Platt, Roger, other,
Platt and Rog you have to help me with this. Just like Rog I always asked
myself in what way a particle can be 'aware'. I once mentioned the word
'conscious' on the squad and almost got 'shot' by Bodvar.
Maybe it's me who's having problems with defining these words just like
Roger at first.
Roger wrote
> We seem to be using a definition of awareness that at the least, is begging
> for clarification. Does it mean "attracted", or "interacts", or "values"?
> Something else? Could you please help me with this?
Platt responded:
> IMHO it means all of the above. Pirsig says, "Particles 'prefer' to do what
> they do." (Lila, Chap. 8). So I include in the meaning of awareness such
> ideas as "want," "will," "desire," "like," "intend," "sense, " "intuit,"
> "apprehend," etc.
I must have a 'pseudoscientific acculturated mind' (I didn't know :-)), but for me
there is a big difference between Roger's 'definition' and yours. The difference is that
a particle can attract or interact an other particle, but for me this doesn't involve
the particle realizing that it's doing so. And that for me this is the ground for being aware.
Platt writes:
> Yet, as Pirsig argues, if scientists are aware and scientists are
> composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms are aware too.
> (Lila, Chap.12.)
I searched this passage in my Dutch-Lila, but I didn't find it like you quoted.
I thought the above passage was meant to show that from a SOM point of
view it is impossible to explain the extra value of scientists out of the parts
they are made of.
I don't see why keeping awareness or consciousness to the biological level
(and higher) would go against the MoQ.
Please don't shoot me but explain.
Dtchgrtngs
Walter
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST