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

Thu Oct 29 12:09:29 PDT 2009

On 10/28/09 at 11:53 PM, "markhsmit" wrote to Ham:

> It is difficult for me to really see the difference between what we as
> humans do, and what a cell does. Break it down, our choices are
> dictated by need. Our action in this manifestation is purely directed
> by negation. Do we have a choice there?
> I am not a determinist, in fact, I believe choices exist at all levels not
> just our individual human level. What is so different about our existence
> and that of a cell. ...

To speak of conscious awareness occurring at an "aggregate level" that we 
(as individuals) do not comprehend is to promote a fantasy, in my opinion. 
Human desire and creativity are "sparked" by value-sensibility which is 
infinitely deeper than the fear, rage, and hunger instincts that drive 
animal behavior.

> OK, what is it about the brain that is different from a worm?
> What is different that suddenly creates a consciousness which
> nothing else can have? Yes, it creates a human consciousness.
> If we are only talking about human consciousness, then I have
> no argument. I am speaking of Consciousness in a Quality
> kind of way. What freedom of choice do we have that a worm does not?

According to WikiAnswers, an earthworm's brain consists of the celebral 
ganglion which is connected to the rest of the body through the ventral 
nerve cord.  No mention is made of consciousness.  One must assume that the 
worm's "awareness" amounts to sensory information received along the nerve 
cord, and that its behavior is the automatic response to this data 
programmed into its motor nerve endings.

> Show me where we have gained some kind of divine power to
> manifest ourselves in a Godlike fashion where we are so different.
> Bo speaks of the divine spark (or Something like that). Please
> give me your attribution of this divine spark. All that I see is a
> bundle of cells, organized in a manner which preserves and creates.
> At what point is this sudden humanness expressed, as soon as we
> are born, in the womb, in the sperm or egg? ...

I avoid such euphemisms as "divine power" and "divine spark" because they 
are not non-descriptive and unnecessary.  Besides, I don't view conscious 
awareness as either "divine" or metaphysically essential, since the essence 
of consciousness is Value -- the relational value of otherness perceived as 
being.  Consciousness is entirely dependent on its content for "selfness" to 
exist.  Being-aware is value sensibility experientially transferred to the 
individual locus of a being-in-the-world.  The individuated self (subject) 
becomes an independent "being" that relates to a reality of its own making 
(i.e., otherness represented as a dynamic system of finite objects). 
Precisely "when" this occurs in the biological life cycle is an existential 
question inasmuch as life is a process perceived in time.  From a 
metaphysical POV the "becoming of self-awareness" is constant.

> Yes, we interpret the input of something that details an organism and
> create a consciousness about it. The worm does the same for us. Don't
> confuse complexity or knowledge (whatever that is, a few more neurons?)
> with consciousness. How many brain cells does it take to be conscious?
> As many as it takes I suppose.
>
> We serve a purpose in the status quo, the potential energy well
> that we find ourselves in this universe.  From a perspective of us
> similar to our perspective of ours of the worm, we have no free will.

I respectfully disagree.

What distinguishes the human being from other animals is its ability not 
only to react to this multiplistic  environment but to adapt it to its 
individual and collective needs.  Unlike instinctual creatures, man 
"recreates" the world around him structurally, aesthetically, morally, and 
intellectually to enhance his well-being, knowledge, communication, and 
productivity, thereby elevating his life and that of his species beyond the 
strictures of a natural habitat.  Through the exercise of rationality and 
free choice
man controls the world by understanding it and making it serve him.  No 
other living entity has this freedom and the ability to act on it.  I don't 
think you can find any other creature, on this planet at least, that comes 
close to fashioning and improving its life-experience in this unique manner.

Best regards,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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/