[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[Scott Roberts]

Ian,

Ian said:

Scott, if you're using materialism as a broad naturalism /
physicalism, then no problem. But the word has narrower "substantial"
connotations for most people, in common usage.

Scott:
I assume you are not referring to the non-philosophical meaning of 
materialism (as in, seeking happiness by having lots of material goods), 
since that certainly isn't dead. So I still don't know what you are 
referring to when you say "materialism is dead". Most people are mind/matter 
dualists.

Ian said:
Given that broad view - I would say it also covers "mental" too. All
the things we know and love in common sense as material or mental,
evolve from the same natural physicalis

I am self-proclaimed a "phsyicalist" in this sense.

Scott:
And I am not. Out of curiosity, since you seem sympathetic to Dennett, does 
this mean you reject Chalmers? I ask, since Dennett seems to me to be the 
most prominent example of someone who Chalmers would accuse of "not taking 
consciousness seriously".

- Scott

On 12/12/05, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
> 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/
>
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/