[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[MarshaV]

At 09:31 AM 3/12/2009, you wrote:
>Marsha:
>First I was stunned at your use of "I think" to explain your
>scientific point-of-view, next shocked, now amused at how wise Lila
>was in Chapter 14.  For you and Science it is 'I think' all the way
>down, analogues, conceptual constructs (or turtles).  What is any
>interpretation given to percepts except repetition of 'I thinks'?
>
>"...I'm whatever your questions turn me into. You don't see that.
>It's your questions that make me who I am. If you think I'm an angel
>then that's what I am. If you think I'm a whore then that's what I
>am. I'm whatever you think. And if you change your mind about me then
>I change too. So whatever Richard tells you, it's true. There's no
>way he can lie about me."
>
>   Well, maybe, shatter they do.   ???
>
>[Krimel]
>This, and your ongoing mantra about killing ALL conceptual patterns are
>simply absurd. You rendering all communication as meaningless as bird song.
>You would reduce us all to grunting our emotions without reflection. Nature
>has bestowed upon us the gift of finding meaning. She gives us the tools to
>share that meaning with each other. You would throw it back in her face,
>content with a head full of immediate sense impressions, heedless of the
>past and unconcerned about the future. It's like you are claiming that the
>ultimate state of being would be a persistent vegetative state.
>
>That seems to be YOUR conception of the world, all that way down. It seems
>to me if ever a concept deserved a bullet to the head, your concept would be
>the one.

Krimel,

This is how you address my post, by accusation, by moving the onus?

If it comes to deciding on something based on chicken entrails, 
theological sermon, experimentation or your thinking, I'll choose 
experimentation, but that would be experimentation, even scientific 
experimentation, considered with a certain amount of skepticism and 
epistemological humility both which seem to go missing when you speak 
of Science.

I was asking you about the relationship between thought and brain 
activity, whether the relationship was causal or a correlation.  I 
was asking you about the brain science you often suggest your 
knowledge reflects.  You gave some examples of why, you thought, it 
was an obvious and indisputable correlation.  Then you seemed to say 
the relationship was causal based on 'I personally believe' and 'I 
think'.  Do you blame me for being stunned?


Marsha








.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.