I'm not opposed to values, I'm opposed to the value given to values.
Keep in mind that I'm not opposed to mysticism, it would be great if we had eternal souls or spirits. Why wouldn't I want that?
It's not a matter of want though, because I don't value an ought more than an is. I'm critical of the steps taken to come to these conclusions. It seems that the process goes like this "Bohr was a physicist. Bohr had a Yin Yan. Therefor Chinese Philosophy is true." Therein lies my distaste for these theories.
The burden of proof is typically on the person making the knowledge claim. Byrnzie suggested that "physicists have declared souls/spirits exist", his reference was Michael C Talbot's The Holographic Universe which was a queue for Angelica to jump in with quotes from Pribram and Bohm. The impression is that Byrnzie and Angelica believe that Pribram and Bohm's work as interpreted by Talbot proves the existence of souls/spirits.
I'm challenging a knowledge claim. That is the nature of progress. Progress does not arise from the acceptance of all competing theories. Or else, we would still be talking about the invisible matter that escapes wood when it burns (Phlogiston). That theory was replaced by oxidation, which better describes what is happening, predicts rusting and fire and is coherent with observational evidence.
But your way of countering the knowledge claims, is coming with equally powerful knowledge claims of your own. That's what's rubbing many here the wrong way. That, and uncalled for characterizations labbelling them crazy or something of the sort. Can't imagine why that pisses people off.
And accepting all theories won't get us anywhere I suppose, but think of it another way. If the various theories weren't maintained, they would never get the chance to be seriously proven or disproven. Scientific breakthroughs often come because the scientist/promoter in question is stubborn and unyielding enough to not back down and keep the theory alive long enough for it to have the possibility to break down the current paradigm. So a multitude of theories should be encouraged, especially since history has yet to produce a paradigm in any field that hasn't been overthrown at least once. In fact, many sciences, particularly psychology and for that matter sociology are lacking a paradigm right now. Behaviourism's height is passed, as is the slightly megalomanical attempts of theories on everything reducable to quantitative measures (Parsons) in sociology. What we have now is many theories and many ideas. You often seem a bit too keen to jump onboard one of the current theories, and exclude all others.
And again, few here are trying to prove to you the existence of soul or spirit. However they are raising questions about the wisdom of rejecting it altogether, as you seem keen to do.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But your way of countering the knowledge claims, is coming with equally powerful knowledge claims of your own. That's what's rubbing many here the wrong way. That, and uncalled for characterizations labbelling them crazy or something of the sort. Can't imagine why that pisses people off.
And accepting all theories won't get us anywhere I suppose, but think of it another way. If the various theories weren't maintained, they would never get the chance to be seriously proven or disproven. Scientific breakthroughs often come because the scientist/promoter in question is stubborn and unyielding enough to not back down and keep the theory alive long enough for it to have the possibility to break down the current paradigm. So a multitude of theories should be encouraged, especially since history has yet to produce a paradigm in any field that hasn't been overthrown at least once. In fact, many sciences, particularly psychology and for that matter sociology are lacking a paradigm right now. Behaviourism's height is passed, as is the slightly megalomanical attempts of theories on everything reducable to quantitative measures (Parsons) in sociology. What we have now is many theories and many ideas. You often seem a bit too keen to jump onboard one of the current theories, and exclude all others.
And again, few here are trying to prove to you the existence of soul or spirit. However they are raising questions about the wisdom of rejecting it altogether, as you seem keen to do.
Peace
Dan
I'm not rejecting the possibility, I'm rejecting it as probable. There are more explanatory theories.
Let's take a centre stance; there might be souls and there might not be souls. In practice, if we exclude both theories, then we are in a state of dissonance with no practical application. I am happy with that state of practice. But that is not common, most want to resolve the disonnance, and they do this, not by evidence or observation, but by desire.
Desire can be quantified too, why is it that we desire what we desire? Folk Psychology hardly provides an answer, rather would claim it is a reflection of our 'essence', which is eerily similar to the description of a soul/spirit. So the value of desire is stuck back in a dissonant state. It becomes inevitably circular. Other theories however, essentially say that desire is a result of past experience and upregulation/downregulation of the dopaminergic reward system. This theory is not circular, it doesn't appeal to its self for explanation.
It will go on forever. There are theories that are circular and do not offer explanation or prediction and there are theories that are reductive and do offer further explanation and prediction.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not rejecting the possibility, I'm rejecting it as probable. There are more explanatory theories.
That is a mightily fine distinction I must say.
Let's take a centre stance; there might be souls and there might not be souls. In practice, if we exclude both theories, then we are in a state of dissonance with no practical application. I am happy with that state of practice. But that is not common, most want to resolve the disonnance, and they do this, not by evidence or observation, but by desire.
A centre stance would not be eliminating both theories, it would be eliminating neither of them, waiting for pending potential evidence one way or the other. In the meantime, there no way to say that either position is wrong or misguided objectively.
Desire can be quantified too, why is it that we desire what we desire? Folk Psychology hardly provides an answer, rather would claim it is a reflection of our 'essence', which is eerily similar to the description of a soul/spirit. So the value of desire is stuck back in a dissonant state. It becomes inevitably circular. Other theories however, essentially say that desire is a result of past experience and upregulation/downregulation of the dopaminergic reward system. This theory is not circular, it doesn't appeal to its self for explanation.
The only alternatives are en "essential" model, and a heavily reduced psychological model? How would you quantify desire? You dont say how it is quantifiable here.
It will go on forever. There are theories that are circular and do not offer explanation or prediction and there are theories that are reductive and do offer further explanation and prediction.
Taste the word "reductionist". Could it be that the reason the reductibles sound better is precisely because we have decided how they can be reduced in a neat way fitting our theories? (confident we didn't lose anything on the way) I might add the predictable models on the current subject of souls and whatnot are far between and heavily restricted in area of use.
When talking ultimate reality, metaphysics, souls, spirituality and so on, reductionism comes up short. Because we are not then discussing a reduced version of reality, we are discussing all of reality with all it's complexities. Hard to argue conclusively about? Certainly. Who said it was gonna be easy?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
OK.
That's my point about reductionism. You now reduced the big fuzzy category of desire down to observed neural pathways and transmitters. You are counting neural emissions to "explain" it, and reducing desire down to specific rat behaviour.
But I am much more interested in what you may have to say about my other points. This was a digression mostly.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
OK.
That's my point about reductionism. You now reduced the big fuzzy category of desire down to observed neural pathways and transmitters. You are counting neural emissions to "explain" it, and reducing desire down to specific rat behaviour.
But I am much more interested in what you may have to say about my other points. This was a digression mostly.
Peace
Dan
It's reductionism yes. It bounces back though. What scientists do is then inhibit the areas suspected of being reward-systems and observe a change in the behaviour. This is moving from correlation to causation.
If we can show the causal interactions of pathways and transmitters to phenomenological experience and behaviour. Then we have a solid reductionist theory.
I understand the discomfort with these techniques, because they don't include metaphysics, souls or spirits, those concepts aren't required for an explanation.
As in the case of Anton-Babinski Syndrome, or other forms of anosognosia, where does the spirit/soul, if it exists, influence anything?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Or you can get a completely deluded view of reality.
Are you aware that all human observations depend on reflectivity of the EM spectrum? If an object does not reflect X-Ray, UV, etc... then we cannot see it and therefor will never know that it exists, unless like black-holes we observe the activity of light affected by the black-hole. That is going to be extremely difficult for elementary particles. Which is why we have theoretical physics, string theory, quantum mechanics, etc..
You need to get yerself out into the woods and drop some LSD.
The impression is that Byrnzie and Angelica believe that Pribram and Bohm's work as interpreted by Talbot proves the existence of souls/spirits.
If you choose to get a false impression instead of listen to me, or look for yourself, that's about you. For example, I told you I got my information from extensive interviews with David Bohm, himself. I also told you to search for David Bohm on this board and you'd find his words that I refer to. You opted for the ignorant impression.
I know it's much easier for you to want to pass Bohm's theories off as the work of Michael Talbot, sci-fi writer. That way you don't have to address the actual theories.
So, since I no longer have the library book, and Bohm's own words are already on this very forum, here they are again...
Bohm: "...it's the insight that does it, you see, the insight is not you, right? The insight being supreme intelligence is able to rearrange the very structural matter of the brain which underlies thought so as to remove that message which is causing the confusion, leaving the necessary information and leaving the brain open to perceive reality in a different way. But at present, it's blocked, the conditioning blocks us, because it creates a pressure to maintain what is familiar and old, and makes people frightened to consider anything new. So, reality is limited by the message which has already been deeply impressed upon the brain cells from early childhood. Now the insight actually removes the message which is causing this block.
Weber: And makes us then commensurable with it?
Bohm: It opens thought up to be fresh and new again so that it can operate rationally. One could say that to remain within this block is completely irrational. It's the result of pressure. You adopt the idea that this block is truth because it relieves the pressure of uncertainty.
Weber: I see, but when you see the term "rationally" or "reasonably" shall we be very clear? You don't mean what the Enlightenment meant, or Descarte, you mean something far beyond that.
Bohm: Reason may have two sources. One is the memory, which is mechanical, rather like a computer.
Weber: Combining the right things.
Bohm: Yes, we may have reason from there and that is subject to all the irrational pressures which are also in the memory: emotional pressures, fears, all those experiences and so on, and so that kind of reasoning is very limited. It can very quickly get caught in self-deception.
Weber: And to you that signifies a barrier. That is not what you're speaking of.
Bohm: That's right. But then there may be reason which flows from insight and a reason which is operating as an instrument of intelligence. That's an entirely different kind of reason.
Weber: It implies what? Order, but not mechanical order?
Bohm: Not mechanical order, and not limited by pressure, you see. Let's take a physicist. If he's been subjected to all these courses in quantum mechanics and pressures to think in this way: he'll be approved of if he does, disapproved of if he doesn't, he gets a job if he does, not if he doesn't, and so on and so on, the minute the idea occurs of thinking in another way, there will be an intense pressure which will blot it out. So, therefore, that isn't reason anymore, it's unreason.
Weber: But he'll think it's reason. He'll rationalize it.
Bohm: He'll think it's reason, yes, he'll say it's reason because he's blotted out all this pressure. It all happens very fast and automatically.
Weber: And he's confirmed by the consensus of the physical community?
Bohm: Well, everybody's doing the same thing, you see. They all reinforce each other and they all say it's right, but it's all the same.
Weber: Can we go back for a moment? This possible state that you speak of where intelligence or insight operates because it's unblocked because I've taken away the obstacles....
Bohm: It's insight that's taken away the obstacles, not me, right?
Weber: All right. What it would be in touch with, you imply is beyond the nonmanifest, is the source of the nonmanifest. Are you implying that that's the domain of, shall we call it "the sacred"?
Bohm: Well, it has been called the sacred. As we know "holy" is based on the word "whole", it could be called whole, or wholeness. See, the word "sacred" has unfortunately come to mean something different from its original root, that is to say a sacrifice that you make. Now it's closely connected with the idea of organized religions making sacrifices and things like that, and it has a great many connotations which are unfortunate.
Weber: But you feel the word whole, holy is....?
Bohm: Is a bit better, yes. ...
There. He's talking about the Source of the "non-manifest" as being "whole" or holy. And he's talking about insight as being not us--but rather being Supreme Intelligence, which can arrange the structural matter of the brain. These are the words of esteemed quantum physicist, David Bohm.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What's really cheesy of you Ahnimus, is that earlier, you linked a Karl Pribrim article that talks about the spirituality stuff. And then now you are trying to belittle my own and Byrnzie's views by saying we get them from Talbot. Even when you know Pribram is talking spirituality in your own link. When you obfuscate the facts of these experts, you're obviously more concerned with your personal emotional issues than information and clarity. It doesn't surprise me that you're more concerned with your personal agenda and agenda-protection.
These are Pribrim's own words:
MISHLOVE: But what you're saying, if I can try and simplify it, is that there's a level of reality at which things are what they appear to be. I look at you and I see a body and a face. That would be the explicate level, where things are what they appear to be. Then there's an implicate level, which is just as real, but if you were to look at it, it doesn't look at all like the other.
PRIBRAM: We experience it entirely differently -- as a spiritual aspect of our being. This implicate order is also a potential order; we're not in it most of the time. We had for years this whole idea of the human potential, and I think that's what we're talking about.
MISHLOVE: Human potential may be embodied somehow in the implicate structure.
PRIBRAM: That's very nice, yes. Good way to say it.
MISHLOVE: Prior to the development of quantum physics and the holonomic model of the brain, people based their notion of who they were and how their minds worked more on the Newtonian classical models of physics, and perhaps in some sense, if they bought into those models, would tend to deny their spiritual experiences, or not really feel connected with that part of themselves. Would you say so?
PRIBRAM: Very definitely, and that recalls something that De Tocqueville said. After writing his histories, he said, "Maybe I've been interpreting it the wrong way, because I've been doing it in terms of classical mechanics, with cause-and-effect relationships. But when the human being acts, this is not a cause; this is a challenge."
MISHLOVE: Many neuroscientists today -- it's almost axiomatic, when they talk about the mind, which they sometimes do -- they say the mind is sort of located in the brain. I gather that that way of putting it is totally discordant with your own view of things.
PRIBRAM: Yes. There are lots of different ways of phrasing this. One is that mental phenomena are emergent properties of how the brain works, and so it's almost like the brain is secreting vision and mind and all that. But maybe a better way of talking about it would be to say that mental phenomena arise through the interaction between brain and body and the environment and -- this is what Karl Popper says -- that whole interactive thing produces an emergent, which we call mind and spirit, and so on. I think that's a better way than just thinking of the brain secreting it.
MISHLOVE: What can we say, in wrapping the program up, given all these aspects of the mind-brain system that you've described, how does that relate to, say, the ultimate or the farther reaches of human potential?
PRIBRAM: Well, I think in the twenty-first century we're going to be able to do an awful lot that we weren't able to do up to now, simply because science will be admitted to the spiritual aspects of mankind, and vice versa -- what has been segregated for at least three hundred years, since Galileo, where the spiritual aspects, in Western culture at least, have been sort of relegated over here. People have split this, you know. We build buildings, and we do surgery, and do all of these things. Then we have a spiritual aspect to ourselves; we go do that somewhere else. Whereas now I think these things will come together, and it will be perfectly all right for what we today call "faith healers" to come and help with reduction of pain and to ease all kinds of things. So it'll be a different world. I wouldn't even be surprised if preventative therapies could be instituted, that deal with controls of ourselves, so we aren't as prone to get cancers and so on. http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/pribram.htm
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
More from the mouth of quantum physicist David Bohm, himself:
Bohm: Well let's come back to the nonmanifest implicate order of consciousness. In the nonmanifest order, all is one. You see, there is no separation in space and time, In ordinary matter, this is so and it's equally so or even more so for this subtle matter which is consciousness. Therefore, if we are separate it is because we are sticking largely to the manifest world as the basic reality, where the whole point of the manifest world is to have separate units. I mean relatively so anyway, separate but interacting and so on. Now, in nonmanifest reality it's all interpenetrating, interconnected in one. So we say deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This, we say, is a virtual certainty because even matter is one in the vacuum; and if we don't see this it's because we are blinding ourselves to it.
Weber: And, therefore, you are saying it's we who construct space and time, really, in the Kantian sense and beyond Kant even?
Bohm:Yes, space and time are constructed by us for our convenience although they are created in such a way that when we're doing it right, it really is convenient. The word convenient is based on "coming together", "convene", to come together. Now, our conventions are convenient, and that is not purely subjective, they actually fit the reality of matter. So conventions are not just an arbitrary choice made to please us, to gratify us, but rather they are conventions which are convenient, which fit matter as it is. And now, we are saying space and time is a convenient order for a certain range of purposes.
Weber: In the manifest?
Bohm: In the manifest.
Weber: But you're saying it has no place in the non-manifest.
Bohm: It is not the fundamental order. It's only place in the nommanifest...it has a place, but only as a relationship. It has a certain place but it is not the fundamental place.
Weber: It's this n-1 and n-2 that you spoke about earlier?
Bohm: Yes that's right.
Weber: But in actuality, in the nonmanifest, you say mankind's consciousness or mind is one. And you mean this quite literally, not metaphorically or poetically.
Bohm: No, it is one consciousness, and you can see as evidence of this that the basic problems of mankind are one. You see they're the same: namely fear, jealousy, hope, confusion, you know the problem of isolation and so on. If you go around you will see that deep down all the problems are the same.
Weber: So it's a universal stratum of some sort.
Bohm: Yes, we may say that these problems originate in the consciousness of mankind and manifest in each individual. You see, each individual manifests the consciousness of mankind. That is what I say.
Weber: Because he is, in a way, that consciousness.
Bohm: He is that manifestation.
Weber: And as he perceives himself, in the manifest, he's isolated himself out, he's made himself an abstraction.
Bohm: Yes, if he says that manifestation is independently existent, it's like saying the cloud exists on its own apart from the air.
Weber: Or the particle without the whole ocean, the whole background?
Bohm: Or the ink droplet without the whole background.
Weber: So the individual, as he thinks of himself, is but the overt manifestation just as the chair is, of that underlying background?
Bohm: Yes, as the chair is, and the mountain, because they're a manifestation of the deeper energy, a deeper order, a deeper reality which is not manifest.
Weber: And you're saying this is not mysticism, it's good physics.
Bohm: Well, I'm saying that it's more consistent with physics than any other view that I know.
Weber: If one really were to take this seriously in one's daily life, how differently would one interact with another human being?
Bohm: Well it would be a tremendous change, but you see, to do this we have to get clear of the recording in the brain of this other view which has been deeply recorded in the material structure of the brain. We could call that the corruption of mankind, that the brain and the consciousness and deeper levels, not only in the manifest levels of the brain but the nonmanifest, that there has been left this pollution, which is this whole view which leads to all this violence, corruption, disorder, self-deception. See, you could say that almost all of mankind's thought is aimed at self-deception, which momentarily relieves pressures arising from this way of thinking, of being separate, and it produces pressures. When a person is under pressure, any thought that comes in to relieve that pressure will be accepted as true. But immediately that leads to some more pressure because it's wrong and then you take another thought to relieve that thought.
Weber: It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Bohm: Yes, and that has been the major way. If you watch how international negotiations go on you see no truth whatsover there. It's entirely the result of pressures: fear, gain, greed, compromise, trade-offs, pressures to achieve and what not. You accept as true any statement that will relieve that pressure. And then in the next statement that's overturned and people will take another one....It happens in families obviously. People are compelled in the family to state things which the pressure of the family says are true. It happens in organizations, in institutions.
David Bohm interview from "The Holographic Paradigm and other Paradoxes"
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I dont think anyone is out to prove souls or spirits to you here Ahnimus. A lot of questions are asked that neither you or the scientists you quote have a satisfacory explanation of. Angelica is furthermore illustrating that scientists arent united over any theories or explanations on the issues. And that she can posit other scientists other than your favoured ones to prove it.
As little as anyone here can prove souls/spirituality, can you disprove them. You can say they are unlikely, not necessary and unprobable. But that is not proof either. That is your position and belief on the subject.
And for a man so opposed to values, will and other such "delusions" you certainly hold a very value-based position a lot of the time. ie. your thoughts on criminology.
Peace
Dan
Dan, can I ask what your take on souls/spirituality is please?
I've found your pov very interesting in the past and would like to hear the "cliff notes" version of it. Once everybody starts getting into "intellectual slam" I tend to zone out a little.
Bohm's description, and Pribram's theories are nothing of the sort. Those are Talbot's interpretations and you cleave to them. You aren't talking fact, you are talking speculation and I haven't seen a single bit of evidence supporting your or Talbot's claims.
This post is completely off-base--a figment of your willful personal view, rather than being based on knowledge.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
How do quantum fluctuations influence the quasi-classical mechanics of the brain?
Their theories are not stated. Nothing is explained here. Quantum events are one thing, but it doesn't seem likely that it has anything to do with the brain or the mind. You need a real theory, like Hammeroff has for quantum indeterminacy in the microtubules of the neurons. But the microtubules only carry proteins up or down the axon. If that fails to perform it's job due to quantum events, the neuron will likely die. Also, like Dennett says, indeterminacy in the brain will only make us indeterminate machines instead of determinate machines. It doesn't give us any special abilities.
Like I said, it's a non sequitur. Just because of quantum events, we don't have super powers. There is a lot of other stuff in between. You can't totally write off neuroscience because of some discovery in physics. They don't even describe what quantum events they are talking about.
The brain learns by a few different methods, Hebbian and non-Hebbian, LTP and LTD. As far as is known, but these are solid theories. They have been observed and stand true in practice. Where does this quantum stuff come into all of it? A whole gap exists between psychology and physics, it's called neuroscience.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I forgot to mention planck's constant, that's another complication in the theory.
Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Then what the #$*! is going on here?
Physics envy. The lure of reducing complex problems to basic physical principles has dominated the philosophy of science since Descartes's failed attempt some four centuries ago to explain cognition by the actions of swirling vortices of atoms dancing their way to consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Dan, can I ask what your take on souls/spirituality is please?
I've found your pov very interesting in the past and would like to hear the "cliff notes" version of it. Once everybody starts getting into "intellectual slam" I tend to zone out a little.
Well, I can certainly share my take if you want it.
When it comes to souls, I am really undecided as it depends on how you define it. In the christian sense, no I dont believe in souls. However a lot of information is stored in the body which is disintegrated upon death and recombined into new organisms or rock for that matter. So some part of us may "live on" in that sense. Souls as seperate entities from our bodies I dont believe in.
When it comes to spirituality, I acknowledge it as an essential part of being human, something humans everywhere and always have been doing, experiencing, believing. It's most important feature is perhaps providing us with meaning, which is something we crave in everything we do. We need the whys, not just the hows of science.
But also, there is something at the core of the religious/spiritual experience that so many are experiencing. I dont know what that core is, although I am positive it has nothing to do with any religion's take on it. I believe that practitioners of all religions are experiencing essentially the same thing, but they attribute it differently depending on their culture and dominant religion in the area.
So I am really a fence-sitter on most of the issues there. Well apart from what I have described as my beliefs here, of course. I leave the door open for spirituality, although I generally reject religious dogma.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It's reductionism yes. It bounces back though. What scientists do is then inhibit the areas suspected of being reward-systems and observe a change in the behaviour. This is moving from correlation to causation.
If we can show the causal interactions of pathways and transmitters to phenomenological experience and behaviour. Then we have a solid reductionist theory.
I understand the discomfort with these techniques, because they don't include metaphysics, souls or spirits, those concepts aren't required for an explanation.
As in the case of Anton-Babinski Syndrome, or other forms of anosognosia, where does the spirit/soul, if it exists, influence anything?
I dont have any "discomfort" because they aren't using spirits or the like. You must have gotten me confused with other people here again. And again, no, never here have I claimed souls. Find another argument.
My claim is against reductionism in itself as a critique of a certain view of viewing knowledge. My point is that reductionism can never account for the full complexity of reality, precisely because it reduces. You can set up ideal cases that works fine in specific circumstances and uses. Which is what science regularly do. But that is on the expense of the full picture. That full picture may never be gleamed, and science may be the best we can ever do, but it is arrogant then to think that what we can scientifically deduce is all there is.
Taste the word "reductionist". Could it be that the reason the reductibles sound better is precisely because we have decided how they can be reduced in a neat way fitting our theories? (confident we didn't lose anything on the way) I might add the predictable models on the current subject of souls and whatnot are far between and heavily restricted in area of use.
When talking ultimate reality, metaphysics, souls, spirituality and so on, reductionism comes up short. Because we are not then discussing a reduced version of reality, we are discussing all of reality with all it's complexities. Hard to argue conclusively about? Certainly. Who said it was gonna be easy?
This is what I would like to hear your take on. Nevermind the desire bit, that was a sidetrack.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
As I say, when you truly want to learn, you can find the theory all over the place, including the science. You're not interested in this theory because it's outside the bounds of what you believe is possible. You're trying to obfuscate this physicists view, as if that somehow disproves what you obviously know nothing about. It does not.
You challenged the idea that a physicist or neurosurgeon thought this way, about spirit, and invisible and Source realms and I proved it. You tried to degrade the holographic stuff, by attempting to pin it on a "science fiction writer", when clearly it is the view of both an esteemed well-regarded physicist and a noted, award-winning neurosurgeon. I fully understand you are not comfortable with conflicting opinions. You'll adapt.
The brain learns by a few different methods, Hebbian and non-Hebbian, LTP and LTD. As far as is known, but these are solid theories. They have been observed and stand true in practice. Where does this quantum stuff come into all of it? A whole gap exists between psychology and physics, it's called neuroscience.
Like I say, you are not interested in new paradigms. I understand that you believe various models of understanding are either "right" or "wrong". You need to blot out that which conflicts with what you "know" even if it means you must rely on "unreason" to do so.
Bohm: Yes, we may have reason from there and that is subject to all the irrational pressures which are also in the memory: emotional pressures, fears, all those experiences and so on, and so that kind of reasoning is very limited. It can very quickly get caught in self-deception.
Weber: And to you that signifies a barrier. That is not what you're speaking of.
Bohm: That's right. But then there may be reason which flows from insight and a reason which is operating as an instrument of intelligence. That's an entirely different kind of reason.
Weber: It implies what? Order, but not mechanical order?
Bohm: Not mechanical order, and not limited by pressure, you see. Let's take a physicist. If he's been subjected to all these courses in quantum mechanics and pressures to think in this way: he'll be approved of if he does, disapproved of if he doesn't, he gets a job if he does, not if he doesn't, and so on and so on, the minute the idea occurs of thinking in another way, there will be an intense pressure which will blot it out. So, therefore, that isn't reason anymore, it's unreason.
Weber: But he'll think it's reason. He'll rationalize it.
Bohm: He'll think it's reason, yes, he'll say it's reason because he's blotted out all this pressure. It all happens very fast and automatically.
Weber: And he's confirmed by the consensus of the physical community?
Bohm: Well, everybody's doing the same thing, you see. They all reinforce each other and they all say it's right, but it's all the same.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Fred Alan Wolf is another esteemed quantum physicist, writer and lecturer who has taken the known science and who interprets it in a way that appreciates the spiritual/mysterious and non-linear nature of life.
For example, he has books called: "The Spiritual Universe", "The Yoga of Time Travel: How the Mind Can Defeat Time", "Taking the Quantum Leap", and "The Dreaming Universe".
"Explanation of one theory by a new theory always involves expanding of the concept like relativity making time appear as an imaginary spatial dimension or spacetime as one thing rather than two separable concepts. But quantum physics goes even farther. It indicates that observation or cognition "causes" events to occur in a manner that cannot be predicted by any cause-effect math model. Many have tried to generate such a model and most of these attempts introduce more speculation than they resolve. Hence it is not detrimental to rational thought to accept mystery and attempt to go beyond current scientific thinking. This has been my goal for some time.
I cannot prove the existence of God, but I can experience the awe and mystery and beauty of love and sense the presence of something beyond my materially based thinking. I hope that you can do the same regardless of what you believe. Just don't go on automatic pilot like so many brain-dead scientists who knee-jerk to the tune of "God is dead" and all is mechanical meat. Be an agnostic. Believe as little as you can in anything but try and experience as much as you can of everything. ~ Fred Alan Wolf
"God does play dice, however he uses nonlocality (the ability to move things outside of space and time) to alter them before we get to see the results! God always wins regardless of my skill at life's crap table. God represents to me the ineffable, the deep mystery, the unfathomable aspects of my life and life in general. However I sense God deeply and personally not just "out there" and impersonally.
...God manipulates the dice using nonlocality. This means that God is able to move things about from a hidden dimension beyond space and time. The results of God's push or pull appears to us in space and time as miraculous. Hence separateness from God's point of view is illusionary. From my point of view its very real." ~ Fred Alan Wolf http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Here Fred Alan Wolf points to how all theoretical models are only useful within the context of the limited experimental investigation available to scientists. Each model has limited validity:
"All theories are models of what seems to be an endlessness of unknowable reality. Each model generally works within the limited frame of experimental investigation available to scientists. All models attempt to go beyond that framework, and usually they run into difficulties as for example in current cosmological models and even quantum theory models such as parallel universes, the Bohm hidden variable model, or the Copenhagen model. Hence each model has limited validity, and the idea of a TOE (theory of everything) seems to still elude us." ~Fred Alan Wolf
Here's a little on scientific reduction and it's inherent lack of "dumbing down" what we have before us:
"Most likely we will never complete the puzzle because all science models make what seems to me to be a faulty assumption: they assume that anything complex and intelligent can be explained by dumber and simpler parts. For example, that consciousness comes from jumping electrons or something smaller, or that particles are made of simpler particles or strings or anything tinier. It may be the other way around, and that matter evolves out of consciousness as described in ancient Indian wisdom. . . . " ~Fred Alan Wolf http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"My understanding of things tells me that the universe is not entirely rational. That rationality only appears in models that humans make. God cannot be calculated, and spirituality remains endless and unfathomable, deep and mysterious. We will explore more, go deeper, even clone life, live 200 years or more per individual lifetime, see consciousness exist in computer devices, come up with new ways of probing the mind, reach the outer limits of the solar system and even journey to distant stars. But we will never understand the universe completely and we will continually find surprises." ~ Fred Alan Wolf
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
These are just more knowledge claims, nothing backing them up. I have to ask "Why is that true?"
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I dont have any "discomfort" because they aren't using spirits or the like. You must have gotten me confused with other people here again. And again, no, never here have I claimed souls. Find another argument.
My claim is against reductionism in itself as a critique of a certain view of viewing knowledge. My point is that reductionism can never account for the full complexity of reality, precisely because it reduces. You can set up ideal cases that works fine in specific circumstances and uses. Which is what science regularly do. But that is on the expense of the full picture. That full picture may never be gleamed, and science may be the best we can ever do, but it is arrogant then to think that what we can scientifically deduce is all there is.
And what do you say to this really:
This is what I would like to hear your take on. Nevermind the desire bit, that was a sidetrack.
Peace
Dan
If you aren't using reductionism then you aren't seeing the "whole". You only have fragmented information. These theories pick and choose what they want to include. Which is difficult to discern because nothing is mentioned in them. When you use reductionism you have a complete picture from top to bottom.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ahnimus, in this forum, all views are welcome--personal, philosophical, religious, etc. I have no interest to interrupt your personal model of the universe and "prove" anything to you. I respect your subjective view, how your mind operates, and how that is about who you are--it is what it is. You are certainly entitled to your perspective.
I'm supporting what Byrnzie said regarding physicists coming to see the unity and the parallels with certain spiritual/shamanistic or Eastern views, I'm sharing the perspectives of some physicists who are prominent in the field, with indepth science backgrounds, and who also philosophize about consciousness, spirit and quantum physics.
You present one view; I am presenting yet another. I understand you want your view to rule because you believe it is the one true view. And still, the views of these educated quantum physicists and neurosurgeon stand, until proven otherwise. All theories that extend beyond the limited frame of specific experimental investigation are on par with one another.
In other words, while you personally tend towards reducing human beings and their diverse, and often amazing experiences, there are untold experts in science, philosophy, and from all walks of life, that accept and revere the mysterious and all kinds of experience beyond what we can yet reduce and "prove".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you aren't using reductionism then you aren't seeing the "whole". You only have fragmented information. These theories pick and choose what they want to include. Which is difficult to discern because nothing is mentioned in them. When you use reductionism you have a complete picture from top to bottom.
Okay....so by reducing something from it's whole to a part, we are seeing the complete picture? Can you please explain how that works?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, in this forum, all views are welcome--personal, philosophical, religious, etc. I have no interest to interrupt your personal model of the universe and "prove" anything to you. I respect your subjective view, how your mind operates, and how that is about who you are--it is what it is. You are certainly entitled to your perspective.
I'm supporting what Byrnzie said regarding physicists coming to see the unity and the parallels with certain spiritual/shamanistic or Eastern views, I'm sharing the perspectives of some physicists who are prominent in the field, with indepth science backgrounds, and who also philosophize about consciousness, spirit and quantum physics.
You present one view; I am presenting yet another. I understand you want your view to rule because you believe it is the one true view. And still, the views of these educated quantum physicists and neurosurgeon stand, until proven otherwise. All theories that extend beyond the limited frame of specific experimental investigation are on par with one another.
In other words, while you personally tend towards reducing human beings and their diverse, and often amazing experiences, there are untold experts in science, philosophy, and from all walks of life, that accept and revere the mysterious and all kinds of experience beyond what we can yet reduce and "prove".
Byrnzie made a positive knowledge claim that "physicists have declared spirits/souls exist." and that is wrong. Some speculate and hope it's true, but none have provided any evidence at all.
Bohm and Pribram are not philosopher's either. They are missing a big part of philosophy, "Why is that true?" is one of the main questions a philosopher should be asking. In their case, there is no answer, or the answer is "Because it feels good." which is not an acceptable logical argument.
I'm guessing you don't really understand philosophy. Philosopher's don't say "All views exist harmoniously with each other." they'd be wasting their time with philosophy. Philosopher's argue, they use logical arguments, syllogisms and facts. None of these guys are doing that.
Francis Crick and Einstein made better philosophers than these guys. Atleast they had something of a logical argument.
These guys obviously don't appreciate philosophy. They think it's a practice of wild speculation and long-reaching conclusions. It's not.
You can't just leave out huge chunks of evidence. Consider the massive number of cases involving memory regression therapy in the 1980s. The validated roles different regions of the brain play in human thought. The disparity amongst intuitive learners, that is the difference in conclusions of those who learn solely by introspection or philosophical indoctrination.
Multiple theories cannot coexist if in conflict with each other. You need your optic nerve for your eyes to project retinal information to your LGN and then back to your visual striate cortex. If you think all views are harmonious and this can be neglected, then prove it by severing your optic nerve. Otherwise, wake up and smell the neuroscience, it cannot be ignored and still have a sound theory about human mental capacity.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Okay....so by reducing something from it's whole to a part, we are seeing the complete picture? Can you please explain how that works?
It's very simple. Take a television.
You can view the TV and think "I have a complete picture of a TV, a complete understanding." but you do not. Your understanding of the TV is as good as anyone else who simply views the TV as a whole.
Now, you can reduce it and say
"This plastic housing is made of plastic, which is molded from polyethelene resin."
"This screen is a matrix of phosphorous tubes that collect photons projected at them by a cathode ray tube in the rear of the housing."
"The CRT is mounted to a PCB that receives input signals for a coaxial cable and decodes them for projection."
Now you begin to have a more complete understanding of the Television. The image decoded and displayed on the screen is still there, nothing is missing from the first step viewing the whole TV, but your understanding is now more complete because you've reduced that whole to it's parts. A dangerously myopic statement would be "The Television decides what to display on it's screen." something that might be said if you didn't know how it works.
The TV consists of matter, which in-turn consists of atoms and sub-atomic particles likes Quarks, Antiquarks, Gluons, etc.. How do quantum events affect the ultimate image on the screen? They don't. There is however interference sometimes referred to as snow. Where does this interference come from? A certain portion of it, is cosmic background radiation the rest is interference from various other electromagnetic sources, cell-phones, electrical storms, etc... This is demonstrable by the typically clear image on the TV screen in the absence of interference. Since quantum events are unavoidable.
Now that we have a more complete view of a Television. We can see that quantum events probably are either accounted for in the design, or are on too small of scale to affect the quasi-classical mechanics of the TV. It would be a logical fallacy to assume, with no knowledge of the inner workings of the TV, that the interference is a result of quantum indeterminacy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Byrnzie made a positive knowledge claim that "physicists have declared spirits/souls exist." and that is wrong.
David Bohm and Fred Alan Wolf have both stated that there is Supreme Intelligence and God, etc. in their opinions, based on the facts as they know them. This is quoted in these posts. They are both physicists. It's looks like Byrnzie is correct that physicists are declaring this, given these men have declared this, based on their professional understanding of quantum physics. And there are many more, too!
Bohm and Pribram are not philosopher's either.
One who philosophizes is a philosopher. Also, maybe you realize that Byrnzie has a philosophy degree!
Just because someone's idea of what is true, and their means of deciding that, is different from your own it is merely different. I understand your own cognitive dissonance want to assure you that you are accurate and others are false. And yet there remains much dissent amongst philosophical views. Take Aristotle and Plato. Differences are allowed.
They are missing a big part of philosophy, "Why is that true?" is one of the main questions a philosopher should be asking. In their case, there is no answer, or the answer is "Because it feels good." which is not an acceptable logical argument.
Your lack of awareness on how others are coming to their theories and conclusions is about your own lack of awareness. For you to project that lack onto others, and assume they have no reputable, valid process is futile.
Francis Crick and Einstein made better philosophers than these guys. Atleast they had something of a logical argument.
I know, I know...I've been saying all along that you are only going to hear what resonates with what you believe. I don't expect you to accept what to others is perfectly reasonble in the points of view I have shared from these esteemed individuals. However, I know others do appreciate the reasoning and beauty in such models and I fully support that.
The validated roles different regions of the brain play in human thought. The disparity amongst intuitive learners, that is the difference in conclusions of those who learn solely by introspection or philosophical indoctrination.
The men quoted by me here are highly trained scientists. They all have taught at highly esteemed instititutions of higher learning. They've proven their ability time and again. Considering they are all finely trained in scientific process, fact and so on, and understand the high standards of academic learning and knowledge speaks volumes for these individuals, and the many more highly educated and valued free thinkers like them.
Multiple theories cannot coexist if in conflict with each other.
Tell that to these esteemed scientists and their colleagues who support them.
For example, tell the numerous interpretations of quantum physics and, say, complementarity that.... The problem here is that you are assuming models ARE the truth. And rather they represent what we know about the truth now, given the context of the model. They never ever encompass the whole truth when reducing truth to science or even philosophy. Ever.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you aren't using reductionism then you aren't seeing the "whole". You only have fragmented information. These theories pick and choose what they want to include. Which is difficult to discern because nothing is mentioned in them. When you use reductionism you have a complete picture from top to bottom.
I am not writing a defense of these theories, I am criticizing your rather one-sided view. Not agreeing with you does not place me at the opposite end.
As for reductionism, it would also depend on what exactly it is you are reducing. The TV example you mentioned isn't very good, as humans made the tv from the parts, hence making it self-evident that knowing the parts will know the whole. Wholes that we didn't make from the outset are much harder to reduce, as we are more at a loss as to why it works in the first place. Science does then often make approximations after prolonged development on those issues, but are never in a position to claim full knowledge. Which is why you will see all the disclaimers your scientists often have. I feel you try to reduce way more than you really can with your theories and references, and as I often note, your references dont draw the conclusions you do quite often.
There is a larger burden of proof to be able to claim all (relevant) knowledge, than to claim that everything is not known or that we may not know the full picture. Reductionism, useful a tool as it is, may never be able to prove anything outside its limited boundaries, although we can use it to great effect within those.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
David Bohm and Fred Alan Wolf have both stated that there is Supreme Intelligence and God, etc. in their opinions, based on the facts as they know them. This is quoted in these posts. They are both physicists. It's looks like Byrnzie is correct that physicists are declaring this, given these men have declared this, based on their professional understanding of quantum physics. And there are many more, too!
One who philosophizes is a philosopher. Also, maybe you realize that Byrnzie has a philosophy degree!
Just because someone's idea of what is true, and their means of deciding that, is different from your own it is merely different. I understand your own cognitive dissonance want to assure you that you are accurate and others are false. And yet there remains much dissent amongst philosophical views. Take Aristotle and Plato. Differences are allowed.
Your lack of awareness on how others are coming to their theories and conclusions is about your own lack of awareness. For you to project that lack onto others, and assume they have no reputable, valid process is futile.
I know, I know...I've been saying all along that you are only going to hear what resonates with what you believe. I don't expect you to accept what to others is perfectly reasonble in the points of view I have shared from these esteemed individuals. However, I know others do appreciate the reasoning and beauty in such models and I fully support that.
The men quoted by me here are highly trained scientists. They all have taught at highly esteemed instititutions of higher learning. They've proven their ability time and again. Considering they are all finely trained in scientific process, fact and so on, and understand the high standards of academic learning and knowledge speaks volumes for these individuals, and the many more highly educated and valued free thinkers like them.
Tell that to these esteemed scientists and their colleagues who support them.
For example, tell the numerous interpretations of quantum physics and, say, complementarity that.... The problem here is that you are assuming models ARE the truth. And rather they represent what we know about the truth now, given the context of the model. They never ever encompass the whole truth when reducing truth to science or even philosophy. Ever.
Angelica, many scientists speculate when they are not doing science. The statements you have quoted are scientists not doing science, they are speculating. So the claim "physicists have declared souls/spirits exist" is false, in that these physcists are not doing physics when they make this declaration, they are doing speculation. The claim would be more accurate if it was "speculators have declared souls/spirits exist". In order for someone to be a scientist, they must be doing science. If a scientist was also a great pianist, you would not say, when the person is doing science "So-an-so is playing their piano with greatness!". At that point they are not doing what a pianist does, they are doing what a scientist does. In these examples, Pribram and Bohm are not doing science, they aren't even doing philosophy, they are doing speculation. If philosophy was just wild speculation then Byrnzie would not need a degree for it. A degree in wild speculation would be rather pointless.
Finally, I don't agree with Einstein or Spinoza's philosophy, however, at least it is philosophy. Nor do I agree with Dennett's views, but he is a great philosopher. Pribram and Bohm might be great scientists, but they are not even doing philosophy.
Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).[1] [2] The word itself is of Greek origin: φιλοσοφία (philosophía), a compound of φίλος (phílos: friend, or lover) and σοφία (sophía: wisdom).[3][4]
Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, and the field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era, it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy. Different philosophers have had varied ideas about the nature of reason, and there is also disagreement about the subject matter of philosophy. Some think that philosophy examines the process of inquiry itself. Others, that there are essentially philosophical propositions which it is the task of philosophy to prove.[5]
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The essential elements[9][10][11] of a scientific method[12] are iterations[13], recursions[14], interleavings, and orderings of the following:
Characterizations (Quantifications, observations[15] , and measurements)
Hypotheses[16] [17] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)[18]
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[19] from hypothesis and theory)
Experiments[20] (tests of all of the above)
Science
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
But your way of countering the knowledge claims, is coming with equally powerful knowledge claims of your own. That's what's rubbing many here the wrong way. That, and uncalled for characterizations labbelling them crazy or something of the sort. Can't imagine why that pisses people off.
And accepting all theories won't get us anywhere I suppose, but think of it another way. If the various theories weren't maintained, they would never get the chance to be seriously proven or disproven. Scientific breakthroughs often come because the scientist/promoter in question is stubborn and unyielding enough to not back down and keep the theory alive long enough for it to have the possibility to break down the current paradigm. So a multitude of theories should be encouraged, especially since history has yet to produce a paradigm in any field that hasn't been overthrown at least once. In fact, many sciences, particularly psychology and for that matter sociology are lacking a paradigm right now. Behaviourism's height is passed, as is the slightly megalomanical attempts of theories on everything reducable to quantitative measures (Parsons) in sociology. What we have now is many theories and many ideas. You often seem a bit too keen to jump onboard one of the current theories, and exclude all others.
And again, few here are trying to prove to you the existence of soul or spirit. However they are raising questions about the wisdom of rejecting it altogether, as you seem keen to do.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm not rejecting the possibility, I'm rejecting it as probable. There are more explanatory theories.
Let's take a centre stance; there might be souls and there might not be souls. In practice, if we exclude both theories, then we are in a state of dissonance with no practical application. I am happy with that state of practice. But that is not common, most want to resolve the disonnance, and they do this, not by evidence or observation, but by desire.
Desire can be quantified too, why is it that we desire what we desire? Folk Psychology hardly provides an answer, rather would claim it is a reflection of our 'essence', which is eerily similar to the description of a soul/spirit. So the value of desire is stuck back in a dissonant state. It becomes inevitably circular. Other theories however, essentially say that desire is a result of past experience and upregulation/downregulation of the dopaminergic reward system. This theory is not circular, it doesn't appeal to its self for explanation.
It will go on forever. There are theories that are circular and do not offer explanation or prediction and there are theories that are reductive and do offer further explanation and prediction.
A centre stance would not be eliminating both theories, it would be eliminating neither of them, waiting for pending potential evidence one way or the other. In the meantime, there no way to say that either position is wrong or misguided objectively.
The only alternatives are en "essential" model, and a heavily reduced psychological model? How would you quantify desire? You dont say how it is quantifiable here.
Taste the word "reductionist". Could it be that the reason the reductibles sound better is precisely because we have decided how they can be reduced in a neat way fitting our theories? (confident we didn't lose anything on the way) I might add the predictable models on the current subject of souls and whatnot are far between and heavily restricted in area of use.
When talking ultimate reality, metaphysics, souls, spirituality and so on, reductionism comes up short. Because we are not then discussing a reduced version of reality, we are discussing all of reality with all it's complexities. Hard to argue conclusively about? Certainly. Who said it was gonna be easy?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I think this article acurately describes the theory of desire. You may need to infer some things.
http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/cadd/a_drug/essays/essay4.htm
OK.
That's my point about reductionism. You now reduced the big fuzzy category of desire down to observed neural pathways and transmitters. You are counting neural emissions to "explain" it, and reducing desire down to specific rat behaviour.
But I am much more interested in what you may have to say about my other points. This was a digression mostly.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It's reductionism yes. It bounces back though. What scientists do is then inhibit the areas suspected of being reward-systems and observe a change in the behaviour. This is moving from correlation to causation.
If we can show the causal interactions of pathways and transmitters to phenomenological experience and behaviour. Then we have a solid reductionist theory.
I understand the discomfort with these techniques, because they don't include metaphysics, souls or spirits, those concepts aren't required for an explanation.
As in the case of Anton-Babinski Syndrome, or other forms of anosognosia, where does the spirit/soul, if it exists, influence anything?
You need to get yerself out into the woods and drop some LSD.
I know it's much easier for you to want to pass Bohm's theories off as the work of Michael Talbot, sci-fi writer. That way you don't have to address the actual theories.
So, since I no longer have the library book, and Bohm's own words are already on this very forum, here they are again...
Bohm: "...it's the insight that does it, you see, the insight is not you, right? The insight being supreme intelligence is able to rearrange the very structural matter of the brain which underlies thought so as to remove that message which is causing the confusion, leaving the necessary information and leaving the brain open to perceive reality in a different way. But at present, it's blocked, the conditioning blocks us, because it creates a pressure to maintain what is familiar and old, and makes people frightened to consider anything new. So, reality is limited by the message which has already been deeply impressed upon the brain cells from early childhood. Now the insight actually removes the message which is causing this block.
Weber: And makes us then commensurable with it?
Bohm: It opens thought up to be fresh and new again so that it can operate rationally. One could say that to remain within this block is completely irrational. It's the result of pressure. You adopt the idea that this block is truth because it relieves the pressure of uncertainty.
Weber: I see, but when you see the term "rationally" or "reasonably" shall we be very clear? You don't mean what the Enlightenment meant, or Descarte, you mean something far beyond that.
Bohm: Reason may have two sources. One is the memory, which is mechanical, rather like a computer.
Weber: Combining the right things.
Bohm: Yes, we may have reason from there and that is subject to all the irrational pressures which are also in the memory: emotional pressures, fears, all those experiences and so on, and so that kind of reasoning is very limited. It can very quickly get caught in self-deception.
Weber: And to you that signifies a barrier. That is not what you're speaking of.
Bohm: That's right. But then there may be reason which flows from insight and a reason which is operating as an instrument of intelligence. That's an entirely different kind of reason.
Weber: It implies what? Order, but not mechanical order?
Bohm: Not mechanical order, and not limited by pressure, you see. Let's take a physicist. If he's been subjected to all these courses in quantum mechanics and pressures to think in this way: he'll be approved of if he does, disapproved of if he doesn't, he gets a job if he does, not if he doesn't, and so on and so on, the minute the idea occurs of thinking in another way, there will be an intense pressure which will blot it out. So, therefore, that isn't reason anymore, it's unreason.
Weber: But he'll think it's reason. He'll rationalize it.
Bohm: He'll think it's reason, yes, he'll say it's reason because he's blotted out all this pressure. It all happens very fast and automatically.
Weber: And he's confirmed by the consensus of the physical community?
Bohm: Well, everybody's doing the same thing, you see. They all reinforce each other and they all say it's right, but it's all the same.
Weber: Can we go back for a moment? This possible state that you speak of where intelligence or insight operates because it's unblocked because I've taken away the obstacles....
Bohm: It's insight that's taken away the obstacles, not me, right?
Weber: All right. What it would be in touch with, you imply is beyond the nonmanifest, is the source of the nonmanifest. Are you implying that that's the domain of, shall we call it "the sacred"?
Bohm: Well, it has been called the sacred. As we know "holy" is based on the word "whole", it could be called whole, or wholeness. See, the word "sacred" has unfortunately come to mean something different from its original root, that is to say a sacrifice that you make. Now it's closely connected with the idea of organized religions making sacrifices and things like that, and it has a great many connotations which are unfortunate.
Weber: But you feel the word whole, holy is....?
Bohm: Is a bit better, yes. ...
There. He's talking about the Source of the "non-manifest" as being "whole" or holy. And he's talking about insight as being not us--but rather being Supreme Intelligence, which can arrange the structural matter of the brain. These are the words of esteemed quantum physicist, David Bohm.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
These are Pribrim's own words:
MISHLOVE: But what you're saying, if I can try and simplify it, is that there's a level of reality at which things are what they appear to be. I look at you and I see a body and a face. That would be the explicate level, where things are what they appear to be. Then there's an implicate level, which is just as real, but if you were to look at it, it doesn't look at all like the other.
PRIBRAM: We experience it entirely differently -- as a spiritual aspect of our being. This implicate order is also a potential order; we're not in it most of the time. We had for years this whole idea of the human potential, and I think that's what we're talking about.
MISHLOVE: Human potential may be embodied somehow in the implicate structure.
PRIBRAM: That's very nice, yes. Good way to say it.
MISHLOVE: Prior to the development of quantum physics and the holonomic model of the brain, people based their notion of who they were and how their minds worked more on the Newtonian classical models of physics, and perhaps in some sense, if they bought into those models, would tend to deny their spiritual experiences, or not really feel connected with that part of themselves. Would you say so?
PRIBRAM: Very definitely, and that recalls something that De Tocqueville said. After writing his histories, he said, "Maybe I've been interpreting it the wrong way, because I've been doing it in terms of classical mechanics, with cause-and-effect relationships. But when the human being acts, this is not a cause; this is a challenge."
MISHLOVE: Many neuroscientists today -- it's almost axiomatic, when they talk about the mind, which they sometimes do -- they say the mind is sort of located in the brain. I gather that that way of putting it is totally discordant with your own view of things.
PRIBRAM: Yes. There are lots of different ways of phrasing this. One is that mental phenomena are emergent properties of how the brain works, and so it's almost like the brain is secreting vision and mind and all that. But maybe a better way of talking about it would be to say that mental phenomena arise through the interaction between brain and body and the environment and -- this is what Karl Popper says -- that whole interactive thing produces an emergent, which we call mind and spirit, and so on. I think that's a better way than just thinking of the brain secreting it.
MISHLOVE: What can we say, in wrapping the program up, given all these aspects of the mind-brain system that you've described, how does that relate to, say, the ultimate or the farther reaches of human potential?
PRIBRAM: Well, I think in the twenty-first century we're going to be able to do an awful lot that we weren't able to do up to now, simply because science will be admitted to the spiritual aspects of mankind, and vice versa -- what has been segregated for at least three hundred years, since Galileo, where the spiritual aspects, in Western culture at least, have been sort of relegated over here. People have split this, you know. We build buildings, and we do surgery, and do all of these things. Then we have a spiritual aspect to ourselves; we go do that somewhere else. Whereas now I think these things will come together, and it will be perfectly all right for what we today call "faith healers" to come and help with reduction of pain and to ease all kinds of things. So it'll be a different world. I wouldn't even be surprised if preventative therapies could be instituted, that deal with controls of ourselves, so we aren't as prone to get cancers and so on.
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/pribram.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Bohm: Well let's come back to the nonmanifest implicate order of consciousness. In the nonmanifest order, all is one. You see, there is no separation in space and time, In ordinary matter, this is so and it's equally so or even more so for this subtle matter which is consciousness. Therefore, if we are separate it is because we are sticking largely to the manifest world as the basic reality, where the whole point of the manifest world is to have separate units. I mean relatively so anyway, separate but interacting and so on. Now, in nonmanifest reality it's all interpenetrating, interconnected in one. So we say deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This, we say, is a virtual certainty because even matter is one in the vacuum; and if we don't see this it's because we are blinding ourselves to it.
Weber: And, therefore, you are saying it's we who construct space and time, really, in the Kantian sense and beyond Kant even?
Bohm:Yes, space and time are constructed by us for our convenience although they are created in such a way that when we're doing it right, it really is convenient. The word convenient is based on "coming together", "convene", to come together. Now, our conventions are convenient, and that is not purely subjective, they actually fit the reality of matter. So conventions are not just an arbitrary choice made to please us, to gratify us, but rather they are conventions which are convenient, which fit matter as it is. And now, we are saying space and time is a convenient order for a certain range of purposes.
Weber: In the manifest?
Bohm: In the manifest.
Weber: But you're saying it has no place in the non-manifest.
Bohm: It is not the fundamental order. It's only place in the nommanifest...it has a place, but only as a relationship. It has a certain place but it is not the fundamental place.
Weber: It's this n-1 and n-2 that you spoke about earlier?
Bohm: Yes that's right.
Weber: But in actuality, in the nonmanifest, you say mankind's consciousness or mind is one. And you mean this quite literally, not metaphorically or poetically.
Bohm: No, it is one consciousness, and you can see as evidence of this that the basic problems of mankind are one. You see they're the same: namely fear, jealousy, hope, confusion, you know the problem of isolation and so on. If you go around you will see that deep down all the problems are the same.
Weber: So it's a universal stratum of some sort.
Bohm: Yes, we may say that these problems originate in the consciousness of mankind and manifest in each individual. You see, each individual manifests the consciousness of mankind. That is what I say.
Weber: Because he is, in a way, that consciousness.
Bohm: He is that manifestation.
Weber: And as he perceives himself, in the manifest, he's isolated himself out, he's made himself an abstraction.
Bohm: Yes, if he says that manifestation is independently existent, it's like saying the cloud exists on its own apart from the air.
Weber: Or the particle without the whole ocean, the whole background?
Bohm: Or the ink droplet without the whole background.
Weber: So the individual, as he thinks of himself, is but the overt manifestation just as the chair is, of that underlying background?
Bohm: Yes, as the chair is, and the mountain, because they're a manifestation of the deeper energy, a deeper order, a deeper reality which is not manifest.
Weber: And you're saying this is not mysticism, it's good physics.
Bohm: Well, I'm saying that it's more consistent with physics than any other view that I know.
Weber: If one really were to take this seriously in one's daily life, how differently would one interact with another human being?
Bohm: Well it would be a tremendous change, but you see, to do this we have to get clear of the recording in the brain of this other view which has been deeply recorded in the material structure of the brain. We could call that the corruption of mankind, that the brain and the consciousness and deeper levels, not only in the manifest levels of the brain but the nonmanifest, that there has been left this pollution, which is this whole view which leads to all this violence, corruption, disorder, self-deception. See, you could say that almost all of mankind's thought is aimed at self-deception, which momentarily relieves pressures arising from this way of thinking, of being separate, and it produces pressures. When a person is under pressure, any thought that comes in to relieve that pressure will be accepted as true. But immediately that leads to some more pressure because it's wrong and then you take another thought to relieve that thought.
Weber: It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Bohm: Yes, and that has been the major way. If you watch how international negotiations go on you see no truth whatsover there. It's entirely the result of pressures: fear, gain, greed, compromise, trade-offs, pressures to achieve and what not. You accept as true any statement that will relieve that pressure. And then in the next statement that's overturned and people will take another one....It happens in families obviously. People are compelled in the family to state things which the pressure of the family says are true. It happens in organizations, in institutions.
David Bohm interview from "The Holographic Paradigm and other Paradoxes"
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Dan, can I ask what your take on souls/spirituality is please?
I've found your pov very interesting in the past and would like to hear the "cliff notes" version of it.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
This post is completely off-base--a figment of your willful personal view, rather than being based on knowledge.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
How do quantum fluctuations influence the quasi-classical mechanics of the brain?
Their theories are not stated. Nothing is explained here. Quantum events are one thing, but it doesn't seem likely that it has anything to do with the brain or the mind. You need a real theory, like Hammeroff has for quantum indeterminacy in the microtubules of the neurons. But the microtubules only carry proteins up or down the axon. If that fails to perform it's job due to quantum events, the neuron will likely die. Also, like Dennett says, indeterminacy in the brain will only make us indeterminate machines instead of determinate machines. It doesn't give us any special abilities.
Like I said, it's a non sequitur. Just because of quantum events, we don't have super powers. There is a lot of other stuff in between. You can't totally write off neuroscience because of some discovery in physics. They don't even describe what quantum events they are talking about.
The brain learns by a few different methods, Hebbian and non-Hebbian, LTP and LTD. As far as is known, but these are solid theories. They have been observed and stand true in practice. Where does this quantum stuff come into all of it? A whole gap exists between psychology and physics, it's called neuroscience.
When it comes to souls, I am really undecided as it depends on how you define it. In the christian sense, no I dont believe in souls. However a lot of information is stored in the body which is disintegrated upon death and recombined into new organisms or rock for that matter. So some part of us may "live on" in that sense. Souls as seperate entities from our bodies I dont believe in.
When it comes to spirituality, I acknowledge it as an essential part of being human, something humans everywhere and always have been doing, experiencing, believing. It's most important feature is perhaps providing us with meaning, which is something we crave in everything we do. We need the whys, not just the hows of science.
But also, there is something at the core of the religious/spiritual experience that so many are experiencing. I dont know what that core is, although I am positive it has nothing to do with any religion's take on it. I believe that practitioners of all religions are experiencing essentially the same thing, but they attribute it differently depending on their culture and dominant religion in the area.
So I am really a fence-sitter on most of the issues there. Well apart from what I have described as my beliefs here, of course. I leave the door open for spirituality, although I generally reject religious dogma.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
My claim is against reductionism in itself as a critique of a certain view of viewing knowledge. My point is that reductionism can never account for the full complexity of reality, precisely because it reduces. You can set up ideal cases that works fine in specific circumstances and uses. Which is what science regularly do. But that is on the expense of the full picture. That full picture may never be gleamed, and science may be the best we can ever do, but it is arrogant then to think that what we can scientifically deduce is all there is.
And what do you say to this really:
This is what I would like to hear your take on. Nevermind the desire bit, that was a sidetrack.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You challenged the idea that a physicist or neurosurgeon thought this way, about spirit, and invisible and Source realms and I proved it. You tried to degrade the holographic stuff, by attempting to pin it on a "science fiction writer", when clearly it is the view of both an esteemed well-regarded physicist and a noted, award-winning neurosurgeon. I fully understand you are not comfortable with conflicting opinions. You'll adapt.
Like I say, you are not interested in new paradigms. I understand that you believe various models of understanding are either "right" or "wrong". You need to blot out that which conflicts with what you "know" even if it means you must rely on "unreason" to do so.
Bohm: Yes, we may have reason from there and that is subject to all the irrational pressures which are also in the memory: emotional pressures, fears, all those experiences and so on, and so that kind of reasoning is very limited. It can very quickly get caught in self-deception.
Weber: And to you that signifies a barrier. That is not what you're speaking of.
Bohm: That's right. But then there may be reason which flows from insight and a reason which is operating as an instrument of intelligence. That's an entirely different kind of reason.
Weber: It implies what? Order, but not mechanical order?
Bohm: Not mechanical order, and not limited by pressure, you see. Let's take a physicist. If he's been subjected to all these courses in quantum mechanics and pressures to think in this way: he'll be approved of if he does, disapproved of if he doesn't, he gets a job if he does, not if he doesn't, and so on and so on, the minute the idea occurs of thinking in another way, there will be an intense pressure which will blot it out. So, therefore, that isn't reason anymore, it's unreason.
Weber: But he'll think it's reason. He'll rationalize it.
Bohm: He'll think it's reason, yes, he'll say it's reason because he's blotted out all this pressure. It all happens very fast and automatically.
Weber: And he's confirmed by the consensus of the physical community?
Bohm: Well, everybody's doing the same thing, you see. They all reinforce each other and they all say it's right, but it's all the same.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
For example, he has books called: "The Spiritual Universe", "The Yoga of Time Travel: How the Mind Can Defeat Time", "Taking the Quantum Leap", and "The Dreaming Universe".
"Explanation of one theory by a new theory always involves expanding of the concept like relativity making time appear as an imaginary spatial dimension or spacetime as one thing rather than two separable concepts. But quantum physics goes even farther. It indicates that observation or cognition "causes" events to occur in a manner that cannot be predicted by any cause-effect math model. Many have tried to generate such a model and most of these attempts introduce more speculation than they resolve. Hence it is not detrimental to rational thought to accept mystery and attempt to go beyond current scientific thinking. This has been my goal for some time.
I cannot prove the existence of God, but I can experience the awe and mystery and beauty of love and sense the presence of something beyond my materially based thinking. I hope that you can do the same regardless of what you believe. Just don't go on automatic pilot like so many brain-dead scientists who knee-jerk to the tune of "God is dead" and all is mechanical meat. Be an agnostic. Believe as little as you can in anything but try and experience as much as you can of everything. ~ Fred Alan Wolf
"God does play dice, however he uses nonlocality (the ability to move things outside of space and time) to alter them before we get to see the results! God always wins regardless of my skill at life's crap table. God represents to me the ineffable, the deep mystery, the unfathomable aspects of my life and life in general. However I sense God deeply and personally not just "out there" and impersonally.
...God manipulates the dice using nonlocality. This means that God is able to move things about from a hidden dimension beyond space and time. The results of God's push or pull appears to us in space and time as miraculous. Hence separateness from God's point of view is illusionary. From my point of view its very real." ~ Fred Alan Wolf
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"All theories are models of what seems to be an endlessness of unknowable reality. Each model generally works within the limited frame of experimental investigation available to scientists. All models attempt to go beyond that framework, and usually they run into difficulties as for example in current cosmological models and even quantum theory models such as parallel universes, the Bohm hidden variable model, or the Copenhagen model. Hence each model has limited validity, and the idea of a TOE (theory of everything) seems to still elude us." ~Fred Alan Wolf
Here's a little on scientific reduction and it's inherent lack of "dumbing down" what we have before us:
"Most likely we will never complete the puzzle because all science models make what seems to me to be a faulty assumption: they assume that anything complex and intelligent can be explained by dumber and simpler parts. For example, that consciousness comes from jumping electrons or something smaller, or that particles are made of simpler particles or strings or anything tinier. It may be the other way around, and that matter evolves out of consciousness as described in ancient Indian wisdom. . . . " ~Fred Alan Wolf http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
These are just more knowledge claims, nothing backing them up. I have to ask "Why is that true?"
If you aren't using reductionism then you aren't seeing the "whole". You only have fragmented information. These theories pick and choose what they want to include. Which is difficult to discern because nothing is mentioned in them. When you use reductionism you have a complete picture from top to bottom.
I'm supporting what Byrnzie said regarding physicists coming to see the unity and the parallels with certain spiritual/shamanistic or Eastern views, I'm sharing the perspectives of some physicists who are prominent in the field, with indepth science backgrounds, and who also philosophize about consciousness, spirit and quantum physics.
You present one view; I am presenting yet another. I understand you want your view to rule because you believe it is the one true view. And still, the views of these educated quantum physicists and neurosurgeon stand, until proven otherwise. All theories that extend beyond the limited frame of specific experimental investigation are on par with one another.
In other words, while you personally tend towards reducing human beings and their diverse, and often amazing experiences, there are untold experts in science, philosophy, and from all walks of life, that accept and revere the mysterious and all kinds of experience beyond what we can yet reduce and "prove".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Byrnzie made a positive knowledge claim that "physicists have declared spirits/souls exist." and that is wrong. Some speculate and hope it's true, but none have provided any evidence at all.
Bohm and Pribram are not philosopher's either. They are missing a big part of philosophy, "Why is that true?" is one of the main questions a philosopher should be asking. In their case, there is no answer, or the answer is "Because it feels good." which is not an acceptable logical argument.
I'm guessing you don't really understand philosophy. Philosopher's don't say "All views exist harmoniously with each other." they'd be wasting their time with philosophy. Philosopher's argue, they use logical arguments, syllogisms and facts. None of these guys are doing that.
Francis Crick and Einstein made better philosophers than these guys. Atleast they had something of a logical argument.
These guys obviously don't appreciate philosophy. They think it's a practice of wild speculation and long-reaching conclusions. It's not.
You can't just leave out huge chunks of evidence. Consider the massive number of cases involving memory regression therapy in the 1980s. The validated roles different regions of the brain play in human thought. The disparity amongst intuitive learners, that is the difference in conclusions of those who learn solely by introspection or philosophical indoctrination.
Multiple theories cannot coexist if in conflict with each other. You need your optic nerve for your eyes to project retinal information to your LGN and then back to your visual striate cortex. If you think all views are harmonious and this can be neglected, then prove it by severing your optic nerve. Otherwise, wake up and smell the neuroscience, it cannot be ignored and still have a sound theory about human mental capacity.
It's very simple. Take a television.
You can view the TV and think "I have a complete picture of a TV, a complete understanding." but you do not. Your understanding of the TV is as good as anyone else who simply views the TV as a whole.
Now, you can reduce it and say
"This plastic housing is made of plastic, which is molded from polyethelene resin."
"This screen is a matrix of phosphorous tubes that collect photons projected at them by a cathode ray tube in the rear of the housing."
"The CRT is mounted to a PCB that receives input signals for a coaxial cable and decodes them for projection."
Now you begin to have a more complete understanding of the Television. The image decoded and displayed on the screen is still there, nothing is missing from the first step viewing the whole TV, but your understanding is now more complete because you've reduced that whole to it's parts. A dangerously myopic statement would be "The Television decides what to display on it's screen." something that might be said if you didn't know how it works.
The TV consists of matter, which in-turn consists of atoms and sub-atomic particles likes Quarks, Antiquarks, Gluons, etc.. How do quantum events affect the ultimate image on the screen? They don't. There is however interference sometimes referred to as snow. Where does this interference come from? A certain portion of it, is cosmic background radiation the rest is interference from various other electromagnetic sources, cell-phones, electrical storms, etc... This is demonstrable by the typically clear image on the TV screen in the absence of interference. Since quantum events are unavoidable.
Now that we have a more complete view of a Television. We can see that quantum events probably are either accounted for in the design, or are on too small of scale to affect the quasi-classical mechanics of the TV. It would be a logical fallacy to assume, with no knowledge of the inner workings of the TV, that the interference is a result of quantum indeterminacy.
One who philosophizes is a philosopher. Also, maybe you realize that Byrnzie has a philosophy degree!
Just because someone's idea of what is true, and their means of deciding that, is different from your own it is merely different. I understand your own cognitive dissonance want to assure you that you are accurate and others are false. And yet there remains much dissent amongst philosophical views. Take Aristotle and Plato. Differences are allowed.
Your lack of awareness on how others are coming to their theories and conclusions is about your own lack of awareness. For you to project that lack onto others, and assume they have no reputable, valid process is futile.
I know, I know...I've been saying all along that you are only going to hear what resonates with what you believe. I don't expect you to accept what to others is perfectly reasonble in the points of view I have shared from these esteemed individuals. However, I know others do appreciate the reasoning and beauty in such models and I fully support that.
The men quoted by me here are highly trained scientists. They all have taught at highly esteemed instititutions of higher learning. They've proven their ability time and again. Considering they are all finely trained in scientific process, fact and so on, and understand the high standards of academic learning and knowledge speaks volumes for these individuals, and the many more highly educated and valued free thinkers like them.
Tell that to these esteemed scientists and their colleagues who support them.
For example, tell the numerous interpretations of quantum physics and, say, complementarity that.... The problem here is that you are assuming models ARE the truth. And rather they represent what we know about the truth now, given the context of the model. They never ever encompass the whole truth when reducing truth to science or even philosophy. Ever.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
As for reductionism, it would also depend on what exactly it is you are reducing. The TV example you mentioned isn't very good, as humans made the tv from the parts, hence making it self-evident that knowing the parts will know the whole. Wholes that we didn't make from the outset are much harder to reduce, as we are more at a loss as to why it works in the first place. Science does then often make approximations after prolonged development on those issues, but are never in a position to claim full knowledge. Which is why you will see all the disclaimers your scientists often have. I feel you try to reduce way more than you really can with your theories and references, and as I often note, your references dont draw the conclusions you do quite often.
There is a larger burden of proof to be able to claim all (relevant) knowledge, than to claim that everything is not known or that we may not know the full picture. Reductionism, useful a tool as it is, may never be able to prove anything outside its limited boundaries, although we can use it to great effect within those.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Angelica, many scientists speculate when they are not doing science. The statements you have quoted are scientists not doing science, they are speculating. So the claim "physicists have declared souls/spirits exist" is false, in that these physcists are not doing physics when they make this declaration, they are doing speculation. The claim would be more accurate if it was "speculators have declared souls/spirits exist". In order for someone to be a scientist, they must be doing science. If a scientist was also a great pianist, you would not say, when the person is doing science "So-an-so is playing their piano with greatness!". At that point they are not doing what a pianist does, they are doing what a scientist does. In these examples, Pribram and Bohm are not doing science, they aren't even doing philosophy, they are doing speculation. If philosophy was just wild speculation then Byrnzie would not need a degree for it. A degree in wild speculation would be rather pointless.
Finally, I don't agree with Einstein or Spinoza's philosophy, however, at least it is philosophy. Nor do I agree with Dennett's views, but he is a great philosopher. Pribram and Bohm might be great scientists, but they are not even doing philosophy.
Science