Krimel said to Blake:...I rather like something I heard from John Searle; the mind is what the brain does or the brain secretes consciousness or that these various processes produce consciousness in the same way the fire produces heat or that atoms produce solidity. But of course others, especially the Aw Gis don't buy any of that. They see our form of consciousness are a degeneration of so high all pervading consciousness. This is top down processing. I see it as bottom up. Consciousness emerges from the static quality that gives rise to the conditions that produce it.
dmb says:Reductionism is the attempt to explain higher order emergent forms in terms of the lower order forms from which they emerged. The assertion that "the brain secretes consciousness" is an example of this reductionism. In terms of the static levels of the MOQ, this would be a matter of trying to explain social and intellectual patterns in terms of biological patterns. If Sandra Rosenthal and Hilary Putnam are right, Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson would also be good examples of what a reductionist looks like. (If memory serves, these scientists are also among your intellectual heroes.) The MOQ's levels move from the bottom up, not the top down. In fact, one of the most important features of this idea is that the static levels exist in an evolutionary relationship such that the lower ones have to be in place before the higher ones are possible. The higher forms emerge from what came before. Obviously, this is NOT top down processing. Evolution moves from the simple to the complex in the MOQ's version just as it does in contemporary Darwinism. As I see it, Krimel, everything except scientific reductionism smells like magic to you. This is not an uncommon view. It's not crazy. But it is certainly at odds with Pirsig in particular and Pragmatism in general. James' pluaralism (and Pirsig's levels) are a specific denial of reductionism. Dewey's perspectivalism insists that the scientific view is only one of many views, each of which takes a piece of the overflowing reality but can never capture it. Not to mention the pragmatic theory of truth and radical empiricism. Reductionism is about the last thing that fits into this corner of the philosophical world. Like I keep saying, you're bringing in the trash as if it were a gift. This is part of pattern of responses that leads me to conclude that you do not comprehend the situation. And so I've tried to show you what reductionism is and why it wouldn't fit into the MOQ. How'd I do? _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009 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/
