From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 30 2005 - 07:23:53 BST
Ham, rising to Platt's challenge, I will not avoid your question any longer ...
(I really would like to encourage Platt, when he's on topic, honest)
I'd say I was more B than A, but like Scott, I don't see them as
mutually exclusive.
The problem with B for me is the word "exists" in the first sentence -
ontologically I don't believe B, epistemologically I do. For me
consciousness is part of the real "physical" world, but I do firmly
believe all we can ever know about the real world and its ontology is
that which is perceived through consciousness.
That said - I don't believe consciousness is restricted to our human
minds, or even minds in general, and in keeping with MoQ and Zen, I
believe there are ways for consciousness to alter its own "levels",
although clearly to perceive, know, think, imagine, hallucinate
anything, we need non-zero consciousness.
Like Hoffman I see that "there is as YET no physical theory of
consciousness" but as Hoffman says it's only a matter of time (and
yes, like everything else the answer will be yet another metaphor -
"42" perhaps - with an explanation that no-one believes or understands
for 30 to 100 years - situation normal.)
Regards,
Ian
Belief Creates
Some Things Need To Be Believed To Be Seen
In Order To Stand On The Shoulders Of Giants, You Have To Believe In The Giants
etc, etc,
On 4/28/05, hampday@earthlink.net <hampday@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Arlo, Platt, Ian, Sam, MSH, and all --
>
> Having offered a theory on the reason for the fundamental discord in our MoQ
> discussions (as I see it) under the 'Hume, Paley and Intelligent Design'
> heading, I'd like to open it for discussion by the entire MD list. Hence,
> the new subject line.
>
> Since an explanation can never be as clear as an actual example, I've copied
> conceptual definitions quoted from two (non-MoQ) sources, each of which
> represents a distinct reality perspective. You will recognize the first as
> 'Scientific Materialism' and may consider the second either a form of
> 'Platonic Idealism' or 'Anthropocentrism'. How would you classify it?
>
> My main question is: Which reality perspective are you more likely to
> identify with? That is, which statement best expresses your personal belief
> system? I hope you will find this exercise self-revealing as well as
> interesting; for me, your answer will indicate whether my theory has any
> bearing on the way metaphysically-related topics are typically dealt with by
> the various MD participants. In other words, it should answer the question:
> "Where is he (she) coming from?" -- often an important factor to consider
> when directing thoughts and ideas to specific individuals.
>
> Again, this is not a trick question, and I'm not trying to "challenge"
> anyone. I'd really like to know on which side you would position yourself.
> Also, I'd be interested in whether you consider this a useful 'qualifier'
> for reviewing and posting messages in this forum.
>
> Statement A.
>
> "Ontologically, [its] materialism means that matter, nature, the observable
> world is taken 'without reservations' as real in its own right, neither
> deriving its reality from any supernatural or transcendental source, nor
> dependent for its existence on the mind of man. It is considered
> scientifically evident that matter is prior to mind both temporally and
> logically in the sense that mind never appears except as an outgrowth of
> matter, and must be explained accordingly. Space and time are viewed as
> forms of the existence of matter." [Dagobert Runes, philosopologist]
>
> Statement B.
>
> "I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. ...The
> world of our daily experience-the world of tables, chairs, stars and people,
> with their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds-is a species-specific
> user interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose essential
> character is conscious. ... If this be right, if consciousness is
> fundamental, then we should not be surprised that, despite centuries of
> effort by the most brilliant minds, there is as yet no physical theory of
> consciousness, no theory that explains how mindless matter and energy or
> fields could be, or cause, conscious experience." [Donald Hoffman,
> cognitive scientist]
>
> Oh, one additional question. Do you feel that a third statement would be
> required to adequately represent the major reality perspectives of the MD
> group?
>
> Thanks for participating,
> Ham
>
> 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 Apr 30 2005 - 08:21:44 BST