RE: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of

From: Laycock, Jos (OSPT) (Jos.Laycock@OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 12:44:57 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD How do conservative values support DQ and the evolution of SQ?"

    And now I come to think of it..

    It makes much more sense to say that the cultural level is built on
    consciousness rather than to say it is built on biology. Pirsig was at some
    pains (Lila's child annotations) to exclude non human groups from his
    cultural level, but till now I couldn't see any compelling reason to do so.
    By accepting that consciousness is a purely biological phenomena that arises
    as a product of complexity, we can more readily distinguish between; groups
    of non conscious simple biological organisms, and the cultures of higher
    conscious ones.

    Well that wraps it up for me, consciousness is complex static biology, and
    the MOQ should view it as such.
    The "we" that David refers to is also however of the cultural and
    intellectual levels and thus able to subordinate biological consciousness
    and bend it to our will.

    when he says:

    "Is it a kind of interaction or interference between these impulses," - I
    say yes!

    "a sort of accidental side effect?" - Yes!

    Then are we actually able to control our thoughts," - Yes!

    "or are we mere observers," - Yes! (but not so mere!)

    "or rather are "we" nothing at all?" - Yes! (very Zen)
     
    "Is there a "critical mass", a density of nervous
    cells that needs to be reached before thoughts can occur?" -Yes!

    A many truths moment if ever there was one.

    Jos

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Laycock, Jos (OSPT)
    Sent: 02 September 2005 10:32
    To: 'moq_discuss@moq.org'
    Subject: RE: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of

    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

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 13:08:25 BST