Hi Ham, > [Platt asks]: > > How far down the scale of being would you say one > > can reasonably assign "feelings". [Ham] > What is the "scale of being"? Did Protagoras not say that "Man is the > measure of all things"? If he was right, then all scales, all levels, all > morality, all parsing of finitude is a construct of human intellection.
[Platt] The "scale of being" is a construct of human intellection that creates hierarchies. Pirsig's hierarchy is from least to most moral. The classical "Great Chain of Being" goes from rocks at the bottom to God at the top. In physics and science in general, the hierarchy consists of increasing complexity. These hierarchies are intellect's way of bringing order out of chaos. Your hierarchy of all embracing Essence down to Man and below is another interesting "scale of being." [Ham] > If > Sir William Hamilton was right, "consciousness lies at the root of all > knowledge." Donald Hoffman, whom you introduced to me, also said: ""I > believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists." [Platt] Also the physicist Erwin Schroedinger who said, "The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing." > [Platt]: > > Does a quantum particle feel like making itself known > > to a human observer, or remain hidden? Does a hydrogen > > atom feel something happens when it combines with oxygen > > to make water? Do molecules in the immune system feel > > the presence of an invader? Does a lowly virus feel the > > conditions in which it can multiply? ... [Ham] > My answer is No to all of these perceptions. If experience is that which > is consciously perceived in space/time, and all knowledge is derived from > this perception, then whatever value we assign to a phenomenon can be no > more than the value of the perceiver. In other words, what we experience > is Value differentiated by organic sensiblity and objectivized by the > intellect into the things and events that occur in an evolving universe. [Platt] OK. But my question was about "feelings" which you say is an attribute of sensibility occurring (I presume) prior to the slightest emergence of cognizance. I would think a bacterium exhibits sensibility but no perception -- "the beginning of of cognizance." Is that right? > [Platt]: > > If an entity must be a living entity in order to possess > > sentience, how do you reconcile that sentient life > > consists exclusively of non-sentient elements? > > Finally, can an entity feel values without being cognizant? [Ham] > Remember that consciousness is proprietary "apprehension", or what I call > being-aware. [Platt] Oops, you introduce a new term not defined previously -- "apprehension." Previously you said that awareness (being aware) is "proprietary (self- conscious) perception. So I assume "apprehension" is an attribute of self- conscious organisms only, i.e., an exclusive property of humans. Right? [Ham] > All sentent beings are organic, and I don't know any > elements--organic or inorganic--that are sentient in nature. [Platt] Well, there's the rub. How do sentient beings emerge from non-sentient elements (assuming Darwinian evolution to be true). [Ham] > One reason > that consciousness is indefinable is that it can't be localized in nature; > it has no empirical existence. You'd like me to substantiate animism > because it supports Pirsig's Quality thesis, but I won't oblige you. The > teleology of the universe--it's design, meaning and purpose--is bound up in > the primary source which, unlike Pirsig's Quality, is non-relational. [Platt] Meaning that some questions are beyond human capacity to answer with empirical certainty? > [Platt]: > > Does the beginning of "cognizance" mean the > > beginning of self-awareness? [Ham] > Yes. Also, the beginning of value-sensibility. We perceive the emergence > of the individual as a neurophysical process in time starting at > conception. Since the only aspects of a new life that we can observe are > the fetus and its behavior, we reason that individual subjectivity is a > biological phenomenon. But, as Sir William said, it's the "root of > knowledge" -- the psychic core of awareness. [Platt] Jus to be sure I understand, self-awareness is an attribute solely of human beings? Worms, fish, frogs need not apply whereas rats and cats, if they have any awareness of self at all it is minimal, so as to be unimportant in the big scheme of things? > [Ham, previously]: > > Conception is "idealized" perception. > > Intellection is "reasoned" perception. > > Observation is "investigative" perception. > > Intuition is inductive or theorized intellection. > > [Platt]: > > Am I correct to assume these four attributes are > > restricted to humans? > > In my opinion, yes. Thanks again for your responses and patience, Ham. Regards, Platt 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/
