Hi Krim See comments below
David M > [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. DM: Think that's my point, to describe consciousness in MOQ terms we can see that it varies accordingto the SQ available to it, like nerves, neurons, educational institutions, language, but you need more than SQ to give you consciousness you also need DQ and its opening of mere SQ to change. My point is that consciousness is only useful if there is change, otherwise its sameness, patterns and you can get by with mechanism, habit and unconsciousness. Now change and consciouness seem closely tied and change is a constant of reality whether there are humans or not. Where this leaves consciousness for non-humans, well that's hard to know. But we can consider it. > [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: Not to me. I think it gives us some idea of what we are trying to understand when we are looking to make sense of change and causality and consciouness in a consistent description. > > [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. DM: I think as systems get more complex they take on more or less law like patterns but they never become entirely law like, that's why all patterns break down or evolve eventually. 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: Because we might just be needing some kind of vocabulary to discuss how laws evolve and collapse, we may need to tell a narrative and a history of inorganic evolution as well as one about organic patterns. > > [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: Well until you can make this imaginative leap you're gonna be missing my point. Frankly, why not? > > [Krimel] > Yes he was. Most annoying because he is usually right and always hard to > dismiss. > DM: Not for me. > [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. DM: I knew you liked Ham. 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/
