Mark,
a good answer, I'd say.

Dave said:

"Let's start Concern #1 with this quote:

    "In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided
    into
    four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social
    patterns and
    intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all there are. If you
    construct an encyclopedia of four topics - Inorganic, Biological,
    Social and
    Intellectual --- nothing is left out. No 'thing,' that is. Only Dynamic
    Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is
    absent."Lila pg 72


"*Inorganic chemistry* is the branch of chemistry concerned with the
properties and behavior of inorganic compounds. This field covers all
chemical compounds except the myriad organic compounds (carbon based
compounds, usually containing C-H bonds), which are the subjects of
organic chemistry. The distinction between the two disciplines is far
from absolute, and there is much overlap, most importantly in the
sub-discipline of organometallic chemistry." Wikipedia

As I have noted before chemists would have a problem with this level
layout. There is the whole field of organic chemistry which doesn't fit
into either the inorganic or the biological level. And if you add the
recent discovery of sulfur and arsenic based life the problems escalate
for this level layout.

If you do a Google search on "levels of evolution" I don't think you'll
find this exact arrangement anywhere. So when he claims  "This
classification of patterns is not very original" I would disagree, they
are unique to Pirsig. I can find no such order by anyone else.  The
closest I found is the theory of emergence which uses;
physical-chemical-biological-psychological. Which is probably closer to
reality than Pirsig's system.

In a 2003 letter to Paul Turner Pirsig tries to clarify the Social and
Intellectual levels. (It's posted on MoQ.org for reference) In it he
limits the social level to humans. First he suggests that use
"intellect" as "just thinking" and "intellectual" is something else, in
the end he says this:


    "Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as biological and
    inorganic patterns are designated with a sign that stands for them
    and these signs are manipulated independently of the patterns they
    stand for. "Intellect" can then be defined very loosely as the level
    of independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics
    can be described as the rules of this sign manipulation." Pirsig in
    Letter to Paul Turner @ MoQ.org


He then goes on to claim that he can't see the intellectual level
emerging any earlier than about 3000 years ago.
I find this whole explanation problematic. I think a majority would
agree that an outline of a buffalo on a cave wall is an abstract sign
which communicates and these type of signs are at least 20,000 years old.
Then he wishes to limit "social" in a way that it is not normally used.

    "The term */social/* refers to a characteristic of living organisms
    as applied to populations humans and other animals. It always refers
    to the interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their
    collective co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of
    it or not, and irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary
    or involuntary." Wikipedia

From an evolutionary perspective social, or group strategies that
animals use have been around for a very, very, long time. In fact as
science continues to investigate these strategies such as building
shelter, nurturing and protection of young, specialization or division
of labor, agriculture, communication...and on and on, the only
significant differences between modern humans and other animals are two.
The ability to independently abstract and manipulate signs and the
ability to communicate "better". If "social" is really only "human
social" then only thing separates them from "all other social animals"
would seem to the emergence of the "intellect." Which upsets Pirsig's
proposed level order."



The levels of emergence can be chosen at will, probably. I don't think
one solution is obviously better than the other, but there might be
noticable differences anyhow. But Mark's criticism of the MOQ as a
historical theory is quite cogent, I think. Pirsig seems to be thinking
black and white about a very fuzzy issue.

-Tuukka




26.2.2012 8:40, 118 kirjoitti:
> 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@tuuk...>  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
> 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
>

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