From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 07 2005 - 17:42:48 BST
Ham,
Ham: 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: Your statement, "When we talk about truth and falsehood it is
generally understood that..." is a good example of what I mean by "the
consensus of belief." So you already know what it means.
In the context of the prevailing scientific world-view, and the MOQ static
levels, material evolution occurred independently and prior to our beliefs.
Paul previously:
> 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.
Ham: 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: No, although I don't know what you could mean by "collective
consciousness." I'm just talking about conventional recording of time and,
with respect to pre-historical evolution, the application of approved
radioactive dating methods.
Regarding an individual's awareness of his historico-temporal existence, I
doubt any individual born and living outside of any cultural contact would
have that awareness.
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).
Ham: 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.
Paul: There is idiosyncrasy in one's beliefs but to develop your own truly
personal belief system you would first have to develop your own personal
language system. I guess you may argue that you are free to do that
(although Wittgenstein would have disagreed).
Experience *is* the source or cause of one's changing beliefs but the MOQ
proposes that experience which is not valued is not experienced. It is in
this sense that Quality is the source of belief.
Ham: Moreover, reason is a function of the mind (or intellect).
Paul: Instead of an innate function of some "organ" called mind, one may
say that reason is just an acquired and/or learned skill of using
conventional symbols within a set of rules to predict and help control one's
experience.
Ham: 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.
Paul: I think an individual's thought is as unique as one's DNA.
You don't need a consensus or an authority to have a belief but nevertheless
most of your beliefs are "common sense," which is mainly a mixture of
consensus and authority. Or are you going to tell me that you reasoned it
all out for yourself?
Ham: 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: Ah, back onto "collectivism" again? Yes, you've got us. The next
edition of LILA is going to be bound in red you know.
Paul previously:
> 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."
Ham: 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.
Paul: Some propositions are either true or false but it is way too general
to say that of all possible propositions. I live in a world where it is
true that I had eggs for breakfast and I live in a world where some of the
brightest thinkers in physics can't agree on how many dimensions there are.
"In my world of empirical reality, propositions are either true or false."
A simple statement. Let me ask a simple question -- what makes your
propositions true or false?
Ham: 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.
Paul: Agreed. I don't recall saying otherwise. I have nothing against
science, nor mystical beliefs for that matter.
Ham: 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.
Paul: Agreed, there is no collective mind. You are the one big on the
existence of "mind," Ham, not I. There is, however, peer review. There is
education, mathematics, language; without which there is no science.
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 : Tue Jun 07 2005 - 17:47:46 BST