Jonathan, Platt, Rog, Marty,
FOUR POSTS IN ONE.....
1.
Jonathan,
> ELEPHANT
>> However, while I won't rush to speak for Roger, I can atleast point out where
>> Jonathan has got it 180 degrees wrong in his characterisation of *my* thought
>> that the awareness of atoms is an absurdity.
JONATHAN:
> ?????
> Elephant, I don't know why you think I am out to get you. I was merely
> responding to your question to Platt "Why is it essential to the MOQ that
> atoms be aware?".
ELEPHANT:
Rather disingenuous, Jonathan. Check Roger's reply - he read your meaning
just as I read it. Yes you responded to my question for Platt - and you so
by telling me that my objection to Platt had a motivation which it certainly
did not have:
JONATHAN PREVIOUSLY WROTE:
> The discomfort that Elephant and Roger seem to feel over "atomic awareness"
> is, IMHO linked to the whole subject/object dichotomy and the issue of
> CAUSALITY.
ELEPHANT:
'nuff said. But of course I welcome the current retraction.
> ELEPHANT had written:
> Jonathan, you are quite wrong to suppose that my objection to conscious atoms
> arises from the thought that events happen objectively. Precisely the reverse.
JONATHAN:
> To be honest, I don't really understand what your objection is, and if you
> really have one.
ELEPHANT:
Well indeed. If you can't hear me, how can you be sure I am speaking? But
I digress:
JONATHAN:
> Are you saying that consciousness=mind? This might be an issue if someone had
> said that atoms are SELF-aware, but that is not the case (The only "self
> awareness" I am sure about is my own - Descartes had a point!).
ELEPHANT:
I'm sorry Jonathan. If atoms make choices then they are self-aware. The
mere notion of a nebulous universal (non-self_) consciousness in which atoms
participate is patently insufficient to support the claim that a particular
atom z would prefer to do x today after doing y yesterday. This choosing
atom is an atom which will need cogito ergo sum and and a bill of rights and
the whole business.
But if you aren't talking about individual choices and preferences but
instead about atoms that "choose" and "prefer" as part of some universal
body or world picture, remembering to add RMP's kid-glove quotation marks, I
simply have no quarrel with you or you with I. It is *as if* atoms prefer,
and there's an end on it.
> ELEPHANT:
> My thought is that since, "objectively" (in the sense of "really") and prior
> to our daily fictionalising, there are no such things as events or objects
> (only DQ), it follows that there is no particular thing out there to *be*
> aware. The being of those discrete particulars such as atoms thus depends on
> the mind that does the active cutting up, and this is the categorical
> difference between atoms and minds.
JONATHAN:
> You have my full concurrence on that . . .
>
> Elephant, you have certainly explained your stance, and I see no area of
> substantial disagreement.
> Is there one?
ELEPHANT:
Yes. You just don't seem to care about the "as if", and now apparently
think that my sentences which remember to use it mean just the same as yours
which do not. I on the other hand think the "as if" is of the utmost
importance. Atoms are not aware. It is *as if* atoms were aware.
toodlepip
el emphatica
-----------------------------------------------
2.
I think I can clear up one or two things.
> JONATHAN:
>> This sentience business has caused a lot of trouble, so I want to put
>> forward some thoughts about the different levels involved:-
>>
>>
>> 1. Sensitivity - e.g. ability of a molecule to absorb light of a
>> particular colour.
>> 2. Responsiveness - e.g. the way an organism by light or smell
>> 3. Consciousness - Confers ability to act in ANTICIPATION of sense. e.g.
>> running away from a skunk or a snake.
>> 4. Consciousness of consciousness - awareness of present and past
>> consciousness or anticipatory acts.
>> 5. C of C of C - the realm of philosophers. Anyone who understands 4 has
>> it.
ELEPHANT:
There's a simple error in your picture. Neither 4 nor 5 exist.
If one could be conscious *of* consciousness itself then consciousness would
have to be a limited object, not the general realm (receptacle) in which all
objects and non-objects are entertained.
The example you cite shows that we are aware of certain acts. It does not
show that we are aware of awareness itself. This is a harpoon that
veritable moby dicks of philosophers have impailed themselves on in the
past:
"Awareness":
(i) all experience
(ii) a particular act, viz a "that" statement
Do not confuse the two. (please). Whale meat is out of fashion this year
and I just hate the waste.
And another thing: consciousness doesn't "confer" anything of the sort.
You're thinking of practical reason there (those "that" statements again).
And another: philosophy is all about running away from the snake. If you
are enlightened that simply means that you see the snake sooner and more
accurately.
e
--------------------------------------------------------
3.
> We get perceptions = DQ. Atoms get perceptions (are aware)=DQ. Otherwise, how
> does one explain creation (evolution) of the inorganic and biological levels
> in the MOQ?
>
> Platt
By pointing out that creation and evolution are not the same.
Elephant
------------------------------------------------------------
4.
Marty,
Recommend you read Plato's Timaeus. I think that what Plato means by the
"recepticle" is very much what you or I might mean be consciousness. The
arena, perhaps. But I wonder. You wrote:
>> Perhaps Reality=Quality=Consciousness
I quess that I can make some sense of that if in this context "quality"
means "aesthetic experience". The problem comes if you mean "high quality"
or even "static quality". Both these things can only be present in
consciousness, part of consciousness, in fact something we are consciousness
*of* - not consciousness entire.
ttfn
Elephant
> From: Marty Jorgensen <mjorgensen@vpdinc.com>
> Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:42:53 -0800
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Subject: RE: MD Ubiquitous Quality, Universal Mind
>
> Elephant -
> No, nothing very developed - at least not in a presentable condition. It
> dawned on me awhile ago that consciousness may not be an adjunct to anything,
> be it mind, brain or anything else. Rather, everything else is a product of
> consciousness, in the sense that consciousness is prior. Instead of looking at
> the mind (consciousness) as a by-product of the brain, look at it the other
> way around - everything that 'is' arises from an endless sea of consciousness.
> In fact, consciousness is all there is; it's not something we 'have', it is
> something we are aware of. For the MOQ, it could mean that consciousness is
> propelled by Quality to create what we call reality at a comprehensive level.
> So, do atoms 'choose' structure as I choose chocolate? If the 'I' and the
> 'atom' refer to consciousness, they do. As I said, not well developed.
> marty j
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of elephant Sent: Tuesday,
> March 27, 2001 12:05 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Ubiquitous Quality, Universal Mind
>
>
>
> Got any more developed reasons than "perhaps" Marty?
>
> Perhaps?
>
>> From: "Marty Jorgensen" <mjorgensen@vpdinc.com>
>> Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:13:23 -0800
>> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>> Subject: RE: MD Ubiquitous Quality, Universal Mind
>>
>> Perhaps Reality=Quality=Consciousness
>> marty j
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:10 BST