[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:00 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Dan:
>> We presume the activity in the brain is in response to observing the
>> tree but we cannot determine the subject is observing a tree via the
>> brain activity.
>
> Well.. the subject observing the tree is part of the experiment.  When the tree is placed in the subjects field of view the brain waves of the subject value a certain configuration. They are linked by value..  That association(value) exists and is just as real as the tree and the brain waves.. So in the context of the experiment we can say that the subject values a certain brain activity when they see a tree.  That value is the whole experiment.  If there was no value then the experiment shows no change and needs to be re-scoped to observe other values actively occurring.

Dan:
I would say you are presuming certain brain activity values seeing the
tree. Let's suppose for a minute that perhaps the subject of the
experiment has grown bored of looking at trees and is thinking instead
of the fine woman (or man) he (or she) was with last night. The
researchers would have no way of knowing this. They would only see
certain parts of the brain lighting up.

>
>> David H:
>> 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..
>>
>> Dan:
>> How do you know a dog understands a tree the same way we understand a tree?
>
> I don't. All I'm saying is that it a dogs brain would light up in a certain configuration-which-it-values when it sees a tree.  But you're right, maybe the dogs brain would be more likely to value a certain configuration when it sees food.. I can't say I know whether a dog would value a tree or not…  Maybe it would determine 'shelter' under the tree… Who knows..

Dan:
Yes, who indeed. Only a dog, I suppose. And he ain't talking philosophy.

>
>> David H:
>> 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:
>> To think of a tree one must understand a tree. This may seem a truism
>> but I think it is easily glossed over and so the lessons of the hot
>> stove experiment often go unheeded. To think one is sitting upon a hot
>> stove one must understand it. This comes after one Dynamically leaps
>> off the hot stove, not before.
>
> That's right. It's good to say that the biological low value of the hot stove is thought of after it is experienced.   This is an instance where it's good to say that matter comes first and thoughts come later.

Dan:
I would say while it may be a high quality idea to think matter comes
before the idea of it, remember, there is only a dim apprehension of
we know not what in the beginning. Quality. The thoughts, the oaths,
and the pain come later.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com