[DM] 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.
[Krimel] I think you are committing the DQ heresy. DQ, like SQ is an aspect of Quality. They compliment and reveal each other. Consciousness may be needed to perceive this but even consciousness emerges from it. > [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. [DM] 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. [Krimel] Interesting description that says nothing. [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. [Krimel] At the quantum level particle wink in and out of existence probabilistically. There is a degree of indeterminacy or uncertainty in their winking. Above this level their behavior is more or less lawful and this lawfulness increases with scale. We might construct a vocabulary to build laws around preference and desire but what is the point. I would render our understanding of human preference and desire meaningless. [DM] There you go, before unconscious law/SQ there is conscious DQ, maybe. Does chance occur when 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. [Krimel] I don't see how consciousness can come before unconsciousness and I would never equate DQ or SQ with either. [DM] Yet I attribute consciousness to you via mere emails that simply change and appear as mere things. [Krimel] Aha, I pass your Turing test. I'd say that's quite a feat for a virtual wizard. > [Krimel] > Russell would call that a logical atom. [DM] He was just a bit of a bully wasn't he. [Krimel] Yes he was. Most annoying because he is usually right and always hard to dismiss. > [DM] > 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. [Krimel] Heads is just the negation of tails. Tails is the negation of the negation of the potential of heads to the sensible being-aware confined to the space/time mode of awareness of the negation of Essense. 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/
