> Stanford physicist Andrei Linde, whom I quoted as saying "I cannot imagine > a > consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness. It's not > enough > for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to > anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. In the absence of > observers, our universe is dead," has more to say on this subject, which > you can read at http://www.slate.com/id/2100715 . This is a > conversational > little essay by Jim Holt, a friend of Linde who, while he exactly doesn't > reach my conclusion, at least opens the door to it. For example ... >
Hi some MOQers and sneak & confused SOMers Ham quoted this, you know, the whole point of MOQ is to overcome SOM's troubles. Without SOM we should not be dividing experience into subjective and objective aspects all the time, the SO distinction is not essential or fundamental and is in fact very misleading. Consciousness and materiality do not need to be joined up because they have never been apart in reality-experience until sundered apart by SOM. The distinctions of SOM need to be treated as much more provisional and fuzzy under MOQ than under SOM. Hence Pirsig says that we cannot banish under MOQ ideas like molecules chosing their bonds, ideas that SOM bans for its metaphysical reasons. Seems to me too many people here want to proclaim the MOQ with one hand and add back all the distinctions of SOM with the other. David M Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
