Hello everyone On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM, David Morey <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Dan > > Dan: > That's my thinking as well. We create reality, not the other way around. > And those who fight against this notion are so convinced they are > independent observers of a separate reality it is impossible to reason with > them. They throw up a whole host of reasons why this cannot possibly be so. > > Personally I would avoid saying we create reality, rather I'd say that the > only reality we directly know is > experienced reality. Dan: Yes, I know you would avoid saying that. I disagree. The way you put it--experienced reality--we experience a separate reality. Not in the MOQ: instead, experience is primary. Concepts of reality arise from experience but these concepts are not experience. We create our reality; reality does not create us. > But where does this leave the idea of what reality might transcend our > individual > experience, or general human experience, or the reality that we assume > existed prior to human beings > or life on Earth. Dan: How can anyone know that one way or the other? > I know what status I give it, it is best approached via science, that > creates theories > and ideas that go beyond direct experience (by using equipment for > example). Now problematically > science takes this approach based on SO-Metaphysical thinking. I think > science can be re-conceptualised > using MOQ, but In do not think however that this removes the need to see > scientific theories and ideas > as about an independent reality that goes on with its processes with or > without human experience > 'creating' it. Obviously you could respond that quantum theory does seem > to suggest such a requirement, > but this is controversial and I think misses the point about scientific > theories in general, many if which > are not based on QT, and the subjective observer-interpretation of QT > makes no sense without SOM, > and is really just a way of finding a way to avoid the uncertainty at the > heart of the collapse of the wave > function, and perhaps says more about DQ than it does about the > relationship between experience and > reality (ie suggesting that no processes take place without observation). > Dan: This seems to border upon teetering into incoherence. Honestly, I am not even sure where to start a rebuttal to this as it is so far off base. For instance, first you state you would avoid saying we create reality but here you are contradicting yourself in saying science creates theories and ideas that go beyond direct experience. Well, yeah. Ideas and theories do not exist on their own. They arise from the social patterns underpinning culture. You go on to subscribe to an independent reality while simultaneously deriding subject/object metaphysics which depends upon the notion of an independent reality. You claim quantum theory makes no sense without subject/object metaphysics and yet if anything quantum theory has shown that there is no separation between the observer and the observed. > > Again, I do agree that without experience there is no reality, but through > experience and via science > we can go on to create an understanding and ideas that allow us to make > sense of a universe that > is greater (transcends) what we can fully and directly experience and has > and will exist before and > after the lives of all human beings and our species (so rejecting the > anthropocentrism that DMB > embraces). To my mind a reconceptualised science in MOQ terms can handle > such a non-anthropocentric > reality, and MOQ can also help science to cast off the dualistic SOM > conceptual problems that currently hinder > it making progress in areas of dynamic openness and chaos theory and > dynamic and open conscious processes. > Dan: We are human beings--at least I will assume everyone reading this is a human being. Our reality is colored by that. We can never know what nectar tastes like to a honeybee. None of us will ever understand the world from a non-anthropocentric point of view. If anything, the MOQ explains why this is so. The intellectual patterns that make up our sciences do not spring out of nowhere. They arise from social patterns that underpin our culture, our human culture. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
