[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[ian glendinning]

Scott ...

I'm re-setting both threads here (this one and the "On Time" thread)
rather than carrying on infinite levels of nested inserts.

In the other thread you said
We work within the concepts of causality, space, and time in going
about our daily business, and science is part of that daily business.
But that all breaks down if we start asking about value (or
consciousness or intellect). It also breaks down in quantum
physics.This means that we can't explain the appearance of the
macrocosmic world (that is, perception) in terms of spatiotemporal
causality. This means that science is the wrong tool for studying
perception.

In this thread you also referred (positively) to
Samuel Avery's "The Dimensional Structure of Consciousness: A Physical
Basis for Immaterialism."

I say you can't have it both ways. Our problem here is merely
linguistic. Elsewhere in these threads you are taking an arrogant view
that your mystical revolution in thought is more revolutionary than
mine. Have you read how to win friends and influence people :-)

A physical basis for immaterialism, is where I'm coming from. Why
can't physics (science) be the right tool to study perception and
consciousness and quality, and ... whatever. It just needs a
revolution in what science is about, and it's having such a revolution
starting a hundred years ago. the fundamentals of science are
ephemeral, ineffable interactions. I'm not "refusing to accept" the
mystical side, I'm just trying to describe it in a useful way (that
won't be rejected by unimaginative conservative scientists).

I'm agreeing with the ZMM Pirsig that this quality interaction is
ineffable. Obviously I'm interpreting the Lila Pirsig less
metaphysically and more pragmatically that he himself had aspired to,
but that's a given.

I still see a massive explanatory gap on your side if you see the
fundamental (pre-material) consciousness as something high-order
intelligent first person subjective awareness (which I know you
don't), rather than some prior-consciousness component (which I
suspect you do). And if you don't like proto-conscioiusness, gimme
your word to distinguish it from any possible misinterpretation I
might make of the general term "consciousness". As I say it still
seems the problem really is just linguistic.

You seem to want to claim the word consciousness for your particular
mystical flavour (denotation) of consciousness. I'm not denying this,
I'm just asking for your word for it - so we can keep talking.

Ian