[MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

[Magnus Berg]

On 2010-07-26 15:54, MarshaV wrote:
>> But "unpatterned" seems to indicate that you don't think it's SQ.
>
> And logically that would leave only DQ, right?  I do not think such small
> experiences allow one to leap to any grand conclusions about DQ.

Neither do I. That's why I'm trying to make you rethink what the 
experience was in terms of SQ and DQ.

>> Some SQ patterns are *very* dynamic. We may never be able to predict what
>> will happen when we experience such patterns, and as such, they are perhaps
>> best described as "unpatterned".   But my point is that it's still some SQ pattern
>> at the other end of the quality event/experience.
>
> I guess I cannot prevent you from analyzing my experience to your own
> comfort level, but may I please remind you that it was not your experience.

Of course it wasn't mine, but at the same time, you can't expect me to 
revise my understanding of the MoQ based on your experience.

>>>>>> 1. The "patterns that identify it" are the formulas we use to
>>>>>> calculate the gravitational force, i.e. F=g*m (or
>>>>>> F=G*m1*m2/r^2) using Newton's version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The "force" is what's stopping you from banging your head in
>>>>>> the ceiling if you jump upwards indoors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The two are different. That's what the levels are all about. To
>>>>>> be able to tell things like these apart. They are not ghosts
>>>>>> anymore as Phaedrus thought in ZMM, they are different
>>>>>> types/levels of patterns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither are wrong, but what would this force be without those
>>>>> patterns?  Unknown.
>>>>
>>>> Without 1 it would be unknown, but not unreal. That's a heck of a
>>>> difference.
>>>
>>> How could something that is unknown be real in any sense of the
>>> word? How would it be judged real in any sense of the word?  You will
>>> need to explain your logic.
>>
>> 4.5 billion years ago, our solar system started spinning around its newly
>> born star. An educated guess is that nobody was there to watch it,
>> therefore nobody knew about it until afterwards.
>
> It's still an educated guess that is conventionally postulated as 'real'.
>
>>
>> What do you mean by "known"?
>
> I don't know.  What do you mean by "known"?

You used the term first so it's your term to explain. I was asking 
because if you answer I can give you a better example to show what I mean.

>> That some enlightened being thought about it?
>
> I do not know what you mean by "enlightened" being in
> this context?

Another reason why this would be much easier if you just answer my 
question above.

>> That a lesser being looked at a juicy looking apple? That an amoeba
>> swam left because the water tasted better that way? That a molecule
>> bonded with another molecule forming a larger molecule?
>
> Lovely...

I don't think you're being serious with me anymore. I'm trying to show 
you why I so strongly believe that the ZMM ghost called gravity can be 
explained much better using the levels, than reverting to some old 
if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-and-nobody-is-there-to-hear-it-it-doesn't-fall-philosophy. 
And your reply is, I don't know, demeaning.

>> At some point, you have to decide what constitutes "knowing",
>> and that is a *very* hard call to make. So can you tell me exactly
>> *when* was the earth "known"? Did it become real in that instant?
>
> I am having more success discovering the falseness in what I
> know.

Dodge left...

>> Please explain *that* logic.
>
> The ultimate truth (knowledge) is best approached by discovering
> what is false.   Conventional truths are useful and relative.

...and dodge right.

"best approached by discovering what is false"?? That was exactly what 
Phaedrus thought was misrepresented with the scientific method in ZMM! 
Science told everyone that it was able to enumerate *all* hypotheses, 
and then refute one by one (i.e. discover which was false) until only 
the correct one was left. But Phaedrus showed that it's impossible to do 
that. Human intuition, or Quality, selected only those hypotheses that 
had any chance of succeeding.

Stop burping bull at me! Be serious. I'm trying to be.


>> Don't you understand that the levels are here to solve that puzzle?
>
> I understand the levels to be a useful approach to evaluating which
> patterns are better.

And there's that word again, "useful". When something is useful, you can 
use it for your own agenda, and when it doesn't suit you, you can just 
stop using it.

I'm not in it for "useful". If it's just "useful", I wouldn't go near it.

In other words, I don't think you said *anything* with that. You were 
just trying to smooth things over and sidestep the issue at hand.

>> We can now recognize that the earth have been around since it formed.
>
> Well, it is not round, and it might have been farther from a perfect sphere
> prior to the shape we have determined it to be in modern times.

and your seriousness hit a new low.

>> Life has been evolving at its own pace and now we're here to *know* it.
>
> Interesting.

Was that serious? I hope so, but I won't hold my breath.


>> The *knowing* is an intellectual pattern, nothing more. Before that, lower
>> level patterns was there without anyone knowing about it. It was unknown,
>> but not unreal.
>
> How do you know that?

and now you're back to playing with words I see.

>>
>> That old joke about "known" being the only measure of reality is just bull.
>> Forget it!
>
> I don't know the joke.

In 20 years, everyone will laugh.


>>> Oh, maybe it is that if it is unknown, it would not exist to be
>>> labeled either real OR unreal???
>>
>> Labelling stuff is what the intellectual level does. It labels other types of
>> patterns with its own label. So if something is unknown, it's simply not
>> labelled at all. Neither real nor unreal.
>
> Cant the social level label something food?

No, the social level is about cooperating. A social pattern can't label 
anything, it just is.

>>>> They are both patterns of value, yes. But the force is inorganic,
>>>> the theory is intellectual.
>>>
>>> Yes, science needs to divide these for rational analysis, I
>>> understand that science creates all sorts of boundaries for the
>>> convenience of its method, but I'm not sure they can be considered
>>> two separate patterns.  I do not see how gravity exists, even as a
>>> force, separate from the theories that created it.  I see the logic
>>> of it for practical purposes, but interrelated/ interdependent
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> Stop blaming science and rationality.
>
> I'm not blaming any thing.

So what would you call it then? You're attributing the split of gravity 
into two different forms, which you think is not real, to science.

Another aspect, and I'm still trying to be serious, if you think that 
gravity was created by the theory, literally *created* when Newton wrote 
down his formula. Did the earth start spinning around the sun there and 
then?

And Copernicus who centuries earlier knew that the earth and the planets 
spun around the sun? Now when we know that, was gravity created then 
instead? But in the Muslim parts of the world, they knew more about 
astronomy even earlier, so did the earth spin around the sun in those 
countries, but not in Europe?

>> Write "F=m*g" on a piece of paper and put it on the floor.
>> Stand beside the paper and jump up.
>>
>> How are those two experiences, reading the formula and jumping, similar?
>
> Jump.  Jump.  Jump.
>
> This is obvious an experiment that gives you satisfaction.  It doesn't
> work for me, so I can't make that determination.

Can't or won't?

>> And I still claim that the relationship between the theory of gravity and
>> gravity is that the "theory of gravity" is an intellectual pattern that does
>> its best to represent the inorganic pattern gravity. Neither the intellectual
>> version of the inorganic version is objective, or "out there". Because even
>> if the direct connection between the theory of gravity and gravity is provisional
>> as you put it, there *is* a hard dependency between the intellectual level and
>> the inorganic level. There's no dependency between the specific intellectual
>> *pattern* that we call "the theory of gravity" and the inorganic pattern though.
>> But that's not really relevant.
>
> In meditation I have seen the flow of thoughts, so I have developed
> an ability to laugh at workings of my puny mind.  And other minds
> too.

So now you're laughing at me, very serious...

	Magnus