[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[David M]

Hi Ian

Ian:

Ignoring "fundamentally wrong" again. You seem to be deliberately
ignoring the fact that my view of phsyicalism acknowledges that value
(quality) is the substrate of all physics (all reality). In fact as
I've said many times, all physics, consciousness, metaphor, semiosis
co-evolves from there. Nothing pre-exists quality in my physicalism,
and it is in that sense entirely consistent with the MoQ (as is a
common sense view of time, incidentally.)

DM: So you start with qualities, that's good. But surely what science
does is to create 'physical' concepts to split qualities into secondary
and primary ones, the latter good fordoind science, the secondary
ones to be dismissed as subjective. Surely we need to understand 
qualities in a broader context than one only derived from so-called
primary qualities? In terms of science we proceed with physicalism
I guess, but do we not want to understand the 2 higher levels of
SQ too? And also,as Nick Maxwell suggests, do we not need to
have a dialectic development between the scientific narrative told in
physicalist primary quality terms and the secondary quality terms
that are also a significant aspect of experienced reality? Down this
dialectical route we can properly grasp the mind/matter divide.
A divide that is a convention for scientific utility only.