[MD] The hard question.

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Carl  [Dan quoted]  --

And thanks for calling attention to a fundamental question of metaphysics.

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Carl Thames <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:
> I don't know how it came up, but recently I stumbled across
> what's known as "The Hard Question" about consciousness.
> Specifically, that question is how consciousness arises from
> inorganic material. Our brains and bodies are made up of chemicals,
> etc. and yet from those inert chemicals we get consciousness,
> until we die, then we become inorangic material again as we
> break down through the process of decay. What would the MOQ
> have to say about that? Anybody know?

It's not so much that the question is "hard" as that resolving it requires 
us to understand Consciousness (or what I call "sensible awareness") as 
something different than a "material substance".  Of course the classical 
philosophers recognized this; but with the rise of Darwinism and objective 
science, conscious sensibility has become a product of biological evolution. 
Anything else is considered a throwback to religious spiritualism.

I find it strange to see Dan trying to explain consciousness as arising 
"from the Dynamic interplay of all four levels of evolutionary existence," 
inasmuch as all that "exists" is material being ("patterns") except for 
Quality which, according to the MoQ dogma, is indefinable in its ultimate 
form.  Since reality for the qualityist is "what exists", consciousness is 
treated as an existent produced by evolution.  This poses a paradox for all 
who insist that consciousness must be a derivative of matter -- especially 
Mr. Pirsig for whom the notion of a "subjective agent" destroys the concept 
of a monistic DQ.

A little later, Dan quotes Pirsig (Phaedrus) as saying: "There's nothing 
vague about a
value judgment.  When a voter goes to the polling booth he's making a value 
judgment. What's so vague about that?"

Exactly!  And, since value judgments are "consciously made", there's nothing 
vague or ambiguous about consciousness, either.  It should be noted that 
much of what we value
is non-substantive in nature.  For example, Love, Joy, Beauty, Freedom, 
Justice, Reason and Harmony are neither chemicals nor materials, yet the 
value we feel for them is the essence of our most powerful experiences and 
ideas.  But if we don't acknowledge the conscious subject as anything but 
voltaic interaction between a few neurons and a cluster of brain cells, we 
deny both the sensible locus and agency of conscious awareness.

A philosophy founded on Sensibility can account for creation, existence, 
individuality, contrariety, experience -- even the meaning of life.  On the 
other hand, a philosophy dependent on evolution is mired in a space/time 
ontology from which only objcctivism
offers any hope of escape.

Thanks, gentlemen.  I await a roundup of retorts from the usual suspects.

Essentially yours,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Hey Carl

According to the MOQ consciousness doesn't arise from inorganic
material... it arises from the Dynamic interplay of all four levels of
evolutionary existence. Biological patterns of quality (like the
brain) arise from inorganic patterns. They share little other than an
evolutionary history... in fact, biological patterns can be seen as at
odds with inorganic patterns, subsuming them for their own use.

Social patterns of quality arise from biological patterns. These
patterns cannot be seen. Unlike inorganic and biological patterns,
social patterns of quality exist in the mind. Take the President of
the United States as an example: there is no way to examine President
Obama and determine that he is the President. The fact that he holds
office is a social pattern, one with which we are all familiar. But
there is nothing to his person that indicates he is any different than
any other man.

Intellectual patterns of quality arise from social patterns. We are
all ensconced in the culture that we inhabit. That culture informs our
ideas of the world. Our response to Dynamic Quality is filtered
through our ideas, our perceptions of the world as we know it to be.
In the MOQ Dynamic Quality is seen as synonymous with experience.

So in answer to your question, it seems clear that we do not become
inert chemicals when we die... we are inert chemicals to start with.
Consciousness does not magically imbibe those chemicals with life...
they are still inert chemicals being made use of by biological
patterns.

Does this help answer your question?

Thank you,

Dan