[MD] Mystics and Brains

[David M]

Case

What does 'sustain', 'product', 'idea', 'physical' -as used below-mean?
I guess we have a common sense notion of physical, something
observable, kickable, sprayable. But an idea is not like this.
What are ideas? One suggestion is that an idea is a possible
state of something physical, so whilst still only an idea it is something
possible but not actual or physical. I have an idea:it's time to go
and have a drink. As a physical system this change in my state
is a potential I have, unrealised and unactualised but real, a
real possibility. I can't go for this drink without being sustained
by legs, etc. And I may never get round to going for it.
Is going for a drink a product of my physical state? Well I may
allow thirst to persuade me to realise this idea/potential but what
about the idea of reading a particular book? Well I'm off for my
drink, but I'm pretty sure that physical is one kind of term, idea another,
and you can't replace one by the other.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Mystics and Brains


> [Platt]
> I would say that if perfect mathematical constructions can lie outside of
> natural processes, so can consciousness. But, I could be wrong.
>
> [Case]
> Mathematics is a vocabulary and syntax for describing precisely all sorts 
> of
> relationships. We assume that these relationships could be understood and
> expressed by any sufficiently complex entity. But in the form that we
> understand and express them they are human ideas. My question all along 
> here
> has been how do ideas and consciousness exist outside of the physical
> processes that sustain them? How can they be understood as other than the
> product of those processes?
>
> [Platt]
> Except there are a thousand and one variables in the event including the
> exact position of the ball when kicked, it's angle, the force of the foot
> meeting the ball, the wind direction and speed, the effect of crowd noise,
> the position of players, etc., etc. Science can't deal very well with such
> hypercomplex events, which is why the social sciences are so dismal.
>
> [Case]
> Complexity theory is exactly the study of this sort of thing. How is it 
> that
> simple systems can produce complex results and complex systems can be
> explained in simple terms. Pirsig said of the MoQ: "It would be almost 
> like
> a mathematical definition of randomness."  He more or less dismisses this
> but I would say he nailed it squarely right there.
>
> [Platt]
> You got me about aesthetic philosophical theory. Rather I look to direct
> experience of beauteous forms to explain beauty in ways science does not,
> such as the following poem by William Wordsworth from which we got the
> phrase "murder to dissect."
>
> [Case]
> If you are suggesting that I need to get out more, you are probably right.
>
> 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/
>