[MD] Mystics and Brains

[pholden at davtv.com]

Hi Ham,

Do I detect a possible movement in the direction of accepting the MOQ? By
pursuing the value connection in explaining the reason why there is something
rather than nothing -- the philosopher's Gordian Knot -- you appear on the brink
of a breakthrough. Be that as it may, I think many of us will be interested in
how your dialog with Witherall transpires. I know I will be. 

Best regards,
Platt
 


Quoting Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>:

> 
> Hi Platt --
> 
> 
> > If you posit that the universe evolved in order to observe itself,
> > then it has a lot to do with us. If you say the universe evolved
> > for no reason at all, then you end up in a wasteland where
> > "Each individual in his cell of isolation was told that no matter
> > how hard he tried, no matter how hard he worked, his whole life
> > is that of an animal that lives and thinks like any other animal.
> > He could invent moral goals for himself, but they are just
> > artificial inventions. Scientifically speaking he has no goals."
> > (Lila, 22) I prefer the former scenario to the latter.
> 
> What you are describing is the Anthropic Principle I introduced here under a
> Value heading.  It asserts that the universe is "fine-tuned" so as to permit
> life to exist as we know it.  Were the universe not fine tuned in this
> fashion, human beings would not exist, hence could not observe the universe.
> When you tie this in with Value (DQ?), as Arthur Witherall did in his
> seminal essay, you then have a workable teleology that supports your idea.
> 
> As Witherall stated it: "Since the question is why rather than how the world
> came to be, it seems appropriate to say that it came to be in order to
> realize goodness.  This would mean that existence has a purpose, which is
> the realization of value."   This is compatible with the "moral thrust" of
> the MoQ, except that it is man's realization of Value, rather than the
> "experience" of rocks and things, that creates the objective world.  (I also
> suspect this is what Micah is hinting at by insisting that everything is
> objective -- that is, from the perspective of the subject.)
> 
> I've been in touch with the author, who apparently has since moved into the
> Information Technology field, and he's suggested several additional
> references to a value-based ontology.  I plan to run a substantial portion
> of his essay on "The Fundamental Question" in my Values column next week.
> 
> Like Pirsig, Arthur claims he's "no longer an academic," but he clearly has
> a firm grasp on contemporary metaphysics.  I'm hoping he'll be interested
> enough in my thesis to offer some needed guidance.  If this works out, I
> have reason to believe it may help resolve, or at least codify, some of the
> controversial issues remaining in the MoQ.   I'm optimistic because I
> understand what Witherall is saying and, considering that you find Leslie's
> jargon unintelligible, seeking out another academic source at this time
> would be an exercise in futility.  Although Witherall says "you will almost
> certainly find Leslie a better resource than Rescher," neither Leslie nor
> Rescher lay out the anthropic principle as a valuistic premise with the
> clarity that he does.
> 
> If you're interested in how this dialogue transpires, I'll keep you
> informed.
> 
> 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/
> 




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/