Quoting Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Greetings Platt -- > > > Sorry to divert you from your political discussions, but it's always good to > hear from you. > > > I can't help but take issue with your assertion that "consciousness" > > (awareness) is a cognizant attribute of being human" since I'm > > convinced beyond a doubt that my cat, UTOE, is also aware and > > knowledgeable albeit not at the same level as you and I. Now, maybe > > you didn't exclude nonhumans in your statement, but that's > > how I read it. > > I can't speak for UTOE (can he speak for himself?) but I'm not deliberately > excluding animals from either sensibility or awareness. As for "cognizance" > there are sufficient limitations, even for primates, that make me less > certain. No offense to UTOE, but for me, to be cognizant means to possess > understanding, particularly the cause-and-effect kind of intelligence that > we normally associate with humans. I'm not sure, for example, that UTOE > knows that the string you dangle before him is under your control. If he > did, he would respond to you rather than to the wiggling string. Also, I > doubt very much that UTOE perceives freedom as anything more than not being > physically confined or restricted (such as being tethered to a leash). And > I don't believe in a 'felinethropic' universe. > > Seriously, the valuistic world is revealed only to the human species -- at > least on this planet. And since man's choices are based on his values, > rather than on natural instinct, human beings operate on an intellectual > level that even the best-trained animal is organically unequipped to access. > Your love and respect for UTOE is not something one would expect an animal > to demonstrate toward another creature. But rather than argue the point, > can we can agree that human life holds more value for mankind than the life > of a cat? > > > As for "sensibility," that too extends way down the biological chain to > > the lowliest virus. Finally, if you think of consciousness as I do as > > being > > everything there is then consciousness is not a "relative function" but > > simply awareness of awareness. As the physicist Erwin Schroedinger > > put it, "The external and consciousness are one and the same thing." > > Wasn't Schroedinger the guy who put a cat in a box with a poison gas > tripwire, and deliberated over whether it was dead or alive before it was > observed? > > Like Jos, you have expressed Donald Hoffman's position that consciousness is > all that exists. Consciousness, like awareness, is relative: it always > infers an objective referent. The essence of reality cannot itself be > dependent on an "other". That's why I reserve the term Sensibility for > Essence. Only the primary source possesses absolute sensibility; we humans > can only sense its value relationally using neurons and grey matter borrowed > from beingness. I know your teleological position that value-perception > extends down to the atom. I maintain that man's reality is a construct of > his value-perception. Perhaps the result is the same, but the epistemology > is definitely not. > > > Or, in the same vein, William James: "This paper (computer screen) > > and the seeing of it are two names for one indivisible fact." > > (Parens added). In other words, consciousness and reality are but > > two sides of the same coin. But, I could be wrong. > > Which is the "indivisible fact"? That you are seeing the screen? Or that > the screen exists? > Existential facts are always divided between the subject and the object(s). > That's because we are beings-aware, and that for anything to exist it must > be experienced. Existence is a self/other dichotomy. But this does not > mean that reality is limited to what we experience. And this is where you > and Hoffman miss the boat. Without an uncreated source, there would be no > existence, no you, no screen, no UTOE. Our friend Pirsig also seems to have > missed this point, as Marsha has quoted him as saying "Dualism dissolves in > the light of [Noether's theorem] for all (including space and consciousness) > is energy." I asked Jos rhetorically if that included Quality. Maybe for > Pirsig it does. Maybe energy is Pirsig's primary source. (I wonder if > anybody has ever asked him.) > > Great to chat with you again, Platt. Incidentally, can I expect you to > purchase my book when it comes out? As usual, all your points are well taken, Ham. As for the book, of course I will purchase it if I don't receive a complimentary copy. :-)
Warm regards, Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
