Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of

From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 08:36:53 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of"

    Hello Ham,

    >First of all, I'm sorry to see that you've fallen for the notion that atoms
    >and molecules "experience" each other. (I had hoped to be getting to you
    >before your indoctrination by the MoQ.) This is sheer nonsense, and it will
    >be a major obstacle to achieving a workable definition of Consciousness.

    Please don't see this as an indoctrination, I had thoughts before reading ZMM and Lila. I'll accept your statement that it's sheer nonsense, as soon as you've explained adequately why this would be the case.

    >Only creatures possess consciousness, and only humans possess the
    >self-consciousness necessary to "intellectualize" reality and derive value
    >from the experience.

    Is this a dogma or is this based on evidence or logic?

    > Intellection is a subjective process whereby sense
    >impressions are synthesized by the central nervous system into a systemized
    >construct or cognizant perspective of physical reality.

    Yes, with you so far, the intellect is a way of 'processing', among others, sential experience

      Programmed into
    >this perspective is a template (pattern or format) that includes the
    >dimensions of time and space and that makes empirical knowledge universal,
    >while the values realized by cognizant awareness remain proprietary to the
    >individual subject.

    This template may thus well be the 'layered' experience levels of our body/molecules/atoms etc. I don't see how this is such a big step or difference.

    >So the question as to whether "objects exist before experience" can be
    >reduced to: "Do time and space exist before experience?".

    Time and space are concepts that are introduces somewhere in the valueing-chain. (that's my best guess at the moment anyway)

    > The answer, IMO,
    >is that they occur simultaneously WITH the experience, because it's
    >experience that "creates" them.

    I think I can agree to that.

      And, because all experience is subjective,
    >so is all the "otherness" it objectivizes. (The paradigm for this
    >conclusion is extablished by Cusa's theory that Essence is not-other. Since
    >conscious sensibility is also not-other, it is inextricably linked to
    >Essence, hence the illusion of "otherness" is a secondary [subjective]
    >illusion derived from primary Essence.)

    Yes, to this I agree, consiousness is linked to Essence.

    >
    >> This is not a problem but a consequence of experiences
    >> building on experiences.
    >
    >I don't catch your drift here. Perhaps what you say next is meant to
    >explain it:

    >> When we experience something, we experience the sum of
    >> different layers of experience and we add a top layer, an
    >> intellectual nomination, or an emotion, or something else,
    >> that makes us think we experience the whole.
    >> This IMO accounts for the universal patterns and the subjective
    >> experience.
    >
    >If what you're defining is Value, then all you're asserting is that value is
    >an "addition" to our proprietary reality experience that makes it appear
    >"complete". Since I believe that Value represents the whole of Essence
    >(which we're incapable of experiencing directly), I'm in general agreement
    >with your conclusion, except that I would question the need for "layering"
    >experience in this fashion.

    The layered experience would replace your template and would answer the question why we all experience a very common reality.

    >
    >The question I still have is: Why is this intellectualized pattern of
    >reality a universal experience? What is the significance of this particular
    >cosmic "template" with its contingency of physical and mathematical laws and
    >principles. In other words, could (or would) this particular design have
    >been different if experienced by some non-human intellect?

    >If you can provide a plausible answer to this question, you will earn my
    >eternal gratitude and intellectual respect.
    >

    An answer, yes.
    Plausible, probably not, since this is subjective and I take it you will not regard this answer as plausible.

    We still agree on a lot of issues (more then we disagree).
    Ham, please explain WHY you think that experiencing stops at the biological level. This is a mind matter issue that I would like to clarify.

    Kind regards,
    Reinier.

    __________________________________________________________________
    Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
    As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

    Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

    New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
    Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
    Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

    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 : Fri Sep 09 2005 - 08:44:57 BST