[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Scott Roberts]

Ian,

Ian said:
Why you don't just agree with me when I say I agree with you, I'll
never know. You now seem to be twisting my words to keep an argument
going. I hope it's productive. [IG] Inserted below ...

Scott:
Because it seems to me that we were disagreeing, but I also see that my 
introducing Leibniz' question was a red herring, so let me see if I can back 
up a bit. You are saying that if we have reasonable belief that X is the 
cause of everything, then we can start asking about an explanation of X 
(which may result in rethinking the original belief).  Leibniz's question, 
though, applies whether or not I agree, that is, whether or not one believes 
in an absolute first cause, since both an absolute first cause, or a first 
causes with explanatory holes in them, are both something rather than 
nothing. But as a question it is tangential to what we were discussing, and 
not relevant.

So back to the question of agreement. I agree that the search for 
explanation can be unending, but I do not agree that it should be. The 
reason is that I consider "explanation" to be part of the problem. It arises 
from SOM, the view that "what is" is an X (or an X and...) and then there is 
an explainer attempting to explain X in some other terms. Now this situation 
clearly exists, but it is not the totality of situations. At some point 
(sooner rather than later, in my opinion), one must resort to mysticism, not 
to explanatory searches.

[skipping stuff arising from my introduction of Leibniz]

>
> Ian continued:
> The point I made (repeatedly now) is that your choice of that
> something (rather than nothing) cannot be entirely arbitrary or
> arbitrarily fantastic. The more complex the something, the more is
> unexplained. That's all.
>
> Scott:
> >From this I assume that you consider physical reality to be less complex
> than consciousness.

[IG] Twisting my words again. All of physical reality is also much too
complex a starting point - We're talking first cause here. My
proto-reality (speculative nature of the first cause hole in my
physical metaphysics.) is just "any significant difference between
anythings" (aka Quality). What's yours ? Consciousness in all its
glory is similary too fantastic for a first cause. What is your
proto-consciousness ?

Scott:
Mine is (in comparison with yours): awareness that creates anythings by 
creating significant differences. (And I would quibble about calling it 
proto-consciousness, or yours proto-reality -- just doesn't seem right, but 
nevermind). More to the point, I regard your insertion of 'significant' to 
imply awareness, in that there is no significance without awareness. 
Further, the word to be used in 'creating' significant differences is 
'intellect' more than 'awareness'.


Scott said:
> Remember the problem that all
> that we know of physical reality has been filtered through sense 
> perception.
> Can we say we understand physical reality without an understanding of
> perception, and if not, doesn't that make physical reality more complex 
> than
> perception?

[IG] I'm aware of that. (You mentioned "physical reality" here, not
me). I'd say physical reality didn't exist "as we now know it" until
our consciousness existed, and even then it evolved. Again, as I've
tried to suggest many times before. You've toned back full blown
"consciousness" to "perception" here. If you continued that line back
to "existence of any significant difference" - I might COMPLETELY
AGREE WITH YOU. We were almost there once, with signs and semiosis,
but you insist on rubbing my physicalist nose in YOUR consciousness
;-)

Scott:
Would you agree if that line goes back to "awareness of any significant 
difference"? And of course I am rubbing your physicalist nose in my view of 
consciousness, since that is what we are disagreeing about. There is a 
vastly different meaning to the statement "physical reality didn't exist "as 
we now know it" until our consciousness existed, and even then it evolved" 
depending on whether we are referring to macroscopic physical reality or 
microscopic. For the former, my position is that it didn't exist at all, and 
if one accepts that, physicalism becomes untenable.

[skipping more stuff related to the Leibniz' red herring.]

>
> Ian said:
> BTW the "eventually get around to" language is pejorative rhetoric.
> People have been "around to it" for millenia, they're just getting better 
> at
> it.
> Ian
>
> Scott:
> I still don't see a whisper of a physicalist explanation, so I think my
> language is justified. Nor have people been thinking about it for 
> millenia.
> It only became a problem when mechanism arose in the 17th century, and I
> think that you would agree that any mechanistic attempt at an explanation
> (such as the "brain excreting thoughts like an organ excreting bile", or 
> the
> behaviorists' totally ignoring consciousness) was of no value at all.

[IG] I'm not whispering - I'M SHOUTING. Are you listening ?
Knowledge AND reality evolve. Nothing wrong with the "bile excretion"
metaphor, as long as you remember "it's metaphors all the way down"
and they evolve too.

Scott:
There is a lot wrong with the "bile excretion" metaphor, since it stems from 
a mechanist metaphysics, which is to say a literalist metaphysics. As is 
physicalism. At least I assume you would say that in your current 
(physicalist) metaphor, there was a time (e.g, 10 billion years ago) when 
there were no metaphors, since I assume you think one needs semiosis to have 
metaphors.


Ian said:
(Let's get back to semiosis and metaphors, soon.)

Scott:
Are we there yet? :-)

Trouble is, it seems to be stuck at where I left it above and where we've 
been several times before. You assume significant differences, and I agree, 
but I also hold that significance (value) implies awareness of value and it 
implies intellect (or at least semiosis), and I'm not sure what more we can 
say.

- Scott