[MD] The first division of the MOQ. - dynamic or Dynamic Quality?

[david buchanan]

David said to Ian:
I do not think that reductionism is something restricted to SOM. Reductionism is simply the reduction of all quality to static quality. It is the choice to break quality up a certain way. All static quality is the result of reductionism. Therefore I see reductionism as something unavoidable and important.  What do you think?

Ian had said:

..Reductionism is OK as part of the explanatory process, the process of understanding and arriving at explanations. ..The "full" SOMist / reductionist explanation invloves a great stack of things right back to quarks and strings and fundamental physical laws in this world.



dmb says:
I disagree with both of you on this point, gents.
I think reductionism is NOT okay as part of the explanatory process and I certainly don't think such explanations have to break things down all the way into quarks to count as reductionism.
Since reductionism is based on the premise that what's really real is the physical or physiological processes, it hardly makes sense to describe the DQ-sq relation as reductionism.
Let's take Daniel Dennett as an example. In this case you have a guy who comes to the questions of the philosophy of the mind as an analytic philosopher and a biological scientist. He is a physicalist who thinks consciousness and religion can be explained in biological evolutionary terms. I mean, we don't need straw men or wildly extreme definitions to locate an actual, living reductionist. He's a very bright guy, top of his field and yet there it is. Not to mention his smart pals E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker. I mean, reductionism is a real problem at the center of science. It's par for the course. And it's tragically stupid. You see this is the theory of memes, wherein the content of consciousness is treated like a molecule, like a physical entity that may or may not infect your brain. 
You see, if you're trying to explain consciousness by looking at genes or brain processes the assumption is that the former is reducible to the latter. But that's like trying to explain rock and roll by looking at the physical properties of guitar strings and drum skins. Yea, those things are certainly involved in any good rock concert but even a perfect understanding of strings and skins will tell you absolutely nothing about the music as it is actually experienced. Those are two completely different levels of reality.
I mean, reductionism is the epitome of amoral scientific objectivity. Don't you think?