Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:15:20 +0100
Jason wrote:
> Yes, I think I understand what you are saying here, but some further
> elaboration on your views regarding the E-B Condensate relevance would
> be
> helpful. It seems, after reading your response to Platt's intriguing
> question, that we are both describing the same concepts -- only from
> different perspectives. Perhaps you could share your views regarding
> this
> "resolution" of the so-called "problem of consciousness" as it relates
> to
> artificial sentient beings. Do you believe that a "machine" could be
> created which would have the same conscious experiences that we enjoy as
> humans?
---------------------------------------------------
Maybe I am overexcerting myself. In my reply to Platt Holden I said
something about humankind's experience being humankind's mind (or
consciousness), This sounds trite, but is really the "fulcrum" on which the
MOQ rests. I don't blame you Jason for not noticing it and keep returning
to "....the same conscious experience as we men..." as if the Intellect of
Quality is identical with consciousness of the SOM.
But first allow me to air an idea that may clarify the MOQ morality levels,
and their relationship. If I have said this before please forgive: As you
know, The quality duality is between Dynamic and Static values - NOT
between mind and matter. About the Dynamic half not much can be said except
it being the background of it all, but the static levels are also different
realities in a way. It seems complicated and I had a bit of trouble with
this - until I got the "dimension" input. We are familiar with physical
space's three dimensions; vectors that constitute the spatial continuum.
Nobody can tell where width ends and breadth starts or both are replaced by
height, these dimensions can be endlessly combined but still keep their
unique quality. Isn't this a good analogue of the MOQ levels? We - humans -
are the four planes of reality all the time, they intersect and interplay
in an unending number. of configurations; what we call "mind" is the
reflection of what dimension at a given time dominates.
Well, then over to the MOQ Intellectual dimension, and my definition of it,
which is: THE LEVEL WHERE THE VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL (SELF) AS DIFFERENT
FROM ITS SOCIETY IS RECOGNISED. In this sense it is related to the SOM's
awareness (or consciousness or mind) term (if one manages to keep the
"aware of objective reality" connotation of SOM at bay). I also said that
.....frog's experience was the frog's consciousness. I refuse to put it in
brackets because it is so in its fullest sense. This does NOT mean that a
frog "thinks" (Hey, I am a frog, what am I doing here?) in the sense of
using symbolic language, but it senses and experiences its ORGANIC reality
according to its neural complexity. We humans may easily slip down to the
organic level too, in pain or lust we experience without "thinking" or
"language"? (In the Social level experience is also dominated by emotions,
but heavily intersected with language.)
Language and/or thinking's: "Hey, I am a human being" are static
Intellectual Value patterns. It is a marvellous dimension, to repeat: it
contains heaven and earth....etc. (ZMM p.244). It is every bit as real as
the other levels ( even more valuable as the top position), but as the
great divide no longer is between subjectivity and objectivity it does not
represent "reality as it is".
I anticipate Jason's next argument as: Yes, but the manipulation of
language's concepts in rules of semantics and grammar are abstractions! The
concrete/abstract duality is also a subject/object offshoot, and does not
apply in the MOQ. This is simply infuriating (see BoS' "dogfight" with one
Don D'Dandrea on Björn's page. The "Is it possible to be dead" and "Only
serious need answer" entries). In the SOM this creates another platypus as
it is easily proved that there is no reality outside language. I.e; The
world is an illusion. Thinkers who dare these paths have pulled back in
horror or plunged into the nihilistic void (Nietzsche).
In LILA Pirsig shows how The Intellectual values of freedom from society's
bonds came to dominate the Western political scene (as late as around WWI
I), he also points to its first steps in that direction to around Homer's
time (see also Jaynes' Bicameral idea), yes, in a sense can Subject/Object
metaphysics itself be seen as its endeavour to conquer Social values. But
this does not mean that the dynamic forces hadn't tried to latch on for
tens of thousands of years. Brain's neural capacity, language (thinking)
has been well developed for perhaps fifty thousand years: caveman's art was
even better (Diana don't you agree?), but the point is that tribal/communal
values dominated WHAT was in their minds. It's been an enormous and
tortuous path till now when Intellectual values dominate.
This was supposed to be about Artificial Intelligence, but I did not reach
that point. Jason's very intelligent questions force me to "resolve a
metaphysical dispute at the end of each sentence". (LILA p.64)
All the best wishes to you all.
Bodvar
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST