[MD] Is Quality Different from (Mother) Nature?

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,

Thank you for your response, it is a start.  My aim is to see how far science
can apply to the metaphysics.  I'm sure I am not saying anything new, but
as I've said before, I am not interested in novelty, just personal understanding.

In my opinion science is a branch of philosophy, hence the term Ph.D.  To treat
it otherwise would be to elevate (or subjugate) it to something more or less
than what it is.  

You have provided some fundamentals of the scientific method.  That is
conjecture (hypothesis), objective experimental design, and measurement
as support for the conjecture.  I do not want to get into the metaphysics
on how no measurements are objective, since they fall into subjective
criteria.  What I wanted to explore was the process of measurement in
metaphysics.

I will start with Quality since it has scientific underpinnings, but I think the
same would apply for Essence.  Understanding of Quality, results from the
compilation of relevant information which ties together to form a theory.
In metaphysics we employ thought experiments, but in the end have to tie
them to some observable phenomenon.  The appropriate logical
strings are attached much in the same way as science.  From that we
develop a world view which is consistent within our frame of reference.
There is no right way to construct this view, provided it imparts 
understanding.

Quality is expressed in levels which are measurable.  While we cannot 
measure Quality itself, we can measure its result.  Therefore the way
to measure this phenomenon is not directly, but indirectly.  From the
impact of Quality, we are able to make certain statements.  This is of
course what MoQ is all about.  So because we relate a metaphysical
concept to real things, it is indeed measurable, again, not directly
but indirectly.  In the same way, we cannot see a black hole, but
we can measure it indirectly through its effect on neighboring stars.

>From my reading of your website, I understand the negation of
essence to be what I would call awareness.  

The way you describe it, I would assume the negation which
you speak of to be a process.  All processes are measurable.
We may not know how at this time, but that does not mean it is not
possible.  By determining the methods by which Essence is negated,
we can get an objective idea what Essence is.  Of course I assume
that by negation you mean that there is something to be negated,
even if that thing is Nothingness.  Such negation must be dependent
on the Nature of essence in order to be successful.  By measuring
how essence is negated, we get an indirect measurement
of Essence.

We live in a physical world which walks hand in hand with the
non-physical.

Anyway, enough about science for now.

Cheers,
Mark

On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:45:42 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
From:   "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Is Quality Different from (Mother) Nature?
Date:   November 29, 2009 12:45:42 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Evening, Mark -- 


> I am not a fan of Dawkins as he has got a novices notion
> of god. While his enthusiasm may play well to those with
> a literal understanding of such a thing, it has no effect on
> those who know such a god. His mission is to place the
> intellect and that which is known (which is not much) as
> an argument against that which is not known (which is
> much much more). MoQ does a similar thing, but I can
> appreciate MoQ as it is less arrogant. It may provide
> meaning in our current experience, which is all one could
> hope for. Dawkins' subservience to the grand brain is
> comical at times.

We are all "novices" when it comes to defining the uncreated source. What 
annoys me, however, is the arrogance of those who vehemently deny the 
supernatural on the ground that theology is based on superstition and 
mythology. Such people fancy themselves so "enlightened" in their nihilism 
that they have no need for spirituality or belief in a higher reality. I 
think D'Souza's argument is vindicated by the historical fact that, despite 
the Crusades of the Middle Ages and the witch hunts of colonial times, the 
most stable, moral, and technologically advanced nations in the free world 
have been founded on Christian principles.

> I would like to discuss for a little bit the notion that science
> because it is objective, cannot get very far with an understanding
> of the subjective. That is, how science would falter when trying
> to explain negation of essence. When electrodes are placed in
> the brain, personal thoughts can be evoked, indicating a link
> between bioelectrical signals and our sense of awareness.
> While there is no way to prove (at this time) that our thoughts
> are in any way linked to the physical world, such brain probing
> may provide insight. Such science would have to take on much
> more than just the physical evocation of thoughts, it would have to
> describe a direct causal linkage between those thoughts and
> our personal sense of them.
>
> I noticed that my previous post was sent twice, I didn't think I
> had sent the first one. But as they say near here in the Los Angeles
> Valley, WATEVERR! (with attitude). But anyway, I will end with
> a question: What is it about our personal sense of negation that
> makes it unavailable for scientific inquiry? I do not have an answer,
> but can certainly think about it though dialogue.

First, let's consider the basis of scientific methodology. The method is 
"objective" because it systematically minimizes the influence of subjective 
bias (experimenter prejudice) when testing a hypothesis or theory. This is 
achieved through four major steps: 1) Observation and description of a 
phenomenon or group of phenomena, 2) Formulation of a hypothesis to explain 
the phenomena (in physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal 
mechanism or a mathematical relation), 3) Use of the hypothesis to predict 
the existence of related phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results 
of new observations, and 4) Replication of the tests by independent 
experimenters and properly performed experiments. Lastly, the hypotheses 
and conclusions of science are always open to revision or revocation should 
subsequent evidence prove contradictory.

For the scientific investigator a "phenomenon" is an empirical occurrence or 
change capable of being measured statistically. Because reality for the 
scientist is limited to observable phenomena that are measurable in units of 
time and space, researchers are trained to reject information that cannot be 
expressed in numbers or equations, or that is incapable of experimental 
confirmation. Thus, whether the evidence is the percentage yield of a 
chemical reaction or the spectographic analysis of a star cluster, the 
results are obtained in numerical terms. The more that an experiment is 
replicated, the greater the accuracy (reliability) of the result.

This is all well and efficacious when determining the properties and 
dynamics of physical entities or coming up with new solutions to pragmatic 
problems. But it is also formulaic in that scientists assume that every 
effect has a cause (which is true only within a relational system), that 
their "objective" method is free of subjective influences (which is false, 
because empirical data must be interpreted by experience which is always 
subjective), and that the laws of physics are "universal" (when, in fact, 
they are intellectually deduced from experiential evidence). When science 
is applied to investigating "subjective awareness", what the researchers 
report is information about neuro-physiological functioning, anatomical 
responses, and behavioral changes. In other words, they can only explain 
mind, thought and feeling in terms of statistical data.

I'll leave your question to a later post, since I'm not sure what you mean 
by "our sense of negation." The concept of negation which I borrowed from 
Heidegger to explain creation (ontogeny) is highly controversial in these 
circles, and I've avoided the full explanation you would need to conclude 
that we're in accord on the subject. Besides, it's a metaphysical theory 
with no particular relevance to empirical science that I'm aware of.

Thanks for opening up this dialogue, Mark. I hope my comments on the 
limitations of science in exploring subjective awareness is useful to you.

Cheers,
Ham

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/