From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 12:01:02 BST
Hi Jos,
You are talking about terrestrial animalian consciousness in your
definition based on neuronal evolution (that's pragmatic, but probaby
not exclusively true). And you are only taking about the consciousness
wired into the neurons (at birth and during some kinds of
life-learning). So far as that goes I completely agree. With that
limited definition, I like your idea of saying it's restricted to the
biological level.
My problem is I think that is only part of consciousness (and
intellect), and I'm certain other things known, experienced, learned,
believed communicated are in the information patterns captured in the
neuronal patterns, not in the patterns in the neurons themselves. (It
would be an interesting conclusion I've not discounted yet if ALL
information, genetic and memetic, ended up in the neurons, but if it
did, I'd be tempted to say neurons were above being purely biological,
but that's another story).
I completely buy your model of patterns written on top of patterns,
but that does not mean that the informatioin the higher pattern exists
in the lower pattern, yes ?
(My working model is that neuronal connectivity patterns represent the
kinds of information and relationships we can process, but not all the
individual instances known - those instances are in the states of the
neurons - but I could be wrong.)
In order to make progress I'm trying to encourage some debate on what
kinds of consciousness and intellect we think we're talking about. The
problem is lumping it all together and thinking we can have a
meaningful conversation with a single thing called consciousness (or
intellect) as the subject of sentences.
Ian
Forget the (Metaphorical) Material, Cherchez L'Information - Ian
On 9/2/05, Laycock, Jos (OSPT) <Jos.Laycock@offsol.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> I think the "materialist error" assertion is wrong.
> Consciousness in my view is simply a very moral and highly evolved part of
> the biological level and as such definitely IS derived from neuronal(/glial
> cell) complexity.
>
> In Lila I think that Pirsig is quite explicit in saying that the patterns of
> each level are written upon the patterns of the next lower level and that
> the evolutionary state of the lower level determines whether or not the
> higher level can come into existence. DQ causes (values) evolution within
> each level because the most moral static forms of that level are those that
> favour the genesis of the next.
> The reason that the MOQ says little about consciousness (IMO) is because it
> is a thing that occurs entirely within one level (biological) and thus is
> not involved in any moral conflict.
> I find your assertion "wrong" because it answers a wrong question,
> attempting to give a philosophical value answer in response to observations
> of a scientifically explicable* biological phenomenon.
> (*we just haven't worked it out yet)
>
> Jos
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of David Zentgraf
> Sent: 02 September 2005 01:32
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of
>
>
> Hi Scott, all,
>
> good to see I'm not the only one missing this point. So at least it
> seems I did understand the MOQ correctly so far.
>
> But as far as I can see, without being able to provide an answer to
> these questions the MOQ is not (yet) the ultimate answer to
> everything and merely represents another, though perfectly valid,
> subset of a bigger picture. Or is that all it set out to do in the
> first place?
>
> > "In other words, consciousness did not arise at some point in time,
> > and the idea that consciousness is a consequence of the nervous system
> > reaching some level of complexity is just a materialist error."
>
> Interesting, would you mind going into details about that for me? The
> "complexity theory" at least provides some handle on the issue for
> me. Any alternative suggestions?
>
> Chrs,
> Dav
>
>
> On 2005/09/02, at 6:30, Scott Roberts wrote:
>
> > Dav,
> >
> > This has long been one of my complaints about the MOQ. The
> > questions of
> > consciousness and how thoughts arise are simply not addressed. It
> > could be
> > argued that in LILA, Pirsig had other fish to fry, in particular
> > giving an
> > account of morality, and it makes sense that in the space of that
> > book there
> > would be metaphysical issues he would have to leave out. But as far
> > as I can
> > see there is little way to use what is in the MOQ to address the
> > questions
> > you raise.
> >
> > My own view (which is not generally accepted here) is that to speak
> > of value
> > is to speak of consciousness (awareness of value). Since, according
> > to the
> > MOQ, there is value at all levels, so must there be consciousness
> > at all
> > levels. In other words, consciousness did not arise at some point
> > in time,
> > and the idea that consciousness is a consequence of the nervous system
> > reaching some level of complexity is just a materialist error.
> >
> > - Scott
>
>
> 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
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
>
> On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
> in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
> for further details.
>
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
>
>
> This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
> addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
> permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
> and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
> Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
> intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
> whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
>
> This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
> recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
> monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
> at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
> composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
>
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 12:07:06 BST