Mark,
might I add, that I don't think the MOQ is ecspecially useful or
remarkable as a historical theory. It's metaphysics. While the
historical interpretation of metaphysical orientations and the cognitive
experience of humans is interesting, I don't find the MOQ in LILA
adequate for describing it, because in that work, Pirsig has largely
ignored other forms of quality than objective quality and Dynamic Quality.

-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