[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[ian glendinning]

Case,

In the sense that a classical physicist or engineer or athlete (or
even a motorcycle mechanic) would understand energy - yes, "including
energy as a physical object".

Why is that a bad thing ?
Because it ignores MoQ.

We need to be sure we're not just getting into a semantic debate here
- since my first mistake was to respond to your request for a
definition :-)

Dawkins is a biologist, whose day to day need of physics is classical,
common-sensical. Matter (material stuff having significant mass and
occupying space) and energy are physical objects. When he builds
genetic models of his evolutionary world, he probably doesn't  worry
about the physical objects and subjects with which he is dealing not
being real. He is happy to be "objective" and "logically positive" in
dealing with these objects.

An MoQ'er knows that physical (material) objects (and subjects) are
dependent "things" arising from our experience (and interpretation) of
quality events / interactions. Quality is primary reality. A
materialist who sees the kind of physical world described above is
just plain wrong in MoQ terms. Such a scientist excludes consideration
of non-objective processes beyond his world model - like which side of
the bed he got out of, or whether he noticed the sun was shining, on
the morning of a given experiment - in fact he goes to great lengths
to deliberately exclude such considerations :-) He is only studying
half the world - if he is lucky.

Now if we start talking about a quantum physicist, rather than a macro
"scientist", we may find that the kind of "materialism" described
above breaks down. Because we find striking parallel's between
something like "energy" at this scale and Pirsigian quality. At this
level even a physicist seems to know that our material world is some
apparition emergent from patterns of energetic interactions, and
MoQers find themselves with someone to debate.

If we eventually conclude that "energy" at this scale is synonymous
with quality, then we might (as I have done before) be able to claim
we are physicalist (but not a materialist). But we'd just be playing
with words.

Ian

On 12/12/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> Ok so why would that be a bad thing? Would that include energy?
> Case
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:46 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
>
> Case,
>
> I use the term in a broad sense, that primary reality is the existence
> of "physical objects" (and I read its use that way in the news story
> too)
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 12/12/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> > Could you define materialism?
> > Case
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:32 PM
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > This news story on a $27m Museum of Creation in "Middle America"
> > (Kentucky) perhaps shows the ludicrous excess of faith-based world
> > views. Frightening that visitors might actually value this kind of
> > misinformation.
> >
> > The telling issue for me though is the quote from the organisation,
> > justifying literal belief in Genesis, as just as valid an "a priori"
> > assumption as Dawkins belief in materialism.
> >
> > I'd have to say I agree. Thank god it's not a matter of choice between
> > the two for MoQ'ers. Literal materialism is as dead as literal gods.
> > Neither a priori assumption is valid.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> 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/
>