Hi Alexander,
> **Alexander** > > But what, then, is the interpreter? I wrote in an offshoot from this > discussion about the difference between consciousness and conscious > experience. "Cogito ergo sum" is invalid, because consciousness isn't what > thinks, but what listens to the thought. So this thought which says "I > think, thus I am" is an intellectual pattern of experience - quality if you > like. > But you can't really say what this consciousness is, because it seem > somehow > to be generated by the central nervous system. But this invariant "self" is > really a not-I, when it isn't filled up with experience. In an empty state > it seizes somehow to be, and you become unconscious. So this "self" > corresponds to any-thing which it perceives or to no-thing at all. > The interpreter could be designated to the brain/body. This would conform to Ham's vehicle of differentiation. Thought would be in this sense an interpretation. Within this forum it could be an interpretation of static quality. Once it becomes converted into thought, I believe it is still a manifestation of Quality, but interpreted, and thus forms what could be described as a level. So, indeed, where does that leave the 'self'? This has been designated by many philosophies as non-existent in a physical way. However, we know that it exists. The ghost in the machine if you will. So we revert back to the dichotomy of mind/matter as being real. There are those which subscribe to materialism. There are many offshoots of this, science being one. In these philosophies, everything springs from the material, and there is nothing more. Following this path, one can project that it should be possible to create an android which has the sense of self. I am reminded of a movie made from a Philip Dick book called Blade Runner. It is also presented by Alan Turing as an immortality test. For whatever reason, the premise is not intuitive. As if we know something more than what science presents. As you propose, I do not relegate the mind to the brain which is physical (sorry Descartes). Nor is it relegated to what the brain creates for that is just electrochemical to an observer. It is what this electrochemical messaging means to the individual. Quality ascribes to meaningfulness. The yin and yang also represent a dichotomy in a way. If we use this symbol, there is an equal interplay with mind and matter. As such, there should perhaps be an attempt at balance between the two. This is what Buddhist philosophy preaches and can be found in Zen. This approach could also be used for MOQ. There seems to be a strong weight on the side of empiricism, which can be considered somewhat material. But the experience of Quality has much which is non-material. Thus the seeking of a balance must look outside the completely rational, and then translate it in whatever way to the rational. This can be done with descriptive analogies or concepts. Such concepts paint a picture of, but do not contain the what is. Your use of reverse entropy is an interesting approach, I believe Pirsig also brings this in. As such, it requires the theories of physics to be meaningful, which is entered into on agreement. But it does provide a source for building. At a basic level, negative entropy contains the principles of attraction and self-assembly. I find the concept of "self" assembly interesting as well. There is a self which assembles itself. Or, does the self exist before the assembly? What is providing the template or design for self assembly? Many would say that if it works it stays, but I do find that to be teleological, and not pointing anywhere. We can accept such self assembly all the way back to the gene and DNA, I suppose, through simple cause and effect. However, it is difficult to go beyond there, and must use some physics hand-waving such as forces and such. Are these forces which eventually result in a human being directional in themselves? If they are not, then where does the direction come from? One can of course speak of accidents. But something has to have an accident. There has been discussion using physics principles which include negative entropy, such as the presence of wells in an energy diagram which life then falls into. Of course it is all good fun in the creation of a metaphysics. Cheers, 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
