From: Laycock, Jos (OSPT) (Jos.Laycock@OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 09:21:23 BST
Morning Ham,
This investigator is looking primarily from a philosophical point of view
not a scientific one, but still thinks that it is important to ensure that
the philosophy actually matches the observed. Also we are talking about
physical analogies put forward by Pirsig are we not, I didn't start this!
The scientific approach according to Popper (as am sure that you are aware)
is to attack current hypotheses with potentially confounding argument and
experiment, those that survive are accepted as consensus, nothing more. I
suggest that you are applying science here, so if its no good, what do you
hope to achieve?
Nociceptive signalling, is that which reports noxious stimuli, i.e. it is a
label placed on potentially any class of afferent action potential that
elicits pain in the subject.
On the cultural setting pain issue, this is very well documented, get any
old encyclopaedia and look at the self mutilation festivals in Indonesia,
alternatively look at the way different cultures treat childbirth. If your
consciousness is altered by certain drugs you can tolerate pain also, and I
am not talking about anaesthesia, try taking PCP or LSD and you will find
that you are entirely conscious but that the disorientation that you
experience makes you see pain completely differently.
The examples are endless, Masochism, tolerance of dental treatment,
hypnosis, etc, etc ,etbloodycetera.
But you are completely unaware of cultural setting as a factor?? I don't
believe you.
Next you call me a materialist, because I want to explain how intellectual
thought processes can influence tissue, why?
The MOQ is quite clear that intellect can only communicate with biology via
the cultural level. You are, I suppose happy with this idea, but choose only
to apply it to whole creatures, so you incorporate this absolute to
consciousness how you see it please!
My suggestion to get around it is to say that basic consciousness is a part
of the biological level, thus it communicates directly with tissue. Where a
command is the product of a higher state of awareness, such as intellect it
can't do this so it must communicate via the intermediate levels.
Perhaps I didn't phrase my "schematic" very clearly, but I think as you have
already decided what my position is and changed my category "from angel to
whore," you will no longer listen.
Also I already told you my definition of pain, an emotion. I am clear what
this means and in your rebuttal you even liken it to a set of other
emotions, so what is your disagreement?
The messenger is an electrical digitalised version of the message, which is
an incomprehensible description of MYSTIC quality state, the emotion is our
perception of this message.
I cant comment on the opinions of devout materialists, and my quagmire feels
distinctly less viscous than yours.
Jos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of hampday@earthlink.net
Sent: 06 September 2005 06:21
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of
Evening Jos --
> I am feeling a little mis-represented, my assertion is that consciousness
> arises as a product of neuronal complexity. I have not said that its
nature
> can be empirically determined by looking at neurones, nor did I intend to.
> I find almost all of the rest of the below compatible with my own thoughts
> with the few exceptions:
>
> None of the biological level can be understood by "looking at the
> schematic", clearly the arrangement of inorganic SPOVs says nothing about
> the electrical impulses that flood through it and define it as alive. The
> television set analogy is right but in my view doesn't as an argument,
make
> consciousness any different from action potentials.
It is always possible to describe the "dyamics" of consciousness in terms of
its neuro-sensory auxiliaries. Since we know so much more about mechanics
and electro-chemical systems, it's easy to fall into this trap. My point is
that the human body and its nerve components are objects to the
investigator, just as is everything else in the realm of scientific
research. That's the main reason why the scientific approach provides
little insight as to the essence of reality.
> Dissection will show you nociceptive afferent nerve impulses, why can't we
> accept that these communicate NDQ to consciousness which then generates
> pain.
I obtained my B.S. in Biology/Chemistry (pre-med) back in 1953, so I've
forgotten most of it and am not up on the latest research. However, I don't
recall the term "nociceptive" appearing in any of my texts. My Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary defines it as "of, induced by, or responding to a
nociceptive stimulus", which doesn't help much. If it's pertinent, kindly
explain it. (For what it's worth, I've used "proprioceptive" in my thesis,
and people have told me they don't understand that either.)
> The burn happens and biology responds to inorganic heat, biological
> communication happens with consciousness giving the first unmodified
> sensation, biology also communicates with biology and muscles contract.
> The burn also is an analogy for negative quality which for us to perceive
> must be converted into an idea, then a culturally acceptable event, then
> matched to a biological event and then, communicated to consciousness.
> Consciousness then communicates with cultural setting, and generates pain.
I fail to see how one's communication with the "cultural setting" generates
pain. Are we still talking about someone feeling his ass getting scorched?
That's a "negative" experience all right, but the chain of events you offer
as an explanation is obtrusive, to say the least. Are you suggesting that
until I turn such an experience into an idea and match it to a biological
event I remain pain-free? If so, the ointment and aspirin maufacturers
might want to know about this!
> In the same way that "you can't talk a crime to death", I don't think
"you"
> can think a muscle into moving.
How am I able to write, walk, and talk without willing my muscles to respond
in a coordinated way? (Or isn't that "thinking"?) But then, of course,
there's the autonomic neuro-muscular system which snaps me off the hot stove
without my having to think about it.
You're still reciting the accompanying schematic, Jos, not defining the pain
itself. The pain I feel is proprietary to me. Along with joy, desire and
value, pain is the essence of my awareness, however biologically equipped I
may be to experience it. Don't confuse the messenger with the message.
I realize that my subjective concept of consciousness seems a bit too
mystical for a devout materialist. But give it a chance. You may someday
wonder why you ever allowed yourself to get stuck in this quagmire of
objectivity.
Regards,
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
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 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 09:48:07 BST