[MD] moq thought experiement 1.

[Marsha]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiement 1.


>
> Squonk said:
> Here is an argument: The pre lingual state can not be remembered because 
> there are no static patterns to remember. Therefore, not even Zennies can 
> remember the pre lingual state. So, how can it be asserted that this state 
> is not?identical to another?
>
> dmb replied:
> But there are countless accounts of this dynamic state and so they 
> obviously can remember it. And the infant's inability to give it any 
> meaning or recall it later is one of the key difference between babies and 
> mystics. This inability to preserve it is exactly what I meant when I said 
> that for an infant the experience is "literally meaningless". Your 
> argument is just a re-statement of my argument, the one that supposedly 
> wasn't given.
>
> Apparently you're unaware of the fact, but pre-verbal infants and infants 
> in general have been the object of quite a lot of study. These studies 
> form the basis of the principles of developmental psychology. Among the 
> classical pragmatists, George Herbert Mead was the expert that Dewey and 
> James looked to most. He was able to show how the social self forms first 
> and must be in place before the individualistic ego can emerge, which 
> seems to be quite consistent with the way third level social patterns have 
> to be in place before intellectual patterns can emerge. Maslow and Piaget 
> would be more widely known. They also show that human development occurs 
> in stages and that the lower stages remain even while more and more are 
> added. Seems like every one I've ever encountered has a similar hierarchy 
> and I bet there are others I don't even know about. You can ask Mr. Google 
> and find out for yourself. I suspect he'll tell you the same thing.
>
> All this seems completely obvious and reasonable to me and so I'm baffled 
> as to why you're resisting it so relentlessly. Its like you have a grudge 
> or something.
>
> I'm also a bit stunned at your lack of concern for the hypothetical test 
> subjects. You're talking about robbing people of their lives, sir. May I 
> suggest that you ponder the full meaning of that?


Hi David,

I don't get much from Squonk's mental exercise, but I do not understand your 
objection to his thought experiment.   I would think the mind would be the 
perfect place to perform such a controlled experiment.  One could imagine 
the problems, test different solutions, and thoroughly explore all aspects 
without doing harm to anyone.  (As has been pointed out by stating the 
difference between an infant and an enlightened Buddha.)  The question for 
me is, if you would object to such a philosophical thought experiment, would 
you also want to inhibit the artist's imagination?

Marsha