[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[ian glendinning]

OK Scott, let's keep it simple ... you mentioned the distinction
between the macro and micro levels of the argument ... how about ...

At the micro-level (the most "atomic" level of reality) I say "any
significant difference" does not require "intellect" for that reality
to be aware of it - its "value" is perceived very simply and
immediately, no metaphors were needed.

Ian

On 1/18/06, Scott Roberts <jse885 at localnet.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> 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/
>