From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Sun May 08 2005 - 20:28:39 BST
Ham,
I will not be able to promptly follow up on any responses to this but here
is a late answer to your question, which I've only just read.
--- 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?
I think a third statement is required to adequately represent the position
of the MOQ.
Unlike (A), mind is not considered to be an outgrowth from nor composed of
matter. Unlike (B), matter is not considered to be an outgrowth from nor
composed of mind. This is because both mind and matter are considered to be
"outgrowths" of value so neither needs to be composed of nor reduced to the
other.
"In a materialist system mind has no reality because it is not material. In
an idealist system matter has no reality because it is just an idea. The
acceptance of one meant the rejection of the other. In the MOQ, both mind
and matter are levels of value. Materialist explanations and idealist
explanations can coexist because they are descriptions of coexisting levels
of a larger reality." [Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD, Notes on Annotation 4]
The MOQ agrees with (A) that it is scientifically evident that the material
world appears to have evolved prior to mind (or at least prior to
language-writing organisms). However, it states that the consensus of
beliefs that produce the scientific evidence for said evolution come first.
"The MOQ does not deny the traditional scientific view of reality as
composed of material substance and independent of us. It says it is an
extremely high quality idea. We should follow it whenever it is practical
to do so. But the MOQ, like philosophic idealism, says this scientific view
of reality is still an idea. If it were not an idea, then that "independent
scientific material reality" would not be able to change as new scientific
discoveries come in." [Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD, Notes on Annotation 4]
"It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although
"common sense" dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually "common
sense" which is a set of ideas, has to come first. This "common sense" is
arrived at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of various
alternatives. The key term here is "evaluation," i.e., quality decisions.
The fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and laws
approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality that
leads to it." [Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD, Notes on Annotation 97]
It agrees with (B) that "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." It agrees because it says
that conscious experience is caused by value, not by matter nor energy
fields. Furthermore, it says that, even presuming that the scientifically
evident idea of evolution is correct, intellectual consciousness is
dependent on the patterns of society (especially language), not directly on
physical patterns.
"Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate
out of society, which originates out of biology which originates out of
inorganic nature. And, as anthropologists know so well, what a mind thinks
is as dominated by social patterns as social patterns are dominated by
biological patterns and as biological patterns are dominated by inorganic
patterns. There is no direct scientific connection between mind and
matter." [LILA p.178]
It agrees with (B) that the "reality of tables, chairs, stars and people" is
the product of a specific user-interface but I think it would say that it is
the product of a culture-specific interface to something that, strictly
speaking, has no essential, definable characteristic, including that of
complexity.
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 : Sun May 08 2005 - 21:01:44 BST