[MD] The hard answer.

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The hard answer.


> Hi Carl,
> First a clarification.  My Ph.D is in biotechnology.  I dropped out of
> the "brain sciences" because I went over the waterfall while trying to
> do that.  It took a while to recover.
>
> In terms of defining human consciousness, I assume you are looking for
> a working definition that can be used within MoQ, rather than some
> philosophical discourse on what consciousness is.  We all know what
> consciousness is, if we didn't, we would be unconscious.

"Objection, your Honor.  Assumes facts not in evidence."

Can we logically say that we're conscious?  We can say that we percieve 
conscentual reality in accordance with the accepted view of conscentual 
reality, but we have no realistic way of knowing that what we are perceiving 
is real.  In fact, according to something I read recently, we don't actually 
"see" what's there, we see a general pattern, and our brain fills in the 
missing data points to present what we "THINK" is there.  It's why you can 
pass something for years, and suddenly realize that there is one aspect of 
it that you'd never noticed before.  Upon reflection, there are numerous 
examples of people doing things that are directly contrary to continued 
survival, (driving erratically, taking stupid chances, smoking, etc.) which 
indicates to me that, using my own definition, they have no ability to 
project consequences beyond the immediate.  Therefore, they are not 
conscious.  A dog is not conscious using this definition.  I seriously doubt 
that a dog will sit around and wonder when they're going to get their next 
"fetch" command.  Their interest and attention is in the present "now" 
however they conscieve that "now" to be.  Interestingly, this presents a 
strong argument for free will.  We have the ability to make a choice, even 
though it may be a bad one.  A dog doesn't make that kind of choice, I don't 
think.  They react.  Using your definition, a dog is also not conscious, 
since they have no point of self-reference other than a reaction to direct 
stimulation.  They know pain, hunger, etc., but beyond that?  I don't think 
so.

> I would suggest a working definition as follows:
> Human consciousness is the ability to form SQ out of DQ, in a manner
> which can self-analyze; this consciousness represents an amalgamation
> of all four levels, coupled in such a way as to provide distinct and
> fathomless individual viewpoints.

Again with the individual thing.  Hmm, I wonder about that.  Doesn't that 
imply that we're all creating our own little realities, all the time? 
Clearly, we are NOT created equally.  You have biological aspects that are 
different from my biological aspects, we were raised differently and have 
different outlooks on many things, we're received different training, etc. 
etc.  Our "four levels" will be different.  That's DQ, for sure, in that 
there is nothing identifiably static about it.  And yet, we are similar 
enough that we can agree on many things.  Those would be static things, 
wouldn't they?  We can agree that a "nice day" has specific characteristics, 
based on our previous experiences of "nice day" yet even within that we 
could have significant differences.  i.e. my definition of "nice day" might 
include a clearing in the woods, while yours may include a sandy beach with 
waves rolling in.  We have the same reaction to the concept of "nice day" 
though.  I like your idea of "self-analyze".  The ability to look within is 
a key component of consciousness, IMHO.

> There, that is objectified.  It does not include that place from where
> we observe, for that is not part of the levels, it IS Quality.

Au contraire.  The self-analyze part is exactly the point from which we 
observe, isn't it?  Isn't what you're saying that we don't experience, 
perceive, whatever, quality until it whacks us in the brain?  I don't have a 
problem with that idea, other than we do need to be aware enough to 
recognize that we're having an experience.  Beyond that point, the rest 
applies.  We evaluate the experience and come to an intellectual decision 
based on the other stuff.  From that point of view, there is no such thing 
as objective, though.

Your thoughts?

Carl