Greetings Ham,   

The book, 'Quantum Enigma' was very interesting.    


Marsha   



On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:03 AM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> Hi Marsha --
> 
> [Ham, previously]:
>> When it comes to knowing something, there's nothing like experience!
> 
> 
> [Marsha]:
>> Yes, this is what I thought too.  Mary's knowledge (static patterns)
>> is not comparable to her direct experience.  I do not know why
>> Dennett was fearful.  Is intrinsic knowledge the boogyman?
>> But I'm not the same kind of atheist as Daniel Dennett.  - So yes,
>> I agree, there's nothing like experience!  But it's a huge unsolved
>> problem for QP which some think may be pointing to something
>> way beyond our present scientific understanding.  It seems quantum
>> physics never fails to work as expected, so what is going on?
> 
> It is the Knower that makes knowledge "intrinsic".  Unknown knowledge, like 
> unrealized value, is an oxymoron.  Conscious awareness is proprietary to the 
> individual self, and consciousness is not a "distributable" commodity.
> 
> "Never fails" is giving too much credit to quantum physics, Marsha. Remember, 
> Science operates on the principle that its conclusions can always be revised 
> when warranted by contrary evidence.  Where empirical evidence is lacking or 
> inaccessible, scientific conclusions are mere theories, just like the 
> theories or doctrines of philosophy and religion which are not subject to 
> retraction.
> 
> If you believe, as I do, that physical objects are valuistic constructs of 
> the conscious mind, you can understand that there is a practical limit to 
> experiential knowledge.  Quantum physicists today are exploring phenomena at 
> or beyond this limit where particles cannot be distinguished from waves, 
> velocity from position, etc.  In this submicron range, quantitative 
> measurements are either impossible or meaningless. This data field should 
> really be called "sub-quantum", in my opinion.
> 
> We should not expect Science to resolve the enigma of metaphysical reality 
> because the solution is non-empirical -- not to be found in a study of things 
> and events.  I don't know in what way your atheism is "a different kind" than 
> Dennett's, but if you read D'Sousa's complete essay, you'll see that he 
> divides the world of existence into "material stuff" and "mental stuff," much 
> as Socrates and Descartes did.  Because existence is differentiated and 
> diversified, we can only know it as "otherness".  But Absolute Reality (i.e., 
> the primary source) "knows no otherness."
> 
> Therefore, unless you can accept two different realities, existence must be a 
> transitory phase or mode of an "ultimate source" which some call God and I 
> call Essence.  Is Essence an atheistic concept?  You'll have to judge this 
> for yourself.  Speaking personally, I've found the philosophy of Essence far 
> more meaningful and fulfilling than a belief system that reduces reality to 
> disinterested interrelated patterns of an aesthetic nature.  That's my 
> "conclusion", and in nearly eight decades of life on this planet I've seen no 
> evidence or logic from scientists or philosphers that disproves my hypothesis.
> 
> But life is a mystery that each of us must resolve in our own way. Otherwise, 
> what would be the point of it?
> 
> Essentially yours,
> 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


 
___
 

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

Reply via email to