[MD] Evolution of Consciousness

[David M]

Hi Scott

Yes, it seems that we need some way to make sense
of the stability of the perceived world, of course this
also accounts for how we are able to distinguish it
from the dream world. I find that when I hide something
in the perceived world it is usually there when I go back,
no such luck in the dream world. Also the perceived world
seems to be more obviously open to common perception
maybe this is significant.

How do you feel about the event status of inter-acting
inorganic patterns? Say there are some molecules close
by each other. Close enough that they may exchange a
few atoms, these exchanges will set up a number of quantum
possibilities, various states the system may adopt. If you say
consciousness is required to collapse these possibilities,
do you see the system as suspended in improbabilities until
life form consciousness intervenes, or would you say that the
interaction between the rocks must collapse the wave functions
and can be described as a form of inorganic conscious-agency?

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] False Messiah (Evolution of Consciousness)


> SA,
>
>     Scott said:  "Therefore, evolution is an
> evolution of consciousness, which includes sense
> perception."
>
> SA said:
>     Therefore from what you are saying Scott,
> according to Avery's position on the topic, the
> quantum world becomes what Einstein detected as
> space-time (gravity), which gets into relativity as
> well probably, via sense perception.
>
> Scott:
> I am saying that the quantum world becomes -- through sense perception --
> the contents of our sense perception, i.e., colors, tones, smells, tastes,
> and touch, all organized spatio-temporally. Things moving in space. What
> Einstein detected was something highly theoretical *about* all this. But
> that theory does tell us that at dimensional extremes (very dense mass or 
> no
> mass) the Newtonian rules of space and time break down.
>
> SA continued:
>  Thus, sense
> perception is capable of measuring the world that
> ready's the mind (in humans) to become aware of
> velocity, positions and other selective measures that
> would not be possible according to the quantum world
> alone.
>
> Scott:
> You make it sound as if spacetime were created purely for physicists. In 
> the
> quantum world there are no such things as velocity and position, though of
> course there is the potential for them, actualized via sense perception.
>
> SA said:
>  Our sense perception would act very much like
> freezing particles near 0 degree Kelvin in order to
> slow down its' position and velocity to separate its'
> properties in a way that I don't even know if freezing
> particles achieves.
>
> Scott:
> One can't say "in order to slow down its position and velocity" since in 
> the
> quantum world there is no position or velocity. These features only exist 
> in
> the macro world.
>
> SA said:
> Thus, by separating the particles
> properties into a space-time perception, sense
> perception - a form of consciousness - allows the
> world to be understood in the way it is understood
> geographically and crow flies here, but falcon flies
> here even faster kind of world.
>
> Scott:
> Yes, except they aren't particles (or waves) *until* there is sense
> perception. We have no way of knowing "what they are like" in the quantum
> world.
>
> SA said:
>  Thus, the way we are
> conscious of the world is totally linked in an
> evolutionary way that has grown (consciousness has) in
> such a way because it had to because not only does the
> world demand our way of seeing it to be done in such a
> way, our awareness of the world itself would not be
> awareness of the world without these measures taken.
> Is this what your saying?
>
> Scott:
> More or less, if I understand what you are saying. I wouldn't say "the 
> world
> demand[s] our way of seeing", though. The world and our way of seeing 
> evolve
> together.
>
> Especially with respect to your earlier statements, I am not able to give
> answers to "how" or "why" this situation is (of sense perception turning
> non-spatiotemporality into spatiotemporality). I am only claiming *that* 
> it
> is. (Avery's book goes into this "that" more deeply, for example, by 
> lining
> up particular dimensions with particular senses, relating it to
> communication, and so forth.) To answer "how" would require a lot more
> physics than I have, and even that might not be enough, since we are 
> unable
> to think what non-spatiotemporality "is like". To answer "why" is getting
> into more speculative areas. One hypothesis is that physical reality 
> allows
> ideas to be expressed in such a way that they can be contemplated. Compare
> dreams with being awake. In dreams, there is spacetime, but it is a lot 
> more
> "fluid" than when being awake, by which I mean less stable. In dreams, at
> least mine, things keep changing before one can get a handle on them. I
> can't imagine being able to meditate in a dream, or to scientifically
> investigate things in dreams. In other words, increasing the sharpness and
> stability that the awake state provides over the dream state, allows for
> increasing our intellectual ability. At this point I must plug another 
> book
> (which I've been plugging in this forum ad nauseam): Owen Barfield's 
> "Saving
> the Appearances". Its thesis is that over the last 3000 years, sense
> perception has been evolving from -- not the dream state, but something 
> less
> sharp and less stable and more "spirit-filled", to what it is now. It is
> only because of this change that intellect could arise in humans around 
> 500
> BC, and only because spirit completely emptied out of it around 1500 AD 
> did
> the scientific revolution become possible. The relevance of that 500 BC
> transition to the MOQ should be obvious.
>
> - 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/
>