David Gelernter's attack on materialist chutzpah: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-closing-of-the-scientific-mind/
-- rec -- On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Rich Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mark M (Giese) <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:02 PM > Subject: [sethmessageboard] ten core beliefs that most scientists take for > granted [1 attachment] > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > [email protected], [email protected] > > > > Ask Deepak <https://www.deepakchopra.com/blog/category/15/ask_deepak> > Video Blog<https://www.deepakchopra.com/video/category/14/ask_deepak_videos> > [image: Rupert Sheldrake] > August 27 2013 Rupert Sheldrake Ph.D Category: Guest > Bloggers<https://www.deepakchopra.com/blog/category/5/guest_bloggers> > Biography > > <https://www.deepakchopra.com/blog/view/1267/_the_scientific_creed_and_the_credibility_crunch_for_materialism#> > The Scientific Creed and the Credibility Crunch for Materialism > by *Rupert Sheldrake*, Ph.D; biologist and author of Science Set > Free<http://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927> > > The “scientific worldview” is immensely influential because the sciences > have been so successful. No one can fail to be awed by their achievements, > which touch all our lives through technologies and through modern medicine. > Our intellectual world has been transformed through an immense expansion > of our knowledge, down into the most microscopic particles of matter and > out into the vastness of space, with hundreds of billions of galaxies in an > ever-expanding universe. > > Yet in the second decade of the twenty-first century, when science and > technology seem to be at the peak of the power, when their influence has > spread all over the world and when their triumph seems indisputable, > unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within. Most > scientists take it for granted that these problems will eventually be > solved by more research along established lines, but some, including > myself, think that they are symptoms of a deeper malaise. Science is being > held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The > sciences would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and > more fun. > > The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the > answers. The details still need working out, but the fundamental questions > are settled, in principle. > Contemporary science is based on the claim that all reality is material or > physical. There is no reality but material reality. Consciousness is a > by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. > Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in human minds, and > hence in human heads. > > These beliefs are powerful not because most scientists think about them > critically, but because they don’t. The facts of science are real enough, > and so are the techniques that scientists use, and so are the technologies > based on them. But the belief system that governs conventional scientific > thinking is an act of faith, grounded in a nineteenth century ideology. > > > *The scientific creed * > > Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted. > > 1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex > mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even > people are machines, “lumbering robots”, in Richard Dawkins’ vivid phrase, > with brains that are like genetically programmed computers. > > 2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or > point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the > material activities of brains. > > 3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the > exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe > suddenly appeared). > > 4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at > the beginning, and they will stay the same forever. > > 5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction. > > 6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic > material, DNA, and in other material structures. > > 7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. > When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out > there”, where it seems to be, but inside your brain. > > 8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at > death. > > 9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory. > > 10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works. > > > Together, these beliefs make up the philosophy or ideology of materialism, > whose central assumption is that everything is essentially material or > physical, even minds. This belief-system became dominant within science in > the late nineteenth century, and is now taken for granted. Many scientists > are unaware that materialism is an assumption; they simply think of it as > science, or the scientific view of reality, or the scientific worldview. > They are not actually taught about it, or given a chance to discuss it. > They absorb it by a kind of intellectual osmosis. > > In everyday usage, materialism refers to a way of life devoted entirely to > material interests, a preoccupation with wealth, possessions and luxury. > These attitudes are no doubt encouraged by the materialist philosophy, > which denies the existence of any spiritual realities or non-material > goals, but in this article I am concerned with materialism’s scientific > claims, rather than its effects on lifestyles. > > In the spirit of radical scepticism, each of these ten doctrines can be > turned into a question, as I show in my book Science Set Free (called The > Science Delusion in the UK). Entirely new vistas open up when a widely > accepted assumption is taken as the beginning of an enquiry, rather than as > an unquestionable truth. For example, the assumption that nature is > machine-like or mechanical becomes a question: “Is nature mechanical?” The > assumption that matter is unconscious becomes “Is matter unconscious?” And > so on. > > *The credibility crunch for the “scientific worldview”* > > For more than 200 years, materialists have promised that science will > eventually explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry. Science > will prove that living organisms are complex machines, minds are nothing > but brain activity and nature is purposeless. Believers are sustained by > the faith that scientific discoveries will justify their beliefs. The > philosopher of science Karl Popper called this stance "promissory > materialism" because it depends on issuing promissory notes for discoveries > not yet made. Despite all the achievements of science and technology, > materialism is now facing a credibility crunch that was unimaginable in the > twentieth century. > > In 1963, when I was studying biochemistry at Cambridge University, I was > invited to a series of private meetings with Francis Crick and Sydney > Brenner in Brenner's rooms in King's College, along with a few of my > classmates. Crick and Brenner had recently helped to “crack” the genetic > code. Both were ardent materialists and Crick was also a militant atheist. > They explained there were two major unsolved problems in biology: > development and consciousness. They had not been solved because the people > who worked on them were not molecular biologists—nor very bright. Crick and > Brenner were going to find the answers within 10 years, or maybe 20. > Brenner would take developmental biology, and Crick consciousness. They > invited us to join them. > > Both tried their best. Brenner was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2002 for his > work on the development of a tiny worm, Caenorhabdytis elegans. Crick > corrected the manuscript of his final paper on the brain the day before he > died in 2004. At his funeral, his son Michael said that what made him tick > was not the desire to be famous, wealthy or popular, but "to knock the > final nail into the coffin of vitalism." (Vitalism is the theory that > living organisms are truly alive, and not explicable in terms of physics > and chemistry alone.) > Crick and Brenner failed. The problems of development and consciousness > remain unsolved. Many details have been discovered, dozens of genomes have > been sequenced, and brain scans are ever more precise. But there is still > no proof that life and minds can be explained by physics and chemistry > alone. > > The fundamental proposition of materialism is that matter is the only > reality. Therefore consciousness is nothing but brain activity. It is > either like a shadow, an “epiphenomenon”, that does nothing, or it is just > another way of talking about brain activity. However, among contemporary > researchers in neuroscience and consciousness studies there is no consensus > about the nature of minds. Leading journals such as Behavioural and Brain > Sciences and the Journal of Consciousness Studies publish many articles > that reveal deep problems with the materialist doctrine. The philosopher > David Chalmers has called the very existence of subjective experience the > "hard problem”. It is hard because it defies explanation in terms of > mechanisms. Even if we understand how eyes and brains respond to red light, > the experience of redness is not accounted for. > > In biology and psychology the credibility rating of materialism is > falling. Can physics ride to the rescue? Some materialists prefer to call > themselves physicalists, to emphasize that their hopes depend on modern > physics, not nineteenth-century theories of matter. But physicalism's own > credibility rating has been reduced by physics itself, for four reasons: > First, some physicists insist that quantum mechanics cannot be formulated > without taking into account the minds of observers. They argue that minds > cannot be reduced to physics because physics presupposes the minds of > physicists. > > Second, the most ambitious unified theories of physical reality, string > and M-theories, with ten and eleven dimensions respectively, take science > into completely new territory. Strangely, as Stephen Hawking tells us in > his book The Grand Design (2010), “No one seems to know what the ‘M’ stands > for, but it may be ‘master’, ‘miracle’ or ‘mystery’”. According to what > Hawking calls “model-dependent realism”, different theories may have to be > applied in different situations. “Each theory may have its own version of > reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so > long as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that > is, whenever they can both be applied”. > > String theories and M-theories are currently untestable, so > “model-dependent realism” can only be judged by reference to other models, > rather than by experiment. It also applies to countless other universes, > none of which has ever been observed. > Some physicists are deeply sceptical about this entire approach, as the > theoretical physicist Lee Smolin shows in his book The Trouble With > Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes > Next (2008). String theories, M-theories and “model-dependent realism” are > a shaky foundation for materialism or physicalism or any other belief > system. > > Third, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, it has become > apparent that the known kinds of matter and energy make up only about 4 > percent of the universe. The rest consists of “dark matter” and “dark > energy”. The nature of 96 percent of physical reality is literally obscure. > > Fourth, the Cosmological Anthropic Principle asserts that if the laws and > constants of nature had been slightly different at the moment of the Big > Bang, biological life could never have emerged, and hence we would not be > here to think about it. So did a divine mind fine-tune the laws and > constants in the beginning? To avoid a creator God emerging in a new guise, > most leading cosmologists prefer to believe that our universe is one of a > vast, and perhaps infinite, number of parallel universes, all with > different laws and constants, as M-theory also suggests. We just happen to > exist in the one that has the right conditions for us. > > This multiverse theory is the ultimate violation of Ockham's Razor, the > philosophical principle that “entities must not be multiplied beyond > necessity”, or in other words that we should make as few assumptions as > possible. It also has the major disadvantage of being untestable. And it > does not even succeed in getting rid of God. An infinite God could be the > God of an infinite number of universes. > > Materialism provided a seemingly simple, straightforward worldview in the > late nineteenth century, but twenty-first century science has left it far > behind. Its promises have not been fulfilled, and its promissory notes have > been devalued by hyperinflation. > I am convinced that the sciences are being held back by assumptions that > have hardened into dogmas, maintained by powerful taboos. These beliefs > protect the citadel of established science, but act as barriers against > open-minded thinking. > > > This article is based on Rupert Sheldrake’s book Science Set > Free<http://www.deepakchopra.com/book/view/927>, > published in paperback on September 3. Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and > author of more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books. He was a Fellow of > Clare College, Cambridge, a Research Fellow of the Royal Society, Principal > Plant Physiologist at ICRISAT (the International Crops Research Institute > for the Semi-Arid Tropics) in Hyderabad, India, and from 2005-2010 the > Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project, funded from Trinity College, > Cambridge University. His web site is www.sheldrake.org. > > > https://www.deepakchopra.com/blog/view/1267/_the_scientific_creed_and_the_credibility_crunch_for_materialism > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
<<15058b575a3c635.33388277.jpg>>
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
