SQUONKSTAIL,
Er, "quality" *is* a noun.
Platt (and others),
I think your original post in this thread was thoughtful, and as
one who who has pondered consciousness and how it could come to be,
I share your pessimism about science being able to solve the Hard
Problem with its usual reductionist methods. As a devotee of science
it pains me to include myself in John Horgan's "mysterian" camp when
it comes to this question, but it seems to be the position I've
settled on.
Unfortunately the link to the U of A article is now dead, so I can't
quote from it, but the silliness of the article was what struck me
the most. Here we have plenty of smart people attending this
convention, some of them Nobel laureates, but the theories proposed
about conciousness seem absurd from whichever direction they come,
and it makes me wonder if the more sober attendees made the trip
solely for its entertainment value. These are lines taken right
from a paper written by Hameroff:
"In the Penrose- Hameroff model of "orchestrated objective reduction"
(Orch OR), OR quantum computation occurs in cytoskeletal microtubules
within the brain's neurons. The basic thesis is that consciousness
involves brain activities coupled to a self-organizing ripples in
fundamental reality."
It seems their theory is a hodge-podge of hedging, for it is at once
grounded in the physicality of the cell's microtubules but bathed
inside mysterious self-organizing ripples, which are presumably
undetectable but fundamental to reality. Throw in some "quantum
computing", which is all the rage, and now you have a theory that can,
at least in some way, appeal to everyone. No one understands it, of
course, so opponents with competing theories can only criticize it in
vague terms. Even Hameroff admits he doesn't understand Penrose. The
two just seem to hit it off.
Pirsig is probably wondering what all the fuss is about.
He would think the Hard Problem of Consciousness is not a problem
that would come up under the MOQ. Conscious experience, existing as
patterns of intellect or as direct experiences of DQ, have nothing to
do with axons, dendrites, and synapses, which exist in a lower level
far, far, away. Scientists, he would argue, assume consciousness must be
something tied to their biology because their metaphysics only allows
them to see subjects and objects. The Hard Problem is therefore a deeper
problem with SOM itself, blah, blah, blah, and that under the MOQ it
melts away, blah, blah, blah. End of story.
At least you made an attempt at an explanation of consciousness in terms
of DQ, even though it glosses over all the details of how DQ is mediated
through neurons (remember our hot stove discussion?). My opinion (as if
you didn't know) is that DQ is a mysterious explanation for a mysterious
problem, and like Chalmer's claim that consciousness is fundamental to
reality, it takes the easy way out, stifles science, and ignores the
large and growing circumstantial evidence that consciousness is embodied.
All I can say is, nice try, but you can take solace that your
metaphysical musings seem on par with that of Nobel laureates. May the
Force be with you.
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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