From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 22:11:28 BST
Hi
I find Robert M Young the science historian
and psychoanalyst is excellent on Darwin
he is also a fan of Lila see reference at
http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/pap131h.html
this site is also a great resource about human nature.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <abahn@comcast.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: Sheldrake (MD economics of want and greed 4)
> 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
>
>
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 - 22:18:39 BST