Hi Roger, Elephant, Platt and all,
Well folks, I now realize that we have a serious and deep agreement here
that may be a fault line that runs right through our little community.
ELEPHANT:
> Check Roger's reply - he read your meaning
> just as I read it. Yes you responded to my question for Platt - and
you so
> by telling me that my objection to Platt had a motivation which it
certainly
> did not have:
>
Having rechecked E's and R's postings, I think that there has been no
misunderstanding at all. WE DO NOT AGREE.
> > ELEPHANT had written:
> > Jonathan, you are quite wrong to suppose that my objection to
conscious atoms
> > arises from the thought that events happen objectively. Precisely
the reverse.
Let me first address this less serious difference in approach. Elephant
is taking the mystical approach.
"Atoms" aren't reality itself - they're an invention of the human mind,
so it would be plain silly to give them attributes like "awareness". I
myself tend to take an almost opposite approach. I agree that atoms are
an invention of the human mind, but maintain that this and other similar
inventions ARE reality. We conceive from what we perceive and we
perceive what we conceive. In this act of perception/conception, we
REALIZE our reality.
The mystical approach is to suspect everyday reality as a false god, or
as trickery (MAYA).
The alternative approach (that I prefer) is to embrace everyday reality
as our own child.
ELEPHANT:
> I'm sorry Jonathan. If atoms make choices then they are self-aware.
The
> mere notion of a nebulous universal (non-self_) consciousness in which
atoms
> participate is patently insufficient to support the claim that a
particular
> atom z would prefer to do x today after doing y yesterday. This
choosing
> atom is an atom which will need cogito ergo sum and and a bill of
rights and
> the whole business.
I refute this. Awareness and self-awareness are not the same. My stomach
seems to be aware of its needs, but I don't think it has much sense of
self. Much less an amoeba, or a bacterium. However, since I am not a
stomach, an amoeba, a bacterium or an atom, I cannot talk about their
SELF awareness, only their awareness.
> But if you aren't talking about individual choices and preferences but
> instead about atoms that "choose" and "prefer" as part of some
universal
> body or world picture, remembering to add RMP's kid-glove quotation
marks, I
> simply have no quarrel with you or you with I. It is *as if* atoms
prefer,
> and there's an end on it.
Now we are on to the serious part of the disagreement. I have no problem
about inserting *as if*, but I have a serious problem with where you put
it. If you were being true to your claims, you would say that nature
behaves *as if* it contains aware atoms. However, you put the *as if* on
the awareness and not on the atoms themselves.
This appears to legitimize the atoms (real, objective), and delegitimize
atomic awareness (imaginary, unreal, subjective).
IMO, this was the whole point of RMP's first novel. Tom White Bear's
ghosts are just as real as the apple falling from the tree and Newton's
law of gravity is just as illusory as the atom bombs that fell on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As I say, I think that we have a serious division here, and I'd like to
see how everyone else aligns on the atomic awareness question.
Declarations so far: FOR - Platt and Jonathan AGAINST - Elephant and
Roger (Rog, do you stand by that?)
Jonathan
>
>
> > ELEPHANT:
> > 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.
>
> JONATHAN:
> > You have my full concurrence on that . . .
> >
> > Elephant, you have certainly explained your stance, and I see no
area of
> > substantial disagreement.
> > Is there one?
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Yes. You just don't seem to care about the "as if", and now
apparently
> think that my sentences which remember to use it mean just the same as
yours
> which do not. I on the other hand think the "as if" is of the utmost
> importance. Atoms are not aware. It is *as if* atoms were aware.
>
> toodlepip
>
> el emphatica
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> 2.
> I think I can clear up one or two things.
>
> > JONATHAN:
> >> This sentience business has caused a lot of trouble, so I want to
put
> >> forward some thoughts about the different levels involved:-
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Sensitivity - e.g. ability of a molecule to absorb light of a
> >> particular colour.
> >> 2. Responsiveness - e.g. the way an organism by light or smell
> >> 3. Consciousness - Confers ability to act in ANTICIPATION of sense.
e.g.
> >> running away from a skunk or a snake.
> >> 4. Consciousness of consciousness - awareness of present and past
> >> consciousness or anticipatory acts.
> >> 5. C of C of C - the realm of philosophers. Anyone who understands
4 has
> >> it.
>
> ELEPHANT:
> There's a simple error in your picture. Neither 4 nor 5 exist.
>
> If one could be conscious *of* consciousness itself then consciousness
would
> have to be a limited object, not the general realm (receptacle) in
which all
> objects and non-objects are entertained.
>
> The example you cite shows that we are aware of certain acts. It does
not
> show that we are aware of awareness itself. This is a harpoon that
> veritable moby dicks of philosophers have impailed themselves on in
the
> past:
>
> "Awareness":
> (i) all experience
> (ii) a particular act, viz a "that" statement
>
> Do not confuse the two. (please). Whale meat is out of fashion this
year
> and I just hate the waste.
>
>
>
> And another thing: consciousness doesn't "confer" anything of the
sort.
> You're thinking of practical reason there (those "that" statements
again).
>
> And another: philosophy is all about running away from the snake. If
you
> are enlightened that simply means that you see the snake sooner and
more
> accurately.
>
> e
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 3.
>
>
> > We get perceptions = DQ. Atoms get perceptions (are aware)=DQ.
Otherwise, how
> > does one explain creation (evolution) of the inorganic and
biological levels
> > in the MOQ?
> >
> > Platt
>
> By pointing out that creation and evolution are not the same.
>
> Elephant
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4.
> Marty,
>
> Recommend you read Plato's Timaeus. I think that what Plato means by
the
> "recepticle" is very much what you or I might mean be consciousness.
The
> arena, perhaps. But I wonder. You wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps Reality=Quality=Consciousness
>
> I quess that I can make some sense of that if in this context
"quality"
> means "aesthetic experience". The problem comes if you mean "high
quality"
> or even "static quality". Both these things can only be present in
> consciousness, part of consciousness, in fact something we are
consciousness
> *of* - not consciousness entire.
>
> ttfn
>
> Elephant
>
> > From: Marty Jorgensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:42:53 -0800
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: RE: MD Ubiquitous Quality, Universal Mind
> >
> > Elephant -
> > No, nothing very developed - at least not in a presentable
condition. It
> > dawned on me awhile ago that consciousness may not be an adjunct to
anything,
> > be it mind, brain or anything else. Rather, everything else is a
product of
> > consciousness, in the sense that consciousness is prior. Instead of
looking at
> > the mind (consciousness) as a by-product of the brain, look at it
the other
> > way around - everything that 'is' arises from an endless sea of
consciousness.
> > In fact, consciousness is all there is; it's not something we
'have', it is
> > something we are aware of. For the MOQ, it could mean that
consciousness is
> > propelled by Quality to create what we call reality at a
comprehensive level.
> > So, do atoms 'choose' structure as I choose chocolate? If the 'I'
and the
> > 'atom' refer to consciousness, they do. As I said, not well
developed.
> > marty j
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of elephant Sent:
Tuesday,
> > March 27, 2001 12:05 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: MD Ubiquitous Quality, Universal Mind
> >
> >
> >
> > Got any more developed reasons than "perhaps" Marty?
> >
> > Perhaps?
> >
> >> From: "Marty Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:13:23 -0800
> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Subject: RE: MD Ubiquitous Quality, Universal Mind
> >>
> >> Perhaps Reality=Quality=Consciousness
> >> marty j
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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
