[MD] Consciousness

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 
 
> On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Platt Holden wrote:
> > The excerpts you cite from Pirsig say that experience and DQ are the 
> > same
> > whereas in other passages he says experience and Quality are the same:
> >
> > "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to 
> > intellectual
> > abstractions." (Lila, 5)
> 
> Steve:
> He could have added, "and dynamic quality is the leading edge of 
> experience that leaves static patterns in its wake."
> 
> > Platt:
> > Does this mean atoms experience? Pirsig answers in Lila's Child, note 
> > 30:
> > "I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience events but do
> > not
> > react to them biologically, socially or intellectually. They react to 
> > these
> > experiences inorganically , according to the laws of physics."
> 
> Steve:
> Makes sense to me.
> 
> > Platt:
> > If the levels can be identified by the reactions of their experiencing
> > participants as Pirsig suggests in that answer, then the levels might 
> > be
> > better named as follows:
> >
> > Inanimate    (Inorganic)
> > Instinctual   (Biological)
> > Institutional (Social)
> > Individual     (Intellectual)
> > Ineffable      (Aesthetic)
> >
> > These names have a several of advantages. 1)The basic static nature of
> > the
> > lower levels as being static (objective) is made clear. 2) The social 
> > level
> > is clearly identified as human (as Pirsig insists). 3) The importance 
> > of
> > the arts in putting us in touch with DQ is highlighted ("Beauty leads 
> > the
> > way forward" -- Gelernter)
> 
> Steve:
> Plus they all start with I! Inanimate seems like an uneeded change 
> then.

Inanimate suggests the level so named is populated by static patterns 
unable to perceive or adjust to DQ which is what my renaming of the levels 
was intended to convey.

 Plus, inorganic patterns include motion.

Agree. But, Merriam Webster defines inanimate: "a. not endowed with life or 
spirit." That's the meaning I intended to convey. Patterns at all levels 
include motion.   

> I'm not sure what this has to do with clarifying "experiencing 
> participants" for each level of evolution.

Besides the advantages I pointed out above, I think the renaming of the 
levels clarifies that "experiencing participants" at the lower levels can't 
respond to DQ.

> > PLatt:
> > Well, one thing leads to another and I'm afraid I've gotten away from 
> > the
> > original point, namely, that the experience of animals and babies is
> > limited to generalized Quality prior to the intellectual abstractions 
> > of
> > Dynamic and static.
> >
> 
> Steve:
> Except that Pirsig specifically used an infant to explain what he meant 
> by dynamic quality. I have some sympathy with the view that patterns 
> refer to intellectual abstractions like the building of analogues upon 
> analogues of ZAMM. But he also says that we don't actually think our 
> way through chains of deductions with these analogues, we just respond 
> based on them, so I think these analogues are better thought of as 
> patterns that are more like habits than intellectual activity. I think 
> that animals, rocks, and trees can be thought of as having habits which 
> can be changed or reinforced in response to dynamic quality, the 
> leading edge of experience. If inorganic objects experience as Pirsig 
> says, then that experience has a leading edge. Right?

Lower levels patterns may experience DQ as the "leading edge." But, I don't 
think they can "perceive or adjust to it."  In the context of deciding the 
morality of executing an individual accused of a capital crime, Pirsig 
wrote:

"And beyond that is an even more compelling reason; societies and thoughts 
and principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These 
patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a 
living being can do that. The strongest moral argument against capital 
punishment is that it weakens a society's Dynamic capability-its capability 
for change and evolution." (Lila, 13)

Those who believe lower level patterns can respond to DQ should offer some 
examples that are not simply explained by cause and effect. "But Dynamic 
Quality cannot be part of any cause and effect system since all cause and 
effect systems are static patterns." (LC, Note 56)  

Regards,
Platt