[MD] The Intellectual Level of Quality, according to Mark

[markhsmit]

Well Ham,

For the purposes of increasing my understanding of your
epistemology, I would ask the following question.  At what 
point does the objective (experience creating) become the
subjective (experience translation)?  I would agree that all
tools are extensions of the mind, and I do not want to get
into semantics concerning the subjective and objective.
If our reality is the experiencing of a larger world, where
does that interface lie?

Mark

On Feb 20, 2010, at 10:39:38 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

On 2/19/2010 at 8:45 PM, Craig writes:

> Ham [said]
>> phenomena and events are better known as Experience.
>> And the observer of this experience is you or me. In the
>> absence of observers there would be no experience,
>> so experience is subjective in nature.
>
> But we can. Perform the following experiment:
> Put 3 iron tools out in the rain.
>
> Tool #1 is watched by someone while rust accumulates on it.
> Tool #2 is filmed while no one watches, later the film shows
> rust accumulating.
> Tool #3 is neither filmed nor watched, but is examined later
> to have rust accumulated.
>
> So we have shown that rust accumulates on iron tools
> in the rain, even while no one is watching.

I disagree. You have shown that empirical knowledge is grounded in 
experience, not that things and events have an independent reality. The use 
of cameras and other recording devices only supplements the experiential 
construct of the observer by a time extension. There is a cogent design to 
what we call "objective experience" which is a valuistic representation of 
the essential source. As I said before, "most events are relational in 
space, periodic or cyclic in time, and familiar (i.e., predictable) 
occurrences." From this perceived congruity we deduce that new events 
(transformations) are the effect of prior causes. Repetitive experiences 
tend to reinforce the precept of causality.

The observation of any phenomenon or event is an experience. Thus, the 
change observed (experienced) in Tool #1 is the accumulation of rust on its 
surface. From this we conclude that the rust appearing (experienced) on the 
iron is the effect of oxidation by the rainwater over time. Photographed 
Tool #2 is also observed to rust, based on indirect experience provided by 
the camera. Since unobserved Tool #3 is later observed to be rusty, we 
deduce that its apparent (experienced) change is also caused by oxidation 
over a comparable time interval.

In all three instances our knowledge of the tool's transformation is 
experiential, while the "cause" of the tranformation is an intellectual 
precept (knowledge) derived from the sequential mode of our experience.

Does this analysis make my epistemology any clearer?

Regards,
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/