[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?
> 
> I find it insufficient for the reasons I presented. If you would
> explain what you mean then perhaps I may feel differently. I am not
> sure your definition is so simple, since it begs many questions.
> 
I responded to all of your initial questions and comments giving my perspective. If you have any further questions then please, by all means, this is a philosophical discussion board, ask away!

-David