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
