[MD] Consciousness

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,


>> Platt:
>>> 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)
>>
>> Steve:
>> The point Pirsig makes with the above is simply that social and
>> intellectual patterns cannot exist without biological and inorganic
>> patterns. Intellectual patterns evolve out of social patterns which
>> evolve out of biological patterns. New thoughts only happen in the 
>> same
>> way that all other thoughts evolved--on the shoulders of lower level
>> patterns. Biologically killing a person is not merely the destruction
>> of a biological pattern but also the destruction of a source of ideas.
>>
>> But anyway, something about this whole line of discussion seems wrong
>> to me. We start with experience is Quality and see experience in terms
>> of dynamic and static aspects of Quality including recognizing
>> ourselves as an experiencing subject as an idea, an intellectual
>> pattern that is part of the static aspect of Quality. Then from the
>> perspective of experiencing subjects we identify other objects like
>> rocks and classify them as inorganic patterns and ask if they
>> experience, too. We are no longer in the perspective of radical
>> empiricism when we ask ourselves what it must be like to be a rock. In
>> fact, we are about as far removed from that perspective as imaginable.
>> We are trying to figure out if a rock's experience is also DQ/sq. The
>> question itself seems to me to be outside the MOQ perspective and may
>> need to be unasked. Then there is the pragmatic maxim: what are the
>> consequences of believing that a rock's experience is DQ/sq versus 
>> only
>> sq?
>
Platt:
> Asking if a rock experiences is a category error. Rocks are heaps 
> incapable
> of experiencing, not wholes like atoms and cells which can experience 
> at
> their own levels.
>


If it makes more sense to you, substitute "atom" for "rock." All the 
questions remain.

Regards,
Steve