Hi Gary, Kevin, could not let my fingers rest,
>From: "Gary Jaron" <gershomdreamer@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:04:28 -0700
>
>Hi Kevin,
>I did read your comments on the map/territory thread with interest. For
>now
>I think some general musings on the topic is best. Start out with putting
>ideas out there without trying to focus on conclusions to be drawn.
>
>Here are some brief musings on the how we come to make menus:
>
>My first premise is that we are not "tabula rasa's", blank slates at birth
>and we do not need Kant's "a priori's" either. All we need to realize is
>that we are wet-wired with a lot of "software' from birth. Chomsky was
>right, there exists 'universal grammar" wet-wired into our nervous
>system/brain from birth.
Davor:
Isn't that a 'a priori' ? Or did you mean we do not need Kant his A priori,
but an other 'a priori'. I was under the impression MOQ is 'a posteriori' or
'a qualitiori'?
>So, to understand how we come to know anything the first task is to examine
>how the tools we are given at birth work. We need to study the nervous
>system and the biology of the sensory system. My premise is that the way
>those systems handle sense data will set up a model for how it handles any
>data! Including the stuff of language, the stuff we read and hear.
Davor:
No I think you are wrong, I do not think studying of neurological processes
provides us with an explanation for social and intellectual pov, I could be
wrong, maybe Pennrose is right and we can explain it by Quantum mechanics or
a different approach as suggested in that special edition of Scientific
american a pscyho-fysiological theory or some kind of information theory you
seem to suggest(but I don not think you will find data). But this is
MOQ.org, i'm thinking about q-consiousness as a levelled or layered
consiousness, different characteristics of different types of consiousness.
The studying of neurological processes imo does not deserve the credit of a
consiousness being able to grow beyond biological.
>Once you do that you discover that the first task of the senses is to
>ignore
>data! There is too much data impacting the senses. Each sensory system
>ignores the vast majority of data and pays attention with only certain
>types
>of data. Our nose 'ignores' the electromagnetic spectrum and does notices
>scents. Our eyes ignores x-rays, gamma rays, etc, but "notices" a specific
>part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Etc.
>
>Hence we probably also ignore much of what we hear and read!
>
>What are the rules that determine that selection process? They must be
>context driven. What else?
>So, the first step is the study of biology and the brain processing that is
>going on to deal with that sense data. From this examination we get a
>model
>to apply to the process of socialization that occurs when an infant
>encounters its parents.
>
>Those are just some general musings.
>Gary
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Kevin <kevin@xap.com>
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:38 PM
>Subject: RE: MD Consciousness
>
>
> > Gary,
> >
> > I think I see your goal now. You might be interested by my thoughts in
> > the Map/Territory Thread posted 8.24.2002. Perhaps that will offer some
> > insight towards the "tolerance and humility" that you mentioned. A
> > worthy goal. Personally, it's that view (and recognizing my own
> > egotistical Dogma traps) that has been greatest message I've realized
> > from MOQ so far.
> >
> > As to understanding "how" we believe in menus, I suspect that is a
> > personal journey for each to embark on in regards to our own Static
> > Patterns and rationalizations. In the sciences, perhaps psychology is
> > most concerned with this. As we order our universe for oursevles, we
> > assume the static patterns and rationalizations that explain our
> > experience to us most effectively. The patterns build on each other in
> > layers. If these layers become rigid, they can effectively color
> > experience so that only Data that fits our rigid patterns is collected,
> > reinforcing the rigid patterns, blocking us from a different POV. For
> > example, the rational empiricist rejects experience outside the
> > measurable materialism of the universe he chooses for himself. The
> > mystic senses Data that attributes meaning to the material universe.
> > Both are concerned with making order from chaos, but both approach the
> > task with a different measuring instrument and collect different Data.
> >
> > Why do we believe? Pragmatically it could be stated that we accept the
> > 'truths' that describe/predict as much of experience as accruately as
> > possible. We need Order. We need the static patterns to cope with the
> > Conceptually Unknown. Perhaps there can be no 'self' without such
> > definitions/boudaries. To abandon the need to define our universe and
> > our place in it, is to abandon reality (little 'r'). There is a
> > tradition of mystics in most cultures, those who reject the material
> > universe and enter a state of perpetual comtemplation to abandon the
> > self and attain Unification/Enlightenment/Nirvana/Bliss whatever we want
> > to label as Oneness with Dynamic Qaulity/Immediacy/Absolute
> > Mind/God/Creation. To some, this is the definition of madness.
> > Existential Angst is the pain of realization of the Conceptually
> > Unknown. That chaos that seems to exist outside of our carefully
> > constructed reality. We seek an end to that Angst.
> >
> > Is it necessary? Arguably, no. Why ask why seems to be the dominant
> > reaction of most modern individuals. You live, you die, why sweat the
> > details? Within the tiny realm of what is knowable, such a pursuit can
> > easily be considered without function or use (beyond our own comfort and
> > sanity). It's definitely a Leisure pursuit for those of us not bound to
> > a subsistance lifestyle. In practical terms, any aspect of our psyche or
> > self-constructed universe that doesn't adversely affect reproduction is
> > going to survive through generations. It might be the meaningless
> > baggage of a modern surplus socio-economic reality. Having the baggage
> > (our why questions, our search for meaning) isn't proof of their value
> > or 'truthfulness'.
> >
> > -Kevin
>
>
>
>
>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
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:29 BST