[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

A,
I've started reading your replay and it is going so well that I want to
start putting my thoughts down as I go, forgive me if this leads to
redundancy - even if it does I think that will be fine.
Tim

[from the discussion between Alexander and Tim]

[A] 
> REPLAY: I said in another discussion that I think that there is an
> "absolute
> reality" (ab-solut - "from out of the solution") but I don't think that
> you
> can "abstract" (abs-trahere "pull out from") an "ultimate concept"
> ("final
> offspring") from perception (in-collection). But my idea is that our
> perception in itself must be a part of reality, it can't in itself be
> fundamentally different from the rest of reality. But we do live only in
> the
> world of our perceptions and concepts - and not really in what's outside.

[Tim]

alright!  we agree that there is an absolute reality.  (Thanks for
sharing your knowledge on words too, I think this will be helpful to me
just below.  also, I think I have nearly settled on "informs" - from
earlier - and I consider it a great addition to my understanding: thank
you)

about extracting a final concept, I think we could get into this.  I
certainly don't know if you can either. Why don't you think so?  What do
you think of the foundations of math (i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics)?  Does math
even ultimately require perception?

I have to think about your language regarding perception-reality.  But,
why not something like I and not-I simultaneously bound (not-I contains
me but I don't, at least I don't think so, contain it) and inform each
other?
 


> [A]REPLAY: The most important books, I guess, are "General Systems Theory"
> by
> Ludwig von Bertalanffy and "Living Systems" by James G Miller.

much obliged.
 
[A]
> 
> REPLAY: But one of the fundamentals of thinking is the mapping of mental
> ideas onto reality. All construction is such a map. You HAVE to do that.
> Life has changed this planet a lot of times. Living beings for example
> produced so much oxygen that all free iron atoms were oxidized and later
> filled also the atmosphere with oxygen. And every action leads to an
> reaction - so everything is interaction. You can't be just observing
> without
> changing.

[T]
I was having this discussion with Mark yesterday about: what is
intelligence?  Ab-solut, being out of the solution...  Can we say, at
least tentatively, that within the MoQ (or even generally) intelligence
is the ability to mentally map, correctly, to absolute reality?
 
[A]
> 
> REPLAY: To me, it's just to intellectual patterns which both are useful
> in
> terms of MoQ. In Systems Theory they are just two systems of thought. And
> in
> my eyes they work well together as duals in a geometric sense: that is
> statements made within one has a dual statement made within the other.
> Some
> problems are more easy to solve within the one, and some problems within
> the
> other. So I can change from the one to the other anytime I think it
> useful.

[T]
nothing commin to me right now
 
[A]
> REPLAY: most concerning the distinction of SQ and DQ.

[T]
But, just to be sure, isn't SQ 'merely' part of a mental map?  It has
something to do with stuff further back on the train.  the presence of
it is something that not-I, or at least some intelligent part thereof
(you for instance), might be able to infer from our dynamic
entanglement...  by 'merely' I guess I mean to say that I make my mental
map absolutely real, but only I have access to it directly --- or else
it wouldn't be 'mine'.

so you know, this is where I read to before I started my reply.
 
> > [A] The idea, however, is that truth is of no concern. It's just a matter 
> > of usefulness or applicability - relations of correspondence.
> 
> [T] *Wait!  I really don't get your point here.  I think this is pressing. 
> *Is there such a thing as truth?  I mean, I understand that language
> itself
> might never be sufficient for expressing truth, and the particular
> explanation might be judged only for its ability to draw the listener to
> the
> truth which description is attempted.  Anyway, if you can clarify this I
> think it would help.
> 
> [A] REPLAY: Deliberate lies = untruth? You say that in court: "the truth and
> nothing but the truth" - but the truth about what? Well, your belief and
> memory.

[T]
I think this shows that we are in agreement about SQ being part of a
mental map.

[A]
> Not about reality. I prefer talking about "correct statements"
> within some context f thought, where you have a specified "evaluation"
> function. Then "truth" is just a value, as in formal logic. But this kind
> of
> "truth" is to quite a large extent relative, then.

[T]
I'm not with you here.  I might not be able to create a duplicate
absolute reality with my words; They perhaps miss the mark, or are not
precise enough, but reality we agree is absolute.  truth is absolute
too: the only thing is that what I offer as my attempt at truth won't be
perfect.  But isn't this to protect the absolute truth from corruption;
to protect the continued existence of absolute reality.  Just like my
mental map, MINE, is protected from corruption, it is reserved for me,
might there just need to be a minute divide from absolute reality to
protect it?  Hmmm, maybe we are saying close to the same thing, but only
that in we differ where you say 'to quite a large extent' I would say
'to within an absolute minimal extent' - maybe along the lines of some
sort of uncertainty principle.


[A]
> Negentropy is a measure of a lot of things, information, improbability,
> degree of freedom and so on.

[T]
entropy is merely counting the number of ways of arranging the system
(and weighing them by their energies)... and then the function ln Z.
I'll leave the reference below.

> *the wikipedia page on negentropy:
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
> *gives the equation: Negentropy ~ (-1)*ln Z, where Z is the partition
> function, and the -1 is the 'neg'
> *and the wikipedia page for Z:
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_function_%28statistical_mechanics%29
> *In the section: Meaning and significance
> *states: "Hence if all states are equally probable (equal energies) the
> partition function is the total number of possible states."
> 


>[T] *But are you postulating 'survival' as the first principle?  Are you
> subordinating quality to it?  Or are we just pulling principles for a
> highly
> developed state out of our experience in the muddle?
> 
> REPLAY: I said above that if a system doesn't preserve itself, it cease
> to
> exist. Thus it "confines". 

I think that you are interchanging the use of 'confine' and 'inform'
here.  I understand that death takes with it what is above, and in that
sense would put an absolute strangle hold on the above, but still,
unless intellect can arrive at it intellectually it is not intellect
that is informing the lower, but the lower that is informing the
intellect.

> *And so you are saying here that the social level is to 'inform' the
> intellectual level.  You are putting the social above both biological and
> intellectual.  And you are, seemingly, suggesting that survival is the
> judge
> of the social.  This is not the MoQ.
> 
> REPLAY: No, intellect informs society by changing society. Intellect is,
> ultimately, just confined by society, because it would hardly have the
> time
> to develop any "higher" ideas or ideals without the support of society.

Perhaps there is a good intellectual reason to have the intellect inform
society that it must survive - or that even a few individual must
survive in lean times, but it doesn't seem like we have mapped any
intellectual absolute as to why any particular society must go on. 
Societies of all sorts of animals, humans included, go extinct all the
time.  Intellectually, this seems okay.  That's all i'm saying.  if it
is the intellect doing the informing, it seems to be saying that reality
is happy that you are here now, but if conditions should change such
that you won't be, that might be quite okay too.  we all, each of us,
will die.  The intellects hasn't informed me differently.


> REPLAY: Again: Intellect shouldn't destroy society, because it is
> dependent
> on it, but it should try to re-form society - constantly. A society going
> static won't last long.

I think phaedrus might have said something like: if the intellect
decides against the society, it is absolutely morally right to do what
it will, including destroying the society, for its own purposes.  The
destruction of the society does not imply the destruction of the
biological individuals thereof.  And the destruction of the society does
not mean that a new, with a great deal of similarities (re-formed) might
not immediately pop up in its stead.
 
> [A] REPLAY: Functions - work. If I see a bird waving its wings and then think
> that I could fly, waving my arms, and the jump off a cliff with this
> belief,
> then my "idea" won't work. In this sense empiricism is a kind of method
> for
> evaluating static intellectual patterns. 

okay, but at the level of society we have no empirical way to see
whether reality will be better off without us.  Perhaps our immorality
is such that it would be better if we were to be utterly destroyed that
a new more moral society might grow in our place.  Before you mentioned
something from the bible, this is the concept of the great flood in the
time of Noah.

> [A] And again: intellect shall not
> destroy society,

[T]
I'm just saying, I think this is to confine the intellect due to a
social provincialism.  Death and extinctions happen, it seems,
intellectually, that the intellect should be able to consider these
options too - no matter how repugnant it is to the biology and society.

> [A] but society must be ready to re-formed by intellect.

I suspect a truly intelligent argument would find that re-form is better
than extinction, at least for practical purposes :)


> 
> [T] *But I could make the intellectual argument that the king could kill
> whoever
> he wants.  How is 'supremacy of intellect' decided?
> 
> [A] REPLAY: If he does it by pure force, then it's biological moral, and at
> that
> level he's right. 

First, I am thinking of SQ as being a part of my train, and, as such, I
can't really ever judge another person's SQ.  I can't ever know what
their SQ pattern is.  I get a hint of it only by our dynamic
entanglement.  And I have also made known that I think of SQ as an aid
to getting back in tune dynamically, but not as a ...  So, ultimately, I
cannot assent to classifying the king.  But, I can think of me being a
king...  kill whomever he wants could be applied for very intellectual
reasons.  when I think of my biological patterns, it is actually
concievable for me to think of time when I was in such a rage that
brutality was my biological inclination, but that is a very very extreme
example.  Normally, biological patterns are quite subtle and require a
great deal of quiet, patience, etc. for me to discern.  So...

> [A] But, a king, as both Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli
> knew,
> can't just go around kill anybody arbitrarily for very long without
> losing
> his support.

[T]
I think machiavelli is a perfect example.  no doubt that 'the prince' is
intellectual!  He grants to teh king intellectual reasons for killing,
and intellectual reasons for not doing it too much, for being
intelligent about doing it.  Again, the quality of his intelligence is
intellectually debateable!


> [A] He has a kind of social "responsibility". And the king as a
> "human being" is of no importance to society, it is his function. If he
> is
> dysfunctional society would abort him after some time. So the king can,
> in
> this harsh sense, only to that he can get away with. This would be
> "acceptable" at the social level of morale, but it would be immoral at
> the
> intellectual level of morale.


[T]
again, I struggle getting too much into any analysis.  If it can help
someone out, cool, if not, why?

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class