From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 20:02:50 BST
Hi Scott,
I should just wait until I walk the dog before sending a reply, but I can be
impatient. However, now that I have finished walking the dog beware. But,
please, before addressing this post--say something about self-consciousness and
computers as perfectly spatio-temporal mechanisms.
I said previously: "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."
You asked: "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."
Andy: As I said, it has been a long time. I was thinking of his examples on
camaflouge. I don't remeber anything about language. But Matt's explanation of
a baby using a random walk through the world and trial and error is a good one
that has its roots in Darwin. I am not a biologist, but I will admit
instinctive behavior might pose some problems, but I think that this might be
because we have the whole idea of instinct wrong. Nothing is programmed in
individual nuerons. This is, again, an unnecessary consequence of your
reductive approach. It is programmed in a network of neurons and the
connections between them. OK, I know spatio-temporal universes...
Me previosly: "Second, Darwinian theory does not try and explain consciousness."
You: "Tell that to Dennett."
Andy: All right, I have not read ANY Dennett. I am going to make a geuss and
say Dennett is not talking about consciousness like the distinction I made
between Self-consciousness and consciousness. In other words, he is not trying
to explain how consciousness emerges out of the inorganic level. He is talking
about self-consciousness and how this emerges out of language and brain
activity. It is just a geuss, but, lets be fair Scott. Let us say you are
right and Dennett does try to use Darwinian theory to explain consciouness (how
it emerges out of the inorganic). More power to him. I wish him luck. I hope
he succeeds. But, if he fails, this is no reason to get rid of Darwinian theory
altogether, is it?
Me previously: "This is your pet project."
You: "No, my pet project is to show that consciousness is unexplainable in terms
of atoms moving in the void (or any other way)."
Andy: Ok, sorry. I was going by your little autobiographical sketch. But, your
position has obviously evolved.
Me previously: 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.
You: 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 sience 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.
Andy: tsk, tsk. Remember you are the one who responded to my question, "WHat
are we left with if we can not use to products of our experience to analyze
experience?" with "Nothing." So I am right, you are implying we should get rid
of all Darwinian theory because of their "materialistic tendencies", so if we
are to be consistent we also need to throw out anything else with
"materialistic" tendencies. If you insist on throwing out Darwin, then you have
to insist on throwing out Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Sheldrake, and all, or I mean
most, of science as we know it.
Me previously: "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."
Finnally you sum up: "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?
Andy: Aside from my earlier reply that you have given no good reasons to
abandon Darwin, I will offer some more depth and provide you with a little
autobiographical sketch of my own.
I am not a biologist. The emphasis of my studies has been in economics. I went
into my graduate studies with guns a blazing. If ever there was an axiomatic
system based on faulty foundations I thought sure I could dislodge orthodox
economic theory. Individuals are utility maximizers who exibit wants with
nonsatiation. We can build demand curves from indifferences curves which assume
perfect substitution between all goods. From there we can aggregate individual
demand curves and form an aggregate demand curve for all of society. I mean
come on. It is a house of cards. I had my choice of where to stick my dynamite
and cause the whole orthodox economic world view to come tumbling down. But, I
quickly learned how faulty my thinking was. There is nothing inherently wrong
with economic theory. THe fact is that we have been using it with some success
for almost fifty years now to manipulate economies -- local, reginal, national
and global. Economy slows down, then lower interest rates and run a deficit.
Dollar weakens, then negotiate trade agreements. WE know pretty well how to
manipulate economies and all of it is based on "faulty" theories, that work for
what we want to do. Are they prefect? Hell, no. I think our goals for where
we want are economies to go should be changed dramatically, but this does not
require new theories.
What I think you are doing is asking Darwinian theory to do something it was
never intended to do. Nothing wrong with that, but if it fails this does not
mean you can discount all the areas where it has succeeded. Biologists, medical
specialist, geneticists, agronomists, all owe a huge debt to Darwin for how well
his theory has performed in areas where it was intended to be used. I am
thinking of Wittgenstien and his idea of language games. Confusion is often the
result of using words in ways they were not intended to be used. Confusion in
your case might be the result of "model games." You are using a theory for
something it is not intended to be used for.
Finally, I think I can appreciate your effort and what you are searching for.
However, I think it is an individual pursuit and irresponsible to extend it any
further by insisting everyone else is wrong in their use of scientific theories
based on materialism. Discovering the one and Zen like pursuits are fine for
obtaining individual enlightenment, but they cannot give us practical solutions
to problems out there in the material world. This is where science comes in and
all the tools we have created over the years. Darwin, economic theory....
Thanks
Andy
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> 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 - 20:03:44 BST