[MD] Emergent Consciousness

[Platt Holden]

> 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