[MD] Food for Thought

[ian glendinning]

Hi Dan, Gav mentioned,

If by "history" you mean "history as remembered" then clearly it's as
pliable as future thought. Memory / symbolic manipulation, etc.

My impression is that the organisation of mind is "by association" and
opposites reside very close together in the physical and logical
organisation - I wouldn't expect past and future to be any different
in that respect.

The example I use is the "don't mention the war" example or "don't
fall off when you get to close to the edge of a roof". Focussing on
"not doing something" brings you very close to thoughts of doing it.
Gary Wegner's book "The Illusion of Conscious Will" has a fair bit on
this, as do Sacks' and Austin's works I've mentioned before.

Gav seems very down on us talking in terms of any kind of dualisms at
the moment, lest we forget they are not absolute, but I think it is
still useful to talk about mind as something that happens (largely)
inside our heads.

Ian

On 1/2/07, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> >From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >Subject: Re: [MD] Food for Thought
> >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:35:23 -0600
> >
> >Very good Case,
> >
> >That rings bells with me too, maybe I just re-read it in Prigogine ?
> >
> >It's the same as DM's point i think. A clear model (the world seen
> >through a lens) can only be an approximation to reality. Reality
> >itself can only ever be fuzzy when seen directly. (Interestingly I've
> >used the concept of creeping up on, or squinting  obliquely at
> >reality, rather than approaching it directly, where one tends to get
> >"blinded by the light".) The more metahpors the merrier.
>
> Hi Ian, Case, DM, and all interested readers,
>
> This article caught my attention as it seems related to what is being
> discussed:
>
> http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8448.html
>
> This in particular seems interesting:
>
> "Our findings provide compelling support for the idea that memory and future
> thought are highly interrelated and help explain why future thought may be
> impossible without memories."
>
> It appears that although common sense would seem to dictate history is "fait
> accompli", it would instead seem that history is as pliable as the future as
> they are "highly interrelated."
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Dan
>
> >
> >I'm going to have fun dredging that one up for DMB every time he
> >accuses me of being unclear. My riposte can be "ah, but I'm therefore
> >closer to the truth" ;-)
> >
> >Ian
> >
> >On 1/2/07, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> > > Ian,
> > >
> > > You remind me of Bohr, who was asked "Then tell me, what is
> >complementary to
> > > 'Truth'?" Bohr's immediate response was, "Clarity".
> > >
> > > While the scientific paradigms may improve the clarity of our vision we
> > > don't necessarily find ourselves looking at the Truth. If we take off
> >our
> > > glasses; we may see the Truth but be unable to distinguish its
> >relationship
> > > to anything.
> > >
> > > Case
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Brilliant Case, glad you're concentrating, you're making progress I
> >think
> > > ...
> > >
> > > So what ? OK I agreed already definitions are semantic arguments for
> > > dummies. So in that sense I accept your sentiment.
> > >
> > > I also agree with your Kuhnian "lens" metaphor. I didn't intend to
> > > make any pejorative statement about dogmatic paradigms ... quite the
> > > opposite in fact.
> > >
> > > But, in your final para ... this is where we syhthesise your points
> > > and Dan's with mine ... I had said "self-reflective consciousnes IS
> > > the distinguishing feature of the cultural (3/4) level from the merely
> > > biological / living (2) level ... It is the feature that enables
> > > symbolic manipulation etc ..."
> > >
> > > You replied
> > > > [Case]
> > > > True dat. But coming from my recent forays into consciousness it is
> > > > important to add the consciousness emerges at those levels it is not
> > > > divorced from the underlying levels. Note that I am still will to use
> > > levels
> > > > as general pointers but I don't see them as fundamental.
> > >
> > > I guess what I'm saying is that whilst the layers are not independent
> > > - they are additive Dan said - in a geometric sense you said - I agree
> > > with both, there are "more fundamental" (more "significant" maybe)
> > > distinctions that we can identify between ...
> > >
> > > 0 and 1 (Quality itself enabling Physics)
> > > 1 and 2 (The Physical enabling Life)
> > > 2 and 3/4 (Life enabling Self-Consciousness)
> > >
> > > Than there are between ...
> > > 3 and 4 (social and intellectual).
> > >
> > > None of the levels is truly "fundamental' in any axiomatic sense, but
> > > some distinctions provide a much more powerful "lens" than others in a
> > > pragmatic sense. The 3/4 distinction is not one of them - a very fuzzy
> > > lens so far.
> > >
> > > The real power of such lenses is in their "explanatory value", not
> > > their defintions. No ?
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
>