[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

Ian,

Ian said:
The only things we don't agree on are the new disagreements you
suggest in each new mail. Let's start on two of those and then get
back to the point.

Scott:
I insert the new disagreements (if that's what they are) because I am trying 
to point out that your use of certain words is not mine.

Ian said:
Physicalism can't accomodate the "eternal" (infinite / timeless ?)
Says you, but neither I or physicalism says that. You're putting up
things to disagree with, but you are not disagreeing with me.

Scott:
I say that, given the eternal, physicalism should be abandoned. You say that 
this is not a sufficient reason to abandon physicalism. Isn't that a 
disagreement?

Ian said:
Salvation - you introduced this word for some reason ? Clearly if you
see it as synonymnous with "awakening" I might see it as synonymous
with "enlightenment". Any disagreement is purely linguistic. We're all
proselytising "better knowledge" - even Dennett. (BTW "better" is a
pragmatic word. Still suspicious of your choice of the word salvation,
with no context or definitional pre-amble.)

Scott:
I introduced the word because I think it is a good one, in that it 
emphasizes my agenda for philosophizing. If it is the case that we are 
insane, then salvation is a good word for moving from insanity to sanity. 
Awakening and enlightenment are also good words for this. That is, I am 
saying that philosophizing (of my sort) can profitably use religious 
metaphors -- though like any metaphor, they need critiquing and tweaking.

Ian said:
Let's start with this quote
"And I don't infer historical baggage [in the word Phsyicalism],
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."

I said, my definition of physicalism (and phsyics in that context) =
(the best model of) reality. (Just a linguistic definition - don't
confuse it with understanding or explanation - hence my Minsky point,
you also agreed with - I knew you would - I agree already.)

If I'd said my definition of "bananaism" was
"banana" = (best model of) reality.

Then by that definition "banana" would (by definition) provide the
best explanation of salvation, eternal, raspberries, time, CI-ism,
space, wisdom, e-mail, bananas (oddly enough), Scott, Ian, you name
it.

Physics is just the word I use for banana - the best model of reality.
(Please detatch that from any historical baggage of the limitations of
physicists work to date.) If you recall I argued much earlier I didn't
want to use the word physicalism in fact - because I feared these
confusions - naturalism perhaps - realism maybe (except its already
loaded) - I should have used banana (or MoQ) from the start.

Scott:
Yes, "physics" is just the word you use. It is not the word I use. And I 
don't use it *because* of its historical baggage -- that baggage can't be 
detached. Suppose I said "Christianity = (the best model of) reality". 
(Please note that I don't, not being a Christian, but just to make the 
point).  Would you say we are in agreement? My point is that if you equate 
any word to "(the best model of) reality" you are asking for a fight with 
anyone who uses a different word.

Ian said:
OK, next.

We agree that, starting from common sense experience and digging
deeper, "spacetime" is an issue. (we'll come back to Munchhausen
another time ?) Why, oh why, does that mean we must "abandon"
bananaism ? Surely it means we must evolve bananism to include a
"better" interpretation of spacetime (or whatever) - since banana is
(by definition) the best model of reality.

Scott:
We should abandon bananaism because the spacetime issue has its origin *as a 
problem* within the origin of bananaism, that the origin of bananaism is a 
consequence of the Munchhausen fallacy. This is why I keep bringing up 
Barfield. He shows the greater context (the loss of original participation) 
that explains why people started taking GOF materialism seriously in the 
first place. Your physicalism has, indeed, evolved from GOF materialism, but 
so what? For example, it says it rejects reductionism, but from the greater 
context, emergentism from the physical is just as bad.

Ian said:
With that definition of banana, banana will evolve and become whatever
it needs to be -  just like the MoQ - it may even fit exactly what you
describe Scott's Mysticism - if you give it half a chance.

Scott:
I gave bananaism about 20 years. How much of a chance have you given the 
point of view of people like Barfield, Merrell-Wolff, Samuel Avery, 
Sheldrake, etc? (Actually, Avery in particular you might see as a 
possibility for a future evolution of bananaism, in that he recontextualizes 
perception based in part on "new physics", but with the overview that space 
and time are produced by consciousness, as opposed to assuming that 
consciousness is activity within a spacetime manifold. His book is "The 
Dimensional Structure of Consciousness: A Physical Basis for Immaterialism", 
but as I said before (to Case, I think), don't read too much into the word 
"Basis" there.)

Ian said:
BTW - I still feel we've moved on from pragamtism / Occam / smallest
holes in the best Metaphysics too quickly, by introducing new issues.
You seem to be adding new points in each post - just to have an
argument :-)

Scott:
I didn't think we had moved on. Weren't we disagreeing on whether Occam 
applies to our disagreement? On how what is pragmatic depends on one's 
agenda? On how the importance of a hole also depends on one's agenda?

Overall, it seems to me that we mostly agree on things metaphilosophical (no 
knockdown arguments, the Minsky quote, metaphors -- pragmatism in short), 
but mostly disagree on things metaphysical. You say that I seem to be adding 
new points just to have an argument. As I see it, these are just the same 
points on the basic argument: that you think physicalism can evolve to 
accommodate spacetime issues and mysticism, while I think such effort is 
misguided.

- Scott

On 2/8/06, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> 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/