[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[gav]

hey ian,

--- ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:

> Gav, Ham,
> 
> Gav said
> " ... our separateness from the rest of the world is
> an optical
> illusion of consciousness. It is more accurate to
> see ourselves as
> static
> approximations of perpetual dynamic
> interrelationships that include us
> and the whole planet, and beyond!"
> 
> I agree with that, but Gav, would you see, "more
> developed"
> consciousness and intelligence in higher order
> mammals like ourselves.
> What language would you use to charaterise that
> difference ?

in a way yes i would ian. but at the most correct and
fundamental level there is no tree and there is no me,
just experience. or as an aboriginal australian once
replied to a farmer who said 'this land is mine':
'this land is me'.

how would i characterise the difference...probably
along the lines of.... sophiscation of language leads
to more abstract concepts and the development
'mind-space', ie self-consciousness. this parallels 
the 'fall' myth and the difference between homer's two
epics: the iliad in which the 'gods' were within and
inseparable from man, and determined his actions; the
other where man becomes an autonomous agent.

so in short i think the representational ability of
abstract human thought might be where humans are more
'developed' (potentially!)

> 
> Again. I also accept
> "trees are self-organizing systems and as such are
> intelligent"
> because of your "as such" qualfier. The genetic
> determination only
> goes so far as to determine "a" Redwood tree, the
> specific individual
> tree interacts with it's environment according to
> its genetically
> determined starting resources, but the outcome is
> that of indiviadual
> experience.

hmmm. don't really follow.

.
> 
> But you would accept that the intelligence (and
> consciousness) of a
> Giant Redwood is different to that of a human.

consciousness (as opposed to self-consciousness which
characterises the intellectual level of pirsig's
metaphysics) has me and the tree, not the other way
round.

there is no difference at the most fundamental level,
as we are all part of an intelligent planet and
universe that manifests itself through humans, trees,
frogs, whatever.

i dunno ian: getting into pretty mystical territory
when we start thinking about what its like to be a
redwood. i suppose ayahuasca might help us get in
touch with the spirit (=intelligence) of a tree. but
then it would probably be very difficult to
conceptualise the experience anyway.

 


		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
K-Zone Magazine: Check out the new look
http://www.kzone.com.au/