|
Post by ajhi2 on May 26, 2011 18:25:36 GMT -6
i keep reading these type of pointy debates. at the root of every single one of them there is a conflict between existentialism and experience.
imo, summarizing everything that has happened past, present, future it can be equivalent to 'truth of a priori'.
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on May 26, 2011 19:30:27 GMT -6
He generated very interesting comments, please read them also as they gave Caroll a dose of reality. Did they really give him a dose of reality? I don't think so. The comments there are pretty interesting too.
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on May 27, 2011 14:49:33 GMT -6
GerardIf you are reading this, have a look at the comments on Caroll's blog , one example is the comment on page 108, nice number btw, about a study wherein children remember their past lives. The commenter said this: That the mind is totally dependent on the brain is a reasonable hypothesis but as good scientists we have a duty to check out ALL THE EVIDENCE before we jump to conclusions about a phenomenon (consciousness) about which we are so abysmally ignorant. Calling for Gerard won't help you out of this hole, Malati. Neither he nor you know enough about physics and/or neuroscience to comment on the existence (or not) of the soul. To be honest, I find it extremely amusing that you consider the comments to an article more interesting/authoritative than the article itself. Even if you were to accept the reality of past or future lives, you still need to explain how it works. That's the point that Carroll was making, that people often call for a "new physics" to explain Quantum effects, without realising that that such a new physics would contradict "standard" physics. And that's the point you don't get. And will never get. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on May 27, 2011 14:50:47 GMT -6
i keep reading these type of pointy debates. at the root of every single one of them there is a conflict between existentialism and experience. imo, summarizing everything that has happened past, present, future it can be equivalent to 'truth of a priori'. Good insight.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 30, 2011 11:51:07 GMT -6
Thanks for posting this, malati. This raises just the sort of questions that I am struggling with now. If there are facts that don't fit in to the dominant theory, should they be dismissed out of hand? Or, are we forced to reconsider our theory? Caroll seems to be of the former view and so are most scientists. Isn't it, though, in the tackling of anomalies that science has advanced? Think of the situation before Einstein's 1905 paper.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on May 31, 2011 0:31:28 GMT -6
Sure, there are paradigm shits based on anomalies. However, the new theory should predict with the same power as the old and add more. That is how relativity scored over Newton's idea of space time. It predicted everything that Newton did and added more. However, if we look at creationism vs evolution like Dawkins points out the sequence: 1) There is huge evidence for theory X( evolution). 2) Theory X cannot explain a particular phenomenon Z. 3) Therefore theory Y (creationism/intelligent design) is true. So that is one the problem. At the same time there are debates on details of evolution 1) www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/jablonka1/English2) www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04/ (Beyond Demonic Memes Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion by David Sloan Wilson) 3) scienceblogs.com/evolution/2010/09/open_letter_to_richard_dawkins.php And people disagree with Dawkins (Stephen J gould also did) while continuing to remain atheists. Similarly an atheist Colin Mcginn also has his ideas on consciousness closertotruth.com/video-profile/Is-Consciousness-Irreducible-Colin-McGinn-/831 . Still, the point is traditional religion is just way off on these points. They need to get up to speed to make any contribution. Religions just jump into this debate without realizing science is looking for explanatory power not psychological healing. However, consciousness is certainly one place in which Buddhists and yogis may offer some insight and neuroscience, physics and meditation experts can find something interesting.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on May 31, 2011 1:16:26 GMT -6
Similarly another atheist making some points. www.samharris.org/site/full_text/you-are-not-your-brain/"Sure, it’s an important fact that the perception of colors depends on the physics of light and the nature of the nervous system. If our physiology were different, our ability to detect colors would be different. But none of that speaks to the unreality of color, any more than saying that I can’t see anything in my room if I turn the lights off speaks to the unreality of my desk." It is related to Ekantin's detailed analysis about color of Radharani's eyes or Krsna's complexion. How will the color blind person see Krsna? Will Krsna correct his vision to show him blue? I doubt it. Perhaps. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 31, 2011 9:17:46 GMT -6
Humm. Aurobindo? Really? I think his mind is a little too open.
Here is a nice distinction made by Jerry Coyne on the two types of faith that are often sadly confused, scientific faith and religious faith:
Let us once and for all make the distinction between the scientific and religious notions of faith, before they're become deliberately and permanently conflated by the faithful:
FaithSCIENCE : Confidence, based on mountains of experience, that answers to questions about reality are best derived from a combination of evidence and reason.
FaithRELIGION : Confidence, based on no experience (indeed, even contrary to experience), that answers to questions about "reality" are best derived from personal revelation, authority, scripture, and dogma.
I suspect this confusion applies well to Mohrhoff.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 31, 2011 9:26:52 GMT -6
Sure, there are paradigm shits based on anomalies. However, the new theory should predict with the same power as the old and add more. That is how relativity scored over Newton's idea of space time. It predicted everything that Newton did and added more. However, if we look at creationism vs evolution like Dawkins points out the sequence: 1) There is huge evidence for theory X( evolution). 2) Theory X cannot explain a particular phenomenon Z. 3) Therefore theory Y (creationism/intelligent design) is true. So that is one the problem. At the same time there are debates on details of evolution 1) www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/jablonka1/English2) www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04/ (Beyond Demonic Memes Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion by David Sloan Wilson) 3) scienceblogs.com/evolution/2010/09/open_letter_to_richard_dawkins.php And people disagree with Dawkins (Stephen J gould also did) while continuing to remain atheists. Similarly an atheist Colin Mcginn also has his ideas on consciousness closertotruth.com/video-profile/Is-Consciousness-Irreducible-Colin-McGinn-/831 . Still, the point is traditional religion is just way off on these points. They need to get up to speed to make any contribution. Religions just jump into this debate without realizing science is looking for explanatory power not psychological healing. However, consciousness is certainly one place in which Buddhists and yogis may offer some insight and neuroscience, physics and meditation experts can find something interesting. Thanks for these reflections, Vivek. I am not suggesting that there already is another theory waiting in the wings to take over if the current one is found wanting. But I do think that unless we take these anomalies seriously, there will not be one very soon. The main question I guess is that the paradigm bound scientists refuse to take evidence of the paranormal as authentic. Is this justifiable? I have my doubts. There seems to be good evidence of the paranormal out there, carefully collected and studied for over a century. When will it be taken seriously?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on May 31, 2011 9:36:12 GMT -6
I recently acquired a book called Soul Dust: the magic of consciousness by Nicholas Humphrey. Read a favorable review in the NYT review of books. Anyone know anything about the author? Apparently a retired professor of psychology at London School of Economics. I will keep you posted as I read it.
|
|
bets
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by bets on May 31, 2011 12:40:22 GMT -6
NPR this morning had an interview with a neuroscientist who writes nonfiction and science fiction. I didn't catch his name, but he had interesting anecdotes and a plea for openmindedness when it comes to hypotheses. The anecdotes dealt with that guy who shot lots of people from a tower in Texas a few years ago and left a suicide note requesting an autopsy because "something had been changing" in him for the past year. Autopsy revealed a tumor had messed up his amygdala, the part responsible for fear and aggression. The point of the interview anecdotes was that brains are biological, etc., so legal responses should be tailored. The point of the interview chat afterwards was that we should have all sorts of hypotheses, both wild and sensible, available to test. He ranked the idea that life on earth was seeded by aliens as a "wild" hypothesis which should be kept in a drawer and used by scifi writers, because there's no evidence to support it, but no airtight refutation either.
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on May 31, 2011 21:02:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Jun 1, 2011 0:42:49 GMT -6
Sure, there are paradigm shits based on anomalies. However, the new theory should predict with the same power as the old and add more. That is how relativity scored over Newton's idea of space time. It predicted everything that Newton did and added more. However, if we look at creationism vs evolution like Dawkins points out the sequence: 1) There is huge evidence for theory X( evolution). 2) Theory X cannot explain a particular phenomenon Z. 3) Therefore theory Y (creationism/intelligent design) is true. So that is one the problem. At the same time there are debates on details of evolution 1) www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/jablonka1/English2) www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04/ (Beyond Demonic Memes Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion by David Sloan Wilson) 3) scienceblogs.com/evolution/2010/09/open_letter_to_richard_dawkins.php And people disagree with Dawkins (Stephen J gould also did) while continuing to remain atheists. Similarly an atheist Colin Mcginn also has his ideas on consciousness closertotruth.com/video-profile/Is-Consciousness-Irreducible-Colin-McGinn-/831 . Still, the point is traditional religion is just way off on these points. They need to get up to speed to make any contribution. Religions just jump into this debate without realizing science is looking for explanatory power not psychological healing. However, consciousness is certainly one place in which Buddhists and yogis may offer some insight and neuroscience, physics and meditation experts can find something interesting. Thanks for these reflections, Vivek. I am not suggesting that there already is another theory waiting in the wings to take over if the current one is found wanting. But I do think that unless we take these anomalies seriously, there will not be one very soon. The main question I guess is that the paradigm bound scientists refuse to take evidence of the paranormal as authentic. Is this justifiable? I have my doubts. There seems to be good evidence of the paranormal out there, carefully collected and studied for over a century. When will it be taken seriously? It may happen actually. No body thought that Greek time will go into Christian dark ages and then to the scientific revolution. History follows a crooked path. So we can wait and see Nitai ji. I agree with you there is some evidence for paranormal and that requires a sincere researcher who is not doing research just to prove the historical correctness of his sect's book. That is the worst thing to do. He just need to do what Stevenson did for instance. Some books Ekantin and you maybe interested in. They do offer a different paradigm. www.amazon.com/Biology-Belief-Unleashing-Consciousness-Miracles/dp/0975991477Have you seen these books? www.amazon.com/Molecules-Emotion-Science-Mind-Body-Medicine/dp/0684846349www.amazon.com/Transcending-Levels-Consciousness-David-Hawkins/dp/0971500746www.amazon.com/Buddhas-Brain-Practical-Neuroscience-Happiness/dp/157224695Next we have www.amazon.com/Pauli-Jung-Meeting-Great-Minds/dp/0835608379 Pauli (the great quantum physicist) and Jung( who inspired many like Campbell). Apart from that two other books: www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Physics-Encounters-Consciousness/dp/019534250X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306910364&sr=1-3 (very good reviews actually by many physicists like Charles Townes for instance) www.amazon.com/Mindful-Universe-Mechanics-Participating-Collection/dp/3642180752/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306910364&sr=1-1Who knows what will happen next! Interesting times ahead. I just hope literalism in CV and other religions and submerged, so that something better emerges (rather than cultural proud assertions ignoring that we are all from Africa
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 1, 2011 9:11:08 GMT -6
Wow! That's a lot of homework, Vivekji. Have you read them all? I don't know if I have enough time at present. Some of them seem a bit dicey, too. One reviewer called the first book you mention by Lipton a book-length advertisement. I don't have time for an infomercial. Are you sure that there are valuable things to be gained from all of these? If you had to pick just one as the most valuable contribution, which would it be? I am a reader, but my time is limited, especially considering all the projects I want to finish before I kick the bucket.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Jun 1, 2011 9:58:08 GMT -6
No I have not read all of them. I have collected books that I wanted to read. I have good familiarity with last three(physics books which are good). I would recommend the book with Pauli and Jung if you had to pick one, thought the other two physics books are good too. I had given it to my Uncle who is a physics professor and he also liked it. So at least that passed the test of an expert. My friend in Stanford with a PhD in biology recommended Buddha's brain from the neuroscience related books. Hopefully, I will be able to read through them (four of them) and tell you. I think Ekantin can better comment on the first four books. You won't find all good reviews for a book, but all of the books are written by people with decent credentials, much better than CVs have Like we know even Dawkin's book was criticized that too by professionals not religious people. Same was the case with Stephen Hawkin's book the "Grand Design": popular writing has its pitfalls. The problem is the first book is 224 pages long, so we can't expect it to be extremely detailed. We just have to start somewhere and then graduate to reading papers if need be. I just feel there is something going on. It is a huge challenge
|
|