[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark,

> Mark:
> OK, my mistake.  I assumed from you post (now deleted) that you were
> encapsulating your metaphysics within the semantic restrictions that
> Wittgenstein presents.

Tuukka:
I don't get it. Why did someone delete my post?

Am I in some kind of trouble? Look, I'd repeat the same mantras as you 
do, but I mean business here - a business of a different kind. It 
doesn't mean I disagree with you. You belong to the top 10% of 
philosophers in the world, and these discussions are certainly useful 
for me.


> Mark: Yes, Wittgenstein brought in the ultimate
> conclusions of his approach, but there are not exagerrated, they
> simply fall from his premises.

Tuukka:
The observations in proposition 5.6 were good and apparently did not 
include the flawed premises, which make the conclusion flawed. To be 
sure, maybe they do. I recall proposition 5.6 includes something like 
"it can't be said", which is like answering "no" to the question of 
wheher a dog has Buddha-nature.

> Mark:
> Of course he later shows how one can get away from such conclusions.
> In this he is showing how to get out of a cage of his own making.  If
> one does not create such a cage to begin with, one does not have to
> escape from it.
>
> So, we can move on under the assumption that your metaphysics is but
> one way of presenting MoQ, and should not be taken literally.

Tuukka:
The first sentence, "but one way of presenting MoQ", is ok, but what 
would it mean for RP to be metaphorical? Everything RP says about static 
quality is to be taken literally. But everything RP says about Dynamic 
Quality or Quality may be, and probably should be, taken metaphorically.

> Mark:
> I do not see why you "require" certain methods for proofs.  Any proof
> is a structure which we build for the purposes of rhetoric.

Tuukka:

Rhetoric comes before everything else. Aristotle was actually right 
about this. Proofs are part of the process of reducing rhetoric to 
static patterns. So, if "proofs are build for the purposes of rhetoric" 
means "proofs are for finding order within rhetoric", you're right, but 
if it means "proofs are built in order to have rhetoric in the first 
place", you are not right. There cannot be proofs without rhetoric.

> Tuukka: That is,
> to arrive at some agreement in terms of the usefulness of any
> conclusion.  I am not speaking of contradiction, I am pointing towards
> methodology.  You prefer the scientific or formulaic approach, which I
> have no problem with.  However, you cannot in the same breath claim
> that such an approach is "primitive".  For primitive approaches result
> in primitive conclusions.

Mark:

Look, I didn't mean the "primitive" in a derogatory way. I very probably 
expressed myself inappropriately. What I meant is what I've been saying 
all along - that it defeats the purpose of metaphysics in order to have 
physics as a metatheory of metaphysics. I'm not necessarily right about 
that. For a neuropsychologist, with advanced brain scanners at his 
disposal, it would probably be useful to have physics as a metatheory of 
metaphysics. But we here are conducting metaphysics without the aid of 
brain scanners. Metaphysics is the thing that unites is here - at least 
as far as we are concerned of static things. So why should we want that 
kind of a metatheory, ecspecially when we have no necessary devices or 
expertise for the creation of such a theory?

> Mark:
> In your own words you claim for Pirsig to do certain things (now
> deleted).  This is what I mean.  Are you managing Pirsig?

Tuukka:
Who deletes my posts and doesn't tell me? I couldn't possibly know they 
are deleted unless someone tells me, as I'm using this mailing list with 
an e-mail client, from which they are not deleted. How many of my posts 
have been deleted? And why?

>> RP doesn't do anything? What do you mean by "RP doing something"? Do you
>> mean it has an added algorithmic side, or do you mean it produces a
>> revelation like Pirsig's books did? The former is on the to do -list,
>> the latter already done, but this revelation is not accessible to people
>> who don't like maths.
> Mark:
> You were the one who brought it up. Review your previous post which I
> was simply responding to.

Tuukka:
I tried to do that, but couldn't. You see, I think I've said a billion 
times that "RP does this and that" in different contexts, so I didn't 
find the specific instance you were referring to. What does the MOQ do, 
according to you? What would you like RP to do?

> What Pirsig does is add flesh to a
> realization he had many years before.  This is an incarnation of an
> idea.  Such incarnation can be brought forth in many different ways.
> Pirsig chose a style in which to do this.  You may choose a different
> style, which is great.  If you want to confine your revelation to
> those who read your posts AND understand your math, then I do not see
> much use in it.

Tuukka:
I certainly don't want to confine RP to math-savvy people on MD. I know 
nobody here is interested in the math content of this stuff. LessWrong 
is for that. I know you won't provide the math aspect, and I don't 
require it. I'm here only for ideas, and I'm here for my work - not for 
you. I'm working on the revelation itself right now. These posts are not 
intended to be the thing I'm finally going to say. I'm not preaching and 
I don't care whether you agree with me as long as you are useful.

> Mark: I only assume that your metaphysics is in aid of
> progressing MoQ, such that it can be understood by others and expanded
> by them in turn.

Tuukka:
It's mostly a new metaphysics, build by using the MOQ as a foundation. 
If you don't want to call it MOQ, I'm fine with that, but development 
wise, it belongs to the MOQ tradition.

> Tuukka: If indeed your presentation is meant only for
> yourself, then that is a different story.

Mark:
Ridiculous. I don't spend seven years for myself.

> Tuukka: By all means, present it
> for the records, at sometime a fan of MoQ will take it and move it
> along.  I am not trying to dissuade you from your intention.  I will
> certainly read it with interest to see if I can use it in my
> understanding of MoQ.

Mark:
I will not present it here, because this mailing list format cannot 
print LaTeX-formulae. I'm thinking more like making a LessWrong article 
of it and trying to submit it or parts of it to arXiv. For example, some 
stuff regarding Dynamic Quality and the liar paradox could be of 
interest to arXiv. MD is not my intended publication platform. I'm here 
only to work with you, not to publish things. Of course publishing on 
moq.org is another idea - why not. But first the work needs to be 
somewhat ready.

>>> Mark:
>>>
>>> If you do not want to complicate your theory, then stay away from
>>> formulas, and follow your own advice.
>>>
>> Tuukka:
>> What an oxymoronic advice.
> Are you saying that your advice is oxymoronic?  I am simply following
> on from what you claim is an appropriate form for which to present a
> metaphysics.  Review your posts on this subject.  On the one hand you
> claim that science (measurements) is inappropriate, on the other hand
> you move forward with using it.

Tuukka:
Science is not inappropriate. A shocking allegation that I should have 
said so. Whatever I said, I don't remember what it was, and can't find 
it right now. Science is all right! If you knew me personally, you would 
know that I'm a big science enthusiast. But you see, on LessWrong I have 
to deal with people, who tend to think everything is objective quality. 
And given that you're a scientist, and scientists generally tend to 
think so, I may have thought that you think so, and have tried to 
persuade you to think otherwise. Apparently this made you think I have 
strange beliefs.

If someone deletes my posts here without even telling me, I guess I 
should go to LessWrong and LilaSquad. Maybe I'm being a bit of a martyr 
here, too. But so did I break some rules here, or what? Why do we want 
to have all this drama anyhow?

-Tuukka