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

[markhsmit]

Ham,
I think your concept of a coin having no choice is simply an
issue of relative time domain.  For example, slow down
the single flip of a flipping coin so that it takes 100 years to
occur.  During that time (also in slow motion) there is rapid
particle exchange, graviton assimilation, electron probability
dispersion, strong nuclear force dynamics.  In each case, the
probability of each of these occurrences is say 50:50, but
something swings the balance each time to one side.  At every
second (in this hundred years), there is something happening
which tilts the balance to one event or another.  Right along
that razor's edge things could fall one way or another, what 
is shifting the balance?  Could this well be free will asserting
itself during this long long flip?

Speed the life of a man up so that 100 years is less than one
second.  Born/Dead.  Where was the choice in that life?
Sounds like the single flip of a coin to me.

Willblake2


On Oct 29, 2009, at 2:02:49 PM, "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 29, 2009 2:02:49 PM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

Hey, Ron --



Ham had said:
A tossed coin has the "choice" of landing heads or tails, but it isn't 
conscious of this choice. Living cells ingest and exude foreign matter to 
survive and undergo mitosis according to the laws of genetics, not by 
choice. One cannot assume consciousness in single-cell organisms or plants 
simply from the manifestation of change, even if such changes serve a useful 
purpose.

Then he turns on a dime:
This is not to say that the processes of nature are not purposeful or 
intelligently designed, but only that their "purpose" and "design" is a 
valuistic precept of our intellect. This has to be the case if, as I 
maintain, experience creates the universe.

> I have to ask, which is it? first you say choice isn't cognizant then you 
> do.

I don't see the contradiction in my statements, unless you are questioning 
my use of the word "choice" for the rolling of dice or flipping coins. 
(Okay, that's a euphemism for non-conscious behavior.)
"Choices" as they apply to the behavior of inanimate objects relate to 
"chance", of course, and are determined by the laws of probability.

The "choice" (or likelihood) of a biological cell to divide or retreat (for 
survival) is programmed into it genetically. Instinct, which predisposes 
animals to certain kinds of behavior is also a genetic control mechanism, 
although animals possess rudimentary awareness and may exibit individual 
preferences for food or comfort.

"Free choice" is different, however, in that it is unique to human beings 
and always conscious. It allows actions that often are opposed to 
biological instinct or the laws of survival. And it affords man the power 
to change or create his environment anew and establish laws of 
interrelational conduct which are conducive to civilization.

So, where's the contradiction, Ron?

--Ham

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

On 10/28/09 at 3:48 PM, "markhsmit" wrote to 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.

A tossed coin has the "choice" of landing heads or tails, but it isn't 
conscious of this choice. Living cells ingest and exude foreign matter to 
survive and undergo mitosis according to the laws of genetics, not by 
choice. One cannot assume consciousness in single-cell organisms or plants 
simply from the manifestation of change, even if such changes serve a useful 
purpose. This is not to say that the processes of nature are not purposeful 
or intelligently designed, but only that their "purpose" and "design" is a 
valuistic precept of our intellect. This has to be the case if, as I 
maintain, experience creates the universe.

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "confined to the biological individual." What 
other individual is there?
I do not disallow the fact that an ant or an earthworm is an individual, 
although I have no way of knowing what its consciousness amounts to. It 
would appear that its behavior is directed by the survival instinct innate 
to all living organisms. I suppose the response mechanisms of brainless 
creatures could be considered "conscious" behavior, although biological 
instinct does not support freedom of choice, value realization, and 
reasoning which are necessary for cognitively-directed behavior.

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

You present a good argument, Mark. However, I would say that "manifestation" 
is another word for "appearance", and there is no empirical means by which 
we can confirm the presence of consciousness from an organism's behavior. 
Frankly, I'm more inclined to regard the appearance of an organism as a 
manifestation of OUR consciousness.

Cheers,
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/