In message <003801be5c16$a56ef1e0$aba6fea9@dave_mason.merak.com>, David
McFadzean <dmcfadzean@earthlink.net> writes
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 8:02 AM
>
>
>>>I'll accept that. So can an "emergent materialist" operate as
>>>a social animal with one worldview?
>>
>>Sorry, I don't go for "emergent materialism". As far as I
>>know, it talks about self-awareness in terms of feedback
>>and recursion, but fails to account for simple awareness.
>>There is not, and I say cannot be, a materialist explanation
>>of that, so if a materialist believes in it, they're being
>>inconsistent.
>
>OK. What do you call the philosophical position that accounts
>for consciousness and is inconsistent with materialism?
Sorry, I haven't named it yet. :-)
But it's a dual (or maybe multiple) aspect theory. When we are intellectually honest about it, there appear to be (at least) two kinds of phenomena: subjective and objective. This observation is what lead to Cartesian mind/body dualism. That doesn't work -- we can't explain how these basic kinds of stuff interact, for one thing. Philosophical idealism says that only subjective phenomena are real, objective ones being mere appearance. Materialism says only objective phenomena are real, subjective ones being mere appearance. Both fail: idealism can't account for the incredibly consistent qualities of matter, and materialism can't explain what consciousness is. A dual aspect theory acknowledges that subjective and objective phenomena are equally real, but unlike dualism, insists that they are reconciled in a special way that we have great difficulty in seeing. Both subject and object, consciousness and matter, are abstractions, or mere memes if you like, reality itself being undivided. The reason we can't see it as such (or not easily) is that we are part of it.
I'll just re-emphasise some of that: matter is an abstraction. Also, a related point: materialism is a form of metaphysics. (To say physics is all there really is, for instance, is a meta-physical claim.)
>Could there be a synthesis of the 2 currently inconsistent
>worldviews into one? For example, one that posits that only
>information and/or patterns are "real"?
I'm working on it! :-)
That is, I'm working on the relationship between information (which includes patterns) and the dual aspect theory.
>OK. What if all "real" worldviews (belief systems of real people)
>are inconsistent? I'm assuming that is a plausible assertion.
>If so, consistency may not be the best way distinguish.
Sorry, you seem to have omitted at least one word here, and I genuinely can't guess what you mean.
-- Robin