I want to clarify my position about material theories a little. I believe that the emergence of life can be explained nicely by a material theory, though like all theories and other maps it won't be complete (okay somebody might make a map that is an exact duplicate of the territory but all other 'normal' maps are incomplete). Consciouness is another story. It seems to me that some form of low level consciouness is a a basic building block or a basic property of some other basic building block. What emerges is more sophicated and complex forms of consciouness, with more complex brains and perhaps, even, with more complex computing machines.
On Sep 18, 7:02 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 17, 4:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Isp, thanks for the link and article about new age ideas. > > Orn, Clog, and anyone else. > > That article is not an article about new age ideas. It is the serious > thinking of a brilliant pysicist. In my opinion new age stuff is > ususlly speculation that is not based on serious empiracal evidence. > Wheeler's ideas are based on serious empiracal evidence. > > I agree with you that material theories do not yet explain the > emergence of life and many other things. Can material theories explain > everything? I don't see how, but that doesn't mean they can't. I find > Dennett's works interesting, but it is barely a beginning and it is > loaded with assumptions and even what sometimes appears to be > trickery. He has neither explained the emergence of life or > consciouness with material theories, but only shown his idea of how > this might be possible, in his own opinion. I haven't read Dawkins > book so I cannot comment. Wheeler was actually involved in physics > that was used for many things. As far as I know, Dennet has done > nothing but speculate and sell his popular books (and of course teach > classes). I don't know if Dawkins has been involved in applied > science. > > On Sep 17, 4:20 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Isp, thanks for the link and article about new age ideas. > > Over the years, I've heard that term, new age, bandied about and in > > most instances it appears to be used as a pejorative. So, I just > > checked a few dictionaries and find that the term can be used to mean > > such a large number of things as to be almost unintelligible. In fact, > > the different dictionaries would almost make one think that a > > different word is being looked up in each! > > Overall, my preference when whatever is being addressed by using this > > term is brought up, is that specifics be listed. At least that way it > > can be quantified as something other than ‘what they think’. > > > On Sep 17, 9:23 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This article is not meant to give credit to New Age ideas. It is here > > > to demonstrate how one very important physicist saw things. I only > > > pasted in the first page. The entire article can be found at this > > > link:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00EED81739F931A25750... > > > > In one corner is Dr. John Archibald Wheeler, 90, professor emeritus of > > > physics at Princeton and the University of Texas, armed with a battery > > > of hearing aids, fistfuls of colored chalk, unfailing courtesy, a > > > poet's flair for metaphor, an indomitable sense of duty and the > > > company of a ghost army of great thinkers. > > > > In the other is a ''great smoky dragon,'' which is how Dr. Wheeler > > > refers sometimes to one of the supreme mysteries of nature. That is > > > the ability, according to the quantum mechanic laws that govern > > > subatomic affairs, of a particle like an electron to exist in a murky > > > state of possibility -- to be anywhere, everywhere or nowhere at all > > > -- until clicked into substantiality by a laboratory detector or an > > > eyeball. > > > > Dr. Wheeler suspects that this quantum uncertainty, as it is more > > > commonly known, is the key to understanding why anything exists at > > > all, how something, the universe with its laws, can come from nothing. > > > Or as he likes to put it in the phrase that he has adopted as his > > > mantra: ''How come the quantum? How come existence?'' > > > > Standing by the window in his third-floor office in Princeton's Jadwin > > > Hall recently, Dr. Wheeler pointed out at the budding trees and the > > > green domes of the astronomy building in the distance. ''We're all > > > hypnotized into thinking there's something out there,'' he said. > > > > Twice a week he takes a bus from his retirement home in nearby > > > Hightstown to sit here under portraits of Albert Einstein and Niels > > > Bohr, the twin poles of his scientific life, and confront the > > > dragonlike ephemerality of the world, dictating his thoughts to his > > > secretary, Emily Bennett. > > > > ''The time left for me on earth is limited,'' he wrote recently. ''And > > > the creation question is so formidable that I can hardly hope to > > > answer it in the time left to me. But each Tuesday and Thursday I will > > > put down the best response that I can, imagining that I am under > > > torture.'' > > > > He is under no illusions about who will win the confrontation. A heart > > > attack last year has taken its toll, and he acknowledges that his > > > thoughts are fragmentary, ideas for ideas, as he likes to put it, and > > > not for his present-day colleagues but for the generations of > > > colleagues down the line. > > > > It's what he has been doing his whole life. Dr. Wheeler helped explain > > > nuclear fission with Bohr, argued quantum theory with Einstein, helped > > > build the atomic and hydrogen bombs and pioneered the study of what he > > > later dubbed black holes. Along the way, he indulged his taste for > > > fireworks and mischief and became the hippest poet physicist of his > > > generation, using metaphor as effectively as calculus to capture the > > > imaginations of his students and colleagues and to send them, minds > > > blazing, to the barricades to confront nature. > > > > The phrases Dr. Wheeler has coined constitute a kind of vapor trail > > > marking the path of the aspirations of physics in the last few > > > decades: black hole, quantum foam, law without law, to name a few. > > > > ''A major piece of him is that he is a visionary,'' said Dr. Kip > > > Thorne, a physics professor at California Institute of Technology who > > > was Dr. Wheeler's graduate student at Princeton. ''He tries to see > > > farther over the horizon than most people by way of his physical > > > intuition.'' > > > > ''He brought the fun back into physics,'' said Dr. Max Tegmark, a > > > cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has recently > > > collaborated with Dr. Wheeler, ticking off the reasons scientists love > > > him. Physicists, he said, are usually reluctant to talk about Really > > > Big Questions, like the why of existence, for fear of being branded > > > flaky. > > > > ''He taught us not to be afraid,'' Dr. Tegmark said. > > > > It is a season of celebration for Dr. Wheeler and of reaping the > > > harvest from generations of seeds of inspiration. The Battelle > > > Memorial Institution of Columbus, Ohio, has donated $3 million to > > > endow a physics chair in Dr. Wheeler's name at Princeton, which > > > celebrated his birthday with one-day symposium last July, and plans a > > > larger event. > > > > This weekend the Really Big Questions that Dr. Wheeler loves will be > > > on the table when prominent scientists gather at a conference center > > > here in his honor for a symposium modestly titled ''Science and > > > Ultimate Reality'' sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation and the > > > Peter Gruber Foundation Cosmology Prize. > > > > The Philosopher King > > > Bohr Conversations Leave Indelible Mark > > > > Dr. Wheeler once compared himself to Daniel Boone, who, the story > > > goes, felt compelled to move on to new territory every time someone > > > moved within a mile of him. It was in nuclear physics, the science of > > > the buzzing dense cores of atoms, that he first made his mark. Born > > > July 9, 1911, in Jacksonville, Fla., the oldest child in a family of > > > librarians, he earned his Ph.D. in physics from Johns Hopkins at age > > > 21. > > > > On Sep 16, 11:47 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > I think that New Age religious people use ideas such as observer > > > > reactivity, Hawthorne effect and etc. Of course, if you put a > > > > speedometer on a traitor trailer truck to measure its speed, the mass > > > > of the speedometer will influence the speed of the truck. However, > > > > that does not mean that the speed measurement is completely botch, > > > > which is sort of the stand that New Age religious follower argue among > > > > other pseudo-arguments. > > > > > On Sep 16, 8:30 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I think he might also be saying that scientific dogmas become > > > > > scientism. As I understnd it science is supposed to be dogma free. The > > > > > results it gives and even the method itself are seen as best bets, for > > > > > now. It is accepted that the result and even the method can change, > > > > > based upon thinking and tangible evidence. Experiments in quantum > > > > > mechanics produce evidence that requires revision in the epistemolgy > > > > > of science. No one has yet been able to come up with a solid generally > > > > > accepted answer in this area, but old rigid notions have been > > > > > impeached by the evidence. > > > > > > On Sep 16, 5:38 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think that Price is just warning against scientism, that is, that > > > > > > science is the be all and end all of everything. We've been down > > > > > > this > > > > > > road before. When you get into how a machine or organism perceives > > > > > > the world from the inside, science has issues. Science can only > > > > > > explain how it (machine or organism or other another part of nature) > > > > > > works and how it perceives the surroundings--and can't deal with the > > > > > > personal experiences of being a log, tree, another organism with a > > > > > > very different biological structure...only predict and possibly > > > > > > control those things within physical limits. > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2:56 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:19 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > wrote > > > > > > > > > That reference on p. 28 is calling out the pseudo-science in > > > > > > > > New Age > > > > > > > > religions. > > > > > > > > I agree that it is common for proponnents of New Age ideas,- Hide > > > > > > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
