[MD] MOQ would seem to imply that above human intell

[Ham Priday]

Mary, Bo, Joe, All --

On 18 Apr, Mary had written:

> > What is consciousness?  Is it self-awareness?  If so, that would
> > imply ego. So, one could say that any entity that achieves the
> > concept of ego is self-aware and thus conscious. No?  At various
> > times in my life I've been given a paycheck to be a programmer.
> > Now all of those jobs are being off-shored to India or China, but
> > that is beside the point.  Does anyone have an "ego object" in
> > their Java toolkit (my preferred language since it has automatic
> > garbage collection, and is also platform independent in its own
> > little JVM)?
> > Is it open-source?  Can I download it somewhere?  We
> > programmers really hate reinventing the wheel, you know.

Bo replied:
> First about "consciousness" in the self-awareness sense is part of
> intellect-as-SOM's self-assured repertoire, indicating a god's-eye view,
> the ultimate knowledge.
>
> Then there is the physiological "conscious/unconscious" dichotomy,
> related to "awake/asleep", and here is an observation that I have
> forwarded many times without any reaction. All creatures sleep so
> when - say - a fish wakes up it must be to a state different from
> oblivion, IMO to the biological consciousness. An then there is a
> consciousness connected with all static levels, crowned by the Quality
> Consciousness

[Joe responded]:
> Imho it¹s a pile. DQ/SQ a description of evolution suggested by
> Pirsig to describe a metaphysics of the undefined/defined  logic.
> The defined for me is best described in a hierarchy in existence
> called evolution:
>
> 1. Inorganic,
> 2. Organic life 1: reproduction by cell-splitting,
> 3. Organic life 2: reproduction by penetration of the egg-call wall
> by a sperm-cell
>
> The undefined for me is best described as a hierarchy in existence
> of a further evolution of undefined consciousness (self-awareness).
> 4. DQ Consciousness evolves to an emotional/social level DQ only.
> 5. DQ Consciousness evolves to an intellectual level DQ/SQ.
> 6. DQ Consciousness evolves to a higher-emotional level, DQ only.
> 7. DQ Consciousness evolves to a higher-intellectual level, DQ only.
> (The last two levels are the high country of Heroes.) Esoteric literature
> is the basis of this schema for evolution.

Y'all have to do a better job than this if you expect to define 
Consciousness comprehensibly in MoQ terms.  No wonder Mary is confused!

Here is my definition:

Consciousness is the awareness of proprietary being by a living organism. 
It is the essence of "selfness" and includes both self-awareness and 
experiential awareness (i.e., otherness perceived in space/time as mediated 
by the brain).

Ego is a psychological term for "self esteem" or egocentricity, and is not a 
helpful synonym for the self.  I'm not sure what Mary means by "any entity 
that achieves the concept of ego," but if she is imputing conscious to 
machine intelligence, she is misguided.  So is Bo when he asserts that "a 
god's-eye view, the ultimate knowledge" is "part of intellect", which 
suggests a collective consciousness.  Knowledge is the intellectualized 
content of experiential awareness, but it is always proprietary to the 
individual self which is the locus of existential reality.

That may not fit the MoQ paradigm, but I think you'll agree that it's less 
complicated and more understandable.  I realize that Bo will complain that 
the above description is the despised "SOM" view, but so is Joe's attempt to 
parse consciousness into biological, physiological, emotional, social, and 
intellectual levels.  Consciousness is conscious awareness, not an evolution 
or level of Quality.
"The most important thing you will ever make is a realization," Mary reminds 
us.  So why can't we see that realization is simply the conscious awareness 
of some principle or aspect of our existence?
(I'll resist the temptation to answer that question, as it would upset the 
MOQ's staunch defenders.)

Essentially speaking,
Ham