Gav,
I'm afraid I'm more pessimistic about the possibility of MoQ making an
entry into the academic mainstream, and that for the reason that the
change in viewpoint is too radical for an academic to maintain (there
would be exceptions, but they would be marginalized). This in part is
that the introduction of MoQ would be seen as an introduction of
religion, and that is a no-no, at least in US academia (and, I think, in
the UK, don't know about Australia or elsewhere). Look at Glenn's recent
claim that the MoQ can open the door to belief in cults and whatnot to
get an idea of the reaction.
- Scott
gavin gee-clough wrote:
>
> thanks for the thoughtful reply scott,
>
> i agree that chalmers and dennett's approaches are both fruitless. i
> guess the point i was getting at is that the MoQ sorts chalmers out by
> dissolving the 'hardest problem' whilst reinforcing the irreducibilty
> and ontological priority of experience (Consciousness/Quality). it
> seems to me that this neat solution may be a possible entry route for
> the MoQ into the academic mainstream.
>
> granted the dissolution of the hard problem requires a shift in
> perspective - and this is never a quick and easy thing - but this is
> the whole point isn't it?
>
> gav
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive -
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries -
> horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
> instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:56 BST