[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

I think consciousness is ability to respond to DQ. What's wrong with this

definition?


I find it difficult to separate ourselves from DQ in that way.  As I
see it, our consciousness is DQ in action.  We cannot isolate
ourselves from a DQ world, in my opinion.  It presents a false
dichotomy as far as I can tell.


Well imho - here is the whole perspective issue once again.  From the
perspective of DQ you're right. The sq DQ division is a false dichotomy.
But here we are talking about things, so from this everyday sq perspective
the DQ sq dichotomy is not false in fact it is a very good distinction and
explains fundamental reality very accurately.


If we use a waterfall analogy, consciouness is the water falling.  The
incomming sensory input is the river leading up to the fall.  The
drop-off at the cliff is our ability to generate consciousness.
However, this ability is a dynamic process and is fully imbued with
DQ.


Here you seem to be equating DQ with change. DQ isn't 'change'.

Consciousness could possibly be separated from memory, which would
imply that consciouness could only exist in the present moment in a
timeless dimension.  We can be conscious of a memory, as in
consciously remembering.  Hmm... the word conscious is begining to
look awfully weird to me.  I had better stop here.


I think a good way to look at consciousness is in the area of AI on
computers. Computers can recollect ideas and information for us so in one
sense if 'recollection' is all that consciousness is then computers are
conscious. But this to me isn't the best perspective of consciousness. When
we say something is conscious we actually mean that thing can respond to
DQ, that is; it can respond to undefined betterness and improve the ideas
it already has. Computers cannot do this without human intervention so by
this definition computers aren't conscious.

I am always open to ideas on con-shessness,


Okay what do you think of the simple definition I offered?

-David