From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 01:56:44 BST
Andy,
Well, here we are at what Matt will call (and I agree) just starting from
different final vocabularies, or dueling dogmas. Needless to say -- but I'll
say it anyway :-), I take this whole approach to self-consciousness as being
a necessary consequence of a prior commitment to materialism -- something I
see no reason to commit to, and good reasons to commit against.
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. Yes, patterns in the brain can change on interaction with the
environment, but there is nothing in the brain to read off the internal
model, much less compare it to what is perceived. 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.
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.
- Scott
> However, I have come to believe that self-consciousness is only a
> property of language. So, I don't think it really changes anything "all
the way
> down." It only changes how we talk about everything all the way down.
Ameobas
> are not self-conscious, but they have purpose in the sense that we do when
we
> get up in the morning. They just cannot put this purpose into a string of
words
> and symbols allowing them to cooperate with other ameobas in achieving
these
> goals. They can (I think-I am not really knowledgeable on how ameobas
find
> there food. Perhaps we can think of frogs instead) predict where food
will be
> in the future and place themselves in an advantageous position for
securing
> this food in the future. I think of this kind of purpose as "internal
models"
> using John Holland's term. But, self-consciousness and intelligence
requires
> language and descriptions within a language. When Matt and Rorty talk
about
> language as a tool for coping, I interpret that as humans have developed
or
> evolved the grandest of internal models. This model has given us an
> evolutionary advantage for cooperation among other humans in "coping" or
> surviving or gaining mastery over our environment. It has also created
many
> paradoxes which lead to such things as philosophy, self-consciousness,
thoughts,
> ideas, values, theories, intelligence and mind-numbing (at least in my
case)
> confusion.
>
> This is the problem I see with using the term purpose for greater
descriptions
> of evolutionary "progress." I don't think there is anything special or
> purposeful about self-consciousness. It is only an unintended result of a
very
> useful internal model. Only time will tell if this will be useful
experiment in
> evolutionary terms here on earth. Once humans are no longer here, I think
it is
> quite possible that intelligence in the universe and self-consciousness
will
> never again exist. It may be that language is too useful of an internal
model
> for any organism to have. The vast advantages that this tool has given
humans
> over other species MIGHT be creating an inbalance in nature which it is
> presently in the process of correcting (i.e. we may be a very large
version of
> the ebola virus).
>
> It doesn't really matter if the above assertion is correct. I happen to
enjoy
> this self-consciousness that language has given us along with all the
> uncertainties and paradoxes. While we are here existing, I also think we
can
> achieve objectives towards enhancing the experiences of the majority of
our
> fellow humans on the planet. But, that might also be another topic. I
just
> wanted to put self-consciousness in perspective. It really isn't that big
a
> deal. We don't percieve the world by our senses much different than other
> animals (at least, nothing that has anything to do with
self-consciousness) we
> just happen to have evolved an ability to talk about our perceptions in
great
> detail.
>
> Regards,
> Andy
> > Bo,
> >
> > (I've changed the subject line to merge with the related discussion)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > > ...if my sorting out of (your meaning) of where Pirsig "goes wrong" is
> > > correct I hope you say that the S/O divide is of "high quality" and
the
> > > SOM is not. But we obviously don't see the same SOL. The "self
> > > different from non-self" is so primary that I cant understand your
using
> > > it in this context. Even the proverbial amoeba knows that
> >
> > I disagree. I assume the amoeba is not self-conscious. It doesn't know
that
> > its food is not itself. It is our intellect that observes the
distinction
> > between the amoeba and its food.
> >
> > , while the
> > > ability to look objectively upon things - the sceptical enquirer so to
say
> > > - had his birth when the old Greek thinkers started to look for a
> > > permancy beyond the myths. I agree with the SO ...M as a post-
> > > cartian development, but its cornerstone was laid by the Greeks.
> > > Maybe your "things independent of me" is meant in this capacity and
>
> > > not in the biological me/not me sense ...hopefully?
> >
> > Yes. And it (the S/O/divide) marks the intellectual level, in that it is
> > only when people started thinking of themselves as the thinkers that we
have
> > intellect separated from the social.
> >
> > >
> > > > This is why I say that the S/O divide should be seen as a case of
the
> > > > DQ/SQ divide.
> > >
> > > The subjective part of the SOM = DQ and the objective part = SQ
> > > makes the MOQ into some Squonktailian rubbish that there are
> > > thirteen to a dozen of these days ....even worse than making the
> > > MOQ - DQ included - a STATIC intellectual pattern.
> >
> > I don't get this. Who is claiming that "the subjective part of the SOM =
> > DQ", etc.?
> >
> > >
> > > > It's too ingrained in us to be called a *static* pattern
> > > > of value.
> > >
> > > I see your point here, but it's the fallacy of mixing the biological
> > > self/not self into the subject/object divide.
> >
> > See above why they are not mixed.
> >
> > >
> > > > Instead it is how the DQ/SQ divide takes form when we think,
>
> > > > perceive, feel, and act, in our current stage of consciousness.
> > >
> > > Rather how reality is perceived from the curent intellectual stage. At
> > > the biological stage we perceive by senses, at the social stage we
> > > perceive by feelings (emotions) and at the intellect we perceive by
> > > reason . "Consciousness"? We haven't reached that stage yet dear
> > > Scott :-)
> >
> > We are self-conscious. Because of that, the way we perceive by senses is
not
> > the way animals or plants perceive by senses. Not that I know how they
do,
> > but I think being self-conscious is going to change everything all the
way
> > down. But I think that is a different topic.
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 Sep 03 2003 - 02:05:35 BST