From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 18 2005 - 16:49:22 BST
Hi
I think the problem here is too much talk about perception,
as if we are detached from some realm that we differentiate
into objects and onserve uneffected. Rather we are moved by how we are
dynamically
changing, experiencing this as good or bad, and how from
experiencing qualities we are able to order and construct
patterns (differentiate reality) and from this to construct the world.
Quality is prior to reflection if you like, or is the first reflection if
you prefer.
The warmth of the sun versus burn up.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@cox.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of
> Ian,
>
>> Ian said:
>> That's the wonder of conscioiusness. It's self-organising. You just
>> don't like the recursion. How can a brain think WITH meat whilst
>> thinking it IS meat. The error is to discount that reality. The
>> "crossing levels" from percept to perceiving is precisely what makes
>> the logic of the recursion work.
>>
>> Scott:
>> While I say consciousness is always more than self-organising, recursion,
>> etc.
>
> [IG] And I didn't say it wasn't. I was simply focussing on the
> recursion - the thing you don't accept - that a thing can be
> responsible for the process of its own creation (!). We can have a
> much wider debate (some other time) about what else consciousness is.
>
> Scott:
> This concedes my point, as I see it. I accept that recursion (or at least
> self-reflection) is relevant to the workings of consciousness. But there
> is
> always that something more about consciousness that recursion, or anything
> else, can't explain. That something more is the ability to span the bits
> of
> any such form, recursive or otherwise.
>
>> Scott prev:
>> All this [recursion, strange loops, etc.] has no bearing on my position.
>> More complex yet stable forms can
>> emerge, they can have strange loops with other categories, but all this
>> falls in the category of percepts, which are all spatio-temporal.
>> Perceiving
>> creates that spatio-temporality, and so cannot be described or explained
>> in
>> terms of the spatio-temporal.
>
> [IG] If you don't see it as having any bearing, then we'll need to
> clarify "percepts" and "spatio-temporal". I think our debate is about
> how "literally" the quality event or perceiving preceeds existence.
> Shhh, don't let Mark hear me suggesting this :-)
>
> Scott:
> I consider this sort of talk, all-too prevalent in the MOQ, to be
> unwarranted, a reversion to a belief in a pure reality existing prior to
> reflection on it that Derrida and others have deconstructed.
>
> Ian continued:
> Firstly, the relationship between percepts and their being perceived.
> Are you talking percept as a spatio-temoral object "being perceived",
> or the qualia / perception being created by the perceiving ?
>
> Scott:
> Not sure what the difference is. Space, time, and objectivity are general
> forms of all qualia, all created by the perceiving.
>
> Ian continued:
> Secondly notwithstanding the existence of the percepts, are you saying
> literally that there is not even any spatio-temporality prior to
> "perceiving".
>
> Scott:
> Yes, there is no spatio-temporality prior to perceiving. That does not
> mean
> that there is no structure, and indeed there must be, which allows objects
> to be perceived spatio-temporally. To some extent, that structure can be
> captured mathematically, or at least with mathematics we might be able to
> describe how the non-spatio-temporal is manifested (incompletely)
> spatio-temporally. This is what I see as being the real objective of
> physics.
>
> Ian continued:
> I recognise that position, but it seems an extreme "all the world
> really is only an illusion, nothing else exists in any way". My
> pragmatic version is "the only world we can ever know is only an
> illusion, so that's the one to worry about and debate the workings of"
>
> Scott:
> Not an illusion at all. By manifesting spatio-temporally, the
> non-spatio-temporal obtains feedback and can thereby evolve (what this
> means
> in a non-spatio-temporal sense I have no idea). To put it another way, the
> non-spatio-temporal cannot value itself without its manifestations (the
> spatio-temporal, and perhaps other forms we have no way of knowing about).
> Perception, then, is another form of language, the contradictory identity
> of
> universal and particular -- in this case, the eternal and its translation
> into spatio-temporal objects and events.
>
> Ian concluded:
> My category-jumping logic works because the quality interaction /
> perceiving does involve pre-existing spatio-temporal objects "out
> there" even though they can have no ontological definition whatsoever
> prior to their perception through some DQ event - thus hopefully
> keeping Mark happy too (!)
>
> Scott:
> While I deny that there are any "pre-existing spatio-temporal objects",
> that
> is, existing prior to perception, though as mentioned, this does not deny
> that there are patterns that get turned into spatio-temporal
> objects/events
> in the act of perceiving. But, as I said about language, their existence
> depends on their being manifest, while of course the manifestation depends
> on their unmanifested existence. Contradictory identity again.
>
> - 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 : Sun Sep 18 2005 - 16:54:32 BST