[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[David M]

Hi Micah

Could there be any concepts without experience that is prior
to these concepts, could there be the concept of 'human' without
many other concepts prior to this one? Is everything mental
conceptual? Is there a difference between experience and
conceptualised experience? Is the division inner/outer not
down the road that leads to SOM?

I think your starting point (all these assumptions about the human)
is far from unproblematic and seems to ignore Pirsig.

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micah" <micah at roarkplumbing.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)


> David,
>
> Without humans there can be no mental concepts or reality, is that the
> without you refer to?
>
> Micah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of David M
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:00 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)
>
>
> Micah
>
> Does there not need to be a without for this within to be?
>
> David M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Micah" <micah at roarkplumbing.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)
>
>
>> Probably been covered, but intelligence and behavior are human
>> characteristics, and an atom is not organized, it is - we perceive the
>> organization. Intelligence, behavior and organization is within us, not
>> without us.
>>
>> "Intelligent Design" begs the question - compared to what other design?
>> Again, the universe "is" - the design is within us.
>>
>>
>>
>> Micah
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
>> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of David M
>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:12 PM
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)
>>
>>
>> Ian/Arlo
>>
>> My own vision is of a non-reductive, non-deterministic
>> science, ontological pluralism, that gives us a view of nature that
>> recognises
>> the active intelligence/behaviour that is in all life if not all forms of
>> organisation (an atom is a form of organisation) but evolves into a
>> higher human form, where most aspects of religion as we have know it
>> have been abandoned as authoritarian attempts at social control
>> but perhaps retaining some sense of the awe and sacredness
>> that this cosmic achievement should perhaps inspire.
>> Is that so awful and misguided?
>>
>> David M
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
>> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)
>>
>>
>>> [Ian]
>>> I think we're mixing up "the argument from intelligent design" with
>>> the drivel of IDC "creationists"
>>>
>>> [Arlo]
>>> According to Wikipedia, "Intelligent design (ID) is an argument that
>>> "certain features of the universe and of living things are best
>>> explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as
>>> natural selection." ... "In a leaked memo, commonly known as The
>>> Wedge Document, however, the supporters of the movement were told,
>>> "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a
>>> positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories,
>>> which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design
>>> theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist
>>> worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian
>>> and theistic convictions."
>>>
>>> "Intelligent design", at its core, implies an "intelligent designER". 
>>> No?
>>>
>>> [Ian]
>>> The argument is that, evolved, emerged design IS intelligent. The
>>> intelligent design IS the process of emergence, with no master plan
>>> or master intellect required or implied.
>>>
>>> [Arlo]
>>> I'm not sure I understand this. Can you expand a bit?
>>>
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>