Hi Marco, Roger, Elephant, Platt,
MARCO:
(I think there are no doubts about my position... I'm on Platt's an
Jonathan's side.... )
Maybe we just need a different dictionary. Do we really need the
"awareness" concept?
I could be wrong, but IMO such a term has (had?) another meaning in a
SOMish vision of the world: the proof of a certain degree of awareness
was the capability of being independent of a strict causation principle.
Welcome aboard Marco. Your question as to whether or not we need the Awareness
concept is a good one. I see this concept as an escape from the metaphysics of
causality. I don't know about elephant, but Roger indicates that he mostly
accepts the concept, but doesn't like the word "awareness" which happens to be
the word that Platt chose when this thread got started.
ROGER:
Just to clarify, to my knowledge nobody has argued the replacement of VALUE
for CAUSATION. This is a central tenet of the MOQ, and is one that I agree
with. My argument has been that it is absurd to say that subatomic patterns
are AWARE. I do not see 'awareness' as a requirement to escape the 'strict
causation principle'. Again, to my way of thinking, if you are saying that
neutrinos are aware, according to my dictionary you are saying they are
"cognizant, conscious, sensible, alive, awake, and having knowledge of
something, and that they can draw inferences from their experiences."
[snip]
Roger, you motivated me to look a 2 dictionaries I have in the house - the
American Heritage and the Collins (British). What was very interesting is that
both dictionaries included the word "mindful" in their definitions of
awareness. I'd like to see Elephant's response to this definition - it implies
that MIND can be CONTAINED in aware objects.
Can any material object be said to contain mind?
Is the human *body* aware (mindful), or is the body the human *without* the
mind?
My point is that we have to be careful (aware, mindful;-) of the context that
produced the definitions that apper in modern dictionaries, and keep a look
out for the influence of a certain celebrated French philosopher.
ROGER:
If we must say so, then did Pirsig have to say so too? Does Pirsig say so?
(that they are aware, not that they "prefer" with italics around the term.)
And if Pirsig didn't ever say so, then why is it we "must say" so? And if we
must redefine awareness, exactly how is it we want to redefine it? Where
will we keep this list of new definitions?
Roger, should the MoQ ever become a dominant philosophy, the effects will
surely be felt in dictionary definitions. While recognizing Pirsig's
tremendous contribution, I also note his statement (in an old message to the
Lila Squad) that most of the MoQ remains uncharted. IMO, the causality area is
one where Pirsig has left us a lot of work. Marco gives us a quote from RMP
(below) that I find particularly unsatisfying.
MARCO:
Pirsig, about the "Free Will vs. Detrminism" controversy, writes: "In
the MOQ this dilemma doesn't come up. To the extent that one's behavior
is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to
the extent that one follows DQ, which is undefinable, one's behavior is
free".
So, do atoms follow DQ? To a certain extent, YES. So, they have a free
will? YES.... So, they are aware? YES, if we just make it clear that
awareness and free will are, simply, the possibility to be dynamic, and
that this principle is valid at all levels.
All very well Marco, but that is hardly a rigorous statement. What exactly is
the "possibility to be dynamic". The way RMP writes, it could be interpreted
as the possibility to defy man-made definitions and laws! In that case, it
says more about the definitions than about nature's dynamism.
PLATT:
Elephant and Roger side step the question.....Roger allows as how viruses
might be aware, but not rocks, thereby
shifting the subject from atoms to rocks which are not comparable.
(Likewise changing the thread to “ Atomic Absurdity” attempts to
bypass the issue by ridicule.)
Platt, to be fair, I think that some valid points are coming out. I like your
question about viruses vs. rock (vs. humans), and have an interesting
observation that relates to the dynamism=awareness that Marco brought up. It
is certainly easier to define and describe the behaviour of an electron than a
virus. As things get more complex, definitions become much more difficult,
less rigorous and more error prone . . . . . . i.e. EASIER TO DEFY. Thus,
statements about the "higher levels" of the MoQ being more dynamic may be no
more than a trivial truism. I don't think it teaches us anything about the
nature of awareness.
ROGER:
>So, my challenge to Jonathan, Marco and Platt is to:
>1) quit arbitrarily redefining awareness to mean "the ability to be
>non-mechanistic and dynamic.". If you have to do so, at least tell people
>how and why you redefine a perfectly good word when others could have
>sufficed (ie "atoms are dynamic" or "atoms are non-mechanistic")
Roger, you are twisting things. You already know my view that being
"non-mechanistic" is not an "ability", but is the nature of nature. It is our
definitions and laws that are mechanistic. You also miss the point that "atoms
are aware" is a statement that cuts both ways - it says as much about
awareness as it does about atoms. IMO, man has done a much better job at
describing and defining atoms than he has at understanding awareness. Much of
the mankind thinks that awareness and atoms belong to two different worlds,
one called MIND and the other called MATTER!!!!
>2) let me know exactly which parts of the Webster definition of this word you
>all throw around you believe actually applies to sub-atomic patterns
All the words are problematic! They are all loaded. Whichever word we pick
will first have to be defused so that nobody feels threatened. If it isn't
Roger over awareness, it'll be someone else (maybe me) over some other word.
>3) let me know if you have some logical proof that non-mechanistic implies
>awareness (as conventionally defined)
Play fair Roger. You know I can't give you anything that you'll accept.
Let's just redefine awareness as the property as being like Woody Allen and
say that atoms are just like him
(well sperm cells are!!!).
Now on to Elephant - who I have certainly got wound up:
> JONATHAN
> If you were being true to your claims, you would say that nature
> behaves *as if* it contains aware atoms.
>
ELEPHANT
>> Yours is a trully constructive
>> suggestion, and I accept it forthwith. . .
JONATHAN
> Now that you accept my "trully constructive" repositioning of *as if*, I
will
> apply Occam's Razor one again, and remove the *as if* altogether:
> "nature contains aware atoms"
ELEPHANT:
WHAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's no Ockhams razor, that's a mad slasher
movie. Can you give me *ANY* justification for that bizare switchback? I'm
open mouthed with astonishment.
Elephant, when you insert *as if* into a statement, the purpose is usually to
imply the opposite.
If I write "Elephant behaves *as if* he were almost human", the implication is
that you are in truth not human.
(Considering the trumpeting, and charging people down, I'm starting to
wonder;-).
I have accepted that *as if* is implicit in ANY statement (i.e. an admission
of fallibility). However, to insert into the statement "nature contains aware
atoms" has value only if you wish to present an alternative. This is what you
imply, and what you fail to do. You may now close your mouth.
Jonathan
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
