[MD] Accusations of materialism

[ian glendinning]

Jos,

Your concluding breathless paragraph ends up pretty much on the
Pirsigian money for me.

(The only caveat as you point out yourself earlier is that "the word"
"exists" is just another cultural / intellectual convention - for the
emergence of static patterns of value - useful shorthand in linguistic
discourse, but not to be confused with anything fundamental
ontologically. So, scarequotes on "exist" and we're there.)

Ian

On 8/15/06, Laycock, Jos (OSPT) <Jos.Laycock at offsol.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
> Ok so I'm actually not quite done, I won't attempt to assail Ham's ivory
> tower just yet (very nice curtains by the way), but rather, I'll just ask
> for some gentle guidance on my own path.....
>
> Firstly on objectivism:
> "Any theory stressing objective reality, esp. as distinguished from
> subjective experience of appearance." (Ham, this morning)
>
> I feel that if truth is "a species of good" (Phaedrus, numerous quotes) then
> we have allowed it to be a valid entity for discussion, hence although truth
> has been subordinated, it isn't nothing, and it does exist. But if truth
> exists at all, then we surely we must all make room for a form of
> objectivism within the MOQ.
>
> True things are those that are valued by people, right? but things other
> than people can have values ("condition B values precondition A etc..."
> Pirsig SODV) So true things, are things that have value full stop, ie true
> things, are things that exist. ah!
>
> So static patterns are synonymous with truths? This takes all the tautology
> out of the definition, the truth is all the static values, including pairs
> of ones that are completely mutually exlusive. How strange.
>
> On the other hand, if the value* of one static value, relative to another is
> static, then at the moment that value* is assigned, exclusively one measure
> of it can be considered to be "true" (/to be valuable/to exist)or it isn't
> static.
> This however would be an absolute truth, which is no "good", so the "gaps"
> between the static patterns can't be static.
> Not static, well we only have DQ and SQ to work with, so one static pattern
> must relate to another in a dynamic way. How neat.
>
> I cant see dynamic quality though? I also cant see the "true" distance or
> size of any object empirically,(uncertainty) so observation would seem to
> support my guesswork. Perhaps because perception in "real time" is just
> another static pattern and DQ isn't, it makes it harder to spot? (consider
> eternity, consider nothingness...Arggh my eyes!)
>
> Materialism:
> "A theory that physical matter is the fundamental reality and that all
> being, processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results
> of matter." (again some un-named dictionary)
>
> Now what about matter? we all seem to understand that matter like phlogiston
> doesn't really exist objectively ,(falls apart, lets all play chase the
> quark with a big magnet), but we also know that subjectively it obviously
> does, (look thes goes some more!) so we've decided instead that things are
> all made of static values. Science doesn't propose any alternative
> definition though so we can only assume that they can have no argument with
> ours. Occham is going to let us have our time in the sun.
>
> So, (deep breath)
> Our culture defines matter as patterns of value at defined evolutionary
> levels. Thus our intellect can use the word in the same way:
> All that exists is made up of matter governed by physical forces yet to be
> fully elucidated.
> replaced by:
> All that exists is made up of static patterns of values, related to one
> another by dynamic value interractions.
>
>
>
> Materialistically yours
> Jos
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> > Sent: 14 August 2006 17:57
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] The Singularity is near
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Jose, Case --
> >
> >
> > > There was a bit here that's really similar to something I
> > > quite often espouse, but I'm no materialist, so if all who
> > > say it obviously are, and I say it but obviously aren't
> > > then there's something wrong with the definition.
> >
> > I don't know what particular bit you espouse, but let's look at the
> > definitions I'm going by.  Objectivism: "Any theory stressing
> > objective
> > reality, esp. as distinguished from subjective experience of
> > appearance."
> > Materialism: "A theory that physical matter is the
> > fundamental reality and
> > that all being, processes and phenomena can be explained as
> > manifestations
> > or results of matter."
> >
> > While we're at it, let's add a third term which the
> > postmodernists seem to
> > have forgotten but which is useful in characterizing their philosophy.
> > Existentialism: "A chiefly 20th century philosophy that is
> > centered upon the
> > analysis of existence and of the way man finds himself existing in the
> > world, that regards human existence as not exhaustively
> > understandable in
> > scientific terms, and that stresses the freedom and
> > responsibility of the
> > individual."  (Definitions extracted from Websters New Collegiate
> > Dictionary.)
> >
> > Now to your inquisition:
> >
> > > Ham says:
> > > "All objectivists (1?) like to pretend (2?) that consciousness
> > > is a behaviour pattern (3?) exhibited by (4?) biological
> > > organisms (5)."
> > >
> > > 1) Are you also implying that all who take this view are
> > > objectivists?
> >
> > I added the phrase "like to pretend" so that objectivism would not be
> > construed as a "view" so much as a philosophical position.
> > The implication
> > is that objectivists generally dismiss subjectivity in their
> > investigations
> > and analyses of reality.  I think this is also true of the Pirsigians.
> >
> > > 2) Are you implying that these materialists are actually
> > > aware of some other truth but deny themselves sight of it?
> > > Why would they do that?
> >
> > Bingo!  I can only assume that the reason they do this is to
> > be seen as
> > conforming to the positivist (objectivist) ontology.  I think
> > this is born
> > out in their depricatory references to subjectivism as
> > "religious baggage",
> > "mythos", "superstition", and "deism".
> >
> > > 3) How do you see that it isn't?  Behaviours describe
> > > how all manner of "things" behave, (including patterns).
> > > Consciousness is a pattern (every"thing" is). Therefore
> > > there's nothing wrong with calling consciousness the
> > > behaviour of a pattern cos that encompasses everything.
> > > (really its the same as a *pattern of patterns*).
> >
> > Behaviors describe objective activity or change.  When an
> > iron filing jumps
> > to a magnet or I turn my head toward a pretty girl, it's a
> > behavior pattern.
> > How things, or people, behave does not tell us anything about their
> > subjective state.  The iron filing doesn't have a subjective
> > state.  I might
> > be turning my head because the girl is an acquaintance I wish
> > to speak to.
> > One can make subjective inferences about my behavior, but
> > they can't get
> > into my head to know what I'm feeling.
> >
> > > 4) I take this to mean "a part of" as opposed to "written upon"?
> > > 5) Just to clarify, do you mean all organisms, or can we
> > materialists be
> > > allowed to specify some but not others? Evidently there are
> > *patterns of
> > > patterns* written in amongst my biological, social and intellectual
> > patterns
> > > that you will hopefully agree make me conscious?
> > >
> > > If I understand you correctly then, (assuming answers to my
> > 5 above):
> > >
> > > Revised Ham actually says:
> > > "Objectivists are liars who will state that the patterns of patterns
> > > commonly described as consciousness are linked in some way
> > to some living
> > > things"
> >
> > If they are lying, they are lying to themselves.  If they
> > believe on the
> > basis of what they see as behavior, their belief is unfounded
> > because they
> > lack sufficient evidence to support their conclusions.
> >
> > > Then next Ham links this stunning insight to:
> > > (sorry I'm getting carried away here, but the delete
> > > key isn't in my nature)
> > > "That way, they don't have to explain the psychic
> > > aspects of subjective awareness which, because it
> > > exhibits no empirical characteristics, is considered
> > > either mystical nonsense or non-existent".
> > >
> > > I would see Psychic awareness as a behavioural pattern
> > > (see above) as much as plain old "objective" consciousness.
> > > I wouldn't describe either one as remotely objective though,
> > > if you're going to draw a line then ok they're both subjective,
> > > but I think Pirsig only draws a line in the MOQ for
> > > explanatory convenience to lead people into MOQ from the
> > > world their more familiar with. In my view we dont have to
> > > say that the biological and inorganic levels are exclusively
> > > objective. Is for example an action potential objective? -
> > > It's a wave of an absence of positive charge for goodness
> > > sake, ok we scientists made up some sneaky ways
> > > to make empirical looking equipment go blip,(alright it
> > > wasn't me, but it could have been!) but "this is all an analogy"
> > > after all. I haven't actually detected life any more than I can
> > > make you an electronic device that goes blip when a camera
> > > sees a picture of a face that looks sad and say that I've
> > > detected an emotion. Likewise I can make a device that
> > > measures new blogs posted to the internet but how is this
> > > the same as empirically detecting ideas?
> >
> > You're starting to ramble like S.A., and I'm having
> > difficulty getting the
> > point.  To say that psychic awareness -- or any awareness --
> > is a behavior
> > pattern refutes the very nature of proprietary awareness.
> > This is why I
> > don't like the pattern analysis; essentially it's a gimmick to make
> > sensibility appear to be objective, to make atoms and rocks
> > and neurons the
> > equivalent of conscious thought and feelings.  Every
> > cognizant self is its
> > own reality, hidden from the rest of the world.  We can talk
> > objectively
> > about the behavior of an organism when we observe its
> > movements, but we
> > can't analyze its subjective condition because subjectivity
> > has no empirical
> > equivalent.
> >
> > > (It is still about the singularity I promise)
> >
> > Singularity: "A separate unit; the quality or state of being
> > singular; a
> > point at which the derivative of a given function of a
> > complex variable does
> > not exist but every neighborhood of which contains points for
> > which the
> > derivative exists."
> > I'm not sure I understand the mathematical definition, but I
> > would suggest
> > that Singularity might be a better term for subjective
> > awareness or Creation
> > than for the technological explosion envisioned by Kurzweil.
> >
> > Essentially yours,
> > Ham
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> > On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by
> > the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service
> > supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with
> > MessageLabs.
> > In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> > The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed
> > service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM
> > Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality
> > mark initiative for information security products and
> > services.  For more information about this please visit
> www.cctmark.gov.uk
>
>
> This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
> addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
> permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
> and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
> Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
> intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
> whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
>
> This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
> recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
> monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
> at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
> composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
>
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
> On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services.  For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk
> 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/
>