[MD] Tit's

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Peter [Gav mentioned] --


> SOM - mind and matter, it's more than a thinking convention;
> we have no choice but to act as if it's so - just try pretending
> the wall isn't there and try to walk through it, you can't.

You make a valid point.  For all this talk about MOQ "superseding" SOM 
because it is a "more intellectual" perspective, what does it avail us if it 
doesn't relate to the world we live in?  Other than imagining ourselves 
walking through walls, does the assertion that there are no subjects or 
objects make us any wiser?  Does the suggestion that the physical world is 
illusory enable us to get along better with our fellow man, improve our 
environment, or cure the ills of mankind?

I could understand the value of such a construct if it helped to explain the 
origin of the universe, the purpose of man's existence, or the ultimate 
metaphysical reality.  Instead, we are told that "the MOQ is an idea", not 
SOM (which is the reality we participate in).  Well, it's nice to have an 
idea -- an ontology, if you will -- especially if that idea could resolve 
some of the problems we confront as social entities.  Man (as a practitioner 
of SOM) has been putting his intellect to practical use for thousands of 
years, acquiring knowledge about the universe, reshaping the world to 
conform to his needs, civilizing society, establishing global communication, 
preventing disease, and applying sophisticated new approaches to production, 
economics, and government.  Yet, according to Gav, this is not 
"intellectual" enough. ...

[Gav]:
> To let go of SOM is to let go of the idea of dualism, of solipsism,
> of the possibility of pure objectivity. instead the subjective becomes
> partnered with the intersubjective, ... the intersubjective world - the
> previously 'objective' world - is the world of phenomenal consensus.
>
> SOM is the 'disensoulment' of the earth - of ourselves.  It is the
> mechanisation of life and human and it is this that is the meaning of
> the robot/AI myths - NOT the production of truly intelligent
> autonomous mechanical beings, but the production of mechanical
> beings from truly intelligent autonomous ones!!!!!!!!

I can't be sure whether Gav is advocating or condemning artifical 
intellegence.  But if producing mechanical beings is his idea of what we 
should expect of a world enlightened by intellect, I'll stay with 
old-fashioned dualism as long as I'm a participating subject in an objective 
world.

Thanks, Peter.  You may not be spotted passing through a concrete wall, but 
at least you have a head on your shoulders and your feet firmly planted on 
the ground.

Regards,
Ham