> DM > Like human beings (4 levels + DQ), consciousness has many elements > to it. Like human beings this includes elements that > have been around since the big bang, i.e. DQ and then the first level. > Evolution adds the extra levels and sublevels that have more limited > histroies. Looked at like this I'd suggest a key element of consciousness > that we might call DQ has always been around. > > [Krimel] > You still have consciousness growing out of many elements; not as the > source > of elements. For the Taoists in the house this makes consciousness one of > the 10,000 things.
Krim No, maybe I'd suggest more strongly 51% (arbitrary number) of consciousness is 'down to' DQ which is not one of the 10,000 SQ things and has no obvious origin/beginning. DQ not being something that comes and goes like SQ/things. > [DM] > Seems to me some suggestions that something like consciousness is required > for the cosmos to exist is a slightly unclear attempt to see that there is > more to evolution than SQ we need the DQ and > chance-events-actions-felts-qualia-qualities may have more of a history in > cosmic evolution than > full blown human consciousness but may have these felt or active qualities > involved. > > [Krimel] > I am not sure what consciousness, much less what it is like. James says it > is a process that arises from the interaction of physiology and the > environment. Been reading some Zizek (yes I have a habit) and he suggest quite interestingly that it is a lack, a need, a void, and one that is somehow answered. Pehaps this is what indeterminacy is. > [DM] > As Pirsig says does the leaping electron have > some kind of motivational or timing aspect. Who knows, I know > you prefer to say chance, but you cannot rule out some internal > aspect to the jumping jelly beans! > > [Krimel] > You can say that all the electrons in a cloud rush to earth in bolt of > lightning because they love to party hardy with their sisters on the > ground. > But this offers nothing to our understanding of electricity. Yes, I prefer > to stick with chance until something better is offered. DM: But this is what a whole bunch of particles do some times when they just happen to constitute something like a human being. When something moves saying whether it falls, is pulled, jumps, or decides, or wants to move, or obeys a law, is often hard to decide what is more appropriate. Saying that it is chance is just as arbitrary as saying it decides to jump. I think electrons are drawn to colour (when I'm feeling like a hippie) or is it vibrations? Newton thought along these lines too. > > [DM] > In our experience consciousness falls into mechanism/habits rather than > vice > versa. Does DQ preceed SQ? Does DQ jump, whilst SQ is an acquired > unconsciousness. > > [Krimel] > If by 'falls' you mean 'disappears into', yes. We practice so as to > acquire > mechanisms/habits that overcome the need for the experience of > consciousness. We drive and type and walk without conscious effort at > least > in the sense of attentive focus. DM: There you go, before unconscious law/SQ there is conscious DQ, maybe. Does chance occurwhen DQ cannot make up its mind to form an unconscious/habit/law? And where there is no law/habit is this lack forced into awareness of some kind? Maybe, worth asking I'd suggest. > > DQ and SQ coexist. They are the complementary perceived aspects of > Quality. > I suspect consciousness resides in the perception or visa versa. If by > unconscious you mean "not conscious" I would applies that to pretty much > everything. As far as we can tell everything that is not unconscious calls > earth's orbit home. DM: Yet I attribute consciousness to you via mere emails that simply change and appear as mere things. > > If you mean mental activities that do not involve attentive awareness, > things get pretty interesting. The bodily activities moderated by the > brain > include quite a spectrum, from the heart beats to T-cells. And all of them > can be affected by experience. Even the immune system responds to > classical > conditioning techniques. This kind of conscious, even in elementary form, > emerges from and is affected by interaction in the environment. DM: It's interesting stuff. > > [DM] > No way to clearly decide I'd suggest. > > [Krimel] > Russell would call that a logical atom. DM: He was just a bit of a bully wasn't he. > > I would flip a coin and call it tails. I don't think Russell would have a > problem with that. Why do you? DM: It dismisses heads without a fair hearing. I'm hear to fight for the outsider that should at least still be in the race. 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/
