Materialism of the Gaps
0 views
Skip to first unread message
ornamentalmind
Oct 24, 2009, 7:36:25 PM10/24/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
If the tools of science cannot detect a state of consciousness, does
this mean consciousness
does not exist?
B. ALAN WALLACE examines the gap in scientific understanding.
"Virtually all cognitive scientists today assume that consciousness
and all subjectively
experienced mental processes are functions of the brain, and are
therefore emergent
properties or functions of matter. This is the mainstream scientific
view of consciousness,
and those who reject this hypothesis are commonly viewed by many
scientists as being in
the grip of a metaphysical bias or religious faith..."
The entire article can be found at:
http://www.sbinstitute.com/matofgaps.pdf
this mean consciousness
does not exist?
B. ALAN WALLACE examines the gap in scientific understanding.
"Virtually all cognitive scientists today assume that consciousness
and all subjectively
experienced mental processes are functions of the brain, and are
therefore emergent
properties or functions of matter. This is the mainstream scientific
view of consciousness,
and those who reject this hypothesis are commonly viewed by many
scientists as being in
the grip of a metaphysical bias or religious faith..."
The entire article can be found at:
http://www.sbinstitute.com/matofgaps.pdf
Michele Gennette
Oct 25, 2009, 4:35:57 PM10/25/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Sat, 10/24/09, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote: |
>If the tools of science cannot detect a state of consciousness, does |
|
|
Bridge
Oct 25, 2009, 5:14:47 PM10/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Oct 24, 6:36 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Rather than developing the sole
means of observing such mental phenomena – namely,
introspection – they opted for the astounding alternative of
denying that subjective experience exists at all!"
is awesomely funny.
Visualize introspective scientists!
Bridge
Oct 25, 2009, 5:15:35 PM10/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Oct 25, 3:35 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 10/24/09, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If the tools of science cannot detect a state of consciousness, does
> >this mean consciousness does not exist?
>
> If a Buddhist "philosopher" is babbling to himself in the forest,
> and there's no one there to listen, is he still wrong?
>
> xnun
He's relevant.>
> >If the tools of science cannot detect a state of consciousness, does
> >this mean consciousness does not exist?
>
> If a Buddhist "philosopher" is babbling to himself in the forest,
> and there's no one there to listen, is he still wrong?
>
> xnun
Michele Gennette
Oct 25, 2009, 8:11:20 PM10/25/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
--- On Sun, 10/25/09, Bridge <bqs4...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
Bridge
Oct 25, 2009, 9:54:28 PM10/25/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Oct 25, 7:11 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 10/25/09, Bridge <bqs4l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If a Buddhist "philosopher" is babbling to himself in the forest,
> >> and there's no one there to listen, is he still wrong?
>
> > >xnun
> >He's relevant.
>
> To whom (or what)?
>
> xnun
To his purpose. I've babbled to myself in the forest.
>
> >> If a Buddhist "philosopher" is babbling to himself in the forest,
> >> and there's no one there to listen, is he still wrong?
>
> > >xnun
> >He's relevant.
>
> To whom (or what)?
>
> xnun
That was a good article. It was basically talking about why science
can't answer spiritual questions.
I thought you would have liked it.
Redshirt Bluejacket
Oct 26, 2009, 12:25:11 AM10/26/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
On Oct 25, 4:35 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
jabs....
> --- On Sat, 10/24/09, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If the tools of science cannot detect a state of consciousness, does
> >this mean consciousness does not exist?
>
> If a Buddhist "philosopher" is babbling to himself in the forest,
> and there's no one there to listen, is he still wrong?
>
> xnun
The Buddhists that I know are quite above being offended by petty
>
> >If the tools of science cannot detect a state of consciousness, does
> >this mean consciousness does not exist?
>
> If a Buddhist "philosopher" is babbling to himself in the forest,
> and there's no one there to listen, is he still wrong?
>
> xnun
jabs....
Michele Gennette
Oct 26, 2009, 4:25:33 PM10/26/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
|
|
|
Joe
Oct 30, 2009, 1:49:11 PM10/30/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Do you find a necessary contradiction between all the tenets of
Buddhism and all the tenets of Christianity? If not, then might there
be some common ground, some basis for sharing and discussion?
Buddhism and all the tenets of Christianity? If not, then might there
be some common ground, some basis for sharing and discussion?
Michele Gennette
Oct 30, 2009, 4:22:56 PM10/30/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com
| --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote: |
>Do you find a necessary contradiction between all the tenets |
|
|
|
|
scattered
Nov 10, 2009, 6:28:03 AM11/10/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Good article. I've seen some materialists assert that "consicousness
is an emergent phenomonenon" and think that they have thereby
*explained* something. What, exactly, emerged - and how? Heat is an
emergent phenomenon - but unlike consciousness, heat can be defined,
measured and furthermore its emergence can be explained by statistical
mechanics. A good book-length treatment of the explanatory gap between
materialism and consciousness is "The Mysterious Flame: Conscious
Minds In A Material World" by Colin McGinn (who, btw, is an agnostic
IIRC).
-scattered
is an emergent phenomonenon" and think that they have thereby
*explained* something. What, exactly, emerged - and how? Heat is an
emergent phenomenon - but unlike consciousness, heat can be defined,
measured and furthermore its emergence can be explained by statistical
mechanics. A good book-length treatment of the explanatory gap between
materialism and consciousness is "The Mysterious Flame: Conscious
Minds In A Material World" by Colin McGinn (who, btw, is an agnostic
IIRC).
-scattered
mdb
Nov 10, 2009, 11:21:27 PM11/10/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Emergent evolution actually began in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries within a predominantly British group of scholars
including Samuel Alexander and C. Lloyd Morgan. Their Gifford Lectures
are available online at http://www.giffordlectures.org/online.asp. I
recently finished my thesis on dualism in the late 20th century and
have been interested in this as well.
twentieth centuries within a predominantly British group of scholars
including Samuel Alexander and C. Lloyd Morgan. Their Gifford Lectures
are available online at http://www.giffordlectures.org/online.asp. I
recently finished my thesis on dualism in the late 20th century and
have been interested in this as well.
scattered
Nov 13, 2009, 2:57:19 PM11/13/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Thanks for the link to the Gifford Lectures - seems like a valuable
resource. Are there any lectures that you recommend?
By "emergence" did the earlier scholars mean roughly the same thing
that more modern evolutionary writers mean? Emergence seems to be a
slippery concept in that it is sometimes used as an alternative to
reductionism but other times seems to be used as simply a more refined
version of reductionism. A standard example that of ant colonies. Ant
colonies doubtless exist and furthermore they have properties that are
not readily inferable from studying ants in isolation. But when all is
said and done - ant colonies are just a whole bunch of ants (albeit
ants interacting in a complicated way). When a materialist calls
consciousness an emergent phenomenom they are bluffing. I know what it
means to say that an ant colony emerges from ants - it is even fairly
well understood and has led to simulated ant optimization algorithms
in artificial intelligence - but I am clueless as to what it even
*means* to say that consciousness emerges from neurons. At best the
word "emergence" functions as a sort of IOU - we can't explain now but
we promise to explain in the future.
What was your thesis about?
On Nov 10, 11:21 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Emergent evolution actually began in the late nineteenth and early
> twentieth centuries within a predominantly British group of scholars
> including Samuel Alexander and C. Lloyd Morgan. Their Gifford Lectures
> are available online athttp://www.giffordlectures.org/online.asp. I
> > >http://www.sbinstitute.com/matofgaps.pdf- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
resource. Are there any lectures that you recommend?
By "emergence" did the earlier scholars mean roughly the same thing
that more modern evolutionary writers mean? Emergence seems to be a
slippery concept in that it is sometimes used as an alternative to
reductionism but other times seems to be used as simply a more refined
version of reductionism. A standard example that of ant colonies. Ant
colonies doubtless exist and furthermore they have properties that are
not readily inferable from studying ants in isolation. But when all is
said and done - ant colonies are just a whole bunch of ants (albeit
ants interacting in a complicated way). When a materialist calls
consciousness an emergent phenomenom they are bluffing. I know what it
means to say that an ant colony emerges from ants - it is even fairly
well understood and has led to simulated ant optimization algorithms
in artificial intelligence - but I am clueless as to what it even
*means* to say that consciousness emerges from neurons. At best the
word "emergence" functions as a sort of IOU - we can't explain now but
we promise to explain in the future.
What was your thesis about?
On Nov 10, 11:21 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Emergent evolution actually began in the late nineteenth and early
> twentieth centuries within a predominantly British group of scholars
> including Samuel Alexander and C. Lloyd Morgan. Their Gifford Lectures
>
> - Show quoted text -
mdb
Nov 17, 2009, 5:56:31 PM11/17/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
Here's the link to C. Lloyd Morgan's lecture on Emergent Evolution.
http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPEMEV&Cover=TRUE
He analyzes Samuel Alexander's Space, Time and Deity.
Emergence refers to the evolution of human consciousness over time.
It is the top of the pyramid that Alexander proposes in his work. As
evolution occurs over time, humans increasingly have evolved into a
higher conscious state that ultimately equates to deity Here's the
link to Chapter 1 of Morgan's work that explains this principle.
http://www.giffordlectures.org/Images/TPEMEV/00/00/TPEMEV000001100.jpg.
I believe it is different from what you are thinking
My thesis was on the simplicity argument. It pertains to the
existence of consciousness and its unity, simplicity, identity, etc.
I focused upon Roderick M. Chisholm and Richard Swinburne to
illustrate their use of these arguments in their respective
philosophies of mind. My mentor is Dr. Mijuskovic who pioneered this
work based upon Kant's Paralogisms, so I am building upon his previous
work.
> > > >http://www.sbinstitute.com/matofgaps.pdf-Hide quoted text -
http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPEMEV&Cover=TRUE
He analyzes Samuel Alexander's Space, Time and Deity.
Emergence refers to the evolution of human consciousness over time.
It is the top of the pyramid that Alexander proposes in his work. As
evolution occurs over time, humans increasingly have evolved into a
higher conscious state that ultimately equates to deity Here's the
link to Chapter 1 of Morgan's work that explains this principle.
http://www.giffordlectures.org/Images/TPEMEV/00/00/TPEMEV000001100.jpg.
I believe it is different from what you are thinking
My thesis was on the simplicity argument. It pertains to the
existence of consciousness and its unity, simplicity, identity, etc.
I focused upon Roderick M. Chisholm and Richard Swinburne to
illustrate their use of these arguments in their respective
philosophies of mind. My mentor is Dr. Mijuskovic who pioneered this
work based upon Kant's Paralogisms, so I am building upon his previous
work.
Michele Gennette
Nov 17, 2009, 7:46:05 PM11/17/09
to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com, trans
| --- On Tue, 11/17/09, mdb <michae...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
scattered
Nov 18, 2009, 1:57:01 AM11/18/09
to A Civil Religious Debate
So their notion of emergence had a teleological component that is
lacking in more recent uses of the term (such as by Stewart Kaufman).
Are you planning to publish your thesis?
On Nov 17, 5:56 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the link to C. Lloyd Morgan's lecture on Emergent Evolution.http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPEMEV&Cover=TRUE
> > > > >http://www.sbinstitute.com/matofgaps.pdf-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
lacking in more recent uses of the term (such as by Stewart Kaufman).
Are you planning to publish your thesis?
On Nov 17, 5:56 pm, mdb <michaeldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the link to C. Lloyd Morgan's lecture on Emergent Evolution.http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPEMEV&Cover=TRUE
> He analyzes Samuel Alexander's Space, Time and Deity.
>
> Emergence refers to the evolution of human consciousness over time.
> It is the top of the pyramid that Alexander proposes in his work. As
> evolution occurs over time, humans increasingly have evolved into a
> higher conscious state that ultimately equates to deity Here's the
> link to Chapter 1 of Morgan's work that explains this principle.http://www.giffordlectures.org/Images/TPEMEV/00/00/TPEMEV000001100.jpg.
>
> Emergence refers to the evolution of human consciousness over time.
> It is the top of the pyramid that Alexander proposes in his work. As
> evolution occurs over time, humans increasingly have evolved into a
> higher conscious state that ultimately equates to deity Here's the
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages