Hi Bo
That wasn't not exactly what I was asking, but as far as you
understood the question, you got it right. I asked about the *data*,
not the experience of observation.
You possibly mean something like (ZAMM's about) the Ptolemaian
Cosmology that explained the (data of the ) heavenly bodies from the
premises of the earth as universe's center, then Copernicus whose
premises was the sun as the center thereby doing away with the many
crystal wheels within wheels.
This example was to demonstrate the "Copernican Revolution" and
that the MOQ is one such in regard to SOM. What SOM called the
physical reality loosely falls under MOQ's inorganic level, but the MOQ
does not distinguish between matter and the forces that govern it.
Likewise regarding the biological level that encompasses all living
organisms, but it does not profess to explain what holds organisms
(your dog) together. And so on upwards.
Without being harsh but these your questions reflects your fallacy of
viewing the MOQ from its own intellectual level something that gives
the illusion that it provides some detailed scientific-like explanation
(f.ex) how biological organisms has some embryonic "social forces"
that keeps them together, and/or that some intellectual patterns are at
work inside social patterns. This creates a mess.
Please Bo, I asked a simple question and I asked you to answer it in MoQ terms.
But no, you have to give me a lecture about some cosmology I've never even
heard, much less care about. Then you go on with your usual rant about your SOL
and that your MoQ does *not* explain a bunch of questions that mine does.
Exactly how is that supposed to change my mind?
And feel free to try to answer the question in MoQ terms, or are you saying that
it can't be answered? That a simple observation cannot be explained in your MoQ?
That's just wrong. A social explanation is like a green dream, the
words just don't mix.
Well, this your "instant philosophy" is beyond me, the social level
had/has lots of explanations - from the "primitive" animated world to
modern religions with god-created worlds.
It's the intellectual description of the social level that may explain certain
social behavior. But a social pattern is just a certain valuable way by which
many "things" cooperate as one and doesn't include an explanation in itself.
A stone is some inorganic aggregate. It exists to me and to all who
observe it ... and to all I tell that I've seen it if they trust my
word, but that .... alas.
Is the observing crucial to the stone's status as existing? Does it
exist before someone observes it. If it doesn't, what happens when the
first person observes it? Does it pop into existence right there and
then?
Again, this is viewing the MOQ from its intellectual level. If something
exist without a mind observing it is one of SOM's many paradoxes
(platypus) that the MOQ profess to resolve. IMO it does so by
relegating the former SOM to its own intellectual level, the paradoxes
are now seen as stemming from the level being static, i.e. the
mind/world distinction is not fundamental.
Think for a change.
Huh? How would the intellectual level being static resolve the issue about a
stone's status when observed???
It seems to me you're just pointing fingers at the SOM and claim it's the source
of the dilemma. But then you just embrace it in your MoQ and still point your
finger at it. But you don't *solve* it!
But in my MoQ, the dilemma is solved by conceding that inorganic patterns earn
their status as existing by inorganic quality events, biological by biological
quality events etc. That is a *solution* of the dilemma, not just sticking my
head in the sand.
Think for a change.
Magnus
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/
