[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[David Harding]

Hi again Dan,

>> 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.

Yes, it's all biological observations… To double clarify - the following scenario is completely biological..

1. "Subject is placed in a brain scanner and a tree is placed in front of them".

2. "Activity is observed in the scientific instruments scanning the brain when tree was placed in front of subject".

As with all scientific studies, the results are used for intellectual value, however both the subject(the biological brain of the person) and the object placed in front of them(the tree) are biological.  These are biological observations. 

To put it another way - the fact that when the tree is placed in front of the subject - the subjects brain values a certain type of activity - this is an intellectual interpretation of what happens *biologically*. 

> 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.

Well, in the materialistic worldview as you say - object b values precondition a.  In other words, a particular type of brain activity values trees being put in front of it.  From this point of view, we can say that the subject is now observing trees and there are the brain waves which value this scenario showing it.  Such an observation of trees doesn't have to trigger intellectual thoughts of trees however.  Dogs have brains and aren't social or intellectual but would have activity in their brains when they see a tree. The brain is a biological thing like the rest of the human body.. 

The brains of social animals however, *do* show certain activity when they are feeling empathetic or different activity again when humans are being intellectual.  The results of those brain scans are not the thoughts however, any more than the 1's and 0's of a computer hard disk is the 'software' of the computer.  Yes it 'represents' the thoughts biologically, but the thoughts themselves are something completely different.

> 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?

Yes.  For clarity shall I assume you mean that DQ creates ideas? If you say that I think that while ultimately, you're right, it is still valuable to say that static quality exists and it values other static quality.  We can say that whenever the subject thinks of a tree, the brain values a certain type of activity.  That is, irrespective of DQ...

> 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.

Indeed. SOM's still just as good as it always was.

>>>> 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.

Okay, well I hope that you do eventually see it differently.  For what it's worth I was really enjoying our discussion.

Thanks Dan,

-David.