Dave T said:
In the context of the ongoing discussion this started with DMB's claim that
RMP's position on consciousness was the same as James because RMP points to
radical empiricism and pragmatism as the two schools of thought MoQ is an
extension of. I objected to that claim, and this discussion ensued.
dmb says:
Well, no. This discussion began when you used Chalmers to criticize Pirsig. It
began with your claims, accusations and questions about the relationship
between Chalmers and Pirsig. The following is the top of my very first response:
Dave T said to dmb:
... I have a real question for you? "What about consciousness?" ... "the
problem of consciousness" ... RMP's approach just sweeps it under the rug.
dmb replied:
Not sure you've asked an actual question here. What is the problem of
consciousness, exactly? What's being swept under the rug by RMP's approach?
But let me remind you that James' Essays in Radical Empiricism basically
consists of two central essays and all the rest are expansions and
qualifications of those two main essays. One of them is titled "Does
Consciousness Exist?" and in it James answers "no", not if you mean a thing, an
entity that has the thoughts. There is no Cartesian self, no mental
substance....
dmb continues in the present:
The funny thing is, I still don't know what you're asking, what you think has
been swept under the rug and it seems that you understand what Chalmers' hard
problem is about.
See, the hard problem is being posed as a critique of those who equate the mind
with the brain. Pirsig is not only innocent of that mistake, he is also
explicitly opposed to that equation.
"For years we've read about how values are supposed to emanate from some
location in the 'lower' centers of the brain. This location has never been
clearly identified. The mechanisms for holding these values is completely
unknown. No on has ever been able to add to a person's values by inserting one
at this location, or observed any changes at this location as a result of a
change in values. No evidence has been presented that if this portion of the
brain is anesthetized of even lobotomized the patient will make a better
scientist as a result because all his decisions will then be 'value-free'. Yet
we are told values must reside here, if they exist at all, because where else
could they be?"
Dave T said:
But at the same time researcher's all around the world are spending a huge
amount of time and effort on the nature of "consciousness" and RMP hardly even
mentions it. Why "no comment" on something so obviously important? And could
leaving something that significant out be a fatal error for the whole system?
dmb says:
Pirsig hardly mentions it!? Well, then I guess you're not reading the same
Pirsig that I'm reading. The MOQ says that even subatomic particles can express
preferences and greater and greater degrees of consciousness unfold throughout
the whole evolutionary process. In that sense, consciousness extends from the
big bang to the formation of physics professors. Even DQ itself is a
non-conceptual awareness. Can you think of anything about the MOQ that doesn't
involve consciousness? I can't.
One of the big problems with the objective attitude is that it denigrates our
inner life as "merely" subjective but Pirsig starts out by saying how wrong
headed that is. If the world as we know it is a tiny handful of sorted sand, he
says, our task is to fully integrate the sand sorter into our picture of the
world. That puts consciousness at the center of things.
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
