Hi Roger, Marco and Platt
ROGER
> So, do Platt and Jonathan indeed agree with Marco that:
>
> 1)"It seems to me that an immediate seeking for DQ can't be aware, if we
> use awareness in the classic meaning Roger has offered more than one
> time: "cognizant, conscious, sensible, alive, awake, and having
> knowledge of something". This is what Roger the CON has always tried
> to say. But we PROs were probably pointing to something more wide..."(snip)
>
> and,
>
I do not agree. I would equate Marco's "seeking" with awareness, and I
consider it no less anthropocentric.
> 2) "That's all: IMO the MOQ can work even without awareness."
Again, I don't agree. The only possible argument is the particular word we
choose for awareness
(e.g. sensitivity, sensibility, recognition, responsiveness, perceptiveness,
receptiveness etc., etc.).
In my early days in this forum, there was an attempt to define object vs.
subject, and we came up with
***Pattern vs. Pattern Recognizing Algorithm (PRA)***.
At the time I noted that PRA was not distinct from Pattern, but was itself a
type of "pattern". I think that the "atomic awareness" concept is good
illustration - the atom is both Pattern and PRA.
>
> Let me know and we can wrap this discussion up.
>
While we may disagree on the words, I ask Roger, do you not agree that the MoQ
needs something along these lines?
Jonathan
> PS -- I suspect Elephant will bellow when he sees he has become an idealist.
I don't see how he can object. He has clearly stated that he is a Platonist
and he has expressed his opposition to empiricism as a philosophy.
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
