----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Man cured of AIDS
> > > Horace Heffner wrote: > > The realm of science is the observable, testable, measurable > universe,> the physical universe. There may be things that exists > entirely outside > > of this physical universe, or which can occasionally be part of the > > physical universe, or occasionally affect it. Perhaps higher > > dimensional things, the existence of which here are merely lower > > dimensional projections, shadows so to speak, can on occasion be > > observed. We can not reliably observe or control things while they > > exist entirely outside our dimensions, certainly not if such > things have > > free will. It seems to me that to be an open minded scientist it is > > necessary to accept the possibility there are some things which > are not > > knowable, which are outside the domain of science and yet which > might> from time to time be part of everyday life. There may exist > both> spiritual and physical realms, with some intersection. > > > > It certainly is true that science applies to almost all > experience. By > > definition miracles are not commonplace. Many people can these > days go > > through life comfortably thinking everything can be explained by > > science. > > Only if they don't think too far, or they simply deny the validity of > any question which is difficult to frame. (The latter is a common > strategy among hard-headed "realists".) In fact an awful lot of this > issue of "everything is understood" comes right back to the central > question which can't be addressed, or even properly framed, at this > time, in the current state of our knowledge, which is "what is > consciousness?" > > I'm conscious; I'm certain of that, by direct experience. > > Are you, Horace? I would assume so, but I can't prove it, because I > have no test for consciousness, nor even a particularly good > definition. > And as I think I've observed before on this list, the lack of a > test can > be demonstrated trivially with a reductio ad absurdum: > > I will assume you are conscious, and you may assume I'm conscious. > > How about a chimpanzee? Is it conscious? Presumably so! > > How about a gorilla? Lots like a chimp, but not quite, eh? > > How about a dolphin? > > How about a sea otter? > > How about a dog? > > How about an octopus (they're highly intelligent, even if highly > alien)? > How about a giant squid? > > How about a mouse? > > How about a turtle? > > How about a snake? > > How about a worm? > > How about a cockroach? > > How about an apid? > > How about a corn plant? > > How about an amoeba? > > How about a rock? > > There's a line there somewhere between things that are conscious and > things that are not, but there's no way to determine with any > certainty*where* to draw it, because the concept of "consciousness" > is entirely > outside the ken of modern science. > > I would claim that this is a rather important hole in our current > knowledge base. > A rock, imo, is conscious of the Earth but it is not self-conscious. It is knows to fall to the earth, but it doesn't worry about hurting itself. It solves many problems if we grant consciousness to so called "dead" matter, and instead ask how uncousciousness and self-consciousness arose. Harry
