I think science has stuck itself with a metaphysics Alan - largely by looking to extirpate Mumbo-Jumbo. Dawkins often reads like a third rate sociologist and that has to be very bad as sociology itself has almost died from pretension. I have no problem moving away from tired religious dogma but object to having to swallow equally tired and unthought through modern jingos. I take it that science has played a major role in unseating false authority and exposing much 'argument' as fable and I know it's often very hard work and beyond many. I have also seen no sign scientists are much better at general reasoning than other intelligent people. We need to separate idiots who would wave Sooty's Magic Wand over patients needing serious surgery from the surgeons, but I don't think we engage with a great deal of serious argument about much that does matter. I see your point about a return to before some of the current corruption, but we have also to take a more proper account of scientific demonstration and the role of doxa in much decision-making. When it comes to the history-philosophy of science I'm afraid we seem to operate on almost no clue at all in general reasoning. 'Straw models and definitions" are everywhere.
On 3 Oct, 19:56, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > You feel we "are not good at incorporating what we know from science > into speculation that might help us define-explain concepts like > consciousness and the extent to which scientific paradigms can limit > our thinking adversely". This is the chief advantage of reading > premodern philosophers. They do not share the reigning scientific > paradigm which bans 'why' questions. > > You know how parochial our view when Aquinas for example writes "every > agent acts for an end". Every agent? Even unconscious ones, like a > moon orbiting it's planet? Yes. On the classic view most of the > teleology in the world is unconscious. As Ed Feser puts it athttp://tr.im/AyWJ > > "If you are going to understand Aristotle and Aquinas, the first thing > you need to do is put out of your mind everything that you’ve come to > associate with words like “purpose,” “final cause,” “teleology,” and > the like under the influence of what you’ve read about the Darwinism > vs. Intelligent Design debate, Paley’s design argument, etc. None of > that is relevant." > > On Oct 3, 9:40 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think the why question here opens up a massive field on enquiry that > > challenges some ingrained 'science thinking'. Kuhn once split science > > between normal and revolutionary - the first perhaps routinised the > > latter more creative and questioning. At the more revolutionary end I > > feel we are not good at incorporating what we know from science into > > speculation that might help us define-explain concepts like > > consciousness and the extent to which even scientific paradigms can > > limit our thinking adversely. Dawkins often wants to ban 'why' > > questions (he isn't a good philosopher or social scientist) - I can > > sympathise a bit when it comes to 'god explanations' - yet this seems > > to shut off much of why we should be interested in any enquiry. In > > critical thinking generally we often find much we have assumed is not > > backed by evidence or runs contrary to what we have. If we have > > assumed some benevolent genie and wait around for it to help we are > > likely to be disappointed - but often there are clues around which we > > can base more satisfactory methods. Molly seems to have some of the > > right questions here - but I suspect there are many more. > > > On 3 Oct, 14:44, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think it boils down to our brains. :-)// Our parents chose to give > > > us life- sometimes it is better not to explore the motives. They have > > > no control over the result- be glad if you have a courageous spirit. > > > > On Oct 3, 8:02 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > As far as the brain goes, does the engine of the car drive the car, or > > > > do you? I suppose we all have our auto pilot, that allows us to move > > > > through our experience with minimal consciousness to it. But our > > > > experience is grounded in the body, and the brain seems to be central > > > > to that, although I suspect the body in total is more accurate. > > > > Individual consciousness contains our total potentiality and > > > > awareness, that includes the body and more. Why? Another question > > > > would be, did we choose life, or did life choose us? Our desire to > > > > continue in live seems to be directly related to our vitality. > > > > > On Oct 3, 8:14 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It's always possible we live in 'Delusionville' rather than as > > > > > conscious, sentient beings. This would explain a lot of problematic > > > > > nastiness like Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and the underperformance > > > > > of Warrington Rugby League Football Club. However, as Roger Penrose > > > > > points out, there seems no Earthly reason why evolution should have > > > > > developed consciousness (assuming it has, as there is a potential > > > > > chicken and egg here) as much complex happens other than in what we > > > > > have named consciousness as an emergent property of human brains. > > > > > Neural density is higher in parts of the brain we don't associate with > > > > > consciousness as such an emergent property. After all, evolution > > > > > tends to proceed by killing species off, job presumably done. > > > > > > So 'why' consciousness?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
