[MD] MD 4th level - The more autonomous level

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Ham,

I have to say, I'm disappointed. I was composing a new email criticising you for
ignoring my questions when this email arrived. I felt a little bad about this,
until I read your email. You successfully claim to answer my questions and fail
to answer one all in the same email.

Let me go through your email and point this out...

[Ham]
It is pointless to explain the source of something to someone who
doesn't believe it exists.  You deny the existence of proprietary awareness for
reasons you have refused to tell me, yet persist in accusing me of not
answering your questions.

[Arlo]
Again, for the umpteenth time this week alone, I don't deny "proprietary
awareness", I define it differently. I understand that its easy to face
difficult questions by replying "ah, why should I bother, you just don't get it
to begin with". But, these are fair questions, and for that reason, the will be
restated. You claim to have answered it, but you have not. Not once. 

[Ham]
I addressed all of these questions in my 12/7 post to you, except
for the first, and whether consciousness is a "feature" of DNA.  The only
motive you can logically have for asking me to identify the source of
proprietary awareness is to acquire additional material with which to attack me.

[Arlo]
The motive I have is to question what I see as wrong. Is that so bad?

[Ham]
But I shall answer it anyway, so as to redeem myself of the charge that I've
evaded your questions.  Let me first say that the questions you have asked show
me that you're in denial; specifically, you are looking at Consciousness from
the outside and resisting the impulse to regard it as
anything but a behavior pattern exhibited by the human species.

[Arlo]
I am asking fair questions to what you propose as "truth". If you new anything
about me, you'd know I see "consciousness" as much more than a "behavior
pattern". But, I've heard this line of argument before, if I don't agree with
you, it's because I'm stupid. Hey, Platt, I thought only liberals used that
type of rhetoric. But, onwards to those questions you say you're going to
answer...

[Ham]
Your questions concerning the genetic basis of consciousness and its DNA
functions are irrelevant because they presume that conscious awareness is
"produced" by neuro-biological processes.  In fact, the reverse is true; the
brain and nervous system are only instruments of the conscious function. They,
too, belong to the "objective" part of our reality.  Nerves and grey cells are
not the conscious agents -- WE are.

[Arlo]
Okay, so let me get back to the question you've evaded. The desert island infant
possessing an equal "consciousness" to "you".

If now you are denying DNA, although you were the one who said that "everyone
possesses the same consciousness except those with genetic defects", then I ask
AGAIN, from where does this "consciousness" come to the "individual"? How does
this deserted island individual have the same consciousness as "you" if not for
genetic features of the human species?

By the way, that's also a neat shift, I've never proposed that consciousness is
s neuro-biological process. I've only said that because of your previous
evasive answer.

But okay, the brains and nervous sytem are only instruments of consciousness.
Did my consciousness then predate my birth? When does "individual" attain this
function, if it is separate from DNA? How?

[Ham]
Instead of trying to refute SOM, I suggest that you start with the premise
that reality is SUBJECTIVE, and proceed from there.  I promise you, it will be a
far more enlightening experience.

[Arlo]
Yes, with clear repsonses like this, I have no doubt I'm talking to just another
Randian charlatan. But, let's see, Ham, do you really answer any of my
questions below...

[Arlo paraphrasing Ham]
Consciousness is a continuum, ranging from low-high, with humans at the top of
the totem. Okay.

[Ham]
Not OK.  Consciousness is NOT a "continuum".  It is a discrete proprietary
capability of the individual.

[Arlo]
Hold on thar, Ham. You said consciousness was an aspect of all living organisms,
but with "man" at the top. That tells me that consciousness is not an
"either-or", but a variable level (based on the organism).

[Ham]
It is what distinguishes the sentient organism from all other existents.

[Arlo]
Well, still no answers, but this is a good point to reask the question. From
where does the "sentient being" attain "consciousess"? 

Specifically, answer this, how do "I" have it, but not Platt's cat?

[Ham]
The moment you try to build a "collective" out of consciousness, you lose sight
of the principle that makes man an autonomous agent.  The proprietary nature of
conscious awareness is as immutable as the absolute nature of Essence.

[Arlo]
So you keep saying, instead of answering any questions challeging this.

But, I can dig into this. You say "consciousness" makes man an "autonomous
agent". Yet you've said (or rather implied, since you refused to answer
directly) that a deserted island individual has the same degree of
"consciousess" as you. This of course means your position is that that deserted
island individual has the same agency as you. Is that correct?

Still harboring hope you'll actually answer ONE of my questions like you
promised... let's see...

[Arlo previously asked]
What is it that gives man this priviliged "awareness of self" and
"sensibility of value"? Why does man possess it, but not Platt's cat? Is it a
function of DNA? Or is it a function of "something else"? If so, what?

[Ham's answer]
It's that special creation of Essence whereby the finite subject is granted the
privilege of realizing and affirming the value of its infinite Source.

[Arlo]
Wha...?? Let me see if that's even possible to decipher...

"Consciousness" is a "special creation" of Essence that is "granted" to
"priviliged subjects" so that they can "realize and affirm" the Infinite
Source.... God created humans so they would worship him, eh?

Well, you've completely avoided the question, but do get at the reality of your
position. "Consciousess" is "given" to "human individuals" as a "special gift"
from an Infinite Source.

And you wonder why you are charged with "thinly veiled theism"... Ham you
charlatan you...

This of course, is what I figured your position to be all along. The "human
individual" is glorified because He is the Chosen Recipient of Consciousness,
bestowed from God...errr... the Infinite Source.

Well, thank you for evading all my questions, but providing a much more telling
answer.

Does Platt agree with this? That the (human) individual's consciouness (or the
aspects of it that set it higher than the non-human's) is a "special creation"
of the "infinite source", "granted" to man so that he can "realize and affirm
that same infinite source"?

Of course, the questions are still open, should anyone of the you wish to
attempt an answer. I won't hold my breath. All I expect are more "you're just
stupid, Arlo".. maybe, but at least I can answer simple questions about my
position.

Arlo

PS: Pathology is thinking one's thoughts are not constrained (and enabled) by
one's culture. Let me ask then, if "democracy" is so immediately valuable, why
did no "individual" (or not enough to matter) value it for thousands of years?
If people two-three-four thousand years ago (or two-three-four hundred, even)
were "free to value in glorious isolation from culture", why did no one (or a
very, ineffective few)? One would think that if "individuals" were unrestrained
agents in seeing value, this would've been the first thing everyone saw. No?
Why did it take what many feel are 10 thousand years of social human history
for individuals to finally "value" democracy? Or, to use Pirsig's eskimo, do
they all as "individuals" make the agentic decision to "see" 13 types of snow,
where "you" have chosen agentically to see but one? Or to get back to the
deserted island individual you love to ignore (hey, given your position, I
would too). Does he "value" things the same way "you" do?

Arlo