Platt, Jonathan, Roger,
Gratifying to see someone putting words into my mouth for once - lord knows,
I deserve the recompense, and the interest in my opinion thus displayed is
flattering.
However, while I won't rush to speak for Roger, I can atleast point out
where Jonathan has got it 180 degrees wrong in his characterisation of *my*
thought that the awareness of atoms is an absurdity.
JONATHAN WROTE:
> The discomfort that Elephant and Roger seem to feel over "atomic awareness"
> is, IMHO linked to the whole subject/object dichotomy and the issue of
> CAUSALITY. As I have said before, the word "cause" sees to have two meanings,
> one subjective and on objective.
> Subjective cause is something very human - "living/fighting/dying for the
> cause . . ."
> Objective cause is something very mechanistic - what CAUSES objects to behave
> the way they do.
> The subject/object dichotomy causes us to regard all events as the results of
> (objective) causes external to, but acting on objects. e.g. A is attracted to
> B beCAUSE of gravity. The trouble with this is that the apparent attraction
> between A and B *is* gravity, not because of gravity. We can unite objective
> cause and subjective cause by simply saying "A and B *want* to be together -
> it is their cause". It only sounds funny because we are not used to it.
ELEPHANT:
Jonathan, you are quite wrong to suppose that my objection to conscious
atoms arises from the thought that events happen objectively. Precisely the
reverse.
My thought is that since, "objectively" (in the sense of "really") and prior
to our daily fictionalising, there are no such things as events or objects
(only DQ), it follows that there is no particular thing out there to *be*
aware. The being of those discrete particulars such as atoms thus depends
on the mind that does the active cutting up, and this is the categorical
difference between atoms and minds.
You think I am assuming that atoms have objective existence, and that
because of this that I then assume that their causes have to be objective
(as a result of laws or some such rather than because of what you call
"subjective", ie in terms of "preferences"). My actual position is the
exact opposite of this.
Please, note this. Jonathan. Platt.
Perhaps you would like to revise your criticism accordingly.
One way of restating my point is that scientists are conscious because they
thought up the atom, newtons laws, quantum mechanics, etc.
I hope that makes my position clearer.
Elephant
BTW (chris, a moment of weakness: I cite my website!), I made this point
about the difference between atoms and minds in a reply to the occasional
columnist and AI fan Steve Grand, published in the English Paper "The
Guardian". It's on my website at www.plato.plus.com/conversations.html
NB I naturally let him have the last word on my site: but as the wise will
tumble, everything he alleges in the comeback about me being a cartesian is
pure flannel (anyone who knows anything about philosophy and objects to
people who think you can build consciousness in a computer is always getting
called a "cartesian". I think it's just a habit really, that and the fact
that Descartes is the only philosopher most people have actually heard of).
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
