From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:33:49 GMT
Hi
It is always difficult to interpret brain/consciousness
experiments and injuries. For example certain experiments
show that your arm can react to visual signals before you can report
being conscious of the information but what does this prove?
That consciouness is an epiphenomenon or that consciouness is
not located in the brain? I think two key things is the way that
consciouness is associated with situations that are open and where
there are choices and possibilities, much like the field/event distinction
in quantum theory, secondly the way that we become alienated from our own
past or repetitive behaviour, so that when we learn a behaviour it becomes
capable of working in an unconscious and mechanical way. Perhaps
all patterns are a form of unconsciousness, so that things/objects are
somehow very old very deeply asleep patterns. And this movement from
conscious DQ to unconscious SQ is what accounts for cosmic evolution.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Pila" <pila@sympatico.ca>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:54 PM
Subject: MD Illusions are us
> David,
>
> That's a cute story. The professor was hoisted on his own petard.
>
> It very well may be that freedom is an illusion. It also might be, and I
am
> leaning in this direction, that the sense of self that I have and that you
> have is also an illusion produced by our brain.
>
> It could be that what we label as consciousness is made up of a few
> properties that arise in the brain.
>
> First, there is the sense of freedom that we experience. You and I don't
> feel as if all our moves are determined, do we? There are some people,
> because of accidents and trauma to the head do not feel this. They are not
> paralyzed but have lost the control over their arms or legs. In the movie
> Dr. Strangelove, one of the Peter Sellars characters played a man who was
> not able to control his arm.
>
> Also, a person with consciousness feels as if there is a sense of 'a
unity'
> that moves through space and time. Damage to certain areas of the brain
that
> control this has the effect on some unfortunate people who have had damage
> to those areas to not feel as though their past is theirs.
>
> Memory of a past and anticipation of a future is also a characteristic of
> consciousness. People with strokes who damage certain part of the brain
> cannot form memories.
>
> Fondly to you, Nathan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 3:10 PM
> Subject: Re: MD string theory
>
>
> > Nathan
> >
> > You will not get anything out of Pirsig
> > unless you think that a materialistic analysis
> > of reality is inadequate. Perhaps a book
> > like Fritjof Capra's The Turning Point will help
> > you to put the idea of a more holistic approach
> > to existence in the context of the history of
> > science and philosophy. Karl Popper's book
> > with Eccles on The Self and its Brain also lays out a good
> > summary of the philosophical problems of consciousness.
> >
> > For me the problem began with trying to understand both freedom
> > in the context of determinism (which seemed impossible) and love,
> > what is love as agape as a material phenomenon? I went to a lecture
> > where the professor said that there was no such thing as free will.
> > I walked out, and who was he to complain as I could not help it?
> >
> > regards
> > David M
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Nathan Pila" <pila@sympatico.ca>
> > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: MD string theory
> >
> >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > You suggest that I start with existence. I am aware of the world and I
> > ought
> > > to start with that, you suggest.
> > >
> > > Fine.
> > >
> > > But isn't this awareness a product of the working of my brain?
> > >
> > > If this is the case, then isn't this awareness an illusion. That is,
the
> > > awareness doesn't exist except as activity of chemicals and
> electrostatic
> > > impulses running in the various neurons.
> > >
> > > Neuroscientists tell us that the brain in not an all purpose computer
> but
> > is
> > > composed of modules, each having specific functions.
> > >
> > > If I see a glorious sunset the feeling I get is not from the photons
> > > impacting on my retina but the impulses that travel from the retina to
> > > region of the brain that are then stimulated and produce what I then
> > > interpret as a sensation. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see
> how
> > > starting with existence or awareness will change my life or the way I
> view
> > > life. Or maybe it isn't suppose to. And if that is the case, then why
> are
> > we
> > > interested in this vantage point that ZMM is instructing us on?
> > >
> > > Fondly, Nathan
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "David MOREY" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> > > To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: MD string theory
> > >
> > >
> > > > Nathan
> > > >
> > > > Pirsig is suggesting that you start on the path
> > > > to knowledge from existence rather than from a theory
> > > > about what the world is made of. Objects/things are a way
> > > > of understanding your experience. It may be that the theory is
> > > > not very good. Start again, Pirsig suggests, consider what it is
like
> > > > to exist, take a look at experience.
> > > >
> > > > Or, look at objects/things as only a part of your experience.
> > > > You also experience feelings/values about these so-called objects.
> > > > Why do we neglect the reality of these experiences. We usually
> > > > think about objects/things in terms of quantity in science. These
> > > > is only a part of our experience, a way of measuring it. Pirsig
> > > > suggests you consider the full richness of your experience when you
> > > > ask: what is reality. He calls the full reality of experience
Quality.
> > > > Quantiity
> > > > can be seen as a subset of this experience. Only once you consider
how
> > > > experience is, should you move on to look at how the world might be,
> and
> > > > the best way to do this is to consider the big story or cosmology.
> > > > This is to get away from so-called empiricism that tries to divide
our
> > > > experience into primary and secondary qualities and dismissing the
> > > secondary
> > > > ones
> > > > as only subjective.
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > > David M
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 18:35:55 GMT