[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

Hi Tuukka,

On 3/6/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
>
>> Mark: In a scientific sense those are units, but fundamentally they are no
>> different from the "units" we use to describe Beauty.  The are man made
>> symbols that we use for descriptive purposes, in my view from Quality.
>
> Tuukka:
> I do think there is some "fundamental" difference, but maybe this isn't
> that important.
>
>> Mark:
>> All I was trying to humbly suggest, was that any formulaic presentation of
>> Quality should bring in the concept of balance.
>
> Tuukka:
> You have a point here, but I suppose what you are suggesting could
> already be present in the theory. The theory does include a strong
> mathematical reason to suggest, that higher levels of quality may not
> manifest themself very elaborately, if they cannot sufficiently build on
> the lower levels. This is due to the way emergence is represented by the
> power set function.

OK, that makes sense.
>
> Currently, the theory only measures some "potential" quality, not
> "actual quality". It maps all possible instances of quality, given a
> certain set of initial things of quality, which manifest themselves in
> the lowest level of any emergence chain. Emergence chain means a certain
> set of successive emergences. In LILA, the emergence chain has four
> patterns, and goes from inorganic to intellectual.

Yes, I see.  I suppose you need some kind of filtering process which
only allows those "allowable" to exist.  It makes sense that possible
qualities is probably better than just those qualities that we have
right now.  In this way we can make predictions based on lower level
functions.
>
> Because the theory maps "potential" quality instead of "actual quality",
> it generates a ridiculously large amount of information from a small
> amount of quality on the lowest level of the emergence chain. Such large
> amounts might not be convenient to handle even with computers, but on
> the other hand, computers are very fast, so they could probably do
> something in some context. But let's not go there now.
>
> You asked for a balancing principle. Even the instances of "potential"
> quality become much more scarce if the low patterns contain only little
> data. So the theory would give the moral advice that if you wish to
> create intellectual quality, you need to build it on sufficient
> inorganic, biological and social quality. This means that even though
> intellectual quality is the highest form of quality, other forms of
> quality are needed too, hence, balance is desirable. Do you find this to
> be something like the concept of balance you were asking for?

Yes, maybe.  I guess one question would be, why do some things appear
and then seem to persist, while others either do not appear, or do not
persist?  This can be explained through evolutionary theory for
biology, but Quality is a little different.
>
>
>>
>> Mark:
>> Well, there is chaos and then there is Chaos in my opinion.  Certainly
>> some intrusion of chaos is good, but from my view there should be some
>> coalescence.  This is analogized by the "levels" as presented by Pirsig.
>> It is also demonstrated by the human body which is highly complex, yet
>> persistent.
>
> Tuukka:
> The outcome of a six-sided dice throw is chatoic. But it's not Chaotic,
> because it's always 1-6.

You are right that some things can be encompassed by statistics while
others cannot.  Statistic is just a fancy way of saying "we have no
idea what goes on at the individual level, so we will only deal with
populations".  Modern Quantum mechanics is a statistical approach
which is why it has so much problem with the certainty of some things.
 This is not a fundamental uncertainty of the universe as it is often
said to be, but a fundamental outcome of the math itself.  Just
because the math says it is so, does not make it so.  It is funny,
some people think that because physics says we can exist everywhere at
once, then we must exist everywhere at once.  Or because physics says
that everything is entangled, then it must be entangled.  This is just
Scientism, the Modern Priesthood.
>
>>> The semantic stabilization of this system is, that questions like "where
>>> does emergence begin", "where does it end" and "why does it go that way"
>>> can be answered somehow.
>>>
>> Mark: I see "answered" as a loaded term.  We make the questions, and we
>> create the answers.  It is all to provide complex meaning, which is grand
>> in my opinion.
>
> Tuukka:
> I said "answered somehow", not "answered". I think there's an essential
> difference here.

Yes, I misread that.
>
>>
>>> The weak points of RP are that normative quality seems a bit out of place
>>> perhaps. I'm not currently sure whether it is supposed to be a part of
>>> the emergence cycle or something separate. But it doesn't seem wrong,
>>> either.
>>>
>> Mark: I am not sure what you mean by "normative".  If you mean
>> normalization, then that is what I am talking about.  A normalizing
>> principle is required to bring order out of Chaos.
>
> Tuukka:
> Normative quality is a third form of quality present in my theory. I
> consider it important there... it contains Pirsig's "abstract symbol
> manipulation", that is (I suppose), formal logic and mathematics. They
> are neither subjective nor objective. There's really no good way of
> arguing them to be either of those.

OK
>
>> Mark:
>>
>> If we use a cause-effect paradigm, I would say that objective quality
>> comes from subjective Quality.  Such subjective quality would be a
>> presentation of DQ, and is not definable since it is from that which
>> definitions arise.
>
> Tuukka:
> Yeah... does make sense.
>
>>
>>> Perhaps the top pattern should be seen as some sort of a pattern that
>>> terminates the emergence process. I don't think the theory would lose
>>> essential features even if the emergence were not circular. It would be a
>>> shame, though. I like the graph I made. But I don't honestly know how...
>>>
>> Well if we look at evolutionary theory, species do tend to terminate if
>> the become over specialized (static).  However there is always a dynamic
>> component which splits off from the tree farther down the branch.  In this
>> way it is ever-creating.
>>
>> So I do not have a problem with a termination process.  If it were
>> circular, Quality would not have direction, I do not think.
>
> Tuukka:
>
> Well, if it's circular, the direction is either clockwise or
> counterclockwise. In my theory it is counterclockwise, as if that would
> really matter. If you have a problem with that, what kind of a problem
> it is?

I suppose that a circle does not denote an ongoing drive to
betterness.  But I am easy.
>
> It is possible to go the circle in the wrong direction, in some sense.
> And maybe this is needed at least for correcting earlier mistakes. Now,
> correcting mistakes should indeed be moral. But the mistake turns into a
> mistake once we realize we need to correct it. So I do believe it is
> either immoral, or an indicator of past immorality, if the circle is
> traversed in the wrong direction.

OK, I can accept that.  Now the planets go counterclockwise around the
sun if you are looking from the North side, but go clockwise if you
are looking from the south side.  Could your direction depend on the
manner in which the clock is looked at?
>
> RP is a system for constructing another system, which is for evaluation
> of a certain moral problem. It is a metaphysical theory for building
> other metaphysical theories. That's why the termination would be a
> problem. It would really damage RP's flexibility. I didn't realize this
> earlier, but now I do, and the new definitions seem to let me get away
> with the problems I mentioned - at least for now. I still consider it
> possible that this circular approach works.

I think termination is may be OK in moderation.  For somethings can
get so "better" that they are no longer better.  Like a cake that is
too sweet.  It must have "just the right amount" of sugar.  So we have
a termination in sugar addition.
>
> Contemporary metaphysics is too specialised, because all there are left
> are unsolvable problems. MOQ is a broader scope, but RP is more broader.
> So the circularity makes RP less specialized, not more specialized.

Any metaphysics creates its own problems and then solves them.  I am
sure yours will do the same.  I am fine with circularity.  It is held
by many Eastern philosophies.
>
>>
>> Mark:
>> If normative quality is like "classical" quality, then everything contains
>> both I would think.  This provides for a dynamic component in Quality.
>
> Tuukka:
> Normative quality is one of the three known forms of classical quality,
> which are subjective, objective and normative. I had to add the
> normative, because otherwise a lot of stuff had obviously been left out.
>
>>> That would be maybe a wise way of going about it. It could be even
>>> necessary. Otherwise RP would apparently preclude intuitive understanding
>>> of logical phenomena.
>> Mark:
>> I don't think we need to stick to the cause-effect paradigm.  Quality is
>> self sufficient, as I see it.
>
> Tuukka:
> I don't know what you mean here.
>>> Sensory experiences are the end product of the subjective. Mental realms
>>> are the end product of the objective. Does this entail, the subjective is
>>> the end product of the normative? And that the normative is the end
>>> product of the objective?
>> No, I do not think so.  We create sensory experiences with our bodies.
>> But there is something which triggers those sensory experiences.  In a way
>> this whole process can be seen as circular, for our experience triggers
>> the objective which in turn feeds back to influence the subjective.  It
>> could be a "chicken-egg" kind of thing.
>
> Tuukka:
> Yeah, but if you have a theory that is specific enough, and if either
> chicken or egg has to come first, which one it is? But does either one
> have to come first in RP? Maybe not. I mean, Pirsig said he only saw the
> green sun after having read, that one can occasionally see the sun as
> green when sailing. So that's classical quality creating romantic
> quality, apparently.

Well the way I see Quality is that it creates the subject and the
object "at the same time" so we do not have to worry about causal
things.  The sun became green at exactly the same time as Pirsig saw
it.  So the green sun did not cause Pirsig to see it or the other way
around.  This is how each moment of our existence is, in my humble
opinion.  At least it makes sense to me.
>
> But "We create sensory experiences with our bodies. " is just a figure
> of speech. Who is the we that creates? We=our bodies? So if our body
> creates a sensory experience, what is our body? I think you're reverting
> back to Cartesian dualism with that statement. Not sure, but think you do.

Well here I am saying that the body is the "we".  So, the body creates
sensory experiences.  I suppose I should at least be consistent within
my own metaphysics.  I have no problem with Cartesian dualism since it
helps to explain a lot.  No metaphysics is wrong, some are just better
than others.  Cartesian dualism seems pretty good to me.  Is there
something wrong with that model?
>
> And this: "But there is something which triggers those sensory
> experiences. " So what is it? If you don't know, what is it, why you
> still say it exists? Unless "that something" is Dynamic Quality, I don't
> think I have any idea what you might mean.

Because, the body cannot create such sensory experience on its own.
Again, this is simply a model which claims that we do not make
everything up, but that there is a real world out there.  So that
trigger could be light.  Light is not an experience, until the body
makes it one.  I was not being too far out there.  Light comes in our
eyes, and the body uses it to create a sensory experience.  That's
all.
>
>>> I guess any other option doesn't make sense. But if someone can argue
>>> that another option does make sense, I'd love to hear it.
>> I think we can come up with "better" options.
>
> Tuukka:
> I'm not yet convinced that we need a better one, but there could be a
> better one.

I forgot what we were talking about.  All I was saying was that we can
always improve.  I don't think we will ever be satisfied with having
the complete description of everything.  The human mind just doesn't
work that way.  The human mind was meant to keep creating, elsewise
what else is there to do around here?

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
>