Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 19:34:44 BST

  • Next message: abahn@comcast.net: "Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)"

    Take a look at this:

    http://murl.microsoft.com/videos/msr/msr2003/Sheldrake_Extended_OnDemand_100
    _100K_320x240Slides.htm

    Sheldrake at Microsoft

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 1:42 PM
    Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)

    > Andy,
    >
    > > I asked: "How does Sheldrake avoid this cunumdrum?"
    > >
    > > You answered: "That I don't know, but from what I've understood he
    doesn't
    > need
    > > to explain consciousness. Only materialists do, or the whole Darwinist
    > world
    > > view falls apart."
    > >
    > > Andy: Well, as I admitted before, I am still unsure how you are using
    > this term
    > > materialist.
    >
    > A materialist is one who takes what we sense as the ground of existence.
    So
    > thoughts, feeling, words, etc, can be described in terms of atoms moving
    in
    > the void. Now quantum mechanics throws a monkey-wrench into this
    > formulation, since what we know about elementary wave/particles comes from
    > inference from experiment, but what is inferred is not
    sense-perceptible --
    > it's not just that they are too small, it is that they can't be
    visualized.
    > So what I see in quantum mechanics is evidence of the immaterial. However,
    > everything I've seen of materialists trying to explain consciousness
    assumes
    > that spatio-temporal mechanism is sufficient for their explanations, that
    > is, one is dealing with big enough things (like neurons), that quantum
    > weirdness is not an issue.
    >
    > Two points thoughgh, first: Sheldrake, as I remember (it has been
    > > a long time), uses his perceptions and experience to explain some things
    > that he
    > > thought Darwinian theory did a poor job answering. Thus, he proposed
    > these
    > > fields specific to each specie that they can tap into.
    >
    > Yes, and these fields are non-local.
    >
    > However, subsequent
    > > theorists showed that Darwinian theory answered Sheldrake's examples
    just
    > fine.
    >
    > Like who? I haven't heard that there is a satisfactory theory of how
    babies
    > learn language. Nor that instinctive behavior has been reduced to an
    > animal's neural system.
    >
    > > Now, I am not up to date on Sheldrake and I am sure I got some of this
    > wrong,
    > > but the point is he was using the products of his perception to analyze
    > his
    > > perceptions. ANd he proposed a theory. He was using a scientific
    > methodology .
    >
    > Yes.
    >
    > > Second, Darwinian theory does not try and explain consciousness.
    >
    > Tell that to Dennett.
    >
    > > This is your pet project.
    >
    > No, my pet project is to show that consciousness is unexplainable in terms
    > of atoms moving in the void (or any other way).
    >
    > Now if you are going to use explaining consciousness as your
    > > criteria for "right" theories, than you are going to have to throw a lot
    > more
    > > out than Darwin. Newtonian physics, SHeldrake, Einstien's relativity,
    > Quantum
    > > physics, and all of science as we know it.
    >
    > Nonsense. Nothing I've said touches science, which is finding and
    theorizing
    > about regularities in the products of perception. All I'm saying is that
    > science cannot study consciousness, other than finding brain patterns that
    > correlate with certain mental events. No scientific experiment can
    > distinguish between an epiphenomonal view of consciousness versus a
    "tuning
    > in" theory.
    >
    > Darwinian theory explains many
    > > things and cosciousness is not one of them. It explains the vast
    > diversity of
    > > life and quite well also. However, it does a litttle "bootstrapping" of
    > its own
    > > by starting with simple single cell organisms, our common anscestors.
    > Darwin
    > > theory has nothing to say about how consciousness develops out of the
    > inorganic.
    > > It doesn't even try. So your attempt at throwing out "the whole
    > Darwinist
    > > world view" just doesn't make any sense. At least for the reasons you
    > give.
    >
    > Darwin didn't try, but Dennett and others sure have.
    >
    > In any case, as I've said before, the Darwinist explanation of how species
    > evolve (that is, by random mutation and natural selection -- aka,
    > spatio-temporal, purposeless mechanisms) is, though implausible, not
    > impossible. But the notion that consciousness could evolve out of
    > spatio-temporal mechanisms is impossible. So there is a
    non-spatio-temporal
    > factor in the world. So what is the point of insisting on a Darwinist
    > explanation of how species evolve?
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Fri Sep 05 2003 - 19:44:47 BST