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

[X Acto]

Hey, Ham--



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?

Ron:
I saw contradiction in that you describe percieved phenomena as having no relation to 
cognizant choice
then say all perception is created by cognizant awareness, so in a way, all phenomena
chance or choice, is an interpretation of a cognizant awareness, therefore "chance"
certainly is cognizant.

But there certainly seems to be  types of cognizant awareness, the cognizance of
experience and the cognizance of understanding. It could be argued they are one 
in the same as it relates to the point I'm trying to make about percieved phenomena.