Greetings, Willblake2 --
I was wondering when someone would mention me in all this talk about "Science Wars" and such.
I like what Ham is saying, although I do not quite understand it. It seams to be similar to my understanding, I think. "Understanding" is a function of putting enough thoughts together until I feel comfortable with them, and they reflect my personal experience; the separation of mind (consciousness) and matter is a difficult one. I just read through the string of Computers vs. Brains. Heavy stuff, and an age old question.
True. Yet it is a fact of our existence which cannot be dismissed. Anyone who tells you he hasn't a mind of his own is a fool, whether he was born one or just thinks like one.
"Computers vs. Brains" took me back a few weeks. When I reviewed the comments I realized that we weren't really discussing computers and brains but the nature of Consciousness. I said to Krimel on 4/6: "It takes more than a brain and neural synapses to create conscious awareness. Consciousness is the agent of Value, not an electro-mechanical device that can calculate and indicate decisions." To which he replied: "You are right, it takes more than the brain and neural synapses to create conscious awareness. You have to have an environment for the brain to interact with and a history of interaction."
You see, this is my predicament here, Willblake. MoQers tell me I'm nothing without my "environment" -- that this collection of inorganic, organic, and societal "patterns" is all I am, that I couldn't be a cognizant, thinking individual living alone on a desert island. Give computers the right chips and enough inorganic, biological, and social information, and they will one day do our thinking for us. This is electo-mechanical nonsense that I suspect would make even Pirsig wince.
This understanding has social consequences, such as if a body is brain-dead, is the self dead to this world? When does a living organism (embryo) gain human rights? If a person cannot support him(her)self do we let it die. We don't do this for starving people, but we may for someone in a coma. We can cry, let nature take its way! But by preserving or destroying the embryo we are letting nature take its way, because we are nature itself. Our preservation of a person in a coma is nature taking its way. Our moral thoughts are nature at work.
By your reasoning, nature will have its way in any case. I believe that's true. But I also think man is more than nature because he can pursue goals that nature never intended, including creating his own environment. He won't "escape" nature as a being-aware, but as a value-sensible creature he can aspire to lofty heights intellectually, socially, esthetically, and scientifically. He will always confront dilemmas, such as those you mention, because he is denied answers to moral questions like "what aught I to do?" But he's equipped with an exquisite sense of value, the power of reason, and (most important of all) the freedom of choice. Why do you suppose Mr. Pirsig never said a blessed thing about these human attributes?
If I read Ham correctly, and I apologize in advance, our human consciousness is a sum total of our physical experience plus a personal awareness that exists outside of that. I think this is true, otherwise we would be zombies where all is dark inside. This feeling (maybe a jump) leads me to think that all has consciousness, just not in a human sense.
The Pirsigians will cheer at your conclusion, because they believe atoms and rocks make conscious evaluations. While consciousness may be thought of as all-pervasive, it's the consciousness of the subject who experiences objective reality. In my ontology experience is not simply passive sensibility; it's the active process whereby we convert sensible value into the objective phenomena of our existence. Unlike the existentialists, I maintain that Essence is primary to existence. Value-sensibility is directly derived from Essence, whereas physical things and events are actuated by experience (a "secondary negation" in my creation hypothesis).
Is there a big difference between our brains and an ant hill? Both require extensive communication, both are adapting to the environment on a minute by minute basis. If the ant hill (or beehive) analogy is to be useful, there must be a queen ant (or bee) around which everything is centered. Is there such a queen nerve cell? Is there a seat of the soul? ...
All living organisms, including bacteria and protoplasmic cells, have "sensibility" which enables them to react to the environment. The human brain and nervous system integrates information from many sources to produce cognizant awareness that is proprietary to the individual. Thus, the central nervous system may be properly called the "seat of awareness". I'm not sure what the "soul" is supposed to mean, but I would say that value-sensibility is the "essential self".
At the risk of being nihilist, I don't believe this consciousness is anything purposeful, and it brings me peace to just be part of it.
I'm glad consciousness brings you peace. It also brings you fear and loathing, desire and revulsion, joy and pain. Consciousness is your personal identity with all its intimate feelings. Without it you could not function or exist as a human being.
Ham, I'm sure you have provided the address for the thesis, but could you provide it again? I'll try to read it.
Gladly. The website is www.essentialism.net. The thesis page is www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm. Please feel free to come back with questions after you've digested it. Or, if you're really interested, you can purchase my book on line at http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=41654 . .
And thanks for keeping me in mind, Willblake. Essentially yours, 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/
