[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Case]

Jos,
Nice stuff below.

>From your studies in neurosciences how far have things gotten with those
cool fancy color images of the brain at work? Are those hard to get and
require injecting people with radioactive stuff and tons of expensive
equipment?

What would you say the neurosciences tell us about the nature of
consciousness beyond what you say below?

Case

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Laycock, Jos (OSPT)
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:54 AM
To: 'moq_discuss at moqtalk.org'
Subject: Re: [MD] Ham on Esthesia

Platt & Ham agreed that:

 One thing we are in total agreement about: "We cannot explain man's
> > awareness on biological functions alone." Dawkins, Dennett, 
> Wilson and
> > their acolytes still have a long way to go to explain how 
> consciousness
> > emerges from a lump of meat.
> 
> You bet, Platt.  Proprietary awareness is not a byproduct of 
> biological
> evolution.  I included this quotation by Philadelphia 
> Inquirer columnist
> John Timpane in the introduction to my thesis: "All this new 
> neurobiology
> can make people feel as if they are being turned into 
> machines or hunks of
> baloney."

Having first discussed this bit:

But I'll try to show you where I think "sensible awareness" 
> differs from
> proprioceptive (body status) experience of the "sitting on a 
> hot stove"
> variety.   (That's a "direct experience", all right; but it's 
> an experience
> we can't have without the stove.)

Ham, this is completely inaccurate. There are a whole range of "neuropathic
pain" states where individuals percieve immense discomfort and pain without
any external stimulus. People here seem to like to refer to pain as an
objective commodity, (direct from the meat). The basing this on objective
"scientific" evidence they then go on to use it as part of an argument
against biologicaly derived consciousness. 
I can report that this is a misrepresentation of scientific opinion. Having
trained as a neuroscientist I can assure you  that all collegues and
supervisors of mine were in complete agreement in their description of pain
an emotional response. The meat derived element is generally described as
"nociceptive stimulus" but the interpretation of that stimulus (pain) is a
non objective experience derived from consciousness.

Then: 

Awareness includes more subtle sensibilities than pain.  It 
> encompasses his
> response to and attraction for beauty, his yearning for truth 
> and a cosmic
> connection, his need to master and enhance his environment, 

All of these supposed "higher" or more subtle forms of awareness are no
differernt from Pain in fact they are absolutely intertwined with it and its
role in consciousness. They are the other end of the same see-saw, we strive
for the good stuff and move away from pain. Nociceptive stimulus is meat,
but it no more defines "pain" than the firing pattern of certain cells  in
your amygdala defines love.

Consciousness doesn't "emerge from a lump of meat", part of it is below the
meat, part of it is the meat, part of it is written on top of the meat. The
meat resides in consiousness and the two are interdependent.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: 22 August 2006 23:00
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Ham on Esthesia
> 
> 
> 
> Platt --
> 
> 
> > About the only difference I detect between Essence and Quality is in
> > the terms "experience" and "awareness." You use the former 
> to express
> > the normal subject/object division in human perception 
> whereas Pirsig
> > uses "direct experience" to describe what you call "pure awareness."
> >
> > Perhaps in my eagerness to find compatibility between your 
> philosophy
> > and Pirsig's I have seen things that aren't there. I hope 
> you will show
> > me where I have gone astray.
> 
> That's a diplomatic way of saying, where Ham may have gone 
> astray.  But, as
> you know, I'm working independently of Pirsig and feel no 
> obligation -- 
> outside of this forum at least -- to "catch up" with this 
> philosopher or try
> to conform with him.  I leave that to you folks.
> 
> But I'll try to show you where I think "sensible awareness" 
> differs from
> proprioceptive (body status) experience of the "sitting on a 
> hot stove"
> variety.   (That's a "direct experience", all right; but it's 
> an experience
> we can't have without the stove.)
> 
> Awareness includes more subtle sensibilities than pain.  It 
> encompasses his
> response to and attraction for beauty, his yearning for truth 
> and a cosmic
> connection, his need to master and enhance his environment, 
> his compassion
> for or resentment of other individuals -- all of which depend on an
> objective otherness.  Then there's the intellectual or 
> conceptual faculty -- 
> dealing with math, logic and physical laws, which are also 
> abstracted from
> his cognizance of otherness.  The very sense of 
> being-in-the-world cannot
> exist in a vacuum; it requires the cognizance of a 
> structured, objectified
> world.
> 
> In a nutshell, my contention is twofold:
> 
> 1.  Epistemologically, we are all sentient subjects of an 
> objective reality.
> 2.  Logically, neither Quality nor Value can be the source of 
> that reality.
> 
> To account for the appearance of differentiated existence, three
> explanations are usually offered:
> 
> 1.  It was always here.
> 2.  It was created from a primary source.
> 3.  It created itself from nothing.
> 
> I maintain that #3 is illogical, and that #1 and #2 are 
> logically consistent
> with each other.
> 
> Furthermore, while the primary source may be conceived as 
> having properties
> in common with, or exceptional to, those of the experienced world,
> application of Occam's razor and the logic of luminaries 
> throughout history
> almost uniformly point to a single, undifferentiated Creator. 
>  The simplest
> form of such a primary source is the "prime" form: Absolute 
> Oneness.  But
> that Oneness must also have the potentiality to create; that 
> is to say, it
> must be an "essence" rather than an "attribute" of something 
> else.  There is
> no something else for Essence.  It is the self-contained "not-other".
> 
> > One thing we are in total agreement about: "We cannot explain man's
> > awareness on biological functions alone." Dawkins, Dennett, 
> Wilson and
> > their acolytes still have a long way to go to explain how 
> consciousness
> > emerges from a lump of meat.
> 
> You bet, Platt.  Proprietary awareness is not a byproduct of 
> biological
> evolution.  I included this quotation by Philadelphia 
> Inquirer columnist
> John Timpane in the introduction to my thesis: "All this new 
> neurobiology
> can make people feel as if they are being turned into 
> machines or hunks of
> baloney."
> 
> Unfortunately, for all his alleged overcoming of duality, Mr. 
> Prisig has not
> shown us how it is supposed to benefit the individual.
> 
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by 
> the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service 
> supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with 
> MessageLabs.
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed 
> service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM 
> Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality 
> mark initiative for information security products and 
> services.  For more information about this please visit 
www.cctmark.gov.uk


This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.



The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure
Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable &
Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services.  For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
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/