“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.” – Clog
I wouldn’t expect you to have a problem with that. However, the problem with accepting the use of physics alone in looking for the divine is that, so far, I’ve not seen it written nor agreed upon, nor even found evidence that physics by itself can locate or find let alone explain the divine. It is clear that, so far, physics has not been able to do this and, so far, I haven’t found a specific experiment using physics that claimed that it’s goal was to find god. All one finds is a bunch of assumptions, beliefs and logic of sophism. Here is an example from Stenger himself: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm Please note that this is all dialectics and rhetoric and not science. I await the experiment that gives clear evidence of the divine. And, IF one accepts things like the above list from Stenger, would you not agree that it is impossible to prove a negative? Here I’m talking about rhetoric and ‘logic’ of some sort or another and not science. Again, if you have a specific experiment that proves without a doubt that there is no divinity, I for one would find it quite interesting. “On the other hand you suggest that we should be using introspection to search for a god.” – Clog No, not for ‘a god’. For the absolute at the very least, of course. This part is not that hard to do for many people. “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.” – Clog Well, since this is an open and acceptable area for you and Stem to explore, what exactly is meant by subconscious for you? At least we can continue to explore together this way. On Sep 26, 5:56 pm, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
