[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[Scott Roberts]

Ian,

We are clearly using "materialism" differently. To me it is an umbrella term 
for 'physicalism', 'naturalism', and 'functionalism' (a la Dennett). 
Roughly, I would say it is any viewpoint that assumes that consciousness (or 
anything we might call 'mental') developed in time solely through 
'non-mental' activity. So by this definition I would say you are a 
materialist of the physicalist persuasion. How are you using the term?

- Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ


Scott,

You asked
Do you still take Darwinism seriously as a basis to explain the origin of
consciousness and language?

Yes I do, properly explained neo-Darwinsm (a la Dennett / Blackmore /
Pinker ) that is.

You also asked ...
Do you, in fact, think that they originated? Do you think space and
time are the background in which consciousness exists?

Yes, in the sense I'm a physicalist - all components and explanations
of consciousness exist in physics - but that's a million miles from
materialism. Precious little material in physics. Which also isn't to
say, that all physical components of consciousness always existed
(they may have evolved too), doesn't preclude a more entangled
explanation than mere "background", and also doesn't preclude
explanatory components of consciousness not yet being recognised in
physics (though Dennett would criticise me for that last opening to
mystical physics.)

Materialism needs to be fought OK, but with better physical as well as
better philosophical explanations.

Ian
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/