[MD] MoQ as religion

[ian glendinning]

Hi SA, I see David has responded (I'll mention that later) ...

You asked what I was responding to ..
You said ..
"the way I understand science, science does not recognize 'thought'
existing, therefore, the limits of rational thought belongs in the
field of philosophy, not science.  In science, it is just hormones and
atoms, etc... that are here."

I was pointing out that's a ludicrously narrow view of science and scientists.

Of course science and scientists recognise "thought" as existing, as
being there, etc. It / they just recognise it as a hard problem to
explain from a traditional, classical scientific pertspective. And it
/ they do make many attempts to explain (in scientific ways) Dennett,
Chalmers and others are getting very close with very "scientific"
approaches. (see Matt's current threads too) The brain vs mind duality
is a myth, answered by MoQ monism.

Repeat after me.
Theoretical physics (science) IS actual metaphysics (philosophy).
Drawing artificial lines and demarcations around "fields of thought"
is simply applying a human static pattern.

BTW I agree with you, science (and MoQ) is no different to religion -
somewhere in each there is something very like "faith" - a trust in
the belief system - with something ineffable at the core ... cue
cracked record ...

David said to you ..
But to me 'merge' is a slippery word as it can be confused with simple
addition and dynamic quality cannot be added to anything. It's already
there to begin with.

I say - Absolutely - this is my point about naive views of "science".
Few things are simply "additive" analytical / reductionist arguments
(like Squonk's) have very limited applicability. (Dynamic) Quality
highlights this two way ineffability of cause and effect - things are
"emergent" with the dynamic interactions - not simply caused-by or
made-from atomic components.

Ian

On 4/5/06, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ian, Kevin, and others,
>
>       Ian said:  "(SA, to any good 20th or 21st century "scientist", atoms and hormones
> are hugely complicated things evolved from much simpler beginnings.
> Information is one such plausible "beginning". And don't forget,
> everything may evolve from these, but that is not a simple
> reductionist causal argument - not everything "consists" or is "made
> up from" or "caused by" these things. Evolution is more sophisticated,
> more "strange-loopy" emergent than that.)"
>
>       Are you pointing towards what I mentioned as scientists not recognizing thought or to scientists we are hormones and such?  Psychologists recognize thought, but where is a thought?  Is it material, thus, all in the brain tissue?  And in what way will they approach thought?  Like a philosopher?  Not yet.  This difference is what I was referring to when I said a scientist doesn't recognize thought.  I guess I meant in the way a philosopher does.  In the case of changing SOM to MOQ one may say Pirsig was as all philosophers were and are - the original psychologists.  As to where is thought and can a scientist point to it?  Well, can anybody point to something that merges with DQ?
>
>
>       As to what you said Kevin, I now notice not just thought, but trust, as you mentioned, is a concept wrapped with belief.  Why is the static (thought for example) and dynamic wrapped with belief?  Anything that emerges from dynamic quality, even if static for somebody else, but dynamic to me (meaning I have not been able to define this anything) is, if any pursuit of wisdom or static quality is to occur, something to belief may happen.  Even if trust comes into play that there will always be dynamic quality still, thus, something undefined in this pursuit of ours.
>
>
>  Thanks,
>  SA
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
> 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/
>