[MD] Quantum Enigma

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha -- 

> I thought I'd give this another try.

Well, I suppose if you are willing to try again, I should be too.

> How I understand conscious awareness is as pure process,
> 100% immediate experience, and the moment one tries to
> analyze it, it is gone.  All other entities - I, knower, self,
> individual, me,  etc. -  are _conceptually constructed_ and
> have no independent existence.  They are a  conglomerate
> ever-changing, impermanent, interdependent, inorganic,
> biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value.

Marsha, you are attempting to describe the subjective self as if it were an 
objective entity, which of course is impossible.  Yes, "raw" experience is 
"immediate", but it hardly represents 100% of conscious awareness.  There is 
also the memory function which links self-awareness to the past and makes 
experience a continuum; the emotive response which is the psycho-biological 
reaction to what is experienced; and intellection which interprets the data 
as a rational construct.  'I', 'Knower', 'Individual', and 'Me' are not 
different entities but simply the labels we use to identify the Self.

That standard definition, which even you must be tired of by now, paints a 
fuzzy picture of self-awareness as if to demean its credibility--which of 
course is your intent.  I still feel this is somewhat disingenuous on your 
part.  Certainly we cannot objectivize, quantify, measure, or localize 
conscious awareness as we can, say, a rock or a tree.  Conversely, however, 
what would the rock or tree be if there was no awareness of it?  As Pirsig 
insisted, experience is primary; and since experience is known only to 
awareness, all we really know about objective existence is that it is 
patterned from sensible value.

[Ham, previously]:
> "Never fails" is giving too much credit to quantum physics,
> Marsha.  Remember, Science operates on the principle that
> its conclusions can always be revised when warranted by
> contrary evidence.

[Marsha]:
> I only meant that it has been collaborated many times and
> is used successfully in most of our technology.  Pragmatically
> it works.  What it means is not known and stalled in the
> quantum enigma (the measurement problem.)

Right.  The physical sciences are designed to reveal the laws and principles 
of nature that "work".  The objective of scientific investigation is to 
provide information that is pragmatically reliable.  I submit that the goal 
of philosophy is to provide insight as to the nature of Reality, which is 
quite another thing.  .

> Certainly quantum physics stretches ones understanding
> of experience.

It stretches experience, period.  I'm not so sure it has advanced our 
understanding of experience.

> Haven't you conceptually constructed your 'Absolute Reality
> and the 'primary source'?  Does it exist anywhere but in your
> mind.  Absolute and primary are unnecessary adjectives.

Essentialism is a metaphysical hypothesis which cannot be confirmed by 
empirical observation.  Naturally I like to think the Reality I have posited 
approximates Reality as it actually is.  At least it makes sense to me.  By 
the way, "absolute" and "primary" may be unnecessary to you, but they are 
descriptors essential to an understanding of the thesis.

> I do accept two different realities: static (patterned/relative/
> conventional) and Dynamic (indivisible, undefinable and
> unknowable.)   Do you think static patterns of value are
> disinterested?  -  Well Ham,  there hasn't emerged any
> evidence that unicorns do not exist.

>From an objective viewpoint, patterns of value are disinterested.  They only 
become of interest to the subject who realizes them.  As I've stated many 
times before, unrealized value is an oxymoron.  Lack of evidence for the 
existence of unicorns seems a weak argument in support of "intentional" 
value

I doubt we have achieved any accord in our differences, but a substantice 
disourse is always worth trying.   Thanks for making it possible, Marsha.

 Have a nice weekend,
Ham