From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Apr 29 2005 - 01:12:20 BST
Hi Scott,
On 27 Apr 2005 at 22:43, Scott Roberts wrote:
msh:
I'd say scientists assume matter is the primary reality (over
consciousness) because there is lots of evidence to suggest it, while
there is nothing but inconsistent anecdotal evidence to suggest
otherwise. This does not preclude the possibility that evidence
supporting the primacy of consciousness will one day become
available. When and if that day comes, scientific theories will
change accordingly, just as they have through several such paradigm
shifts in the past.
Scott:
What is your "lots of evidence"? I'm not aware of any scientific
evidence that can distinguish between the following two hypotheses:
A.
Consciousness is a product of spatio-temporal activity.
msh says:
Are you saying you can't think of an example of ST activity that has
a retardant if not destructive impact on human consciousness?
Anesthesia? How about chopping off someone's head and placing it on
his chest to cool for a couple of hours?
scott:
B.
Consciousness produces the spatio-temporal framework.
msh:
Please give an example, as clear as mine, of human consciousness
creating a spatio-temporal framework, preferably on a meaningful
human scale.
scott:
though quantum non-locality and uncertainty at the Planck limit
suggest (B),
msh says:
O great. Now I gotta go brush up on my understanding of Planck
length and time to continue the conversation? My take on the subject
is that no one really knows anything about what things are like under
Planck conditions, not in any pragmatic way. Any evidence coming
from this realm will almost by definition be uncertain and
inconsistent, if not anecdotal. But I ain't no quantum physicist.
Do you have a particular physicist's view in mind? You're not gonna
send me to Chris Langan are you?
Anyway, I'm aware that there are a variety of conflicting views re
the relationship between mind and reality, even to the point where
the two are linked in mutual dependence, but you are not suggesting
there is anything even approaching a consensus, are you? That
Science should do the right thing and just dump that old pesky
materialism completely?
Besides, the fact that the idea of the primacy of consciousness is
being discussed by physicists supports my claim that science is not
closed to exploring the possibility.
scott:
and a consideration of consciousness' ability to be aware
of something continuing in time, requires (B), as I see it.
msh says:
Not sure what you mean by this. I don't think we ARE aware of things
persisting through time, when things are not materially present. I
think we assume persistence to maintain a shred of sanity in day to
day life, a very pragmatic assumption.
msh said before:
Isn't it possible that we are unwilling to suspend our analytical
faculties and make a leap of faith, just because yet another theistic
belief system promises us psychic rewards. We are not afraid to live
in a world where we're far from having all the answers, and , in
fact, consider such a world dramatically more dynamic and interesting
than your suggested alternative.
Scott:
I look on this as the "religion is for wimps" argument, with the
corollary that secularism is for the macho ... <
msh:
Then you go to say that in fact religion is for the tough guys....
not for those wimpy secularists... So let's call it even. Instead
of "we are not afraid" I should have said "we prefer." Besides, I
don't think I was offering an argument so much as an alternative
explanation of why someone might not make the leap of faith.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." -- James Bovard - 1994 from... Lost Rights. The Destruction of American Liberty 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 Apr 29 2005 - 01:23:40 BST