Physics and the Immortality of the soul

[vkaul1]

Another thing I recommend are articles here. It won't take time because they are not books and the articles are by experts who are not traditional religious people. www.templeton.org/evolution/

www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-f.html

I am not getting time, but need to get to the root of how much we actually know through present evolution and where are the genuine debates. The problem is that the debate has become a creationism vs evolution debate rather than understanding the complete picture. One of the persons I was reading about was Sagan's ex-wife who opposes neo-darwinism (not in the creationism way en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

So Nitai ji, I do feel there is a bigger picture than Dawkin's providing though his arguments are very good to first shatter literal fundamentalist religious faith (99% is like that) and try to investigate the deeper truth out there.

[Nitaidas]

Jun 1, 2011 13:05:05 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

Another thing I recommend are articles here. It won't take time because they are not books and the articles are by experts who are not traditional religious people. www.templeton.org/evolution/

www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-f.html

I am not getting time, but need to get to the root of how much we actually know through present evolution and where are the genuine debates. The problem is that the debate has become a creationism vs evolution debate rather than understanding the complete picture. One of the persons I was reading about was Sagan's ex-wife who opposes neo-darwinism (not in the creationism way en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

So Nitai ji, I do feel there is a bigger picture than Dawkin's providing though his arguments are very good to first shatter literal fundamentalist religious faith (99% is like that) and try to investigate the deeper truth out there.

I am profoundly suspicious of anyone who takes money from the Templeton Foundation. That organization has been trying to corrupt science for years and there are plenty of greedy scientists who are ready to compromise their values for the right price.

[Nitaidas]

Jun 1, 2011 9:58:08 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

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

Thanks, Vivek. I will add them to my reading list.

Yes, there are shortcomings in Dawkins' books and criticisms of them as well, some even by people who have read his book and who know some things. I would not take Mary Midgley too seriously. She seems like a nut case who does not really understand biological evolution.

[bets]

It might have been; he was on later that day, saying things which would be consistent with the earlier interview. The author of EXAMINED LIVES came right afterwards and reminded me again that what counts as madness or sanity . . . depends on who, when, & where we are. Was Claire of Assissi a saint or a delusional "holy anorexic"?
Malati, the NPR guy, (Eagleman?) agrees with you. He may turn the "wild" hypothesis over to the scifi writing part of his brain for now, but if circumstances make it more testable, it's there to be tested--not hooted at.

[vkaul1]

Thanks, Vivek. I will add them to my reading list.

Yes, there are shortcomings in Dawkins' books and criticisms of them as well, some even by people who have read his book and who know some things. I would not take Mary Midgley too seriously. She seems like a nut case who does not really understand biological evolution.[/quote]

Who talked about Mary Midgley? I don't recall talking about her.
Anyway in this article list www.templeton.org/evolution/ there is Lynn Margulis is a respected biologist, and is also a member of NAS and also some others like David Sloan Wilson. Not all of them even received money from the foundation. Their articles were published and most of the articles there are extracts from their journal articles. I have checked this up. We can't get stuck up with these problems. Everyone needs some funding to do research and the funding of all scientists has some stain. We need to see the merit of the arguments there, instead of just being stuck on the other details otherwise we will go nowhere.

One of my biologist friend sent me this
Reading about Margulis's theory reminded me of this remark by Popper.

"There is a difficulty with Darwinism...[especially when] we accept that statistical definition of fitness which defines fitness by actual survival, then the theory of the survival of the fittest becomes tautological, and irrefutable. Darwin...showed that what appeared to be purposeful adaptation may be explained by some mechanism--such as for example the mechanism of natural selection. This was a tremendous achievement. But once it is shown that such a mechanism is possible, we ought to try to construct alternative mechanisms, and then try to find some crucial experiments to decide between them , rather than foster the belief that the Darwinian mechanism is the only possible one."

As you may notice, she accepts evolution as a fact but questions the mechanism I.e., natural selection and thinks that it is unscientific to have just one, possibly tautological, hypothesis to explain the process of evolution. I think Margulis's theory provides an alternative to natural selection(in a sense) which not only makes evolution more scientific, at least according to Popper, but also has ramifications for the ideological side e.g., survival of the fittest. So I guess it is as valid as any genuine debate. Thanks for letting me know about this

At the same time, Malati ji's grudge against Darwinism maybe leaning towards creationism and that won't work out. If the debate is Intelligent design (a gap that is filled by God) or creationism vs evolution then we know where it will go. Malati ji, I recommend reading the greatest show on earth carefully to examine the evidence for evolution before being so negative about it.

[vkaul1]

I am sharing this email from Henry Stapp on the article by Carol. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp It is my personal communication, so I hope we are sensitive to that.
Dear Vivek,

I looked at the Discover article you sent: "Physics and the Immortality of the Soul" by Sean Carol.

As regards the question of whether science has anything to say about
"life after death", that depends on your definition of science.
If science is about conclusions that can be drawn from "controlled
experimentally reproducible empirical data" then 'Adam Frank' is probably
correct: even if the Earth rumbled for forty days and forty nights and
images of crucifixes appeared in the sky, and a loud voice proclaiming
to be the voice of God boomed warnings that we should mend our evil ways,
but then, after that display, everything returned to normal,
there would be no controlled reproducible scientific data to cite.

The purported evidence for 'life after death' is likewise of the
uncontrolled not strictly reproducible kind, and hence would not
be "scientific", according to certain restrictive certain standards.

But when he says that "the laws of physics underlying everyday
life are completely understood", then I would insist that insofar as they
are completely understood, and are in fact the laws spelled out by von
Neumann's orthodox ontologicalization of the pragmatically extremely
successful Copenhagen interpretation, then these laws are *dynamically
incomplete*. These basic laws, involve at their conceptual core the
concept of "measurement", which concerns the problem of how the aspects
of nature represented in the theory by physical descriptions are
connected to our human experiences. The quantum laws are about the
connection between our conscious thoughts and the activities in our
physically described brains.

This connection is defined by von Neumann's "process 1". This process
chooses some probing question, which is expressed in terms of a possible
conscious experience and a closely associated "neural correlate". The
known quantum mechanical physical law, the Schroedinger equation, governs
only an underlying physically described substrate, which evolves via this
physical law into a continuous smear of possible physical worlds
of the kind that can be correlated to definite experiences of the kinds
that occur in our streams of consciousness. The known laws do not
specify or determine how the crucial "process 1" choice linking brain to
conscious experience is determined: there is a huge *dynamical gap* in
the theory, as it is known today!

There is a certain prejudice among physicists---stemming perhaps from the
experiences of scientists with the now-superceded classical mechanics,
or perhaps from a professional wish for a universe controlled by
mathematical laws of a familiar kind---that asserts that the process 1
connection between mind and brain should be bottom-up, controlled
in full by the brain, which is imbedded in a physically described
universe, or at least that the process that generates the process 1
choice have an essential bottom-up component. If this physicalist notion
were to be veridical then it would seem to follow a person's mind could
not survive the death of that person's body.

But there is a serious difficulty seeing how a definite possible
conscious experience (and an associated neural correlate) could
be naturally generated by a continuous smear of possibilies if the
person's physical described body/brain is itself a smear of
possibilities.

A viable rational alternative would be a *completely top-down* process-1
choice, in which "the mental being" that is the person's mental
aspect, is continually probing that person's physically evolving brain,
via a virtual process that searches for possible neural correlates (in
the person's current brain state) corresponding to possible process 1
actions. Such a theory would constitute the basis of a quantum theory
involving human *souls*: mental entities that could become detached from
temporary bodily hosts.

The point here is that *IF* the evidence demands reincarnation, or
some form of survival of personality traits after bodily death, then
a TOP-DOWN resolution of the open question of "What determines the
experimenter/observer's process 1 choiuce?" would be indicated:
quantum could tolerate a soul-containing version of the von Neumann
ontology, if the data in fact demands survival. In the end, it is the
empirical data that must rule, and an empirical demand for suvival can
be accommodated rationally within the von Neumann ontology by exploiting
the dynamical gap arising from the lack of determination within that
"ontology" of the causal origin of the process 1 choice!
[See my QMA.doc for more details]

Hope this is helpful,

Henry

[Nitaidas]

Jun 2, 2011 12:37:45 GMT -6 vkaul1 said:

Who talked about Mary Midgley? I don't recall talking about her.
Anyway in this article list www.templeton.org/evolution/ there is Lynn Margulis is a respected biologist, and is also a member of NAS and also some others like David Sloan Wilson. Not all of them even received money from the foundation. Their articles were published and most of the articles there are extracts from their journal articles. I have checked this up. We can't get stuck up with these problems. Everyone needs some funding to do research and the funding of all scientists has some stain. We need to see the merit of the arguments there, instead of just being stuck on the other details otherwise we will go nowhere.

I couldn't agree with you less here, Vivekji. The only purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to shove religion down our throats and corrupt science. And not just religion but Christianity. Look at the groups and organizations they fund. Unjfortunately, there are plenty of well respected people with great credentials who are nevertheless willing to say something nice about religion in order to get a check from Templeton. I bet you each and every one of those scientists have received money from Templeton in some way. Religion and science don't mix and should never be forced into the same bed. Even trying to fit them into the same head is a schizoid condition.

One of my biologist friend sent me this
Reading about Margulis's theory reminded me of this remark by Popper.

"There is a difficulty with Darwinism...[especially when] we accept that statistical definition of fitness which defines fitness by actual survival, then the theory of the survival of the fittest becomes tautological, and irrefutable. Darwin...showed that what appeared to be purposeful adaptation may be explained by some mechanism--such as for example the mechanism of natural selection. This was a tremendous achievement. But once it is shown that such a mechanism is possible, we ought to try to construct alternative mechanisms, and then try to find some crucial experiments to decide between them , rather than foster the belief that the Darwinian mechanism is the only possible one."

Once again I don't believe that Darwinists talk about evolution as survival of the fittest. Despite claims to the contrary, it is not the same as natural selection.

As you may notice, she accepts evolution as a fact but questions the mechanism I.e., natural selection and thinks that it is unscientific to have just one, possibly tautological, hypothesis to explain the process of evolution. I think Margulis's theory provides an alternative to natural selection(in a sense) which not only makes evolution more scientific, at least according to Popper, but also has ramifications for the ideological side e.g., survival of the fittest. So I guess it is as valid as any genuine debate. Thanks for letting me know about this

[/b][/quote]

I don't see the validity of this. Should we also have two quantum theories? If a theory fits the evidence, why dream up another? Coyne has commented on Margulis unfavorably here.

More on Templeton here and here.

[Nitaidas]

Thanks for sharing your letter from Stapp with us, Vivek. I have to say, I don't much understand what he is talking about. I agree with his insistence on empirical evidence, but wonder if he too has his head in the sand when it comes to the empirical evidence for the paranormal. I am holding in my hands a book by John Beloff of the Department of Psychology University of Edinburgh, which parapsychology has been study for decades. The title of the book is Parapsychology: a Concise History. it is full accounts of what looks to me to be credible empirical research on the paranormal. If Beloff just making this up?

Anyway, please tell what you think Stapp said in his letter to you.

[vkaul1]

Nitai ji, I just gave you some information and there is enough criticism happening on all sides. Stephen J. Gould was criticized very strongly by Dawkins before.

Right now I am a bit tied up, so it will be hard to explain Stapp's idea clearly. As soon as you have to explain things very simplistically, especially in physics it is easy to compromise on detail and have loopholes. However, you can try to see this link for a start to get some sense of the basic idea. www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFkaGlrBJR8 closertotruth.com/video-profile/Is-Consciousness-Entirely-Material-Henry-Stapp-/392

See Nitai ji, I am just seeing possibilities where there will be some change in the paradigm. Myself, you and Ekantin already agree that Dawkins, Denett and Haris represent a rational dominant paradigm, which is reasonable. My point is too see if there is a possibility for a paradigm shift (in no way does that mean traditional religions making a comeback). Quantum mechanics and relativity did not help traditional religions, but made the material world of opaque matter much more subtle and sophisticated. Relativity itself makes space time frame non-euclidean and that is beyond our ordinary experience. Right now, we are getting problems with String theory (supported mostly by non-religious scientists Witten, Weinberg and Leonard Susskind) attacked by other scientists www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_a2PqKq38 (trouble with physics lecture) and there is sharp war of words out there en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolin-Susskind_debate#Smolin-Susskind_Debate between different groups. See right now, we need to be aware of all sides of the coin because we don't know what will happen in future. That was my idea of posting articles about Darwinism. Now how credible they are will be found eventually. I agree with you that natural selection is not same as survival of the fittest. It is more like survival of the most adaptable. Bacteria can be a better fit than a dinosaur for the most part. Given my limited time and resources, I am trying to keep track of too many things together. I hope to do a better job when I quit my job and go to study Sanskrit and Philosophy, and not work on applied statistics jobs. You need to be patient at my posts. I already agree that atheistic (pragmatically atheistic and philosophically agnostic to God like a flying spagetti monster view is the most reasonable view out there right now. I am not sure it will be the case always. We have to wait and see.

[vkaul1]

In the comments on the whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/so-you-think-you-knew-templeton-a-new-report/ (Templeton)
Some things which disheartened and surprised me:

* Billy Graham won a Templeton prize

* V S Ramachandran is on the board of Advisors

* Shermer thinks (or convinced himself that) the job of a sceptic is to present a diversity of views, not to represent the actual proportions of those views (publish the controversy!)


So Ekantin's hero Ramachandran has been bought? So do we stop reading him Nitai ji? Ramachandran is appreciated even by Dawkins. I don't know the world is just too complex Nitai ji and people need to feed their family and kids. Ideally scientists should be like monks and do research, so that no body can buy their credibility Peer review process is the best way to keep the truth in science. However, in religion every sect is insulated from outside criticism and they can continue with their fallacy unabated thinking they are right

You can see this video of Nassim Taleb fora.tv/2008/02/04/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb_A_Crazier_Future . I saw this in Berkeley. It was a really good en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb overview on a Hume kind of vision . I think you will like it.

[vkaul1]

I cant believe that you let the fallacy quoted above. A person with enough common sense will spot the fallacy in what you said.

Just because I see some flaws in Darwinian Evolution does not mean I believe in creationism let alone the Christian creationism.

For a start, I do not take the shastras literally. How many times have I said that on this forum.

Which fallacy are you talking about and what is the common sense?
Do you believe in Mr Cremo's work on Forbidden archeology or vedic creationism?

[Nitaidas]

Malatidi, why did you not post the original review, too? It is like getting only half the conversation. Why are you always so one-sided? Anyway, I will post something from the other side of the discussion later. For now here is more on the Templeton's efforts to subvert science and lead us back to the dark ages.

Here.

Here is a review of What Darwin Got Wrong here. It turns out there are many, many unfavorable reviews.

Maybe this introduction is best to get an overall view of the issue. It appears that Fodor and Piatelli-Palmorini are not even biologists! Here.


And yet another pair of reviews. It looks like Midgley got her foot in in mouth again. She must like the taste of it! Here.

Remember. We are searching for the truth no matter where it leads us. At least, I am. I don't know about the rest of you. For that reason we have to beware of distortion factors like the Templeton Foundation and buffoons like Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini (what to speak of poor little Midgley). On the other hand I still think that people like Coyne and Dawkins and Dennett have their heads in the sand because they don't recognize the empirical data that seem to support the paranormal. The truth must lie somewhere in between. Finding it will not be easy and will Krsna be sitting there when we do? I hope so but I am by no means certain.

[vkaul1]

Jun 4, 2011 4:07:56 GMT -6 malati said:

Didnt I quote this in my reply to you. This is the fallacy you made.

Malati ji's grudge against Darwinism maybe leaning towards creationism and that won't work out.

Do you agree with Vedic or should I say Puranic creationism?

[vkaul1]

Jun 4, 2011 10:06:57 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Malatidi, why did you not post the original review, too? It is like getting only half the conversation. Why are you always so one-sided? Anyway, I will post something from the other side of the discussion later. For now here is more on the Templeton's efforts to subvert science and lead us back to the dark ages.

Here.

Here is a review of What Darwin Got Wrong here. It turns out there are many, many unfavorable reviews.

Maybe this introduction is best to get an overall view of the issue. It appears that Fodor and Piatelli-Palmorini are not even biologists! Here.


And yet another pair of reviews. It looks like Midgley got her foot in in mouth again. She must like the taste of it! Here.

Remember. We are searching for the truth no matter where it leads us. At least, I am. I don't know about the rest of you. For that reason we have to beware of distortion factors like the Templeton Foundation and buffoons like Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini (what to speak of poor little Midgley). On the other hand I still think that people like Coyne and Dawkins and Dennett have their heads in the sand because they don't recognize the empirical data that seem to support the paranormal. The truth must lie somewhere in between. Finding it will not be easy and will Krsna be sitting there when we do? I hope so but I am by no means certain.

Actually I appreciated you bringing out the other side when I posted the articles on Darwinism. I don't want to be one sided. Like Richard Feynman, you can have a bias, but not a prejudice against one view point. I have already expressed that the new atheist view is the dominant paradigm and for good reasons. The paranormal or supernatural is not really expressing itself as frequently as it seemed to be in ancient times. Therefore, there are good reasons to suspect that. At the same time, I posted some things from Stapp, Pauli, Jung and other books because we want to find the truth and I don't have to stick to all of Dawkins's opinions. He has made some good points, but apart from his evolutionary arguments, most arguments can be found in Bertrand Russel's writings who is one of the heroes of Dawkins. We always have reiterated "satyam param dhimahi". I want Krsna to exist, but that does not mean I can force the issue and use evidence when there is none. Still I am on look out for learning possibilities. I don't know how religious people can be absolutely certain about everything in their scripture.

[Nitaidas]

Yes, I think that is the right attitude, Vivek. We have to hear all sides and try to keep from being swept away by one of them. We cannot allow ourselves to give in to what we wish were true. It is hard and one wants to rest one's weary bones in some stronghold or another, but that would be giving in to the loudest speaker. Not a good way to determine the truth. Anyway, all we can do for now is listen and try to decide who is speaking sanely and with the most supporting evidence.