From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Sep 14 2004 - 23:35:30 BST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
> Mel,
>
> >
> > [Scott prev:]
> > It is a myth that the MOQ has dissolved the mind/matter debates. It has
> > appeared to have done so only be redefining some words so that the
debates
> > can no longer be adequately expressed. This is what materialism does,
> except
> > the MOQ has added the word "quality", so that anything mysterious can be
> > said to be done by DQ. which is no more help than saying it is done by
> God.
> >
> > mel:
> > I think it would be more accurate to say that the mind/matter
distinction
> > was a myth in the first place. It is an example of paradoxical
reasoning
> > where one can state a formal definition of non-sense and pretend that
> > it means something. Since mythical understanding is the allegory or
> > analog pattern of explanation used in much of thought and education
> > we can say alternatively one can take general simplified notions of
> > poorly understood phenomena and pretend enough comprehension
> > to speak athoritatively.
>
Scott> Unless you can give me a nuts and bolts explanation of how intellect
> (complete with reflective consciousness, universals, etc.) came into being
> from a universe that didn't have any of this (which is what the MOQ
claims)
> then there is a mind/matter distinction. I don't believe such an
> explanation exists, so in fact I agree that there are not two substances,
> one called mind and one called matter. Rather, I believe that intellect is
> primordial, and that it expresses itself dualistically. So my complaint
> with the MOQ is not that I think that SOM is really true, rather my
> complaint is that the MOQ has ignored some things about mentality, and it
> does so because it continues a SOM-based bit of nonsense called
nominalism.
> This is the belief that ideas/universals exist only in humans, yet it
> offers no explanation of how humans came to have universals.
mel:
From and ontological POV, I wasn't there and can't say, obviously,
but from an "Information Universe" POV, consciousness is simply
the demonstrated effect of anything/everything else on a point-
of-view-now. In a particle struck by another particle, it is the new
direction and resultant vector, in a human it is a more complex
set of effects and an emergent-emergent system of vastly greater
possibilities and memory than the particle.
>
> >
<snip>>
> >
>
> >
> > What is the origin of language?
> > Awareness precedes language, which is merely an accretive
> > specialized example of abstracted currency.
>
Scott> This is nominalism, which I reject. Where did the ability to abstract
come
> from? It is irreducible, and presupposes universals. So language is
> aboriginal.
mel:
Abstraction is simply the mind modeling experience to try and
"test" the apprehension of functional meaning, mostly, sometimes
other meaning, attributes, or qualities is sought for...language is simply
one technology developed to share the results, of this modeling.
Other techniques include "showing" "artistic expression"...
>
> >
> > Why does thinking and feeling seem to come from "within" (to be "me")
> while
> > sense perception seems to come from "without" (to be caused by "not
me")?
> > In many people's earliest memories, there was no distinction
between
> > within and without. That is a learned distinction, both a mirror
and
> > words teach this. Within is always from your point of view at the
> > moment of experience and memory, without is your ability to
> > abstract from the now and approximate elseness in relation to your
> > point of view. (All of this is as you apprehend. The rest of the
> > universe exists when you do not remember, as do you. - sleep ]
>
Scott> Whom does it teach? I will grant that there exists consciousness that
does
> not concern itself with me/not-me. Adult human consciousness, however,
> does, and if it didn't there would be no intellect, no ability to reflect
> on SQ. So I see adult human existence as, in some very moderate degree
> fulfilling intellect, that our intellects are repeating on a very small
> scale the Intellect that makes realities.
mel: Whom? You and who knows what else participating...a god
wouldn't need intellect, assuming omniscence, because intellect
is for "figuring it out".
> >
> > Why does simply thinking that subject/object dualism is "just a static
> > pattern of intellectual value" not allow one to dissolve the difference
> > between me and not-me?
> > In most cases when you say or think "me" you are holding
> > an entire learned set of "me-ness" rules and social functions,
> > rather than simply the pure consciousness of your-point-of-
> > view-now, just as you are holding the learned set of SOM
> > rules and definitions.
> > Sometimes, rarely, you can lay it all down and BE without
> > the baggage. [lots of names and descriptions of this...]
>
Scott> You can do the same thing with a lobotomy. Pure consciousness is of
no use
> except for a bit of blissfulness. See Franklin Merrell-Wolff as an example
> of a mystic who went beyond it, and reports all of existence as being
> fundamentally noetic.
mel: Lobotomy is a trivial example and not quite right as it
only cuts one way, so to speak. The "L'd" cannot choose to
act and take up the set of rules at will. The perfect swing at
the pitch, the hole-in-one shot, the exact pass threaded
between defendersetc, are often examples of laying down
the baggage momentarily.
<snip>
> > Is mind identical to the brain (or: can there be mind, or consciousness,
> > without a brain)?
> > Nope! [not for humans that can exists as "normals"]
>
Scott> I don't understand which question your "nope" is the answer to, nor
the bit
> in brackets.
mel: Sorry, "Nope!" is mind-brain not being equal.
The brackets simply express that for humans, as humans in
any meaningfully human way we need brains to be human.
A physical, high functioning brain is needed to model the
remembered experience, communicate symbolically, and
laugh, which is part of the processes giving rise to what we
perceive as mind.
<snip>
> >
> [Scott:]> (And yes, I acknowledge that I don't have answers to these
> questions either,
> > at least ones that can be expressed without violating the law of the
> > excluded middle, or without questioning the absoluteness of time. My
> > position (borrowed from Peirce, Coleridge, Barfield, Nishida, etc.) is
> that
> > the answers require polarity, or contradictory identity. That subject
and
> > object arise together, that each defines the other as it negates the
> other.)
> >
> > mel:
> > Slot screwdriver doesn't work well in Phillip's head...
>
Scott> Please explain how this applies.
mel: Sorry! Sometimes "old tools" are not going to
fit exactly, or in our case, old thought models must
be recognized as patterned for certain problems
and not quite fit for others.
It's all about the assumptions...
Thanks for making me think...makes my ha'pence
worth of comprehension imagine itself powerful
enough to blow up a soap bubble.
thanks--mel
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 14 2004 - 23:40:05 BST