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.)
[Krimel] Well first let me point out that you have left my post of 5/28 unanswered at exactly the point where you have disappeared in the past. You seem intent on giving me cause to think I may indeed be psychic. You are deeply confused about reductionism. You cling to a caricature of it that allows for your ongoing delusion. Reductionism is an attempt to specify necessary causes. Without these necessary causes a phenomena cannot occur. This does not imply those necessary cause alone are sufficient or that any particular phenomena can be accounted for by just these necessary causes. Extraneous variables, the ones science attempts to control for, or to eliminate, do shape specific out comes. Necessary causes spell out the something can happen, extraneous variables interact with them to determine what actualizes. But yeah, Dawkins and Wilson are heroes of mine. Yes, what they say makes me uncomfortable probably for the same reasons they make you uncomfortable. But I don't think discomfort is sufficient justification for dismissing them or their methods. I am unable to get Rosenthal's talk into a format that is convenient for me to listen to all the way through but I can see nothing whatever in the first half of her talk that supports your view of radical empiricism as the royal road to cosmic consciousness. But maybe she saves the best part for last. [dmb] 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. [Krimel] If this is what Pirsig actually said then, as I have suggested, the MoQ would be in the position for providing a more solid metaphysical framework for modern science. Unfortunately this is not where Pirsig leaves it and not how you Aw Gis see it. Pirsig resorts to teleology, claiming that some higher order future state of "betterness" is pulling evolution forward. That is not bottom-up processing. Your hero Wilber makes on even bigger mess of this, claiming all kinds of new age mumbo jumbo exists at higher levels that we lesser beings have to tie ourselves into pretzel shapes mentally and physically to grasp. Bottom-up processing asks what will come next. Top-down processing asks, "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" It's a bit like Santayana squirrels spinning their cages chasing a fantasy. [dmb] As I see it, Krimel, everything except scientific reductionism smells like magic to you. This is not an uncommon view. It's not crazy. [Krimel] Well thanks for that. I am not crazy. Wow, I wish I could sell it to my wife... What smells like magic to me is appeals to stuff that cannot be encoded in a way that other people can decode it. That which is mutually decodable is what I would call objective. It is what is common about the experience of different observers. Those things that individuals experience, but cannot encode for others to decode, is subjective. But please note that none of this is the SOM strawman that Pirsig is trying to torch. It isn't even metaphysical at all. [dmb] 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? [Krimel] As I have said there are plenty of reason to throw out greedy reductionism. It is a bit frustrating to continuously be charged with advocating a position I do not hold. But from your point of view I can see how it is easier to address a caricature. But rather than restate this, here is what I said about this to gav's wild rambling about the afterlife, a couple of days ago. I think it addresses what you are going on about: [Krimel to gav] ...but I think you mean more. You seem to be saying that the eastern spiritual tradition offers a set of practices, ceremonies, beliefs and rituals designed to produce not only spiritual experiences but an interpretation of them. It seems to me the western spiritual tradition does the same thing. Other than "amenability" you have offered nothing to suggest to someone with an ear for a western tones, why they should find harmony where you do or why someone with an eclectic ear should listen to one to the exclusion of the other. Isn't that the point of the MoQ? What gives your view a privileged claim to Truth or even truth? One or two threads over dmb, called me a scientific dogmatist. That just sounds like an oxymoron to me. Science is anti-dogmatic. It is rooted in skepticism. It recognizes the tentative nature of truth and offers nothing more than a best guess. It insists that concepts are subordinate to perception. It states its assumptions and invites questioning of them. Does this give science a privileged claim to Truth or even truth. Not really. But I would say to anyone two-stepping to a different gong that if we have guess on these matter, why not make it our best guess? 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/
