From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Jun 06 2005 - 21:32:51 BST
Hi Paul --
Glad to have you back.
Since you included our dialogue from this old thread, I see one or two
points that I failed to comment upon at the time.
Paul:
> 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.
Ham:
> You seem to be saying that belief in evolution is the cause of
> evolution, even though the "consensus of beliefs" occurred
> long after the event.
Paul:
> It is not proposed that belief causes material evolution. Part of the
> consensus of belief is that material evolution has occurred independently
of
> such belief and predated it.
How is one to regard "the consensus of belief"? Is it a belief that has
been invalidated by scientific evidence? Or does the evidence fall to the
consensus? When we talk about truth and falsehood it is generally
understood that the propositions offered apply within the time/space world
of experience. So, in that context, does material evolution occur
independently and prior to our beliefs or not?
Paul:
> "'Time' and 'change' are primary concepts used to describe...evolution but
> they do not cause evolution any more than Newton's law of gravity causes
the
> earth to stick together." [Pirsig to McWatt, 1997]
Neither of us said that time and change cause evolution.
Paul:
> I would think that the MOQ holds that linear, unidirectional time,
> particularly with respect to the projection into pre-history necessary for
> an account of cosmological evolution, exists within a consensus of beliefs
> i.e., a cultural pattern i.e., social + intellectual pattern.
I don't understand your insistence in relating time to a belief consensus.
Surely the individual himself senses the passing of time and can apply the
concept to events that occurred prior to his existence. Are you implying
that the time continuum is a notion derived from a collective consciousness?
Paul:
> In the MOQ, mind is not the source of beliefs. Quality is the source of
> beliefs and mind is a term for describing the collection of, and
> relationships between, beliefs.
>
> In a weaker sense, an individual's mind (defined as above) might be
> considered a "source" of beliefs (e.g. your parent causing you to have
> beliefs by you finding their beliefs, or maybe just their authority,
> valuable).
Reason and experience are the source of our beliefs. If Quality were the
source of our beliefs, then we would not be free to develop our personal
belief systems. Moreover, reason is a function of the mind (or intellect).
Your definition of mind as "a term for describing the collection of beliefs"
seems to be a rejection of the uniqueness of human thought. Also, I fail to
see why one needs a "consensus" or an "authority" to have a belief. This
emphasis on "collectivism" by the MoQ disturbs me greatly. Why equivocate
about the most intimate and self-evident entity in existence -- individual
awareness?
Paul:
> In the sense that "states of events" are the current highest quality
> conception of things then I would agree that "ideas formed collectively at
> any time determine the state of events at any time."
I don't know what world you live in, Paul, but in my world of empirical
reality, propositions are either true or false; they are not equivocated on
a scale of low to high quality. There may be a higher truth than empirical
reality -- indeed, I believe there is -- but it is unrealistic to portray
empirical facts supported by valid scientific research as some sort of
mystical belief system. I myself have said that Science doesn't have all
the answers and is no substitute for a personal philosophy. Certainly
scientific conclusions are subject to new information as research continues;
that's what distinguishes scientism from religion and mysticism. But there
is no "collective mind" that determines the validity of scientific data.
Thanks for the opportunity, and keep in touch.
Essentially yours,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 06 2005 - 21:33:52 BST