Evening, Mark --
I am not a fan of Dawkins as he has got a novices notion
of god. While his enthusiasm may play well to those with
a literal understanding of such a thing, it has no effect on
those who know such a god. His mission is to place the
intellect and that which is known (which is not much) as
an argument against that which is not known (which is
much much more). MoQ does a similar thing, but I can
appreciate MoQ as it is less arrogant. It may provide
meaning in our current experience, which is all one could
hope for. Dawkins' subservience to the grand brain is
comical at times.
We are all "novices" when it comes to defining the uncreated source. What
annoys me, however, is the arrogance of those who vehemently deny the
supernatural on the ground that theology is based on superstition and
mythology. Such people fancy themselves so "enlightened" in their nihilism
that they have no need for spirituality or belief in a higher reality. I
think D'Souza's argument is vindicated by the historical fact that, despite
the Crusades of the Middle Ages and the witch hunts of colonial times, the
most stable, moral, and technologically advanced nations in the free world
have been founded on Christian principles.
I would like to discuss for a little bit the notion that science
because it is objective, cannot get very far with an understanding
of the subjective. That is, how science would falter when trying
to explain negation of essence. When electrodes are placed in
the brain, personal thoughts can be evoked, indicating a link
between bioelectrical signals and our sense of awareness.
While there is no way to prove (at this time) that our thoughts
are in any way linked to the physical world, such brain probing
may provide insight. Such science would have to take on much
more than just the physical evocation of thoughts, it would have to
describe a direct causal linkage between those thoughts and
our personal sense of them.
I noticed that my previous post was sent twice, I didn't think I
had sent the first one. But as they say near here in the Los Angeles
Valley, WATEVERR! (with attitude). But anyway, I will end with
a question: What is it about our personal sense of negation that
makes it unavailable for scientific inquiry? I do not have an answer,
but can certainly think about it though dialogue.
First, let's consider the basis of scientific methodology. The method is
"objective" because it systematically minimizes the influence of subjective
bias (experimenter prejudice) when testing a hypothesis or theory. This is
achieved through four major steps: 1) Observation and description of a
phenomenon or group of phenomena, 2) Formulation of a hypothesis to explain
the phenomena (in physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal
mechanism or a mathematical relation), 3) Use of the hypothesis to predict
the existence of related phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results
of new observations, and 4) Replication of the tests by independent
experimenters and properly performed experiments. Lastly, the hypotheses
and conclusions of science are always open to revision or revocation should
subsequent evidence prove contradictory.
For the scientific investigator a "phenomenon" is an empirical occurrence or
change capable of being measured statistically. Because reality for the
scientist is limited to observable phenomena that are measurable in units of
time and space, researchers are trained to reject information that cannot be
expressed in numbers or equations, or that is incapable of experimental
confirmation. Thus, whether the evidence is the percentage yield of a
chemical reaction or the spectographic analysis of a star cluster, the
results are obtained in numerical terms. The more that an experiment is
replicated, the greater the accuracy (reliability) of the result.
This is all well and efficacious when determining the properties and
dynamics of physical entities or coming up with new solutions to pragmatic
problems. But it is also formulaic in that scientists assume that every
effect has a cause (which is true only within a relational system), that
their "objective" method is free of subjective influences (which is false,
because empirical data must be interpreted by experience which is always
subjective), and that the laws of physics are "universal" (when, in fact,
they are intellectually deduced from experiential evidence). When science
is applied to investigating "subjective awareness", what the researchers
report is information about neuro-physiological functioning, anatomical
responses, and behavioral changes. In other words, they can only explain
mind, thought and feeling in terms of statistical data.
I'll leave your question to a later post, since I'm not sure what you mean
by "our sense of negation." The concept of negation which I borrowed from
Heidegger to explain creation (ontogeny) is highly controversial in these
circles, and I've avoided the full explanation you would need to conclude
that we're in accord on the subject. Besides, it's a metaphysical theory
with no particular relevance to empirical science that I'm aware of.
Thanks for opening up this dialogue, Mark. I hope my comments on the
limitations of science in exploring subjective awareness is useful to you.
Cheers,
Ham
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/
