[MD] Science and the MOQ

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Platt]
> Surely true knowledge is not a matter of my say so. To that you 
> object regularly, constantly, and consistently. So what then is true knowledge?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'm not even sure what you mean by "true knowledge", as opposed to 
> "false knowledge"?
> 
> Knowledge is what we believe. It is based on our assumptions, 
> assumptions that are culturally-derived. We value this knowledge 
> based on how well it works. When it stops working, we change our 
> assumptions, and our intellectual descriptions of nature change accordingly.

Who is "we?"

> By "true", I take it you mean "objective". That which is not based on 
> assumptions. And you yourself denied this was possible.

No, I don't mean objective. But, that's one assumption some people use.
Assumptions from revelations may also be used to establish true knowledge.
 
> [Platt]
> Intellectual patterns are analogous to what? Tea cups, computer software?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Intellectual patterns ARE analogies. They are analogies we use to 
> codify our experiences.

So intellectual patterns are analogous to experience? That's a weird way 
to think of an analogy. Not used in Lila that I can find. 
 
> [Platt]
> Not sure what you mean by "mediate" and "mediation."
> 
> [Arlo]
> Means stands between, filters, organizes, shapes, highlights, 
> focuses, orders, blinds, colors, selects, structures, and affords the 
> contact between "intellect" and "bio-inorganic" patterns.


That's a lot of activity for one little word. What bio-inorganic patterns are you
talking about -- electrical brain waves?

> "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived".
> 
> [Platt]
> Seems to me we've been here before. All you are really saying IMO is 
> that there are always other people around, whether in Descartes' 
> times or ours, and that other people influenced his thinking, my 
> thinking, and your thinking. Right?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Nope. His thinking was made possible by his assimilation of French 
> culture. It doesn't "influence" his thinking, it enables it.
> 
> "The seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I think..."
> 
> or drop the middle and express it as such...
> 
> "The seventeenth century French culture exists, ... therefore I am."

So I wouldn't "be" unless the 21st century American culture existed? I 
doubt such an assumption. 

But assumptions about knowledge (thinking) is one thing. There are also assumptions
about what is good. I think it's impossible not to have assumptions about
what is good just as all knowledge is based on assumptions. Agree? 





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