On Saturday 15 March 2008 9:13 AM Krimel answers DM [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. <snip> Hi Krimel, DM, and all,
[Joe] IMO Consciousness, proprietary awareness, is the level of evolution I call the social level. Evolution is a bit of a stretch. For Aristotle in order to have a word in mind ³intentional existence² existence only in the mind, by abstraction, was the key to capture the essence of the existing item out of the world of ideas. SOM is unscientific. [Joe] In defense of Aristotle, there was no reason in Aristotle¹s approach to knowledge to account for levels of evolution so he felt OK about ³intentional existence². Now evolution accepts levels of existence from lower to higher and vice-versa. It is not the thing that changes, but a higher or lower existence gives it higher or lower values which can change the thing. Esoteric literature is the only place where I have seen a complete description of evolution exemplified by the musical octave. It is called a law of order, also a law of shocks, since not all the intervals are equal. Pirsig saw evolution in his own way. On 3/15/08 9:13 AM, "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [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/ 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/
