On Wednesday26 March 12:52 AM Bo writes to Craig: <snip> To repeat: In a metaphysics that rejects the subject/object distinction (and all its derivative) "mind" can't survive, nor can "consciousness" (consciousness/what it's conscious of) there are just the levels' "consciousness" which is synonymous with its value. I know that humankind and its awareness is next to sacred (what Ham builds his metaphysics on) and its reduction to mere intellectual static patterns is the greatest hurdle to overcome. But it's here I think the MOQ can open up new paths - for instance to Artificial Intelligence - a field which is completely stalled inside SOM that requires computers to wake up to consciousness, something that won't happen because this is a result of the social level that resulted in the intellectual level where consciousness exist as the said S/O pattern - consciousness/what it's conscious of . A detached awareness - a "Brain in a Vat" (E.A. Poe) does not exist. Bo Hi Bo and all, In the excerpt of the statement above the first paragraph accepts an explanation of evolution to existential levels. Consciousness is equated to value. Perhaps I am just misreading it. Does ³consciousness² have to be subject/object? Is there a reality of ³consciousness² all by itself? What is the dynamic? How is the social level defined? IMO consciousness survives very well in the MOQ on its own as the social level. Evolution moves from the social level to the intellectual level of law. If the intellectual level is not distinguished from AI as evolution then evolution stops. The awareness in language becomes indiscernible. The credibility of evolution is challenged and value returns to being a commodity.
Joe On 3/26/08 12:52 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig > > 25 March: > > [Bo] before: >>> ...the Litmus test to determine if a person understands the Quality >>> Idea [is] theories create our interpretation of the sensory "data". > >> It would be better to say: "theories, CULTURE & LANGUAGE create our >> interpretation of the sensory 'data'." But I don't think this is a >> good Litmus test to determine if a person understands the Quality Idea, >> since one could agree with it, but reject the MoQ. > > But then, what determines a culture's outlook if not its reigning > theories? Regarding language it has two roles:, Everything or > nothing at all, either we are suspended in language or it's a > neutral medium and I think we stick to the latter lest we have a > language metaphysics to cope with. > > Hmm, agreement with the Newton example and rejection of the > MOQ? Such an understanding must necessarily result in a break > with SOM and the alternative must as necessarily be a MOQ-like > metaphysics. For instance the above I said about language , > making it reality's ground, then a dynamic/static split and a static > language hierarchy .... perfect! > > [Bo] >>> the MOQ creates the Quality Reality and in that reality there is >>> neither "man" or "man's mind" or "our consciousness" where ideas >>> exist of >>> which the MOQ is one > >> Are you saying that the MOQ creates both DQ & SQ? > > Creates? SOM is the chasm between a subject "in here" and an > objective world "out there", the MOQ is the dynamic/static chasm. > To deny this and make it sound as if Quality is from eternity and > the MOQ's just an arbitrary theory is futile. Like SOM up through > the millenniums assumed the role of being from eternity, MOQ > will be regarded as having been from eternity. "How could we > ever think otherwise....?" > >> And that "man" or "man's mind" or "our consciousness" do not exist in >> Quality Reality? > > Regarding these concepts they are all SOM-based and will be > relegated the role as 4th. level patterns, i.e. most useful, but > static nevertheless. > >> Or just that in Quality Reality, ideas do not exist in "man" or "man's >> mind" or "our consciousness"? > > Ideas (like theories) are subjective "patterns" in SOM and inside > that metaphysics I think the subjective argument is the strong > one - to prove that all is mind or ideas or that theories determine > our outlook is watertight. But the MOQ is a total break with SOM, > ideas has no place outside its 4th. level's jurisdiction. > > To repeat: In a metaphysics that rejects the subject/object > distinction (and all its derivative) "mind" can't survive, nor can > "consciousness" (consciousness/what it's conscious of) there are > just the levels' "consciousness" which is synonymous with its > value. I know that humankind and its awareness is next to sacred > (what Ham builds his metaphysics on) and its reduction to mere > intellectual static patterns is the greatest hurdle to overcome. > > But it's here I think the MOQ can open up new paths - for > instance to Artificial Intelligence - a field which is completely > stalled inside SOM that requires computers to wake up to > consciousness, something that won't happen because this is a > result of the social level that resulted in the intellectual level > where consciousness exist as the said S/O pattern - > consciousness/what it's conscious of . A detached awareness - a > "Brain in a Vat" (E.A. Poe) does not exist. > > Bo > > > > > > > > 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/
