[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 6:04 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>>> You're right, it looks like a key sentence of mine could have been better.  If I add the follow brackets does this make everything I wrote clearer?
>>>
>>> "They(nerve's firing in our heads) are no more real than the trees we experience which cause those nerve's firing in our heads."
>>
>> Dan:
>> If the trees "cause" those nerves to fire, isn't that the same as
>> saying matter comes before ideas?
>
> No it's not because, as far as I'm aware, nerve's firing is something which can be observed scientifically and is therefore objective matter.

Dan:
I don't know that I understand you here. Correct me if I am wrong, but
activity observed in the brain does not translate into patterns of
value like ideas of trees. Yes, activity in the brain can be observed
scientifically; researchers can learn how different regions react when
situations are presented to the subjects under study but that isn't to
say they can objectively observe what the subjects are observing, like
trees. These are biological patterns, not intellectual patterns, or
ideas.

>
>>> So what I mean is that inorganic trees
>>
>> Dan:
>> Biological trees? Or are these dead trees?
>
> Quite right.  Biological trees.

:)

>
>> David H:
>> and biological nerve firings are the same thing.  They are both
>> objective matter.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Ah. Here is the source of my dis-ease. You seem to be saying our
>> thoughts (and remember, all biological patterns are inorganic but not
>> all inorganic patterns are biological; all social patterns are
>> biological but not all biological patterns are social; all
>> intellectual patterns are social but not all social patterns are
>> intellectual) are biological patterns here, as if someone is watching
>> the nerves in the brain fire. And while imaging devices may allow
>> researchers to do just that, what we know in every day experience is
>> the subjective thoughts arising in response (b values precondition a)
>> to the environment. Does that make sense?
>
> If you agree that researches imaging devices can allow researchers to do that then I see no equivalency here between thoughts and biology.

Dan:
Good. So we agree that trees do not cause nerves to fire and trigger
thoughts of trees. The biological nerves firing in the brain are not
intellectual patterns of quality. In the MOQ the intellect grows from
social patterns, not biology.

David H:
> To be clearer - a brain nerve firing is biological, while a thought which creates those firings is intellectual.

Dan:
Isn't it a response to Quality that creates ideas? The brain nerves
are firing in response to "something" but the thought of what that
"something" is comes later. Remember the hot stove experiment?

>
>> David H:
>>> Unlike with SOM, there is no *need* to equate a nerve firing with an intellectual idea or vice versa.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Not exactly sure what you mean by this…
>
> As you know, SOM is determined on finding *the* truth.  There are those in SOM who say that ultimately, everything is matter.  If you are of this school, then a thought is nothing other than nerve firings in the brain.  Alternatively, there are also those in SOM who say that ultimately, everything is an idea.   In this school, then an object such as a tree or a nerve firing is something you imagine and that's it.  SOM doesn't allow materialism and idealism to co-exist.  That's what I mean when I say SOM has a *need* to equate a nerve firing with an intellectual idea or vice versa. Within the MOQ there is no such need to always trace back one level to another for they are simply different values and so the MOQ allows two contradictory philosophy ideas to co-exist.

Dan:
I would say the MOQ subsumes subject/object metaphysics, offering an
expanded view of reality. Otherwise, yes, I tend to agree with you
here.

>
>>> Anyway, looking forward to your 'Jazz' response :-)
>>
>> Dan:
>> I will see what happens with that and send it along should anything arise.
>
> That's cryptic? You've had enough?

Dan:
I feel the discussion was disrupted. I am having a bit of trouble
getting back to where we were. Perhaps if a little time passes I will
see it differently.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com