Arlo, Chris, All. 25 Aug. wrote:
[Chris] before > > I don't know If you'll agree with me, but from where I'm sitting it > > seems plausible that consciousness the way it is identified (witch is > > rather badly) now had to develop from the social level and into the > > intellectual level. I agree and will add that the self-consciousness concept is created by the intellectual level (SOM) I don't know if I have asked you Chris, but it has been my fixed inquiry since day one of this discussion. We know that almost all creatures sleep, consequently they must wake up to a reality different from oblivion ...no? It's plain that regarding animals it's biological consciousness, next comes social consciousness and then intellectual consciousness, in other words VALUE PERCEPTION. To this day no one has commented it [Arlo] replied > That's the way I see it. I think, as I've mentioned a bit ago, that > Tomasello's work on "The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition" ties > directly into the MOQ. His central premise is that at some point in > the timeline the evolving neurobiology of primates (biologic level) > attained a degree of complexity that beget an unintended consequence > (meaning neurobiological evolution was not moving towards this > directly nor purposefully) of allowing primates to have "shared > attention" (what he points to as the beginning point for social > symbolic activity). I haven't heard about Tomasello or noticed your rendering of his work (not consciously!) but I have forwarded this idea long ago ... In my case to explain the emergence of the (illusion of the) subjective - of a mind, or of a consciousness - in SOM. About "...some point in the timeline ..etc" is almost identical to my own only that I said that this neural complexity included the storage of previous experience and the ability to retrieve it and "for an inner eye" to manipulate it through logical gates. If they had language to say "if I do this what will happen". About Tomasello's "unintended consequence" I don't know, but never mind, Nor do I know what "shared attention" means, my idea is that this is intelligence so frequently confused with intellect, not only MOQ's 4th level, but even as these two phenomena are defined in dictionaries. But most of all it created the 4th levels illusion of an "inner world" that to idealist is all there is. By this I mean that animals (the biological level) apply and still applies this capacity without calling it "in my mind". OK, animals don't have language, neither aloud nor silent as thoughts, but even after language (at the social level) there was no inner/outer distinction. But who is it that speaks about "social symbolic activity" Tomasello or Arlodello? ;-) If it means manipulations of symbols in a language sense I agree. > As the complexity and sophistication of the primates' symbol use > evolved (evolution occurring because the collective consciousess formed > by shared social activity would be added to and modified over time by > primates who assimilate this), This is definitely Arlo and I agree if it means that language grew more sophisticated, that goes for "collective consciousness" too with the caveat that it is as seen from the intellectual level. What is for sure is that the 3rd. level knew as little as the 2 nd. about any S/O distinction in the form of "symbol/what's symbolized" or "consciousness/ what's one is conscious of". These are intellect's > Eventually self-reflective symbols became involved (Hofstadter's work > here is enlightening) and what we think of as "modern consciousness" > appears. (I hold that the intellectual level itself is the level of > symbolic self-reflection, when humans turned from using their symbols > to represent experience and considered them as real "things in > themselves"). Do I understand you correctly? Intellect ... when humans turned from using symbols to represent experience? At least this is completely upside-down. 3rd. value era was when humans considered "symbols" to be the real thing (meaning they did not know any "symbol" reality) Language was not mere words but the means to sway the forces through correctly performed rituals and so on. Religions of the semitic kind are social patterns and the Catholic Church regards the sacramental bread and wine to be literally flesh and blood. While the intellect-influenced Lutherans say that they are symbols. This is ar much as I can manage. 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/
