I picked this topic up from this post of SB's (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=380038&postcount=16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig

While doing biochemical lab work, Pirsig was greatly bothered by the fact that there was always more than one workable hypothesis to explain a given phenemenon, and that the number of such hypotheses seemed almost unlimited. He could not think of any way around this, and to him it seemed that the whole scientific endeavor had been brought to a halt, in some sense. This question so distracted him that he was dismissed from the university for poor grades
***End Quote


So there can be more than one working hypothesis to explain a given phenemenon?

This is like a news flash I thought we had to pick one. . . . . .does this apply also to ADD. You mean there may be more than one working theory?


Why do we want to only see one? Social, cultural, personal preference?

More interesting reads about the Robert Pirsig who apparently got confused when science wasn't liner to him, but he saw things very differently.

Yea this I can understand confusion happens when you do not come up with the same answers as most, when you go to check your math you find your numbers don’t look the same as their. . . . the there is the why . . . . .brain goes round and round some times stopping long enough to jump up and down.

A Reflection on David Morey’s “Arthur Young and Pirsig: Can Young Help Us to Understand the Levels?” under MOQ.org

Can't get the darn thing to go directly to the article, it will only go to the opening part of the site which is a forum. I can not post the hyperlink to the forum part because. . (Not supposed to do that). . but googling these terms should allow one to arrive this article. Sorry system is in foul mood. . . .



Part I: Individual Freedom/System Potential Distinction

After reading David Morey’s essay I was intrigued by the hierarchy displayed at the end. It used Light, Particles, Atoms, and Molecules to represent Inorganic Quality; and Plants, Animals and Man to represent Biological Quality


Part II: More Characteristics of the New Hierarchy

Change is an important concept that can be applied to this hierarchy. The actual change in nature of each of the levels I will call elasticity

The other kind of change is what I will call applicability. Applicability explains how easily an object on a certain level can be used or implemented

***End Quote

Are things as we percieve even if we do not all have the sam eperception. Is culture effected by biology or biology by culture . . . . is there any such thing as a right answer.

PS I am tagging correctly the system seems to be in a foul mood because it won't even tag itself correctly. :( I re-did the thingies I used to hyperlink so far they work.HF feel free to edit for corrections.. . . .of any kind ;)

:-)


I-'Quality{1a}'
Light-Particles-Atoms-Molecules {Inorganic Quality{1b}}
Plants, Animals and Man {Biological Quality{1c}}
II-'Hierarchy (New){2a}'
predicates on
~'change{3a}'~
actual change ->- 'elasticity{3b}'

The other kind of change ->- 'applicability{3c}'
Applicability explains how easily an object on a certain 'level{2b}' can be used or implemented ...
What saddens me is that (all from the relatively objective perspective of someone who has only ever been around academics) - is that the guys ~here~ ... just clever they really are.

Current academia is molecular --- drilling down into the meaningless minutiae - carving out a niche - a special something which can be used for marketing purposes.

Ends here though.

The guys here are the best thinkers in their respective fields.
We don't want anything physical.
Thought is our reward.

Thought == stimulation.

And what do we seek?

Thought - (*ADDer*) thought {{{nonlinear - multitasking over the metamodel web}}} - represents the most effective means which we can (currently) - aspire towards stimulation -
rrreally so!!!

... the philosophers have it.

... too funny!!!

We (ADDers) have completed the transition which demarcated man - descending [our self model] ->- onto ->- our own internal stage of consciousness.

... the film is projected onto the big screen - and we're the star :-) ...

The idea of real (RRReal) and real (rrreal) - may be translated in this context to mean - that notionally RRReal aspects of life (money, cars, tangible objects) - are meaningless ... since 'we' exist in our mind - and our mind is a virtual environment.

This is not a controversial idea.

If nothing else - that single idea must be grasped ... everything else follows ... all pleasure which we experience as we skip through life - translates into an effector (biological) elicited by some component of the internal model - when something occurs - the internal model is virtual - there is no need to engage in the pursuit of the notionally RRReal.

~an example~
speeding on a motorbike isn't fun because of the status we have earned to afford the motorbike - or gazing upon the bike ...
... it's the feeling of being 'alive' as we're close to death.
Stimulation
Neurotransmission.

{{{resuming}}}

The guys here are the best thinkers in their respective fields.
We don't want anything physical.
Thought is our reward.

First five which come to mind ...
... unification theories
... the idea of geological physiology (from the home of palaeoneurology)
... non-coding central RNAs as electron sink ... freaky deaky crazy cool.
... Poincare /
... Central (slow) excitatory waves.

... ... ... could list another 55 without trying particularly ...

oh my!
... free thinking like I've never seen it - and I have sniffed around the steaming Penrose and Hawking pits ...

oh well!

->- and then this.
...'Pirsig'...'quality a{{{.}}}nd morals'...Tammy

Ahhh!!!
... back on-topic ...

{1a}Quality
b}Inorganic
c}Biological
{2a}Hierarchy
b}Level
{3a}Change
b}Elasticity
c}Applicability

Summary of ... pretty much everything ... :-) everywhere ...

A Universal Theory exists of evolution. {1a,b,c - quality relates to evolution - and applies equivalently to inorganic, organic, biological etc domains ~of course~ regardless - it's Universal (after all)}
It offers an explanation for the progressive transition of energy into 3 specific geometric topologies prior to an emergent event ... {2a,b - hierarchy == abstraction level or layer}
And then repetition of this basic pattern (residual energy permitting) {3a,b,c - evolution as an underlying specific pattern of change {~aka~ uni-directional elasticity} - subject to unique instantiation dependent on environmental context{applicability}} on a higher (definition of higher relating to magnitude of energy contained within) layer of abstraction.

... :-)

cool find Tams ...

our own internal stage of consciousness

I am wondering how or where perspective and consciousness connect??? Interact??? Are they different or the same things? Hmmm I don’t think they are the same, perspective is our point of view during a specific state of conscientiousness (I can spell consciousness {or consceince- :p } some times but never specific)




that notionally RRReal aspects of life (money, cars, tangible objects) - are meaningless ... since 'we' exist in our mind - and our mind is a virtual environment.

Virtual rreality hmmmm




i's the feeling of being 'alive' as we're close to death

Very paradoxically true. It doesn’t seem like it would be that way but it is true none the less.

I have also noticed when one is dying they appreciate life more, maybe it is limitation thereof that makes it more valuable. . . we become more alive when we are pushing the limits.




Stimulation
Neurotransmission

But not all temperaments do this, some would find our “stimulating experience” closer to unpleasant.




cool find Tams ...

Like my change in my “ADDF look” it was a collective effort. . . you mentioned this fella and hyperlinked to the widi encyclopedia .. . . . after reading the encyclopedia version I went to a hyperlink they offered and picked an article . Until yesterday I had never heard of him. Evidence that we do not exist unto ourselves we are always under the influence of . . . . . interaction . . . . . .duality intended naturally

Science does tend to "categorize" or put tings into boxes, is this some manner of attempt to understand more? To me it just seems like more pieces but not necessarily more knowledge. This pirsig was trying to bridge the gap in a way.

Much like the executive function thing is claimed as fact but the feeling of lacking one certainly s not the experience. The experience is tooo many executives as I tried to explain in a thread some where around here. Executive were never much use any way they just seemed to muck stuff up in my experience so not having one would seem to make things run more smoothly, like working on week-ends when all those office people aren't around is sooo much smoother and easier. . . .so even the analogy doesn’t make sense. . . . .again I am in the box of “not normal” but even “normal folk” find working when the executives are out of the office easier and less confusing. So then I am left with wtf are they talking about have they never worked or maybe it is they are the executive and they only THINK they make a business run smoother (shrug) is it all the same RRReality or do me and the executive have a different one . . . . .we do share one rrreality is we each find the other an equally unpleasant necessity.(I do perfer to get paid)

Okay finally some thing I can legally hyperlink I think. . . nope I don’t see any forums attached. . . .


Force of Value in the Metaphysics of Quality by Dan Glover 11/17/98 (http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Jaynes.htm)


The Metaphysics of Quality divides our reality up into everything that is experienced, static quality, and everything that is not experienced, Dynamic Quality.
Dynamic Quality is a particularly elusive and undefinable "something" which we are unable to perceive directly. Dynamic Quality is un-nameable, for once it is identified, it has become something else and is no longer Dynamic Quality. Since the Metaphysics of Quality is assumed to be an analog of reality and not actual reality, the words Dynamic Quality will represent this undefinable "something" but in no way define it. ***End Quote


Did we just end up at the “no words” again . . . . . . .man can you believe that?


Did we START there . . . .must be the sdrawkcab thing going on again. . . . .it seem like we are getting in through the out door. . . .but then again there is no door. . . . ..


***Same Source***
The four levels of static reality contain all that we are aware of. In addition, Dynamic Quality, an undefinable "something" permeates and directs these static patterns of value in ways that we can perceive, but not directly.
Perhaps it is worthwhile exploring this thing we call experience or consciousness. In going to my bookshelf and picking up The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind author Julian Jaynes writes:
What you can consciously recall is a thimbleful to the huge oceans of your actual knowledge. Conscious retrospection is not the retrieval of images, but the retrieval of what you have been conscious of before, and the reworking of these elements into rational or plausible patterns. (Page 28)
Conscious retrospection is the consciousness looking back on itself. The manner in which this is accomplished bears some looking at to fully appreciate the complexity of the problem we are dealing with here. In humans, the left and right sides of the brain are separate yet connected by a net of some 2 million fibers. On the left side of the brain (in 95% of us) is the Wernicke's area, responsible for speech patterns. The right side of the brain has a corresponding area which could be capable of speech patterning, but is not, at least in an sense that is fully understood at this moment. ***End Quote

Hmmmm this sounds um really familiar well okay in my perception is it has a familiar feel . . . . .


For kicks and grins I actually took various words and looked them up in the dictionary to see if my preception of them was I used words like populist, epistemology I discovered first of all I do not really know the words that go with words but I “feel” the words I read. . . .guess that would explain how I can read without “de-coding” what ever the heck that is.It would also explain my passion, the attraction to intellectual debates, understanding unusual forms of written expression, that I do not really find unusual just indicitive of the person writting, every one has a tempo, It would also explain how I am able to read what is considered fast for a dyslexic. . .. . . . .seems that feeling or sensing perception occurs faster than decoding. . . . .so the “disability” was as disabling in the long run as the short term would have predicted. {some thing like that}

But my feelings line up with the words. . I some how know this but who knows how. . I could be in like a totally differnt reality. . . . .because I actually live in the world of no words when ever I read . . . . .I do not know if this is very common because I never really considered how I read only knew it happened with relative accuracy when compared to the conclusions I gain from the words I read Though I feel words have more than one meaning and the same group of words can mean more than one thing depending upon tone, circumstances and perspective. . . . . again another perception based perception now that may get real confusing real quickly.

Layers of perceptions . . . . .interacting with others layers of perceptions . . . .that create a briefly merged perception . . . . . and a change in both when mergence is over . . . . what do ya think . . . . . .shear meaddness yep excellent description. . . . . .

http://www.addforums.com/forums/image.php?u=1891&dateline=1170068180

omg!

could you be any cuter?

man!

HF's Glenda gets the 'Fatal Attraction' treatment - if she goes head to head against Rocky here.
Eye of the Tiger - Glenda ... just think 'Survivor' ... :-) ...

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8788/addfsigsizegreenandgreymr7.jpg

Last weekend in Thetford forest - I remarked on how we were - in effect - getting exactly the same view as we might expect if we were - instead - walking through our own brain.

Image works for capillary beds, lungs, endocrine tissues - and more ...
a pattern emerges.

Except - it's the same 'ole pattern.

The number of patterns is constrained by Captain Universe with 1 3 and 4 stamped over the rear aspect of his lycra blue underpants - sported - as Super Heroes do - (his underpants) - on the outside
duh!!!
(of course)
- over his garish red flared jeans.

lovely.

Image works for capillary beds, lungs, endocrine tissues - and more ...
a pattern emerges.

Except - it's the same 'ole pattern.



Hmmm I never thought of it like this before. Universal laws apply universally. Yu see the coolest things SB. Tree branches do look like capilaries pretty neat trick you got going on.

When the pattern appears here (WikiP - F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram)eynmann Diagram) - we know we're onto something.

Crick (Zach's Pinker thread) and Feynmann have mindset of ADDer.
Both have had their ADD credentials discussed here previously.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/70/Kaon-Decay.svg/301px-Kaon-Decay.svg.png


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/08/Feynmann-diagram-gluon-radiation.svg/300px-Feynmann-diagram-gluon-radiation.svg.png

SB did I ever mention that i'm a big Philip K Dick fan?

V.A.L.I.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VALIS) is by far my favorite when it comes to his work

I think there is some truth in V.A.L.I.S. although you won't find it directly in the plot, you must examine the interactions between the main characters.

:-)
... funnily enough Zach
... ideas which relate to {brain,mind} follow *exactly* that principle.

If the point is the journey (described elsewhere on ADDF)
Neurotransmission between brain location A and B
Then - as the circuits become more complex ie
circuits run from A to C and D and E and so forth
So will we arrive at a model in which A, B, C, D and E and so forth
are no longer required.

A, B, C, D and E and so forth switch from nodal loci into junctions.
In effect we're weeding out the chubby space wasting cell body from the neurone of the brain.
In its place a mess :-) of tangled strings.


A hefty mind by the name of Z.a.c.h. v326 miight phrase this idea as follows ... ... ...

you won't find it directly in the plot (plot == character definition of A, B, C, D and E and so forth), you must examine the interactions between the main characters (main characters == A, B, C, D and E and so forth)