[MD] David M and DMB clearly disagree -what do others think?

[David M]

Hi Ham

Glad to have your input, please see my comments below.

> I think you both have a strange notion of
> causal reality.

DM: I like to think it is up to date with science, and yes it is strange to 
the traditional view.

> For example, David M said to dmb:
>> You are very confused.
>> The possible is the mother of all that is actual.
> I would say you are confused here, David.  What happens to this "mother"
> when the possibility is actualized?  She's dead on delivery, because
> possibility loses meaning once the event occurs.  Possibility is not 
> power,
> energy, or potentiality.

DM: Surely the possible and the potential or Plato's potentia are hard
to distinguish but feel free to try. There is some death here though, 
because
when the possible becomes actual only one possible is actualised
whilst all others are withdrawn, but the process moves on to a new
situation (past/history) and a new set of possible futures from which only
one is selected (as long as you reject the many worlds option of quantum
theory which is I think is logical but absurd).

It is only the temporal (intellectual) precept
> that one of a number of events will occur.

DM: Your view is anti-freedom and deterministic, I reject it as not
in accord with experience.

 If all the causal factors are
> known, the event isn't a possibility but the inevitable result of the 
> causal
> factors.

DM: Most modern science has abandoned this notion of causality, see Popper's
book on  propensities.


If you let go of a ball while standing on the floor, it's not a
> possibility that the ball will drop to the floor; it's a predictable fact
> based on the law of gravity.

DM: This is an exception and an unusually simple situation,
most processes are far more complex and have many possible
outcomes. In fact the ball could fly off according to quantum theory,
only not very often. Science began with such simple situations because
they were the only ones it could model. There is order in this cosmos,
but disorder dominates. Science has to go to alot of trouble to create
experiments that exhibit significant levels of order. See Roy Bhaskar's
philosophy of science.

 When we don't know the causal factors involved
> in a process, the outcome is a random event; i.e., one of many
> possibilities.  If we know the factors, the outcome is somewhat 
> predictable,
> that is to say, "probable".

DM: That's a discredited view, see John Dupre's (Stanford philosopher of 
science) The Disorder of Things.

> David:
>> If you are aware of something you have experienced it.
>
> Here's another example of misunderstood terms causing confusion.  On this
> forum, that's a predictable result!

DM: Give me an example of something you're aware of that you have not
experienced! Do you not have inner experiences Ham?

>
> DMB:
>> But the thing that really reveals "the possible" as a
>> bunch of nonsense is your assertion that "the possible"
>> is known in experience. If you imagine the possibility that
>> the lion might try to have you for lunch, you have not
>> experienced that possibility.
>
> Dmb is right here.  If you imagine being attacked by a lion, it's part of
> your awareness -- not your experience.

DM: Do you not experience what you imagine? Then how do you know
you have imagined it?

  As I must have said a hundred times,
> awareness (proprietary sensibility) includes thoughts, values, images, and
> feelings.  What we actualize from our sense of otherness becomes our
> experience of physical reality.

DM: What is inner and outer is both a form of experience/awareness.
But there is no outer without ideas. Inner and outer are ideas. Patterns
exist as inner and outer to create levels that can be divided into at
least 4.

>
> David:
>> Could there be any intelligence without our knowledge/
>> experience of the possible?
>
> Knowledge of the possible is part of our intelligence, but not our
> experience.

DM: Experience less intelligence would be rather poor, maybe a bit like
being a rock.

> The possible is our anticipatory awareness that something will happen. 
> Only
> when it happens is it experience.

DM: Our awareness of what is possible clearly expands, so as we get
older there is often less DQ and less surprises.

>
>> Is not the actual created by the possible that becomes
>> actual and the possible that is withdrawn and fails to
>> become actual?
>>
>> Call the possible unreal if you like but I would
>> say that is SOM rejecting a real experience because
>> it is not objectified experience.
>
> Possibility is "unreal" in that it is not a power and doesn't cause or
> create anything.

DM: Remove the possible and the actual would never change again
or anything new emerge.

  It is only an intellectual construct based on the law of
> causality, another human construct.

DM: Not according to physics. And not according to human
agentive choice. You are at the crossroads, left is possible,
so is right. Only one direction can become actual for you.

Ontologically, there must be a source
> with the potential to create  the appearance of a relational universe. 
> You
> may choose to call it DQ.  I call it Essence.

DM: What's in a name Ham? Here at MOQ.org I suggest you use
DQif they are the same.

>
> DMB:
>> To say, as you have above, that this means that
>> "the possible" is part of experience is a rather
>> transparent rhetorical slight of hand.
>
> Again, I would agree with DMB.
>
> David:
>> Is it? Why? I think it is driving some SOM assumptions
>> out of typical common SOM forms of thinking.
>
> I shall recuse myself from the rest of this argument because I regard ALL
> thinking as S/O.  Good lord, how else do we think if not subjectively?

DM: Is what you think actual or possible?

> I'll cut to the chase.  Despite the DQ interpretations, which are really
> irrelevant here, I hereby declare DMB the winner of this debate.
>
> Thanks for inviting me on your jury, Dave.  Better luck next time ;-).
>


DM: You're just an expert witness on SOM, I'm the judge and jury mate!
And this is a beauty competition, and I get to decide who I take home,
if other people prefer ugly old SOM (she had her day though) so be it.