[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Hi Tuukka,

Within the structure of science, the levels which Dave presents are
the typical way of creating a hierarchy.  This is the manner in which
scientist would express levels.  In fact, in the discipline of
science, the difficulty of study is also placed in these levels.  It
is much easier for a physicist to cross over into biology, than the
other way around.  I am not sure if this is true, but that is the
tribal mode.  Philosophers would put their discipline on top of all
those, although I am also not sure if this is an accurate level
hierarchy, since philosophy is no longer considered a science as it
once was.

My thoughts on this are that the presentations of levels should be
consistent with the metaphysics being presented.  MoQ uses one set of
levels, and science metaphysics uses another.  It would all depend on
what point is being made.

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:47 PM,  <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark, all,
> Dave at LS said that contrary to what Pirsig says, his way of arranging the
> levels is not usual. The usual way of arranging them is
> physical-chemical-biological-social. He didn't cite a source or I missed it
> (haven't read lists actively lately), but I don't find that essential.
>
> In order to evaluate whether Dave's suggestion is better, I would need to
> know more about the human brain. Can the human cognitive experience
> distinguish between /electric/ and /chemical/ changes in the state of the
> brain, at least roughly? For example, it seems plausible that sensory
> experiences are electric, but even though emotions too are electric, they
> can be meaningfully approximated as chemical states of the brain, unlike
> sensations such as vision or pain.

The human brain works through chemistry.  The electricity which is
attributed to the brain, is not really electricity since there is no
flow of electrons.  An "action potential" is the basic form of
"electrical" activity in the brain.  Basically, this is a series of
sodium and potassium channels which open and close in the nervous cell
membrane so that a signal can be transmitted along neurons.  These
were measured through "patch clamp" techniques which are considered
electrical devices.  I will not get into more detail unless you are
interested.  My point is, that this is all a chemical process, and
deals with very very small fluctuations in sodium and potassium
movements from the outside of the cell to the inside and back.
Therefore the "electrical" of the brain is really a misnomer.  We do
not have wires in our brains.  But I am speaking as an electrochemist,
so it would depend on how one defines the word "electrical".  It is
commonly used, but not really accurate.

There is true electricity being generated within the body.  This comes
from our ingestion of electron rich (reduced, or saturated) foods.  We
then process such food by removing those electrons.  Through a series
of metabolic processes these electrons are ultimately transfered to
oxygen which is then breathed out as water.  It has been calculated
that we generate electricity on the order of a medium sized
refrigerator each day.  If I were to don my hat of bioelectrochemist
(which is what I got my doctorate in), I could say that what we call
consciousness is that harnessing of electron transfer from ingested
food to oxygen.  It would be like a water wheel on a waterfall
harnessing the flow of water to generate energy.  For if we stop
breathing, that flow stops and we die.  Indeed, certain poisons like
cyanide directly inhibit this electron flow, so cyanide technically
causes suffocation.  Probably too much information, but I am always
happy to talk science since that is my training and I know much more
about that than metaphysics.

Given all that, I am not sure if the sensing of electricity is indeed
a good way of looking at our perceptions.  Although we can certainly
feel an electric shock.  Internally, our senses are all converted to
chemical energy, so the "pain" of an electrical shock is sensed by
chemical means.  So there is no approximation going on there.  We do
not sense the electricity that is going through our bodies which
result in energy (electron transfer ultimately to oxygen), and every
cell has that machinery.

There are many theories of consciousness from a scientific point of
view, and these theories go in and out of fashion.  There is no way to
prove any of them, at present.  At one time it was a electromagnetic
phenomenon, however machines such as NMR do not seem to affect our
thoughts as much as a simple chemical such as mescaline.  So right now
consciousness lives in the chemical world.  mescaline interferes with
the signalling between nerve cells in a well understood way, but that
is another topic which is very interesting.  In fact that was the
reason I originally got into brain sciences, many years ago.
>
> If this distinction can be made, Dave could be right. In this case we could
> do away with the problem in the social-intellectual distinction. RP would
> provide eight additional levels for intellect, so intellect won't become
> inexplicable, if we combine Dave's suggestion with RP.

I have not read what Dave wrote, but I would be interested to read it
if you send it to me.  Again, I think it all depends on what kind of
metaphysical argument on is making.  Science is certainly not a firm
ground to base any metaphysics on since it is always changing.  What
constitutes a level is a matter of agreement, and usefulness for
presenting a metaphysics in this case.

Hope this answers your questions, if not give me another question.
Maybe I can save you some time having to Google and understand the
science stuff.

Cheers,
Mark
>
> -Tuukka
> 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