On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:19 AM, David Thomas wrote: > On 8/27/10 10:25 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Marsha before: >> If you are comparing and contrasting Chalmers' ideas against RMP's >> concerning consciousness, what are you using as RMP's ideas; he's >> said very little directly? > > I would ask you to go back an read the "Consciousness & the MoQ" thread but > that would do little good as always seem to happen here bit and pieces get > buried all over the place. The point I started out with is exactly the point > you end your sentence with, "what are you using as RMP's ideas; he's > said very little directly?" Upon starting Chambers' book "The Conscious > Mind" I read the introduction and the thought occurred to me, "Hey he is > talking about some things that might apply to the MoQ. I wonder what RMP > specifically says about "consciousness." So I opened the electronic copy of > Lila that you so graciously gave me and did a word search and found (just > like you if you have) that he uses the word very little. Because DMB is in > graduate school and writing a thesis on Pirsig's work I specifically and > directly ask DMB the question, "What does Pirsig have to say about > "consciousness?" After much hemming, hawing, and shuffling of feet over a > week later in a completely different thread he replies like this:
Dave, You responded to a post I directed at Adrie. You stated that the thread was comparing and contrasting ideas about consciousness. Since you did state a while back that RMP's direct statements concerning consciousness were sparse, I wanted to know what you were using on RMP's part for the 'comparing and contrasting'. Not an unworthy request, certainly not a request that deserved such ridicule for asking. Please forgive me if educating dmb is not on the top of my agenda. --- I might think that science too is a belief system, but one with checks and balances built in, or so it is thought. Marsha > >> [ DMB in the Social Level thread] >> 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. > >> To which Platt responded with this: >> Answering the question, "Do atoms experience?" Pirsig wrote: >> >> "I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience events but do not >> react to them biologically socially or intellectually. They react to these >> experiences inorganically, according to the laws of physics." (LS,30) > > You have what RMP says about "consciousness" in Lila, you have DMB's > interpretation, and you have another RMP quote that Platt dug up. So take > your pick. > > Do you believe that quarks have experiences? Are they conscious of that > experience? Is that what Pirsig is saying? If so how does he know this? Is > that a good thing to believe? > > Chalmers would answer no to all the above questions. But that does not mean > that he is right and Pirsig is wrong. What do you believe? Believing in the > blue answers above falls into the exact same category as your belief or non > belief in God. This is not a matter of science, but one of belief. > > Dave > > > 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
