Hi Marco
I dissapeared for a while there. We've been moving to a house, still searching
for the mouse. Could it be in a box somewhere? :)
> Don't know if it's exclusive. But it's very MOQish, I guess. So do you agree
> that the "A" in "A.I." is superfluous?
Oh yes! It goes down the drain right along with the human-centric social level.
> Marco
> But this is the point. Bo is right: we are back into the map/terrain split.
> A false dilemma in my opinion. Experiencing is experiencing. Intellectually
> experiencing can't be separated from the "other ways", as you say.
Did I say that? Hmm... Well, I *do* think intellectual experience can be
separated from other. Just check the old "dropping an iron on the toe"-
trick and you'll find out. Never mind if Jonathan tells you not to, do it
anyway! :)
> I've
> explained this point in my last post to John B. Hope you read it. Let me
> know.
Yes, found it. In it, you said:
> My statement (".. when we start talking about something we can't experience
> we are actually experiencing it") bothered both you and Magnus
Well, it doesn't bother me as such. What I was concerned about was more
that you seemed to say that the MoQ is merely intellectual patterns.
For example, when you said that the "all in my head" truth and the
"distinct outer reality" truth were both hi-Q intellectual patterns, I thought
you said that they were *just* that and nothing else. Reading your post to
John calms me down a bit on that matter. Einsteing once said:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Same dilemma, right?
> Marco
> Absolutely not. I'm stating that science, and philosophy in general, is
> intellectual so all what we know thanks to philosophy is intellectual.
> Indeed, if the moq is right, there was and there is a 3-level reality (and
> DQ, of course) "before" our intellect... What reality I really am not sure.
> Tell me, are you sure that the current Big Bang theory will never be dropped
> for something better?
No, given our history of scientific truths, that would be rather presumptuous,
I guess. I just read on space.com about a new theory stating that black holes
aren't exactly black holes but very dense "gravastars". Empty inside but with
a very dense and thick shell. They also mentioned that our universe could be
the inside of such a giant gravastar...
> Intellect rebuilds reality into theories, ideas, maps.
> Knowing is creating an intellectual reality... but it's also participating
> to reality, firstly because the intellectual level is real, then because it
> influences the below levels: after the "real" theories on gravitation, a
> biological mammal known as homo sapiens is able to fly faster than sound up
> to the Moon. Not 'cause the theory is right or wrong: 'cause it's good and
> works. And the effects on the three below levels are clear. When I say that
> the world can't be separated from people it's because we can't, not because
> there is not a "real" world.
I'll get back to you if I find that proof. :)
Magnus
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 - 16:02:12 BST