Re: MD "Is there anything out there?"

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sat Jan 01 2005 - 23:49:52 GMT

  • Next message: Erin: "Re: MD Re: Is Morality relative?"

    Paul you seem to say ...

    Independent reality .... "is an intellectual hypothesis".
    For reasons which include common sense, value, practicality and experience.
    That's my type (1) intepretation - pragmatism. ie I agree.

    You say you dont agree with (2).
    I don't believe it either, but I see nothing to discount the possibility
    that it could in reality be true.
    But since (1) fits the bill, pragmatically, I don't find it a very important
    question (or answer) to worry about.

    Ian

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Paul Turner" < >
    To: < >
    Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 12:39 PM
    Subject: RE: MD "Is there anything out there?"

    > 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
    >

    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 - 23:56:48 GMT