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

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --

> You successfully claim to answer my questions and fail
> to answer one all in the same email.

That is not true, but apparently you cannot relate the statements I've made
to your query and need to see each question followed by a specific answer.
Here, then, are the questions you are asking, culled from you last three
posts:

> Would you say a "human being" left at birth on a deserted
> island twenty years later has a "consciousness" that is
> different than the "consciousness" of a cat?

Yes.  As I've previously stated, man's consciousness includes self-awareness
and value sensibility, neither of which has a feline correspondence that we
know of.  (Incidentally, the "deserted island" has nothing to do with this
distinction.)

> [S]ince genes, brain size, chemistry, body appearances,
> size, all sorts of other genetic traits are variable among the
> human population, is "consciousness" variable too?   Or
> is this an exclusively "absolute" trait that is in everyone
> the same (except those born with defects)? What I am
> getting at, is there any genetic variability to "consciousness"
> across the human population?  If not, how so?

Genes, brain size, chemistry and body size have nothing to do with
consciousness in my opinion.  Again, I'm not talking about "behavior' but
about the subjective faculty of being-aware which is "absolutely" and
fundamentally individual.  I'm not a geneticist, and fail to see why you
think genes are relevant to consciousness.  They might predispose an
individual to bipolar anxiety or delusions relative to certain perceptions
of reality, but I don't believe they affect fundamental consciousness.

> If now you are denying DNA, although you were the one
> who said that "everyone possesses the same consciousness
> except those with genetic defects" ...

I do not deny the existence of DNA, and I did not say everyone possesses the
same consciousness.   What I said was "every human being from adolescence
onward has self-awareness and value-sensibility, irrespective of his or her
environmental conditions."  Obviously, the consciousness of Arlo Bensinger
is not the consciousness of Ham Priday.  Selfness is unique to each
individual; this is what I mean by proprietary awareness.  The individual
human is psychically autonomous -- free of the consciousness of any other.

> [T]hen 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?

We are all born with awareness, which "comes from" the primary
differentiation of Essence into "other" and "not other".  Awareness is the
not-other.  In the newborn infant it is probably best described as the
integration of organic sensibility.  After a period of contact with things
and people, the child develops a sense of self in relation to other which
eventually leads to self-consciousness and a fully developed sense of value.
(It should be noted that, while consciousness "ripens" with maturity, it is
no less a special creation and the locus of an anthropocentrically designed
world.)

Concerning your repeated "desert island/genetic features" comparisons, I
really don't understand their connection or relevance to consciousness, so
I'm unable to answer that question.  Evidently it has some major
significance for you.

> 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?

When you talk in terms of before and after, your perspective shifts from the
metaphysical to the existential.  From the absolute viewpoint nothing
changes.  That's why I regard creation as a constant of Essence rather than
an evolutionary process. The pre-natal fetus responds to tactile
stimulation; so you had sensory awareness prior to birth, but psychologists
tend to define "consciousness" as the fully integrated awareness of a 2-3
year-old child.

[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.

Arlo must learn not to paraphrase Ham.  It gets him into trouble, as you've
seen.  The moment you say "continuum", I know you've got that great
"Collective Consciousness in the sky" on your mind.

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

[Skip]

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

As I stated above, there is a gradual transition from simple organic
awareness to the development of a fully integrated consciousness that
includes self-awareness and value-sensibility.  It is the "awareness" that's
primary; without it there could be no consciousness. The human organism is
wired to make this transition.  (Possibly this is where your precious
"genetic traits" kick in.)  I look at it as one continuous creation toward a
purposeful goal (teleology).

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

I don't know Platt's cat.  (Mine died several years ago.)   The only answer
I can give you is that cats were not designed to be the creatures of
self-determination on this planet.  Man was.  Most cats I know live a good
life; ours certainly did.  Unfortunately for them, it is man who was
designed to be the Top Cat :-)

[Skip]

[Arlo]
> 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?

What is it with your deserted island anyway?  You must have watched too much
Gilligan's Island in your youth.  Yes, the deserted island individual is a
free agent just like you and me.

[More Arlo]

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

So far I think I've answered or at least addressed them all.

[Arlo continues]:
> 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?

It is not a function; it's an essent (the essence of a created entity).  As
I previously said, 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?
>
> And you wonder why you are charged with "thinly veiled
> theism"... Ham you charlatan you...

I never claimed to be an anti-theist.  If you read "God" into my Essence,
does that make me a "charlatan"?

> 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.

I don't know that I've disappointed you so much as feeding you something to
complain about!

Anyway, I've now answered all of the questions I could understand, except
for whether Platt agrees with my ontology.  (I think he's part of the way
there, but still believes that consciousness is shared while experience is
proprietary.  However, why don't you ask him?)

We could have a much better discussion if you didn't rephrase my statements
to read as if they were an attack on your particular belief system.   I'll
let your P.S. editorial pass without comment.

Regards
Ham