Hi David,

On 2/2/12, David Harding <davidjharding@gmai...> wrote:
> 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.

Regards,
Mark
>
> -David
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html