[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

Hi Alexander,


> **Alexander**
>
> But what, then, is the interpreter? I wrote in an offshoot from this
> discussion about the difference between consciousness and conscious
> experience.  "Cogito ergo sum" is invalid, because consciousness isn't what
> thinks, but what listens to the thought. So this thought which says "I
> think, thus I am" is an intellectual pattern of experience - quality if you
> like.
> But you can't really say what this consciousness is, because it seem
> somehow
> to be generated by the central nervous system. But this invariant "self" is
> really a not-I, when it isn't filled up with experience. In an empty state
> it seizes somehow to be, and you become unconscious. So this "self"
> corresponds to any-thing which it perceives or to no-thing at all.
>

 The interpreter could be designated to the brain/body.  This would conform
to Ham's vehicle of differentiation.  Thought would be in this sense an
interpretation.  Within this forum it could be an interpretation of static
quality.  Once it becomes converted into thought, I believe it is still a
manifestation of Quality, but interpreted, and thus forms what could be
described as a level.

So, indeed, where does that leave the 'self'?  This has been designated by
many philosophies as non-existent in a physical way.  However, we know that
it exists.  The ghost in the machine if you will.  So we revert back to the
dichotomy of mind/matter as being real.  There are those which subscribe to
materialism.  There are many offshoots of this, science being one.  In these
philosophies, everything springs from the material, and there is nothing
more.  Following this path, one can project that it should be possible to
create an android which has the sense of self.  I am reminded of a movie
made from a Philip Dick book called Blade Runner.  It is also presented by
Alan Turing as an immortality test.  For whatever reason, the premise is not
intuitive.  As if we know something more than what science presents.  As you
propose, I do not relegate the mind to the brain which is physical (sorry
Descartes).  Nor is it relegated to what the brain creates for that is just
electrochemical to an observer.  It is what this electrochemical messaging
means to the individual.  Quality ascribes to meaningfulness.

The yin and yang also represent a dichotomy in a way.  If we use this
symbol, there is an equal interplay with mind and matter.  As such, there
should perhaps be an attempt at balance between the two.  This is what
Buddhist philosophy preaches and can be found in Zen.  This approach could
also be used for MOQ.  There seems to be a strong weight on the side of
empiricism, which can be considered somewhat material.  But the experience
of Quality has much which is non-material.  Thus the seeking of a balance
must look outside the completely rational, and then translate it in whatever
way to the rational.  This can be done with descriptive analogies or
concepts.  Such concepts paint a picture of, but do not contain the what is.

Your use of reverse entropy is an interesting approach, I believe Pirsig
also brings this in.  As such, it requires the theories of physics to be
meaningful, which is entered into on agreement.  But it does provide a
source for building.  At a basic level, negative entropy contains the
principles of attraction and self-assembly.  I find the concept of "self"
assembly interesting as well.  There is a self which assembles itself.  Or,
does the self exist before the assembly?  What is providing the template or
design for self assembly?  Many would say that if it works it stays, but I
do find that to be teleological, and not pointing anywhere.

We can accept such self assembly all the way back to the gene and DNA, I
suppose, through simple cause and effect.  However, it is difficult to go
beyond there, and must use some physics hand-waving such as forces and such.
 Are these forces which eventually result in a human being directional in
themselves?  If they are not, then where does the direction come from?  One
can of course speak of accidents.  But something has to have an accident.

There has been discussion using physics principles which include negative
entropy, such as the presence of wells in an energy diagram which life then
falls into.  Of course it is all good fun in the creation of a metaphysics.

Cheers,
Mark

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
>