[Platt] An ancient conundrum facing S/O science which assumes every event has a cause is the problem of First Cause. For example, what caused the Big Bang? If you think you know the answer then the question arises what caused the cause of the Big Bang. Then, what caused that? Quickly you are into infinite regress.
[Krimel] The idea of the Big Bang is that there was nothing before it. It is not a matter of infinite regress. Before that point there was literally nothing, no time, no space, no laws of physics. What is stated is that IF there were some cause before this we have no way to say with any assurance what "it" might have been. [Platt] So what is science's starting point? Something like a "quantum fluctuation" that just happened (oops) to have caused the Big Bang. >From whence came the law governing quantum fluctuations? Science's answer, "Don't ask." [Krimel] This is incorrect. Science does not say, "Don't ask." In fact it asks. That is why the Europeans built the Large Hadron Collider. We were in the process of and had spent a couple of billion on our own supercollider until the Science Wars that Marsha talks about. We lost the war and the European are now ahead. [Platt] By contrast, in the MOQ the starting point is boundless, timeless, causeless experience "which cannot be called either physical or psychical. It logically precedes that distinction." (Lila, 29) [Krimel] This is one reading of Pirsig, I will grant you that but it is one that if followed through leads to idealism. It is not a middle way through the mind/matter problem it is simply a rejection of matter. [Platt] This leads me to conclude that the ground of being is perennial experience or, as some prefer, "cosmic consciousness," a conclusion backed by no less a scientific light than Erwin Schroedinger: "The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing." [Krimel] I do not see how your conclusion follows at all and it is certainly not supported by your Schroedinger quote. What Schroedinger said was: "The external world and consciousness are one and the same thing in so far as both are constituted of the same primitive elements." Those primitive elements according to Johann Götschl are "sensation" and "perception." This is where Pirsig goes in his account of Kant which he never recants. Experience is sensation and perception. Whatever gives rise to these primitive elements cannot be known outside of them. Whatever lies outside of sensation and perception, if anything, are TiTs. [Platt] This leads me further to conclude that the brain, rather than being the seat of consciousness, is like the ears, eyes, nose, mouth, and skin - a sense organ accessing consciousness (experience), the cradle of existence suffusing the universe, immutable and eternal.. [Krimel] The brain is the organ that synthesizes sensation into perception. It processes information. It detects patterns and creates meaning. I think you are trying to make the case the Scott Roberts used to make: rather than generating conscious, the brain is a receiver of consciousness. I can see nothing to suggest that this is the case. But to really get resolve the matter what we have here is two competing hypotheses. In order for them to be meaningfully distinct they would have to lead to different predictions about the world. What would your view predict? 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/
