From: Robert Warlov (poetzzz@softhome.net)
Date: Sun Jul 24 2005 - 19:04:05 BST
I'd like to suggest that the 'intellectual level' is that which is nessesary
for individuals to group and stay together. That was once the function of
'The Church', or religion, which is now superceded by Science/Intellect, but
biological cells that receive and send information to and from other cells
are communicating and are therefore involved in intellectual activity.
As to a 'collective conscienceness' that is the only conscienceness there
is, because your mind is not yours, it's ours. Mind is one thing. Each
culture shares the same mind, because it shares the same language and the
same ideas. If you disagree, tell me with what you think if not with words.
Your body did not invent those words. You 'uploaded the program' from the
culture. 'Your' mind and the program are the same thing. We all share the
same program.
Robert Warlov
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: MD Intellect as Consciousness
> Hi Ham:
>
>> My concern about your theory, though, is its close resemblance to the 4th
>> level 'floating reservoir' defined by that detested 'I-word' which your
>> colleagues object to my calling a "collective consciousness". For
>> example,
>> the description "surrounds the quantum field" applied to Consciousness
>> would seem to suggest a universal base of some kind that experience draws
>> upon -- hardly the concept of proprietary (individuated) awareness I had
>> outlined in my post to you.
>
> I share your concern about the "floating reservoir" some call the
> "collective
> consciousness" and I see why you rightly suspect a conscious field. But
> rather describing the latter has something "experience draws upon" I would
> describe it as something that the bulb of nerve tissue we call the brain
> taps into. But, more about that later if you're interested.
>
>> I wonder if what you really were defining is the "patterning" or design
>> of
>> the perceived physical universe and its discrete particulars, rather than
>> Consciousness itself. That, to me, is universal because it has a
>> correspondence with the rationalized awareness of all individuals. I've
>> not been unable to explain this Newtonian design as related to any human
>> or
>> psychic factor -- nor has anyone else, including RMP, for that matter --
>> hence, simply attribute it to the intelligence of the Designer.
>
> Yes. Much more reasonable to assume some kind of designer than to think it
> all happened by accident, that is, relying on the scientific explanation
> of "Oops."
>
>> In other words, WHY the laws of physics are the way they are -- why
>> objects
>> fall rather than rise, why planets circle their suns, why water freezes
>> at
>> 32 degrees, why man thinks with his brain and not his heart -- these
>> existential realities are not accidents of nature, or we would have chaos
>> instead of order. They remain mysteries that I suspect no scientist or
>> philosopher will ever resolve. We can lay out a designer's blueprint for
>> what we know about the universe as it exists; we can't plot one for a
>> non-existent universe without resorting to a fictional account such as
>> Harry Potter's world.
>
> I'm satisfied that the answer to the Why question is simply that it's
> better to exist than not. But of course that answer won't satisfy
> everybody, especially Muslim terrorists who gladly blow themselves out of
> existence so as to be rewarded with an eternity of fornication.
>
>> But while the specificity and intricacies of finitude are the challenge
>> of
>> Science (and of primary concern to the participants here), my interest is
>> the relation of man's proprietary awareness to the Absolute Source of his
>> being. I've finally consented to purchasing Steven Kauffman's "Unified
>> Reality Theory" in paperback, after unsuccessfully trying to download it
>> from Atlas Bookmasters. His ontology is based on Consciousness as the
>> primary reality and has much in common with Pirsig's SODV. I intend to
>> read it from the perspective of my own metaphysical biases, just as I
>> read
>> Pirsig. (Paul has said he would review it and, based on what you've
>> revealed about your "energy field" concept of Consciousness, I think you
>> might also find Kauffman's theory of interest.) If I see that it has any
>> relevance to the MoQ, I'll report it to the MD gang for their evaluation.
>
> Thanks for tip. I'll try to get a copy. You might also be interested in
> reading about panpsychism. An excellent paper on the subject is at:
>
> http://www.nerdshit.com/archive/2004/12/23/why_i_became_a_/
>
>> Incidentally, I'll be vacationing for about a week, starting on
>> Wednesday,
>> so there will be an interruption of a few days in my responses.
>
> Have a great vacation, Ham! Will look forward to your return.
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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 Jul 24 2005 - 22:53:01 BST