[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[David M]

Scott

How would you describe the operation of intellect
and the nature of experience prior to what we would
normally call langauge?

DM




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question


> 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/
>