Orn, Are you fimiliar with Owen Flanagan or Antonio Damasio? I will post a link below for further information on them. I think you might want to check Flanagan out and read what he has to say about consciousness and the soul, especially in his book "The Problem of the Soul". The majority of Philosophers of Mind and Neroscientist agree that the Descartes mind/brain split is no longer a workable hypothesis. I am no expert on this subject but I trust the experts on this subject...ya know. :-)
Another tidbit I found interesting, and got me thinking, was your statements about Tibetan Buddhism. The Dali Lama once said that he would attempt to change his teaching if said teaching was contradicted by science. Well, in "God the Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger he states, "In stark contrast to almost all other religious leaders, the Dali Lama has tried to keep Tibetan Buddhism in tune with the modern world. He has often made it clear that whenever a Buddhist teaching disagreed with science, then he would attempt to change the teaching. However, as I have already noted, the Dali Lama still seems to believe in a duality of mind and body not supported by science."pg. 250. I do not now know if he has changed his "mind" :-) on this since this book came out in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Flanagan http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_clark/flanagan.html Antonia Damasio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Dam%C3%A1sio As for the "science of development" in reference to the "primative streak" in an earlier post, you are correct. I meant of the science of embryo (you said "child" though) development. I think we are on the same page if not the same chapter on this. stemcell On Sep 25, 8:50 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > " We have much in common." - clog > > Yep, we are both human Clog! :-) > > On Sep 25, 5:34 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all, OK I'll go along with self observation playing a role in > > science. If I observe my behavior in a given set of circumstances, I > > can look for it in others under the same circumstances and start to > > make deductions etc. We have much in common. > > > On Sep 25, 6:17 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OK Clog, braking it down: > > > " Few who rely upon external tools for their epistemology.." = few > > > scientists who use instruments (external [to the human being > > > itself]tools) for determining what they know (their epistemology)… > > > > “… will accept consciousness observing itself as a proper scientific > > > method." = “…will accept self observation, the being-as-such, > > > introspection, mind knowing itself etc. (consciousness observing > > > itself)… as a proper scientific method. (This should be self > > > explanatory.) > > > > On Sep 25, 3:05 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi y'all - I'm glad I was able to make your case for you, but you'll > > > > have to clarify this for me: > > > > " Few who rely upon external tools for > > > > their epistemology will accept consciousness observing itself as a > > > > proper scientific method." > > > > > On Sep 24, 5:01 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > “Hi y'all - I think science (and I use the term in its widest sense) > > > > > over centuries has searched for a soul.” – Clog > > > > > > In its widest sense, which I too use quite often, of course! However, > > > > > very seldom do people on this email list use science in its widest > > > > > sense. Thus, my specific use of the term. I doubt that many here > > > > > would find Socrates to have used science, nor Plato, let alone some > > > > > such as Chandrakurti or Nagarjuna. > > > > > > “Humans are routinely investigated, examined and degradated by ever > > > > > more intimate and advanced tools.” – Clog > > > > > > Yes Clog, at this time and in this culture, you are of course correct. > > > > > And, in being correct, you make my point about ‘tools’. > > > > > > “If any matter constituting a soul is tucked away somewhere, I believe > > > > > it would have been found.” – Clog > > > > > > We are not in contradiction here. Again, you make my point about > > > > > science not having the ‘tools’ to address soul. > > > > > > “ If the soul does not consist of matter then I discount it.” – Clog > > > > > > Ahh, yes. Here it is, isn’t it? Few who rely upon external tools for > > > > > their epistemology will accept consciousness observing itself as a > > > > > proper scientific method. Again, you help to support what I have > > > > > posted. > > > > > > And, I hope I do not appear to be confrontational in any negative > > > > > sense. My intention is to present yet another avenue of scientific > > > > > examination that has existed for thousands of years and remains today > > > > > as valid as ever regardless of the current culture of absolute > > > > > resistance to such methods. > > > > > > Again, this clearly can be and is an atheistic point of view. It’s > > > > > just one that wishes to explore what it is to be a human being beyond > > > > > the dogma of current day science. In the process, it in no way rejects > > > > > science. In fact, if anything, it wishes to expand and improve current > > > > > day’s rather limiting use of the word. > > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:44 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I think science (and I use the term in its widest sense) > > > > > > over centuries has searched for a soul. Humans are routinely > > > > > > investigated, examined and degradated by ever more intimate and > > > > > > advanced tools. If any matter constituting a soul is tucked away > > > > > > somewhere, I believe it would have been found. If the soul does not > > > > > > consist of matter then I discount it. > > > > > > I do know that alleged "scientists" working for the Design Institute > > > > > > would pay $100B to anyone who could prove its existence thus we come > > > > > > to the usual dead end - is it necessary to prove that a god/soul > > > > > > doesn't exist? > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 3:04 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > “…My understanding of most Buddist sects is that they believe in a > > > > > > > soul, without a divine input, that transmigrates toward Nirvana…” > > > > > > > – > > > > > > > clog > > > > > > > > In many ways you are correct here Clog. Yet, even HHDL has > > > > > > > addressed > > > > > > > such notions as the absolute. So, in this regard, there at the > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > least appears to be not only an acceptance but a direct > > > > > > > apprehension > > > > > > > of some sort of (perhaps non-anthropomorphic) divine and objective > > > > > > > state. Of course, the notion of negative theology comes in handy > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > due to the nature of such apprehensions. > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology > > > > > > > > “Science can find no record of this.” – Clog > > > > > > > Of soul? IF this is what you mean, I’m not aware of any such > > > > > > > studies. > > > > > > > Of course, this doesn’t mean they haven’t taken place. However, I > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > on an email list with many worldwide scientists and Buddhists, > > > > > > > including some I’ve mentioned here, and their goal is to find as > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > things in common they have as well as to learn from the other > > > > > > > ‘camp’ > > > > > > > recognizing that each has much to learn from the other. > > > > > > > > “Body scans etc. reveal no evidence, and I think, no one posting > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > this thread would subscribe to that (yet.)” – Clog > > > > > > > I still wonder exactly what was being researched here. What sort > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > ‘energy’, ‘matter’, etc. was being looked for? This is what > > > > > > > puzzles me > > > > > > > in that, as far as I know, common science today does not seem > > > > > > > either > > > > > > > interested nor capable of addressing these things. > > > > > > > > “On the other hand, science can find evidence of consciousness > > > > > > > via the > > > > > > > nervous system etc.” – Clog > > > > > > > > This is the area of epistemology where many begin to start to talk > > > > > > > past each other. And, as I’ve said, I’m not evangelical on the > > > > > > > whole. > > > > > > > However, since you have brought this up, I’ll jump into the fray. > > > > > > > > There appears to be at least two camps of thought when it comes to > > > > > > > these type of experiments. (Leaving out those who reject science > > > > > > > overall…) > > > > > > > > The first understand that when some sort of instrument exhibits > > > > > > > (registers) some sort of change while attached to anything, that > > > > > > > something is learned. This is fine. Where the apparent difference > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > view starts as I understand it is when those in this camp do not > > > > > > > examine, calculate and/or include their own consciousnesses > > > > > > > (observer) > > > > > > > into the mix. > > > > > > > Of course, to do so would cause some difficulties. This said, to > > > > > > > ignore and/or reject self observation overall ignores the direct > > > > > > > experience and, thus apprehension of consciousness and ‘being-as- > > > > > > > such’. > > > > > > > > Those in what appears to be the second camp I’m talking about > > > > > > > overall > > > > > > > do include such understandings in the mix. > > > > > > > > “When I talk to someone, I can assess their level of conscousness > > > > > > > simply from their responses. If they say they believe in gods, I > > > > > > > naturally assume they are close to being comatose.” – Clog > > > > > > > > Quite humorous, and, a good example of how subjectivity is > > > > > > > included in > > > > > > > all analysis. > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 12:34 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I think I'll jump in here before Jason does as you've > > > > > > > > mentioned "Buddhist Friends." and > > > > > > > > "Either way, we both agree that scientific inquiry on the whole > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > not address such > > > > > > > > things today. . . I hope! " > > > > > > > > I think we need to separate soul and consciousness here. My > > > > > > > > understanding of most Buddist sects is that they believe in a > > > > > > > > soul, > > > > > > > > without a divine input, that transmigrates toward Nirvana. Some > > > > > > > > souls > > > > > > > > remain outside Nirvana to help others along. Science can find no > > > > > > > > record of this. Body scans etc. reveal no evidence, and I > > > > > > > > think, no > > > > > > > > one posting in this thread would subscribe to that (yet.) > > > > > > > > On the other hand, science can find evidence of consciousness > > > > > > > > via the > > > > > > > > nervous system etc. When I talk to someone, I can assess their > > > > > > > > level > > > > > > > > of conscousness simply from their responses. If they say they > > > > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > in gods, I naturally assume they are close to being comatose. > > > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 3:11 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > “Orn. I am not clear. Who are you and what are you putting > > > > > > > > > foreward?” > > > > > > > > > - Stem> Even if one posits that the moment of conception > > > > > > > > > > is when the "consciousness" (soul) enters the body one must > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > realize that it is a scientific question. – Stem also > > > > > > > > > > "First I'll agree when science has the tools to address soul > > > > > > > > > or other > > > > > > > > > such notions." - orn > > > > > > > > > > Well Stem, I’m not clear about your questions either nor am I > > > > > > > > > meaning > > > > > > > > > to be obtuse here either. I’ll guess as to what you are > > > > > > > > > asking and you > > > > > > > > > can correct me if I am wrong OK? > > > > > > > > > I’m guessing you are asking about my words above that you > > > > > > > > > included in > > > > > > > > > your post. That said, most > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
