From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 16:42:07 BST
Erin, in reply I say ...
No I'm not introducing two realms - I'm saying there is only one - I
was arguing against Scott's (implied) assertion of two realms - one
where science is valid and one where it isn't. On the contrary, I say
there is one realm, called the whole (real) world. (BTW - whilst I see
the world as a whiole where physics is entirely valid, I do of course
see Pirsigian levels where it's value and usefulness varies, but we
haven't got there yet in this thread.)
Erin, you said
It is like you (Ian) are saying that the consciousness is not real
because science has not explained it yet. You believe they will
explain it one day but this belief is not faith in science because of
its good explantion which is errrr "a gap in knowledge"
I say, I'm saying absolutely nothing of the kind.
The fact that you see fit to paraphrase / caricature what science says
that way is the kind of thing that drives me nuts, particularly
slipping in those causal "becauses". Life's too complicated for pat
logic to explain anything so complex in a couple of syllogisms. Anyway
in the interest of making some progress, what I said was ...
(1) Consciousness "is as real as anything else" in this real world.
(2) Science / physics cannot yet provide a complete explanation (of
consciousness and a lot more besides) that would be considered
accepted.
(3) "It's a gap" is not an explanation in mine or anyone else's
language, it's just a statement, an assertion only, as are the two
previous points. (No neat thus, therefore or because here. Read
"Cornflowers")
(4) I didn't say the gaps in knowledge weren't "explainable" by
physics - I said they were currently "not explained" adequately by
physics. Given "good" science's track record, I as yet see no reason
to doubt that physics will continue to chip away at the gaps in this
one physical world. Meantime, I can sleep at night.
(5) The reason I have "belief" in physics rather than "faith" in
something "supernatural" is because of the way physics explains what
it does "know" and the boundaries of what it can't yet know with much
certainty. (Nothing in these mails gives you those explanations yet -
so don't attempt to quote them back at me, 'cos I haven't said them,
yet.)
If we don't get some firm footing to work from - some working
assertions we can agree on - it may not be worth the effort. In the
meantime - I did recently (excitedly)recommend David Deutsch as the
scientists scientist, who most recently articulated what is a good
scientific explanation. His explantion still has snags, and always
will have IMHO until something like Pisrigian Quality the MoQ's levels
of value get taken on board - but I'm not in a hurry. Really ? :-)
Ian
PS - Interestingly, when I started this quest, I was extremely "anti"
science. At least I thought I was. It turns out I was
anti-logical-positivism, and the caricature of scientific method that
get's bandied around in the meme pool.
"The problem with the meme pool is there's no life-guard"
With acknowledgement to Steven Wright.
On 4/20/05, Erin <macavity11@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> IAN: Anywhere where physics does not currently have accepted explanations,
> are simply "gaps in knowledge".
>
> IAN: For example,
> I do in fact believe that intelligence and consciousness beyond the
> confines of individual brains (or minds) will turn out to be real -
> explainable by physics.
>
> IAN: The difference between my "faith" in physics and a religious "faith"
> in a divine (causal) being / intelligence, lies in the nature of
> explanation it provides.
>
> ERIN: It is like you are saying that the consciousness is not real because
> science has not explained it yet. You believe they will explain it one day
> but this belief is not faith in science because of its good explantion which
> is errrr "a gap in knowledge"
>
> IAN: So, no I do not recognise any limits to science (physics) whatsoever.
> (Good science, high-quality science that is, not just any old
> science).
>
> ERIN: what do you mean by good science?
>
> IAN: the "two realms" was not something I wanted to introduce. I was
> simply referring to the fact that Scott was (seemed to be) dividing
> the real world into areas where science was "valid" and areas where
> religion / aesthetics et al were applicable, and by implication,
> science not.
>
> IAN: The whole world is "the real world".
> Physics (by axiomatic definition of the word) describes the real
> world. All of it.
> Anywhere where physics does not currently have accepted explanations,
> are simply "gaps in knowledge".
>
> ERIN: You are introducing two realms. The real world (explainable by
> physics) and the "gaps in knowledge". You "unite" the two realms by an
> assumption ---------that if physics is really good at explaining a lower
> levels e.g. inorganic level they will some day be good at explaining a
> higher level and when they do then we can call them part of t! he real world
> until then they are "gaps in knowledge".
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 20 2005 - 16:46:30 BST