[MD] Science and Values

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> Since you omitted my answers to your questions this exchange stops here.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I didn't "omit" anything. The quotations you provided are still in the
> archives. Why repeat them? 

You repeated everything else. Why omit them? 

They did not address EITHER question (anyone
> can
> check their past emails to see that).

Instead of helping your readers you expect them to do your work for you. 
Typical liberal elitism. 

> Your inability to answer, and your
> attempt to pawn off unrelated quotations as "answers" is what is stopping
> this
> exchange. Should you care to actually ANSWER any of these questions (not
> that
> you answered any from our last exchange either), I am game. So I will
> repeat.
> 
> How does the MOQ refute Hofstadter's view that consciousness is an
> emergent
> pattern made possible by the increasing complexity of the substrata under
> it
> (biological and inorganic patterns)?
> 
> According to you, does the MOQ say that consciousness existed before
> brains? If
> so, where? Are you saying that "everything is consciousness", replacing
> "Quality" with "consciousness" as in "inorganic patterns of
> consciousness"?
> What about "mind"? Are atoms "inorganic patterns of mind"?
> 
> Finally, "purpose" too is an intellectual pattern. Do you dispute this? If
> so,
> what is it if it is NOT an intellectual pattern? If the MOQ embraces
> BOTH
> non-teleological and teleological positions, it must mean that these
> positions
> are relativistic to the culture/values from which the question is asked,
> and as
> such "purpose" (like all intellectual patterns) emerge from the
> social-cultural
> level. Hofstadter would agree with this (in fact he says this very thing
> in his
> book).
> 
> So, actually answer the questions? Or, you could pretend we are all too
> stupid
> to read your past emails and act like you really did answer the questions
> and
> play "poor ol' picked on Platt" when pressed to actually answer them. My
> bet is
> the latter. But you could prove me wrong and actually give me some
> answers...
> (Methinks I'll be adding these to long list of avoided and unanswered
> questions
> that you use these tactics to try to skip over).
> 
> As for your article, anyone can write anything. I prefer to let me own
> personal
> experiences guide my views. There are problems, deficiencies and areas
> for
> improvement in all human endeavors, the Academy is no different, but
> overall it
> is Good, notwithstanding the perennial right-wing anti-intellectual
> assaults. 

Since anyone can write anything, why believe anything you write?