[MD] The resolution of the mind/matter platypus.

[mark_maxwell at talktalk.net]

All. 1 Nov. squonk wrote:
The MOQ certainly "undermines" SOM and solves the Mind/Matter paradox, but how?

Hi Bo,
Simple, by suggesting they are the same thing: value.

Bo:
This introduction to the Mind/Matter paradox is excellent.

Squonk:
The paradox begins with a dualistic metaphysics. Dualistic metaphysics have to explain how two fundamentals relate to each other.

Bo:
There MUST be something important hidden in "..mind is contained in static inorganic patterns. Matter is contained in static intellectual patterns ..etc." but it evades me.

Squonk:
This account relies on two things:
1. That everything is value, and
2. Evolution.
A. "...mind is contained in static inorganic patterns.”
From 2. The concept of ‘mind’ (ipov) exists in the Cosmos, on a planet (bpov), in a culture (spov), from 1. as a static intellectual pattern (mind).
B. “Matter is contained in static intellectual patterns ..etc."
From 1. A static intellectual pattern, from 2. originated in a Cosmos which contained only matter.

Bo:
There is no direct scientific connection between mind and matter.

Squonk:
If science employs a dualistic metaphysics there can not be a direct connection by definition.

Bo:
Only the SOL does it, but too simply and elegantly to satisfy all you complication -theories - addicted people.

Squonk:
By definition, if one replaces a Dualism with a Monism, then the inherent problems associated with the Dualism disappear. It really is as simple as that.
And it becomes easy to appreciate why early Cosmologists utilise intellectual patterns - these patterns are not socially imitated.

Squonk prev: Now I have a problem here to be frank with you Bo: All this talk of values makes me feel uneasy. It makes me feel like one of the quacking Ducks from Orwell´s 1984 who have had their vocabulary deliberately reduced in order to control their thinking. Similarly with DQ and sq: Very often, phrases like, `X is a dynamic´ can be read, and this makes me uneasy also, because it becomes easy to trot out, `this is dynamic, that is dynamic, and the other is dynamic,´ without actually saying anything meaningful. I think there is a real danger that anything can be described as dynamic, even if it is utter garbage, or an outright fake. So, to answer your question, as a good little moqer, the gap doesn’t exist, because all sq patterns are the same stuff, and they do what they do in response to DQ. Now, I like that, but I feel like a quacking Duck saying it.

Bo:
I actually agree with you about the "dynamic" issue - "yelping" I call - but I have no problems with "all this talk of values" (a strange statement from a moqist) if it means the static levels.

Squonk:
It’s a bit like having a vocabulary with 5 words in it, one of them being value.

These 5 words are a good tool for organising experience, but my poetic sense feels like there’s sod all on the menu.

All the best,
squonk