Hi David,

If consciousness is the ability to respond to DQ, would this make
consciousness sq, or is it DQ responding to DQ?  Or is it something
completely different?

When we respond to DQ, does this form consciousness or is consciouness
something we use to create a response to DQ?  What is the nature of
this response, is it simply ability?

If consciousness is an ability, what is it that gives home to that
ability?  That is, what uses that ability?

Just a few questions to start this off.

Mark

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.
>>
> 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
> 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