[MD] Able to change well.

[MarshaV]

It's a conventional explanation, of course...    


On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:28 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Greetings Adrian and Magnus,
> 
> I'd also like to mention something that I heard from Dennett or Dawkins about 
> having a prejudice towards change in a timeframe that is readily 
> experienced by humans.  Change may happen at speeds too fast for humans 
> to experience, or too slow for humans to experience.  What might seem 
> as not changing may just be a case of change too slow for us too experience. 
> 
> Just something to consider.    
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:10 AM, Magnus Berg wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ade
>> 
>> First, never mind Frank. He's literally not for real and has a very peculiar sense of humor, just ignore him if he doesn't make sense, he seldom does.
>> 
>> schoadabyool at talktalk.net wrote:
>>> My name is Adrian, and i should like to ask a question.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Robert Pirsig says in Lila that static patterns are migrating toward Dynamic Quality.
>>> I think i've got that right.
>>> He also says that static patterns latch and are stable.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My question is how can patterns be stable and yet migrate toward Dynamic Quality at the same time?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Some patterns seem to be too latched and stable and can not change. So they are bad at being able to change.
>>> And yet others must be good at being able to change so they can migrate toward Dynamic Quality as Robert Pirsig says in Lila.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> How is this possible?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is this a new question or does Robert Pirsig give an answer somewhere?
>> 
>> It's not a completely new question, but I'm actually not sure it has been discussed here. I have thought about it though, very pragmatically I should add. Also, you might have noticed that many here on MD only see static patterns, and the levels, as some theoretical-only division of the world we see around us, so, for them, your question is actually not interesting, or even possible to ponder. They think, what happens, just happens, or using Krimel's words "Shit happens".
>> 
>> However, since you did ask the question, I'll assume you'd like a more direct answer, and mine goes something like:
>> 
>> One example is viruses. They are stable enough to be able to spread the same infection over more or less the whole world over a season. However, it's also dynamic enough to change into something else, if stopped by a new antibiotics.
>> 
>> But that didn't perhaps answer your question: *How* is it possible?
>> 
>> Then I have another example for you. It's been discussed here a few months ago if you want to search for the thread. It's about what happens when the inorganic level have reached the end of its possibilities.
>> 
>> As you know, the inorganic level is about physics and chemistry. I've even suggested to make chemistry into a level of its own, but that's not important here. Anyway, on the young earth, there was nothing what we now call life, just a big ocean in which chemistry did its deed. Chemistry is pretty static, because what it can do is very statically decided by the laws of chemistry. For example, if an O atom meets a pair of bonded H atoms (H2), then it immediately unbonds the H2 molecule and bind both H to the O atom, making water (H2O). The H atoms snaps into place on the top of the O forming a Mickey Mouse molecule. The laws of chemistry can do lots of other things, especially with the C atom with which it can build long chains containing both carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other atoms. And every time a chemical experience/event happen, the result is dictated by the laws of chemistry and the atoms involved snaps into their predetermined place. Sometimes, when two of these large
>  molecules meet, they can combine chemically into an even larger molecule and snaps into another shape, or the don't attract eachother chemically in which case they simply bounce apart again.
>> 
>> However, sometimes when such large molecules meet, they happen to fit into eachother's shape like hand and glove and if they're really lucky, they even meet in the right direction so the hand fits in the glove. If that happens, two large molecules have bonded without the help of the laws of chemistry. The bond is much weaker than a chemical bond, but just because it *is* weaker, it's also more dynamic. It can let go of that bond if it "wants" to. I'd even say this is the precursor to what we today call "free will".
>> 
>> Some of these fitting molecules found another molecule that also fit, and some even became so large and complex it could build stuff using other molecules in its vicinity. One day, it was able to build a copy of itself, and the rest is, as we say, history. The history of life to be specific.
>> 
>> I claim that these shape fitting molecules are using biological value, i.e. it's the basis of the biological level and is the first step out of the static inorganic level into a completely new level. The process also gives a very good insight into what constitutes a new level, why they are discrete and how the level dependency really work, and not just a theoretical buzzword.
>> 
>> And to connect this with Pirsig, he has said that taste and smell are clear cut biological value/experiences. And this shape fitting process is exactly how smell works. So, for me, the case is pretty closed.
>> 
>> 	Magnus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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


 
___