--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
[snip] > I appreciate that McGinn is leaving a shelf open for the things which are > beyond our cognitive limits. It seems wise and is in line with my own > articulation of my pet phrase "epistemological humility". But one of the > things that we also don't know is if neuro-science will crack the mystery of > consciousness. I am more optimistic and see no reason to rule it out ahead > of time. They have already breached many areas thought to be reserved for > philosophy and religion. > Really? Could you enumerate? Doesn't this idea (reeking of scientism) that "they (neuro-scientists) have already breached many areas thought to be reserved for philosophy and religion" - doesn't that idea smack of the opposite of epistemological humility? Viz. Hubris over scientific method, and its tentative conjectures? [snip] Then you say: "..And as long as we know that we can measure brain activity impulses a full second (eons in neruo-time) before an experimental subject decides to push a button exhibiting his so called "free will", we are left with the realization that our conscious mind is not the initiating factor in our decisions". "Know"? Really, we "now KNOW" this? Colour me sceptical! I can see so many methodological difficulties with an experiment such as this. I admit I don't know a lot about this research, but I see it referenced regularly. It seems to have become seminal in some quarters, and assumed "as fact". (Yet I see it it is criticised by the likes of Daniel Dennett. I found this too that I'll try to wade through: http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/9652/Default.aspx This even references our old friend "Summa Theologica"!) Apart from anything else, the logic of the experiment seems to depend on a common-sensical notion of linear (Newtonian) time? And yet, as I'm sure you know, some speculative theories of consciousness pull in quantum mechanical stuff. And at that level, why should we assume a simple linear notion of time is relevant? But in any case, how is it possible to measure the decision point, as opposed to the "awareness of the decision" point (which may of course be delayed)? All I'm saying is - it just seems very iffy. Very interesting, worthwhile and all, but fraught with difficulty. I'd suggest one could only see stuff such as this as "solving the age-old debate over free will" if you have already imbibed a large does of faith of some kind i.e. faith in a naturalistic, materialistic reductionism. But is such a faith consistent with epistemological humility?
