[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

On 3/1/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> 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?

Nobody did, it was missing from your response is all, and I did not
want to go through the archives.
>
> 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.

No, you are not in any trouble.  I am simply expressing my opinions.
You do not have to agree with them, and you can ignore them.  This is
a forum for opinions on MoQ.  I am simply one of the contributors.  I
like your contributions.

No, I do not belong to any top % of anything.  I do not like groups, I
am free to stand alone.  I do not compare myself to others, only a
relativist would do that :-).  Most of those who do philosophy do it
much more than I, I think.  It is just a hobby of mine, nothing
serious.
>
>
>> Mark: Yes, Wittgenstein brought in the ultimate
>> conclusions of his approach, but there are not exaggerated, 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
> whether a dog has Buddha-nature.

Yes, the conclusion was not false, it was just the wrong way to
approach metaphysics, in my opinion.  It is complete
deconstructionalism; trying to find metaphysics in the words.  You
cannot define a house with the bricks, such a thing is nonsense.  Nor
is a home simply a brick by brick phenomenon.  Those bricks are useful
structures in which to live, but do not define the people living in
them.  Unless of course you have a $15 Million dollar mansion, then
perhaps it does define you.  I just live in a modest home, but it does
have a view of the Pacific Ocean, something money cannot buy, because
it is formed by my eyes.

Logic can be used to prove anything, even two exactly opposite
arguments.  So conclusions are not false, but they may be of low
quality :-).  Only time will tell, in 2000 years we will see if
Wittgenstein has the staying power of Plato or Aristotle.  I just
can't wait! (mainly because I will be dead, but that is besides the
point...).

>
>> 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.


Hmmm... perhaps this is true.  However, MoQ could be constructed to
mean exactly the same thing without the levels.  It is hard to take
his complaints about the Victorian age literally, that would be way
too distracting for me.  He supplies many examples for what he is
presenting, but they are just examples, and do not need to be true.
It is rhetoric he works with, not some dialectic, in my opinion.  If I
read his examples as parables of some kind, they are more meaningful
to me than reading them as fact or history.  I guess I am easily
distracted by specifics.
>
>> 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.

Well, I am not sure what Aristotle thought.  Certainly his writings
can be interpreted in many ways, there are still graduate students
getting Ph.D.'s on Aristotle, so new interpretation is still possible.
 Proofs are a form of rhetoric, I am not sure if that is what you
mean.  For if you want to convince somebody of something it is always
useful to have a "proof" that such somebody can agree with.  I can
prove to you that gravity exists by dropping a rock.  In order for you
to agree you would have to accept that gravity is the thing that makes
the rock drop.  There are of course other explanations, but none as
accepted as gravity.
>
>> 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?

Yes, I can see what you are saying.  It is important to get beyond the
ideas of physics.  They are not broad enough since they only relate to
the measureable.  That I see a green plant is not measurable; you just
have to take my word for it.  So physics is lost in those kinds of
things.  They cannot measure the Self (and neither can logic), so
physics says that it does not exist (as others do).  But physics is
not the right tool to research the soul.  There are much better tools.

So, physics can be used to destroy other metaphysics, only because
everyone is so enamoured (or bewitched) by physics.  Those scientists
must know what they are talking about and we must believe them because
they are the new form of "high priest" :-).  They know what is real
and what is not (sarcasm of course).
>
>> 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?

Sorry, I did not mean that.  What I meant is that I cannot point to
your statement in the body of the response I am providing.  Nobody is
deleting your posts so far as I can tell.  I have been warned by Horse
not to go certain places so I don't, I think my posts are in the
archives as well.  They are all Google searchable, so now Google can
try to sell us a "Quality "dynamic" engine with "static" control, for
use in parlaying the "Platonic" relationships which we come across in
"quantum" relationships outside of "reality" shows", if you know what
I mean.  Believe me, I have gotten some pretty weird and funny
advertisements on my Gmail.  Not for long since I have opted to stop
using both Gmail and Google.  I just find it too insidious, and I do
not want to help them control the world.
>
>>> 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?

I would like RMP to participate in this forum.  It that is not
possible, I would like him to write a book titled "The Zen inQuality".

MoQ provides me with a consistent way of approaching my everyday
reality.  Of course my interpretation is not the same as others, which
is why I get stuck in little debates here and there.  So, go figure.
Maybe your MoQ will be more like mine.
>
>> 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.

I think the math stuff would work.  It just needs to be followed with
a simple explanation of what the math is showing.  We can take you
word that the math is correct, it is what it means for us regular
people in terms of MoQ.  You may discover some very interesting things
about MoQ, for that is what math does.  I have tried to give you some
layman feedback on your attempts, but I get lost in all the
nomenclature.
>
>> 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.

Cool
>
>> Mark: If indeed your presentation is meant only for
>> yourself, then that is a different story.
>
> Tuukka> Ridiculous. I don't spend seven years for myself.

That is what I thought, neither do I :-).  I was just being
provocative, one of my bad features...
>
>> Mark: 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.
>
> Tuukka:
> 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.

OK, but how about a regular English synopsis?  I certainly understand
the need to be somewhat finished, as a scientist I do not like to
publish until I am sure that what I wrote is reasonable and will not
be thrown out by the reviewers.  So Good Luck.
>
>
> 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.

Yes, I understand.  As a scientist, I can be viewed as anti-science
when all I do is point out the limitations of science and the
Disasterous Scientism that seems to dominate the landscape these day.
I can now go out and steal things, and blame evolution!  Not that I
ever would, it was just an example.  I can justify not helping my
fellow man because evolution says that it is the survival of the
fittest and a dog-eat-dog world...  There is something sinister about
the theory of evolution, maybe it is a creation of the Antichrist :-).
>
> 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?

No, don't go paranoid about that.  You are safe.
>
Cheers,
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
>