From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue May 03 2005 - 02:23:02 BST
[Arlo had asked previously]
"Does a quartz crystal have 'consciousness'"? Does an amoeba? Does a planet
repsonding to inorganic quality we call "the law of gravity"? This is why I
questioned the use of "conscious designer" in your support of ID. It implies an
aspect of cognition, consciousness- I am, that I don't personally ascribe to
Pirsig's Quality.
[Platt responded]
> I don't believe the group has ever settled on the meaning of consciousness vs.
awareness vs. experience. To me, they are all more or less synonymous. I have
no trouble attributing consciousness to an amoeba since it responds to its
environment to sustain itself in what appears to be a purposeful way. Quartz
crystals and planets are more difficult to ascribe consciousness to, but I
think perhaps Pirsig, in saying iron filings "value" or prefer movement toward
a magnet, suggests that filings have internal awareness of their environment,
albeit far, far less than our own. Long ago the group engaged in a debate on
the question, "Are atoms aware." As I recall, the consensus was that the MOQ,
to be consistent, required a "yes" answer. In this respect, the MOQ follows
the doctrine of panpsychism.
[Arlo responds VERY tentatively]
I hope you are not expecting any worthy reply, this has me completely stumped.
But I'll try to organize my thoughts...
Attributing "consciousness" to "that which can respond to DQ" is problematic to
me for there is little (if anything) that is incapable of responding to DQ.
While this certainly does make the argument that "everything is mind", it
ceases to become a useful term (in my opinion). And, all it really seems to do,
is to say that "consciousness" is a synonym for Quality. And at that it ceases
to be a critical term around things can be contrasted and/or related.
The panpsychist "everything is mind" may well be what the MOQ follows, since I
can't at this time understand what the difference is between the statements:
(1) everything is mind, (2) everything is consciousness, and (3) everything is
pattern, and (4) everything is Quality.
Of course, all I can really say is "I don't know". Which is not helpful, but
honest. It seems to me, using this framework, that "identity and
self-awareness" on the intellectual level is somehow different than identity
and self-awareness on the inorganic level. Semiosis (some strands) hold that
identity and self-awareness are products of semiotic representation (we create
a "ground" (ourselves) onto which to create a "figure" (experience)). "Intent"
and "will" could also be seen as purely semiotic events, as a necessary
requirement for both is to have the ability to represent "time" and "action"
both symbollically.
So maybe the solution is to divorce these concepts (identity, self-awareness,
intent, and will- among others) from "consciousness", and consider them either
as results of semiosis or some other process.
But I'm not sure if this solves anything, or just makes it more difficult. I'm
going to have to think about this more.
[Arlo previously]
> > This is where I have problems accepting "design" as "proof of a
> > "conscious designer". Patterns and designs "do not exist", we sort them and
give them names and recognize them as "patterns", but I don't believe them to
be anything more than conceptualizations we use to describe quality (whether
inorganic, biological, social or intellectual). Of course, like I said, this is
an area where I am only thinking through things, so my statements are presented
here only as "thinking outloud", not definitive statements of belief.
[Platt]
> I would say that concepts do "exist" as intellectual patterns. The
> question for me is: "Is the pattern high or low quality?" Like you, I'm
> not certain that "intrinsic patterns" is a high quality concept. On the
> other hand, for purposes of "do-or-die" reality where we find it necessary to
manipulate our environment, we necessarily assume such patterns to be high
quality, like the mathematical patterns of physics making our current
conversation via computers possible.
[Arlo]
You're right. I missed that one. Concepts do indeed exist as intellectual
patterns. What I should have said was "inorganic patterns and designs 'do not
exist', they are conceptualizations we use to describe inorganic responses to
Quality". But this I should resay as "patterns and designs do not exist at the
inorganic level, they are intellectual level descriptions of inorganic
responses to Quality." I think one way we make high-low quality distinctions
among these patterns is, as MSH had said sometime recently, whether they are
"pragmatic" in achieving a desired activity (economy of explanation,
simplicity, and other factors of course weigh in as well).
But that gets me back to the question: if "patterns and designs" are
intellectual-level constructs we 'superimpose' on the inorganic, biological and
social levels to conceptualize the responses to Quality that we can perceive at
those levels, how does this "prove" that there is a "designer"? What it proves
to me is that "Quality exists", not "a designer exists".
Am I missing something in the distinction?
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Tue May 03 2005 - 02:53:50 BST