[MD] Emergent Consciousness

[ian glendinning]

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/
>