[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[David M]

Ian

Take a look at "The Self-Aware Universe"
if you get a chance.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ


> Inserted ...
>
> On 12/13/05, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> [IG] I know, and I think part of the problem is the "substantial"
> connotation behind the word material in any of it's uses, even in
> carefully guarded philosophical ivory towers. It's the word that needs
> killing off. Language evolves. Meanings are never usefully reserved
> for long. Materialism is dead in the sense it no longer has any value.
>
>>
>> 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 "physicalist" in this sense.
>>
>> Scott:
>> And I am not.
>
> [IG] I know you're not, but you said I seemed to be .... it's never
> been a matter of seeming - it's what Im banging on about. (But this is
> a dualist issue, see the closing Dennett remark below.)
>
>> 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".
>
> [IG] - My main project at the moment is to resolve Dennett / Chalmers
> differences. I have a lot of time for both of them. Dennett for me
> falls far short of explaining consciousness (what it is, how it
> works), despite staunchly supporting the neo-Darwinist explanation of
> how it evolved naturally. His best explanation (like Blackmore) seems
> to be that what we call consciousness is just an "illusion". That I
> don't buy.
>
> Chalmers on the other hand - I agree with the proposition that the
> "subjective aspect" of consciousness remains to be explained (the
> so-called hard problem). I also agree with him (like Deutsch) that a
> high-quality explanation may not look much like the traditional
> reductive logical causal chains of reasoning some conservative people
> would hope for. What I don't buy from Chalmers are his Zombie thought
> experiments - I'm still struggling with "supervenience" and with
> "possibility" (metaphysical, conveivable, logical and physical) (also
> considered by Deutsch) - but for me Chalmers' thought experiments beg
> all the key questions in their initial assumptions, so I believe they
> simply mislead.
>
> Interestingly, I'm just reading Dennett's "Sweet Dreams". Unlike me
> Dennett is very anti what he sees as "new-age physics" providing
> answers to ancient philosophical questions. He's right in the sense
> that anyone claiming that uncertainty or non-locality or entanglement
> explains the mysterious mental-stuff amidst all the matter-stuff. What
> I think Dennett has missed, is that this stuff is gradually explaining
> that there is only one stuff of nature underlying all evolved levels -
> mental or material - I call it "information" (after Deutsch and all
> the latest Dirac interpretations). (Hence my aversion to the
> misleading word material...)
>
> The basic building blocks of both material and mental have been around
> as long as the building blocks have been around - (which implies a
> first cause issue, I'll grant you, in a single closed universe - but
> Deutsch addresses that - time and causality are the seriously weird
> issues getting in the way of common sense explanations here.).
>
> Evolved forms of consciousness and living-socio-cultural-intellectual
> patterns have both emerged together - in fact consciousness and
> intellegence etc, are just such evolved patterns. The MoQ is spot on,
> Where's the problem ?
>
>>
>> - Scott
>>
>
> [IG]
> Regards, 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/
>