From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 12:09:28 BST
Gav and Dallas Van Winkle - nice handle Glenn ? :-) said ...
(Sam and Mark Maxwell should check this out too.)
... some whacky Zen / MoQish things like ...
Conciousness is created by quality
and
Consciousness precedes the world
Consciousness manifests the world
Is this definition of consciousness identical with the
defn of quality in the MOQ?
Mark Maxwell also uses the line that "the world (the lecture room at
the conference) resides in dynamic quality".
This is important, if we could just step away from brain physiology
explanations of consciousness for a moment.
In my (model of the) world Quality is the whole of the world and MoQ
is the "way" of the whole world, and what's more the whole world
includes Quality and the MoQ. Recursion is good in the rael world
remember. MoQ (the "way" of quality) is just the natural history of
how quality evolves dynamically through static layers (species) As
Mark suggested in another thread.
The way of the world is "nature" so quality is nature, the
"explanation" of the evolution of quality, through its many species.
Now, is it also synonymous with consciousness ?
Is it synonymous with intellect ?
I say no to both. But what we are discusing here is simply the
definition(s) of these latter terms. A semantic problem as Gav says.
Quality (nature of the whole world) precedes consciousness, preceeds
intellect. By definition, nothing can precede the whole world.
Furthermore I see any talk of "consciousness" at levels below "life"
as pure (living and not dead) metaphors (David Chalmers has an
interesting angle on the hard-boiled thermostat). Either way, we'll
need definitions for many different (layered) kinds of consciousness,
one of (several of) which may turn out to be intellect(s). So we have
a ontological problem (a taxonomy to work out) before we apply the
semantics.
Pause.
Ian
(Spot the typo.)
On 9/6/05, ian glendinning <psybertron@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott, in response to Jos in particular you said
>
> "Yet in trying to explain the processes of perception biologically, we
> are using those products (e.g., glial cells) as existing prior to
> perception to explain perception."
>
> You say that as if it's some kind of problem.
>
> It might explain where I'm coming from if I remind you that recursion
> like this is only a logical problem in some closed axiomatic domain.
> In the real world, in fact it's just a sign that we have causal cycles
> across multiple levels of domains, patterns written on top of
> patterns, just like consciounes itself oddly enough. I've read Owen
> Barfiled, on the other hand, have you read Hofstadter (GEB and Mind's
> I) ?
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 9/3/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@cox.net> wrote:
> > Dav, Ian, Jos,
> >
> > You all have been discussing how one might find out the workings of
> > consciousness under the assumption (Ian partially excepted) that it is an
> > outgrowth of biology when biological systems reach a certain level of
> > complexity. Here is why I think this pursuit is foolishness.
> >
> > First, assume that all relevant factors are strictly spatio-temporal. (If
> > one denies this assumption, for example, by bringing in quantum
> > non-locality, then all bets are off, since the question is whether or not
> > consciousness arose in time.)
> >
> > The contents of perception are macroscopic, yet the spatio-temporal
> > processes consist of an immense activity of microscopic events. Each such
> > event is separated from all others by space and/or time. All communication
> > from one event to another is just another microscopic event. Given the
> > assumption, there can be awareness of nothing bigger than these microscopic
> > events (and actually not even that, since awareness requires a background
> > against which the foreground -- the event -- is set off, hence it contains
> > more information than can be found in an event). Hence, the assumption of
> > strict spatio-temporality must be wrong. Appeals to complexity theory,
> > recursive loops, etc. make no difference, as long as the strict
> > spatio-temporality assumption is made. Science can only study the biological
> > activity that accompany perception, somewhat like studying what a television
> > does. It cannot explain perception itself, what actually gets shown on
> > television.
> >
> > Another argument: we know that the contents of our sense perceptions (trees
> > and such) are built out of raw (or at least rawer) sensations (color
> > swatches, tones, etc.), which in turn are assumed to be built out zillions
> > of quantum level events (e.g., electrons absorbing photons). In other words,
> > what we see, hear, etc., are products of perception -- they don't exist as
> > macroscopic objects except in the act of perception. Yet in trying to
> > explain the processes of perception biologically, we are using those
> > products (e.g., glial cells) as existing prior to perception to explain
> > perception.
> >
> > Combining the two arguments, there is an alternate hypothesis, that space
> > and time are created in the acts of perception. This does not entail that
> > "to be is to be perceived", just that non-perceived reality is not
> > spatio-temporal, that perception converts it into spatio-temporal form.
> > Science (with the partial exception of quantum mechanics) is the study of
> > that consciousness-produced spatio-temporal form, the products of
> > perception, and not of a reality in which or by which perception can be
> > explained. (For more on this, I recommend Samuel Avery's "The Dimensional
> > Structure of Consciousness" and of course Owen Barfield's "Saving the
> > Appearances")
> >
> > - 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
> >
> >
>
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 - 13:37:55 BST