On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > There seems to be a lot switching back and forth between cause and meaning > and explanation > as though were interchangable. And even those have different modes, e.g. > first cause, > effective cause, proximate cause,... Meaning=standing for something else. > Meaning=having > inherent value (to someone).
Are you saying that you find my argument to be incoherent? Or that you get the gist of what I'm saying, but that my presentation left a lot to be desired? In the latter case: Point taken. I will try to be more careful in my use of those terms. In the former case: Well. Hmm. > I agree that one can always ask "Why?" as children sometimes do; and the > ultimate answer > is, "Because I say so." So you may well say, "Things are just what they are." So, a nice rhetorical flourish in comparing me to a child, but at a substantive level there's a significant difference between "Because I say so" and "things just are what they are", right? "Things just are what they are" means that no further explanation is possible, even in principle. And at some point that actually becomes the case. Wouldn't you say? It can be said and meant literally. "Because I say so." Well, I'm not sure what this means. Obviously it's not meant to be taken literally. Right? Or do you suffer from a god-complex of some sort? If so, my condolences for your affliction. (see? I can be condescending too!) > that doesn't mean that we cannot have and explanation of QM and gravity and > consciousness, and after than an explanation of the explanation ad infinitum. Well, with respect to QM and gravity, I think this is in keeping with my previous point about putting conscious experience at the base of the ontological/epistemological stack, rather than at the top. So yes, I agree with you are saying here. It seems reasonable that the explanatory process could go on ad infinitum, where by "explanatory process" I mean the process of generating narratives that are consistent with what we observe. And this process doesn't depend on what really exists. It only depends on what we observe. If we are in a physical world, a computer simulation, or Platonia, the process is the same. The process is one of generating narratives that are meaningful in the context of your subjective consciously experienced observations. The process is a subjective process. The meaning that you get from the process is subjective meaning...it means something TO YOU. It means nothing in an absolute sense. If it meant something in an objective, absolute sense then the process wouldn't produce the same results in a physical world, a computer simulation, and in Platonia. As for consciousness, the above applies, but let me also take this opportunity to deploy this great argument that I heard somewhere: An explanation must be of something less known in terms of something better known. Since nothing can be better known than our own subjective experience, it cannot be explained. > So I guess I'm unclear on your point. Are you advising that > we give up all explanation and just chant "It is what it is." So originally I came to this list to clarify my thinking on what causes conscious experience. BUT, as a result of the discussions here and elsewhere, I have concluded that if consciousness is caused, then it just is what it is. Which, incidentally is also true of consciousness if it is uncaused. This point is most clear if you think of the physical universe in static "block time" terms (regardless of whether it is actually static in this way). The block in it's entirety just exists, with whatever properties it came into being with. If it is all that exists, then you can't go outside of it for further explanation. Nothing more can be said. Maybe it has a regular, predictable structure that extends all the way through. Maybe it is riddled with random uncaused transitions (QM anyone?). But either way, there's no explanation for these things. Only description. And if this physical universe is the cause of our conscious experiences, then they also just exist. So as for the chanting, well no. The scientific narrative process that we engage in (described above), caused or uncaused, will continue or it won't...we have no choice in that, or in anything else. But under all imaginable circumstances I think it is clear that it is a subjective process with subjective meaning. It provides no access to the absolute view of what actually exists...the pursuit of such access is futile. The veil of conscious experience (if it is a veil covering something more basic, and isn't itself fundamental as I believe), can't be pierced, even theoretically. > Yes, I know it's circular. Thats the point. But I think it can be a virtuous > rather than > a vicious circle, and the wider the circle the more virtuous. I don't think my views as outlined above are necessarily in direct conflict with this. It just depends on how things are interpreted. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---