Hi Micah All joking aside it is hard for any of us to succinctly sum up what it is were trying to say, also you get no reward when you do, only a barrage of abuse. I appologise for any part I've played in this.
I would like to try and understand though, so please go on, from the top and knowing approximately my take on these issues, can you outline how you avoid the charge of solipsism, whilst still having "man" as the only agent capable of consciousness. I promise to listen properly and will ask only for real points of clarification. Nobody is allowed to be mean at this point Ok? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ron Kulp > Sent: 12 April 2007 16:45 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?) > > > > > You are confused, reality ceases to exist when you die. You can only > have one reality and that dies with you. The rest, I assume, > is again a > mischaracterization of my earlier statements which show you cannot > understand my point or I cannot explain it well enough to be > understood. > Since you don't understand my point, you apparently need to categorize > it as Solipsism instead of trying actually understand, which is easier > for you. I get it. > > Micah > > Micah, > Did you read Pirsigs paper? Is complementarity what you are trying to > describe? > > Complementarity > > So now it is time to get into a closer look at the metaphysical system > of Complementarity itself. As almost everyone comments, it is not easy > to understand. I have been over the materials dozens of times > and still > am not at all sure I have it completely right. > > I found Complementarity easier to understand when I describe > it in two > steps, of which this is the first. There is a shift in reality shown > here from the object to the data. This view known as > phenomenalism, says > that what we really observe is not the object. What we really > observe is > only data. This philosophy of science is associated with > Ernst Mach and > the positivists. Einstein did not like it and assumed Bohr shared it, > but Bohr did not reject objectivity completely. He did not > care so much > which philosophical camp he was in, he was mainly concerned > with whether > Complementarity provided an adequate description to go with > the quantum > theory. > > Subjectivity > > Bohr's Complementarity was accused of being subjectivistic. > If the world > is composed of subjects and objects, and if Bohr says the > properties of > the atom are not in the objects, then Bohr is saying that the > properties > of the atom are in the subject. But if there is one thing > science cannot > be it is subjective. You cannot seriously say that science is all in > your head. However in his early writing on Complementarity > that is what > Bohr seemed to be saying. (Folse 24) Bohr was trying to work out a > problem in quantum physics, not just juggle a lot of philosophic > categories, and Henry Folse says it didn't seem to occur to > him what the > implications of this might be. In his first paper on Complementarity > Bohr made no mention of objectivity and actually made the > gross mistake > of calling his Complementarity subjective. He also spoke of scientific > observation as "disturbing the phenomenon" which suggested that either > he was talking about thoughts disturbing objects or else talking about > phenomena being subjective. > > Given this attack on his subjectivity it can be seen why Bohr > developed > the concepts of "phenomenal object" and "visual object" as independent > of the subject. He was constantly under pressure to prove that what he > was talking about was not subjective. > > His repeated argument is that Complementarity is not > subjective because > it provides unambiguous communication. When the results of the > experiment exist unambiguously in the mind of several scientists Bohr > says it is no longer subjective. > > However, in my own opinion, that still doesn't get him out of > the charge > of subjectivity. When Bohr says the test of objective, > scientific truth > is "unambiguous communication" he is saying that it is not nature but > society that ultimately decides what is true. But a society is not an > objective entity. As anthropologists well know, societies are > subjective > too. The only truly objective aspects of "unambiguous > communication" are > the brain circuits that produce it; the larynx; the sound > waves or other > media that carry it; the ear drum, and the brain circuits that receive > it. These can process falsehood just as easily as truth. > > Folse says that Bohr never overcame the criticism that his philosophy > was subjectivistic. "Bohr had envisioned Complementarity spreading out > into wider and wider fields, just as the mechanical approach > of Galileo > had started in astronomy and simple phenomena of motion and gradually > spread to all of the physical science." (Folse 168) But that never > happened. Quantum physics dominates the scientific scene today but not > because of Bohr's philosophy of Complementarity. It dominates because > the mathematical formalisms of quantum theory correctly predict atomic > phenomena. > > Bohr was disappointed all his life by what he regarded as the > failure of > philosophers to understand Complementarity. Except for > William James he > "felt that philosophers were very odd people who really were lost." > (Folse 44) Late in his life he remarked, "I think it would be > reasonable > to say that no man who is called a philosopher really understands what > is meant by the Complementary descriptions." And as Folse concludes, " > that somewhat wistful comment by this > great pioneer of modern atomic theory is sadly true today as > it was over > fifty years ago." (Folse 44) Although Bohr had intended to > write a book > that contained and developed his philosophical ideas he never > wrote it. > This leads me to think that he realized his philosophy wasn't working > the way he hoped it would but didn't know what to do about > it. He talked > as though he was sure it was right but was frustrated and disappointed > that it never seemed to have caught on with others. > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the > Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by > Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM > Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems, please > call your organisations IT Helpdesk. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, > monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. > > > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the > attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are > not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and > inform the sender by return e-mail. > > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the > attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are > not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and > inform the sender by return e-mail. > > This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may > be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For > Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software > may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You > have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when > composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
