[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thanks for the compliment.  I don't mind criticism, in fact I thrive
on it.  I have nothing personally vested in having the correct manner
of presenting reality.  If I did, I would become pretty static, and
end up looking forward to dinner more than anything.  I use this forum
and our conversation to learn and grow.  I am like the water in a
river, if there is a bend in the banks, I follow it without complaint.
 You will also notice that I can dish out criticism as well.  Often I
present things provocatively to shock.  There is no evil or selfish
intention behind it, it is just rhetoric.  I certainly do not take you
as disrespectful, on the contrary, compared to some you are downright
Elizabethan.


On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hello again, Mark --
>
> You write well and your analogies are superb, but I'm now convinced that
> your attachment to the Quality paradigm is too strong to even conceive of a
> primary source.  Since I have already outlined the reasons why my ontology
> fundamentally differs from the MoQ, I can only respond to your comments with
> criticism, which is unpleasant for both of us.  Please understand that I
> don't mean to be disrespectful, and that my objections basically refer to
> the euphemistic (analogous) concept of reality that Pirsig calls a
> "Metaphysics of Quality".
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:18 AM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>wrote:
>
[Ham]>
> You are complaining about the failures of empirical science which has raised
> our standard of living to a level unimagined by our forbears and taught us
> more about the physical universe than Aristotle or Galileo ever dreamed of.
> Like any methodology, Science has its lapses.  But why focus on the
> negatives?  I see little need to condemn scientists for their pragmatic
> interpretation of the world we live in.  After all, they weren't trained to
> be philosophers, nor would their methods be as effective if they were.

[Mark]
I am certainly not complaining.  As you know I make a living as a
scientist.  I use science in medical research to elevate the comfort
of living and to prolong life.  I am well aware of its merits.  I was
simply presenting my experience with the empirical method.  It is a
far cry from simply climbing steps in a stairwell.  At its fronteirs
it is like metaphysics in philosophy.  I am sure you are familiar with
current theories in physics.  Similar far fetched theories abound even
in biology.  Only a few survive for very long.
>

> [Mark previously]:
>>
>> Is it not possible to have Intent without an intender?  Can we have
>> expansion without an expander, or direction without a director?
>> What intent means to me is similar to drive or will.  As humans we
>> are imbued with will from the moment we are born, it does not arise
>> from us.  We cannot create it, since there is no place to create it.
>>

[Ham]
> No, we cannot have "intent" without an intender.  "Intention" is defined in
> my dictionary as "determination to act in a certain way: RESOLVE; what one
> intends to do or bring about; a concept considered as the product of
> attention drawn to an object of knowledge."  Since inanimate objects have
> neither brains nor knowledge, they cannot be cognitive agents of intent or
> attention.  Even in Pirsig's 'Experience = Quality' vernacular, objects
> arise as the "static patterns" that experience creates.  Thus, objects are
> the insentient "constructs" of subjective agents, not the intentional agents
> themselves.

[Mark]
Here again is where we differ.  I say that we act on intent which
already exists, and we are symbolically presenting it.  This concept
is consistent with what I have been presenting to you lately.  You
speak of the brain as being the defining characteristic of intention.
What is it about the brain that is so special?  It is not that
different from anything else.  It is composed of standard materials,
its physiology is pretty standard.  The only difference that I can see
it the enormous redundancy, and the incredibly intricate feedback.
This feedback is considered to be reasoning, but it is really no
different from other types of feedback.  Perhaps I agree with you on
objects, but I would say that our conception of objects is due to the
interaction of the environment with our brain.  Objects are sensed by
humans as a neural pattern (or whatever physiological mechanism will
replace it).  This does not make me a strict materialist as you will
see below in the response after my little one below.
>
> [Mark, after admitting he can't say what reality consists of]:

[Mark]
I perhaps can't say, but I do know, after all I am part of reality,
and I know what I am (perhaps not intellectually, but that is just a
small simplified part of knowing).
>
[Mark previously]
>> What to you is the fundamental difference between a man's brain,
>> and a river or a beehive?  It is all matter put together in different
>> ways, and interacting through communication.  So, how is it that we
>> have free will and nothing else does?  I certainly do not believe in
>> some kind of divine spark provided to us by some supernatural being.
>> We are chemicals all thrown together in a specific way through a
>> process of self-assembly.  So I would say that your conception of
>> man being the only thing with free will, to be higher in the superstition
>> category.  Tell me Ham, how does free will come about?  What are
>> its components?  Why does only a jumbled up mass of nerves and
>> glial cells have it?  ...Where does free will reside, is it a protein?

[Ham]
>
> This demonstrates why it is impossible for you to understand man in any
> other way than as a bio-chemical organism.  Rational or moral intent is no
> more biological than free will, yet you reject the 'psyche' or 'soul' as
> superstitious myth while regarding the 'knower' as illusionary.  I suppose
> your thoughts are synaptic activities of your brain cells.  The bottom line
> is that you dismiss the very thing that separates you from the animal
> species and that could make your life existentially meaningful.

[Mark]
I have been very clear that I do not reject the concept of a "soul".
I do believe a soul inhabits the human body (at least mine), this is
where my personal sense of self comes from.  Otherwise I would be some
kind of meat computer.  The knower is not illusionary.  Yes, my
thoughts are synaptic activities of the brain, that is why they
disappear when I go under anesthesia, or get hit on the head; the
activity is interrupted.  The only thing that separates me from the
animal species is that I inhabit a human body, therefore I think and
act like a human.  If I were in an animal body, it would be different.
(and no, I am not certain about cross-species reincarnation).  By
giving the power of free will to everything, I do not make my life
meaningless, I make the rest of existence meaningful.  There is a BIG
difference there.  If we can only get meaning by being different and
superior, then all is lost.  By raising the rest of existence to my
level, I enter humility.  By such I create an existence that cannot be
touched.  There is great power in humility.  Of course I may not
always seem that way, but such is the nature of interesting
discussions.
>
> Neither a construct of experience nor the evolving universe possesses free
> will, because their behaviors are determined by another agency.  An entity
> whose being and dynamics are dependent on the laws of nature cannot exercise
> free will.  Only an autonomous agent that is separated from the cosmic
> source has the power of independent choice.  That agency is the human psyche
> or self.  It is created by the exclusion (negation) of Essence, which
> exempts it from predetermination, thus affording free choice.  And, yes, I
> do believe that man is a unique creature -- "a little spark of the divine"
> as Eckhart describes him -- and, furthermore, that experiential reality is
> anthropocentric.

[Mark]
How do you know what determines the spin of a photon?  Sure you can
chalk it up to some kind of a force, but that is just hand-waving.  We
are so integrated into the cosmic source that it is very difficult to
tell us apart from anything else.  Electron flow through us from food
and convert oxygen to water which we excrete.  Those are not our
electrons, not our oxygen, not our food.  This is symbiosis to an
extreme.  We create oxygen and plants use our waste as food (and visa
versa).  I am not sure where you get the notion of separation,
everything is intricately connected.

As I said above, what you call the human psyche, I do have.  I have
yet to interpret a way in which that psyche interacts with the nerves
in my head.  Therefore, the best I can do is give the psyche the power
of attitude.  Thoughts are not within our control, it is how we
perceive them that we can influence.  Such perception can emphasize
some thoughts over others.  It is not enough to just be aware of this
premise, because freeing oneself from the brain takes practice and
discipline.  Just as a Buddhist.

I believe that everything has a spark of the divine.  I will have to
look this up, but it is my recollection that Eckhart agrees with this.
 He speaks of the unity of God.  Yes, our experiential reality is
anthropomorphic, because we are humans.  That is the only reason.  The
philosophy of a plant does not exist for us, never will.
>
[Mark previously]
>> Think about it, where does your choice come from?
>> Does it start at the nerve level?  Why start there?  Do you think
>> that our choices come from non-material places.  If something is
>> painful, do you choose it to be?  Do you continue to have a
>> chooser when you are asleep?  If not, then is choice a function
>> of brain activity?  If so, then what part of the brain controls the
>> rest of the brain? ...
>
[Ham]
> All this talk about "places" only shows that you do not recognize being and
> nothingness (space) which, along with time, is the mode of human experience.
> The psychic self knows nothing of space/time and cause/effect because it is
> free of experiential precepts.  It is aware only of the Value of otherness,
> not its dynamics, and of its desire to reclaim it.

[Mark]
You are correct that I use anatomy some in my rhetoric, because it
makes sense.  Thoughts have to come from somewhere.  Now, a while back
after some discussion with you, I did pick up On Being and Time by
Heidegger (at you suggestion to read some Heidegger).  I was getting
along fine with the lecture, when suddenly out of nowhere, towards the
end, he comes up with "Appropriation".  He does not explain it, but
acts as if we should all know what he means.  Perhaps his
appropriation is your negation, I don't know.  So, I finished reading
the lecture and went on my merry way.  By the way, I refuse to read
Satre, since he took me to a bad place in the early '80s.  He probably
wouldn't now, but some things are better to forget.

If the psyche is free of experiential precepts, then how could it
control our thoughts.  It is a witness, a knower, not a controller.
However, as I slowly learn more of your ontology, much of it resonates
with me.  Just all this negation and reclamation and yearning seems a
bit strange (not to say that what I post is not contrived).  I do not
sense any evidence of such a thing, and, I do see plenty of Quality.
Perhaps it just takes time (and being).
>

[Ham]
>
> If matter is a metaphor for Quality, a clump of elephant dung is Quality, or
> contains it.  So much for aesthetic value discrimination!

[Mark]
This reminds me of a story of Chuang-Tzu (the second greatest Taoist
interpreter after  Lao-Tzu).  When a disciple asked Chuang-Tzu to show
him Tao, Chuang-Tzu pointed to a pile of dung, and said "there".  This
type of answer was used mainly to startle the disciple into
attentiveness, but could also precipitate a new kind of awareness,
which is what teachers try to do in Zen.  Insight and awareness do not
come through logical steps, but come from the side as a sudden change
in perspective.  So, yes, Quality exists in all.  One species' dung is
another species' lunch.  At the same time, Quality also exists in
nothing.
>
[Ham]
> Sorry, Mark.  This is the best I can do under the circumstances.  You mind
> is simply not open to an alternative worldview, and this disappoints me.  I
> agree with much of what you've written on other topics, but I think it would
> be futile to continue this dialogue, as we are no longer on the same page
> metaphysically.

[Mark]
I can sense your frustration.  I do not think our world views are all
that different, it is just the way we express them.  I simply ask you
to view things (briefly) from my perspective.  I catch glimpses of
yours, and I find it compelling.  You would be surprised at what my
mind is open to.
>
> I admire your communication skills and respect your loyalty to Pirsig. Let's
> not spoil the fruitful exchange we've had up until now by wrangling over our
> differences.  Okay by you?

[Mark]
I don't see this as wrangling, for me it is a productive conversation.
 At least it doesn't detour out into some silly discussion as some of
these posts tend to do.  To be honest, I do not feel much loyalty to
Pirsig.  Certainly I thank him for writing ZMM, but I do not think he
wants my loyalty, or needs it.  At least he says that he doesn't care
much for celebrity.  You will find through my discussions with some of
the more dogmatic MoQers that I am not towing the party line.

While I find this topic interesting and at (divine) ground level, I am
happy to go onto other subjects if you wish.  Perhaps I will read some
more Heidegger, and bring up some topics.
>
Until next time,
Mark
>
> 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
>