From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Nov 03 2004 - 15:56:54 GMT
Mark,
> So let's limit our choices of metaphysics to SOM, MOQ, and the
> Metaphysics of Consciousness (MOC). Which is the most useful in
> explaining our experience of the world around us?
>
> For me, SOM is fine for dealing with scientific questions, but is
> silent on moral issues. The rational empiricism of the MOQ absorbs
> the excellence of som-science and expands upon it to include a
> hierarchy for making moral decisions. I like this very much.
Me too, though I think that one needs to go beyond empiricism even to deal
with scientific questions. Mathematics is necessary for physics, but
mathematics itself is not empirical. And, as Platt would point out, the
choice to be empirical is not empirical. If one argues that empiricism's
value is evident (through the value that science has brought), I would
respond that science only works on the inorganic, but there are three other
levels to deal with. Just how empirical we are being when we say things
about the other levels (other than their inorganic substrate) is, in my
view, an open question.
> However, the weakness of the MOQ is its inability to explain the rise
> of consciousness, that is, it probably can't answer your question
> above. But I think the overall explanatory power of the MOQ, and the
> undeniable existence of Quality, is enough for me to put up with the
> mystery of consciousness, at least for now.
Since the mystery of consciousness is my main interest, it is not enough
for me.
>
> The Metaphysics of Consciousness assumes that consciousness is the
> ground of being and has always existed, so the question of whence
> consciousness arises becomes moot. Cool. But the MOC involves the
> notion of non-material consciousness, what you call a verb without a
> noun, an idea which, for me, is completely undecipherable.
I only mentioned using verbs instead of nouns as a way to avoid bringing in
presuppositions of the nature of whatever ground is being considered. So
one can speak of perceiving, valuing, or knowing, without presupposing a
self-existent perceiver, valuer, or knower, thus avoiding presupposing SOM.
Another way is to posit a completely undefinable ground which makes
perceiving, perceiver, and perceived possible. In both cases, though, we
are only emphasizing our ignorance -- learned ignorance, as Nicholas of
Cusa called it.
>
> Furthermore, I think the non-materialist underpinnings of the MOC
> might well result in a fundamental schism between the MOC and the
> undeniable value of scientific data. have no experience of non-
> material consciousness, but I experience sense data and Quality every
> day of my life.
The MOC would not undercut scientific findings any more than the MOQ or
SOM. The only difference is that the MOC understands that what science is
studying is what consciousness produces, namely, our sense data. In any
case, you have a great deal of experience of the non-material. When you are
thinking or dreaming you are experiencing non-material consciousness. When
you are reading, you are not experiencing ink on paper, but non-material
thoughts. You need to make a conscious effort to focus on the material
(e.g., the shape of the letters) rather than on the meaning of the words.
>
> So.... for me, for now, the MOQ is of higher explanatory value.
>
> Whaddaya think?
Not for me, but I guess you already figured that out :-). It does better
than SOM, but not MOC.
- Scott
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 -
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 : Wed Nov 03 2004 - 16:45:48 GMT