--- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > "We ourselves are large-scale, complex substances of something both > objectively physical from outside and subjectively mental from inside." > > Dear Thomas Nagel, > > You must be aware that you have written the most important book of philosophy > of the 21st century. And the measure of the significance of your book will be > the conscientious attempts to dismiss it, to deprive it of the influence it > intrinsically is destined to have. Your book, only possibly because of the > control you exercise over the demands of your first-person ontology, has the > effect of confronting the personal consciousness of every scientist and > philosopher who is determined to make the materialist neo-Darwinian model of > reality the only acceptable one. >
Now listen Robbie Robbie, I have already pointed out to you once that Darwinian model or Darwin's theory is *not* materialist. It is more naturalist. Newton's theory of Gravity is only about gravity. It dosen't explain god. The same for Darwin which explains only the process of evolution and adaptation of life. It's basicaly a set of laws. There is no contradiction between Darwin and Vedanta. There are many religions on this planet. There are many religious views on this planet. Which one you are defending right now? > You have asked the questions which have been forbidden to be asked inside the > secular community of intellectuals--questions which once posed as coherently > and legitimately as you have done throughout your book, create a tremendous > psychological-metaphysical reactiveness within the postmodern consciousness > (inside the domain of science and philosophy) that is so religiously > antipathetic to theism, even as you eschew any belief in divine > intentionality. > > Your book is like no other. What, for me is most remarkable about what you > have said, is your capacity to remain objective and impartial in your > handling of all the material--something extraordinary here: to let (as it > were) the impress of reality upon you (in its own demands and intimations) > dictate all that needed to be said, in order to represent what that reality > is. If we metaphorically liken the universe itself to having a point of view > about human beings, then the universe must feel very satisfied that it has > been represented faithfully, comprehensively, honestly by yourself--the only > modern philosopher who has some kind of faculty of disinterestedness which > controls and mortifies whatever needs psychologically might influence your > way of doing philosophy. > > It is as if you have worked out all the questions that could be, that would > have to be, formulated in order to existentially meet the demands of, as it > were, the point of view of the universe confronting you at the moment of > death. Every question that concerns what could be of ultimate importance to a > human being existing in the universe has been articulated by yourself--but > always in the service of extending your understanding so as to encompass the > extent of reality that one must encompass in order to have the knowingness > that one has done justice to what it means to be sentient being with one's > own subjective vantage point inside the universe. > > No book of philosophy will create the tensions and unrecognized affect (which > will be determinative of what gets said about your book among most > professional philosophers) that your book will create, is creating. It is a > hard book to take on without defending one's own personal beliefs because in > the natural course of reading the book--if one has thought deeply about these > questions--one feels what I can only refer to as the ontological power and > complexity of the book, the power and complexity that, if the universe wished > to get its point of view embodied in a philosopher, could not ask a human > being to go any farther, any deeper. > > It is an all-or-nothing book. Either one honestly allows the book to confront > one--which it must do if you let the ideas have their natural and deserved > effect upon one; or else one becomes driven to make sure the truthful > implications of the book do not touch one. Thus the review in The Nation. > Again, what is extraordinary here is your willingness (something that surely > must be part of your make-up) to discuss your ideas within a context which > permits a perfect openness for their evaluation. You are definitely serving > whatever exists within the potential of every thoughtful human being to know > what the truth might be . Even if there were a Creator--and I am not myself a > believer--I feel certain that no religious philosopher could do better than > what you have done to present the reality of what it means to be a human > being, what a human being is, what truths are implied by the existence of > human beings. > > I am making perhaps a very simple point: you have, Professor Nagel, enabled > any fearless and honest thinker in the world to contemplate a series of > questions, to examine series of ideas which seem to come out of an objective > searching of the very nature of the universe, and there appears to be no > trace of the psychological needs of the philosopher--however unconscious > these may be--to construct a picture of reality and the human being which > serves the convenience of the first-person ontology of that human being (you > have objectified your subjectivity for at least the writing of this book). > You have said things that only you could say because of the immense clarity > and ethical sensitivity of your own personal consciousness. > > I am tempted to say all kinds of things about the specific ideas contained in > your book; but that has not been my purpose here. I want merely to tell you > the profound effect of your having--seemingly--let your own thinking follow > what are the requirements of truth that the universe and our individual > existence serves up--when we are not governed by some overriding need to have > the universe and our own existence seem a certain way. > > It is, finally, then, the utter honesty and comprehensiveness of your > thinking and your writing--how it truly does justice to every significant > question that one would want to ponder in order to feel one had come into > contact with what was most real in the experience of existing as a human > being inside the universe--that makes of your book a kind of philosophical > miracle. > > Very sincerely yours, > > Robin Carlsen > > --- "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > FWIW, Nagel is the chap who wrote that famous essay, > > "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" back in 1974: > > > > http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf > > > > Robin, when you mentioned this book recently to Curtis, > > you noted that Nagel was an "avowed atheist." People who > > find his rejection of materialist neo-Darwinism upsetting > > will no doubt try to ignore or obscure this inconvenient > > fact and paint him as a believer. By the same token, > > though, the Creationist/Intelligent Design faction will > > most likely also try to obscure his atheism so they can > > appropriate his conclusions. Should be interesting to > > watch. > > > > This is fascinating stuff; thanks for posting the quotes. > > It's refreshing to read that "...the available scientific > > evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, > > does not in this matter rationally require us to > > subordinate the incredulity of common sense"--although it > > will surely scandalize the science-minded. > > > > I'm guessing that your thinking about "first-person > > ontology" resonates with Nagel's thesis, no? I hope > > you'll say more about all this. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > MIND AND COSMOS: WHY THE MATERIALIST NEO-DARWINIAN CONCEPTION OF NATURE > > > IS ALMOST CERTAINLY FALSE by Thomas Nagel > > > > > > The argument from the failure of psychophysical reductionism is a > > > philosophical one, but I believe there are independent empirical reasons > > > to be skeptical about the truth of reductionism in biology. > > > Physico-chemical reductionism in biology is the orthodox view, and any > > > resistance to it is regarded as not only scientifically but politically > > > incorrect. But for a long time I have found the materialist account of > > > how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including > > > the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more > > > details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of > > > the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account > > > becomes . . . it seems to me that, as it is usually presented, the > > > current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing > > > assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common > > > sense. > > > > > > I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the > > > reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life. > > > It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the > > > result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of > > > natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naive response, not in > > > favor of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of > > > an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some > > > examples. What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that > > > the story has a nonnegligible probability of being true. There are two > > > questions. First, given what is known about the chemical basis of biology > > > and genetics, what is the likelihood that self-reproducing life forms > > > should have come into existence spontaneously on the earth, solely > > > through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry? The second > > > question is about the sources of variation in the evolutionary process > > > that was set into motion once life began: In the available geological > > > time since the first life forms appeared on the earth, what is the > > > likelihood that, as a result of physical accident, a sequence of viable > > > genetic mutations should have occurred that was sufficient to permit > > > natural selection to produce the organisms that actually exist? > > > > > > . . . the questions concern highly specific events over a long historical > > > period in the distant past, the available evidence is very indirect, and > > > general assumptions have to play an important part. My skepticism is not > > > based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It > > > is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the > > > consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally > > > require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. This is > > > especially true with regard to the origin of life. > > > > > > The world is an astonishing place, and the idea that we have in our > > > possession the basic tools needed to understand it is no more credible > > > now than it was in Aristotle's day. That it has produced you, and me, and > > > the rest of us is the most astonishing thing about it. . . . I realize > > > that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is > > > because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into > > > regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground > > > that anything else would not be science. > > > > > > . . . certain things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as > > > non-accidental if we are to pretend to a real understanding of the world > > > . . . > > > > > > As I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go against > > > the dogmatic scientific consensus, but that consensus faces problems of > > > probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough, both with > > > respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental mutation and > > > natural selection and with respect to the formation from dead matter of > > > physical systems capable of such evolution. > > > > > > . . . It is no longer legitimate simply to imagine a sequence of > > > gradually evolving phenotypes, as if their appearance through mutations > > > in the DNA were un-problematic--as Richard Dawkins does for the evolution > > > of the eye. With regard to the origin of life, the problem is much > > > harder, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not > > > available, And the coming into existence of the genetic code--an > > > arbitrary mapping of nucleotide sequences into amino acids, together with > > > mechanisms that can read the code and carry out its instructions--seems > > > particularly resistant to being revealed as probable given physical laws > > > alone. > > > > > > . . . Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the > > > prevailing doctrine--that the appearance of life from dead matter and its > > > evolution through accidental and natural selection to its present forms > > > has involved nothing but the operation of physical law--cannot be > > > regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific > > > project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis. > > > > > >
