Orn, Thank you for the well presented response. (And civil I might add...and enlightening) However, I do not recall even mentioning introspection. If I gave you the impression that I was hinting at some kind of introspection then that was not the case.
Orn. said, "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’,.." Why would he consider something as subjective as "introspection" if Neuroscience tells us that the mind is what the brain does? It is natural and arises out of/from the processes of the brain itself. Orn said, (in a link to an article...you did not actually say it but you typed it.) "he clearly is a reactionary Catholic." How is this other than a red herring? What does this have to do with objective, emperical scientific findings? You left out "2000- Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado" for Victor Stengers' credentials in the above post about all his knowledge in the area of Physics and Astrobiology. I would like to suggest a paper from Stenger called "Quantum Quackery" in addition to his other writings. In his writing "God the Failed...." he states at the beginning that he is not trying to discount all gods or fanciful imagings...wait...let me copy and paste here his own words..... "In my 2003 book Has Science Found God? I provided a critique of contemporary claims that science supports the existence of God and found them inadequate. In this book, I go much further and argue that science makes a strong case against the existence a God with the traditional attributes of the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God. My argument is not based simply on the gross absence of evidence for this God. Not only is there no evidence for God, I argue that the evidence we have can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist. Not only does the universe show no evidence for God, it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God. In a final chapter I show why it is preferable to live in a Godless universe." Victor Stenger I still have a hard time trying to understand how an soul that is weightless, lacks mass, electrical charge, odorless, invisible, etc. (inmaterial) can have any effect on mater. How does this work? What are the objective standards that you go by to reach the conclusion that it exist? I am just seeking. stemcell On Sep 26, 7:28 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
