[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[ian glendinning]

David,
It's on my lists and I've read references to it already.
I don't see what point you're making though.
There are plenty of scientific theories about elements of
consciousness / awareness preceeding other energetic and material
aspects of the universe - but this doesn't take consciousness beyond
physics does it ? Physics is beyond both or esle how else do you
explain consciousness other than supernatural.
Physics = Nature.

What's your point.
Ian

On 12/16/05, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 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/
> >
>
> 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/
>