[MD] moq thought experiement 1.

[Heather Perella]

Ian,

    I don't want to speak for dmb, but how I read dmb's post was in the fashion of 'where will this thought-experiment lead us?'.  I discussed at length with Squonk about the real time participance.  If Squonk wants babies to be breed, industrailized, and technologically sustained without human parents, then it would seem Squonk is willing to go far with this.  If sensory experience is to be not good for dq experience, then dmb's comment was thoughtful.  If dq experience is the moral high ground we all agree upon, but the way to this dq experience is to rid sensory experience and find static patterns as a waste of time to be only something of a hurdle, well, isn't Squonk basically saying pluck out the eye-balls and rid the nose so we can have a better experience of dq?  I didn't find it to be a degenerative rhetorical comment by dmb, but a comment of conclusion if we follow this line of thinking that Squonk either is not providing enough for us to
 understand or we understand very well.  
     I also brought your name up to see if you wanted to provide something thoughtful about, apparently, something you came up in the first place and maybe we're all twisting it up in ways that you didn't intend.  


SA



SA previously:
> ok, thanks
> 
> SA
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 6/29/08, Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiement 1.
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 3:46 AM
> > Hi SA, I did yes.
> > The rhetoric I noticed when I said "I see what
> the
> > problem is" was in the
> > "plucking out babies eyes, etc" response
> from DMB
> > - all good fun. Whatever
> > Mark's thought experiment - I doubt such an idea
> > entered into it ?
> > (But I could be corrected, again.)
> > Ian
> > 
> > On 6/29/08, Heather Perella
> > <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ian:
> > > Thanks SA, I was just responding to that one
> reference
> > addressed to me.
> > > We need to be careful which parts remain a
> thought
> > experiment ;-) how we
> > > might put any parts into practice.
> > > Finding a child (with brain intact) in a feral /
> > natural state is one thing
> > > - or considering "if" one existed -
> however
> > creating one to experiment on
> > > would be another. The rhetoric blurred that.
> > >
> > >
> > > SA:  Ian, sorry I'm asking, but did you see
> the
> > post in which I responded
> > > to you about how Squonk introduced the babies. 
> No
> > rhetoric.  Didn't see any
> > > rhetoric.  If there was, could you point it out
> to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > SA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/