
> But that is still not measuring *Quality.* Its measuring the
> *chances*, the 
> *likelihood*, the *probability* of an experience having or resulting in
> Quality. Its 
> not measuring the Quality of the results. Its not saying "this is
> more Quality than another."
> 
> [Krimel]
> Quality is a perception. It is a synthesis or a summation of
> experience plus an evaluation. 

MP: Quality is affirmed through perception, it is experienced through perception, 
but to say it *is* perception? I have to disagree based on what I have gathered 
about it. Perception is a biological process. One perhaps patterned on Quality, 
but not Quality itself.

It also IMO does not in any way incorporate or contain "evaluation." Evaluation 
is an intellectual operation, in the realm of concepts. Quality is pre-conceptual.

Maybe the hard and fast MoQers can chime in here?


> MP:
> Ergo, chance <> Quality.
> 
> [Krimel]
> Well yeah. It's not equal to this or that. But it often seems to be
> a lot like some other thing.

MP: The only question I was answering was the challenge to show any way that  
Dynamic Quality and Chance are different. Seems to me that while we can 
debate how different they are, it is pretty clear they aren't the same thing. That'd 
be "different" yes?

I don't see how we can ever measure Quality itself. We can only measure how 
patterns react to it, in it, through it. Chance on the other hand, the more I think 
of it *is* measure and nothing more.

MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."