[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[ian glendinning]

David M,

I though for a while about this piece of yours ...
I completely agree.

I suggested to Keith a new thread to pick this one up - explanations
of consciousness "as we know it".

Ian

On 8/15/07, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> I think the basic thing here is to think about behaviour.
> Things have behaviour and so do life.
> Life's behaviour is more complex and has more
> possibilities than the behaviour of things due to
> the levels built upon between particle things
> and living things. So in this sense consciousness
> as we know it was not around until us. But where
> did the values to direct our behaviour and the
> feelings we experience when we are effected by
> our environment originate. I think Pirsig is right to
> say that in as far as particles react and behave
> and interact with their environment we cannot
> claim that these behaviours are mechanical it makes
> just as much sense to say they are chosen and valued
> as such. We talk of the mechanical (a metaphor) because
> some behaviours are repeated and are therefore predictable.
> Whitehead suggested that all interactions are 'felt' before Pirsig.
>
> David M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Alternatives to the scientific method
>
>
> > Thanks Keith,
> >
> > As I said despite being a general fan of Dennett's writing and humour
> > I actually found "Consciousness Explained" didn't do what it said on
> > the tin. I buy the emergent complexity natural explanation of higher
> > mental activity ... involved in consciousness - thinking meat ... an
> > idea I already subscribed to.
> >
> > Though I only recently know why, I found he didn't really get as far
> > as why that explains the first person perspective we experience all
> > mechanics, no "experience"- the "hard problem" as Chalmers called it.
> > We should start another thread on naturalistic explanations of
> > "consciousness" ....
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > On 8/14/07, Keith A.  Gillette <Keith.Gillette at detling.org> wrote:
> >> I'm with Ian: I highly recommend all of Daniel Dennett, especially
> >> *Darwin's
> >> Dangerous Idea*.
> >>
> >> I also recommend his *Consciousness Explained* for a naturalistic
> >> explanation of the phenomenon of conscious experience.
> >>
> >> *Freedom Evolves* & *Breaking the Spell* are still on my "to read" list.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Keith
> >>
> >> 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/
> >
>
>
> 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/
>