[MD] Food for Thought

[Dan Glover]

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: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:33:40 +0000
>
>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.

Hi Ian

When you write: "history as remembered" who is doing the remembering? Are 
you saying there are different kinds of history?

>
>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.

I gather you mean to say past and future are opposites? If so, then what is 
the present?

>
>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.

Thus the phrase "break a leg" becomes not a wish for harm to befall the 
actor but instead words of encouragement.

>
>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.

Hlopefully we all have a little something going on inside our heads, yes. 
However, I should think that if social and intellectual patterns of value 
can be treated the same as mind, then things become a bit more iffy as to 
whether it all (largely) happens inside our heads.

Thank you for your comments,

Dan

>
>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/
> >
>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/