[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[John Carl]

Hi Marsha,

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:04 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> John,
>
> How do you know?  What is your evidence?  How can you be sure that
> consciousness is nothing other than language?
>
>
>
Well, as all these things boil down to how you define them, I suppose it all
depends on how you define consciousness, and how you define language.  So
since I'm obviously defining language as consciousness, then I don't need
evidence so much as more explanation of what I mean by language.

As I define it, language is codified information, and, as per my recent
exchange with Adrie and his take on information, all of reality is
information, consciousness is real, therefore, consciousness is information.

As far as evidence goes, all of  my experience is evidence that
consciousness is language.  The question I'd ask you is what evidence do you
have of any consciousness that is not language?  The line between
consciousness and non-consciousness  in MoQ terms, I'd put firmly in the
divide between inorganic and biological.  That is, dna has a language, which
allows for a rudimentary processing of input from the environment into
choices made in responding to that environment.  Thus, when an amoeba shirks
acid, it's "saying" in effect, "I don't like acid".  An amoeba's language
represents its consciousness of its environment.


> Marsha
>
>
> p.s.  I didn't mean the word 'only' in a pejorative way, but in a 'nothing
> other
> than way'.
>
> "nothing other than" is kinda pejorative, but not in a mean-spirited way
but a logically limiting way.

John