Hi Ham, Thank you for your response, it is a start. My aim is to see how far science can apply to the metaphysics. I'm sure I am not saying anything new, but as I've said before, I am not interested in novelty, just personal understanding.
In my opinion science is a branch of philosophy, hence the term Ph.D. To treat it otherwise would be to elevate (or subjugate) it to something more or less than what it is. You have provided some fundamentals of the scientific method. That is conjecture (hypothesis), objective experimental design, and measurement as support for the conjecture. I do not want to get into the metaphysics on how no measurements are objective, since they fall into subjective criteria. What I wanted to explore was the process of measurement in metaphysics. I will start with Quality since it has scientific underpinnings, but I think the same would apply for Essence. Understanding of Quality, results from the compilation of relevant information which ties together to form a theory. In metaphysics we employ thought experiments, but in the end have to tie them to some observable phenomenon. The appropriate logical strings are attached much in the same way as science. From that we develop a world view which is consistent within our frame of reference. There is no right way to construct this view, provided it imparts understanding. Quality is expressed in levels which are measurable. While we cannot measure Quality itself, we can measure its result. Therefore the way to measure this phenomenon is not directly, but indirectly. From the impact of Quality, we are able to make certain statements. This is of course what MoQ is all about. So because we relate a metaphysical concept to real things, it is indeed measurable, again, not directly but indirectly. In the same way, we cannot see a black hole, but we can measure it indirectly through its effect on neighboring stars. >From my reading of your website, I understand the negation of essence to be what I would call awareness. The way you describe it, I would assume the negation which you speak of to be a process. All processes are measurable. We may not know how at this time, but that does not mean it is not possible. By determining the methods by which Essence is negated, we can get an objective idea what Essence is. Of course I assume that by negation you mean that there is something to be negated, even if that thing is Nothingness. Such negation must be dependent on the Nature of essence in order to be successful. By measuring how essence is negated, we get an indirect measurement of Essence. We live in a physical world which walks hand in hand with the non-physical. Anyway, enough about science for now. Cheers, Mark On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:45:42 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: From: "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MD] Is Quality Different from (Mother) Nature? Date: November 29, 2009 12:45:42 AM PST To: [email protected] Evening, Mark -- > I am not a fan of Dawkins as he has got a novices notion > of god. While his enthusiasm may play well to those with > a literal understanding of such a thing, it has no effect on > those who know such a god. His mission is to place the > intellect and that which is known (which is not much) as > an argument against that which is not known (which is > much much more). MoQ does a similar thing, but I can > appreciate MoQ as it is less arrogant. It may provide > meaning in our current experience, which is all one could > hope for. Dawkins' subservience to the grand brain is > comical at times. We are all "novices" when it comes to defining the uncreated source. What annoys me, however, is the arrogance of those who vehemently deny the supernatural on the ground that theology is based on superstition and mythology. Such people fancy themselves so "enlightened" in their nihilism that they have no need for spirituality or belief in a higher reality. I think D'Souza's argument is vindicated by the historical fact that, despite the Crusades of the Middle Ages and the witch hunts of colonial times, the most stable, moral, and technologically advanced nations in the free world have been founded on Christian principles. > I would like to discuss for a little bit the notion that science > because it is objective, cannot get very far with an understanding > of the subjective. That is, how science would falter when trying > to explain negation of essence. When electrodes are placed in > the brain, personal thoughts can be evoked, indicating a link > between bioelectrical signals and our sense of awareness. > While there is no way to prove (at this time) that our thoughts > are in any way linked to the physical world, such brain probing > may provide insight. Such science would have to take on much > more than just the physical evocation of thoughts, it would have to > describe a direct causal linkage between those thoughts and > our personal sense of them. > > I noticed that my previous post was sent twice, I didn't think I > had sent the first one. But as they say near here in the Los Angeles > Valley, WATEVERR! (with attitude). But anyway, I will end with > a question: What is it about our personal sense of negation that > makes it unavailable for scientific inquiry? I do not have an answer, > but can certainly think about it though dialogue. First, let's consider the basis of scientific methodology. The method is "objective" because it systematically minimizes the influence of subjective bias (experimenter prejudice) when testing a hypothesis or theory. This is achieved through four major steps: 1) Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena, 2) Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena (in physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation), 3) Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of related phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations, and 4) Replication of the tests by independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. Lastly, the hypotheses and conclusions of science are always open to revision or revocation should subsequent evidence prove contradictory. For the scientific investigator a "phenomenon" is an empirical occurrence or change capable of being measured statistically. Because reality for the scientist is limited to observable phenomena that are measurable in units of time and space, researchers are trained to reject information that cannot be expressed in numbers or equations, or that is incapable of experimental confirmation. Thus, whether the evidence is the percentage yield of a chemical reaction or the spectographic analysis of a star cluster, the results are obtained in numerical terms. The more that an experiment is replicated, the greater the accuracy (reliability) of the result. This is all well and efficacious when determining the properties and dynamics of physical entities or coming up with new solutions to pragmatic problems. But it is also formulaic in that scientists assume that every effect has a cause (which is true only within a relational system), that their "objective" method is free of subjective influences (which is false, because empirical data must be interpreted by experience which is always subjective), and that the laws of physics are "universal" (when, in fact, they are intellectually deduced from experiential evidence). When science is applied to investigating "subjective awareness", what the researchers report is information about neuro-physiological functioning, anatomical responses, and behavioral changes. In other words, they can only explain mind, thought and feeling in terms of statistical data. I'll leave your question to a later post, since I'm not sure what you mean by "our sense of negation." The concept of negation which I borrowed from Heidegger to explain creation (ontogeny) is highly controversial in these circles, and I've avoided the full explanation you would need to conclude that we're in accord on the subject. Besides, it's a metaphysical theory with no particular relevance to empirical science that I'm aware of. Thanks for opening up this dialogue, Mark. I hope my comments on the limitations of science in exploring subjective awareness is useful to you. Cheers, Ham 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/ 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/
