To Rog:
From: Platt
ROGER:
> I would like to try to wrap this discussion up soon, but we still have a few
> loose ends.
>
> 1st, to Marco:
>
> I enjoyed the article much, though -- like you -- felt a touch of the MOQ
> could have helped the author through the tougher parts. I strongly,
> emphatically recommend you look into autopoiesis. Dan has some links in his
> site, or better yet, just go onto Amazon.com and order Fritjof Capra's "Web
> of Life" asap. It fleshes out ideas similar to Vanechoutte, though in much
> more detail and more in line with the MOQ (though by no means fully aligned
> -- it is still science). I support the progression of experience to
> awareness to consciousness.
I think we've reached agreement. I too support (agree with) the
progression of experience to awareness to consciousness.
I'm perfectly happy with "Atoms experience" in lieu of "Atoms are aware."
The aforementioned article whose progression you agree with says:
"This means that atoms have the capacity to recognize specific
patterns. It could be stated that this specific pattern recognition has to
do with experience and that experience as such can be considered as
a basic characteristic of material interaction."
"Pattern recognition" presupposes experience. And yes, we agree that
"material interaction" is interaction of inorganic patterns of values.
I would say you have reached consensus with me, Jonathan, Marco
and others on this issue.
But I could be wrong. (-:
Platt
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
