[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Micah]

Ham,

"Nothing can be shown to exist independent of humans" is an objective
statement. It is fact.
Does anything exist, that we don't know of?

"Man is the measure of all things" is an objective statement. It is fact.
Is there a non human point of view?

Objectivism is based on the fact that reality is objective, not primary.
Reality cannot be objective without humans, but it is objective.

The motorcycle maintenance is objective reality, Quality is the nature of
objective reality. Two different things.


>To me, this is a question of how you define "hot".  If you raise the
>temperature of a lump of coal to its ignition point, it erupts in flame and
>begins to disintegrate into gaseous forms of carbon.  This is "hot" in the
>objective sense, and it definitely affects the object, whether or not you
>are present to "feel" the heat.  Therefore, unless you claim that the
>burning coal in my fireplace is imaginary, heat is a physical phenomenon
>measurable by a thermometer and observable as combustion.  I don't deny
that
>what I feel as heat or pain when I touch a hot rock is a subjective
>sensation, and I accept that fact that a rock doesn't know what hot is.
But
>how can you deny that the source of what feels "hot" to me is the thermal
>energy emitted from the rock?

You make my point, hot is what humans feel - coal does not feel, it is.
Ignition of coal is an objective chemical reaction that is not a choice of
coal or oxygen, nor is there any feeling involved. Hot is not an objective
term, it is subjective and  resides in humans, not without them. Hot is real
to us, but coal does not understand mental concepts. Hot is subjective and
thermal energy is objective. How hot is a fire that man does not measure?

>I agree that the "mental concept" of a design does not exist without
humans,
>but I have no rational justification for assuming that a design cannot
exist
>without humans.  How do you explain the design of the physical universe
>before there were human concepts?

???? Please explain how design is not a human concept, then I can answer
that question. You put the cart before the horse, you assume that a human
mental concept (design) existed before humans. You have too much clutter.

Thanks for giving me pause
Micah






-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:11 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)



Micah --

I'm fascinated by some of the assertions you've made, and would like to
explore them with you, if this is agreeable.

In your first message, to Ian, back in Sept. you claimed to be an
Objectivist and challenged Ian to refute an Ayn Rand argument.  Since then
you have introduced concepts that are anything but objectivist.

For example, on 10/10 you stated (again to Ian) that "...nothing can be
shown to exist independent of humans.  Man is the measure of all things."
On the same day you said to Arlo:
> People have died, and reality still exists. But when
> the last human dies, reality cannot be shown to exist.
> Reality, in fact, is human. This is elemental and is
> Pirsig's philosophical "jumping off point".

As I understand Rand's Objectivism, existence is primary but contingent upon
its perception.  In Rand's own words: "Existence exists -- and the act of
grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists
which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness being the
faculty of perceiving that which exists."  [Atlas Shrugged]

It would seem to me that, although we can't know the nature of what exists
(i.e., the object), Rand is saying that existence is primary to conscious
awareness.  If so, then if one equates existence with "reality", it is not
human and therefore does not disappear when the last human dies.  Like
Pirsig, however, Rand does not posit a primary source or "ultimate" reality;
so it's not clear whether perception is derived from existence or a higher
source.

On 10/12 you said to Platt:
> If I have a fire and in the fire is a rock and the fire
> has been burning for an hour - is the rock hot?
> No - the rock is not hot, it is not anything but a rock.
> You are hot when you touch the rock and you may say
> the rock is hot, but the rock doesn't know what hot is.
> It is a rock. The rock's molecules have moved apart and
> are moving, and a thermostat may read a high temperature,
> but the rock is not hot. Hot is a mental concept we have
> and have placed on the rock.

To me, this is a question of how you define "hot".  If you raise the
temperature of a lump of coal to its ignition point, it erupts in flame and
begins to disintegrate into gaseous forms of carbon.  This is "hot" in the
objective sense, and it definitely affects the object, whether or not you
are present to "feel" the heat.  Therefore, unless you claim that the
burning coal in my fireplace is imaginary, heat is a physical phenomenon
measurable by a thermometer and observable as combustion.  I don't deny that
what I feel as heat or pain when I touch a hot rock is a subjective
sensation, and I accept that fact that a rock doesn't know what hot is.  But
how can you deny that the source of what feels "hot" to me is the thermal
energy emitted from the rock?

On 1/21 you said to Platt:
> Yes we are in the universe, but "design" is a human mental
> concept that exists in us, not in the universe. Mental concepts
> do not exist without humans, only within them.

I agree that the "mental concept" of a design does not exist without humans,
but I have no rational justification for assuming that a design cannot exist
without humans.  How do you explain the design of the physical universe
before there were human concepts?

Please understand, Mica, I'm in no way criticising your statements.  In
general I understand and applaud the direction you're heading.  I believe
that if one takes the metaphysics implied by the MoQ literally, your
conclusions are valid.  But these are questions for which I currently have
no answer.  I'm hoping you do.

Thanks, and best regards,
Ham


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/