From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Sep 05 2005 - 06:46:39 BST
Hi Platt --
> In general, I agree with you that consciousness (awareness) is
> characteristic of individuals, the corollary being there's no such thing
> as "collective consciousness." But, your final paragraph seems to
> contradict itself in several respects.
Let me try to clear up what you see as the contradictions.
I had said:
> Because conscious awareness is subjective it is unlike anything
> else in the realm of scientific or philosophical investigation.
> We can't create it, localize it, measure it, universalize it,
> predict it, or even prove it.
1.) You claim that I am "localizing" it by referring to its proprietary
identity. I'll agree that, metaphysically speaking, each individual is the
locus of his or her own reality. But as the "central figure" in your world,
do you really perceive your awareness to be its locus? I don't. I see all
that exists as something other to me. Because my subjectivity extends
throughout the whole reality of my experience, the focus of my awareness is
not on me but on the otherness that constitutes my reality. Anyway, the
perspective I had in mind here was that of the scientific observer who, try
as he will, is unable to pinpoint my subjective awareness or empirically
verify that I possess it.
2.) You say that I "universalize" it by suggesting that everything else is
other to me.
That is a definition, Platt. Does defining an "idea" as one's concept of
something make the idea universal? Not unless you're one of those who
believe that ideas float around in a collective Intellect, waiting for
someone to pick them out and use them. Horses, people, trees, stoves and
concertos are universal existents. Proprietary awareness is not.
3.) You assert that writing "we can't prove it" proves it because "only
human consciousness can write." Well, I've never seen consciousness write;
but perhaps that's a bit facetious. I have never heard a psychological or
neurologist claim empirical proof for an individual's awareness of pain, for
example. How would they go about this, other than noting that the patient
"complained of feeling pain, cried out when touched in an inflamed area, or
said "ouch, that hurts!" Consciousness is mostly about feelings and
thoughts which can only be communicated through description by the subject.
Science can measure the "status" of a subject's conscious activity, never
its contents.
You conclude with this cryptic assertion:
> As you know, consciousness to me is something my brain, and the bulb of
> nervous tissue of all critters, taps into. But, that's an argument for
> another day.
Excuse me, but I'd like to argue it today. If you believe you get your
conscious self-awareness by "tapping into" something called consciousness,
then I'm deceived in assuming you were not one of those "mind is a product
of" existentialists. Why is it that, just when I'm convinced we're on the
same page philosophically, you always manage to disappoint me?
Self-awareness is not an offshoot of biological evolution. It is a unique
and special creation -- a primary negation of Essence which transcends time,
space and differentiation. Were your awareness not linked to Essence by
value, you would have no self, let alone awareness.
Essentially,
Ham
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 : Mon Sep 05 2005 - 06:55:44 BST