From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 01 2005 - 12:39:37 GMT
Hi Ian
Ian said:
(1)
Intellect (as in the higher order mind functions of "intelligent beings"
like humans, from which emerge the socio-intellectual patterns of
behaviour)
Constructs (as in creates the only useful interpretation of)
External Rationality (the intellect can ever know, even if "external
rationality" actually does exist "out there")
This I agree with.
(2)
Intellect (as in some transcendant concept of consciousness)
Constructs (as in the stuff all existence is made of, in some
fundamental
way)
External Reality (which independantly really exists "out there").
This I suspect could turn out to be true, and in fact the intellects of
(1)
and (2) may even interact, but since we may possibly only ever see it
through interpretation (1) it might be forever irrelevant. (But I'm not
sure. It is this "intellect" or super-consciousness which I see as prone
to
god-like metaphors, which are understandable, even useful, provided
people
don't then mis-athropomorphise them into some super-being with a mind
with
intent and purpose, etc, in order to explain the teleological reason
"why"
anything.)
Paul:
What I meant was that an external reality that behaves in an orderly,
uniform way independently of particular experience of it is an
intellectual hypothesis which is extremely valuable both at a common
sense level and in scientific practice. It seems to be a product of the
success of inductive reasoning in coping with experience.
I disagree with (2) because I don't think there is a transcendent
intelligence.
Regards
Paul
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 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 13:37:45 GMT