[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[ian glendinning]

DMB, Scott, et al,

Thanks for that David. Really helpful I think.
I think we should have clarified "consciousness" earlier.
I suspected that is what Scott was about, but he was so sensitive to
me suggesting it was a "component" or building-block" of full-blown
higher order consciousness. (Proto-consciousness maybe.)

If by some fundamental use of the word - some part of nature, that has
simply been involved in the evolution of the world as we know it, like
all other components of nature. Something without a first-person
awareness or intellect or those higher evolved aspects of
conscsiousness, then I have no problem. I though MoQ-ers called it
"quality". I do. (I'm gradually starting to call it "information" so
that other physicists and scientists of consciousness might recognise
it - quality / qualia are dirty words there -  but what's in a name,
it's a matter of what it is.)

It's definitely ineffable, hard to explain rationally starting from
anywhere else. Belief in its existence stems from direct experience
AND inference back from other experience with intellectual overlays -
consistency with all experience, if not with clear causal rationale. I
have no problem with this level of "mysticism". Everyone needs a
bootstrap - it's just a question of how fantastic you make it, and
it's chances of fitting consistently with the testable aspects of
experience, without redundant mystical frills. (Parsimony of you like
Scott - I've said several times you seem to have left more unexplained
than I.)

ASIDE for Scott,
In order to preserve an ontological monism - I see this
proto-consciousness as the same stuff as everything proto-physical /
proto-material, not to mention proto-living, proto-social and
proto-intellectual, in every way. I've been happy to call it "quality"
(even if physics may conclude it's information). I'm not happy calling
it consciousness, in the same what as I'm not very happy calling it
physical or material. The history and baggage of the language simply
misleads. This may just be a linguistic affectation on my part, but I
think it helps not to mislead, if at all possible. Why don't you just
call it "quality" like the rest of us ? What's in a name - that's a
serious question Scott. Why not ?

Ian

On 12/19/05, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Scott, Ian and all MOQers:
>