Bo, Great reply, much food for thought..
My reaction is that I may have a variance in understanding the MoQ from what you have. As I read Lila, the picture that arose, and lead to hours of diagramming on my part, may have led me to some implications differently weighted than what others may have taken away. Within any level there is "less dynamic" and "more dynamic," and between levels there is the sense of increasing dynamic as a point- of-view moves from physical, to biological, to social, to intellectual. At times in my descriptions I used the word "dynamic" unqualified and possibly wrongly- may-have-assumed the reader would pick out the sense of which use, within level or between, that I was meaning. Some of your responses seem to indicate I should have done a better job of this separation. One comment. I suspect that we humans may underestimate the existence of some animal social behaviors. Wolves, apes, and cetaceans are what I have in mind. It seems that many biologists who spend enough time with any of those are apt to see just a degree of difference rather than a difference in kind. Early last spring I spent time in Yellowstone and listened to the "wolf watchers" describe their observations. A similar trip six years ago to BC and contact with people working at the whale lab also left the distinct impression that there is a lot happening that humans just don't understand, but from what is observed it seems impossible to dismiss family-band-tribe types of apparent social behavior. I realize that the build up of "cultural debris" in humans is unmatched in animals, but in terms of "standing waves" that slowly morph, a level of responsive behavior that shows type variance leads me to believe there is simple social "flickering on" in some of those non-human groups. I am no expert on biology, but I am an accumulator of stories. Thanks for your help in allowing me to build another sand castle atop the clouds. thanks--mel ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:13 AM Subject: [MD] Consciousness > Hi Mel > > 13 Dec. you wrote: (about "consciousness") > > > Going on the principle that the way in which one structures a problem > > opens or restricts the domain of the solution, I'd say that the SOM > > binary off/on postulate fails to take into account the way > > consciousness is observed to work--it causes the observer of > > consciousness to 'throw away" data, to ignore what doesn't fit the hypothesis. > > SOM's subject/object dualism isn't primarily off/on, but let's see how > this develops. ><snip> 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/
