[MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 1

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,
I have no problem with your stipulation.  We cannot feel or understand the
consciousness of level three, just as the cells of our body cannot
intuit the consciousness of the whole body (brain included).  However,
we can perhaps discern purposeful behavior.  That is, behavior that
has choice.  I know the linguistic pitfalls this includes.  But glossing over
that, a cell in the body has choices in its expression.  The human body
has choices in its expression, and so by analogy, the societal consciousness
has choices as well.  We cannot comprehend the active process or
consciousness awareness of either of these two levels, but must assume
that it exists, just as we assume our own consciousness exists.  

I am beginning to understand your ontology, but still have a hard time
understanding that sensibility is only confined to the biological individual.
That is, a proprietary sensibility or consciousness that only humans can have.
Or, for example, only a human with all his faculties.  These faculties can
be divided and reduced until nothing is left, there is no core.  There is no reason
not to extend the analogy to any system or system of systems and
allow the same negation to be in place.

While behavior is not consciousness just as a river is not gravity, I would
say that it is a manifestation of consciousness.

Cheers,
Willblake2

On Oct 28, 2009, at 10:06:32 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
From:   "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 1
Date:   October 28, 2009 10:06:32 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

On Wednesday, 10/28/09 2:34 AM, "markhsmit" wrote to All:.


> Social consciousness is unfelt by us, but we can tell that it does
> form a consciousness by observing that it does have behavior.
> What it is actually thinking can only be roughly deduced.

One of the mistakes we make in categorizing our world is to equate 
consciousness with "behavior." This is an intellectual form of animism. A 
computer, an automobile, a bouncing ball, and the climate exhibit behavior, 
but they do not have consciousness. Consciousness is not measured 
objectively and can only be affirmed (subjectively) by the "knower".

The collective behavior of mankind is social history. Collective knowledge 
is defined as intelligence, not "intellect". It is important that we 
distinguish euphemisms (i.e, reifications) like "the collective 
consciousness" and "social intellect" from cognizant awareness which is 
proprietary to the individual. Philosophers who fail to make this 
distinction are deluded by a flawed epistemology which, I regret to say, is 
the basis for the MoQ levels hierarchy.

Essentially speaking,
Ham


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/