Mark,
actually I've been thinking that it would be cool to work with
historians, and to make an animated spherical graph about what kind of
mindsets have been typical in a certain era of a certain region. The
graph could measure personality traits according to the Big Five, and
also the subjective-objective-normative-romantic orientation. I'd say,
for example, that the Piraña culture in South America is largely focused
on romantic quality, because their language has no abstract concepts or
concepts for time, and a total of only 13 words, which, however, can be
spoken, sung and whistled.

Contemporary China is becoming a lot more objective than it used to be.
I'd say Middle East and islam in general focus on subjective quality.
Those countries, in which analytic philosophy is prevalent, such as the
Nordic Countries, Germany and Britain, seem interested of normative
quality, as they deal a lot with abstract principles in general. The
recent Icelandic revolution is a great example of the intellectual
anarchy these peoples not only desire but also understand elaborately.

-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