[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Ham Priday]

Hello again, Micah --

This response (to my 1/27 message) arrived while I was typing the last post.

> "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?

I don't know.  Science constantly makes new discoveries that we didn't know
existed before.  Are we to assume that they didn't exist before being
discovered?

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

Again, I don't know.  There might be an animal point of view, or the
Creator's point of view.  According to Pirsig, the universe itself has a
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.

(Please refer to my comment on subjectivity/objectivity in the earlier
post.)

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

We may be on the same page here, but there aren't enough specifics to be
sure.  For instance, maintenance of any kind is an activity or routine
usually performed by humans, so it doesn't lend itself to concrete reality
as, say, a motorcyle does.
If we consider a motorcycle to be the object, are you saying that the nature
of the motorcycle is Quality?  Or that the nature of the reality from which
the motorcyle is derived is Quality?  Also, with due respect to Mr. Pirsig,
if we could discuss this in terms of value rather than quality it would make
more sense to me.

> You make my point, hot is what humans feel - coal does not
> feel, it is.

But heat (thermal energy) also is.  It doesn't have to feel or be felt; it
is measurable in coulombs or degree-units that are universally verifiable.
Must "hot" always refer to a human sensory response in order to be "real"?

[Ham, previously]:
> 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?

[Micah]:
> ???? 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.

I don't know about "clutter", but if you acknowledge the evolution of human
life as a temporal process, humans weren't around when the universe came
into being.  Can we assume its original design was not affected when human
observers came upon the scene?

You call yourself an Objectivist but, again, the reality you describe is
that of human experience (i.e., Subjective).  Yet, you never use the word.
If reality and everything in it is objective, what, if anything, is
subjective to you?

I'm not being difficult, Micah.  I'm just trying to figure out your
ontological position, and you haven't given me enough to go on.  For all I
know, we're in complete agreement.  However, when people come back at me
with phrases like "Quality is the nature of ..." experience has taught me to
beware of false doctrines.

Thanks for the responses,
Ham