{Mark}
> I have been interested in applying the scientific method to that which
> cannot be measured. One example of this can be found in the writings of
> the late Evan Harris Walker, such as the Physics of Consciousness, wherein
> he defines consciousness as real, but not directly measurable. He
> speculates that our connection of such consciousness is through the
> quantum tunneling happening in the synaptic regions of the brain. His
> concept of consciousness may be similar to Quality, but is
> not hierarchical. You will find many scientists trained in physics to be
> somewhat mystical, such as Fred Alan Wolf, and Paul Davies amongst many
> others, dead and alive.
[Platt]
I'm not familiar with Walker or Wolf, but Davies is a physicist after my
own heart. He questions many shibboleths of science and pushes
contemporary S/O thinking to its limits and beyond. Among his numerous
provocative observations one of my favorites is:
"If beauty is entirely programmed, selected for its survival value alone,
it is all the more surprising to see it re-emerge in the esoteric world of
fundamental physics which has not direct connection to biology."
Like those who question conventional scientific wisdom about the Big Bang,
evolution and other ideas you describe below, Davies also as second
thoughts. In fact, like you I seek out second, third and fourth thoughts on
popular scientific and philosophical assumptions. In that regard I think
you and I are kindred spirits.
> The big bang theory is simply that. For a discussion on its shortcoming
> and a superiority of a static universe theory (in which there is no
> directional change) see papers by the late Thomas van Flanders and others
> at metaresearch.com. For
> example, http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.as
> p
>
> Respectable scientific refutation of Darwinistic evolution can be found at
> evolutionnews.org, (some of it may be "religious" to you, but there is
> also sound science). Unfortunately the concept of evolution is found
> everywhere in today's world because it helps justify behavior. The idea
> that it is directional or goal oriented is misleading in my mind. If it
> is through natural selection, then what is doing the selecting?
> Statistics refutes a random selection process (reference lost), and it
> has been found to be mathematically impossible through mutation (reference
> also lost). In my mind, what becomes, is simply filling in the gap left
> by what is. There is no struggle.
>
> In terms of mathematical representation of reality, Godel's theorem puts a
> crimp in that, as the great physicist Steven Hawking is coming to terms
> with in http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/
>
> I have recently become interested in Syncronicity and find Dr. Roth
> entertaining at http://www.psychovision.ch/rfr/roth_e_synchronicity.htm.
> Indeed, the collective consciousness of Jung is very appealing.
>
> I can go on, but these are simply my personal road signs during my
> journey. Science, for me, is a tool for labeling and organizing
> experiences in a useful, and possibly, meaningful way which can be
> communicated. The spectrum of scientists ranges from the purely
> technical, to the entirely creative. Any assumption should be questioned,
> in my opinion. My reality is no more meaningful than that of a
> dung beetle. In fact, though all this labeling I create a cage which
> separates me from Quality much more than the dung beetle may be (but who
> knows?)
>
> Sorry for the lengthy discourse.
No worries. I find your remarks and ideas most interesting as you journey
into regions where your fellow scientists and their acolytes fear to tread,
especially in the field of evolution whose defenders border on manic.
Where we might possibly disagree is that the examples you cite do not IMO
challenge any of the assumptions I listed that scientists adhere to in
their pursuit of their versions of truth. For example, that consciousness
cannot be measured puts it outside the purview of traditional science.
Otherwise there would be no need for a special group devoted to unravelling
its mysteries like the Sante Fe Institute.
Thanks for suggesting other pioneers besides Davies that I can look into.
Platt
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
