[MD] What is SOM?

[Ron Kulp]

Ron, dmb;

What is with you guys and the quotes? 

First denying that something has essence is very different from saying
that
nothing exists. Since you love quotes so much here a bit from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus 

Ron:
Krimel it is you who is jumping to extremes to support your arguments
not us. I agree with the ship of Theseus quote, it's truth is in
usefulness not in it's objective existence. which is the point of the
parable.

Krimel:
"Locke's socks
John Locke proposed a scenario regarding a favorite sock that develops a
hole. He pondered whether the sock would still be the same after a patch
was
applied to the hole. If yes, then, would it still be the same sock after
a
second patch was applied? Indeed, would it still be the same sock many
years
later, even after all of the material of the original sock has been
replaced
with patches?"

Heraclitus is mentioned as well and as I stated many times I believe the
world is in "essence" Heraclitian. I have gone so far as to call it
chaotic
and explain both how and why.

Ron:
But you still seem to retain an ontological reductionists eye toward it.

Krimel:
Dave's author is confused when he says, "These are the scientific
specialists, scholars, Gelehrten, and all like-minded types who have
dominated philosophy for the past two centuries. For them, the problem
of
existence has become a matter of cognitive science to be answered
through
analysis of the brain-mind problem, using techniques borrowed from
neurophysiology, linguistics and computer science."

First of all if it is true that science has dominated philosophy for the
past two centuries then I would say it is because philosophers have had
so
little of value to say. But he is confused when he says that the
cognitive
sciences are in the least concerned with "existence". Cognitive sciences
in
a philosophical sense are not concerned with ontology. Their concern is
epistemology.

Ron:
but, as you said before how can you have an epistemology with out an
ontology?

Krimel:
What I have tried on several occasions to show is that while no one
claims
that science has solved the problem of consciousness, we have learned a
lot
about it and how the brain works. Philosophers Dennett, Searle, Hacker
and
Robinson are having a lively debate on these matters even now. For
Christ
sake, the head frickin' Buddha daddy of them all the Dalai Lama is in on
the
act. Where Dave sees reduction they see emergence. Inorganic, to
biological
to social to intellectual it even sound familiar depending on whether to
see
it from the top or the bottom, huh?

Ron:
No one is denying that science has broadened understanding and no one is
rejecting it. It's the faith that science will eventually solve the
problem
which is flawed. It's the exclusion of other means of research and
thought
which limits it. 

Krimel:
Much of this bears heavily on the MoQ and much of what is discussed
here.
Even at an elementary level, easily verifiable through introspective
methods
it shows that experience is not a unitary event that fragments into
awareness. The perception of unity is an illusion created by integrating
disparate fragmented input into a whole. It tells us a lot about
pre-intellectual or unconscious process and how they influence our
actions
and our intellectual processes. They tell us a lot about "value" and how
emotional processes influence how we think and act. 

I won't go on about this as Dave already knows everything and Ron can
use
the Wiki. But by the way a neurologist is a medical doctor not a
researcher;
a technologist not a scientist.

Ron:
All the better, since all you seem to expound on is opinion, 50 yrs of
experience as a medical doctor, as a technologist equates to 50 yrs
of first hand experience, can you match this? 

Krimel:
Claiming that science is irrelevant because of some absurdist conception
of
metaphysics is just farting into the wind. 

Ron:
I'd agree, why are you asserting it? the assertion we make is that
science is one of many ways to distinguish experience. This seems to
make you go
all Platt on us jumping to either/or scenarios of the argument when it
just isn't the case.

Krimel:
Perhaps someone has claimed that science is free of assumptions but
certainly not I. I have in fact said point blank what my assumptions
are.
Mainly, one more time, 

1. I think therefore I am
2. There exists a world external to me. (BTW, this says nothing about
its
nature or source only that I am not all that is.)
3. In that world there are other minds like mine.
4. Nature is orderly, it contains patterns.
5. We can know nature. 
6. All phenomena have natural causes. 
7. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. 

Ron:
I agree with part of 3, part of 4 and all of 7. as it pertains to MoQ.

Remember our chats about faith Dave? I believe I have been honest on
that
score. How about you? Just what are your assumptions? Something you
don't
like about these?

As far as values I would say science holds that knowledge is superior to
ignorance and that honesty is superior to dishonesty. I have mentioned
Kuhn's critique of science for denying that science is value free. But I
have also mentioned that the values science seeks to be free of are
personal
bias and personal prejudice. Didn't Arlo provide an excellent link to a
paper on this not long ago? Did either of you read it?

Ron;
Sure did, which begs the question of the personal prejudice of the terms
"superiority", "ignorance" and "honesty" and the meaning they hold.

Krimel:
Again this isn't about the metaphysical problems with what I have said
this
is about Dave not being able to follow the directions for building his
rotisserie and whining about how western culture is all evil because it
makes his head hurt. As he would have it the MoQ is the Cheshire Cat
reading
Jaberwocky and Dave wields the vorpal blade that goes snicker-snack.

Sounds good but it's still jibberish.

Ron:
sounds more like how you would have it.


thanks Krimel











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/