[MD] On Time?

[ian glendinning]

Scott, Case, inserted ....

On 12/15/05, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> Ian, Case,
>
> Case said: Are there discrete levels of consciousness?
>
> Scott said: I doubt it. Levels of rules, yes, though how 'discrete' they are
> is open
> to question. Nor is it clear which levels are ontologically prior to others.
>
> [IG] Levels yes. Discrete no, not really, only by convention. (You
> managed to debate iron filings, amoebas and humans, and I'm sure you
> meant different things by consciousness, intellect, awareness, etc.)
>
> Scott:
> Yes and no. I see consciousness, intellect, and value as three words (and
> there are others) that -- to put it into Fregean terms -- have the same
> denotation (call it the Tao, perhaps), but different connotations.

[IG] - "Yes and No" is what we'd both already said ! This semantic
point, about many possible words and concepts (and sub-concepts) in
play, was really the point I was making - I wasn't picking on the
particular three words.

>
> Case said: If consciousness exists in its own special realm why does it need
> to
> bother with ours?
>
> Scott said: Consciousness creates all realms, so I don't know what you mean
> by a
> special one.
>
> [IG] As case asked earlier I'd have to ask where you get any evidence
> of that from Scott (not proof either way, just evidence, signs,
> whatever) Since I already believe in physics in everyday life (I don't
> drown when I drink a cup of tea for example) I suspend disbelief that
> physics will actually explain the whole of nature. Why wouldn't I ? In
> fact, I'd go further and cite increasing evidence that something like
> quality, interactions, differences, information, communications even,
> seem to underly all physics, inlcuding much "mind functioning" or
> anything claiming any level of consciuousness or intellect - evidence
> not proof - so I suspend disbelief - I don't go grapsing for a
> supernatural explanation - an explanation beyond nature - Why ?
>
> Scott:
> For why you shouldn't suspend disbelief that physics will actually explain
> the whole of nature, I've given two reasons: the Munchhausen fallacy, and
> the one that the debate with Case has been on about, that examination of
> form (which is what physics is limited to) can never encompass awareness of
> form. Which is, basically, Chalmers' "hard problem".

[IG] Clearly I don't buy that. Your "can never" sounds suspiciously
like a folk intuition rather than an argument. You may have to point
me at the specific arguments you refer to, if we're going to progress
here. To use Dennett's words Chalmers' version of the hard problem is
a chimera - though I'm still open to the need for some hard explaining
in this space.

>
> If you've got value and if you've got information processing, then, as I've
> argued many times, you've got consciousness and intellect. So the only way,
> as I see it, of accusing me of grasping for a supernatural explanation is if
> you consider value to be supernatural -- or if you consider non-locality to
> be supernatural.
>
> On the bigger question of evidence, etc.: What I am claiming (that
> consciousness creates all realms) is a metaphysical presupposition, one that
> I adopt because:
> - the alternative (that is, your metaphysical presupposition) creates (as I
> see it) unsolvable and unnecessary problems (see above).

[IG] I see no such problems. I see no metaphysics by physics. But then
you already knew that.

> - it is supported by some mystical revelation (see, for instance, Franklin
> Merrell-Wolff's "Philosophy of Consciousness-Without-an-Object" reprinted in
> "Experience and Philosophy", especially the chapter "A Mystical Unfoldment")
> - it is consistent with known empirical data, plus it provides an answer to
> the quantum measurement problem

[IG] Hmmm - can't comment, so I'll have to read. (Sound's suspiciously
like the new-age-physics silver-bullet that Dennett abhors ?)

> - it (as metaphysics) avoids the pragmatic critiques of metaphysics
>
> Scott said:
> Now a question for you. From your viewpoint, why is there awareness? Why
> couldn't whatever it is that happens be happening without awareness?
>
> [IG] This you will recognise, given our other thread, as Chalmers hard
> problem - the subjective aspect of consciousness. Clearly some forms
> of consciousness, are unaware with no apparent first person "view".
>
> Scott:
> I wouldn't say it was clear -- since we don't know what non-human
> consciousness is like -- but ok.

[IG] - this is just semantics - we are using "consciousness" very
broadly here with no pre-agreed tight definitions - I could have said
"Clearly we could chose to define some forms of consciousness ... "
Let's not reduce this to pedantry, I felt we were making progress.
Anyway ...
>
> Ian continued:
> Why awareness ? is simple, because it evolved as being something
> better than being conscious without it (I don't buy Chalmers' Zombie
> remember).
>
> Scott:
> Not simple: that's the hard problem, after all. So here you are just begging
> the question that it evolved.

[IG] Now you're not playing fair. Not so much begging the question,
but taking it as my metaphysical basis, as you already said. It's
called the MoQ. Shit evolves.
(And it's not that I'm closed minded - I keep saying I suspend
disbelief - If anyone could show me a single piece of evidence to
undermine this is, or show any inconsistency or unanswerable question
- I'd really like to hear it.)

>
> Ian continued:
>  Clearly many forms of consciousness can be independant of
> brains too. But what we're doing now is spreading out consciousness
> across many levels, and we'll need to define some sub-sets to make
> much sense. Clearly one kind of consciousness (just one) is the first
> person awareness experience.
>
> Scott:
> Agree (except it is not "clear" -- see above)

[IG] See above. Caveat pedantry.

> , but isn't this consistent
> with my answer to Case? Or rather, isn't it just a different focus? What
> makes human consciousness different from, say, atomic consciousness, is that
> they operate under different rules, where one of the human rules is "first
> person awareness". What is not obvious is that human consciousness evolved
> out of atomic consciousness (through biological and social or however). If
> space and time are products of consciousness, then they can't be assumed to
> be givens in explaining origins of various manifestations of consciousness.

[IG] Agreed, we are substantially agreeing despite our different
metaphysical basis. (Could I just point out that your's doesn't seem
to be the MoQ. And you seem to deny evolution too. I'd say you had a
lot more explaining to do than I.) Whatever - that "atomic
consciousness" must have some quite different attributes to some
"high-level-reflective-awareness-consciuousness". We agree there are
building blocks - you call 'em consciousness I call 'em information.
(I know which sounds simpler)

Regards
Ian

>
> - Scott
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>