[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[David M]

Ian

Well, what I actually think is that when you describe
consciousness you have to recognise that it seems to
be extended into the future, to be tied up with the
presence of future possibilities, and active in chosing
which possibles will become actual and which forsaken
forever. Now perhaps we may wish to start describing
physical systems in terms of its openness to a range
of possible futures, but there is a sense in which these
are not physical possibilities in that some will never
achieve the status of being actual and will become
only negated options.

DM.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ


> David,
> It's on my lists and I've read references to it already.
> I don't see what point you're making though.
> There are plenty of scientific theories about elements of
> consciousness / awareness preceeding other energetic and material
> aspects of the universe - but this doesn't take consciousness beyond
> physics does it ? Physics is beyond both or esle how else do you
> explain consciousness other than supernatural.
> Physics = Nature.
>
> What's your point.
> Ian
>
> On 12/16/05, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ian
>>
>> Take a look at "The Self-Aware Universe"
>> if you get a chance.
>>
>> DM
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
>> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ
>>
>>
>> > Inserted ...
>> >
>> > On 12/13/05, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
>> >> Ian,
>> >>
>> >> Ian said:
>> >>
>> >> Scott, if you're using materialism as a broad naturalism /
>> >> physicalism, then no problem. But the word has narrower "substantial"
>> >> connotations for most people, in common usage.
>> >>
>> >> Scott:
>> >> I assume you are not referring to the non-philosophical meaning of
>> >> materialism (as in, seeking happiness by having lots of material 
>> >> goods),
>> >> since that certainly isn't dead. So I still don't know what you are
>> >> referring to when you say "materialism is dead". Most people are
>> >> mind/matter
>> >> dualists.
>> >
>> > [IG] I know, and I think part of the problem is the "substantial"
>> > connotation behind the word material in any of it's uses, even in
>> > carefully guarded philosophical ivory towers. It's the word that needs
>> > killing off. Language evolves. Meanings are never usefully reserved
>> > for long. Materialism is dead in the sense it no longer has any value.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Ian said:
>> >> Given that broad view - I would say it also covers "mental" too. All
>> >> the things we know and love in common sense as material or mental,
>> >> evolve from the same natural physicalis
>> >>
>> >> I am self-proclaimed a "physicalist" in this sense.
>> >>
>> >> Scott:
>> >> And I am not.
>> >
>> > [IG] I know you're not, but you said I seemed to be .... it's never
>> > been a matter of seeming - it's what Im banging on about. (But this is
>> > a dualist issue, see the closing Dennett remark below.)
>> >
>> >> Out of curiosity, since you seem sympathetic to Dennett, does
>> >> this mean you reject Chalmers? I ask, since Dennett seems to me to be 
>> >> the
>> >> most prominent example of someone who Chalmers would accuse of "not
>> >> taking
>> >> consciousness seriously".
>> >
>> > [IG] - My main project at the moment is to resolve Dennett / Chalmers
>> > differences. I have a lot of time for both of them. Dennett for me
>> > falls far short of explaining consciousness (what it is, how it
>> > works), despite staunchly supporting the neo-Darwinist explanation of
>> > how it evolved naturally. His best explanation (like Blackmore) seems
>> > to be that what we call consciousness is just an "illusion". That I
>> > don't buy.
>> >
>> > Chalmers on the other hand - I agree with the proposition that the
>> > "subjective aspect" of consciousness remains to be explained (the
>> > so-called hard problem). I also agree with him (like Deutsch) that a
>> > high-quality explanation may not look much like the traditional
>> > reductive logical causal chains of reasoning some conservative people
>> > would hope for. What I don't buy from Chalmers are his Zombie thought
>> > experiments - I'm still struggling with "supervenience" and with
>> > "possibility" (metaphysical, conveivable, logical and physical) (also
>> > considered by Deutsch) - but for me Chalmers' thought experiments beg
>> > all the key questions in their initial assumptions, so I believe they
>> > simply mislead.
>> >
>> > Interestingly, I'm just reading Dennett's "Sweet Dreams". Unlike me
>> > Dennett is very anti what he sees as "new-age physics" providing
>> > answers to ancient philosophical questions. He's right in the sense
>> > that anyone claiming that uncertainty or non-locality or entanglement
>> > explains the mysterious mental-stuff amidst all the matter-stuff. What
>> > I think Dennett has missed, is that this stuff is gradually explaining
>> > that there is only one stuff of nature underlying all evolved levels -
>> > mental or material - I call it "information" (after Deutsch and all
>> > the latest Dirac interpretations). (Hence my aversion to the
>> > misleading word material...)
>> >
>> > The basic building blocks of both material and mental have been around
>> > as long as the building blocks have been around - (which implies a
>> > first cause issue, I'll grant you, in a single closed universe - but
>> > Deutsch addresses that - time and causality are the seriously weird
>> > issues getting in the way of common sense explanations here.).
>> >
>> > Evolved forms of consciousness and living-socio-cultural-intellectual
>> > patterns have both emerged together - in fact consciousness and
>> > intellegence etc, are just such evolved patterns. The MoQ is spot on,
>> > Where's the problem ?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> - Scott
>> >>
>> >
>> > [IG]
>> > Regards, Ian
>> > 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/
>> >
>>
>> 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/
>>
> 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/
>