Hello Ham, I thought I'd give this another try.
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. How I understand conscious awareness is as pure process, 100% immediate experience, and the moment one tries to analyze it, it is gone. All other entities - I, knower, self, individual, me, etc. - are _conceptually constructed_ and have no independent existence. They are a conglomerate ever-changing, impermanent, interdependent, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value. > "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. I only meant that it has been collaborated many times and is used successfully in most of our technology. Pragmatically it works. What it means is not known and stalled in the quantum enigma (the measurement problem.) > > 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. Certainly quantum physics stretches ones understanding of experience. > 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." Haven't you conceptually constructed your 'Absolute Reality and the 'primary source'? Does it exist anywhere but in your mind. Absolute and primary are unnecessary adjectives. > > 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. I do accept two different realities: static (patterned/relative/conventional) and Dynamic (indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.) Do you think static patterns of value are disinterested? - Well Ham, there hasn't emerged any evidence that unicorns do not exist. > 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 Marsha ___ 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
