[MD] Emergent Consciousness

[David M]

Ian

Maybe you can say more about how interactions and
quality are related?

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Emergent Consciousness


> Platt and I exchanged ..
>
> [Ian] Well thanks for that ignorant presumptious caricature Platt, all
> your own work, none of which I said ...
>
> [Platt] You're welcome.
>
> [Ian] That kind of Idealism went out with the Ark .... even for
> redneck conservatives ...
>
> [Platt] There's not an ounce of prejudice or bigotry in Ian. :-)
>
> Ian responds - No there isn't. But there are several pounds of irony :-)
>
> [Platt] Maybe you should let go of illusion that your existence depends on
> someone or something observing you.
>
> Ian says - Never even remotely held such a view. Did you read the
> mail, the semantics, not the words ? Existence depends on interactions
> between things - aka Quality. All else is emergent.
>
> As I say can we even get to first base ?
> Ian
>
>
>
> On 6/28/06, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
>> > Well thanks for that ignorant presumptious caricature Platt, all your
>> > own work, none of which I said ...
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> > That kind of Idealism went out with the Ark .... even for redneck
>> > conservatives ...
>>
>> There's not an ounce of prejudice or bigotry in Ian. :-)
>>
>> > "Emergent Appearance" .... to anything "it" interacts with - we
>> > MoQ'ers call it quality don't we - that dynamic interaction ? Why can 
>> > we
>> > never get past first base Platt ?
>> >
>> > Appearance to humans is just our apparent privelidged position (from 
>> > our
>> > actual position) ... and all the anthropocentric confusions that 
>> > causes.
>>
>> So rocks observe? I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone
>> that rocks and other inanimate objects are capable of sense
>> impressions.
>>
>> > The tree in your back yard needs me to see it in order to be the tree
>> > that I see. It's inherent existence is something quite different (from
>> > the tree that you or I see) - it's the sum total (emergence) of all the
>> > quality interactions of something somewhere sometime - exactly what,
>> > where, when, we can never know (by definition) except by any emergence
>> > we detect. How hard can it be ?
>>
>> Talk about assumptions. We can never know, but somehow we know..
>>
>>  > You need to read the Nagarjuna / Magliola stuff Paul had been
>> > dissecting for us all, and at least understand why the Buddhist
>> > perspective helps, and why the Z in ZMM matters. Don't worry it's not a
>> > religion :-)
>>
>> If I listed all the things you "need to read" it would take all day.
>> Begin with "Atlas Shrugged."
>>
>> > Just let go the irrelevant "illusion" of inherent existence.
>> > Dive in, the water's lovely.
>>
>> Maybe you should let go of illusion that your existence depends on
>> someone or something observing you.
>>
>> > Now - "sensible" - a very good word ... we could do 2000 words on
>> > that, but they'd be wasted, sadly. Sensible - Adj. Capable of being
>> > sensed .... see above.
>>
>> Yes, see rocks above.
>>
>> Platt
>>
>>
>> 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/
>