From: gav (gav_gc@yahoo.com.au)
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 01:52:38 BST
hey all,
see below for interspersed comments
ham wrote:
> First of all, I'm sorry to see that you've fallen
> for the notion that atoms
> and molecules "experience" each other. (I had hoped
> to be getting to you
> before your indoctrination by the MoQ.) This is
> sheer nonsense, and it will
> be a major obstacle to achieving a workable
> definition of Consciousness.
i disagree. if consciousness is universal a la
buddhism (you thing buddhism is wrong too?) then
experience is universal.
you think rocks are inanimate lumps?
rocks store info. they are antennae. hence menhirs,
stonyhenge and all the lore of crytsals and gems.
how can u say that molecules don't experience other
molecules? where is your evidence?
*you* are molecules experiencing other molecules.
experience is fundamental to MOQ. the MOQ is an
experiential metaphysics. every*thing* is abstracted
from experience.
>
> Only creatures possess consciousness,
nope. consciousness possesses creatures.
>and only
> humans possess the
> self-consciousness necessary to "intellectualize"
> reality and derive value
> from the experience.
no. value is primary, ontologically prior to the
intellectualization of it. this is one of the basic
*essential* premises of the MOQ.
> Intellection is a subjective
> process whereby sense
> impressions are synthesized by the central nervous
> system into a systemized
> construct or cognizant perspective of physical
> reality.
no. i dont have to consciously think reality into
being. haven't you noticed that?
> Programmed into
> this perspective is a template (pattern or format)
> that includes the
> dimensions of time and space
hi immanuel
and that makes
> empirical knowledge universal,
> while the values realized by cognizant awareness
> remain proprietary to the
> individual subject.
empirical knowledge universal eh? although obviously
culturally relative. oops then its not universal is
it? some holes here mate.
values arent realized. they realize.
> You seem to agree with my value concept:
>
> > They're partly proprietary. Only the subjective
> part of the
> > experience that we add as an individual.
> > A woman may be universally regarded as a woman,
> but
> > only by some as a beautiful woman.
bzzzzz helen of troy. she was HOT!, according to my
'miss troy 1500 bc' video.
whoa!!!! there aint nothing subjective about seeing a
beautiful woman my friend.
there ain't no *evaluation* going on - just value,
immediate and sweet.
> > Our experience builds on experiences on a lower
> level.
>
> So the question as to whether "objects exist before
> experience" can be
> reduced to: "Do time and space exist before
> experience?". The answer, IMO,
> is that they occur simultaneously WITH the
> experience, because it's
> experience that "creates" them. And, because all
> experience is subjective,
huh. i think you are missing some key points mate.
experience is neither subjective nor objective it
PRECEDES both abstract categories, necessarily, i
might add (ooh i just did).
<snip>
>
> The question I still have is: Why is this
> intellectualized pattern of
> reality a universal experience?
cos we are in the same culture matey, with the same
biology and physics goin on. an intellectualized
pattern represents and relates all the rest of the
patterns which are pretty similar for all of us here.
and remember we dont consciously create reality.
intellect is for representing and relating other
static patterns. i am pretty sure ducks, mice, amoeba
and virii still knock about in 'reality' even though
they dont have intellect.
What is the
> significance of this particular
> cosmic "template"
there is no template.
with its contingency of physical
> and mathematical laws and
> principles.
we made them up.
> In other words, could (or would) this
> particular design have
> been different if experienced by some non-human
> intellect?
there is no objective world out there
man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we dont experience with the intellect...that is
totally obvious. intellect reflects upon experience.
reality can be different for different people. its
consensual nature relies upon patterns in common
(intellectual, social, biological, inorganic). when
some of these patterns are not in common reality
changes.
>
> If you can provide a plausible answer to this
> question, you will earn my
> eternal gratitude and intellectual respect.
dont mention it ;-)
>
> Essentially yours,
> 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
>
>
____________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
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 09 2005 - 03:03:42 BST