[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,
Wonderful to be exchanging again.  Perhaps it is fitting under Marsha's
SOL since many of her posts and pictures shine new light.  You bring up
some interesting stuff, and I will respond below your response, kind of
like several conversations at the same time which may be more efficient
via these posts.

On Oct 20, 2009, at 12:02:36 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
From:   "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Marsha's (s)OL
Date:   October 20, 2009 12:02:36 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hi Will --



> I too see much similarity with your view, you are probably
> farther along than I with mine. However, what I am saying is
> that it is possible to experience the world without conceptualizing it.

I certainly do not deny this. Experience is primary to conceptualization. 
You may have misunderstood what I meant by a "construct". When I use the 
verb "objectivize" or "reify" as a function of experience, I'm talking about 
the ordinary process of converting raw value into discrete objects, not 
"forming concepts" in the abstract intellectual sense.
I think I know what you are saying.  Yes, I would agree, that we mirror the world
with synaptically connected neuronal pathways which allow us to survive
in it.  I do not want to confuse that internalized pattern for what could be there.
This would be like seeing the sky as an unchanging set of constellations.  There
are a number of alternative constellations that can be imagined. 


> When you speak of the brain being wired to screen out
> information, that is a disservice to the brain. Speaking of
> drugs, an easy way to note how the brain is easily
> unwired is through the use of psychotropics. By mimicking
> and disrupting neurotransmitters, it is possible to see
> how tenuous our present consciousness is. What is
> interesting that under the influence of such things (which
> I do not condone as necessary), the brain is still fighting to
> make sense of what is happening. Because of this need,
> new connections are made, and supposedly new revelations
> are acquired. Many think these are more real, but they are
> only different ways in which the brain interacts.

Remember that the brain is the organ responsible for connecting our 
awareness with an objective world. The neurotransmitteres are the 
connection lines. If the sensory inputs are overloaded or too "busy", the 
image transmitted will be distorted and hallucinating, which is the affect 
of psychotropic drugs. The human brain evolved over millions of years not 
as tool of intellection and conceptualization, but as means of survival for 
a creature that lacked the brawn and agility of its preditors. As a result, 
our brains excel at spotting associations between objects based on 
similarities, alignment and grouping. This is helpful for separatign a 
hunted animal from its herd, or for indicating which strangers belong to 
which tribes. When we match shapes and patterns, we quickly sort what to 
focus on from what to ignore. Today, we're more likely to use this ability 
to navigation a new website, or to tell at a glance how many unopened emails 
we have.

I haven't studied the brain for several decades now, and my knowledge may be out of date.  What
I continue to think from that time, is that such hallucinations are no different from those that
we call real.  It is a different pattern firing.  If one basis reality on survival criteria, then perhaps
a system can be formed as you state.  But remember, that such criteria are assumptions.  By
such assumptions, one could conclude that reincarnation actually creates even more
survival, and therefore must be true (and maybe it is).  A while back I had what I thought 
was an epiphany, and realized that all these arguments based on evolution were pretty 
empty tautologies.  I am a biologist by training, and seeing apart from this was interesting.  It is equally
possible that evolution is a pulling force.  Each species fills the niches available.  Are these
niches creating the species which inhabits them?  If so, what is the underlying function
of these niches.


In an article in seedmagazine.com, Vitaly Klyachko, a neurobiologist at the 
Salk Institute in Southern California, says that "synapses, by their nature, 
are probabilistic little devices. They don't transfer every type of 
information they receive." Klyachk goes on to say that only 10 to 25% of 
the signals that a neuron receives will be transmitted across the synapse; 
the rest are "dropped" much like a cell phone call. Known as the 
Semmelweis Reflex, the idea is that whenever new information comes along, 
our brains will check it against everything we already know. If there's a 
contradiction, we're more likely to reject the new information, or at least 
be extremely skeptical of it, thereby conserving our existing knowledge 
against new information.
What you describe is founded on good science, cultured cells in vitro and so forth.  Yes, the
brain is formed by those connections which create us as we are.  Again, are those connections
dictated by reductionism or by expansionism?  I would argue that much of which information is
dropped, is dictated by society (parenthood, friends), rather than by trial and error.  Which is why
I sometimes say that language is a virus (not in a negative sense).  Is it possible that out
of all the ways we can conceptualize, we have chosen the best way?


Another article in Scientific American states that "several decades of 
research have indicated that our capacity to hold information 'in mind' for 
immediate use is limited to a mere three or four items. ...There are at 
least two primary explanations for this severe limitation in working memory 
capacity. First, it could be that working memory capacity is essentially 
determined by storage space, and that some people have larger 'hard drives' 
than others do. The alternative explanation is that capacity depends not on 
the amount of storage space but on how efficiently that space is used. Thus 
high-capacity individuals might simply be better at keeping irrelevant 
information out of mind, whereas low capacity individuals may allow more 
irrelevant information to clutter up the mental inbox. High-capacity 
individuals may just have better spam filters."

It was thought that forgetting was an ability.  The brain would wash itself so as to not
be be overwhelmed.  There are people with conditions of extremely high memory
capacity (photographic), who are unable to function.  Each word in a sentence brings
up a series of memories, and it is impossible to concentrate on much.  Selective
memory allows the brain to function to feed itself.  I believe that many thoughts are
occurring at once, and that which we are currently thinking about, is brought to the
surface to complete a task.  If such single-mindedness is too extreme, creativity may
be lost.  I have met people who are so literal, it's frightening.

I think it would be wrong to reduce all thinking to that of survival and evolution.
If man could not talk for millions of years, why was that capacity preserved
and finally expressed?  Was it time?  How did we know to preserve it?


As a subscriber to the view that human apprehension and knowledge is an 
orderly reduction of "infinite
chaotic data", I'm persuaded that the cerebral function is more of a 
"limiter" than a "gatherer" of information. And, because we are valuistic 
creatures, it is critical that our discriminative sensibility relate to our 
cognizant locus in experiential existence. This necessitates a brain 
designed to filter out or exclude information which would otherwise corrupt 
our space/time orientation.

> It is possible to stop paying attention to the conceptualization
> aspect of existence (no drugs needed). You may say this is
> just another conceptualization, but it's not. You don't know
> until you have been there. Everything does not fit into a little
> box, there is much more. It can be called consciousness
> expanding (not conceptualism expanding). This is outside
> your logic, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I agree that there is such capability, but it is psycho-emotional rather 
than intellectual. We are able to enjoy a fine work of art or music, for 
example, by realizing the value of the piece holistically, rather than 
analyzing it as fragments. Platt would say that the appreciation of Beauty 
is the ultimate DQ experience, and I agree that our response to esthetic 
value is more intensely felt than the value of factual knowledge, moral 
virtues, freddom, and perhaps even the life of a fellow human. But, again, 
where we find value depends on our social conditioning, behavioral habits, 
and environmental circumstances.

I would say that the intellect is just one facet of the psycho-emotional.  It
is used to communicate such psycho-emotional sensations, and repeat 
them if wanted.  It is simplified communicative psycho-emotionality.


Will, it seems as though we're "fine tuning" an epistemology on which we 
fundamentally agree, although it doesn't represent the MoQ thesis. The 
Pirsigians will argue that all of the above is nothing but "patterns of 
Quality", including the conscious agent. I don't know how to respond to 
that worldview. Do you?
Ham, I still have not seen a cogent description.  I see circles within circles; something is
driving these circles to form.  I read in these posts, descriptions which vary from the
mystical, to the highly scientific, to the sociological and system-based.  
Sometimes I read an explanation  that is somewhat Pirsigian (is that a word yet?),
and I am left with a big mix of ideas.

Suffice it to say, that I do not have enough information yet to debate it on a fundamental 
level and I stick to sound bites.

Cheers,
Willblake2


Thanks, and best regards,
Ham

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/