Stem, thanks for the civil and well presented post. No, I am not familiar with the two people you mention. I did read the link on Flanagan and find that he “has proposed that there is a "natural method" to go about understanding consciousness that involves creating a science of mind. Three key elements of this developing science are: 1) paying attention to subjective reports on conscious experiences, 2) incorporating the results from psychology and cognitive science, and 3) including the results from neuroscience that will reveal how neuronal systems produce consciousness.”
This set of three is nothing new and is almost directly lifted from what William James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James proposed back in the late 1800s. I agree that introspection (almost the same as subjective reports) must be one aspect of the triune of study of Mind. By the way, I learned about this approach of three methods from Alan Wallace whom I believe I’ve linked to and/or quoted here before. He was the first ordained Western Monk in Tibetan Buddhism and studied In Dharamsala for about 16 years or so. He has studied and received a degree in physics in the US and knows a lot about psychology overall. So, in this sense, we are in agreement that our apparently individual experience(s) must be included in the study of Mind. Yes, HHDL has said and continues to say that he will include scientific information in his ontology and epistemology. When it comes to Victor Stenger, considering his personal area of study: B.S., Electrical Engineering, Newark College of Engineering (now New Jersey Institute of Technology), 1956. M.S., Physics, UCLA, 1958. Ph. D., Physics, UCLA, 1963. Thesis: Low Energy K+d Scattering and the I = 0 KN Interaction (Harold K. Ticho, advisor) I might consider him knowledgeable about Physics. Yet, when it comes to an overview of his book “God: The Failed Hypothesis is a 2007 by scientist Victor J. Stenger who argues that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity and that a God's existence is improbable. David Ludden of Skeptic magazine wrote that "Stenger lays out the evidence from cosmology, particle physics and quantum mechanics showing that the universe appears exactly as it should if there is no creator."” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis I find that he appears to be ignoring the very crucial third cornerstone for study of Mind that we have already agreed upon, introspection. Since we have agreed upon this part of the ‘big 3’, perhaps we should ignore Victor and his proof by ‘improbability’? Looking a little further into his method of study, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21334644-5003900,00.html he clearly is a reactionary Catholic. While I can empathize with such a situation, I do not find it authoritative when it comes to ontology. Now, continuing with HHDL, clearly he has been misunderstood by Stenger when he says “..the Dali Lama still seems to believe in a duality of mind and body not supported by science.”, although at least Stenger uses the qualifier “seems to”. First, having studied with some of HHDL’s teachers and having read many HHDL’s writings and some of the authors he references, I can say categorically that he does not find duality within the psyche nor what appears to be body/mind. Again, as a synthetic separation, there is the relative Mind (subjective) and there is the absolute Mind (objective), yet, he and others know that in fact these ‘two’ are consubstantial and are one. Even though Stenger is a self proclaimed practicing Buddhist, the cover of his book “God:The Fai…” includes this: “Stenger argues that science has advanced sufficiently to make a definitive statement on the existence – or nonexistence – of the traditional Judeo-Christian- Islamic-God.” Having scanned some of his words, I can see how he would appeal to the skeptic. He says all of the right things and brings a diverse background to the table for the appeal to authority. Now when it comes to Damasio, I have nothing against Portuguese behavioral neurologists. His BCI institute aiming to "gather new knowledge about the human emotions, decision-making, memory, and communication, from a neurological perspective, and to apply this knowledge to the solution of problems in the biomedical and sociocultural arenas.", is fine. I also might agree with his critique of Descartes and maybe even Spinoza. All of this being a ‘given’, I’m not sure how his research addresses anything other than the emotions and philosophy etc. which his publications address. So, thanks for sharing what apparently interests you stem! And, I have no contradiction with the beliefs of these people at all. It is all interesting fodder for thought, although, that alone is not enough to produce a definitive view. On Sep 26, 2:26 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
