> Hi Mark (Andre mentioned) -- > > My response to John must have crossed your post back to me. > > > Imagine, if you will, that you were alone in the world (as a human). >> You had no need for communication, no thoughts as words >> would cross your mind. You would be unaware that your >> consciousness even existed, because there would be nothing >> to mirror it. This would be a state of complete unity. >> Now, along comes another person, and you realize that your >> relation to the world has changed, because you get feedback. >> This is a human condition. A network of communication is set up >> between us, that network becomes our thoughts. This is what I >> mean by socialization. Only we as humans can share this network, >> because we have like minded brains (so to speak). This network >> has no meaning to a colony of ants, nor should it. The planets >> have no use for this network, it is just a human thing. And as such, >> this, what we call intelligence, is just one of many such things. >> But it is our very own network. >> > > Your network analogy is elegantly stated, but "shared intelligence" does > not adequately define subjective consciousness. What you've described could > equally apply to the worldwide computer network. It's "our very own > network" but it is only a communication channel for information, not the > process of intellection. > > Again you have effectively circumvented the cognitive agent of awareness > which doesn't need other persons (i.e., social exchange) in order to > experience otherness. You (and John, Andre, Mary, etc.) try so hard to > disinherit the subjective self that one gets the impression you're ashamed > of it. As a consequence, you all tend to support the objective view that > consciousness simply emerges from biological evolution.
Mark in response to Ham, Cheers Ham, Thanks for the attribute of elegance, but I think you miss my point. More my fault than anything. But, these discussions do allow elaboration. If you meant to trivialize the analogy by comparing it to a computer network, that is fine. But, it is much more than that. Perhaps it doesn't fit into a Ham box, but let me try again. I am arguing against emergence, I believe the emergence theory is yours. But, as you suggest, I will not delve into Essence. I in no way am circumventing the cognitive agent of awareness as you call it. In fact, I am speaking directly to it. This agent is at the heart of what I am trying to convey to you. I will use some analogies from child psychology to perhaps explain it a different way. (Again, this is state of the art psychology, whatever that may mean to you, its use is simply meant to convey awareness and not be scientific). When a child is born, it has no concept of other. In fact it cannot distinguish itself from its mother for a while. When a child is born, all it has is Will. This then becomes more All Self and No Other. What this means is that during the early stages of development, a human has NO SOM. I'll spare you the other stages. Now, how can we even say this is a possibility? Well, I am no psychologist, but you will find this kind of thing in such journals. A more convincing example of the absence of SOM in early childhood can be found in certain accounts of autistic people (please don't get too caught up in the autistic label stuff, it is only misleading). There are people, labeled as autistic (for lack of a better term) who are capable of living part time in an autistic world of pure sense, and then capable of communicating with the rest of us as to what that type of consciousness is like in our own logical terms. Now, I don't want to seem kind of fringe on this kind of thing. If you are interested in the applications of SOM and Quality to autism, then I suggest you read Autism: The Lost Art of Sensing by Donna Williams. She can explain it much better than I, because she lives it. And, no, it is not fruitcake stuff, but it does take an open mind. If you accept the paragraph above, I can go on to say that SOM develops during childhood, for most of us. In fact some people can vividly remember when they became aware (so to speak). Carl Jung speaks about this (I forget where). The tipping point is communication. Because of communication we need to label things, you know, nouns, verbs. Try to differentiate pacing, from walking, from loping, from jogging, from meandering... you know what I mean. This simplification of our perception into quantified things is necessary because our brains need to condense reality into little simplified bits. As you know, there were people who were obsessed with this such as Aristotle. You can appreciate that by having to simplify into words, much of the original experience is lost. Suffice it to say that words do improve memory so that if you attach some awareness to a word, it is easier to recall that awareness through this word. It is sometimes proposed that we think in words. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is only words when communication is involved, it is only SOM when words are involved. Most of our consciousness is wordless Now, I could go on, but I will leave it at that for now. So, again, I am not circumventing anything in fact it would appear that you are. You provide vague notions of this cognitive agent of awareness by wrapping it in cosmic separation from something else. Sure, water becomes gas when it gets hot, and thus separates, but how does such a notion create cognitive awareness? You are missing a lot of pieces in between. I would be more than happy to have you present to me how personal consciousness arrises. So, I have no intention of disinheriting the subjective sense, in fact I am embracing it. It is your pseudo logical encapsulation of this sense into an ineffable construct which creates the disinheritance. What I see so far is much hand-waving. All in good fun, Mark > > > > > 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
