[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[Scott Roberts]

David M,

I guess I don't understand what you are getting at here. My biological 
intelligence gets me off a hot stove right away. If I'm about to step in the 
path of a truck, and someone yells "Watch out", my linguistic intelligence 
reacts quickly as well. There are habits at all levels.

- Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism


Scott

Well I think you need to see how the levels are
different here and that some forms of interaction
between patterns at or across certain levels involve
an inability of the receiving pattern to respond in any
way other than one and that those responses can be
highly destructive to the receiving local pattern. The
mistake of materialism is to thing this specific form
of interaction is the only one.

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism


> David M,
>
> Scott wrote:
> The problem with 'source' talk is that it tends to imply causality, but I
> see causality as a characteristic of the semiotic, not of
> Consciousness-without-an-object. That is, it within the semiotic that one
> gets spatiotemporality and causality (and other forms).
>
> DM said: I have a question/problem with this. Sure most interactions can
> be
> characterised as information, but all? Sure patterns interact, information
> is exchanged, resulting in change. But some messages do not come with
> a reinterpretation or a open to being ignored option. How would you
> characterise a rock falling on my head or the oven burning my bottom?
>
> Scott:
> I wouldn't know how to characterize them with surety. My guess is that the
> level of reinterpretation and options lies at a much broader level than
> that
> of rocks and pains. There isn't much in the way of reinterpretaion to be
> done with the letter 's' in the preceding sentence, but it is needed to
> make
> some of the words, which are needed to make the sentence. And even  though
> as a sign it is determined by the broader context, it does have some
> significance.
>
> - 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/
>
> 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/