Greetings, Magnus --
To recap...
You had asked:
Why would everybody agree that physics, chemistry and
biology are different, if they metaphysically aren't?
I responded:
Because they ARE different fields of investigation, established for
different objectives.
You now say:
The question was rhetorical. I know they are, I was trying
to hint that a metaphysics should respect that.
I don't understand your point. Why should metaphysics concern itself
with the empirical views of objective science? As I asked before, what
is "metaphysical" about a hierarchy of existential levels, and how is it a
more "enlightened" worldview than the subject/object duality which it
was designed to replace?
I have also been doubting certain aspects of the four levels for quite
some time, such as the pretty unspecified border lines. But other
aspects are still very appealing to me, such as the dependency and
discreteness, and I've been trying to work around my doubts by
starting with the appealing aspects and work from there.
The metaphysical aspect of it is actually starting to be useful now.
As you may have seen, in the computer thread, Andy and I have been
talking about different stacks, or instances, of the levels. It seems
there isn't just one universal instance that can be used for every
thinkable occasion. There is of course one originating from the
physical universe we see around us, the one physicists is trying to
make heads and tail of. But then there's another one inside a computer
for example. No gravity there, or electromagnetism, there are only
ones and zeros and digital operations like "and" and "or" for the
programs and computer viruses living in that universe. Also, it seems
Bo is using a human instance, where the first level is simply how a
human (or possibly some lower animal) perceives the inorganic world
around it.
If we can learn to move about between those different stacks freely,
with our language, then we might really start getting somewhere here.
By "getting somewhere" do you mean learning (from computers) what the
nature of cognizance or intellection is? Don't you see that humanly
programmed digital devices churn out data to correspond with the human
perspective of reality? The old maxim "garbage in--garbage out" still
applies to nanotechnology. We're not going to acquire more knowledge
from a computer than we feed it.
I would also like to point out that the subject/object world view does
not put any real value on biological experiences like taste and smell.
According to SOM, the only realness in a smell experience is the
underlying inorganic reality of it. The problem I see with such a view
is that an inorganic reality is only real until we find a new, lower,
reality that explains the inorganic reality. So for example when we
know how a smell experience works inorganically, the only reality of
it is the inorganic event, but when we later learn how that is
supported by quantum physics, we only accept that explanation as
really real, and so on.
You see, Magnus, looking for support for a metaphysical theory from
quantum physics is like confirming that New York exists by consulting a
roadmap. A product of human thinking can never tell us more about
reality than the humans who thought it up. Quantum physics is founded on
the same human perspective as any philosophy must necessarily be. The
only differences are the conclusions for which we have no proof. For
those I put no more credibility in physical science than I do in
philosophy or mysticism.
Did you read the link Marsha sent us a few days ago about gravity?
That's a good example of that. We've always been pretty sure that
gravity is real and it keeps us on the ground, we formulated formulas
for it and so on. Gravity is real by itself. But now this guy has
explained what gravity is in terms of lower processes. In SOM-land,
that means that gravity would lose its status as real, but in the MoQ,
it doesn't. We can still treat gravity as inorganically real, even
though we now know how it is connected, or depends, on the level below.
Yes, I read the article on "weak" and "strong" complementarity and
entanglement, admittedly without comprehending most of it. But I fail to
see how connecting gravity to all four MoQ-defined levels advances our
metaphysical understanding.
Here's what I believe, Magnus. The world of appearances that we call
"existence" is intelligently designed, evolutionary in development, and
consistent with intellectually derived laws and equations. The reason
for this universal harmony and analytical consistency lies not in an
objective "otherness" but in Sensibility itself. We relate to the
symmetry and intelligent design of phenomena because these are
attributes our sensibility reponds to. Sensibility is "valuistic", which
means that we are drawn to those aspects of existential reality that
have value to us. As "the cutting edge of reality", human experience
actualizes its reality to represent the values and relations which have
meaning for mankind. But because value sensibility is subjective, the
precise appearance of the reality so objectivized is different for each
individual.
So you can talk about computers and speculate on the cognitive potential
of "artificial intelligence" all you want, but it isn't going to bring
us any closer to metaphysical truth than intuitive concepts and
logically constructed premises.
And "that is good", in my opinion, because it leaves us free to think
and act in accordance with our proprietary value-sensibilities.
Essentially speaking,
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/md/archives.html
