[MD] Food for Thought

ian glendinning psybertron at gmail.com
Fri Jan 5 12:31:45 PST 2007 

Hi Dan, responding to your points ...

On 1/4/07, 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: 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?

[IG] Probably not for you or I. I just qualified it in case some
people believed there was any kind of objective record of facts that
in some sense actually happened once and for all. However recorded,
history is intepreted.

>
> >
> >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?

[IG] I guess I did suggest that, but it's not essential to my point.
Things that are closely related conceptually are closely related in
min organisation. It was you that raised past and future concepts as a
single "subject" whether you saw them as opposites or not.

>
> >
> >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.

[IG] Exactly.

>
> >
> >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.

[IG] Agreed. "Mind" goes beyond individual 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/
>
>
> 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/
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list