From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 03:51:56 BST
Scott,
Perhaps it is just dueling dogmas, but I am giving it an effort to understand
yours in terms of materialism. So,
You said:
"Where I would say your argument falls apart is in the assumption that an
internal model is something possible, given a strictly spatio-temporal
universe."
Andy: I am sure I am missing something here, but of course an internal model is
possible. I mean it is merely a description of how an organism goes about in
the world. Holland uses it as one of many characterizations of a complex
system. I am not that hung up on a "strictly" spatio-temporal universe, but am
unaware of any other alternative to this postulate. Could you provide one? I
mean one that cpould be of some use for explaining consciousness. I am not
satisfied with just saying consciousness "is."
Scott:
"And that is because given a strictly spatio-temporal universe there can be no
grasping of something larger than the smallest unit of communication. It all has
to happen one photon at a time, and nothing can bring about a gestalt."
Andy: I am still unsure as to why you insist upon this. I am not insisting
upon explaining communication through the smallest unit. This reductive
approach doesn't offer useful explanations. And this is not a condemnation of
the spatio-temporal universe. I can grasp what people our saying without having
to know anything about photons. And why do you decide that a photon is the
smallest unit? Maybe it is not? Maybe there is no smallest unit? I am not
sure why you are placing such importance on the smallest unit? Regardless, I
prefer to talk about language using units that are appropriate. Many words,
symbols, sounds and utterances. The ability of humans to manipulate these is
one feature that distinguishes us from other species. I am proposing that this
is also what is reeponsible for self-consciousness. Now, consciousness is
another matter altogether. An ameoba has consciousness, it does not have
self-consciousness. In another words an ameoba cannot talk about or know that
it has consciousness. Only humans can.
Finally:
" And, again, why is consciousness, self- or otherwise, seen as something that
needs to be explained, in material terms or otherwise? Why not take it for
granted (since one is using it to say "it is just a way of coping")? The
absurdity is that one tries to explain awareness in terms of the products of
awareness (what we sense). It won't work."
Andy: I agree it won't work. I agree it is absurd. But that is the nature of
language. You can't explain anything in terms of the products of language.
Godel (How do you get those two dots above the o? beats me) proved this and this
is at the root of this absurdity. Consciousness, needs to be explained no more
than truth, knowledge, god, happiness, on and on. But, why take any of this for
granted either? Why does taking something for granted give you comfort? I
would prefer to always reach for or create satisfactory explanations for all of
this around us. This searching and creating is also a feature distinguishing
humans from other species. I don't want to take anything for granted for too long.
Regards,
Andy
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 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 03:52:32 BST