From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Thu Sep 29 2005 - 05:29:48 BST
[Matt:]
> Bo, who feels fine about redescribing something usually taken to be
> paradigmatically human (i.e., value) into something covering the whole of
> reality, wants to reserve consciousness for humans. Which is fine.
> Something has to remain paradigmatically human or else there'd be no
> difference between us and rocks. But Scott has been trying to raise
> difficulties (I think successfully) in thinking of value without
> consciousness. To skirt around that, I'm suggesting that we simply
> redescribe consciousness, too. That Pirsig's redescription of
> Quality-as-reality-as-experience requires a follow-through redescription
> of consciousness. This would, of course, commit us to redescribing
> _self_-consciousness, so that no longer would self-consciousness be
> thought of as requiring the spoken phrase "I am a rock," which Bo quite
> correctly points out a rock could not do.
[Case]
When we observe a rock it appears to be inert. But to borrow from a Ham a
sec. What if you speed up time. At some point the rock begins to move
around. It surges up from the bowels of the earth as the forces of plate
techtonics and rolls about on the surface of the planet, weathers away and
disappears. How fast td we have to speed up time until it's behavior appears
to be organic? In fact we see before us a continum of "consciousness" from
rock to man and possibly beyond. This is not only across the fossil record
but in life as it presents itself at this moment. Most attempts to retain
something that is paradigmatically human have been weak.
If I try to describe my consciousness to you what possible basis would you
have for agreeing or disagreeing with my description? Consciousness, to the
extent that we could find anything to agree on about it, seems to be a
function of compexity.
[Matt]
> Ham, quite naturally, asks what the difference is between "rock
> consciousness" and "human consciousness."
[Case]
They differ quantitatively, humans have more of it.
He apparently was waiting for a
> response from me, but I'd dropped the topic because Ham's never really
> understood what I, or Pirsig for that matter, have been up to (for
> instance, he's weird remark that Pirsig's redescription of reality is a
> logical fallacy). Most of his questions are inappropriate and I end up
> just moving away from the conversation after a few give and takes (like
> when he starts calling me a philosophologist when he can't really describe
> to me what the difference is between philosophology and philosophy). But,
> simply, the idea of "rock consciousness" simply banks on the metaphor that
> a rock "knows" another rock when he sees one. This pans out in common
> sense language to simply, a rock _reacts_ to other rocks.
[Matt]
Physical phenomena--rocks falling to the ground,
[Case]
Rocks value the ground in direct proportion to their mass.
[Matt]
lightning striking the ground (or, really, the sky I guess),
[Case]
Positively charged particals in the air value contact with negatively
charged particles in the ground. This value is measured in volts.
[Matt]
> hurricanes swirling in the ocean--are the effects of physical "objects,"
> or centers of evaluative gravity (if you will), being conscious of their
> surroundings and taking the according appropriate action.
[Case]
Exactly
[Matt]
We trace these appropriate actions as "The Laws of Nature." So, what is
human
> consciousness? Predictably for me, the use of language.
[Case]
You are starting to go soft on me. Language is a by product of
consciousness.
>
> One might naturally, easily, and quite rightly respond--but Matt, aren't
> you pushing the word "consciousness" into places it doesn't serve to be
> in? Aren't you wrecking it as a term, being as it doesn't really have any
> force now?
[Case}
I thought you were doing fine.
[Matt]
> Yeah, I am. But what I think people have to face up to at this forum is
> that _this_ is what _all_ philosophers do. Philosophers take words out of
> common sense parlance and start pushing them to their own designs.
[Case]
That is why philosophers talk mainly to themselves.
Again,
> what strikes me in this forum is that there are _any_ dictionary thumpers,
> let alone more than a few, considering that the Divine Providence of the
> forum is Robert Pirsig, who took the word "Value" and made it synonymous
> with "Reality." If you're willing to make that leap--and many are not
> (but most of them aren't at this forum)--then you should prepare yourself
> for some other imaginative leaps.
>
> The idea is to follow these imaginative leaps to their natural ends and
> then turn around and assess the damage. Was it worth it? One of the key
> things to keep in mind when assessing that worth is to what _purpose_
> these redescriptions were wielded. Pirsig's were wielded for
> self-creation and the dissolution of philosophical problems. And that's
> what's up with the redescription of consciousness. I suggested it because
> I think it both saves the power of his original redescription's effect on
> philosophical problems, while avoiding some other newly arisen problems
> from old intuitions. My suggestion isn't the only way to go. That's the
> deal with redescriptions--once you start using your imagination and start
> pushing and pulling, all sorts of new ways occur to you. The trick, once
> you get your imagination going, is to not get too bogged down by rather
> arbitrary Archimedean points--like the definition of a word. All you need
> to do is figure out which of your old intuitions you'd rather not let go
> of. For instance, I'd rather not let go of the old intuition that there
> is _some_ difference _somewhere_ between rocks and humans. But I'm
> willing to let go of the intuition that this difference is consciousness.
>
> Matt
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
> 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 : Thu Sep 29 2005 - 07:34:47 BST