Always nice to see you here, Reed.

Have you read the Raymond Tallis book, and if so, is it worthwhile? I've flipped through it a few times but that's it. It certainly touches on many of the subjects you and I care about and have broached here on RfM.

My reading time in extremely limited and to boot I read slowly, so I must be selective. I respect your opinion on these matters and if you have a moment I'd love to here your thoughts.

Raymond Tallis, of course, has been pushing back on neuroscientific claims for some time, most recently reviewing "Who's In Charge" by Micheal S. Gazzaniga in the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204618704576642991109496396.html



On a related note, it was nice to read Gazzaniga in the NYT a week or so ago on the short comings of brain-scanning technology and on Science in general:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/science/telling-the-story-of-the-brains-cacophony-of-competing-voices.html?_r=2&src=dayp&pagewanted=all

There seems to be more neuro-skepticism lately in the MSM, a pushing back of creeping scientism, which is always welcome.

Anyway, cheers.

Human

I can smell the woo from here!

Get your nose out of the gutter.


By the way, if you really are interested in Science then Gazzaniga has some very interesting things to say about the process. From the NYT article:

"But he is perhaps next best known for telling stories, many of them about blown experiments, dumb questions and other blunders during his nearly half-century career at the top of his field."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 09:55PM by steve benson.

Then what are we, Mr. Tallis?

C'mon, don't be coy.

Bear us your supernatural testimony.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2011 10:06PM by steve benson.

Why would any thinking "Human" keep reading when the subject contains "Darwinitis"? Please, I'm trying to keep an open mind. I've cleaned more plausible shit from a blocked toilet.

I can only comment briefly and in general.

I think neuroscience is understandably entrenched in materialism, largely due to Damasio, Le Doux, Ramachandran, and other populist authors who (rightfully) emphasize the neural correlates of consciousness, but either don't understand, or don't address the philosophical aspects. Moreover, they almost universally don't understand or pay attention to modern physics.

Yes, I have seen some softening on the part of Gazzaniga over the years. I was impressed by his section on Consciousness in his massive book, The Cognitive Neurosciences III (2004) He seems to be developing a sharper appreciation of the issues.

In truth, I do not keep up as much anymore with the populist literature on this issue, unless it is particularly provocative, or provides some new insights. I read the science and form my own opinions. If there is push-back against scientism in the intellecutual populus, great, but I think science itself reveals its own limitations and this will be what carries the day ultimately when defining future culture. Theoretical physics always leads the way, with the biological and social sciences following slowly behind. If there is one thing modern physics has taught us it is that we really have a very small handle and perspective on ultimate reality.

Reed Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there
> is one thing modern physics has taught us it is
> that we really have a very small handle and
> perspective on ultimate reality.

Here's the rub on that: Reality is what we can observe. Thinking up pink unicorns does not make them real. As such, our handle on reality is entrenched in our observations/measurements, not our fantasies. I will admit, sometimes fantasies about what may be real have led some to attempt measurements that lead them to find parallels or analogues to the thought experiments and that it does alter our perspective. But those are rare, relative to the discovery of observations. That is, observations almost always lead the way, rather than philosophy (thinking about reality rather than observing it).

"Reality is what we can observe." Oh really.

Is consciousness real?
Is it observable?
Is it measurable?
Is it just a fantasy?

Reed Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Reality is what we can observe." Oh really.
>
> Is consciousness real?
> Is it observable?
> Is it measurable?
> Is it just a fantasy?


Also:

How about Friendship?

Love?

Justice?

Beauty?

Sure, one may observe examples, but what of the thing itself? Not real?

Perhaps.

But it's better to live as if Friendship, Love, Justice and Beauty are as real as my consciousness (at least) if not the blood that beats through my veins.

Reed Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Reality is what we can observe." Oh really.
>
> Is consciousness real?

Yes.

> Is it observable?

Its effects are observable, just like the effects of electronic charge are observable. An effect of consciousness is a discussion of an abstract concept, just as we are having now. An effect of one being non-conscious is found in many hospitals among the coma victims.

> Is it measurable?

See above.

> Is it just a fantasy?
I don't understand the question. Is consciousness a fantasy? I think you're getting into philosophy now.


Human wrote:
> How about Friendship?

Yes, it is real, it is definable, and as such its effects can be observed according to the definition. For example, the dictionary definition is: a form of interpersonal relationship generally considered to be closer than association, characterized by trust, sympathy, understanding, ...

An effect of the trust, for example, in a friendship is observed by the degree of personal information that is divulged between the two friends. This can be quantified and assessed by fairly precise methods. The same will go for the other characteristics. When these metrics are assembled and studied, friendship can be studied in a scientific manner.


> Love?

The same as above.


> Justice?

Again.

> Beauty?

Again.

BTW, Reed, if I were arguing for the non-material reality, I would use as an example "Probablity". Probability is real--it influences just about everything we observe--electrons, neutrons, protons, photons, and all the stuff these together make up. And yet, probability is not directly observable, even as a particle or a material model. But it is mathematically modeled.

And yet, was is, in reality, probability?

(mind you, I do not think this leads to a supernatural or non-materialistic argument, but it is closer than what I've seen you pose so far.)

"The Doppler technique is a good method for discovering exoplanets. It uses the Doppler effect to analyze the motion and properties of the star and planet. Both the planet and the star are orbiting a common center of mass. This means that the star and the planet gravitationally attract one another, causing them to orbit around a point of mass central to both bodies. It is like trying to perfectly balance a large child and a small child on a teeter-totter. If the teeter-totter is suspended in the center, the larger child will be on the ground, but if you move the larger child very close to the center, both children will be in perfect balance. If we could rotate the children around each other, both the large child and the small child orbit a common center of mass."

This is basic science. To use your words, you need to read up:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/exoplanets.php



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2011 02:55PM by steve benson.

It may be, after all, that he has traveled to those solar systems in his astral body during a particularly strenuous OBE. Who could argue with that?

Jesus Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Human wrote:
> > How about Friendship?
>
> Yes, it is real, it is definable, and as such its
> effects can be observed according to the
> definition.


Therefore, by your way of thinking, God is real. It is definable, and as such its effects can be observed according to the definition.

Okay. Sounds good.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Therefore, by your way of thinking, God is real.
> It is definable, and as such its effects can be
> observed according to the definition.
>
> Okay. Sounds good.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that if a thing is testable that it is automatically real. I said that if the effects can be observed and they conform to the hypothesis, then it is real.

What definition of god do you have, Human, for us to test?

The definitions of god given by major religions can be tested in some ways, and have come up as failure.

The theory of "God" is testable, despite religious claims to the contrary. There are claims about god's character that should have observable effects. For example, the claim that god answers prayer--tested by the templeton foundation (a religious org)--shown to have no statistical verity. Another claim about healing, similar. Another claim about god was originally held that he created the earth in six days, now utterly refuted. Another claim about god revealing prophecy through prophets, utterly not evidenced. and so forth.

Thanks Reed.

Since you didn't mention Tallis by name, and given the breadth of your knowledge on the subject, I'll skip Aping Mankind. Tallis has a firm grasp of the philosophical aspects but perhaps his training and practice as an MD isn't enough to grasp the deeper science of the subject.

Tallis is concerned with the real world implications of neuroscience and sociobiology, and seems to have dedicated himself as a corrective. I disagree with you that Science itself will define future culture, for it will be the popularizers of Science that are doing and will do that. And as I've often said, since Science itself is beyond the abilities of 90% of us, the popularizers own the day; thus the need for popular push-back as a corrective.

You make this board very interesting when you come around. The emotion you generate (along with Foxe and robertb) in a certain subset of RfM is revealing.

Cheers

But I wonder if the author's intent was to show the great paradox that we are as a species.

We are animals, but we are different.

No other species has gone to the moon, yet no other species has arrogantly claimed to be from the divine.

I think before anyone pushes back to heavily against "animism" or "darwinism" they should answer the question:

Have we as a species built more than we have destroyed?

Raptor Jesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> Have we as a species built more than we have
> destroyed?

Interesting question, RJ. However I look at it differently. As a species we have absolutely *lived* more, we have experienced more variousness and possibility; so much so to put us in a separate category.

And as for claims of divinity, I don't see much difference between claiming to be born of divinity and claiming that the brain is enough to *divine* all of reality.

"I don't see much difference between claiming to be born of divinity and claiming that the brain is enough to *divine* all of reality."

That is because you do not understand the issues under discussion.

Who is saying that "the brain is enough to 'divine' all of reality"? And what does that have to do with "claiming to be born of divinity?"

This is incoherent. Try again.

The book is on order and even as I write this it is somewhere in the U.S. Postal system on its way to me. When I've had a chance to digest it (which may be awhile), I'll give my opinion for what it's worth.

I found it interesting that Reed Smith would confess to this:

"In truth, I do not keep up as much anymore with the populist literature on this issue, unless it is particularly provocative, or provides some new insights."

That tells me a lot!

...the proposition must be evaluated on its own merits, not its popularity.

He is admitting to a very superficial understanding and interest in the subject, and this lacking is reflected in his comments.

"Creeping scientism" -- it's alive!

Scientism is a strawman. Religious leaders and creationists invented it so that they would have something to argue against.

They've basically taken what they're familiar with, that is worshipping some God and/or worshipping humans as a special excepttion, and applied it to science and scientists.

Problem is, science does not worship anything. Respect may be shown to individual scientists if their work proves useful. Respect may tempered if mistakes are found, or if further discoveries show original theories to be incomplete. But no worship takes place. Therefore, no scientism.

One of the rules a good scientist learns is not to fool oneself. The self is remarkable easy to fool, so precautions must be taken. Many of the protocols associated with science are aimed at mitigating confirmation bias.

As a friend said, "Scientism is generally used to mean the privileging of scientifically and evidentially verified knowledge over the so-called ‘other ways of knowing’. It is usually employed as a means of trying to dismiss a materialist understanding of the world as somehow unduly narrow or limited, or to imply that accepting scientific evidence and theories... is somehow a ‘faith position’ and thus ‘just another religion’."

It's odd how they have to denigrate religion, saying "just another religion," to try to put science and religion on the same playing field.

Also, to "privilege" knowledge verified by facts and shown to be useful (as in computers, for example) over "knowledge" that is unverifiable seems like a no-brainer.

Science does not reduce me to a lesser being, it expands my knowledge of myself, and expands my ability to affect the world around me.

And I'm not a scientist. This supposedly makes me part of the "90%" who are supposed to find science beyond their ken, and who are, therefore, required to push back against the takeover of scientism. Forking nonsense. You don't have to be a scientist to read about, keep up with, and have a basic understanding of most of the major divisions of Science. Physics and biology have been mentioned above. Some training in how science is actually done, plus training in how to think, and in how to recognize confirmation bias -- these basics will get you a long way.

They will at least keep you from going down on your knees in front of Chopra when he says, "quantum mechanics," and those basic skills will immunize you against pseudoscience disguised as science (as in some of the output coming from the Templeton Foundation).

Why choose to be gullible?