[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

Ian,

Ian said:
Aaaaggghhh!!! Scott,

Can I take us back up a level and make some "meta-points".

We agree already.

Scott:
On what? We agree on some things and disagree on others.

Ian said:
(1) Last point first, you said
"I wouldn't call it physicalism ... I don't like to call xxxx or yyyy a zzzz 
"

Physicalism is just the name I / we have chose for "my metaphysics".
Please don't infer any historical baggage in that word. By that
defintion physics = (the best model of) reality. That's all
physicalism means. (I've already said a hundred times, when I use that
word, I have Pirsigian Quality at it's root / base.)

Scott:
Right. You are a physicalist. I am not. I am only pointing out that even 
with Pirsigian Quality, physicalism does not work for me. Physicalism 
without Quality I consider inadequate and incoherent. Physicalism with 
Quality I consider slightly more adequate, but still incoherent. And I don't 
infer historical baggage, rather I see the definition physics = (the best 
model of) reality as being historical baggage, which should be discarded 
completely due to the spacetime issue and the Munchhausen fallacy. When I 
said "I wouldn't call it physicalism..." I was saying that IF one thinks 
that Quality implies Intellect, THEN the word physicalism ceases to be a 
good word for your metaphysical system. Since you do not accept that 
implication, it still works as a word for both of us as a name for your 
metaphysics.

Ian said:
As I said several months ago, our debate is 100% linguistic.

Scott:
Yes, but it's a truism. We are debating the meaning of the word "reality" 
and of "physical" and so on. Some of your metaphors don't work for me, and 
some of mine don't work for you.

Ian said:
(2) You said
"You are confusing Occam's Razor with less challenging to one's
metaphoric system".

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm deliberately choosing to use that
metaphor. We'd already agreed (you more emphatically than I) that it's
ALL metaphors. Even the metaphysics (religion) of science, implicit in
my "physicalism", as well as the semiosis and consciousness in yours.
How much more metaphorical than Occam's Razor can one get ?!?!

Scott:
Of course the Razor is a metaphor. I'm saying you are misapplying it (though 
I admit that my phrasing you quote above is awkward). The Razor says: don't 
add unnecessary stuff to one's explanations. I am saying that I am not 
adding unnecessary stuff to my explanations. Nor am I saying that you are. 
What I was saying is that the fact that in my metaphysics there is a huge 
difficulty (that the eternal is real but we don't know how to think in 
eternal terms) that your metaphysics doesn't have -- that this fact has 
nothing to do with Occam's Razor. Instead it has to do with the size of a 
challenge to one's belief system (one's customary metaphors). The only way I 
could cut out the huge difficulty is by denying what I think to be the case, 
that is, I would be cutting out something that I think is necessary.

Ian said:
(3) You also said
"salvationally speaking .... I want to counter the preaching of
Dennett and his ilk"

'Nuff said. Now we know your real aims. Such a pity.

Scott:
If this is news to you, you haven't been paying attention. What do you think 
mysticism is, if not about salvation? Call it Awakening if you don't like 
the word 'salvation', the point being that it is a different sort of agenda 
than finding explanations. And surely you don't think that Dennett (or 
Pirsig, or most anyone on this list) doesn't have a proselytizing agenda.

Ian quoted:
PS "It often does more harm than good to force definitions on things
we don't understand. Only in logic and mathematics do definitions ever
capture concepts perfectly. The things we deal with in practical life
are usually too complicated to be represented by neat, compact
expressions ... One must not mistake defining things for knowing what
they are."  Marvin Minsky - The Society of Mind - 1985

Scott:
Don't know why you are quoting this, which of course I agree with. Did I say 
something that you see as violating the spirit of this quote?

- Scott