[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Joe

26 March:

Bo before:
> But it's here I think the MOQ can open up new paths - for
> instance to Artificial Intelligence - a field which is completely
> stalled inside SOM that requires computers to wake up to
> consciousness, something that won't happen because this is a result of
> the social level that resulted in the intellectual level where
> consciousness exist as the said S/O pattern - consciousness/what it's 
> conscious of . A detached awareness - a "Brain in a Vat" (E.A. Poe)
> does not exist.

Joe comments: 
> In the excerpt of the statement above the first paragraph accepts an
> explanation of evolution to existential levels. Consciousness is
> equated to value.  Perhaps I am just misreading it.  Does
> ³consciousness² have to be subject/object?  Is there a reality of
> ³consciousness² all by itself?  What is the dynamic? How is the social
> level defined?

The MOQ says that we till now have lived inside the SOM, 
consequently the concept "consciousness" is a SOM product. I 
bet you can go through Homer's "The Iliad" and/or the Old 
Testament (pre-intellect - social level - books) without finding 
references to consciousness the said concept did not exist at that 
time. 

At first glance consciousness sounds like a state - that of being 
aware -  but upon closer examination it is a S/O derivative 
"subjective consciousness/the objects it is conscious of" and if 
the MOQ is to replace SOM (transcend intellect) it 
(consciousness) will not retain this god-like quality, but will 
become each level's perception of its respective value. 

> IMO consciousness survives very well in the MOQ on its own as the
> social level.  Evolution moves from the social level to the
> intellectual level of law.  

Yes, value consciousness will survive, but the disembodied 
"Brain in the Vat" awareness is clearly a SOM myth. Look, Joe, 
almost all creatures sleep and must necessarily wake up to a 
reality different from oblivion, and for animals that reality is the 
biological one, as rich and many-splendored as the social and 
intellectual. The issue of awareness has been a pain in the ---  for 
SOM-based philosophy, also here the MOQ provides a better 
understanding.    

What you mean by "from the social level to the intellectual level 
of law" I don't understand.

> If the intellectual level is not distinguished from AI as evolution
> then evolution stops.  The awareness in language becomes indiscernible.
>  The credibility of evolution is challenged  and value returns to being
> a commodity.  

Most cryptic dear Joe (send me your decipher code ;) I haven't 
got a clue what these things mean, "awareness of language" for 
instance. Anyway, I repeat that intellect's mistake is to believe 
that computers (if/when sophisticated enough) will wake up and 
think: "Ah, I'm a computer". This will never happen because 
consciousness (in THAT role) is a hoax.
 

Bo