[MD] Probability

[Case]

[Ham]
All scientific theory is predicated on an objective view of reality.  What
makes a particular theory intellectually credible is that it can be made a
subset to the body of knowledge already accepted by the scientific
community.  That a theory can be "predictive" makes it a useful tool for
gathering additional information about the objective world, but unless a
theory conforms to the methodology of Science, it has no value to the
objectivist.  In other words, to believe in a scientific explanation of
reality is a "faith-based" option, just as are believing in spiritualism or
religious dogma. 

[Case]
Oddly enough I agree that faith is involved in accepting the scientific
world view. But Science is not necessary "Objective." Science is
intersubjective. The scientific community, which includes anyone who wish to
join in, makes statements and uses techniques available to anyone anywhere.
Members of the community are invited to evaluate scientific statements and
to test them. If you wish to make statements that others have some basis for
agreeing with I suggest you join us. 

[Gene]:  
> There's certainly a lot of very interesting stuff as to how consciousness

> affects Reality. The fact that when we all look at something, we see the  
> same thing is vastly fascinating! And I've read some really interesting  
> articles about it. But the fact of the matter is that Quantum Mechanics is

a very interesting, and useful idea. It's based on observation, prediction  
and falsifiability. What is Essentialism based on?  

[Ham] 
Observation, predictability, and falsifiablility are useful criteria for
validating factual information (intelligence) relative to an objective
space/time system.  However, man does not have access to factual information
about ultimate causes and non-objective reality.  

[Case]
Are you seriously suggesting that we entertain nonfactual speculation about
things that aren't real? Are we to take seriously a philosophy about
"non-objective reality" that does not deal with "factual information." 

[Ham]
Human consciousness itself cannot be explained scientifically, nor can the
values, meaning and purpose of life.  In fact, these subjective phenomena
"get in the way" of scientific investigation.  They are incapable of
measurement or direct observation because they are not existential
realities; instead, they are proprietary to the individual who experiences
them.

[Case]
A great deal has been learned about human psychology and neuroanatomy. A
great deal has been studied about what people report to be their subjective
states. The option you offer has no substance, no predictive power, no
possibility of being tested. What does it offer? On what basis do you make
claims about "ultimate causes?"

[Ham] 
Essentialism is based on the reality beyond differentiated existence.  
Unlike Science, which takes objects for granted, the Essentialist accepts
cognitive intelligence as a proprietary construct (i.e., appearance) of
reality derived from sense impressions mediated by a space/time mode of
awareness.  

[Case]
This is a big problem, Ham. What the heck is "reality beyond differentiated
existence" supposed to mean? Do you talk like that to your children or
grandchildren? You often seem to equate the vague with the profound. You can
not gain support for your ideas by constantly redefining words and making up
new ones.

Science does not take objects for granted. It studies them in detail and
tries to identify all of their various properties and relationships. The
idea of extracorporeal consciousness just doesn't stand up. What are we to
make of a statement like: "the Essentialist accepts cognitive intelligence
as a proprietary construct (i.e., appearance) of reality derived from sense
impressions mediated by a space/time mode of awareness." 

[Ham]
This is the philosopher's approach to understanding, and Pirsig has
essentially taken the same route.  He and I both postulate experience as the
primary "mediator" of reality, although he declined to theorize a primary
source.  
 
[Case]
This is your route. Pirsig leaves reality undefined. In describing why a
mystic would reject the kind of approach you are taking, Pirsig says, "To
define something is to subordinate it to a tangle of intellectual
relationships. And when you do that you destroy real understanding." You
seem to offer living proof of this.

[Ham]
Concepts having to do with an absolute, uncreated source are not bound by
the logic and empirical limitations of finitude.  However, it is possible to
come up with intellectually plausible epistemologies.  This is what  
I have attempted to do with my philosophy of Essence, which starts (as  
Descartes did) with the one thing that is inimical to Science, subjective
awareness.  

[Case]
I was unaware that Descartes said anything at all about subjective awareness
being inimical to Science. But I am pretty sure he would been rightly
skeptical of ideas that, "...are not bound by the logic and empirical
limitations of finitude."

Much of the verbiage you use seems designed mostly to solve problems you
create for yourself in formulating the questions you pose to yourself.
Coming up with: "intellectually plausible epistemologies and hypotheses that
can account for existence within a logically consistent ontology," sounds
like what science fiction writers do. I recommend you read more of them. It
would improve both your science and your philosophy. I recommend Douglas
Adams as a great starting place.

I made a sincere effort a while back to show you a few things that might
help you see and experience directly some of the ideas Gene and I have been
covering here. The Game of Life thread gave you a link and some suggestions
on ways to use the visual aids to see and tinker with the world in
miniature. I purposely left off any discussion of what this little tool
demonstrates in the hope that you would take some interest. Platt at least
claimed he tried but couldn't find it. I have a couple of other
demonstrations that you might find interesting but they can not be shown in
a purely text format.

You failed even to offer an excuse for not looking at it. Instead you
continue to advocate revelation in exchange for reason and abstraction over
the concrete.