John, Platt, Bo, Squonk and all.
Thank you all for kind replies.
John wrote:
>In the article I quoted in response to Platt, (Quantum
Consciousness)Penrose
>suggests that Libet's observations are invalid, because in quantum
>computation time can run in either direction, hence the time lag is not
>significant. I have no real views on this, since I am no physicist.
I do not have the "Quantum Consciousness" article available. If you can give
me a few more clues where to find it (magazine, journal, book) I will try to
get hold of it. Norretranders refers to Penrose (The Empiror's New Mind) as
one of persons that have tried to explain Libet's results based on an
assumption that the consciousness can not be localised in time, as one
cannot utilise normal physical laws for such a phenomenon. Norretranders
criticise Penrose for not giving a precise alternative way to treat
consciousness in time, but this of course does not say that Penrose is
wrong.
What I can say for sure, is based on my own experience. I once claimed that
90% of the decisions we make are made by "intuition", and that we after the
decision is made create a logical explanation. I still think that this is
true based on my experience, but I think I overrated the number of times I
make logical decisions. I think the percentage is closer to 99. So if I say
that these decisions made by intuition, is really made by the "Me" (the
biological and socially me), this seems to fit very well with Norretranders
statements. So when I read Norretranders book some 5-6 years ago, I was very
surprised by that my "party story" suddenly had some kind of scientific
backing.
Then, when I some years ago learned about the MBTI test and personality
types, I discovered that my personality type typically first go for a
solution based on intuition, and then starts thinking over the solutions and
hopefully looks for flaws in the ideas. So maybe this is not a very general
experience, and only applies to certain personality types. And that my
personality type is stronger on the biological self than you guys are?
Ahem - I guess I'm stretching these ideas a little to much by now ....
>There are so many problems with language in discussing consciousness that I
>find it hard to respond further without getting into a detailed analysis of
>the words 'consciousness' and 'self-consciousness', which I have no time
for
>now.
When a medical says your unconscious, you're at a biological level. When a
lawyer says you were unconscious, you're probably in a court, but ... he
tries to convince the jury that you were at a social level at the time of
your crime.
Probably to easy, but so far the one I'm using :-)
>
>The free will issue came up about a year ago, I think, and there was quite
a
>bit written about it then. I guess it is in the archives.
>
I've looked it up in the archives, and I will start reading these files
soon. There are too much for me to catch up with, so I have to apologise if
I bring up old subjects with no new content.
When I was doing my search in the archives, I also discovered a discussion
on the levels that I found very interesting. If you all allow, I would like
to come back with questions to some of these posts (like that Marco IMO
misplaced the Language on the intellectual level, rather than on the social
level :-).
>As an ENTP you are probably heavily outnumbered by INTP types such as
>myself, who tend to dominate these discussion groups, and are similarly
>addicted to intellectual ideas. When the group was surveyed about a year
>ago, almost everyone who revealed their personality type was an INTP, which
>is certainly interesting given that this type forms only about 1% of the
>population. It is also interesting that very few women get involved. Ken
>Wilber asserts that 95% of participants in these forums are men, whom he
>calls cyber warriors. He is scathing about the quality of such debates. I
>find there are periods of good sense, but they are soon overtaken by
>personal abuse and name calling. I stay around while I feel there is some
>quality in the discussion.
I looked in my book on the MBTI (Steve Myers "Influencing people using the
Myers Briggs") to find what you INTP's are all about, and found this
statement:
"The main currency of communication should be principles, competence and the
strive for excellence and quality".
I was just about to proclaim you INTP's as the true Quality seekers, when I
to my relief discovered that this is one of the few equal statements about
the INTP's and the ENTP's.
Friendly regards
Gerhard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:25 BST