[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:38 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.
>
> Thats right. But I guess with enough observation, and the right type of experiment which removes all distractions it would be safe to make a conclusion about which parts of the brain lighting up relate to a particular  thought..

Dan:
Ah! So it is possible to totally isolate the individual, the
apparatus, and the observers of said experiment in a way that the
outcome could be seen as concretely determined?

But that is beside the point. What the researchers would see is parts
of the brain lighting up. That would tell them nothing about trees.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Well with enough observation we could probably make a best guess as to what the dog distinguishes between based on brain activity.. But your right he's certainly not gonna tell us.

Dan:
I think you've been talking to too many scientists.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com