Conciousness, I feel as though it is different then awareness. A baby is conscious of the decisions it makes and actions it takes, but hardly has any awareness about what it is doing. I feel like Awareness is often mistaken for consciousness. Awareness is the self-reflection we all experience, but our consciousness perhaps is simply our ability to react to our experience and thus learn. That would include, when i say consciousness, both the conscious and sub-conscious. Consciousness is ego/id/superego if we want to be Freudian about it. But i feel as though Awareness is discrete from this. Our self-awareness does not create learning, it only provides a new thing to learn about. I think a neurological argument is something like: self-awareness is an illusory identity the mind gives itself and it's body in order to achieve greater self-preservation through conscious decision making. First we are conscious and making decisions, then we become self-aware, then we continue to make concious deci sions but now include decisions based on our awareness. This is why we brush our teeth.
i guess, Wes > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:05:53 -0500 > From: "Mary" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ would seem to imply that above human > intelligencecomputers > Message-ID: <003301cadf2a$2bd106e0$837314...@com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > What is consciousness? Is it self-awareness? If so, that would imply ego. > So, one could say that any entity that achieves the concept of ego is > self-aware and thus conscious. No? At various times in my life I've been > given a paycheck to be a programmer. Now all of those jobs are being > off-shored to India or China, but that is beside the point. Does anyone > have an "ego object" in their Java toolkit (my preferred language since it > has automatic garbage collection, and is also platform independent in its > own little JVM)? Is it open-source? Can I download it somewhere? We > programmers really hate reinventing the wheel, you know. > > Mary > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ham Priday >> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 3:18 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ would seem to imply that above human >> intelligencecomputers >> >> >> On Friday, April 16, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Tudor Boloni >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Humans are very much on tract to build Artificial General >> Intelligence >> > systems within 15 years (one (http://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/tutorial/) >> has >> > already replaced 300 workers at a naval base in their main work >> capacity >> > (with the displaced workers (they were job consultant for sailors) >> making >> > comments like "that's just the way i would do it too")... so for the >> sake >> > or >> > argument lets assume this is coming (there is too much money behind >> it not >> > be coming) in 15 yrs. lets also assume its value system is calculated >> > using >> > symbolic conceptual logic along MoQ lines, it seems to me that the >> > machines would find it MORAL to eliminate the growth of new humans >> > once they believe: >> > >> > a) computers are more effective at generating Intellectual Patterns >> than >> > humans, and >> > b) humans are removing too many resources from the needs of future >> > computing power requirements >> > >> > We will be like the bacteria doctors hit with antibiotics, screaming >> to >> > each >> > other that its not moral to limit our growth... but the computer >> would >> > test >> > our claims and find us too resource needy and/or too dumb. >> >> At first I thought this fellow, who calls himself Boloni, was playing a >> belated April Fools joke on us, and I'm still not sure. However, >> Horse, >> Bodvar, Platt, and the gang seem to be taking him seriously. >> If nothing else, Boloni's posts are unearthing some of the pitfalls of >> MOQ >> reasoning. (And, they have nothing to do with "right-wing" politics or >> "anti-intellectualism".) >> >> For example, Bo (who apparently "just noticed" Tudor's arrival), >> immediately >> sought to defend the Intellectual Level. But his rebuttal only made >> the AI >> argument sound even more plausible. >> >> [Bo]: >> > I don't think Horse says that an artificial intelligence system has >> > INTELLECTUAL patterns, nor do we humans "have intellect", the >> > intellectual level resides on top of the social level and it was the >> > biological species Homo Sapiens that DQ "rode" to the social level, >> > only in THAT capacity are humans the biology under society and >> > intellect. OK, a bit uncalled for, but it must be pointed out. >> >> And Platt's quote from Lila that ""It was this intellectual level that >> was >> screwing everything up" is a true statement, but not because it makes >> hay >> out of intellectualism. >> >> You see, folks, Artificial Intelligence=Consciousness is one of the >> fallacies that belief in an intellectual level fosters. In fact, it is >> that >> very dogma that has screwed up Bo's thinking. At the risk of >> committing >> heresy, I strongly object to his assertion that humans do not "have >> intellect". Intellect is part and parcel of human intelligence. It >> cannot >> simply be relegated to some extracorporeal realm that an electro- >> mechanical >> device can access for its "own purposes". >> >> Furthermore, to confound a newcomer with such tangled rhetoric as >> "resides >> on top of the social level", "that DQ 'rode' to the social level", and >> "in >> THAT capacity are humans the biology [??] under society and intellect" >> is >> doing the MoQ a disservice. It's just as silly to claim that man has >> no >> intellect as to equate artificial intelligence with consciousness. Mr. >> Boloni is getting some real baloney thown at him, in my opinion. >> >> Although RMP doesn't specifically say so, I don't think he would deny >> that >> existence is an anthropocentric system. The universe is designed for >> MAN's >> value sensibility and intellectual apprehension. It is MAN who >> realizes >> Value and brings it into being as a multiform reality. It is MAN by >> and for >> whom Pirsig wrote about values. It is MAN who is the locus of >> existence and >> who, on completing the life-cycle, reclaims the Value lost in becoming, >> thereby restoring the absolute integrity of the Source. >> >> It is the nature of man to be a thinking-feeling-intellectual being. >> But >> man cannot synthesize or build "sensible awareness" from digital chips >> and >> diode networks.. A computer or processing system designed by man to >> duplicate his experience and produce "intelligent" data is just that--a >> machine. No matter how closely its actions resemble human behavior, a >> machine will never be a conscious entity. >> >> So, if you are "for real", Tudor Bolini, you will spare yourself a lot >> of >> anguish by directing your AI speculations to Ray Kurzweil, Hans >> Moravec, or >> some other cybernaut who espouses the coming of a Singularity that will >> put >> machines in charge of mankind. >> >> Essentially speaking, >> 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/md/archives.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:50:09 +0200 > From: "Fam. Kintziger-Karaca" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [MD] thanks , mary > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Greetings, listers. > Thanks mary, for the welcome. > > I'v seen a question about Lsd-expiriences, In one of the postings ,I > do not remember who was asking. > After thinking about this question for a while, I decided to give a > link to the lsd page of the Erowid vault. > > All there is to find out about Lsd is here, stripped down to the bare > essentials.These are user reviews,naked facts. > http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_faq.shtml > > I think it was Marsha asking the question,and that is the reason why > i provide some answers. > > And for the Mystic and Mythos....."Brave New World"(Huxley Aldous), > Timoty Leary (All his work). > The search for mystic and Mythos ,projected to emerge from > Peyote,Lsd, and Mescaline(Peyotl) was a major thread in their work > and thinking. > Pirsig (probably) was influenced by their work and expiriences, the > way he rolls-out his peyote thinking pattern, is very similar to > paragraphs in both Leary's > work and Huxley's. > I have no reason to think that Pirsig really experimented with the > named substances. > > Sincerely , Adrie. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:53:51 +0200 > From: "Fam. Kintziger-Karaca" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [MD] plutocracy > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Are you American? Mary? , might i ask? > > Then change plutocracy to plutoniumcracy ! > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:58:08 -0500 > From: "Mary" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ would seems to imply that above human > intelligence computers > Message-ID: <003401cadf31$78aa2ad0$69fe80...@com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi John & all, > > Rudimentary Emotions must have begun at the Biological Level. > Emotions do not exist without an ego to feel them. > Ego developed as a self-preservation mechanism at the Biological Level. > If you lacked an ego, you would not value your own continued existence. > If you did not value your own continued existence, you would not defend > yourself, so you wouldn't survive, would you? > > Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which of these 2 emotions were > first? Lust or Fear? Hmmm, kind of depends on your mechanism for > procreation, doesn't it. If you replicate by basic cell division, you > wouldn't need lust, so I guess it was fear. I would say that they are the > only 2 that are necessary at the Biological Level. Get any fancier and you > are talking rudimentary Social Level (cooperation, empathy, respect and > such). > > So, I guess the ego was the big driver through both the biological and > social levels. Didn't stop there, though, did it? The Ego drives the > intellectual Level too. I am discrete. I am me and everything else is > "other". I Need that science to study that "other stuff". There's me (the > subject) and you and particle physics (my objects). Can't be any other way > because I am my ego. Subject-Object Metaphysics rules! > > The ego is deeply buried in time. Goes back to that first brain cell - well > no, maybe you had to at least have two? Anyway, forego the brain-cell > census, it's there. It's old, and it has us all so convinced in our > discreteness that we can't see anything else. The ego tells us Intellect > can't be SOM! If we all started thinking that it was, then the game would > be up! The ego would be found out! Exposed! Can't have that! No. Not at > all! The Intellectual Level is not "Just SOM" - our ego tells us so - and > it's always right. > > > Mary > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of John Carl >> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 12:07 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ would seems to imply that above human >> intelligence computers >> >> Platt, Ian, Bo and Horse: >> >> Emotions are the key to social patterns. And without emotional caring >> for >> one's existence, no "I" can even get started. So I don't think the >> issue of >> machine "intelligence" is relevant to AI. Only emotional intelligence >> can >> produce that rudimentary consciousness which develops into intellectual >> consciousness. >> >> And emotions are too deep and to be constructed intellectually. >> They're all >> bound up with physical analogues of experienced pain and pleasure. >> >> Ants and bees don't express or exhibit any detectable emotional >> communication with us. Horses, dogs and pigs (and a myriad of other >> mammals) do. >> >> Empirically so. >> >> Therefore, social patterning arises with emotional mammalian infant >> nurture >> and lead to self-consciousness and in man, intellectual reflection upon >> the >> same. >> >> Any questions? >> >> Good. >> >> John >> >> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:20 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Platt, Horse, All. >> > >> > 15 Apr. >> > >> > Platt responded to Horse's below: >> > >> > > Would you care to speculate what the computer social level might be >> > > like? Would it have religion? What sort of government would it >> have? >> > > Who would control its army? Where would it put criminals? What >> system >> > > would it use to create and exchange goods and services? The more >> > > specifics you can furnish, the better. >> > >> > I can only applaud. The social evolution weren't just organisms >> starting >> > to congregate, rather that a notion of EXISTENCE - of life and death >> - >> > dawned and resulted in the myriad of ideas ABOUT existence >> > animism, various forms of afterlife, ancestors, stages of beyond >> ...etc. >> > what evolved into complex mythologies and finally into mono-theist >> > religions, the toughest social cement there is. So Platt's about >> religions >> > and governments and criminals are most relevant, There can't be >> > other kinds of social levels whatever the social organisms are. >> > >> > Horse: >> > > > You're missing the point Platt - if they are intelligent and thus >> > > > have an intellectual level - they would have a social level. >> > > > Pirsig's point about ants and bees etc. isn't relevant. If >> computers >> > > > ever did become intelligent it would be through a different but >> > > > analogous path. >> > >> > "If they (computers) are intelligent and thus have an intellectual >> level >> > ..." is confusing intelligence and the intellectual level. >> Intelligence is >> > the >> > ability to learn from experience and is a long-drawn and fuzzy >> process, >> > the proverbial amoeba will react to acids, but it will certainly not >> learn >> > anything, while at some more complex neural stage the experiment >> > will be stored and if some like situation occurs it will trigger an >> > appropriate behavior, the bigger the brain the greater ability to >> > readjust, reaching an apex with the human biology. >> > >> > But the levels are no such process, they are quality jumps and the >> > social level had to be established and evolved to a a dynamic stage >> > before intellect could arise. The MOQ is THE quality jump, this time >> > out of intellect-as-SOM and the hardest to make. For those intellect- >> > marooned the MOQ will be regarded as just more intellect. >> > >> > Bodvar >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > On 15/04/2010 17:21, [email protected] wrote: >> > > > > This is the notion that any old group constitutes a social >> level, >> > > > > a notion flatly denied by Pirsig: >> > > > > >> > > > > "One can also call ants and bees "social" insects, but for >> > > > > purposes of precision in the MOQ social patterns should be >> > > > > defined as human and subjective. Unlike cells and bees and >> ants >> > > > > they cannot be detected with an objective scientific >> instrument. >> > > > > For example there is no objective scientific instrument that >> can >> > > > > distinguish between a king and commoner, because the difference >> is >> > > > > social." (LC, Note 49) >> > > > > >> > > > > Regards, >> > > > > Platt >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On 15 Apr 2010 at 17:10, Horse wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> But they wouldn't be destroying their own social level - >> they'd >> > > > >> be destroying ours. If they were intelligent and significantly >> > > > >> different to us their social level would remain intact. Why >> would >> > > > >> they worry? >> > > > >> >> > > > >> On 15/04/2010 16:35, Platt Holden wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >>> It would be just like intelligent computers to attain such a >> > > > >>> level of arrogance that they would believe they would be >> better >> > > > >>> off by eliminating the social level on which their existence >> > > > >>> depends. Reminds me of some intellectuals I know. >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> Regards, >> > > > >>> Platt >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Tudor >> > > > >>> Boloni<[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>>> would be morally correct to kill us if they feel >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> a) they will be able to contribute more ideas and >> intellectual >> > > > >>>> patterns than human can achieve >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> and >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> b) they determine humans are eating up too many resources >> and >> > > > >>>> produce too few intellectual patterns for the expense >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> am i missing something? >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> tudor >> > > >> > > 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/md/archives.html >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > 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/md/archives.html >> > >> 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/md/archives.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:54:18 -0500 > From: "Mary" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] lila's insanity > Message-ID: <003501cadf39$51593090$f40b91...@com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Adrie & John, > > On Behalf Of John Carl >> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 12:38 AM >> > Lila, as caracter in the book is postulated by Pirsig with insanity, >> The >> > author projects this insanity on lila, without >> > the clear nessecity for the book or the caracter.There is no ground >> nor >> > cure , and when "Pheadrus" interacts in the book, >> > with the parameters Pirsig allows him to use,(objective observer , >> seeker >> > of truth), Pheadrus does not interact with this insanity. >> > >> > >> This is what really intrigues me. Thanks for drawing attention to this >> aspect. >> >> The way I take it, and took it, is that the "insanity" of Lila - the >> person >> - as described in Lila the book, is the perceived insanity of >> "otherness" >> from the framework of gender consciousness. To the male mind, the >> feminine >> seems crazy. To the female mind, likewise the male. Only the kwitzak >> haderach can interpret. >> > [Mary Replies] > Male/Female dichotomy? That's not what I got out of it at all. I saw Lila > as a representation of Biological Level Quality who was (for that reason) > considered insane by the Social Level Rigel et al, and basically nolo > contendre for those (Phaedrus) at the Intellectual Level. > > Insanity, by definition would be the failure to correctly respond at the > Social Level. If you fail to respond as prescribed by your local Social > Level, you are by definition insane. Someone operating entirely within the > Intellectual Level (Pirsig/Phaedrus, the socially inept intellectual) would > not even recognize the concept of "insanity" and thus, would not "respond" > to it, because at the Intellectual Level insanity as a concept does not > exist. > > So, we have our three major characters, each representing (via literary > illusion) one of the three higher levels of Static Quality: > > Biological = Lila > Social = Rigel > Intellectual = Pirsig/narrator > > And, now that I think about it, Pirsig's boat, or even the river itself, > represented the Inorganic Level. > > No? > > Mary > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 53, Issue 101 > ******************************************** > 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/md/archives.html
