[MD] Social level for humans only

[MarshaV]

On Aug 28, 2010, at 5:19 AM, David Thomas wrote:

> On 8/27/10 10:25 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> Marsha before:
>>      If you are comparing and contrasting Chalmers' ideas against RMP's
>>      concerning consciousness, what are you using as RMP's ideas; he's
>>      said very little directly?
> 
> I would ask you to go back an read the "Consciousness & the MoQ" thread but
> that would do little good as always seem to happen here bit and pieces get
> buried all over the place. The point I started out with is exactly the point
> you end your sentence with, "what are you using as RMP's ideas; he's
> said very little directly?"  Upon starting Chambers' book "The Conscious
> Mind" I read the introduction and the thought occurred to me, "Hey he is
> talking about some things that might apply to the MoQ. I wonder what RMP
> specifically says about "consciousness." So I opened the electronic copy of
> Lila that you so graciously gave me and did a word search and found (just
> like you if you have) that he uses the word very little. Because DMB is in
> graduate school and writing a thesis on Pirsig's work I specifically and
> directly ask DMB the question, "What does Pirsig have to say about
> "consciousness?" After much hemming, hawing, and shuffling of feet over a
> week later in a completely different thread he replies like this:


Dave,

You responded to a post I directed at Adrie. You stated that the thread was 
comparing and contrasting ideas about consciousness.  Since you did state 
a while back that RMP's direct statements concerning consciousness were 
sparse, I wanted to know what you were using on RMP's part for the 'comparing 
and contrasting'.  Not an unworthy request, certainly not a request that deserved 
such ridicule for asking.  Please forgive me if educating dmb is not on the top of 
my agenda.   

---

I might think that science too is a belief system, but one with checks and 
balances built in, or so it is thought.  


Marsha  







> 
>> [ DMB in the Social Level thread]
>> The MOQ says that even subatomic particles can express preferences and greater
>> and greater degrees of consciousness unfold throughout the whole evolutionary
>> process. In that sense, consciousness extends from the big bang to the
>> formation of physics professors. Even DQ itself is a non-conceptual awareness.
>> Can you think of anything about the MOQ that doesn't involve consciousness? I
>> can't.
> 
>> To which Platt responded with this:
>> Answering the question, "Do atoms experience?" Pirsig wrote:
>> 
>> "I think the answer is that inorganic objects experience events but do not
>> react to them biologically socially or intellectually.  They react to these
>> experiences inorganically, according to the laws of physics." (LS,30)
> 
> You have what RMP says about "consciousness" in Lila, you have DMB's
> interpretation, and you have another RMP quote that Platt dug up. So take
> your pick.
> 
> Do you believe that quarks have experiences? Are they conscious of that
> experience? Is that what Pirsig is saying? If so how does he know this? Is
> that a good thing to believe?
> 
> Chalmers would answer no to all the above questions. But that does not mean
> that he is right and Pirsig is wrong. What do you believe?  Believing in the
> blue answers above falls into the exact same category as your belief or non
> belief in God. This is not a matter of science, but one of belief.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___