Hi y'all - I'd just like to nit pick your Victor Stenger comment. I haven't found the time to read his book yet, but I will. Nevertheless, if, as you point out, he uses physics to back up his assertion that there is no god, I have no problem with that. On the other hand you suggest that we should be using introspection to search for a god. I know that Stem would not support that. Neither do I, but perhaps we are not looking for a god or a soul but a subconscious - now that's right up my street, and I'll follow your lead.
On Sep 26, 6:28 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 Jameshttp://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/0,20867,21334644-5003900,0... > 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. > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
