A polite site for those interested in discussing questions about science, religion and philosophy. Its aim to facilitate learning and understanding about the world.
I'm not sure dualism per se is equivalent to ID . Dualism is the assertion that something is unaccounted for by reductionist theories of mind . Substance dualism goes further by positing the existence of "mind stuff" , there may be some case for comparing that with ID . Though I'm not sure it's fair to call it a cop out in the sense ID is .
Property dualism , dual-aspect monism or epiphenomenalism seem only to be saying that things such as qualia actually exist and must be accounted for in some way . It is very hard to see how subjective experience can be reduced to brain states . Unless we are wedded to a materialist ontology , I don't see why dualism of the types above should be such a stretch .
I am personally more draw to neutral monism , if a fundamental substance exists it is neither mind or matter but something that has aspects of both . I think wave/particle duality provides a good analogy here . Something that has aspects of both wave and particle can actually be neither . So it may be with substance .
Boltonian - thanks for that. Quickly looking back, you are quite right that I hardly refuted your comparison with ID. I think SpacePenguin's point - with relation to philosophy of mind - offers a reasonable avenue to how one might go about trying to mount an argument against such a comparison.
First off, ID has 'bad' connotations in most fora, with - as SpPingu noted - notions of a 'cop out'. The transferal of these connotations into analyses of, say, particular (scholastic) notions of form and matter are not sustainable. Aristotelian inspired metaphysics are not a cop out in the same way (which is not to say that it is necessarily right). There is a school of thought that would make all metaphysics a series of fanciful cop outs except for, the story goes, a particular type of materialist metaphysics (and this is nonetheless implied where proponents deny they are 'doing metaphysics' - I'm reminded of aristotle's point that those who argue against philosophy are adopting a philosophical position).
Second, 'sociologically'(?), ID seems to be reactive, a reaction to the (perceived) implications of evolutionary theory. (Incidentally, I recall asking a theist analytical philosopher, a typically sardonic brit who is based in Houston, about ID: and he just said he doesn't know why they're wasting their time: the kind of 'design argument' employed, even if it works, doesn't quite point to any of the attributes even of the 'philosopher's God', just some beings who are pretty good designers, sort of cosmic graphic desginers - a sobering thought). The kind of thinking about act/potentiality, form/matter etc, didn't come about in the same way. It came from attending to (or attempting to attend to) the ultimate nature of reality. Intellectually speaking, Bonaventure (admittedly not such an Aristotelian) and Behe don't (in my humble opinion and all that) really seem to be comparable. And the 'size' of what they are speculating about is v different. Am rather tired, but hope this goes a little way to explain why I don't buy the comparison (or don't buy the comparison if 'dualism' entails the admittedly broad category 'scholasticism').
On spiritual: I mentioned this in passing, not to get into 'spiritual' in quite the sense you (perhaps) mean. (Hope not being unfair). Martin RDB - reasonably yet I feel risking misleadingly - spoke of the categories of the 'material' and 'spiritual' in scholastic thought. I touched on spiritual in the more 'mystical' sense just to emphasise that I'm not denying these thinkers were largely v devout. But as conceptual categories, 'spiritual' - with its modern connotations - is not so helpful to my mind. Moreover, the separation of categories is quite right (and indeed, the medievals categorise like crazy) if one adds that they also stressed some v important holistic points: e.g. form and matter are separable in a sense (and certainly in thought), but are instantiated in (real) things.
Sorry, have gone on a fair bit. I have a sense that there is some serious pedantry going on here, so further apologies. And if the post has been grumpy, again, forgive me: as above, rather tired...
But couldn't get to sleep. To ask again - and I ask out of genuine curiosity - if we say that no thing exists without our perceiving it, doesn't that include others? If this is so - and I tend to think it would follow - there is a slight tension in talking about our varying perceptions of the world etc insofar as other beings are objects of our (or, better, my) perceptions (and interpretations). Or have I got this completely wrong?
Just dropped in to see how free will was unfolding...
And yes, what I was describing in terms of the fundamental paradox of "it is and it is not" cannot be described as dualism, for that is to imply that the truth lies in the positions themselves, whereas it seems to me that the early scholastics saw truth as something revealed and unfolded in the relationship, not in the position.
This belongs to time-thinking man. The ontological categories "potens" and "actus" (as opposed to our thinking in terms of subject and object, res cogitans and res extensa) are processual and of the flux of events. Actus is the realm not so much of the "res" but of eventuation. Things are, in a sense "eventings" as everything arises from potens into actus and again sinks back into potens. Heraclitus would feel at home here, while Paremindes would not.
It seems to me that this type of time-sensitive awareness (as well as a sensitivity to paradox) is making a comeback, only half-understood it seems as "value relativism", but which foreshadows instead "relationalism," where truth is not found in positions, but rather is revealed in process. This kind of relationalism is performed in the dialogical situation, which attracted the attention of David Bohm perhaps for that reason, since his "undivided whole in flowing movement" (which would, I believe, easily be understood to a medieval thinker as "potens")is not unconnected with his interest in dialogue (cf his book On Dialogue). In Bohm also one detects a shift in sensitivity from the spatial to the temporal.
The relationship appears all important in this kind of thinking, the relationship of Venus and its representative flower (non-locality or translocality prefigured here); the relationship aeternitas et saeculum, or the immortal and mortal, or immensity and mensity. Generations of Cartesian influence has conditioned to jump from diction to contradiction without much consideration for the relationship between, more or less made evident in the supposed incommensurate character of mind and body (relationship disappears from the logic eclipsed by the positions). And Descartes' declaration that time was inexplicable, a miracle performed by God daily already attests to the fact that eventuation, process, relationship and such concepts that belong to time-thinking man had ceased to have any influence on thought.
For all these other categories -- potens et actus; aeternitas et saeculum; immortalis et mortalis -- these are primarily temporal orientations, and the real action (ie, "revelation" as temporal unfolding of truth) lay between them, rather than *in* them.
It occurred to me, after my last post, that another way of representing scholastic thinking is as "liturgical thinking". It is the method of call and response or, put equivalently, the method of vocation and profession.
That might seem an odd way of putting it -- "the method of vocation and profession", but that pertains to the very meaning of liturgy as "people work", which belongs, inevitably, to the Christian prime directive "be thou therefore perfect, even as thy Father in Heaven..." so that liturgical thinking is oriented towards history as the process of godman-making eventuating in Kingdom Come, as it were.
Here, the time element is outstanding, and especially the relationship between call and response, or vocation and profession. Here, God is not a being in the past as he becomes later to the Deists as primum mobile, or great clockmaker, located in the remote past. For the scholastics, however, God is primarily in the future, calling man to join him there as his sacred appointment (which makes for an interesting take on the meaning of "dis-appointment").
Man's position, on the other hand, is in the past by relation, for his response or professio is literally a "speaking forward" (and in a sense, to progress here is to profess -- "I come"). And regardless of what we think of the validity or invalidity of this, there is a beautiful logical consistency to the various categories of early scholastic thought which was woven on the loom of time.
And of course, to such time-centric thinking, space is irrelevant. Keeping the appointment, the work of liturgy, is the all-important aim.
And there is little doubt that this liturgical method subtly, tacitly, subliminally, continues, to some extent anyway (perhaps more doubtful presently insofar as we are at "the end of history" and are now, in a sense, dis-appointed) to be formative of who we are today, too. Our notions of time as "progress" (which is fairly unique to the Western tradition) seems rooted in liturgical thinking, although we confuse the terms "vocation" and "profession" today, which were formerly separate acts or processes in time, as call and response.
We might even call this time-thinking type, "liturgical man".
Not been on CiF for a while - what is the unpleasant fellow up to now?
SpaceP, ChooChoo:
I think my issue is more with categorisation than with how dualism was arrived at. I do think that mind/body dualism is a bit of a cop out for we have no substantial evidence to support it. Descartes tried to put his finger on it by locating the Pineal gland as the source of the fusion without success.
Also, I think that it has bedevilled philosophical thought for so long without a resolution. I can't help thinking that is it a Chimaera of our own making.
I don't yet think we are in a position to completely dismiss brain functionality (a la Churchland). If I had to put money on it right now I suspect that SpaceP is the closest and mind is an aspect of something we think of as material because that is the way our thinking works. Wave/particle duality is a very good analogy.
ChooChoo:
I am not sure that I quite follow your second post:
'To ask again - and I ask out of genuine curiosity - if we say that no thing exists without our perceiving it, doesn't that include others?'
I am not sure what you mean by, 'Others.'
I do not say that nothing exists beyond our perceptions but it would be impossible to verify. How can we know anything about what we are not capable of perceiving, even indirectly?
Pleased to see ChooChoo & Spacepenguin back in action here....as a steadfast materialist, this is for me a time to read and be silent....except on one tiny point. Without wishing to be rude, my heart sinks whenever elements of quantum theory are invoked with respect to philosophical dualism. Few physicists are philosophers (although these days, it's de riguer to *claim* to be); even fewer philosophers are quantum physicists....and yet each is quick to leap to the other's precarious stepping stone in the river when he reaches the limit of his own speciality....I fear they might both fall in.... ;-}
boltonian : "Not been on CiF for a while - what is the unpleasant fellow up to now?"
It was a thread about Oscar, the cat who's reputed to be able to predict the next death amongst the inhabitants of a care home. It's a topic that had been discussed with humour, and obviously some scepticism. But light scepticism isn't enough for you-know-who, who felt the need to insult several posters who had tentatively suggested possible explanations other than the "it's all bollocks" one. Some insults were removed (the mods have a slightly heavier hand these days), but not, strangely, the ones addressed to Biskieboo & AlexJones. Read all about it here:
Me? I'm back to the arts blogs, where you get a different class of insult (sometimes, as with OvidYeats, so obscure that you can't even tell whether you've been insulted or not....)
Boltonian - sorry, the question wasn't v clear. Let me try again. We (here and elsewhere) often discuss - reasonably - the question of our perceptions, realism etc. For instance, we might note how differently two people respond to the same thing - event, place etc. (Incidentally, I think that this is more than just a question of perception; it is also one of interpretation). Now, if one were to follow this to the extent of suggesting that what exists first and foremost are our (or, again, better still, my) perceptions, impressions, interpretations etc... would there be much weight in pointing to different people's differing perceptions? After all, the 'level' at which we're talking about as being of prime importance effectively entails some form of solipsism (i.e. I don't have knowledge of 'outside world' but of 'my perceptions' etc). I didn't have you in mind when asking this: it just struck me - and it refers to a quite specific position - and, at the risk of sounding like a therapy group, wanted to share it...
Wrt dualism: I think, like you, I'm not enamoured of Cartesian-style dualism. But, how exactly is it arrived at? Or to put it another way, I am not always sure exactly what we mean by evidence. In some metaphysical systems, the thinking is not predicated on 'evidence' in the way my (botched) year 8 chemistry experiments were supposed to be (why should they be?); but, at the same time, such thought is not divorced from thinking about 'evidence' insofar as it - for instance - reflects on 'being' in an admittedly 'ultimate' way, but drawing not only upon reflection or even reason, but also on perceptions and sense impressions. My knowledge of Descartes is not great, but his dualism is not completely will o the wisp: there are, if remember correctly, rationalistic reasons he gives for it (admittedly more a prioristic than 'evidence-based': but is there not any role for reasoning which is not 'evidence-based'?).
Steve - checked out that Oscar thread: poor Biskieboo (who, to my incredulity, was accused of arrogance). I am sure that the ArtsBlog invective will be more imaginative than those on the FootballBlogs: I guess it's a dangerous game, though, because if your insult contains fewer than three literary references, then it degenerates into a cause of serious embarassment for yourself. Be careful, Steve, and tread carefully.
Well, to quote the immortal Fletch, 'He really is a charmless nerk.'
daddyOMarcos:
You put your finger on it. If he could see how he appears to the world - 'God help him.' (Irony intentional).
'Wad some pow'r the giftie gie us To see oorsels as others see us.'
Or perhaps not in his case.
Anyway, Biskieboo, there are no uncivilised WMLs here.
ChooChoo:
Thanks for the clarification.
I think you are right to bring in interpretation here. It is not solely, or even mainly, about what we perceive but what sense we make of it. We try to make sense of the world with reference to our experience, so the wider our experience the greater the depth our perceptive apparatus will appear to have become.
For the things we cannot explain otherwise, we create a story that will explain the missing bits. This story will change as we begin to understand more of the bits, as it were. Thus my perception of the world changes over time.
We need to be careful here that we don't start looking for things that are not there, which I think is a very difficult area. Group-think plays a huge part here. If everybody one knows believes in, say, the Biblical God, the Gospel accounts of Jesus and the Holy Trinity it is very difficult to resist arriving at the same conclusion, despite the lack of evidence one has access to personally.
We know how powerful this is simply by watching crowd behaviour. To give an example, a friend's uncle found himself in pre-war Germany and decided to attend a Nazi rally out of curiosity. He was very much anti-Nazi and just went along to see what these absurd people got up to. Also, he had very little German. But (and you know what's coming) by the end he was shouting, 'Sich Heil' with the rest of them. Fortunately for him the spell lasted only until he left the rally but it scared him.
Re-rationalism. A priori reasoning has always left me cold because one must base it on something solid and on close examination the premiss is usually an assumption. So, we pile the Pelion of reasoned argument upon the Ossa of an assumption. A house built on sand. Also, no matter how small the steps there is always room for variation.
Even the great Descartes couldn't avoid this, otherwise how did he get from, 'Cogito ergo sum,' to the 'Proven' existence of God?
All we can legitimately say about solipsism, I think, is that we cannot disprove it - but let's make a reasonable assumption that it is not the case. So, I am discussing philosophy with a group of independent beings and not having a dream or some such. I cannot prove it but I am happy to go along with this as a working hypothesis until there is evidence to the contrary.
I should make it clear that i was referencing wave/particle duality solely as an analogy . Simply to point out that if a thing has aspects of two other things then it cannot be either of those other things .
I have seen quantum theories of mind and I'm not that impressed . I'm not sure I've seen mind/body dualism defended via quantum theory , did you have a specific example in mind (and/or body) ?
Spacepenguin : yes, I see that the w/p reference was just an analogy. It's just a pet hate of mine that discussions elsewhere about consciousness invariably end up drawing some ridiculous conclusion involving a half-baked understanding of quantum theory - the perpetrators usually being neuroscientists who wouldn't recognise a quantum if it bit them on the arse....(and I speak as an erstwhile neuropharmacologist)....I certainly wasn't targetting my earlier comment at you (I have a mental image of you as a physicist, from comments you've made on other threads, and thus assume that you're much better versed in quantum matters than me); however, it would be daft to pretend that it wasn't your comment that triggered my rant ;-}
Boltonian writes: "All we can legitimately say about solipsism, I think, is that we cannot disprove it - but let's make a reasonable assumption that it is not the case. So, I am discussing philosophy with a group of independent beings and not having a dream or some such. I cannot prove it but I am happy to go along with this as a working hypothesis until there is evidence to the contrary."
Note that the teachings I espoused are not at all in the solipsism camp.
The creation of unique physical or space continua occurs -- in those teachings -- within a larger context wherein all & everything is thoroughly connected, just not _physically_.
The dualism of Gnostics, Cathars, and Bogomils does not apply, either; matter is not seen as lesser, or somehow dirty or evil, but rather as a kind of congealed thought or psychic energy, each "thing" unique to each person's space continuum but sharing certain "objective" characteristics, these last extremely difficult to define.
An object, then, is created within one's field by that person; "objectivity" deals with why such a particular object, above and beyond unconsciously agreed upon shared parameters.
The individual is considered almost sacred in these teachings, despite being part of vast conglomerations of being and identity, while there is always "other," even if other is, at the same time, self.
Steve (and SpaceP), I also, had intended to say much the same to SpacePenguin. I found your comment (SpaceP) surprisingly uncharacteristic; 99% of the time I would defer to you on quantum theory (as well as other matters of Maths and logic). My (qualitative) understanding is that wave particle duality is not a real opposition in that Schroedinger describes the standing wave of a probability function and does not assert the non-existence of the particle (electron or photon).
Longsword used this comparison and one about the polarity of electrochemical cells (of which I have a more complete understanding); I often have difficulty with the clarity and thread of his arguments and, for me, these comparisons only served to increase my scepticism towards the overall contribution.
Like Steve I bridle severely at homilies to the effect 'thanks to Heissenberg we know that we can't be certain about anything' or 'wave-particle duality shows that even Physicists believe that things are and they are not'.
SpacePenguin: "I'm not sure I've seen mind/body dualism defended via quantum theory", I am almost sure I have seen you respond authoritatively to such ideas (- perhaps it was freewill, which to me is much the same). If you mean seriously defended (as opposes to used and abused) then you are doubtless right.
I am sure spacepenguin will defend himself but the reason why his analogy resonated with me lies in the following quote from one of my physics books:
'When we measure a quantum entity in one way it behaves like a wave and in another like a particle, but it is almost certainly neither.'
That is how I feel about mind/body; spirit/material. We look at it one way and we say 'Mind,' and in another, 'Brain.' We make the distinction but the reality is likely to be neither spiritual nor material but different manifestations (to us) of something else.
I wonder how shocked people felt when it was discovered that electricity and magnetism were different aspects of one phenomenon. Or that light merely the visible spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Or that matter and energy are interchangeable.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, incidentally, states that we cannot know precisely the location and momentum of a quantum entity. The more we know of the one the less of the other. This is, crucially, not because or the limitations of our knowledge but a characteristic of quantum mechanics.
QM does not say that we cannot be certain about anything, for when observed the wave function of all potential states collapses to a probability of 1 (i.e. certainty)as described by Schrodinger's equation. So, what we observe appears certain and stable. There are lots of interpretations as to what this means and why this phenomenon is as it is.
For me, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has no bearing on either Free Will or the nature of reality.
Bill:
I think what QM does have something to say about is the interconnectedness of everything - I would suggest that entanglement implies this might be the case but then we have the problem of subjectivity.
I cannot concur with any notion that "perception is reality". Perception only gives us fragments of a world in the form of percepts. Percepts, in themselves, have no relation to one another. A total experience comes to me, and is then fractured and distributed between the senses into the percepts of smell, sight, sound, feeling, which are but fragments of the experience.
It is therefore the additional factor of "conception" that is required for explaining the coherence of any experience that is only first given as an aggregate of percepts without their own internal coherence or relationship. It is implied in the very meaning of the word "con-ception" as the act of grasping all together. I do not mean either by this the mere product of mentation of intellection, but of the higher activity of intelligence. And again, the word "intelligence" declares its own meaning as the activity of "bringing into relation" or "connecting between".
Perception is by necessity fragmentary and distributive. It is the intervention of intelligence that brings the percepts into a more holistic arrangement by mandating the relationship that obtains between them. This element is not given by nature. It is not in the percepts.
The activity of intelligence is therefore related to the activity of integration. These terms express the same dynamic holism. The activity of intelligence is the aim of integration, which integration is synthesis, and which synthesis is called "peace of mind". Without the activity of intelligence as integrating activity, the percepts are merely a "blooming, buzzing confusion".
I find it even apocryphal (if not apocalyptic) that "perception is reality" can at all be taken seriously today -- a conclusion derived from the pernicious activity of propaganda and public relations since WWI only. It omits from our complete reality the activity of intelligence. Perhaps that belongs to a deficient Cartesian hangover in which the factors contributing to consciousness were abstracted out of reality completely.
Therefore I ask, is this "perception is reality" not unconnected also with "the closing of the Western Mind", the "end of history", or "the vicious downward intellectual spiral" into dark age, etc, etc?
It is not as though this cannot be tested directly, after all. One can prove this experimentally even. Simply quiet the perceptual apparatus through disciplined effort, turn away the nagging insistence of the percepts, and the factor that is remaining after you have quieted the "monkey mind" (as the Buddhists say) will be the immediate reality as opposed to the mediated reality of the percepts and perception.
Boltonian, I would like to see what SpacePenguin has to say about your physics book quotation for the reason I gave above, having said that there are diffraction phenomnena to explain, nevertheless the "but it is almost certainly neither" seems like rather loose talk for a self respecting Physics book.
Don't you think this 'different aspects of the same thing' approach is a bit too easy and for many a response that does not move on to enquire what the 'thing' might be.
Brain-mind? For myself it is pretty clear that 'mind' is a term that denotes brain function.
Perhaps there could be a question of definition of 'material', but so far as I can see material either exists or does not. Certainly, Science does not admit to anything other than 'material', in fact it is pretty much the case that if it is treated by Science then it is material (the ghosts/ telepathy discussion touched on this).
What interests me about Heissenberg's uncertainty principle and the nature of reality is that the principle demonstrates that there are propositions that cannot be tested. Tnis then raises the question: is the propositon untrue simply because it cannot be tested? I think there is a problem if we conclude that reality is restricted to that which can be tested, however unless it is possible to define some strict constraints there is a worse problem if untestable models are admitted to be valid representations of reality. Although I think that Heissenberg does provide specific narrow constraints (one ot the reasons it has nothing to do with 'freewill' the soul or whatever), I am not sure that it is completely meaningless to enquire what is the electron doing?
Has anyone read Quantum Enigma by Rosenblum and Kuttner?
It may be my next read-at-diners-and-on- trains book but I have many books to choose from and a rave review (or negative critique) by someone here might influence my choice.
I would say that the quote is more honest than loose. I will try to dig it out and find who said it. None of the authors I have read recently has anything certain to say about the nature of reality - they concentrate largely on the interpretation of existing knowledge. They include the following:
Michio Kaku; Martin Rees; Lee Smolin; Leonard Susskind; Marcus Chown; Jim Al Khalili; John Gribbin; Robert Laughlin; and Paul Davies.
Respectable theoretical physicists or cosmologists all but none (with the possible exception of Susskind) claiming any of their ideas are anything more than hypotheses.
I don't think 'Different aspects of the same thing,' easy at all. It would be easier to be a materialist - as most people, I suspect, are. The examples I gave earlier show, to me at least, how easy it is to think we know something when we don't.
Day follows night and vice versa but one does not cause the other, as was once thought, but they are both the outcome of something else.
As far as mind being a consequence of brain function, all I can say is that not only has that not been proven but from my (scant) reading it is not terribly convincing. The Churchlands are great proponents of this and their, 'Engine of Reason, Seat of the Soul,' does not convert me.
Nor am I a dualist either, which is why I steer a middle course. But I am almost certainly wrong as, I suspect, are all of our current hypotheses. This is not meant to be a counsel of despair just trying to ensure that we don't close down options as we often do and have to wait for the next generation of scientists for further enlightenment.
If you are a materialist then you must define what you mean by material - is it energy; information; point-like particles; strings; membranes? All these, and more, have been seriously propounded; all have their advocates; none has been proven.
Are you a reductionist, by the way? If so, what do you think will emerge from the LHC later this year and early next that will help us in our search?
Weeding out some old university papers, I fortuitously came across an essay by BCJ Lievegoed called "The Concept of Development", a fairly good examination of the distinction between growth, maturation, change, and development in systems theory (organic and inorganic).
One passage in particular was providential in terms of my previous post on perception, where Lievegoed, crediting a biologist by name of Heinz Werner, writes,
"...biological development follows the same basic rules as those described in the orthogenetic law of perception and learning. First comes perception, an overall generalised taking-in of the physiognomy of an object. Then follows a process of analysing the specific nature of the parts (differentiation). And, finally, in a process of synthesis the parts are integrated again into the whole."
This threefold phasic process pretty much maps to the one I followed in my own post on perception, except that I make Werner's first two phases into a single act of perception (and I see no necessary reason to differentiate the first two phases as Werner does in the sequence totality-partition/differentiation-whole).
The final stage, the integral or synthetic stage, is what I referred to as the activity of intelligence, although this isn't made explicit.
Lievegood continues, "Seen biologically, development is a number of steps in levels of organisation, with hierarchization, and with direction towards a specific objective. A remarkable trait of the concept of hierarchization is that the control of lower levels by the higher ones does not take place by means of commands but through *selective permission to function specifically*. In other words, the higher levels in the hierarchy govern the lower subsystems by sometimes *selectively restraining* and sometimes *selectively permitting* their activity."
Perception, in this assessment, is a lower subsystem of the whole, not the whole itself, and it takes its direction from a higher function which specifies permissions and restraints on the act of perception.
Interpreted, this means that perception is a lower order function of consciousness which is not itself conscious! Or in any event, conscious only *as* function but not *of* itself as function. It receives its permissions and restraints from a higher, integrating system which is the principle of selection.
If so, then the principle "perception is reality" must be false, for its inability to account for all reality by the fact that it is a lower subsystem of awareness.
There is yet further objection to "perception is reality" insofar as, pursued to its logical conclusion, it must deny to all living things any real interiority whatsoever which interiority is imperceptible to the sensory array and the perceptual organisation. Such interiority would be systematically reduced to objectively observable changes in physical state alone (brain wave patterns, chemical flows etc). This is not "interiority" or subjectivity. The result would lead necessarily to the total objectification of man (and life) in which what is imperceptible would be denied as real by definition.
In such a circumstance, the line between "perception is reality" as descriptive principle or as prescriptive principle could become very murky.
I'm not a physicist I just know enough to be able follow (most of) the papers that come out . I assume you are referring to Hameroff and Penrose's Orch-OR theory ? From what I can tell the main problem for that theory is that the brain functions well inside the classical limit where quantum effects are not measured . Though Hameroff is an anesthesiologist , not a neuroscientist .
I have a pet hate of equating quantum effects with magic as well . To be fair the quantum world is weirder than most supernatural belief systems , but the amount of unsupported speculation you see from new agers and some traditional religious people is quite depressing .
MartinRDB :
"My (qualitative) understanding is that wave particle duality is not a real opposition in that Schroedinger describes the standing wave of a probability function and does not assert the non-existence of the particle (electron or photon)."
Well the debate over whether the probability function is epistemological or ontological goes on . I fall in the realism camp myself , but you are right it is a matter of interpretation .
The double slit experiment does seem to show individual particles interfering with themselves , and this is what I meant by them being neither wave nor particle .
"SpacePenguin: "I'm not sure I've seen mind/body dualism defended via quantum theory", I am almost sure I have seen you respond authoritatively to such ideas (- perhaps it was freewill, which to me is much the same). If you mean seriously defended (as opposes to used and abused) then you are doubtless right."
Yes that was free will . The obvious point was that even if quantum effects are important in the brain the best we would have is random will . That isn't dualism though , when I talk about mental things being different from brain things I mean in terms of the subjective experience of a brain state .
"Tnis then raises the question: is the propositon untrue simply because it cannot be tested? I think there is a problem if we conclude that reality is restricted to that which can be tested, however unless it is possible to define some strict constraints there is a worse problem if untestable models are admitted to be valid representations of reality."
The scientific method requires testability , however it is not written that the scientific method can encompass the whole of reality . It is , after all , just a technique developed by slightly puzzled primates trying to make sense of things .
I thought some of you might be interested in these quotes from, 'A Different Universe,' by Robert Laughlin, theoretical physicist and Nobel prizewinner:
'Despite its (Supersymmetry)having become embedded in the discipline (Physics) the idea of absolute symmetry makes no sense. Symmetry is caused by things, not the cause of things. If relativity is always true there has to be an underlying reason. Attempts to evade this problem inevitably result in contradictions. No workable fix to this problem has ever been discovered.'
'If Einstein were alive today he would be horrified at this state of affairs (that relativity is held to be the underlying cause of other phenomena). His approach to physics might be summarized hypothesizing minimally, never arguing with experiment, demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated belief. The unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would mean that the fabric of spacetime was not simply the stage on which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there might be something beyond.'
Lee Smolin says something similar in his book, 'The Trouble with Physics.' That relativity has become an unchallengeable Shibboleth; the undisputed premise upon which all our understanding is built.
What we think we know will one day be overturned, as Einstein himself foresaw. There are no anchors. Einstein named one only - the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And I understand that even this is under threat.
SpacePenguin, Boltonian and all, it was the conjunction of "almost certainly" and "neither" that struck me as odd, a statement such as 'there is almost certainly more to it than this' would not have bothered me. Looking at SpacePenguin's link I am reminded of the of some of the interpretative problems.
As for reality/ matter, it may seem odd to have to agree that it exists before looking for a definition, but any definition must allow for debate about its fundamental properties.
Am I a reductionist? Probably though specifically what kind I leave open. Perhaps Scientific naturalist is appropriate. So far as freewill, the mind, soul or spirit are concerned I do take them all to be part of the immaterial dualistic world, I cannot separate one from another. So, Boltonian, I am at a loss to imagine how 'mind' might be independent of the brain and somehow exist separately from brain function. None of these immaterial dualistic conceits are subject to proof and are scarcely subject to definition.
My main concern in these kinds of discussion is to create maximum distance from subjective, first person arguments. I am particularly interested in how far explanations can be satisfactory from a third person viewpoint that attempts to be as objective as possible. For example I do not see much point in debating issues in terms of 'consciousness' when it cannot be adequately defined and the only consciousness we really are aware of is our own; from a third person viewpoint consciousness is a much more limited concept.
I have a great deal of sympathy with SpacePenguin's paragraph "The scientific method requires testability , however it is not written that the scientific method can encompass the whole of reality. It is , after all , just a technique developed by slightly puzzled primates trying to make sense of things." The trouble is I do not see how to have a rational discussion outside the scientific method.
I suppose as with discussions of responses to works of the Arts, you could create pockets of emotive subjectivity in the discussion and hope that it may contain something that strikes a chord for someone else. Nevertheless when indulging in a little emotive excursion it is still important to acknowledge what you are doing.
I think an electron , say , can be neither particle nor wave because of what we define waves and particles to be . Perhaps we could call them warticles , or possibly paves ?
"I have a great deal of sympathy with SpacePenguin's paragraph "The scientific method requires testability , however it is not written that the scientific method can encompass the whole of reality. It is , after all , just a technique developed by slightly puzzled primates trying to make sense of things." The trouble is I do not see how to have a rational discussion outside the scientific method."
I'd say you can have a rational discussion outside the scientific method , it's just you have no way of verifying if you are touching reality . I tend to resort to mysterianism , we're lucky we understand as much as we do and there is no reason to think we will understand everything . Though it is important to keep in mind that whatever it is that we don't understand probably doesn't object to bacon .
I'd like to return later with something more substantive - meanwhile, in response (primarily) to Martin; isn't "the mind" just the brain in motion?
....and 10/10 to Spacepenguin for making me laugh with : "Though it is important to keep in mind that whatever it is that we don't understand probably doesn't object to bacon ."
The reason I didn't say, 'There is almost certainly more to it than this, ' is because that is not my memory of the quotation (I really will look it up). Nor is that my understanding. We picture and describe things with relation to our experience. So, we know what a wave looks like upon the water and we know what a particle looks like, as a grain of sand, for instance. But quantum entities are unlikely to be either. That is what I understood the quote to mean and that is why it resonated with me.
The Laughlin book is very interesting because it challenges the fundamental premise of reductionists, that the smaller we are capable of examining the nearer we are to the truth. He thinks that nature is much more about organisation and emergent properties than reductionism. I will suspend my judgement until completing the book but, so far, he is convincing.
Re- brain vs mind. I did not say that mind was independent of brain - I do not think that it is - what I said was that I am not convinced that the mind is solely a consequence of the brain function (a la Churchland). I do not have an alternative but his argument did not persuade me. If we are able to build a brain, molecule by molecule, in the future then I might have my answer. But, as SpaceP said elsewhere, how would we know such a thing was conscious?
SpaceP:
This blog is a living example of primate exploration. Lots of questions and no answers. Talking of which, there was an interesting article about Neanderthals and their possible relationship to homo sapiens in today's Telegraph. There is some new evidence, apparently.
Did Neanderthals eat bacon?
Steve:
There must be some material here for your next creative venture.
The scientist of the future will restore the unity of experience and experiment. He or she will do this by making himself or herself the first subject of the experiment.
This is even necessary now if scientia is to have a future at all. The methods applied to the study of inanimate orders are not suited to the study of animate orders. When they are so applied in the life and the human sciences, they are pernicious.
Today the man of science who brings methods appropriate to the study of inanimate nature to bear on the animate appears ridiculous. Indeed, the man on the street contemns him as an "ivory-towered academic", and with good reason. In the experimental setting, he investigates the experiences of others (or even of rats) and then substitutes these experiences for his own. He stands aloof with his "objective attitude" from the life and death struggles of Mr. Everyman and of the common life around him. But no man can speak with the authority of truth who has not first himself got his hands grubby in real experience, and has himself passed through the crucible of the perils of real experience.
Experiment and experience both testify to their common roots in a life and death struggle -- ex-periculum -- "from out of peril." At one time they were unified and integrated in man's activity. Instead, the man of the objective attitude splits experience, and relies on experiment while leaving the experience to others. At best, he retires to the relative safety of the third person, objectively and indicatively, and espouses facts. Facts which do not engage his whole being for coming second hand, and so he speaks in the third person, without the authority of truth because he has not experienced it himself.
He is perplexed by the division between mind and body. The body is relegated to the struggle for survival, while the mind contemplates the truth of the matter. In the experimental setting, he merely replicates and reinforces this division between body and mind by the division between experiencing subject and objecting experiment.
The scientist of the future will restore the integrity of experience and experiment by making himself the first subject and not the third person of experience. Such new scientists are already here, or are in formation. We all have the equipment -- a sensory array, a perceptual apparatus that may be weighted and tuned, a consciousness that may be focussed with the precision of a microscope's objective lens, and a common language for registering the methods that others may follow to observe and test the results. The scientist of the future will need to be as intimately familiar and skillful with these instruments as he has been with oscillators and scales or bunsen-burners, particle accelerators and atom-smashers.
There is no other way over the impasse and out of the cul-de-sac into which contemporary science is ending. Science of the old type is not fully valid for the urgent requirements of the Life Era and the Planetary Era. The thorough-going Cartesian, fuming that he was not born like Athena from the head of Zeus, is history's past man. The scientist of the future will restore the integrity of mind and body and of the full (and fulfilled) times and spaces of life. The first subject of experiment, but not the last word of experience.
longsword - you may or may not remember a short conversation we once had on CiF, where I challenged you to show you weren't just "'avin' a larf"....and you agreed you were; we subsequently found some common ground.
Now, I'm just wondering, given your recent comment:
"Experiment and experience both testify to their common roots in a life and death struggle -- ex-periculum -- "from out of peril." At one time they were unified and integrated in man's activity."
You see, my dictionary gives both "experiment" and "experience" as deriving from "periri" meaning to try, through "experiri" - to try thoroughly.
So, I ask, in a spirit of friendly curiosity, are you 'avin' another larf, or have I bought a dud dictionary?
boltonian : "There must be some material here for your next creative venture."
Some of *your* phrases earlier started the creative juices flowing ;-} ....but I don't yet have enough....for a stopgap, you could read a short ditty about "the pun" here (about 10 posts up from the bottom....look a little way further up for the best/worst pun ever, which inspired it):
Boltonian, do not worry I have not confused you for your Physics book.
I get mildly irritated by labels for schools of thought, if reductionism does not permit consideration of organisation then I am not a reductionist! (It is a bit like the atheist/ agnostic label - I really do not want to make too much of it)
Consciousness? I shall probably keep on repeating myself trying to explain why subjective consciousness is unlikely to lead anywhere. If you could build a computer that did the job of a functioning brain, you would mot be able to know what it 'feels like' to be the computer.
I notice that Steve has put in a comment, getting in ahead of me (no surprise there), I hadn't forgotten your CiF comment either.
Despite taking it all with a pinch of salt, I enjoyed your latest contribution Longsword, however, I don't mind being stuck as "history's past man". May be the past still has a great future.
....but here's a new version...."The Quantum Physicist Cometh"
'Twas on a Monday morning, I invented a new science (The old ones don't explain the workings of my new appliance) Two universal constants died to give my science space (But that's a tiny price to pay to help the human race)
Chorus: Oh, it all makes work for the physicists, don't you know
'Twas on a Tuesday morning when I thought outside the box But Einstein's laws got in the way - my theory hit the rocks The obvious solution: Mr Einstein got it wrong My new machine's so perfect, I deserve a Nobel gong
(Chorus)
'Twas on a Wednesday morning when Sir Isaac bit the dust "If his ideas are sacrosanct, my new invention's bust!" So Newton's laws, one two and three, were booted out the door (It took me all the afternoon to calculate some more)
(Chorus)
'Twas on a Thursday morning when the awful truth was clear That even Feynman's mathematics couldn't save my gear The numerator was too high, the bottom bit too low I needed some new integers to make the damn thing go
(Chorus)
'Twas on a Friday morning when the quantum johnny rang He reckoned twixt the two of us, we'd disproved the Big Bang We drank a toast, high-fived (and, after several bottles, kissed) We'd proved what theists never did - we'd proved that God exists!
Oh, it all makes work for theologists, dont you know....
Longsword: "The scientist of the future will restore the unity of experience and experiment. He or she will do this by making himself or herself the first subject of the experiment."
Dear Longsword (btw, are you ever wary of those short thrusting swords the Romans were fond of?):
I agree but would expand.
This can be and is being done now, but mostly by those who would not be called scientists. This is much more of an art today. (Of course contemporary science had such beginnings, once.)
Early beginnings, perhaps, can be seen at Charlie Tart's TASTE site found here.
Toynbee's early 20th Century experiences could be said to point in this direction, too (found here).
At this stage, many have already made truly amazing and even basic or foundational discoveries (or rediscoveries, depending on your POV). The problem is that these are only believed by those who have made similar discoveries or those who are open to their possibility.
No one else takes them at all seriously, while "proof" is not possible in the way it is currently defined.
I find this mildly frustrating, as I have shared a number of truly powerful experiences with others, in addition to having had some very significant solitary experiences, but I have long been somewhat resigned to this.
I have no academic reputation to destroy by occasionally writing of these, which is both a plus and a minus, but it can be mildly annoying to be treated as a lunatic.
Even so, when I pause to review everything, I realize we are living on the verge of a truly exciting era (some of us, anyway -- it turns out that there is some validity to the "Many World" QM interpretation, provided certain caveats and qualifications are included).
Steve you are really in overdrive these days (I have seen some of your verses in CiF): keep the output coming, may be we will all have the courage and dedication to follow your example.
P.S. did you ever manage to get access to the 'On having a poem' lecture?
Wonder if someone might deal with my thoughts on consciousness and reality.
I’m of the mind that reality is only ever going to be a question of reaching consensus on a metaphorical understanding of the world. Reality lies in the agreement. There is ultimately no way, as MartinRBD mentioned, of really experiencing the world through the eyes of anybody else. Further, it’s equally impossible to experience the world as anybody but oneself. One relies on ones own fallible senses and consequently shares that experience with others of the same level of consciousness by way of a consensus through the metaphorical language we employ.
The level of information that humans manage to acquire does increase and even become more sophisticated, but there’s no possible way of escaping the technology we have (the mind) to utilize that information.
A soothing analogy (to me) is that the consensus we perpetually re-establish amongst ourselves is the garden in which our consciousness's thrive and grow, without that we are lost.
I mentioned miles up thread that consciousness is only possible if shared. It’s impossible to be a conscious being without having another conscious being with which to share and reach consensus on the experience of being alive.
In this analysis the idea of a material reality existing outside of the experience of being alive as a conscious being is of secondary importance to the consensus of metaphor shared by conscious beings. We have no choice (it seems) but to struggle for knowledge (perhaps thankfully) but we actually have already arrived at the place where reality exists, in the garden of our shared conscious experiences.
I like the idea of reality lying in our agreement about the world but we often do not agree. Perhaps we only disagree about interpretation but it is difficult (impossible) to know whether we actually experience similar things when subject to a particular stimulus. I think it likely, given our genetic homogeneity, but not proven.
I agree that we cannot exceed our capacity but we can, and do, stretch it but perhaps not as far as we like to think.
I am not sure that consciousness only exists if shared. When I dream I am aware of certain things but it is not shared. One thing that, for me, tends to count against solipsism is that I need to have had experiences on which to base my dreams. I suspect that even an unborn child dreams but it can only dream about the world it inhabits. This tends (I put it no stronger than that) to suggest that there is something external to our subjective self that we interact with in order to have those experiences.
Where I think you are spot on is that the perceived (whether real or imagined)interaction we have with each other is what makes life worth living. This blog would not exist, for a start, and a world without that would be unimaginably bleak :-}. So, in this sense at least,(at the risk of provoking another tirade from longsword) perception is reality.
All:
I think my quote from earlier was from Feynman but I can't lay my hands on it just now. But I did re-read some of his stuff in my fruitless expedition and he really emphasises the value of doubt in one of his lectures - doubt everything is more or less his position. Doubt is the key to learning and certainty is its enemy.
Elephantschild:
I hope you are still tuning in. If so, did you read these new revelations (they seem more speculations to me) about Neanderthals? And, if so, what did you think.
Thanks for the welcome, I always do keep an (not so close due to the demands of life) eye on your blog and I enjoy it greatly so it’s very appreciated to be welcomed again.
Individuals do disagree about interpretation, that’s a given, CiF would be a much duller place otherwise as would any discussion. And yes it’s impossible to know whether we all experience the same things given the same stimuli, highly probable in fact that we don’t, but that was what I was getting at, what’s important is the consensus reached. It’s likely as you suggest, that our shared genetic homogeneity establishes the ground rules so to speak, so that predominantly the fluctuation in experience of stimuli is smaller than greater, but as they say “God is in the details”. In place of being able to enter the mind of others we have consensus of metaphor.
If I explain to you how I feel or think about any given event you will accept what I say as my experience, compare it to your own, and together we can reach an understanding. We have agreed to metaphorically explain an event according to the vocabulary of metaphor that we share. And hopefully in doing so reach a consensus that feeds back into our conscious experience of the world. Something like the software (thoughts, culture and conscious experience) developing, although the hardware (the matter that makes up the mind /brain) remains fixed in its capability.
This leads onto the idea that consciousness is impossible without being shared. As already part of a family of conscious beings with all the hardware in place for conscious existence it’s likely that unborn children do dream. The capacity for dreaming is a result of the evolution of the human brain, its hardwired. But the themes of the dreams are entirely due to the interaction an individual has with their shared consensus of metaphor. Similarly a newborn is capable of language and perhaps even has a hardwired function for grammar. But a child that never speaks and develops its inherent ability to use language will eventually reach a point where they lose that ability and it cannot be regained.
The process of establishing human contact and establishing relationships is the very “initiation ceremony” (if you’ll pardon the metaphor) of being welcomed into the Garden of Shared Consensus of Metaphor. Once roaming in the garden, barring tragic circumstances, disagreements about interpretation are all the exercise of choice. From then on it’s all politics.
I’m glad you mentioned the idea of relationships making life worth living. I don’t want to head off into another direction but I completely agree, and its one of the important aspects of human interaction that is often forgotten, especially by those who pedal monotheistic faiths. It’s the love that is inherent in each human that gives life quality and the giving and receiving of that love, sharing that essential humanity which for me at least beats the unanswerable questions of the supernatural hands-down.
"So, I ask, in a spirit of friendly curiosity, are you 'avin' another larf, or have I bought a dud dictionary?"
@steve
You have bought a dud dictionary. I had to laugh at your allusion to our previous joust, and appreciate your wit. But, no, your dictionary is correct, just not complete, as is usual for off-the-shelf dictionaries which give less than satisfactory historical derivations of key words. "Periri" signifies "trial" but is also principally "peril". I'm sure you see the connection between experiment and experience. As Nietzsche once put it, too, "live dangerously" should be the watchword of any true scientist (and Nietzsche was a philologist before he was a philosopher). He had reasons for that statement that go beyond mere wimsy or idiosyncracy. In "live dangerously" there is a subtle truth -- also the call for the reunification of experience and experiment.
Bear in mind, too, that "trial" refers to a threefold situation. Monadism, dualism, trialism represent a historical mutation in human representation of reality, fully corresponding to Blake's holistic grasping of our reality in terms of single, twofold, and threefold vision leading up to the fourfold vision.
@bill
"Dear Longsword (btw, are you ever wary of those short thrusting swords the Romans were fond of?):"
Bill, this made me laugh uproariously -- and into a coughing fit. Your wit is exquisite. Do you intend to use such short sword on me?
I am largely thinking of the physicist David Bohm, who tried to expand the parameters of method precisely in order to save the prospective integrity of scientia. His conversations with Krishnamurti, and his social work in the dialogical principal are not unconnected with his concerns as a physical scientist or his membership in western civilisation. He saw them, correctly, as integral to the whole. An admirable figure.
I much admire Bohm the Bold (a viking raider on the citadels of conventional rationality), and was thinking of him as an exemplar of the "scientist of the future" when I wrote my post.
As to dictionary summaries of the etymology of words (and I insist that the collective experience of life is compressed into words over 10,000 years), don't trust them. "Truth", "trust", and "truce" are three aspects of one process. But you will never find that out from a dictionary. Likewise, you will never discover that "maya" and "math" are related, or that "mens" (moon, measure, matter) and "men" ( measure) are also related. You will not discover that "primordial" means both "to spin the first web" and "to begin to speak". Yet, there is a reason why the mind was compared to a spider, and Maya was "the web of illusion" in consequence. Even the words "Reason" and "Reality" are related in the same way as Man and Maya or mens and mensity. There are "sound" reasons why this is so which point to the forgotten history of the emergence of human consciousness from "the void".
Boltonian: Yes, I'm still here. What 'new revelations' about the neanderthals are you referring to? I must have missed something -but then the palaolithic period is not one of my particular interests. Can you point me to a reference?
I said a while back that I would report on the Finkelstein/Silberman book. I have started on it only recently, having had little time for reading lately, and have still not quite finished it, but I am finding it highly readable and I think you would find it interesting. Whereas many people, up to and including Rohl, have tended to interpret the archaeological evidence in a selective manner on the assumption that the biblical accounts of the exodus, conquest of Canaan, united monarchy etc are historically reliable, broadly speaking (and have generally run into difficulties in so doing), F & S aproach the problem from the opposite direction, and examine the OT historical and religious narrative in the light of the whole of the known archaeological evidence, including the demographic evidence produced by large-scale surveys carried out over the past 30 years or so. They go on to argue persuasively that the historical and theological narrative which forms the matter of the Pentateuch and the books of Judges, Samuel, Judges and Kings was compiled in the second half of the 7th century BCE, partly as an original composition and partly adapted from a variety of earlier sources, at a time when the kingdom of Judah was undergoing a religious reformation and demographic expansion and a new national identity was being forged. This, therefore, is the context in which the narrative should be understood and in which the narrative and the very different picture which emerges from the archaeological evidence can to some extent be reconciled.
The article in the DT is a puff for a new book by Professor Chris Stringer, which touches on the existence of Neanderthals in Britain.
Also, there is evidence of Neanderthal/sapiens co-existence in France lasting about 2,000 years.
A DNA study in the USA and the Max Planck Institute has begun to map the genome of Neanderthals to identify possible evidence of interbreeding.
Preliminary research from Cambridge has found no significant flow of genes from Neanderthals.One skeleton of a possible hybrid has been found in China.
It is thought that climate change about 45,000 years ago led to the demise of Neanderthals, although they did not finally die out until between 24,000 and 28,000 years ago, which seems a awfully long time to survive if one's food source has largely disappeared.
Not much, really.
The Finkelstein/Silberman book sounds interesting. I might order it anyway, although I am miles behind with my reading pile.
Boltonian: I have checked out the DT article. It presents what seems to be a fairly comprehensive summary of recent work and current theory on the neanderthals but, as so often with journalistic coverage of scientific subjects, in a simplified form which is misleading in places.
The current work on sequencing the neanderthal genome is, I understand, being carried out independently by two separate teams using different methods, and is still some way from completion, but it already seems clear from this and earlier work on mitochondrial DNA that the neanderthals and early modern humans were indeed quite separate species which probably branched from a common ancestor around half a million years ago. Both teams are using samples from the same specimen, though, and the work on mitochondrial DNA was done on samples from, I think, only 12 individuals, so it seems unlikely that the results will settle the question whether or not neanderthals and early modern humans ever interbred. The evidence of supposedly hybrid specimens from China and Rumania seems highly debatable, at best.
The two species certainly overlapped chronologically, and when early modern humans reached western Europe there were still neanderthals around, but the article is incorrect in stating that the evidence from Grotte des Fees demonstrates that they 'lived together'. The excavations there uncovered a series of successive and quite separate occupation levels. Four of the uppermost five levels were characterised by chatelperronian (neanderthal) artefacts, but sratified between the lowest of these and the upper three there was a layer containing Aurignacean artefacts characteristic of early modern humans. Radiocarbon dating, using modern high precision techniques, indicates that the neanderthals occupied the cave c.40,000 BP and returned some time after 35,000 BP, and the intermediate Aurignacean level is dated between 39,000 BP and 36,000 BP. Not exactly evidence of co-habitation! It has to be remembered that populations of both species would have been very small at this time.
Theories concerning the extinction of the neanderthals remain highly speculative and there was probably no single cause. The sudden deterioration of the climate c.45,000 years ago may have driven them south, but it cannot have been the sole reason they died out, and the evidence from Gorhams Cave in Gibraltar (artefacts only) suggests that they adapted to living in the mediterranean coastal region and hung on there as late as 28,000 -24,000BP. One suggestion is that they were simply less versatile than their competitors, and that the fundamental reason for this may have been linguistic - i.e. modern humans had a greater capacity for language, genetically determined, and thus a greater capacity for abstract thinking and the communication of complex ideas, enabling more rapid and flexible cultural and social development. It is certainly true that while, physiologically, there is no reason why neanderthals could not have been capable of speech, their cultural remains include no form of art or decoration and no evidence of complex social organisation. (This brings us back, I suppose, to the question of language and consciousness).
Hello Lester, I am not sure I have understood your position and wonder if in interpreting what you say I am moulding your words to fit my own conception of things.
When you state that consciousness has to be shared, is this a 3rd (or 2nd) person concept that requires some independent verification?
[e.g. 'you see that red cup over there?' 'You mean the one next to the one with green stripes?' 'yes that's the one.'] Without shared consciousness of the reality of the cups and shared language signs, this conversation is impossible and mutual understanding verifies the shared reality.
This, I think, can be extended to abstract concepts, however for many the idea of consciousness is more often used in a non verifiable first person sense. They say they are fully conscious of what they are thinking, but they would say that wouldn't they! An extreme position is when religious types claim to be conscious of a supernatural force. All I can see in such cases is that they are conscious of their own very personal reality, which is OK for them but not much use to me.
This is why I think it is important to draw a line between the 3rd (and 2nd) person shared and verified world and the mental excursions of first person world. One of the , perhaps egotistical, problems here is that whilst we own the first person world we are only sharing participants in the third person world. Shared communicated experience is for me crucially important, in fact the second Cartesian coordinate, and starting point for accounting for our understanding of reality.
Elephantschild/Boltonian, I really ought to know more than I do about this, but I thought that there were some evidence of Neanderthal funeral rites (use of flowers for example) and possibly some carved artefacts, pointing to some degree of social organisation and culture.
A degree of language and consciousness has I think been demonstrated in other primates where recordings of the responses to birds of prey and big cats have been played back and shown to elicit appropriately different responses. From this I would tend to assume that Neanderthals did possess language of an admittedly indeterminate level of complexity. This is of course entirely compatible with your argument (that they just couldn't understand the modern world!)
Martin: The argument, as I understand it, is not that the neanderthals did not have language; clearly, they must have done, almost certainly including speech. What has been suggested is that their innate linguistic capacity may have been more limited than that of early modern humans, most probably affecting their ability to express abstract concepts. This might also mean that their manner of reasoning and their consciousness was of a slightly different order to ours. As you say, they might not have understood, or been capable of understanding and adapting to the modern world.
Almost all we know or can surmise of their culture and social organisation is what is reflected in the tools thay made and their burial practices (in effect, all that has survived). Their stone tools are often elaborately crafted, beyond the level of the purely functional, although they do not appear commonly to have fashioned bone into tools or weapons. Their prowess as hunters is attested by the quantities of animal bones found on the sites they occupied, and scrapers, used for dressing hides, which are among the most numerous of the tools they made, provide indirect evidence that they also made clothing (and tents?) from the skins of the animals they killed. There is, indeed, also widespread evidence that they (sometimes, at least) buried their dead with some care. As far as I can remember, plant remains were found in only one such grave, but there are also occasional instances of animal bones being interred with the body or bodies, which is indicative of ritual practices and (possibly) a belief in some kind of afterlife. The pathology of some neanderthal skeletons suggests, also, that they cared for disabled members of the group, including some who had suffered from birth defects.
All this is evidence of a moderately high degree of social complexity, but the social groups appear always to have been small and there is little sign of development or elaboration in neanderthal culture or society except towards the end, with the emergence of the characteristic range of tools termed 'Chatelperronian', which some have seen as evidence of interaction with early modern humans. What above all distinguishes neanderthal culture from that of early modern man is the absence of any evidence for decorative,figurative or symbolic art, or any items of personal adornment, which is the reason for thinking that they may have lacked the ability to conceptualise the world around them in symbolic terms.
"..An extreme position is when religious types claim to be conscious of a supernatural force. All I can see in such cases is that they are conscious of their own very personal reality, which is OK for them but not much use to me."
You connect "religious" with "supernatural force" but you need not.
In some circles this "supernatural force" is known simply as "the energy" and there are fairly simple ways to "amp it up," such that it becomes quite palpable to all present. This will be experienced differently depending on who is present and other unknown parameters but can be related to so called "chakras" or "energy centers" within the body and even what old-time marijuana smokers called a "body buzz."
Our language (and culture) is poorly suited for "inner" explorations; there's a tendency to put all such experience into a "religion" box and that can drastically limit and/or distort it.
My aside regarding Roman swords was made after observing some of your interactions on CiF, wherein you seemed to be attracting such with your comments.
Thanks for the compliment but this was not exquisite wit on my part but more of a surfacing of my martial side. (You can find descriptions of encounters between those wielding longswords and Romans -- with their short swords -- in many places).
I've started to review your Dark Age site, which provides lots to ponder. Have you closed off commenting? (I wasn't able to register).
Elophantschild, thanks for your explanations and clarifications.
Bill: yes I suppose I do want to put "religion" into a box and drastically limit it. I tend to feel that religion is OK if it is kept entirely to oneself. Unfortunately, I cannot use words such as 'energy' and 'amp' in the way you have done: you probably think I am limiting myself and in a sense you would be right.
"Bill: yes I suppose I do want to put "religion" into a box and drastically limit it. I tend to feel that religion is OK if it is kept entirely to oneself. Unfortunately, I cannot use words such as 'energy' and 'amp' in the way you have done: you probably think I am limiting myself and in a sense you would be right."
Dear Martin:
Our interaction is very connected with previous topics of words, subjective experience, and even a new kind of scientist.
I was referring to _experiencing_ the "supernatural force" you linked to the word "religion," not religion itself, although religion can refer to it or even be based on it. Depending on how this is defined, however, it need not be linked to religion.
We could probably sort this out w/o too much difficulty. First we'd have to reach agreement on the terms "supernatural," "force," and "religion."
The thing I remember about my one and only visit to Ravenna many years ago(we tried to visit a couple of years ago but there was a train strike and we were foiled) was the fabulous mosaics in those wonderful Byzantine churches that abound in the town.
The star, from memory, was Sant' Apollinaris (I think that was its name).
Anyway, enjoy the rest of your break and don't frazzle your brain with too much sun - we need it to return here intact and fully functioning.
Is everybody either busy reading or sunning themselves on Italian beaches?
E:
How are you getting on with the Finkelstein?
SpaceP:
Have you read anything by Laughlin? The book I am reading is very interesting, particularly his view that we have rather lost our way as scientists. He also thinks reductionism is a dead end. If you have not read it I will try to give a synopsis when I have finished it.
All:
A thought (not original) occurred to me the other day. As I was following my wife into the kitchen she put a note on the table but she had not placed where she thought she had and it fell to the floor. I picked it up and placed it on the table on the spot that she thought she had put it. I said nothing but I was aware that we now have two versions of history with the same outcome.
Had I been somebody that she did not trust and I told her what had occurred, she might have denied it. My word against her's. What had actually happened, then? Add to that the fallibility of human memory and that I had recounted these events, say, three months later, how could I be sure that my version was correct?
History, then, is merely a collection of subjective experiences - a regression to the norm, depending on how many versions and supporters for each we have. It can only ever be an approximation at best.
E, as an archaeologist do you think that there is an objective set of events that occurred independently of our recollections, or is all history perception, from whatever standpoint one happens to view it from?
Hey y'all. Hope everyone is well (and I grudgingly extend that to those fortunate enough to find themselves on the Mediterranean too). V interesting q Boltonian asks about historiography - though must rush, so can't give it a go - look forward to what stellars on this thread have to say (and, I hope, a poem from the laureate).
But, a quick question - which I ask because I'm curious how it will be treated in the calmer, more reflective environs of this thread:
Sorry for having been quiet for the last few weeks..days.. I have been busy working, job-hunting, womad festival, being sick and last but niot least, reading in Search of the Miraculous. I haven't been on Cif for ages either..
In (tentative) answer to Boltonian's questions... "There is no future because it has not yet happened.
But the present does not exist either because there is not a moment which is neither past nor future, so time cannot exist."
Me: Time exists and the present is only what we physically experience, we experience past and future in our thoughts. Our thoughts exist too and their are alive, in their own way. I suscribe to the theory that everything is alive, there is no dead matter in this universe, dead matter is made out of atoms and electrons and they are alive, they move, there is questioning about that. The whole imagery of "same as above as below" make a lot of sense when you consider the scale of what makes the universe.. stars, atoms, all in perpetual motion, all experiencing time according to their own scale... And organic life is exactly the same, stuck with time at its own scale.
How, then, does this square with your suggestion that we live in the moment?
Me: Great quote from the work of Gurjieff and Ouspensky: "Time is breath." I guess this is the moment/time you're refering too. PS: I believe that everything breathes, in their own way of course which could be drastically different from organic breath. For instance vegetals don't breathe the same way as animals, yet they still breathe; It's much harder to understand the breath of atoms or planets but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Temperament is interesting but why is that not a genetic inheritance? 100% of me comes from two people.
Me: It comes from your influences. We're born from our parents and they are the first people who will influence you, so you will develop similar personality traits as your parents. It seems "subconscious" because we're all half asleep and our thoughts are dictated by our experiences rather than our real essence. The whole point of Gurdjieff's work is to free yourself from influences and exercise in self-remembering. Meaning that for everything you do, understand why you do it and "who" in your personality is actually speaking. I believe that we all do "suffer" from multiple personality disorder, although subconsciously again which doesn't make the behaviour threatening at all... except for those who are diagnosed with MPD. It just means that they went on personality overload and their real essence has completely lost control. A simple illustration of the phenomenon would be how easy it is for us, the humans to have a face for work, a face for your parents, a face for your partner, a face for your children. Personality becomes quite functional.
If we are 100% a chemical computer, what is consciousness? Where is it? And what is its purpose?" Me: Why wouldn't consciousness be chemical too? http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug1/consciouswater.html
To all of you, have a great day! It's all nice and sunny here in London*
Hi folks. I got very engrossed in the Harry Potter book and thoroughly enjoyed it. I have a house full of kids most days until the end of the school holidays, so probably won't have much to say for a while. Thanks for the support re WML. He didn't get to me, I've coped with far worse than a load of hot air from a grumpy old man! I knew I would wind him up (naughty me).
A terrible thing really, Hiroshima and Nagazaki. A testimony that humanity is far from being conscious. No one in his "right frame of mind" could let such an atrocity happen or press the destruction button. The nuclear scale just raise the stakes on humanity; It begs humanity to evolve if it is meant to control its own destiny since we're just a button push from total destruction.
Bear in mind, some very unorthodox and fancy Old Testament interpretation suggest that humanity has already experienced nuclear warfare, described as God's Sodom and Gomorrah destruction to be a sort of nuclear bombing... changing people into pillars of salt.
I will give deeper consideration to the time issue perhaps on Monday, as we are away this weekend.
First thoughts about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The atom bomb was developed because it was thought (rightly) that Germany was working on it. What was not known is that they had not got very far but when such luminaries as Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg are thought to be on the project chances could not be taken.
There was much agonising over the dropping of the bomb and it was a decision not taken lightly. Also, it was not simply a method of killing lots of Japanese; it was a way of shortening the war and thus reducing the total number of casualties on both sides.
The USA actually offered to soften the term of surrender before the bomb was dropped. The Japanese military took this as a sign of weakness and decided to continue the war. It was a massive cultural misfit - the Americans were trying to make it easier for them to surrender without losing face.
We cannot know what would would have happened had the bombs not been dropped but at least the decision was taken for the best of motives - at least by our moral standards.
We now have the technology and cannot uninvent it - all we can try to do is limit the consequences as far as possible. I understand, and perhaps SpaceP can comment on this, that fusion cannot be used for aggressive purposes and so, if we crack that (and share the technology) it will be easier to finger states who develop nuclear weapons under the guise of energy generation. I am not sure what we do about it even if we are sure that that is what they are up to.
The book I am reading by Robert Laughlin is very scathing about how the world has changed from being genuinely interested in getting and sharing knowledge to better understand the world to getting and secreting knowledge to gain a competitive advantage (either by corporations or states). He largely lays the blame for this on his own country (USA), as does Smolin in his, 'Trouble with Physics.'
Sorry that this is all a bit rushed. I will be interested in the responses both to this and the time and consciousness discussion.
Biskieboo:
Glad you're unscathed and you are right, it is very easy to predict his response to most things.
I haven't read anything by Laughlin , I am mostly aware of him via his criticism of string theory . I'd appreciate your synopsis and recommendation , you steered me right with the Endless Days of Being Dead .
Regarding fusion .. Nuclear weapons can use either fission or fusion to create an explosion , however as I understand it fusion based power , at least in designs being currently pursued , don't produce much , if any , weaponisable material as a byproduct . Thus you are pretty much correct ; trying to use a fusion reactor to produce material for a weapons program would be quite easy to detect .
Hi Boltonian & fellow metaphysicists (or is it metaphysicians?)
Have been keenly following events here, but every time I feel I disagree with a point made, I can't find the right words to make sense....but I'll be back....
ChooChoo : Have you seen Caroline Watt's piece on parapsychology and psi on CiF? If you're desperately in need of a dose of doggerel, you *might* find a piece there, near the bottom:
Boltonian: I have finished the Finkestein/Siberman book and would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject. Alongside a lively summary of the historical and theological narrative of the OT they present the archaeological and (non biblical) documentary evidence for the origins of the Israelites and the emergence of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the wider context, with an evaluation of the different interpretations of this evidence. And their thesis (that the biblical narrative in its present form is essentially a product of the late seventh and sixth centuries BCE, woven from legends, myths and earlier historical records and 'spun' to serve the ideological and political ends of Judah in the late monarchic period and of the leaders of of the post exilic returnees) is well argued.
As to your other question: is there an objective set of events that occurred in the past, or is all history perception, there is really no short answer. My definition of history would be that it is first of all the narrative or narratives which historians construct on the basis of their analyses of contemporary written records of all kinds. Then there is the 'Ten Sixty Six and All That' version - 'history is what you can remember' - which, judging by some of the comments I have seen on CIF, for example, seems to be a mish-mash of what people recall of their study of the subject in school, things remembered or half remembered from books or articles they have read, and traditions which have become accepted as 'fact'.
Archaeologists construct their narrative from analysis of the material record, which is as near as you can get to concrete 'fact': a pot sherd is a pot sherd, though its date may be a matter of opinion; a wall is a wall, (notwithsanding the excavators' saying that 'one stone is a stone, two stones are a coincidence, three stones are an archaeological Feature, and four stones are a wall'); and stratigraphy is stratigraphy, though it may require good spacial sense, acute powers of observation and a certain amount of training to 'read' it.
My view is that there is such a thing as an obective event. Things happened in the past, whatever is made of them subsequently. For example: all contemporary witnesses agree that a battle took place on June 18th 1815, near a village called Waterloo situated south of Brussels; and no doubt farmers on the site were ploughing up the detritus of battle for decades afterwards - maybe still are, for all I know. But the account given by a witness just after the event might vary greatly according to whether he was an infantryman holding his ground in a square, a dispatch rider, the Duke of Wellington or the farmer whose crops were being pounded into the mud. Written accounts such as letters, diaries and official dispatches to the government back home may be equally partial, even where not distorted by such factors as a wish to gloss over the worst of the horrors, or to exaggerate the writer's own contribution to the action, or to present a succinct and coherent version of the proverbial confusion of battle. Memoirs written after the event may be further distorted by the vagaries of memory. To take another example, there can be no doubt that, during the 19th century in Britain, industrial towns grew rapidly in size and population, and that many people migrated from the countryside into those towns. The raw statistics may be compiled from detailed studies of a variety of relatively impartial contemporary records but landowners, factory owners, factory hands, farm labourers seeking work in the towns, social commentators and politicians of different stripes all viewed this phenomenon from a different perspective.
The historian has to take all the varying records, assess their relative reliability, and construct his or her narrative accordingly. At this stage another level of subjectivity is introduced, because the historian will have his or her own interests and (probably)prejudices. Then come the synthesists, using the work of others (secondary sources) to construct their own narratives for their own purposes, often influenced by whatever happens to be the current historiographic trend or fashion. So while history may be an attempt to reach a consensus on the objective facts, it can never in itself be wholly objective.
Where events or processes in the past are attested by both written records and material remains, archaeology can be used to complement the historical narrative, and may support or counterbalance it, sometimes in surprising ways, and it is here that my current interest lies. Unfortunately, there are still some historians who apparently do not regard archaeology as 'evidence'.
Just a sincere word of thanks for Biskieboo for her support at the limerick flamefest (I assume you got there from the link above).
If I may vent here what I couldn't there - that pair of tossers were irritating the hell out of me. No f+++ing talent at all, yet they (probably he - one guy with two handles) were producing amazingly naff limericks - unscanned, badly rhymed and unfunny - like an incontinent cow. Abuse seemed his substitute for wit.
The biggest joke of all is that one of him [sic] began the whole thing days ago, by claiming to be an established published writer, and moaning about the number of untalented Sunday wannabee writers cluttering up publishers intrays. He told such wannabees in vigorous terms to stop wasting their - and, staggeringly, his - time.
You couldn't make it up - well, *he* certainly couldn't.... ;-}
Thanks again, Biskieboo - who (for the benefit of readers here) put the word-deaf twosome/onesome to shame with a perfectly metred limerick....
Steve - wonderfully amusing to see that one unfold. Safe to say you won (4-0 up at half-time by my reckoning). On metaphysic-ian/-ist: the former sounded immediately better to my ears, but now I've confused myself and have lost my hearing for this sort of thing. You're the poet - go by what scans better...
PlasticGypsies - hello once again. I tend to side with your kind of take on Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Though, while nuclear weapons do raise the stakes in terms of destructiveness, it's not so clear to me that there's a huge chasm between H/N and more 'conventional' bombing (of civilians/innocents): hence, h/n I'm just interested in as stark types (though the 'scandal' of using nukes may be an additional object for analysis).
Boltonian - thanks for your thoughts on this too. (The reason I asked was it was being debated on various internet sites - not always reasonably, I don't think, more on which in a sec - and I think the 9th was the anniversary for Nagasaki).
While I think that H/N were ultimately unjustifiable (if understandable), I think you raise some v important points, incl the sketch of the development to nuclear weapons, as well as this:
"There was much agonising over the dropping of the bomb and it was a decision not taken lightly. Also, it was not simply a method of killing lots of Japanese; it was a way of shortening the war and thus reducing the total number of casualties on both sides."
Even if I think that h/n were unjustified, this is v important. It goes without saying that the decision was agonised over: v occasionally there are puerile portrayals of heartless 'yanks' and I just don't buy this. As you say - and putting the 'soviet factor' controversy to one side - the motives reasonably seem to have been to end (not just shorten) the war. And casualties may have been borne in mind (though the counter-factual figures given immediately after were plucked out of the air). In terms of the structure of the act (grossly oversimplifying chains of command etc): the 'end' in mind was, let's say, to hasten the end of the war, while the 'means' by which to accomplish this were the bombings. Unpacking the 'means' further, the bombings entailed the deliberate and intentional killing of, among others, many many civilians - or, to put it in different though I think non-contestable terms - innocents. Undoubtedly the motives which this act served can and indeed must be analysed. Here's where some critics go awry: assuming the 'soviet factor' argument doesn't hold, the bombings' legitimacy might partly depend on ends or motives: a (noble enough) aim of ending the war would differ from bloodlust, and so on.
But, the question is can this act - deliberately killing the innocent, or murder, which I assume is ostensibly unjust - ever be 'made just' by noble motives?
A couple of observations - you quite rightly imply that this is not a simple black and white issue. But here are some thoughts:
- The wars were waged nation against nation, not armed forces against armed forces , which is why factories manufacturing armaments were targeted for bombing.
- How do you decide who is innocent? And if there are innocent people are there also guilty ones? Doesn't everybody (except, possibly, pacifists) want to do everything they can to protect their homeland?
- Are factory workers innocent, even though they are manufacturing armaments? Are conscripts, even though they have no choice but to join up? What about regular forces who must obey their commander at all times? What about the general staff who must carry out the wishes of the politicians? What about the politicians, who have been elected or chosen to protect the nation's citizens? What about the citizens who demand that the politicians protect them from aggression and the consequences of war with everything at their disposal? Selecting the 'Innocents' from everybody else is not easy.
- H/N were chosen so that as much of Japan's industrial muscle could be incapacitated with the least impact on civilians (I prefer that term to 'Innocents'), otherwise Tokyo, Yokohama or Kyoto would have been chosen.
- Politicians must act strategically, even if the short-term is very painful. For example, Churchill deliberately targeted German cities for his bombing campaigns so that Hitler would retaliate and start bombing ours, which he did. That turned the Luftwaffe's attention away from our airfields where they were destroying our aerial capability. The price was lots of civilian casualties on both sides. But Churchill, quite rightly, saw his job as winning the war and protecting the long term future of his country.
- All war demands moral decisions from its leaders, so that the rest of us don't have that problem. We, the citizens, delegate that responsibility - at least that is so in an open society such as ours.
- Morality is not absolute, nor is it consistent in time and place. Although we would broadly agree about a moral code, I doubt we (you and I) would coincide in every particular, so who is right? This gap grows larger depending on one's culture, class, location, political system, education, and so on. Whose is the right one? Pacifists, for example, will not fight under any circumstances. I, on the other hand, would do everything I could to protect my family and friends from harm. I could argue that pacifists are hindering me from doing that by not fighting an aggressor - they would argue the converse. So, again, who is right?
- The objective of war is to win - that is what we demand of our leaders. Had Truman not ordered the dropping of the bombs because he had qualms about killing civilians and the allies had subsequently lost the war, he would have been vilified by history as a weakling, or possibly a traitor, who was not capable of doing his job.
My own feelings are quite mixed and often in conflict.
This is in large measure owing to my personal inner explorations. These have included accessing far too many life experiences in times and places different from my present experience.
Such explorations must be unique in every case -- everyone's collection of life experiences is distinct from everyone else's in the same way that everyone's personality is distinct from everyone else's, although there are of course common patterns, similar traits and experiences, and so on.
For whatever reason, my own "multiple life history" includes a great many male experiences but very few feminine experiences (and those I'm aware of were not pleasant).
Since the beginning of our species males have often been directly involved in war, particularly in recorded history, much more so than females (although they too have of course suffered from the direct and indirect consequences).
This means that anyone with a preponderance of male experiences will very often have accessible experiences of direct involvement with armed conflict, possibly ranging all across the board, from a lowly Mesopotamian standard bearer to an active field commander or even a battlefield monarch.
The reality of warfare will be somewhat familiar, then, even if there is no present involvement whatsoever.
I see warfare as a form of organized murder and can only justify it when it is defensive in nature, although I'm aware of other selves who saw (see) it differently.
One self, for example, was the monarch of his country; he saw warfare as an extension of statecraft and, becoming aware of the plans of monarchs of large nearby kingdoms and empires, tended to seize the initiative by striking first.
He lived (lives) before Napoleon, however. Small, professional armies were the order of the day, not the massive citizen armies raised and used by N.B. that in time became the industrialized armed forces of "total warfare," beginning with the American Civil War and extending into the Franco-Prussian war and World Wars I and II.
He was successful in unifying and enlarging his kingdom while preventing huge nearby states from crushing it, but he did not foresee how his own pattern, his own creation of a militarily efficient unified state could (and would) grow into a monster after his death.
(This is a very old pattern, one that can be seen in many times and places. Power corrupts, as is said.)
He was twisted, too, in a certain way, partly owing to a very traumatic event in his youth -- his feelings, including any natural empathy, were buried within him.
I believe in the dictum "You get what you concentrate on" but note that it is often much easier to be against war than to be for peace. The problem with being against war is that doing so forces you to concentrate on it, thereby enabling its creation in your reality.
Peace can be more difficult to imagine or visualize, tougher to concentrate on.
Even so, this strikes me as the way to go.
Back to the inner conflict I feel -- this has to do, again, with the many martial personalities found within my sub- and un- conscious, and not necessarily very far from the surface at all.
Other examples include a Roman officer stationed in Britain and an officer in the army of Charlemagne; both consider it normal to suppress those who resist the power they are part of with force, if necessary.
Fortunately, I do not belong to any military organization at present.
Soldiers who kill and commanders who order them to do so -- whether in a defensive situation or as aggressors -- necessarily develop a kind of hardening to enable them to do this, creating a disconnection from their natural feelings.
Often this is merely buried, surfacing later -- and not always within the same life experience; the inherent conflict must be worked through, sooner or later, and this processing itself can generate more violence, more trauma, more murder.
It would be great for humanity to finally end this perpetual cycle, a cycle clearly seen in such examples as the relation of Prussia (then the German Empire) to the France of the various Louis, Napoleons, and later Republics. Look what resulted from that, the untold misery of millions! (WWI shells are still killing those tasked with removing them from the soil of France.)
E: I have just ordered the Finkelstein/Siberman book. I'll let you know how I get on.
Re-the objectivity of history, you have succinctly voiced my fears over that proposition. Your example of Waterloo is a good one.
Is it (history)not, therefore,a compromise, a group-based average, a regression to the norm if you like. The extremes have been eliminated by collective memory and what remains is more likely to have been so than not, simply because it approximates to most people's views. But that version can only be acceptable as a general proposition - the big things (that the battle took place, where it happened, the outcome etc) - but the detail, as you imply, can never be anything more than subjective recollection.
The only reason, I suggest, that the general picture has been agreed is that more people think that x happened than y or z. It is a group-shared version that is vital for social cohesion. It reminds me a bit of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in that a sub-atomic particle can exist in an infinite number of potential locations but when observed it collapses into a probability of 1 in that place.
PG:
Interesting take on life. I know some QM theorists have suggested that all sub-atomic entities are alive in the sense that they decide which slit to go through n the two slit experiment, for example. Or each decides on its precise location.
Laughlin, whom I am reading at the moment, says otherwise. He thinks that this sort of reductionism is self-defeating because life is emergent - an organisational phenomenon.
You will need to explain a little more to me about experience being in the present. I have tried to consciously locate the present but I cannot - something has either happened (memory) or it has yet to happen (anticipation). There is no 'Now' that I can locate. Also, as everything we experience is mediated in the brain how can we differentiate between thoughts and actuality? Isn't everything reduced to thought - if by thought we mean pictures created in the brain?
That does not mean that thought is not real (subjectively real I mean) or to be denigrated. Nor that it does not in some way reflect something outside ourselves - although that would be difficult to prove. It seems to me that memory is easily fooled and we are almost always wrong about the future, so experience is illusory in that sense - we make up our history through our thoughts and that is our accumulated experience. What else is there? Physical sensations are mediated in the brain - it is we that distinguish between thoughts and experience but it all happens in the brain.
Re -personality, are you suggesting that we choose our own personalities, or that we can, within certain limits (genetics, upbringing etc)exercise choice?
I would agree that we select (or emphasise) certain of our characteristics at particular times, so that our behaviour adapts to the situation. But that is not the same as choosing whatever personality we feel like picking. I can amend (or feel that I can)certain aspects of my personality at the margins, either through a learning experience or by a big effort of will. But I cannot do very much about the basics, which I have inherited. I think I have said before that Matt Ridley's view, based on twin study research, is that about 50% of adult behaviour is governed by genes; 45% by outside the home environment as a child; and only 5% inside the home childhood environment.
Consciousness might be chemical but that has not been proved. We do not (yet) know whether it is a function of the brain or not. If not then what is it and where does it come from?
"Interesting take on life. I know some QM theorists have suggested that all sub-atomic entities are alive in the sense that they decide which slit to go through n the two slit experiment, for example. Or each decides on its precise location."
Absolutely; The problem is that we are so far unable to observe accurately sub-atomic entities. after all our observation capacity is relative to our physical reality. But I would actually even say that planets and stars are doing pretty much the same however their own space/time reality is obviously much larger than ours, yet it doesn't mean that they're not "alive", we all know that stars are born and stars die, their body change along their life, exactly the same as us, or the same as cell at at a micro level. For what is observed, there is more evidence that the phenomenon would be applicable to pretty much everything in this universe... on different scales.
"Laughlin, whom I am reading at the moment, says otherwise. He thinks that this sort of reductionism is self-defeating because life is emergent - an organisational phenomenon"
As Einstein said "God doesn't play dice". Life in itself, is an organisational process; it doesn't contradict what I say, it just makes "free will" nearly impossible because the first rule to obey would be the one we need to survive. We all need to breathe and to eat to stay alive; It's our categorical imperative. It dictates our life, first and foremost, we can't get "free" from the food cycle. We could sacrifice or renounce to pretty much everything, but the air you breathe or tonight's dinner is a different matter. Existence is a matter or choice but essence is anything but.
"You will need to explain a little more to me about experience being in the present. I have tried to consciously locate the present but I cannot - something has either happened (memory) or it has yet to happen (anticipation). There is no 'Now' that I can locate. Also, as everything we experience is mediated in the brain how can we differentiate between thoughts and actuality? Isn't everything reduced to thought - if by thought we mean pictures created in the brain?" that's because of the split between essence and existence(personality); essence experiences the present all the time but is unable to articulate it; it breathes it in and out. Existence (thought) is completely unable to experience since it project itself in the past or the future as you've illustrated. I think (not sure maybe someone here will be able to confirm) that it is one of the key principles of Buddhism. I don't know if you've watched "I heart Huckabees", it's a silly "existential" comedy, very funny imho, there is one part that sort of explain the "pure being" (or essence) part of the body where the tow main characters keep knocking themselves with a ball so that.... they stop thinking and enjoy simply "being".
Our thoughts cannot experience the present because they keep "traveling through time" but our pure being is experiencing the present all the time... otherwise we'd be physically travelling through time! Thoughts happen in the brain but the ageing process of your cells, bones, skin... is not.
"Re -personality, are you suggesting that we choose our own personalities, or that we can, within certain limits (genetics, upbringing etc)exercise choice?
I would agree that we select (or emphasise) certain of our characteristics at particular times, so that our behaviour adapts to the situation. But that is not the same as choosing whatever personality we feel like picking."
It's not as easy as that; I wouldn't say we can easily chose what influences our personality (ies); First of all there is only one personailty that is the reflection of your essence ( existence is the mirror of essence - can't remember who said that); However we are both nature and nurture and why it is possible we can ourselves select what personality side to put forward most of the times it works as subconscious influences that dictates you to be, think, feel one way when you're actually not really sure to understand why you would. You process what someone else has passed on to you without understand it, and very likely the person that has passed on the concept to you didn't understand it either. That could be expressed in "knee-jerk" reactions people are most capable of entertaining; but deep down this side of personality has no essence. ( or actually the essence of that side of personality is not theirs )
"Consciousness might be chemical but that has not been proved. We do not (yet) know whether it is a function of the brain or not. If not then what is it and where does it come from? " I definitely agree, I was joking about it... because we don't really know much about the nature of consciousness.
I thought it was quite good on the whole. He was quite restrained when dealing with people.
I still don't think he really gets the underlying reasons why people go for the new-age therapy/faith healer/clairvoyant stuff. It usually stems from some sort of emotional trauma or problem that people have. Nobody gets into spending lots of money on such things if they are in a perfectly healthy frame of mind. Intellectualising about it doesn't really help under these circumstances. A lot of people would probably benefit from a course of counselling or pyschotherapy but there are long NHS waiting lists, and its costly to go private. There is no quick fix but people want one and will turn to anything they think will help them. The rise in popularity of the new-age therapies may have far more to do with the break down of supportive communities and extended families than anything else. Far better to talk your problems over with a friend than hand £30 over to a stranger.
The two clairvoyants were particularly rubbish. Some people may really have a gift in this area, but they certainly didn't.
I'm looking forward to the next one. What did anyone else think?
PlasticGypsies writes: "that's because of the split between essence and existence personality); essence experiences the present all the time but is unable to articulate it."
Actually essence (this has a number of names; I tend to use entity or greater self) can express itself but this expression is mediated or colored ("filtered" some say) by what you call personality. (I tend to call this "egoic self" or "conscious self.")
This is accomplished by putting conscious self into a mild trance or dissociated condition and isn't particularly difficult (although it took me many years to learn to combine this with typing into my computer keyboard -- I am still quite primitive this way compared to many others I know -- let's say that this is more difficult for some than others, until some kind of breakthrough is achieved; it all depends on personality and its beliefs -- some personalities are much more restrictive than others when it comes to allowing or enabling a mild trance condition).
The "split" you mention is not nearly as stark as the word suggests but once again, as with trance, this isn't apparent until or unless some kind of initial breakthrough experience. (There are those who seem to be born with a minimal separation between "essence" and "personality;" my first encounter with someone like this was quite wild, accompanied by some truly impossible to ignore sensations, although she, a published author, later changed in certain ways, such that essence became much less pronounced, at least in my perception of her.
We are dealing here with an area that is very poorly understood, at least in our official culture, with its formal philosophies, crude religions, and primitive science (primitive in terms of its ability to deal with exactly this area, no matter that physics touches upon it, even though it has yet to firmly grasp it.)
More on this later (I work at home and am presently overwhelmed with 'to do' items).
There is a definite _conceptual_ and _experiential_ barrier here, one I've long struggled with. I find the challenge of this sometimes tiring but definitely stimulating.
Thanks for this. I will need to spend a bit of time digesting your post (not literally, of course) and then get back to you.
BTW, when you dispense your priceless nuggets of sound advice are they known as PG tips?
Biskieboo:
I can only take so much Dawkins, and decided to give it a miss but if you recommend it I will try the next one. How does he manage to get so much air time - perhaps he has a brother at C4?
Boltonian: 'Is it (history)not, therefore,a compromise, a group-based average, a regression to the norm if you like. The extremes have been eliminated by collective memory and what remains is more likely to have been so than not, simply because it approximates to most people's views.'
Yes, I would agree to some extent, although the way you put it suggests that there is a point at which the view of the historical past becomes fixed, and I do not think that it is quite as simple as that. I would also argue that if several different historians look at all the available accounts of a well documented event, compare them, taking into consideration the various viewpoints of the witnesses and the factors likely to have influenced them, and eliminate what is completely incompatible, then what remains can, potentially at least, be used to construct a fairly accurate and detaile picture of what occurred. The further back in time an event happened, of course, the fewer documentary sources there are likely to be, and the greater the potential for inaccuracy. The interpretation which is put on an event is a separate matter - French and British historians might have quite different views on why the Battle of Waterloo had the outcome it did, and those views would also change over time.
The myths of history are something else again, and these are very much a matter of popular perception . To give just one example, the traditional idea of the stoic and cheerful public mood in the face of the Blitz in WW II is very different from the impression one gets reading contemporary Mass Observation surveys, but for the majority of people it remains and will no doubt persist as the 'true' version. And there are plenty of other examples from recent history where the popular version of events differs from that of the historian.
On another level, history is not just about events but about continuing processes, by which I mean such things as the origins and development of the feudal system in medieval England (highly complex, that one), or the Industrial Revolution, or the development of the British Constitution, and here it is a matter of shifting perspectives rather than the establishment of a consensus. Nineteenth century historians tended to go for the Grand Narrative, leading inevitably up to the present (in line with nineteenth century ideas of Progress), whereas modern historians would generally see this approach as far too simplistic.
Just one further point on the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the moral implications thereof. The use of the atomic bombs should, I think, also be seen in the context of the conventional bombing of Japanese cities which had already taken place and which had already resulted in enormous loss of civilian life, as well as the destruction of much of Japan's industrial capacity. Most of Tokyo had already been pretty well levelled in a series of fire bombing raids, the first of which, alone, resulted in an estimated 75,000-100,000 deaths, mainly of women, children and the elderly, and by May 1945, well before H & N, most of the major cities in Japan had also suffered devastating raids, resulting in over a quarter of a million deaths. And in Europe the carpet bombing of cities in Germany had, of course, already caused loss of life on a commensurate scale. The response to the news of Hiroshima in Britain, judging from Mass Observation diaries and newspaper reports, was shock and horror, not so much at the scale of the loss of life, but at the fact that it was a single bomb which had done this. The fact that there would be continuing loss of life from the after effects of radiation was at that stage,of course,not understood
E: Just received the Finkelstein - will let you know how I got on.
Re- H/N; presumably it was felt that conventional weapons had failed if the Japanese had decided to continue the war, and the atomic option was very much a last resort.
Re the history question: on re- reading what I wrote yesterday I realise that there is one point which I meant to expand on but didn't, although perhaps it is obvious enough. The historical past is under constant scrutiny and re-examination, as new lines of enquiry occur to people, new documents come to light, and documents already known are studied again in the light of increased knowledge of and insight into the period in which they were written and the purposes they were intended to serve. So the narrative is never static, never entirely 'fixed', and there is always the potential for a genuine increase in understanding of the people and events of the past, whether in affairs of state or in the politics of a medieval village
I love the idea of history as an evolving story. Also, I guess. there is no reason why a later interpretation should be nearer the truth than earlier ones, despite the emergence of additional data.
Another source of confusion is bias (either deliberate or not) - the selective use of data, stretching and manipulating evidence to support a particular conclusion etc.
It is often said that history is written by the victors but the 'Losers' also perpetuate a tendentious view (if they are still around). I am thinking here of the numerous romantic tales of English perfidy in both Scotland and Ireland, where military failure is glorified and enshrined in the national psyche. I did not know, for example, that more Scots fought for Cumberland than for the Jacobites at Culloden. It was really a rather local affair but that is not how most of us remember it.
There are other motivations such as one's philosophical, political or religious viewpoint. I seem to remember Antonia Fraser painting Oliver Cromwell as a democrat many years ago. Much of Biblical era research has been muddied by either Jewish or Christian interpreters with an agenda.
And so on. Read widely and keep one's critical faculties intact is probably the best solution.
Yes, I've heard the pun a few times already. By the way that name is the name of an old weird -satirical tongue-in-cheek hip-hop band that a few friends and I created for fun a few years ago out of boredom, a plastic beatbox and a cheap computer based sequencer... I don't think we've ever recorder anything sober and never seriously... We tried for a while but that was against the band ethics of not taking things seriously; we all moved on to other music things and have the occasional jam session like in the good old days; I've kept the name as my Cif name and wanted to change it to something else but couldn't and the damage was already done.. ( and that's the boring story behind my internet name... sorry for personal anecdote- i'm usually not very good at talking about myself!) have a great day... I'm off on holidays this evening; quite looking forward to it.
It will give me time to respond to your recent post.
Biskieboo:
Thanks - I might look in on the CiF thread.
Enjoy the day trip.
Our next holiday will probably be January (Thailand)- the last was May in Scotland. We might get away for the odd short break before then but no summer holiday :-(.
"It is not just technology, however, but the questions being asked that have changed: cultural diversity, the relation of centre to periphery, social relations, power structures, economic systems, ecological change and gender issues are only some of the most recent concerns of historians and archaeologists. Such perspectives and goals inevitably reflect the thoughts and intellectual 'fashions' of our own time. The same texts, the same architecture, the same pots have been and will in the future be evaluated and understood in quite different ways that often say more about the society seeking such answers than about the ancient society itself."
-- Gwendolyn Leick in the preface to Mesopotamia.
Ms. Leick's comment goes beyond the simple fact that historians choose certain facts or evidence and leave out others, then creatively assemble these, all in accordance with their own beliefs. (Plus, to the extent history relies on prior history, a combination of facts, myths, and errors are transmitted across time, adding to the mix.)
There's a deeper, metaphysical side to history though, one I wouldn't expect all to acknowledge.
This is that each of us creates our own histories as we create "the past" and this applies to individuals and groups. This all happens now, in the present.
An added dimension is that of 'many worlds' or 'probable realities,' while anyone enthused with history may also be quite curious as to the nature of time itself, as I am.
Further, and related to this, is the concept of "simultaneous time."
This suggests that all times exist at once, including other selves as in what some refer to as "incarnations."
Again, I don't expect too many folks to even believe in such selves, as I do (based primarily on long experience) but if they do, this means that history is alive, versions of them alive within it.
Ok -- so I remain heavily influenced by the Seth material and related ideas, those having influenced my own beliefs and experiences; such material tends to be 'unacceptable,' its enthusiasts judged harshly.
I can deal with this and suggest that even if someone wrinkles their nose when encountering even a whiff of such ideas, history is still fascinating -- metaphysical dimensions or not -- and not the dead thing many of us might once have imagined when presented with some very, very dry and grossly oversimplified example in school, presented by someone lacking any real enthusiasm for the subject.
"I shall Return." -- General George Armstrong Custer.
Boltonian: 'Read widely and keep one's critical faculties intact is probably the best solution.'
Yesss! Bias will always be present to some degree, but the discerning reader who is not content to accept just one p o v will usually be able to spot where it lies: 'caveat lector' therefore.
The popular version of Culloden which you cite(and the Battle of the Boyne, for that matter) fall into the category of what I termed 'the myths of history'. And don't get me started on the 'Hollywood' versions of historical events, which some people seem to be prepared to accept at face value!
I am sure that we each create our own histories to suit all sorts of predispositions: temperament; philosophy; political preferences; religious convictions etc.
Also, each of us has a unique set of experiences which we like to relate to other happenings, therefore we will subconsciously skew the data, so that the story more nearly fits our cognitive capability. We like to rationalise and that must be based on experience.
Time is an enigma - I used to think that everything that had happened was happening, if that makes sense. But then I couldn't find the present when I looked for it, as I pointed out earlier to PG.
As for 'Many Worlds' it is certainly possible - and some eminent physicists think it is probable. I could not say whether we inhabit each simultaneously - it depends on one's views about time. Accessing or inhabiting other worlds as well as the one we are in might be possible but unless and until a critical mass actually has that experience - and it is incontrovertible - it will be difficult for it to remain other than a minority view; a hypothesis at best.
E:
As somebody said recently, 'There is history; there is proper history and there is Mel Gibson's history,' or something like that.
I am a fan of Patrick O'Brien and I went to see the film, 'Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World,' a couple of years ago. Apart from the serious miscasting and the solecisms, such as the captain addressing his coxswain by his Christian name, and the sheer superficiality of interpretation, what angered me most was the substitution of a French ship as the villain for the American of the book. Now, this might not matter as it was inspired by a novel and the film needed to sell in the States but the book is based on actual events. American ships were preying on British whalers in the southern oceans during the Napoleonic wars.
"Time is an enigma - I used to think that everything that had happened was happening, if that makes sense. But then I couldn't find the present when I looked for it, as I pointed out earlier to PG."
and
"As for 'Many Worlds' it is certainly possible - and some eminent physicists think it is probable. I could not say whether we inhabit each simultaneously - it depends on one's views about time. Accessing or inhabiting other worlds as well as the one we are in might be possible but unless and until a critical mass actually has that experience - and it is incontrovertible - it will be difficult for it to remain other than a minority view; a hypothesis at best."
Dear Boltonian:
Minority views are fine with me, while my own experience inevitably leads to my holding such.
Both areas or topics (time -- including simultaneous time -- and 'many worlds' or 'probable realities and selves') are nearly impossible to adequately explore without introducing some concept of fluctuating consciousness.
Colin Wilson, mirroring George Gurdjieff, addresses this over and over in many of his books.
What is 'real' to us at one moment changes, depending on the degree of expansiveness we are experiencing at that moment.
Each person has a 'normal' or 'groundstate' experience -- normal to them -- but even this can and does vary quite a bit over a lifetime.
They can experience a much wider existence or, alternatively, a much narrower one, and all of their thoughts about such questions will reflect where they are at the moment of reflection.
I enjoy history and pondering about it and the nature of time in practically all such conditions, from the narrowest to the widest (maybe, though, at my narrowest, it would be more honest to say that I become a bit like Henry Ford, who called history "bunk.")
I do recognize, however, the difference between the version of me who is simply enjoying reading about some other time and place and another version who is much more directly connected with that time and place, a probable version of it, or all times and places.
(Toynbee has something to say about this -- if you haven't read the excerpts from A Study of History I've put on http://www.realitytest.com/time02.htm , you might enjoy doing so.)
I've posted many times (and to many places) a reference, also, to Exercise 2. found at http://www.realitytest.com/doors.htm .
This deals with probable realities and selves. I have no idea how many on-line folks have actually done it (I've obtained next to no feedback) but those I've physically handed the exercise to have invariably reported later on the resulting mind blowing experiences (in one case quite upsetting, too; the lady in question tuned in to a pregnancy/abortion decision she made many years ago and, thanks to the exercise, was able to explore the choice she didn't make. The problem she experienced was that this other self was much happier.)
Have you all been following the CiF Blackmore debate? I know some have contributed.
I have decided to opt out - it was all getting a little heated and, dare I say it, irrational.
Even I got a bit hot under the collar at one point.
One thing occurred to me - what a very approximate thing language is. There were accusations of, 'You said this,' ,'No I didn't.' 'Well you meant that,' ,'No I meant this,' ,'But that's exactly what I said,' ,'No you didn't you said this.' Etc. Elliot and Pandora were classic examples of this. I don't actually think they were that far apart ( and neither was particularly wrong)but anger and ego had taken over. Listening to each other they were not.
Why? I think we are are at bottom always trying to simplify the world and relate it to our own experiences. Part of this is evident by our obsession with categorisation - we must place things and people into particular boxes. This is what happened here I think. The two named above had placed the other in a specific category which meant that neither had anything valid to say according to the other thereafter. Sad. It's a cliche but that is how wars start on many (most?) occasions.
This is when CiF becomes a competitive sport rather than a learning experience. Fun, on occasions, but not very useful.
It's a pity because I find the subject matter very interesting but I am not terribly keen on joining in a slanging match.
I think most people will follow their a priori beliefs to the bitter end . I am interested in parapsychological research , a year or so ago I was convinced it was impossible because of a prior commitment to material monism . Once you give up that commitment , not necessarily replacing it with anything , certain studies and experiments become more persuasive because you can judge simply on the data .
The trouble with knowing something is impossible is that you have to ignore the information from your senses that conflicts with that knowledge because your senses can be fooled . But if your senses can be fooled how can you be sure of the knowledge that lead to your prior commitment ?
You are certainly right about the inadequacy of language , at least in the blogging format . Giving people the benefit of the doubt and taking your opponents argument at its strongest is not much of a CiF tradition .
I know what you mean. Though I have just posted with a question (August 17th 15.02 for ease of ref) which I'm hoping someone will answer (nothing to do with the debate admittedly). SpaceP I need you!
I've given up engaging in this sort of debate, unless it's to inject a joke. I always feel like I've sullied myself if I lose my rag on CIF (it does still happen sometimes though).
I had a lovely day in France. We went up the bell tower in Boulogne - great view from the top, and had a very nice meal in the Cafe de Paris in Calais.
I now have a large vat of syrop de grenadine which should keep me going for a while. And the boy has enough chocolate brioche to last him, ooh, the next few hours at least ;)
I agree but where do the a priori beliefs come from. I think much is to do with temperament. In other words, I would prefer x to be true, so I will naturally lean that way until the evidence becomes overwhelmingly against it. Temperament, I surmise, is purely genetic in origin, although it can probably be tempered to a degree through nurture.
In this case evidence-based consensus might be futile but that is not to say we should give it up for there is no obvious alternative that I can see.
Language is a difficult one because it takes time, effort and a tolerance of others to ensure that they have understood what you wanted to convey. Even so, we can never be sure that this is the case. CiF, in my view, actively encourages misunderstandings because point-scoring is its primary purpose, at least on most threads that I have witnessed.
Biskieboo:
I will leave that one to SpaceP - my 'O' Level physics is not up to it.
Glad you enjoyed France - I like Boulogne - as superior to Calais as Venice is to Athens, in my view.
Steve:
I will be interested in your take on the CiF thread, particularly following the 15 rounds you seem to have endured with your adversary.
BTW, I enjoyed your poem inspired by my post. That post, incidentally, was a bit of mischief that (predictably) had its desired effect. CiF sometimes brings out the worst in me, which is why I post there sparingly nowadays.
The Blackmore thread has its spicy moments....I can't help myself sometimes - my later comments *do* have a lot of wind-up in them - but posting in anger is (I know from painful experience) a sure way of making an ass of oneself. I thought your comments, though, boltonian, were typically restrained. I know you don't favour the extremism which WML & I espouse from one side, and the rod-wigglers and vision-seers from the other - the middle ground has a tough time on such threads! Glad you saw the doggerel - "shut up and calculate" is such a great line; what doggerelist could resist?!
Also saw Biskieboo's question, and thought about it, but wasn't sure enough of my ground to comment.
Those types of threads are strange in a way. It genuinely mystifies me why "evidence" is such a taboo word for some. These are people who require evidence in their daily lives - would they go to work without evidence that they will subsequently get paid? Would they get into a plane without evidence that it really will fly and not crash? Or would they give me money without evidence that I would give them something in return?
And yet....reason is the major part of their lives, but it deserts them when *things that we would like to be* are at stake. Boy, what wouldn't I give to be able to make myself invisible at will! Or to be able to see into the future....but why waste effort trying, when we know it's impossible? Why can most of us distinguish between the possible and the impossible in daily life, but have blind spots elsewhere? I *know* there isn't an elderly female novelist living in my fridge, but some of these people would accuse me of having a closed mind for not checking every five minutes....or for not checking my neighbour's fridge when mine proves empty....how open does an open mind have to be? How many times does one have to show a negative, before the search for a positive can be called off?
The issue I have with WML (and why I am occasionally tempted to lay some bait) is not that we differ but that he seemingly has so little imagination that anyone who disagrees with his world view must be fair game for insult and ridicule.
Also, I find his style of debate utterly childish and charmless.
If he really behaves like that he must be a very lonely chap - perhaps that is why he spends such an inordinate amount of time on CiF. Maybe we are his only friends (scary thought), so in that sense I ought to feel pity rather than contempt.
This is an example of why I find his style so repellent:
'I think they (dowsers) need to be challenged, exposed and held up to public ridicule at every opportunity.'
Now, I hold no candle for dowsers, although I did a bit in my youth and there seemed to be something in it, but why on earth speak to anybody in such an ill-mannered and violent manner. The man is a yahoo in my book.
Now, on to your other point about evidence and why I do not take such an extreme rationalist view of the world as you.
Had nobody experimented with crazy notions and feelings that couldn't be proved but felt right then we would still be living in caves. Not acting until we have solid evidence for something would advance us not one jot - almost all the great leaps forward have been through (dread phrase) paradigm shift rather than incremental progress: Galileo; Newton; Einstein; Faraday; and so on.
Another is this - we are subjective beings and all our understanding of the world comes to us through our senses and is mediated in the brain. Through our own senses and not somebody else's. You do not know what other people sense, you can only surmise. So, when somebody says to you that they feel x, and you have no experience of x and, therefore cannot relate to it, how will you react. You could condemn it as nonsense and they are either mistaken (deluded to use a favourite term of abuse on CiF) or lying; or you could think that you trust that person and will take their word for it (but still not understand); or you have sufficient evidence that lots of others feel this also but you cannot, so you just accept it as one of those things (whilst still not understanding it).
Now, because everything comes to us though our own subjective brains we project our own beliefs and feelings on to others and feel uncomfortable when they do not coincide with that projection. So, we try to make them conform through argument (as am doing now), aggression, coercion, ridicule, and so on.
Next we come to evidence. Evidence for you will be different from my version, which will be different again from SpaceP's, Biskieboo's, a theoretical physicist, a post-doc mathematician, and so on. Some require a higher standard of proof than others to be convinced, particularly if it conflicts with something they hold dear and want to continue believing in.
An example is this. WML sets inordinate store by the peer review system for scientific papers. I pointed out (in that post) that certain eminent scientists have incontrovertible evidence that this system is close to being discredited because it it is so flawed and, in places, corrupt. He did not want to hear that because it took away one of the pillars of his core belief system, so he reacted predictably but without refuting my assertion.
Another aspect of evidence is that I must take on trust what experts tell me is so, because I am not an expert. What happens when the experts disagree, as they do frequently? It is left to us then to sift the arguments and muster as much knowledge as we can and make our own minds up. But we can only do that if we have not already closed off some of the options. In other words an open mind is not only helpful to learning it is essential and I have spent the last 30 years trying (against the odds sometimes) to cultivate one.
Some of the arguments formulated on CiF to support rationalism are a little facile, in my view. 'Water boils at 100C at sea level,' was one. Well it does for us now but then Newtonian physics did ok for 200 odd years until Einstein realised that it was not the full story. And one day, as he knew, Relativity will be overturned. Special Relativity is being challenged at this moment. so, what is sacrosanct? Nothing is the answer and when we look back in 200 years we will be amazed that we believed what we did. For, at bottom, it is all belief. What drives these beliefs? I have argued that temperament plays a huge part because we are all, to some degree, selective with the evidence (and evidence to one is not so to others) - even so-called rationalists.
Finally, I do not like denigrating the experience of others simply because I have not had that sensation. And to condemn others for being different from oneself does a number of negative things:
1) It is narrow-minded;
2) It leads to cynicism (and who wants to emulate WML?);
3) It is insulting; and
4) It is a barrier to learning and understanding.
There will always be those who prey on people's weaknesses and exploit their desires for nefarious ends. And one of Laughlin's key points is that is exactly what many scientists are now doing, so this behaviour is not just confined to clairvoyant wing of the party. There are snake-oil salesmen in all walks of life.
I can best summarise my position in two quotes, which I have used before here.
‘For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all that he condemns, or can say that he has examined to the bottom his own, or other men’s opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than to constrain others.’ John Locke.
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’ Shakespeare (Hamlet).
Bill Deedes died yesterday. For me he epitomised everything that is good and civilised about our species in general and this country in particular.
He was knowledgeable, compassionate, intelligent, unshowy, and unsentimental. He hated humbug, could spot a charlatan a mile off and did not take himself too seriously. He was hard working but knew how to enjoy the pleasures of life to the full.
When I grow up I would like to be bit more like that.
I saw some of the Sue Blackmoor thread, but lost it latterly. I die notice your (Boltonian's) tetchy responses to WML. You appeared to be responding through gritted teeth.
I haven't really engaged with WML, but I reckon that if he did not exist then someone would have to invent him. Why he reserves such venom for self confessed agnostics is anyone's guess. As I have mentioned before I find the agnostic/atheist divide very much blurred. Bizarrely, after much jousting, he seems to be more indulgent towards a religiously motivated evolution denier. nevertheless he really has unlimited energy to challenge religious claims and his challenge to find any evidence for a historical 'Jesus', has been interesting as I had never questioned this before.
I think he has discovered that unless you seek to outrage, you are less likely to elicit any reaction on cif; we are all flattered when we get a response!
As to the peer review system, could you explain more about "that certain eminent scientists have incontrovertible evidence that this system is close to being discredited because it it is so flawed". The problem is that although it is a very conservative process (in part this is its frustrating strength), I cannot see any viable alternative. Particularly not one that does not give free rein to all manner of crackpots.
Incidentally, noting one of the comments, I too have read Feynman's 6 easy pieces on holiday, (even the way out of date chapters) I am impressed by Feynman's sense of an overall picture.
(Biskieboo: 'with the metal' proper sense, in or within is better. I am not 100% sure but the Q seems very theoretical as I think the 'wafer' has to have negligible thickness)
Hi Martin and welcome back. I hope you enjoyed Ravenna - wonderful city in my view.
I would dispute that my first post was tetchy. I don't engage with him any more for many reasons but I occasionally post something that I know will have him mounting his high horse, which is fun but childish (which is one reason - another being time - that I don't post much on CiF these days). When directly challenged (second long post) he seldom responds - as he didn't on this occasion. My view, for what it is worth, is that he cannot deal in anything other than certainties. He used to be a committed Christian (by his own confession) and became a vehement atheist - this is quite a common shift (and vice versa) in my experience - veering from one set of certainties to another. That, I think, is why he hates agnostics with a passion, because they (we) are very comfortable with uncertainty. Anyway, psychology is not my bag, so I will leave it to others to speculate, if they wish.
Why is it not possible to challenge without sarcasm, ridicule and invective? I do not understand why rudeness and aggression are essential to CiF. Each to his own but this is not my way of discussing anything. This approach also diminishes any possibility of learning because it simply results in entrenched positions, tribal affiliations and willful misunderstandings.
I set up this site precisely to avoid such a 'Hammer and tongs' knockabout forum that can sometimes occur on CiF. It is meant to be different from , not a substitute for, CiF. Here, I hope we can explore ideas and play around with concepts without having the need to defend a particular position. I also hope we can disagree with respect here and try to understand other views without denigration or put-downs. I accept that CiF can be fun (and funny) sometimes but there are different ways of achieving that and I hope we offer an alternative here. Also, this blog can serve as a civilised refuge from other more bruising sites.
As for the peer review system, can I refer you to Messrs Laughlin and Smolin, eminent physicists both? They both attack academic institutions, funding criteria and the peer review system for being partial, self-serving, hostile to new ideas and, in some cases, corrupt. Laughlin, in particular, thinks that science is no longer a search for the advancement of knowledge but a source of competitive advantage for academic institutions, corporations and nations. The system actively discourages the sharing of knowledge, in his view.
I cannot speak from direct evidence but I have read others who, whilst not so outspoken, have voiced their unease in this area. The example I gave on CiF, that tends to support this, is the one Steve magnificently turned into verse. A friend's son, who studied physics at Oxford, gave it up as a post-grad when he was told that string theory is the only game in town and was more or less ordered to, 'Shut up and calculate.'
Now these might not be evidence of a widespread problem - perhaps you are more directly plugged into this world and can shed some light on it.
No, no the tetchy response was where you didn't mention his name at all. If he is very egotistical he may have missed it entirely! I sensed how you were feeling, nevertheless it amused me.
Now I did not know that he, who I do not name, was once a committed christian...hmmm. The psychology stuff is very tempting, but I agree with you in that domain. What would you do if he contributed here? He might behave differently, after all as I said, if you must have a response on cif, the easiest ploy is to go out of your way to be provocative.
One of his favourite sarcasms is about those whose minds are so wide open their brains fall out. I keep wanting to retort about those who have closed their minds so firmly that their brains cannot get back in!
Ever since published and quoted papers have been an indicator of the success of an institution, there have been problems with the role of scientific publications. Even before that though there has been an innate conservatism. No journal wants to be the one that published the absolute howler and no one wants to be shown up as an idiot. This is why Kuhn's model of how Scientists work is at one level fairly persuasive (the idea of falsification works at a different level - they are not necessarily incompatible).
The 4th to 6th C mosaics of Ravenna were astonishing, a real link between the Roman-Latin art and later medieval art. The history also set me thinking about the rôle of religion and that whilst it served a unifying purpose in medieval times, in a multicultural world religion has become dangerously counter-productive. Something to discuss another time perhaps.
The Blackmore thread does seem to have attracted some right weirdos, and not all from the "spritual" side of the fence either!
I have just invited ElliotCB to join us, as I found his posts to be intelligent and thoughtful.
Martin - I'm not sure if you are referring to me when you mention the "evolution denier". If you are, then I should point out that I have been a little disingenuous on some CiF threads. I do like pointing out that the theory of evolution is just a theory, but I am in agreement that it is the best theory (currently) to explain the world around us. I have managed to wind people up quite spectacularly this way, without even having to try very hard. Some people appear to have *way* too much invested in a particular view point, which I find interesting. I am just as interested in psychology as I am in science, and CiF is good value for money for studying the interaction of the two.
I didn't know that WML used to be a Christian, but it doesn't surprise me. Nearly all the most outspoken atheists that I have come across on CiF have eventually confessed to a Christian upbringing, or a period of embracing Christianity. Dawkins certainly fits into this category, and I would bet money that A C Grayling does too.
At the risk of upsetting our host here, I'm with Martin in sensing a degree of tetchiness in one or two of boltonian's posts on Blackmore's thread - and why not?! It's good to see, sometimes....even Biskieboo's been known to snap back on occasion.... ;-} We all get rattled sometimes, but I've never been offended here....I like being able to discuss things calmly here, but it's good to be able to let rip on CiF sometimes....in any case, what do you do when you're clearly arguing with a nutter? Walking away may be the smartest policy, but it's easier said than done....
I'm intrigued by hearing that you-know-who used to be religious - I'm sad enough to try to track down where he might have said that - any clues to relevant threads would be helpful. For the record, I also had a Catholic upbringing, a bit stop-start, but enough for Biskieboo to say "Aha! I thought so...." (I've described it previously on CiF.)
I agree totally with Martin that we shouldn't discard the peer review system until we can find something better. I've had two papers rejected in my career; one justifiably so, the other bugs me still. (The other side of the coin saw me, whilst still a student, wrongly reject a paper from a guy I subsequently worked for!) But how else can they be assessed? It would be far worse to publish *everything* without some kind of filter. Then, no matter what ridiculous idea you subsequently espoused, you'd be able to give an apparently impressive reference as back up.
I also pricked up my ears at boltonian's mention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics being under threat - can you point me to further info? My gut feeling towards this is scepticism, but I'll reserve judgement for the mo....
Yes, I can see how I came across as tetchy in that post. I don't usually bother to respond but perhaps I had enjoyed a glass or two of wine by that time :-}.
I agree with you that Kuhn and Popper are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
My view is that he would not behave very differently here because I don't think he can help himself - I might be pleasantly surprised. I would not invite him, however - too much water and all that. The history is quite a long one. Yes, that piece of sarcasm is well used but not original. And I do believe he has a closed mind but I have no idea what it might take to open it.
I think the role of religion in our cultural development is a very legitimate topic for discussion here. Biskieboo:
Elliot CB would be very welcome here - I too found his posts interesting.
Re- evolution. Laughlin is quite scathing about how much we take on trust here. He just doesn't buy that evolution explains everything about life. His view is that citing evolution at every turn is just plain lazy. I have promised a synopsis of the book when I have finished it - nearly there.
Wait a minute Steve has just posted something.
OK guilty of tetchiness. I confess.
He posted something a few months ago where he talked, in almost confessional mode, about being brought up a Christian and being committed until uni, whereupon he underwent a 180 degree transformation. He also talked, in the same post, about being aware of how much pain he caused his parents (still very much church-going Christians) by his volte-face.
In an earlier post he mentioned his father as being involved in good works and that he aspired to that someday. Perhaps he is just intellectually and emotionally torn between two worlds.
Re- 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - it could be one of several authors:
Susskind:
Rees;
Kaku (most likely)
Al-Khalili; or
Gribbin.
The memory I have is that it is being challenged by certain hypotheses, not that it has been overturned. The reason it caught my eye is that this is the one theory that Einstein thought would never be overturned.
I will try to find the reference if you like but it might take me some time.
I greatly doubt that the principle that entropy will always increase in any spontaneous process can be overturned as in my understanding this is a function of mathematical probabilities. So unless the principles of probability are overturned, I think Einstein is right and we are stuck with the laws of thermodynamics.
Don't worry I am not about to invite anything that might approximate to a woolly monster loony on to this site. Biskieboo, I thought you were one of the targets, if I had been referring to you I would have mentioned your moniker.
As for evolution it is the backbone of Biology. Biology as it has developed from natural history is the study of the consequences of evolution. You might just as well complain that it is lazy to assume that matter is particulate.
Martin, Woolly has been uncharacteristically kind to me for two threads now, that's why I thought you might be referring to me. I think I do know who you mean now, and I think it is because he recognises that this person is highly intelligent, even though he doesn't agree with him. Progress perhaps?
I must admit that I do actually quite like the chap, despite all the abuse he gives out to me and others. It's quite fun to go head to head with him sometimes, as long as you don't take him too seriously. I admire the fact that he doesn't give a stuff if people don't like him because of what he writes. That is a very honest way to operate. I can't stand it when people just say what they think other people will want to hear. I admire our friend Bill here for the same reason.
One can be morally brave, express one's views strongly and yet be respectful and well-mannered to those with whom you might disagree. Anyway that's quite enough of him from me.
Martin:
I am sure you are right about entropy (although I had not made the link with probability) - I will try to find the reference if I can find the time. Perhaps SpaceP has something to contribute here.
I have located the chapter from the Laughlin book on evolution. Obviously I cannot quote the whole chapter but here is a paragraph to give you a flavour.
'Evolution by natural selection, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! Sometimes one hears it argued that the issue is moot because biochemistry is a fact-based discipline for which theories are neither helpful nor wanted. the argument is false, for theories are needed for formulating experiments. Biology has plenty of theories. They are just not discussed - or scrutinized - in public. The ostensibly noble repudiation of theoretical prejudice is, in fact, a cleverly disguised antitheory, whose actual function is to evade the the requirement for logical consistency as a means of eliminating falsehood. We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or a magician - a discoverer and exploiter of pre-existing physical principles or a worker of miracles - but we shouldn't. The former is theory the latter antitheory.'
where a recent issue of the journal "Homeopathy", devoted exclusively to "the memory of water", is discussed. The blogger and commenters seem to share my views on the invocation of quantum theory (and, indeed, any insufficiently understood hypothesis) to "explain" pseudoscience....
Incidentally, I found that website via Ben Goldacre's Bad Science blog, which many of you will know as a good read - here's the link for others (there's recent stuff about Dawkins & homeopathy, amongst lots more):
http://www.badscience.net/
Biskieboo - can I be a page boy when you and WML tie the knot? ;-}
I'm not familiar with any hypothesis that requires the overturning of the second law , I'd be interested to see one . Laws are established through observation , an observation that is never contradicted is a law . Before I'd take any such hypothesis seriously enough to call it a theory I'd want to see an observed deviation from the second law .
It should be pointed out , though , that laws are the least interesting thing in science as they don't explain anything . This is why theories are the summit of scientific understanding .
boltonian :
Interesting quote from Laughlin .
As an aside I have to admit that as I read it i was instantly wondering when some ID/Creationist would quote mine "antitheory" as support for intelligent design . Though I am sure Laughlin is no creationist .
Steve :
Sounds like the kind of thing Gell-Mann called "quantum flapdoodle"
I have been trawling through all my science books trying to locate the relevant piece, so far without success. I am sure I didn't dream it, so I will persist. Freeman Dyson, in an essay, speculates about the Second Law and indulges in some what ifs but that is not what I was looking for. I can definitely rule out Kaku now.
Laughlin, I am equally sure, is not a creationist. My take on his beef, so far, is that the scientific community has lost its rigour and drive to enhance knowledge for its own sake.
Boltonian, I googled for Laughlin and found a similar or perhaps the same quotation on an ID site.
The tone and content: "Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution!" - leaves me deeply unimpressed. I doubt Laughlin himself could explain what "Your protein defies the laws of mass action?" is supposed to mean; it is scarcely believably ignorant.
Actually the question is usually: How has this evolved to be like this? (not, oh it's evolution what's done it) and this line of inquiry has not only been highly productive, but apart from a politically driven Soviet version of Lamark in the 50s, no one has come up with an alternative strategy. I very much doubt Laughlin provides an alternative.
I imagine Laughlin would be unimpressed by a critic who claimed that Physicists lazily explain any odd phenomenon by saying 'it's a quantum effect'!
Does his book display the qualities of "rigour and drive to enhance knowledge for its own sake" that Laughlin finds lacking today? This conclusion may well be right, but for other political and socio-economic reasons.
Now I shall risk displaying ignorance by trying to give a simplified explanation of the entropy and probabiilty. Imagine an amount of energy in one place; for a transfer to take place there needs to be a second place, this means that there are now possibilities, in fact finite probabilities, for the energy to be in two places. However small or great the probability neither can be 0 or 1 (100%). In reality there are many possibilities, but any transfer introduces more ways of distributing the energy: the energy is less ordered (in more places) and entropy increases. Another way of putting this is that if you double the volume of a gas, the mathematics of random movement dictates that particles will spread throughout the available volume - this is both a mathematical as well as an observable truth; (actually I would guess that in a very simple model of particulate behaviour with 2 or 3 particles you could get the same result without the random element). This is why I think that the 'laws' of thermodynamics are as much Mathematical (synthetic apriori?!) as Scientific (empirical).
That's an interesting take on it . I think you are mostly correct , though thermodynamic entropy can be increasing even if all the gas molecules in a beaker suddenly form a pyramid shape . As long as the energy is dispersed the entropy increases .
I would say that the probabilistic approach based on random movement from pure mathematics is approximate . With enough information the behavior of gas molecules in a beaker isn't random but deterministic . Though , of course , it is practically impossible to get that much information .
I suppose the main point I would make is that until you go out and measure you can't be sure of anything . People thought that action at a distance was impossible till Newton for instance .
You will need to read the whole book rather than my amateurish summary and (possibly incorrect)interpretation thereof.
I am not a Laughlin apologist, by the way, but he is a Nobel laureate - not that it makes him immune from either prejudice or poor judgement.
SpaceP - thanks. I am much clearer now on the relationship between probability and entropy.
All:
There is a TV programme on tonight at 11 15 BST on ITV1, called, 'The Muslim Jesus,' presented by Melvyn Bragg (always a good recommendation, in my view).
It is an exploration of Islam's relationship with Jesus.
It was a little predictable and disappointing for me.
It comprised a number of imams talking and preaching about how Jesus is a role model for Muslims but he is, for them, merely a messenger and prophet. He is emphatically not the son of God - there is only one god with one nature and to suggest otherwise is blasphemy.
In the name of balance there were a number of Christian scholars who were trotted out to show that Islam's interpretation was flawed because it relied on documents that were either very late or known to be spurious.
None of this was news, nor was there any evidence of a meeting of minds. The core beliefs (if not the values) of one religion is inimical to the other and the best that can be hoped for is some sort of agreement to disagree in a spirit of mutual tolerance.
From a personal perspective I became slightly exasperated at the silliness of it all. The metaphysics of both religions, in my view, is risible (no offence to you intended).
I am interested in the causes of such phenomena, both from an anthropological and a historical viewpoint. This programme advanced my knowledge not one jot in this area.
I was trying to understand the purpose of the programme and the only thing I could think of was that it wanted to show that Muslims too can be humble, unmaterialistic, merciful, challenging of religious authority and so on. That they also base their behaviours on the example of Jesus. In other words that the two religions share similar values and should try to get along better. If so, it failed - broken on the immovable rock of dogma.
It was uncharacteristically superficial for Bragg, in my view.
I have read the first couple of chapters of the Finkelstein/Silberman book (Genesis and Exodus) and I cannot put it down. Thank you for the recommendation. It makes much more sense, so far, than Rohl's thesis.
At the same time I bought, 'Who Wrote the Bible,' by Friedman (much referenced by Finkelstein). Have you read it and, if so, what is your opinion?
All:
I caught the last 40 minutes or so of the Dawkins opus last night. Did anybody else watch it and what did you think?
Boltonian: Glad to know that you are finding the Finkelstein/Silberman book worthwhile. I haven't read 'Who Wrote the Bible' but have checked out some of the reviews and it sounds as if it would complement F/S perfectly, explaining the background of textual analysis which they touch on only briefly. All the accounts of it I have seen are agreed that Friedman writes very well, in a highly readable style, and gives a lucid account of a complex subject.
I didn't see the Dawkins programme. I had it marked as possible viewing but, in the event, it was almost over by the time I had finished dinner. I doubt, though, whether I would have learned much from it; 'shooting fish in a barrel' came to mind!
1.) A web video version of Dawkin's show is accessible from The Daily Grail -- if this link doesn't work, look under "TDG Video" on the upper right of The Daily Grail's opening page.
2.) Commenting is down at CiF: "Apologies to our readers. Comments are currently disabled by a technical fault - we're working to fix the problem."
I have just caught the last hour of an interesting programme on BBC 4 about the Dead Sea scrolls.
One of the interviewees was a scholar who first got me interested in the inter-testament period - Geza Vermes. He is elderly now and a little frail but sharp nonetheless. Have you read anything of his? His view is that it will take many decades of painstaking forensic investigation before the 17,000 fragments yield up all their potential information. Of course, he is one of only a few real experts on the subject.
One thing that slightly puzzled me is that all the scholars interviewed seemed to take it as read that Jesus and John the Baptist existed as per the Gospels. It is true that Vermes was not asked to discuss anything in this area but others were.
I have also bought a book (the third of three) called, 'Who Wrote the Bible?' It is a textual analysis of the NT, which should provide some insight.
Boltonian: I have read a couple of books by Vermes (The Changing Face of Jesus and The Authentic Gospel of Jesus) but not his work on the Dead Sea Scrolls. The BBC4 programme on the scrolls was,I think, shown earlier this year, when I saw part of it. Unfortunately, I did not check the TV listings for yesterday evening; if I had known they were showing it again I would certainly have watched. I was, at any rate, aware that there is still a great deal of work to be done on the scrolls, and that more is being discovered as techniques of conservation and reconstruction of the manuscripts improve and new methods of making them legible are developed.
Most of my reading on the subject of biblical criticism was done many years ago, and I have probably retained only a fraction of what I read, but I, too, am puzzled by those scholars who seem to accept so much of the gospels, in particular, at face value. I see no reason to suppose that John the Baptist and Jesus were not genuine historical individuals - it is hard to see how they could have had the impact they did if they had not been - but the books of the NT were written with the hindsight of belief, and while the synoptic gospels, at least, probably retain the core of their teaching, I doubt whether anyone is capable of disentangling this entirely from the accretion of material from other sources, including the purely mythical. As I understand it, it would in any case have been entirely consistent with 1st century practice to attribute words to a teacher or prophet which he never actually said, not with the intention of misleading, but in order to make a theological or doctrinal point.
I will try and get hold of the Friedman and Ehrman books and bring myself up to date on the subject.
I find I cannot compete, Though try as I might With your poetical posts, Where your feelings take flight, So I read and admire Things I find such a slog Proud of such talents On Boltonian's blog.
To Mr boltonian : Sir, I request that it be de riguer To discuss metaphysic In language poetic (I trust that the others concur).
Philosophy written in rhyme Might seem a huge mountain to climb. But to see ChooChoo's views When transcribed by the Muse Would be treasured by me for all time!
;-D
('Tis August; the Silly Season; what more can I say?)
It started off as a blog in French, btw, moved on to discussing languages in general, then the assignation of gender to nouns in some languages; finally - ?
My muse, alas, is dressed in motley, She has no place debating hotly The matters posed in this arena, Where subtle verse or sonnet leaner Would fit the topics under question My muse would suffer indigestion.
To Steve (AA's poet in residence), in response to your request:
Should I be forced to post in verse My compositions would be terse, 'Hurrah,' say some and 'Shame,' the rest, 'A gallant try,' 'A noble jest.' I can't compete with you or 'boo, E's good as well but where's ChooChoo? Like you I'd love to read his view Cast in rhyme with words so few, And SpaceP's thoughts on quantum things In verse'd augment the light he brings.
Another 9.9 for boltonian from this judge!....but then....:
I've emulated poor Pandora, Opened boxes best left sealed, Released the Beast of Rhyme, just for a Joke, and now He will not yield.
Still, midnight soon arrives, it brings (As Cinderella knows) the chime, When metaphysics spreads its wings, And bursts forth from the chrysalis of Rhyme....
No need to apologise - I am a little rusty too, having last wrote in verse sometime around the Iron Age (pun intended).
E:
Just finished the main body of F/S and just about to start on the Appendices.
The main piece of new learning for me is the revelation that most of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges and Kings was composed before the Babylonian Exile, during the late Monarchy. I had understood that most of these texts, along with Isaiah, Jeremiah and some other prophets, had been composed during and just after the Exile.
Also, I thought that the Israelites/Jews only became a distinctive people at this time. In other words it was the trauma of being uprooted from their homeland that drove the need for homogeneity, so the mythology grew from the need to explain and comfort. Much as exiles today are often more fiercely patriotic than those that stay at home - Irish Americans is one example that springs to mind.
But, I suppose there must have been something that gave them a cohesion in the first place - language, customs, diet etc.
I will post a fuller summary when I have finished the Appendices.
Boltonian: The books which F/S argue were compiled in late monarchic times did, of course, undergo further redaction in the post exilic period, in the light of the disappointed hopes of the original writers and to meet the changed circumstances. Nor does their view contradict the idea that it is only after the exile that one can speak of the Jews as a consolidated group who defined themselves by adherence to a single, monotheistic religion and concomitant set of laws (though one could argue that the monarchy of Judah, with its cult centred on Jerusalem, was in some sense proto-Jewish). On the other hand, the first reference to Israelites is in Egyptian inscriptions dating from the end of the thirteenth century BCE, and it is clear that by the time the two kingdoms were established these people had a distinct cultural and geographical identity, centred in the highland regions. Their origins (or so F/S argue) can be traced back at least as far as the point at which settlements in that region, continuously occupied up to and during the monarchic period, were first established. One piece of information which I found interesting was that these settlements were, in the Iron Age, characterised by the absence of pig bones, in contrast to Philistine settlements, for example.
Apologies for the following (I'm not going to compete with Steve and Biske on CiF) but apropos the Blackmore thread
'I will', I said, but then thought, am I free If in my consciousness there is no 'me' To will the deed or choose a course of action Among life's branching paths? But this see, Without free will there is no satisfaction. And so we yet sustain, if as illusion, The notion we may will our own conclusion.
Funny what the muse comes up with on a trip to Sainsbury's
From ChooChoo on the CiF Blackmore thread (I hope you don't mind CC but I will not have the time to study your post on CiF and the thread closes soon)
'I've finally served out an admittedly brief, self-imposed period of penitence (in the form of abstaining from posting) for my earlier verbal misadventures.
Boltonian - "If you choose not to act on that impulse it just pushes the cause elsewhere - that there is a stronger impulse not to act thus. If you really want to eat that cake but resist are you acting freely or mechanistically?"
I think this raises another complicating factor - as if there weren't enough - namely, first and second order desires (i.e. I want to eat the cake, and I don't want to want to eat the cake). I think you rightly noted that we can only see our actions through a glass darkly. But it is difficult (for me) to strictly identify even our desires (and, of course, desires about desires) with brain states: there clearly appears to be some sorts of profound connections (which makes forms of substance dualism - and possibly even epiphenomenalism (phew) - awkward insofar as the connection is attenuated), yet individuating a desire does not 'map out' simplistically into an individuated 'brain state'.
Second order desires (with apologies to proponents of certain lines of 'enlightenment' thinking) might also raise the question of rationality (which, again, I think might also be relevant to free will). When we have ideas or, better, formulate ideas, they are not (*so it appears* - and here is one possible little push that encourages the Churchlands go down the route they do) structured in terms of material and efficient causation: formulating a syllogism or working through a complex inductive argument does not seem to be structured in this way. Brain processes are (in an absurdly complex way) structured in terms of material and efficient causation. Now, there are (I understand) huge problems with trying to identify (in the strict sense of the word) idea x with brain process y. And the problem I have with epiphenomenalism is that, first, while it accepts a connection going in one direction (material brain processes to 'mental processes' - note that - as far as I understand it - epiphenomenalism does not argue that 'mental states' [qualia, ideas, etc] are material) but not the other: mental states have no efficacious capacity whatsoever. Now in terms of our ideas, they have meanings, significances etc (which, a cursory glance at 20thc history would suggest, do have efficacious capacities): the brain processes on which these are said to be *wholly* dependant and of which they are the product, do not have these meanings, significances [what is the meaning of neurone A firing off to neurone B?]. But, then, how is it that there are any such meanings (if mentality has no efficacy)? In some senses, this is where I think that the analogy between (our) sense of consciousness, intentionality etc and computers breaks down, though I can understand (and in certain moods) might share SeattleDodger's advocation: does my computer 'understand' the (crap) chapter I've written on it? Moreover - as, I think, Searle has noted - computational systems are, in a sense, relative to us: we compute using computers etc (and I don't think it is irrelevant that computers are artifacts).
At the same time, I find neuroscience - from my squinting, short-sighted layman's perspective - fascinating. I've briefly met (don't ask how - complete fluke, through a crazy friend I have who somehow hobnobs with all manner of worthies - Geoffrey Raisman (who coined 'plasticity' in relation to the brain) and Sue Greenfield and found what they have to say exhilerating (I have no idea whether they are now at the pinnacle of the field - for these purposes, it's irrelevant). One interesting things, for me, was to do with 'ethics' broadly construed. Virtue ethics - i.e. dealing with the relevance of our good and bad dispositions, character etc - is respectable once again (not sure if on CiF, but at least in some philosophy departments). And it has some interesting (though at the embryonic-stage) connections with neuroscience: neuroscientists fruitfully show how important habituation is to the brain's (and our) development, and virtue ethics tries to resurrect 'habitual dispositions' as being of importance in moral discourse. (Hope the connections are clear, even if general and, at this stage, slightly superficial).
Doesnotexist - that's right on the medievalist front wrt standardised spelling - I spent quite a while yesterday stressing over a word which, it turned out, had lost its diphthong from the days of classical latin (paene --> pane): I kept asking myself, why the hell is this dude talking about bread (panis, -is) all of a sudden? I guess Braulio of Saragossa must be embarrassed of himself now, just as I was yesterday in these parts. That said I'm affecting vengefulness - and despite your sympathy - I will have my dictionary, thesaurus and, just for the hell of it, lectionary on my lap whenever I read your posts from now on. My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth... '
As promised a brief synopsis of 'The Bible Unearthed,' by Finkelstein and Silberman.
E: could you please correct me and add anything you think I have missed.
It is based mainly on the archaeological evidence, although there is a fair chunk of historical data (mainly Egytian, Assyrian and Babylonian) and some textual analysis of the scriptures.
Their conclusions are these:
- The timescales in the OT are wildly incorrect;
- No evidence for the patriarchs;
- The captivity did not occur, therefore there was no Exodus;
- There was no united monarchy;
- If David and Solomon existed at all they were likely to have been local tribal chieftains from the hill country of Judah, ruling over very small populations;
- There is evidence to suggest that there was a common culture in Palestine, which might loosely be termed Israelite, from about 13thC BC (absence of pig bones in certain sites);
- Joshua did not exist;
- The first scriptures (The Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges and Kings)were written during the final days of the monarchy in Judah during the reign of Josiah (7thC BC);
- There were further redactions during and just after the Babylonian exile (6thC BC);
- The cult of the monotheism of YHWH only rose to prominence during this time - 7th and 6thCs BC;
- Some of the scriptures might have been based on orally transmitted folk tales and myths, although which is difficult to say;
- Much of the motivation for the writings was to demonstrate the superiority of Judah and, in particular, its king Josiah;
- By the time the scriptures were written the northern kingdom had already been destroyed by the Assyrians, which is the reason it gets a bad press in the OT - history is written by the victors, or at least the survivors;
- The Israelites, far from destroying the Canaanites, were Canaanites;
- Manasseh was a successful monarch presiding over a long period of peace for Judah ( and not as in the OT), whereas Josiah is more likely to have precipitated the events leading to the destruction of the kingdom.
SpaceP:
I will finish the Laughlin and give a summary soon.
Bill posted on the Blackmore thread: "I imagine (don't know) that consistently high levels of unmetabolized adrenaline could be nasty but years ago I read about a [theory? research?] suggesting unmetabolized adrenaline can degrade into a mescaline-like substance.... "
I would be VERY VERY interested if anyone knows any more about this.
Boltonian: That seems to be a pretty comprehensive summary, though I would add that the authors stress what they see as the religious as well as political motives of Josiah - the wish to establish the cult of YHWH as the sole religion of the people of Judah. They also make the point that, although the stories of the Patriarchs were presumably based on legends, hero tales and folk traditions, the archaeological evidence does suggest possible circumstances in which they might have originated. For example, there seems to be a recurrent pattern in which some of the people of the region shifted back and forth from a nomadic and pastoral way of life in times of political stability and prosperity, to a settled, agricultural subsistence when things were more unsettled, and this might perhaps be seen as the background to the stories of the early Patriarchs. And although there is no evidence for the Exodus or the Conquest of Canaan as depticted in the biblical account, Semitic peoples from Canaan did periodically move into the region of the Nile Delta and settle there, the most notable instance being the immigration which led to the Hyksos establishing a ruling dynasty in Egypt c.1670 BCE (later accounts depict this as a violent invasion, but the archaology suggests otherwise). The Hyksos were, of course, eventually defeated and driven back into Canaan.
PS. I forgot to say that, although the accounts of the 'empire' of David and Solomon have no historical basis, there is some independent evidence that the rulers of Judah traced their descent from David, namely the inscription from Tel Dan, in which Hazael of Syria boasts of his defeat of Jehoram king of the House of David c.835 BCE. The authors also note the correspondence between the tales of David as chief of an outlaw band and the 14th century BCE Egyptian accounts of the Apiru as a class of brigands on the fringes of Canaanite society.
This is a very interesting - and complicated - blog.
Could someone comment on the following experience which anyone can undergo at any time, apparently at will?:
In your field of vision your attention is by default on the object(s) in the centre of the field. Without moving your eyes at all, you can however, shift your attention to an object in the peripheral field. The colloquial term is "looking out of the corner of your eye". Similar attention allocation can be done with hearing.
To do the above apparently requires only a pure mental act, and absolutely no physical action (if the movement of the electrons in the neural circuitry is ignored).
Has the attention been shifted as an act of will or is something external to consciousness causing it?
In fact, are the neural electrons that constitute the thought "I will now shift my visual attention to that cup in the periphery of my field of vision without moving my eyes" caused to move by an act of will? Or are they moved by something external (say cosmic rays) and subsequently give rise to a sensation (illusory thought) of conscious free will?
Welcome and thanks for your post. Very worthy, I would say. I will be interested to read the responses.
I am sorry about the complication and I hope you can pick out the things that interest you.
Although Free Will is the title of the thread, you can pick up on anything that you would like to comment on. Or bring in a new subject - there is a wide variety interests and expertise here.
HM Italy - I second Boltonian - your point definitely is worthy. (And sounds like an ingenious example from which to think). I cannot speak about this from the neuroscientific perspective (i.e. whether there is any brain activity - you suggest there isn't - at the same time, even if there were, that doesn't clear things up so obviously as some might immediately suggest).
Another question - raised by someone (forget who) on the CiF thread - how does rationality and language affect the free will question? I won't attempt to answer this directly. But, I think that there is one thing of note here which might be relevant since the free will debate so often plays out in terms of (a priori - which, unlike some people, I don't mean pejoratively) debates about causation. Our (sophisticated) abilities as language users means that we can represent 'reality' to ourselves. In sum, this might have some implications for 'demanding' (and a prioristically) the primacy of physical, efficient causation. When we look at someone doing x (say, posting a blog), we do not explain it in terms of efficient causation; rather (we rightly or wrongly) attribute reasons and assume purposive behaviour. It is almost offensively obvious to point this out, but when scientists inveigh against intelligent design, they make (among other points) that it is a way of 'sneaking in' creationism. (What a reason for or explanation of ID couched in terms of efficient causation would look like beats me). These purposes are - I take it - very much real (though we can vary in terms of how on the money we are with our attributions). I wonder (and hope) this might be of some interest in this debate and milieu, since it introduces the possibility of talking about 'causes' and 'reasons' for action which do not necessarily involve the (seemingly anathema - as I said, I don't subscribe to it, but the rejections are slightly too speedy for me) substance dualism.
I take it that these reasons are - in some sense - real. I am writing this now because I enjoy speaking about these matters on this site and am specifically interested in etc etc. I cannot see how these reasons are identical to brain processes (where, to repeat from CiF, according to the principle of identity, for two things to share identity - i.e. be the same - they must have the same attributes / properties: this is (surely) not true in the case of 'reasons' for action and neurological processes: one way to think of this might be the same reason we have for doing something, perhaps on a daily basis, will not involve exactly the same neural connections each time).
If different (and I can't quite see how not) there is the question of epiphenomenalism etc, which people might wish to discuss. One thing that interests me: I mentioned on CiF the Churchlands & their thesis that (to put it simply) mental states (i.e. beliefs, intentions etc) simply don't exist (as opposed to most materialists, who say they do exist in some form). I think that part of the underlying genesis of the position is the difficulty of persuasively connecting things like 'reasons' / brain processes (as above) in an epiphenomenalist scheme: the metaphysical commitment to materialism (and reasons for holding to this are such) that the arresting thesis is posited. (I hope this is not unfair, I don't mean to 'psychologise' or 'unmask', and I write tentatively).
By, "(What a reason for or explanation of ID couched in terms of efficient causation would look like beats me)" I meant what a reason or explanation proffered - in terms of material and efficient causation - for why ID is proposed would look like beats me.
Basically, I think that we already agree - implicitly and embedded in the very discussions we have on these subjects - that not all aspects of our 'mental lives' can even be couched in terms of material/efficient causation.
boltonian - good to see normal service resuming here after the recreational outing to the Disneyland that is CiF....
:-}
ChooChoo - I sense (although you haven't stated explicitly) that you have some sympathy with the Churchlands' "eliminative materialism". Having just become an expert on the topic (good old wiki!), my inclination is against such a view.
It seems to me that if the wiki-ised rough description that "because of the inadequacy of natural languages, people mistakenly think that they have such beliefs and desires" is remotely fair to the EM position, then shouldn't the concept "think" also be a target? In other words, the more diffuse concepts to which they deny existence can only be rejected by using another, equally invalid, concept; that of thought (and its educated cousin, reason) itself. (I gather this isn't an original idea.)
I doubt we'll ever be able to isolate a chunk of matter and/or neuronal activity that corresponds exclusively with, say, "anger". But the end result exists, and at some point just prior to the fist-waving and swearing, there is a potentially isolable bit of activity in defined areas of the brain, and this has to be triggered by something. If this something isn't itself isolable, then what is it?
I'm not sure I'd want to identify *too* closely with either side, but I'd be happier without all those damned "-isms" every time I look something up. Philosophy seems to be just "ismism"....
Steve - I guess I wasn't clear. (Like you) eliminative materialism seems to me to be ultimately unintelligible for the sort of reason you give (i.e. it requires thoughts or ideas - in a sense the very thing it denies - to justify itself). I was fumbling towards an example of (in v general terms) a priori approaches to this question (i.e. materialist commitments are understood, particularly, to entail that ultimately beliefs, desires etc do not exist, because they do not fit the bill. There is a philosopher called - I think - Jaegwon who has explicitly said as much: if we have to throw this out for our metaphysical commitments, then so be it. I do not, of course, think that this is representative of all materialism).
As for isolable brain activity - of course it is just foolish to deny that this is vital for thoughts, ideas, intentions, beliefs, actions even etc.
As for the ismism syndrome - you're dead right (and I apologise for any contributions here). Not all philosophy is so saturated with it, but in philosophy of mind - perhaps intended as some sort of clarification aid - the isms proliferate.
ChooChoo, Steve, HMI (and anybody else who might be interested):
To start with steve's last point first.
I too am suspicious of too many isms but re-philosophy, I think you are being a bit harsh to dismiss an entire discipline because it attracts a few charlatans. I feel the same about psychology sometimes.
I know the late, great Richard Feynman claimed to loathe philosophy, and yet I would argue that he was a philosopher himself.
There are lots of philosophers I have little time for but some are really worth the effort. My favourites are: Hume; Spinoza; Berkeley; Descartes; Kant (although not easy to read); Russell; and Popper.
PG asked me why I wasn't a Platonist on the CiF thread. Apologies for not getting back to you. I do not denigrate or underestimate the huge influence that Plato has had on the whole subject but I do not buy into the main planks of his philosophy. I do not accept that our perception is a shadow of reality and that, conversely, if we were able to see the real world it would be like our view of it but much clearer and more perfect. Also, he was an aristocrat concerned with protecting his class and its privileges and the Republic does not work as either a social or political treatise. Read Popper's demolition thereof.
I know, Steve, that you will disagree here, but I think we have no evidence that our perception bears any resemblance to the real world at all. I think it was SpaceP who said some while ago that physics is metaphor all the way down.
Moving on to consciousness, I read, 'The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul,' by Churchland(s)a while ago, so I might be misrepresenting their position.
Their thesis, as I remember, was that consciousness was a function of the organisation of the brain. In other words it was an emergent property that could not, therefore, be reduced or isolated but was nonetheless wholly a function of the brain. And that was all there was to mind.
Now, I am no dualist but their argument did not convince me - I would need to re-read bits of the book to say precisely why. I think it was because it seemed to be based on a hunch rather than a scientifically presented argument.
I agree with Laughlin that reductionism only gets one so far (and not very far at all according to him) but proving emergent properties is very difficult. Perhaps this delineates the limits of the scientific method. You scientists here would know that better than me.
Just read ChooChoo's latest. Yes, the philosophy of mind falls into a certain amount of ismism. I am not a fan of John Searle - the two books of his I have read on the subject are very lightweight and not very convincing. He seems to have built an entire reputation on one concept - the Chinese room.
ChooChoo - your earlier posts I think were concerned with will. Where does will live and can it be detected in the brain before the act? This is the HMI conundrum - what is it, if nothing physically moves, that directs the attention? It must be will.
I cannot say whether there is detectable brain activity that precedes the intention to act - have there been any studies on the will as a brain function?
You mentioned that we tend to attribute reasons or motivations behind actions, rather than causes. I think, though, that this might be a simple shortcut to the search for a cause. If we spent all out time trying to discover the underlying cause for an act we would get into an infinite regress, go mad, and starve to death because we should have been out there looking for food.
We need to know just enough to enable society to function, avoid getting eaten and find sufficient to eat. That is why our reasoning, at a normal (rather than heightened scientific) level is simple.
I wonder if we are not limited by our prison of causation dependence. We are conditioned to understand the world through causation but what if that is not at all how things work? Hume (the great sceptic) had much to say on the subject and suggested that much of what we perceive to be cause is illusion. Perhaps it is we that attribute causes to effects because that is how our brains work, and not that there really is a cause at all. I have often wondered this about time - if time is an illusion how can causation be real because it depends upon one thing following another in time.
"I think it was SpaceP who said some while ago that physics is metaphor all the way down."
I don't remember saying that , but in the sense that all we have is models I think it is correct . After all , what actually is an electron ? We can list its properties but I don't think we can know it in the sense we know a tree or a dog . And of course when we list its properties , such as mass , spin and charge , we are talking about things that are themselves somewhat metaphorical .
For instance what actually is mass ? A measure of how much stuff is in a thing , so what is stuff ? It's what we measure when we measure mass . All that matters is the model makes useful predictions . A good example is Einstein defining time as : "what we measure with a clock" for the purposes of Relativity .
"ChooChoo - your earlier posts I think were concerned with will. Where does will live and can it be detected in the brain before the act? This is the HMI conundrum - what is it, if nothing physically moves, that directs the attention? It must be will.
I cannot say whether there is detectable brain activity that precedes the intention to act - have there been any studies on the will as a brain function?"
Libet's experiments showed (though the interpretation is contested by Dennet ) that brain potentials appeared about a half second before the conscious knowing of a decision .
Looking for 'will' in the brain seems like it would be fruitless . Such an area could only be a switch (to put it very crudely) that activated based on neural activity elsewhere in the brain . Anything else would imply that an area of the brain can suddenly bootstrap itself into activation . This in turn implies either dualism or random activation .
boltonian - I certainly didn't intend to imply by my "ismism" jibe a dismissal of philosophy (in this context, at least) - indeed, I seem to be more sympathetic to them than to the neuroscientists when it comes to consciousness, free well, etc. And they always have the comback to the scientists of "too many -ologies"!
ChooChoo - OK, I think I see your stance now. No need to apologise for the "isms" (except, perhaps, epiphenomenalism, for which I still haven't found a rhyme....)
It was remiss of me to fail to say Hi! to HMItaly, and to ignore his/her comment. I'm not sure how straightforward it really is to concentrate on objects peripherally as an act of will, without moving one's eyes. Have you tried doing this with someone else checking to see if your eyes move or not? With hearing, it's obviously a little different. That's certainly one that the anti-free willers need to address....
Oh, and I forgot to say that reading about Mrs Dr Churchland, it seems she's keen on "neuroethics", which sounds like an ugly duckling of a discipline, if ever there was one....in fact, almost an oxymoron in this context....
I wish I could magically invoke the "souls" of all involved in this discussion, that is, enable them to speak through the conscious minds of our personalities.
Some of them, I'm sure, would have much to say, likely cutting through endless words and the beliefs of a great number of philosophical schools.
Writing in trance is one way to accomplish this -- somewhat -- but I am only able to induce a very light trance, while those who are skilled at communicating in deeper trances often are _not_ conscious of their communication. (Some who can type in this condition, for example, may read the results afterwards and marvel at them.)
This isn't practical, then, and I doubt those here are intrepid in that particular way.
(I've used the word "soul" only because that is closest to that which to I refer, in many minds. Generally, I prefer entity or essence, and am comfortable also with "greater self.")
Except perhaps as a child, I have never subscribed to the Christian idea of soul; when I did begin to suspect the reality of the being I'm calling "soul," this was primarily conceptual -- at first.
This didn't stay that way; in various ways, I eventually _experienced_ the living concept, but without reference to any specific religious beliefs, as they are usually considered.
Even now, however, I am usually just as "egoic" as the next person, offered merely occasional glimpses of this other realm of self. Every so often these glimpses are much more powerful, but for me, anyway, such experiences have duration and gradually fade.
(I suppose, then, that I'm not "enlightened," haven't attained "gnosis," haven't had a full "kundalini awakening" and so on, but then I'm generally wary of those who claim such attainments.)
Few of our souls would likely be capable of discoursing on the details of physics or neurology (I could be wrong -- you never know what experience and knowledge might exist in that region of self) but all would have much to say regarding philosophy, the nature of self, reality, the universe, and so on.
Meanwhile, I'm finally reading the short Quantum Enigma. It serves as an effective review of the history of physics and its concepts.
The mystery at its heart (the authors are physicists -- although very basic, this is no Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li Masters or any such book) is the interpretation of QM, which has, for the most part, been put aside for decades while the primary focus has been on the incredible applications we are enjoying even at this moment.
The puzzle for physicists deals with the fact that the scientific method relies on an artificial construction -- that of reality without the self who creates it.
(Of course they don't see it in exactly those terms.)
I believe a genuine unification of physics and currently officially unacceptable 'philosophies' is in the cards, and this particular puzzle could be a key to it (I am disregarding a great deal of popular material on this subject, which helps no one towards resolution).
Back to "soul" for a moment.
The Seth material is officially unacceptable. It's channelled, and I would never expect those who are unfamiliar with such things to appreciate it.
Material related to the teachings of George Gurdjieff is still primarily in the unacceptable category, no matter how fascinating.
Both point to soul, entity, or essence, and offer the means for experiencing it.
If these are unacceptable, what's left?
Well, there's Krishnamurti and Sri Aurobindo, among many others, in terms of written material.
I'm forced to dance around these issues -- soul and what is often called reality creation.
This can be frustrating to me and, perhaps, annoying to others, too.
At the same time, these are so very basic that I don't believe any valid discussion of the nature of reality can ignore them.
Nevertheless, I am willing to tackle, to a certain extent, issues usually reserved for formal philosophy and metaphysics.
I lack the extensive vocabulary -- quite impressive, really -- or conscious knowledge of authors and philosophical schools demonstrated by posters here; my knowledge in these areas is fairly rudimentary and requires me to look up references.
In terms of my own "soul," there's a Thracian philosopher, a Samaritan magician, and a few others who delve into such areas, their experience found somewhere in my larger awareness, but connecting that experience with on-line discussion threads is a feat I have yet to master.
I end up facing a worthy and stimulating challenge.
'"I think it was SpaceP who said some while ago that physics is metaphor all the way down."
I don't remember saying that , but in the sense that all we have is models I think it is correct .'
Your quote from 14th April here.
'In blunt terms what we have uncovered so far is partially successful though , probably necessarily , incomplete explainitory models for what makes our sensory equipment go ping . I'm not a fan of positivism , but in scientific terms that is all we can say about the scientific method . In other words I think physics is metaphor all the way down .'
E:
Thanks for the amplification on the F/S book.
I would be interested to read an account of Jewish identity from a linguistic perspective - perhaps the Friedman book will do that.
boltonian - I don't know any more about neuroethics than that the word occurs on Mrs Doctor Churchland's wiki page....for all I know, it's an exciting and fundamental branch of philosophy and/or neuroscience....on the other hand, it might just be the gobbledegook the word itself suggests....I suppose I should at least be grateful that it's not been rendered "neuroethicalism"....
Wrt 'Neuroethics' - I have heard this used generally as a way of saying bioethics-as-it-pertains-to-neuroscience (e.g. the specific ethical issues a neurosurgeon etc might face).
I think it also is used - in this context - to mean something along the lines of doing ethics with neuroscience, possibly through the Churchlands' eliminative materialism (i.e. without reference to thoughts, beliefs etc and focussed upon neural networks etc).
"PG asked me why I wasn't a Platonist on the CiF thread. Apologies for not getting back to you. I do not denigrate or underestimate the huge influence that Plato has had on the whole subject but I do not buy into the main planks of his philosophy. I do not accept that our perception is a shadow of reality and that, conversely, if we were able to see the real world it would be like our view of it but much clearer and more perfect. Also, he was an aristocrat concerned with protecting his class and its privileges and the Republic does not work as either a social or political treatise. Read Popper's demolition thereof."
Ironically Popper's metaphysical realism stance is very close to Plato's...
sorry for the short answer... up to my eyes at the moment! I hope to get back to it soon once i find the time to indulge!
ChooChoo: Wrt 'Neuroethics' - I have heard this used generally as a way of saying bioethics-as-it-pertains-to-neuroscience (e.g. the specific ethical issues a neurosurgeon etc might face).
I think it also is used - in this context - to mean something along the lines of doing ethics with neuroscience, possibly through the Churchlands' eliminative materialism (i.e. without reference to thoughts, beliefs etc and focussed upon neural networks etc).
It sounds like a more sophisticated tool to identify the nature of ethic mechanisms; Assuming that morality is largely a social construct, it is possible that this discipline can shed some interesting "light" on our mechanical behaviour... But I'm not convinced it will solve everything about the nature of consciousness; after all it's just mechanisms so it boils down to wether we're only mechanical being or if we're a bit more than that and that we actually create the mechanisms ourselves...back to free will again I suppose!
Plastic Gypsies: "It sounds like a more sophisticated tool to identify the nature of ethic mechanisms; Assuming that morality is largely a social construct, it is possible that this discipline can shed some interesting "light" on our mechanical behaviour... But I'm not convinced it will solve everything about the nature of consciousness; after all it's just mechanisms so it boils down to wether we're only mechanical being or if we're a bit more than that and that we actually create the mechanisms ourselves...back to free will again I suppose!
A real chicken and egg dilema!"
I certainly think that this sort of undertaking - in general terms (i.e. thinking about ethics and the brain) - is worthy and interesting. I think I said on CiF one fascinating (for me) example might be the focus on 'character' (or habitual dispositions) in virtue ethics, and the so-called 'plasticity' of the brain. (There are, I imagine, many other examples).
The thing that tickles my curiosity is how one would aim to enhance (or advance) thinking about ethics by looking at the brain but holding that 'beliefs' etc are of no use in such an endeavour. What exactly does ethics (or a whole host of other clusters of subjects) look like without some notions - whether or not articulated - of 'intentionality' etc?
Of course, the undertaking - even from (this sort of) eliminative materialist perspective - will still be worthwhile, I think. As you hint, however, there are deeper questions it doesn't exactly resolve (but rather assumes - I don't mean this pejoratively - one must assume things to investigate etc).
For one, what are ideas? I'm not sure I could provide a satisfactory answer - which is really a way of saying I'm sure I couldn't. But, I cannot see how ideas - with their own interrelations and so on, and - most importantly, albeit in varying degrees - their intelligibility means that they really are not identical to neural connections, which aren't 'intelligible' in the same way (they do not have 'representative content'). I am not even certain that 'ideas' can be reduced to some sort of offshooting of neural connections (which is not to deny the ontological correlation if not dependence): the 'reduction' must be done v carefully. For us to posit a wholly passive dependence of ideas on neurones (shorthand for the complex workings of the brain) we are ultimately positing - depending on emphases - something illusory about ideas insofar as the (non-efficient) causation or relations that connect them are not the same - so it seems - as those connecting neurones.
Either we abandon the notion that ideas are connected in the ways we (generally?) think - propositions connecting one another etc - or we don't (and end up in my, I freely admit, not literally satis-factory position or, more likely, peregrination). The problem with the former - or tension, if you like - is: does this 'demeaning' of ideas undermine the cases made for various forms of 'reductionism'?
(PS - still haven't seen the Todd Solondz film - saw Requiem for a Dream some months back and my constitution is still in recovery).
I have finally finished reading, 'A Different Universe,' by Robert B. Laughlin.
I can summarise it quite simply by saying that, 'Reductionism is dead, long live Emergence.'
He thinks that we have gone as far as we can along the reductionist path and to try to discover the ultimate truth this way is futile. He believes that there is not one truth anyway, so TOE is out. The world, he asserts, is a function of its self-organisation rather than merely a collection of its individual components.
His style is quite entertaining if egocentric - even his self-depreciatory anecdotes are told with a slight suspicion of false-modesty. It is a very anecdotal work and, as such, quite lightweight in tone. But there are some rather obscure bits that baffled me (and I do not just mean the technical stuff).
He is a sceptic about the current state of our scientific knowledge and the direction we are taking. He thinks that knowledge for its own sake is no longer valued and academic funding reflects this trend. Smolin (in 'The Trouble with Physics' says much the same thing, only better). Talking of which, I can understand Smolin's beef as he has suffered at the hands of the academic establishment but Laughlin seems to have done very well out of varsity life and is still there. Perhaps it takes an establishment figure to point out the Emperor's desabille with impunity.
My recommendation is that if you only have time to read one or t'other of the Smolin or this I would choose the former.
...........
I have been trying to get to grips with Eliminative Materialism, so I would be grateful if anybody can put me right here.
Does this mean that without language we would be unable to experience qualia? And/or that concepts such as beliefs, wishes etc. are a consequence of language? And that consciousness does not really exist other than as a function of language, which is in itself a public means of exchange, as it were? So, mental states do not exist other than as a convenient explanation (or catch all) for things that would otherwise seem inexplicable to us?
I wonder how we can prove this other than by saying (to take ChooChoo's ideas example) that we have examined the brain and can find no evidence of ideas in there, so they cannot exist. Is not that confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence?
Mary Midgley was quoted in the Wiki entry on this attacking the whole concept as reductionist nonsense. It is not often I agree with her but I think she is right here.
I must re-read the Churchland's, 'Engine of Reason, Seat of the Soul,' but I remember it as being materialist but asserting that mental states were phenomena of the organisational function of the brain. In other words they were positing an emergent, rather than a reductionist theory. Have I misremembered (or misunderstood)?
There's a prog on telly tomorrow night 'bout some bloke that knows what's going to happen before it does. Sounds right up my street so I'll be watching it.
It's part of the "Extraordinary People" series, and is on Channel 5 at 9pm. Here's some blurb about it:
"Chris Robinson claims to have foreseen the attack on the Twin Towers and the 7/7 London bombings in his dreams. His supporters include an American academic and an ex-US military intelligence officer, but his detractors dismiss his claims of precognition out of hand. Now a couple have called on him to help find their missing daughter. Will his remarkable claims of premonitions stand up to scrutiny?"
boltonian - Stein's piece does have a slightly different slant - but it'll no doubt end as usual....CK & WML have declared themselves non-combatants, and I've only had the one moment of weakness....
The recent Bunting thread - disgracefully handled by CiF in my view - took its toll. It closed early, and left more deleted comments than I've seen in a while. At least 2 bannings, too - Theophobic & douglas clark - yet neither Bunting nor CiF apologised for the clear (and clearly misleading) errors of fact in the original article, which those banned were merely complaining about.
For those who take an interest in the political CiF blogs, MarkGreen0 is back, having also been banned for a disgracefully offensive comment (I suspect CiF were looking for an excuse.) His new moniker isn't hard to link back to him....I also - by accident - found his real name, and his blog....not a pretty site....shame I didn't stumble across it earlier, or I'd have outed him for the prat he is....
Boltonian: "Re- CiF there seems to be a change of policy to try to reign in the more abusive posts.
But one man's abuse is another's humour, although I suppose we are all guests at somebody else's party and they make the rules."
I had a great time on the recent Bunting/Dawkins thread, once it got going. (I posted my usual lunacy but came up with some new adjectives that appear to be effective in the situation -- I particularly like "barbarian science" -- and gained some new insight, too.)
I note that Wooly M. Liberal managed to get his later comments deleted. Fair or not, he won't win any arguments this way.
Meanwhile, I'm actually quite enjoying revisiting the early days of QM courtesy the slim _Quantum Enigma_ (with some supplemental web research -- I'd never heard of The Ultraviolet Catastrophe before; it sounds like the name of a sci-fi movie).
Imagine you shared my belief in a "soul" or greater self, a larger non-material part of yourself who sees through your eyes, your mind.
If you reach "behind" or "beneath" your conscious mind, no matter what you might be doing -- even composing a CiF comment, you can sometimes just barely catch a glimmer of this being and its thoughts.
Occasionally another self (or selves) of a CiF poster becomes mildly discernible in this fashion (at least in my imagination -- the soul/entity/essence expresses itself simultaneously through any number of physical selves of endless times and places and can recognize the selves of other souls in this way).
Longsword is a case in point. I get both a fairly well known poet of long ago and a certain Elizabethan nobleman known for both his wide ranging interests and political difficulties, but now I begin to wonder about ChooChoo. What soul is expressing itself here?
(Have you any clues, ChooChoo, or is this a topic of no interest? I don't wish to pry, nor would I push this idea if it is not to your liking.)
Another odd belief of mine, shared with a number of those I've met on the Internet, is that our time is one of a great "soul reunion" even more so than most prior moments in time and history.
This is owing to a rare conjunction of factors, a chief factor being the rediscovery of "soul," or its re-awakening within our conscious minds (this could be phrased in any number of differing ways; Sri Aurobindo spoke of "the descent of the supermind;" that will do, too).
Thanks for the review . I think I will go with Smolin . I am interested in emergence and complexity theory but I'm not sure they will ever be truly satisfying answers . I'd always want to know why discrete entities have the properties they do , but I suppose this approach is doomed to always run into a conceptual brick wall at some point . You can't seek lower level explanations for ever , you either run into an infinite regress or a brute fact at some point .
Boltonian: All I know of Cayton is that it is the site of a medieval grange (monastic farm)of Fountains Abbey and of a deserted village. It is a Scheduled Monument, but I no longer have direct access to SM records, even assuming that they contain any useful information on the subject. There has been nothing published on the site,as far as I can discover, although there is an unpublished MA dissertation (www-users.york.ac.uk/~ma154/ ). You might be able to get further information from the local Historic Environment Record (HER) either through North Yorks County Council www.northyorks.gov.uk/archaeology or the Yorkshire Dales National Park HER http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/collections/blurb/420.cfm
Let me know how how you get on with the Friedman book.
I was totally shocked by the censorship on cif: comments appeared to be deleted because they pointed out that Bunting, was wrong, was commenting on a book she had not read and used perjoratively tainted language to attack Dawkins. I really believe that Dawkins' own reply might have been deleted had it been from someone else.
It appears that criticism of Bunting amounts to a sexist attack. WML pointed out that similar criticism is applied for similar reasons to Theo Hobson and that it is the censors who are beingt sexist. This was deleted.
"I note that Wooly M. Liberal managed to get his later comments deleted. Fair or not, he won't win any arguments this way." In some ways I think that the censorship is more eloquent than the original comment. These were posts that expressed outrage at the nonsense and errors in the article rather than abuse.
I do note that the censors have markedly increased their activity.
Re-reductionism vs emergence, I am not sure that it is an either/or. We tend to simplify and categorise things so that we can understand the world a little. Also, we are incurably tribal.
One can infer some things through reverse engineering but not others. They are complementary. But some people feel more comfortable with one than the other (and vice versa).
For example, supposing we irrefutably identified fundamental particles and their properties, could we extrapolate from that that I, boltonian, exist as a a living, conscious entity and prefer Mozart to Wagner?
Conversely could we understand what it is to be alive, conscious and human without knowing anything about molecular biology, chemistry and physics?
Knowledge is knowing both what things are made from AND how they are organised.
E:
Thanks for that. I just happened to be out that way and noticed the deserted village reference on the OS map.
There are many granges round here - some linked to Fountains and others to Byland (which is quite a way from here).
Will keep you informed on progress with the Friedman - so far, so good.
Martin:
I didn't follow the Bunting thread but I have noticed a tightening of the editorial regime.
I have a couple of things to say about that:
- Firstly, one must abide by the rules of the club or suffer the consequences. I don't know whether CiF was breaking its own rules in these cases - if so, that is not good news.
- Secondly, the rules should be applied impartially, otherwise the club becomes tainted with corruption and loses credibility (and, therefore, customers). So, if rules are applied differently for, say, bloggers and commenters, one can legitimately cry, 'Foul.'
- Thirdly, bad manners is itself a form of censorship. I know a few people who will not participate on CiF because of the loutish behaviour of some posters. I join in less now than I used to partly for that reason.
I set up this site so that we could discuss things of mutual interest without feeling one needed to defend a position or insult anybody with differing views. Now it will happen from time to time, however inadvertently, but if I felt someone was deliberately trying to humiliate another poster (as happens on CiF)I would enforce the rules. Without rules and adherence to them we have anarchy and there is no freedom in that.
Boltonian - shame you missed the start of the prog, it was the more interesting bit.
I have decided to try the technique myself (asking a question before going to sleep) to see what happens. One thing that someone said during the programme struck me, and that was that when someone has a pre-cognitive dream it is qualitatively different from normal dreams. On waking from the dreams that I have had that have turned out to be pre-cognitive, I have always felt this to be the case.
Before I watched the programme, I had my first dream about a CiFer! I dreamnt that ChooChoo (who I have never met, and therefore don't have a clue as to what he might look like) was living in the woods up the road from me. I wonder what *that* could mean? I'm sure I read on a blog that he's off to India tonight, so I don't expect a answer from the man himself.
So Theophobic got the push did he? Can't say I'm too bothered. He struck me as an annoying little wotsit (to put it politely) with nothing much to say apart from horrible comments about other people.
Dawkins himself was a true gent in his calm response. Shame everyone else didn't follow suit.
Actually it occured to me that in this case Bunting may have demanded that she be above criticism. Whatever the truth it did not look at all good.
Boltonian/ Spacepenguin, I think I am with you on the reductionist/ emergence issue, though I think it is only those who want to attack reductionism who make out that the emergence from the organisational aspects is ignored.
I think that the strength and validity of Science is also an emergent property: whilst believers may attack particular facets of Science, they fail to appreciate how the whole cohesive edifice resists and mocks their efforts. Unfortunately politics is much more malleable, which to me amply justifies Dawkins' concerns.
Although I am pretty much a determinist, I do not like the term as it seems to imply prediction, which in most cases is impossible. Quite apart from the shear volume of knowledge, reiterative loops of knowledge (the knowledge of knowing) get in the way.
On the other hand if we accepted uncaused effects (such as freewill), I don't think there would be any organisation of knowledge (and nothing to emerge from).
Apart from the problem of induction, which I think is mitigated by the cohesive organisation of scientific knowledge, the principle of causation both implies the sequential nature of time and that 'a first cause' is a contradiction in terms.
Another attribute of Science is its ability to blithely lay aside these semantic and logical conundrums and get on with elucidating the process of the 'big bang'.
Complicated, the meta-politics of blogs. One of the things that brought the Bunting thread to a head was Sedgemore's attempted rebuttal. Although I agree with him on this point, he has a blog ring with some fairly unsavoury types - for info, this is it (though do bear in mind these guys are heavy on what they think of as "satire", so don't take it *all* at face value; and there's no home page as such, this is just a sample blog, from which you can look at others) :
You may be interested to know that "MarkGreen0" is one of that blog ring....I'll not spoil your fun by naming him....yet....
Also following the Bunting of the Snark, I did some perusing of Dawkins's website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
and the accompanying forum:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php
Maybe some of you are already familiar with it. The main website is OK, but the forum - Ye Gods! [sic] Full of obnoxious sycophants, desperate to get a glimpse of the Prophet's coattails....I gather Dawkins doesn't have a lot to do with the forum, and I can't say I blame him (although I have posted a couple of times).
Most embarrassing of all is the philosophy section of the forum (which, for some reason I can't fathom, you need to be registered for & logged in before you can even view - not so for the rest of the site). Schoolboyish doesn't begin to describe the level of comment....I'd *love* to hear ChooChoo's views on these guys....
PS Martin - saw you'd been moonlighting on the rugger blogs(I've posted there in the past, they're generally pretty good) - so how many will SA put on England tomorrow? I reckon we'll be lucky to keep it under 50....
I too am sorry I missed the first bit. I would be very interested in your experiment. ChooCoo, Hey? What has he done to deserve gatecrashing your dreams with impunity?
Martin:
I also generally side with the determinists and agree that for all practical purposes it is a fairly useless concept.
'Apart from the problem of induction, which I think is mitigated by the cohesive organisation of scientific knowledge, the principle of causation both implies the sequential nature of time and that 'a first cause' is a contradiction in terms.'
I may have misunderstood you here but how is the error of induction mitigated by the organisation of scientific knowledge? We can never, I would have thought, confirm that inductive logic is true. Science can only offer the latest theory - which is certainly not to be confused with truth. There is alway the possibility (likelihood?) of the exception emerging from round the corner. For example, how do we know that all life is carbon-based just because all (known) life on earth is?
'Another attribute of Science is its ability to blithely lay aside these semantic and logical conundrums and get on with elucidating the process of the 'big bang'.'
Again, I might have misunderstood you but surely one of the tasks of science is to look to solve that very conundrum. The process of Big Bang is all very interesting but what is of more interest to me is the epistemological issue - what are the limits of our knowledge and how does Big Bang fit into it?
What came before Big Bang? How did it occur? What caused the vacuum fluctuation? Are we one or many? What does HUP actually mean for the existence of the world - many worlds? What part does the observer play in the experiment? Etc
I know that we know nothing and that there is more (much or little?) to discover but what is genuine knowledge and what wishful thinking, chalatanry and obscurantist nonsense? That is the challenge; and I accept that the scientific method is the best we have yet devised. Yet I feel that it has many limitations.
Just seen Steve's post. Hey, why the suspense. Give us the lowdown, you tease.
You never know, England might just surprise (I am an optimist by nature). But Farrell at Fly Half? Mmmm.
Last first: I have very little hope for England, SA, Oz & NZ seem to be the only teams to have turned up and have a chance. France was incredibly disappointing. The only chance for England is if the bruises form the SA Samoa clash are still raw. Boltonian is of my generation and can probably appreciate the satisfaction in seeing the Welsh lose (unless they are playing the all blacks)! On the other hand I do like to see France when they are playing well.
I heard a story of a lecture on relativity in the 20s (it makes it better if it was Einstein but I am not sure) in which an academic philosopher stood up to announce that space could not be curved, because there was nothing for space to be curved in. What I mean is that Science pays no heed to these logical impossibilities, it just gets on with it and leaves others to sort out the resultant mess (if there is one). So whether or not the Big Bang is a logical impossibility, or whether it is possible to conceive of anything before the Big Bang may be interesting questions, but do not likely to perturb those working in the field – the philosophy can be sorted out later!
Mitigating the problem of induction. Let me put it like this: just as today, day followed night in the middle ages, just as apples fell off trees to the ground. The difference between now and then is that if either of these two events misbehaved; the sun stopped at midday for a while, or an apple flew off into space, the impact on the world view would be entirely different in the two eras. Whilst the medieval world view would be stirred, it would not have been shaken, at least not to the same extent as such events happening today. The difference is that for such a thing to happen today the whole structure of our scientific knowledge would be overthrown. This is exemplified by the fact that today we see a link – a scientific link- between the two hypothetical events which would not have been appreciated then. Science has given us the context. We would not be able to dismiss such events as merely a result of the limitations of inductive argument.
Russell likes to pose the example or the farmer who feeds his chicken every morning, but one day wrings its neck. By induction the appearance of the farmer was followed by food as surely as night follows day. My point is that we are not chickens! (perhaps a thousand years ago we were more like chickens in this respect) Science provides the context, a structure of interdependent knowledge that is self supporting such that the conjunctions between events are more than simple inductive links.
There was a plausibility to the idea that the heavens might stop moving in their tracks in the medieval mind that cannot be entertained today. To acknowledge this, is to acknowledge that the problem of induction has been mitigated.
Agree about Wales - I spent most of the 1970s in a state of perpetual humiliation. On the other hand how could one not appreciate those who seemed to inhabit another rugby planet - Edwards, John, Bennett, JPR, Mervyn Davies and (my favourite) Gerald Davies? England had, er, David Duckham. Although I used to enjoy watching Peter Squires playing for my local team after his international days were over.
The highlight for me at that time was listening on the radio to the North of England beating the All Blacks at Otley (couldn't get a ticket for love nor money).
The 1980s was better with Bill Beaumont's all conquering 1980 team.
Agree about the French (provided they are not playing England). Sella and Blanco would probably make my all time world XV. Anyway, I think you are right with your prediction but what sustains me is the very unpredictability of the sport.
That's the important stuff dealt with.
Yes, you are right that we do not believe the same things as we would have several hundred years ago. My point is that this is merely a change in paradigm. I do not think we are any less credulous as a species it is just that we are credulous about different things. the fundamentals of origin, purpose and the future have not changed, only the detail within those boundaries.
At the risk of sounding like the egregious Rumsfeld (Heaven forefend), we do not know what we don't know.
I am familiar with the chicken/turkey analogy - Taleb also uses it. I think we are chickens in that sense - almost all of the things that affect the world and our existence in it are things that we have not (and probably could not have) foreseen. I name a few:
All of which changed the world in one way or another.
So, I would argue, the problem of induction has not been mitigated, just shifted a little.
Our nature is just as prone to simplifying the world, creating stories, categorising knowledge, drawing conclusions from scant evidence, reductionism, and superstition as it ever was. It is just that we do these things in different areas of knowledge than we did in the Middle Ages. I would say that CiF is testament to that.
Seems like M Bunting is not the only one who doesn't do her research properly.
I just popped over to the Dawkins site (yes, I really am that bored today) and what did I see but a copy of Charlie Brooker's Guardian article on the Dawkins TV vehicle. Nowt wrong with that, only it is credited to a "Charles" Brooker. This is disgraceful! His name is Charlton, or Charlie as he usually uses. Harrumph!
Steve - come on mate, I can't waste *all* day on t'internet trying to find out. You will have to tell us for the sake of my housework.
First impressions after having read less than a quarter of the book.
He makes lots of assumptions in drawing his conclusions - too many for my liking. He takes as read the biblical account of Jewish history in lots of unsubstantiated areas. For instance, he does not question the existence of the United Monarchy, or that David and Solomon existed as kings of a very large area. He also seems to accept the Egyptian captivity and Exodus as historical fact.
I would accept his main thesis that the OT has several (he says four) authors - there are just too many contradictions and repetitions for it to be the coherent work of one person. It is also probable that they were written down to support the legitimacy of the regime under which they were composed. Like Virgil's writing of the Aeneid to legitimise the rule of his patron Augustus.
However, he has both main accounts (J and E) as being composed before the destruction of the northern kingdom in 722BC. J is the author of the YHWH bits and is from Judah, whereas E (Elohim) is from Israel.
F/S say that the bulk was written after this time - sometime during the 7thC during the reign of Josiah in Judah.
More anon.
Steve:
I must be thick - I still don't get it, so you will just have to spell it out to me.
Ah, but at least I am pleasantly surprised....if we can muster a team, I'm sure we'll beat Samoa....well, sure-ish....Wales-Oz tomorrow....I always feel like Kissinger did about the Iran-Iraq war when watching games like that....
Oz 32: 20 over Wales....I must be getting soft in my old age, as I found myself cheering Wales on....none of the NH sides have a chance, though, as the SH teams get away with blatantly cynical play at every ruck....oh well, it's only a (metaphysical) game....
First results from my experiment are that I woke up this morning with the name "Thomas Edison" and what I think is the first line of a poem, which goes something like "Sleep, now, that you may play" or something like that. I've realised that I will have to have pen and paper handy so I can write down whatever is in my head straight away. It evaporates very quickly on waking.
So today, I've done a bit of reading up on Thomas Edison. I found out that he was a big poetry fan, and his favourite poem was Gray's Elegy In A Country Churchyard. I couldn't find any reference to a poem that starts as I said above.
Edison was very keen on self-directed learning, as I am. He was a very interesting chap, but unlike me, he doesn't appear to have needed much sleep.
Biskieboo : "Edison was very keen on self-directed learning, as I am. He was a very interesting chap, but unlike me, he doesn't appear to have needed much sleep."
Me: "I note that Wooly M. Liberal managed to get his later comments deleted. Fair or not, he won't win any arguments this way."
MartinRDB: "In some ways I think that the censorship is more eloquent than the original comment. These were posts that expressed outrage at the nonsense and errors in the article rather than abuse."
Martin:
The time difference between the USA and the UK often means missing posts from UK posters before deletion and this was true here.
Aside from the content, was there anything about the style of WML's comments that led to their deletion? (If not, this is disturbing.)
biskieboo:
Do have any more detail of your dream of ChooChoo?
In years past I belonged to mailing lists in which dream experiments were rife -- this was very unscientific (posts to the lists often being suggestive in themselves) and yet quite fun at the same time, particularly when pre-cog, telepathic &/or clairvoyant dreams involving other subscribers (living quite far away from the dreamer) could be validated quickly.
Of course a shared belief on these lists was that everyone is inwardly connected, such that all of these instances served to reinforce it.
Bill - he was living in the woods with some other people. Not sure why, they weren't vagrants. They were the woods close to my home.
Last night's dream was funny. I've started reading a book about symbols that I have had for years and never got stuck into. Yesterday I was wondering how Thomas Edison as a symbol could fit in with the question that I asked before going to sleep (which is a long running problem that I have not come up with an answer for). Last night I dreamt that my sister had bought tickets to go a Prince concert, but for some reason I didn't know where the venue was, and my sister was already on her way there and was uncontactable. I was trying to find out on the internet where I should be going (I knew it was some distance) but I couldn't get any information because Prince had changed his name to that squiggly symbol. I was getting more and more frustrated that I wasn't finding anything out and was probably missing the gig. I had a symbolic dream about symbols!
I have finished the Friedman - would you like a summary or do you want to read it first?
Biskieboo and Bill:
My experience of dreams is that I cannot explain or write them down afterwards with any degree of accuracy. When I do that I apply a logic to them that was not there in the dream. It is as if I am trying to tell a story and make connections as I would if this were a conscious experience.
This seems to be an innate and irrepressible part of our nature. We cannot help but try to make sense of the world through narrative, even though we know that what we have experienced is not a logical sequence of events.
When I occasionally bore my wife with a dream account I am aware that what I am saying is not what it felt like. This also demonstrates to me the limitations and approximate nature of language. Or perhaps I am just not very good at painting word pictures.
Boltonian: I would indeed be interested to see your views on the Friedman book now that you have finished it, although I do intend to read it myself, as soon as I can get hold of a copy. As I understand it, his particular field is biblical scholarship in the narrower sense of text and form analysis, so it is perhaps not surprising that he does not seem to take into account the archaeological evidence which makes it difficult to accept the historical narrative at face value. Even if he was aware of the significance of that evidence, his book was originally published in 1987, when much of the work which Finkelstein and Silberman draw on was still in progress.
My reading of F and S is that they accept the view that there were at least four different source texts. Where they presumably differ is in their conclusions about the way in which these source texts were combined and reshaped, and the date at which it was done.
Herewith the summary of, 'Who Wrote the Bible,' by Richard Elliott Friedman.
There are four main sources for the OT books of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. There is also a redactor (R)who put them together.
The earliest two versions of the Torah (Pentateuch), except Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written at about the same time before (probably just before)the destruction of the northern kingdom in 722 BC. These are called J, where God is referred to throughout as YHWH (or Yahweh) and E, derived from His name, Elohim (which just means 'God' in ancient Hebrew). J was composed in Judah and E in the north. E was brought south after the fall of the northern kingdom by its custodians (probably Shilohite priests). These were from the Mushite (Moses) succession of priests.
Somebody in Judah (we don't know who)combined them to produce a reasonably coherent narrative. The reason why both versions needed to be represented is because there were lots of refugees from the northern kingdom in Judah and if the southern account only had been proposed as the true version there might well have been trouble. This is why there are so many repetitions, inconsistencies and contradictions - two schools representing two different interests.
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were written by one person mainly during the reign of Josiah in Judah (late 7th or early 6thC BC)but partly after its destruction by the Babylonians in 587 BC. That author was Jeremiah (with help from his scribe, Baruch), who fled to Egypt after the Babylonian invasion. He deliberately wrote from a Mushite perspective and emphasising Josiah as the Davidic successor and an example of a good king. This bit is accepted almost in its entirety by F/S.
The fourth element is termed the priestly (P) source and was responsible for most of the Torah as we have it now, including all of Leviticus. It was written from an Aaronid perspective and composed during the reign of Hezekiah (7thC BC) - Josiah's grandfather.
There were two priestly traditions - those who traced their ancestry to Moses and those to Aaron - and both of their writings were combined to produced what we now know as the Torah and histories by a redactor. This redactor was Ezra and it was all put together by him after the building of the second temple following the release of the Jews from their Babylonian exile. He was an Aaronid priest.
Friedman takes as read that the Egyptian captivity happened and that Moses and Aaron were real people. He also seems to believe that David and Solomon reigned over a united kingdom. He does not go so far as to suggest that the Patriarchs existed. But his brief is not an archaeological history of the Bible lands but a textual critique of certain bits of the OT.
It is certainly a book I am glad I read - it is also easy for a non-specialist to absorb.
Now I am on to, 'Misquoting Jesus,' by Bart D. Ehrman. Also a riveting read so far.
Hope this finds you all well. Just wanted to sound a couple of thoughtful CiF types out on something I posted about over last weekend. I wrote that Hitchen's law (That which is claimed without proof can be dismissed without proof) is self-refuting if it is asserted without proof (could there be any for such a claim?) Theophobic was adamant that it wasn't (because it can only be dismissed by tacitly accepting its veracity?) and Woolly did seem a little bit bothered about the lack of proof for it. I should be very grateful to read the thoughts of the thoughtful polite bloggers who post here...
Good question. I too will be interested in the response of the logicians of this parish.
I will give it some thought and reply when (and if) I bring forth anything remotely useful, although I freely admit that formal logic is not my bag.
Can we offer an evidence-free refutation of a conclusion that itself offers no proof of its premise? Is that the challenge?
If so, my initial thought is that no premise is provable beyond doubt, therefore any argument built upon any given premise must be contingent. The debate then becomes one of degree and likelihood given our current state of knowledge, whilst accepting that knowledge to be limited and partial.
Isn't the point of Hitchens's Law (and note that Hitchens didn't name it such; that was WML who admitted that he wanted to see if he could start a meme....and perhaps he has....) that it's a deliberately proof-free, winky-smiley demolition of claims without proof? C'mon, guys - don't get bogged down in trying to analyse a throwaway gag....
Hitchen's law... or similarly Occam's Razor are purely relative and subjective.
They both by-pass Kant's concept of noumenon..."the thing-in-itself". They are limited to phenomenon.
People like Theophobic or WML have double standards, probably subconsciously, like most of us. They use these "logic" tools to get their points forward.
"Hitchen's" law can dismiss black holes, dark matter and quantum physics although you'll never hear Theophobic or WML ranting about the absurdity of dark matter because the theory cannot be "proved" as a phenomenon simply because it's not about an almighty bearded man or sky-pixies... so it's less interesting.
Arguably, you have to differenciate between objective and subjective proof... or relative and absolute proof if you prefer.
I'll definitely agree with Steve, don't get bog-down by this gag.
Did anyone else see "Tribe" this week? For the first time ever Bruce didn't get to the community he was hoping to live with. It was interesting to see him really getting to grips with the Buddhist philosophy that he had been learning about.
Boltonian: Many thanks for the summary: the book sounds to be very much what I hoped - a clear, readable account of the conclusions of biblical scholars based on textual analysis. All I have read to date have been brief summaries, from which it has been difficult to assess the validity of the various theories.
'Misquoting Jesus' is another book I shall have to get hold of.
762 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 762 Newer› Newest»boltonian :
I'm not sure dualism per se is equivalent to ID . Dualism is the assertion that something is unaccounted for by reductionist theories of mind . Substance dualism goes further by positing the existence of "mind stuff" , there may be some case for comparing that with ID . Though I'm not sure it's fair to call it a cop out in the sense ID is .
Property dualism , dual-aspect monism or epiphenomenalism seem only to be saying that things such as qualia actually exist and must be accounted for in some way . It is very hard to see how subjective experience can be reduced to brain states . Unless we are wedded to a materialist ontology , I don't see why dualism of the types above should be such a stretch .
I am personally more draw to neutral monism , if a fundamental substance exists it is neither mind or matter but something that has aspects of both . I think wave/particle duality provides a good analogy here . Something that has aspects of both wave and particle can actually be neither . So it may be with substance .
Boltonian - thanks for that. Quickly looking back, you are quite right that I hardly refuted your comparison with ID. I think SpacePenguin's point - with relation to philosophy of mind - offers a reasonable avenue to how one might go about trying to mount an argument against such a comparison.
First off, ID has 'bad' connotations in most fora, with - as SpPingu noted - notions of a 'cop out'. The transferal of these connotations into analyses of, say, particular (scholastic) notions of form and matter are not sustainable. Aristotelian inspired metaphysics are not a cop out in the same way (which is not to say that it is necessarily right). There is a school of thought that would make all metaphysics a series of fanciful cop outs except for, the story goes, a particular type of materialist metaphysics (and this is nonetheless implied where proponents deny they are 'doing metaphysics' - I'm reminded of aristotle's point that those who argue against philosophy are adopting a philosophical position).
Second, 'sociologically'(?), ID seems to be reactive, a reaction to the (perceived) implications of evolutionary theory. (Incidentally, I recall asking a theist analytical philosopher, a typically sardonic brit who is based in Houston, about ID: and he just said he doesn't know why they're wasting their time: the kind of 'design argument' employed, even if it works, doesn't quite point to any of the attributes even of the 'philosopher's God', just some beings who are pretty good designers, sort of cosmic graphic desginers - a sobering thought).
The kind of thinking about act/potentiality, form/matter etc, didn't come about in the same way. It came from attending to (or attempting to attend to) the ultimate nature of reality. Intellectually speaking, Bonaventure (admittedly not such an Aristotelian) and Behe don't (in my humble opinion and all that) really seem to be comparable. And the 'size' of what they are speculating about is v different. Am rather tired, but hope this goes a little way to explain why I don't buy the comparison (or don't buy the comparison if 'dualism' entails the admittedly broad category 'scholasticism').
On spiritual: I mentioned this in passing, not to get into 'spiritual' in quite the sense you (perhaps) mean. (Hope not being unfair). Martin RDB - reasonably yet I feel risking misleadingly - spoke of the categories of the 'material' and 'spiritual' in scholastic thought. I touched on spiritual in the more 'mystical' sense just to emphasise that I'm not denying these thinkers were largely v devout. But as conceptual categories, 'spiritual' - with its modern connotations - is not so helpful to my mind. Moreover, the separation of categories is quite right (and indeed, the medievals categorise like crazy) if one adds that they also stressed some v important holistic points: e.g. form and matter are separable in a sense (and certainly in thought), but are instantiated in (real) things.
Sorry, have gone on a fair bit. I have a sense that there is some serious pedantry going on here, so further apologies. And if the post has been grumpy, again, forgive me: as above, rather tired...
But couldn't get to sleep. To ask again - and I ask out of genuine curiosity - if we say that no thing exists without our perceiving it, doesn't that include others? If this is so - and I tend to think it would follow - there is a slight tension in talking about our varying perceptions of the world etc insofar as other beings are objects of our (or, better, my) perceptions (and interpretations). Or have I got this completely wrong?
Just dropped in to see how free will was unfolding...
And yes, what I was describing in terms of the fundamental paradox of "it is and it is not" cannot be described as dualism, for that is to imply that the truth lies in the positions themselves, whereas it seems to me that the early scholastics saw truth as something revealed and unfolded in the relationship, not in the position.
This belongs to time-thinking man. The ontological categories "potens" and "actus" (as opposed to our thinking in terms of subject and object, res cogitans and res extensa) are processual and of the flux of events. Actus is the realm not so much of the "res" but of eventuation. Things are, in a sense "eventings" as everything arises from potens into actus and again sinks back into potens. Heraclitus would feel at home here, while Paremindes would not.
It seems to me that this type of time-sensitive awareness (as well as a sensitivity to paradox) is making a comeback, only half-understood it seems as "value relativism", but which foreshadows instead "relationalism," where truth is not found in positions, but rather is revealed in process. This kind of relationalism is performed in the dialogical situation, which attracted the attention of David Bohm perhaps for that reason, since his "undivided whole in flowing movement" (which would, I believe, easily be understood to a medieval thinker as "potens")is not unconnected with his interest in dialogue (cf his book On Dialogue). In Bohm also one detects a shift in sensitivity from the spatial to the temporal.
The relationship appears all important in this kind of thinking, the relationship of Venus and its representative flower (non-locality or translocality prefigured here); the relationship aeternitas et saeculum, or the immortal and mortal, or immensity and mensity. Generations of Cartesian influence has conditioned to jump from diction to contradiction without much consideration for the relationship between, more or less made evident in the supposed incommensurate character of mind and body (relationship disappears from the logic eclipsed by the positions). And Descartes' declaration that time was inexplicable, a miracle performed by God daily already attests to the fact that eventuation, process, relationship and such concepts that belong to time-thinking man had ceased to have any influence on thought.
For all these other categories -- potens et actus; aeternitas et saeculum; immortalis et mortalis -- these are primarily temporal orientations, and the real action (ie, "revelation" as temporal unfolding of truth) lay between them, rather than *in* them.
It occurred to me, after my last post, that another way of representing scholastic thinking is as "liturgical thinking". It is the method of call and response or, put equivalently, the method of vocation and profession.
That might seem an odd way of putting it -- "the method of vocation and profession", but that pertains to the very meaning of liturgy as "people work", which belongs, inevitably, to the Christian prime directive "be thou therefore perfect, even as thy Father in Heaven..." so that liturgical thinking is oriented towards history as the process of godman-making eventuating in Kingdom Come, as it were.
Here, the time element is outstanding, and especially the relationship between call and response, or vocation and profession. Here, God is not a being in the past as he becomes later to the Deists as primum mobile, or great clockmaker, located in the remote past. For the scholastics, however, God is primarily in the future, calling man to join him there as his sacred appointment (which makes for an interesting take on the meaning of "dis-appointment").
Man's position, on the other hand, is in the past by relation, for his response or professio is literally a "speaking forward" (and in a sense, to progress here is to profess -- "I come"). And regardless of what we think of the validity or invalidity of this, there is a beautiful logical consistency to the various categories of early scholastic thought which was woven on the loom of time.
And of course, to such time-centric thinking, space is irrelevant. Keeping the appointment, the work of liturgy, is the all-important aim.
And there is little doubt that this liturgical method subtly, tacitly, subliminally, continues, to some extent anyway (perhaps more doubtful presently insofar as we are at "the end of history" and are now, in a sense, dis-appointed) to be formative of who we are today, too. Our notions of time as "progress" (which is fairly unique to the Western tradition) seems rooted in liturgical thinking, although we confuse the terms "vocation" and "profession" today, which were formerly separate acts or processes in time, as call and response.
We might even call this time-thinking type, "liturgical man".
Dear all:
Good discussion.
Steve:
Not been on CiF for a while - what is the unpleasant fellow up to now?
SpaceP, ChooChoo:
I think my issue is more with categorisation than with how dualism was arrived at. I do think that mind/body dualism is a bit of a cop out for we have no substantial evidence to support it. Descartes tried to put his finger on it by locating the Pineal gland as the source of the fusion without success.
Also, I think that it has bedevilled philosophical thought for so long without a resolution. I can't help thinking that is it a Chimaera of our own making.
I don't yet think we are in a position to completely dismiss brain functionality (a la Churchland). If I had to put money on it right now I suspect that SpaceP is the closest and mind is an aspect of something we think of as material because that is the way our thinking works. Wave/particle duality is a very good analogy.
ChooChoo:
I am not sure that I quite follow your second post:
'To ask again - and I ask out of genuine curiosity - if we say that no thing exists without our perceiving it, doesn't that include others?'
I am not sure what you mean by, 'Others.'
I do not say that nothing exists beyond our perceptions but it would be impossible to verify. How can we know anything about what we are not capable of perceiving, even indirectly?
I shall try to return to this later in the day.
Pleased to see ChooChoo & Spacepenguin back in action here....as a steadfast materialist, this is for me a time to read and be silent....except on one tiny point. Without wishing to be rude, my heart sinks whenever elements of quantum theory are invoked with respect to philosophical dualism. Few physicists are philosophers (although these days, it's de riguer to *claim* to be); even fewer philosophers are quantum physicists....and yet each is quick to leap to the other's precarious stepping stone in the river when he reaches the limit of his own speciality....I fear they might both fall in.... ;-}
boltonian : "Not been on CiF for a while - what is the unpleasant fellow up to now?"
It was a thread about Oscar, the cat who's reputed to be able to predict the next death amongst the inhabitants of a care home. It's a topic that had been discussed with humour, and obviously some scepticism. But light scepticism isn't enough for you-know-who, who felt the need to insult several posters who had tentatively suggested possible explanations other than the "it's all bollocks" one. Some insults were removed (the mods have a slightly heavier hand these days), but not, strangely, the ones addressed to Biskieboo & AlexJones. Read all about it here:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_smith/2007/07/cats_and_docs.html
Me? I'm back to the arts blogs, where you get a different class of insult (sometimes, as with OvidYeats, so obscure that you can't even tell whether you've been insulted or not....)
Boltonian - sorry, the question wasn't v clear. Let me try again. We (here and elsewhere) often discuss - reasonably - the question of our perceptions, realism etc. For instance, we might note how differently two people respond to the same thing - event, place etc. (Incidentally, I think that this is more than just a question of perception; it is also one of interpretation). Now, if one were to follow this to the extent of suggesting that what exists first and foremost are our (or, again, better still, my) perceptions, impressions, interpretations etc... would there be much weight in pointing to different people's differing perceptions? After all, the 'level' at which we're talking about as being of prime importance effectively entails some form of solipsism (i.e. I don't have knowledge of 'outside world' but of 'my perceptions' etc).
I didn't have you in mind when asking this: it just struck me - and it refers to a quite specific position - and, at the risk of sounding like a therapy group, wanted to share it...
Wrt dualism: I think, like you, I'm not enamoured of Cartesian-style dualism. But, how exactly is it arrived at? Or to put it another way, I am not always sure exactly what we mean by evidence. In some metaphysical systems, the thinking is not predicated on 'evidence' in the way my (botched) year 8 chemistry experiments were supposed to be (why should they be?); but, at the same time, such thought is not divorced from thinking about 'evidence' insofar as it - for instance - reflects on 'being' in an admittedly 'ultimate' way, but drawing not only upon reflection or even reason, but also on perceptions and sense impressions. My knowledge of Descartes is not great, but his dualism is not completely will o the wisp: there are, if remember correctly, rationalistic reasons he gives for it (admittedly more a prioristic than 'evidence-based': but is there not any role for reasoning which is not 'evidence-based'?).
Steve - checked out that Oscar thread: poor Biskieboo (who, to my incredulity, was accused of arrogance). I am sure that the ArtsBlog invective will be more imaginative than those on the FootballBlogs: I guess it's a dangerous game, though, because if your insult contains fewer than three literary references, then it degenerates into a cause of serious embarassment for yourself. Be careful, Steve, and tread carefully.
Just read the Oscar thread.
Well, to quote the immortal Fletch, 'He really is a charmless nerk.'
daddyOMarcos:
You put your finger on it. If he could see how he appears to the world - 'God help him.' (Irony intentional).
'Wad some pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oorsels as others see us.'
Or perhaps not in his case.
Anyway, Biskieboo, there are no uncivilised WMLs here.
ChooChoo:
Thanks for the clarification.
I think you are right to bring in interpretation here. It is not solely, or even mainly, about what we perceive but what sense we make of it. We try to make sense of the world with reference to our experience, so the wider our experience the greater the depth our perceptive apparatus will appear to have become.
For the things we cannot explain otherwise, we create a story that will explain the missing bits. This story will change as we begin to understand more of the bits, as it were. Thus my perception of the world changes over time.
We need to be careful here that we don't start looking for things that are not there, which I think is a very difficult area. Group-think plays a huge part here. If everybody one knows believes in, say, the Biblical God, the Gospel accounts of Jesus and the Holy Trinity it is very difficult to resist arriving at the same conclusion, despite the lack of evidence one has access to personally.
We know how powerful this is simply by watching crowd behaviour. To give an example, a friend's uncle found himself in pre-war Germany and decided to attend a Nazi rally out of curiosity. He was very much anti-Nazi and just went along to see what these absurd people got up to. Also, he had very little German. But (and you know what's coming) by the end he was shouting, 'Sich Heil' with the rest of them. Fortunately for him the spell lasted only until he left the rally but it scared him.
Re-rationalism. A priori reasoning has always left me cold because one must base it on something solid and on close examination the premiss is usually an assumption. So, we pile the Pelion of reasoned argument upon the Ossa of an assumption. A house built on sand. Also, no matter how small the steps there is always room for variation.
Even the great Descartes couldn't avoid this, otherwise how did he get from, 'Cogito ergo sum,' to the 'Proven' existence of God?
All we can legitimately say about solipsism, I think, is that we cannot disprove it - but let's make a reasonable assumption that it is not the case. So, I am discussing philosophy with a group of independent beings and not having a dream or some such. I cannot prove it but I am happy to go along with this as a working hypothesis until there is evidence to the contrary.
steve :
I should make it clear that i was referencing wave/particle duality solely as an analogy . Simply to point out that if a thing has aspects of two other things then it cannot be either of those other things .
I have seen quantum theories of mind and I'm not that impressed . I'm not sure I've seen mind/body dualism defended via quantum theory , did you have a specific example in mind (and/or body) ?
Spacepenguin : yes, I see that the w/p reference was just an analogy. It's just a pet hate of mine that discussions elsewhere about consciousness invariably end up drawing some ridiculous conclusion involving a half-baked understanding of quantum theory - the perpetrators usually being neuroscientists who wouldn't recognise a quantum if it bit them on the arse....(and I speak as an erstwhile neuropharmacologist)....I certainly wasn't targetting my earlier comment at you (I have a mental image of you as a physicist, from comments you've made on other threads, and thus assume that you're much better versed in quantum matters than me); however, it would be daft to pretend that it wasn't your comment that triggered my rant ;-}
Boltonian writes: "All we can legitimately say about solipsism, I think, is that we cannot disprove it - but let's make a reasonable assumption that it is not the case. So, I am discussing philosophy with a group of independent beings and not having a dream or some such. I cannot prove it but I am happy to go along with this as a working hypothesis until there is evidence to the contrary."
Note that the teachings I espoused are not at all in the solipsism camp.
The creation of unique physical or space continua occurs -- in those teachings -- within a larger context wherein all & everything is thoroughly connected, just not _physically_.
The dualism of Gnostics, Cathars, and Bogomils does not apply, either; matter is not seen as lesser, or somehow dirty or evil, but rather as a kind of congealed thought or psychic energy, each "thing" unique to each person's space continuum but sharing certain "objective" characteristics, these last extremely difficult to define.
An object, then, is created within one's field by that person; "objectivity" deals with why such a particular object, above and beyond unconsciously agreed upon shared parameters.
The individual is considered almost sacred in these teachings, despite being part of vast conglomerations of being and identity, while there is always "other," even if other is, at the same time, self.
Bill
Steve (and SpaceP), I also, had intended to say much the same to SpacePenguin. I found your comment (SpaceP) surprisingly uncharacteristic; 99% of the time I would defer to you on quantum theory (as well as other matters of Maths and logic). My (qualitative) understanding is that wave particle duality is not a real opposition in that Schroedinger describes the standing wave of a probability function and does not assert the non-existence of the particle (electron or photon).
Longsword used this comparison and one about the polarity of electrochemical cells (of which I have a more complete understanding); I often have difficulty with the clarity and thread of his arguments and, for me, these comparisons only served to increase my scepticism towards the overall contribution.
Like Steve I bridle severely at homilies to the effect 'thanks to Heissenberg we know that we can't be certain about anything' or 'wave-particle duality shows that even Physicists believe that things are and they are not'.
SpacePenguin: "I'm not sure I've seen mind/body dualism defended via quantum theory", I am almost sure I have seen you respond authoritatively to such ideas (- perhaps it was freewill, which to me is much the same). If you mean seriously defended (as opposes to used and abused) then you are doubtless right.
Martin:
I am sure spacepenguin will defend himself but the reason why his analogy resonated with me lies in the following quote from one of my physics books:
'When we measure a quantum entity in one way it behaves like a wave and in another like a particle, but it is almost certainly neither.'
That is how I feel about mind/body; spirit/material. We look at it one way and we say 'Mind,' and in another, 'Brain.' We make the distinction but the reality is likely to be neither spiritual nor material but different manifestations (to us) of something else.
I wonder how shocked people felt when it was discovered that electricity and magnetism were different aspects of one phenomenon. Or that light merely the visible spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Or that matter and energy are interchangeable.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, incidentally, states that we cannot know precisely the location and momentum of a quantum entity. The more we know of the one the less of the other. This is, crucially, not because or the limitations of our knowledge but a characteristic of quantum mechanics.
QM does not say that we cannot be certain about anything, for when observed the wave function of all potential states collapses to a probability of 1 (i.e. certainty)as described by Schrodinger's equation. So, what we observe appears certain and stable. There are lots of interpretations as to what this means and why this phenomenon is as it is.
For me, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has no bearing on either Free Will or the nature of reality.
Bill:
I think what QM does have something to say about is the interconnectedness of everything - I would suggest that entanglement implies this might be the case but then we have the problem of subjectivity.
I cannot concur with any notion that "perception is reality". Perception only gives us fragments of a world in the form of percepts. Percepts, in themselves, have no relation to one another. A total experience comes to me, and is then fractured and distributed between the senses into the percepts of smell, sight, sound, feeling, which are but fragments of the experience.
It is therefore the additional factor of "conception" that is required for explaining the coherence of any experience that is only first given as an aggregate of percepts without their own internal coherence or relationship. It is implied in the very meaning of the word "con-ception" as the act of grasping all together. I do not mean either by this the mere product of mentation of intellection, but of the higher activity of intelligence. And again, the word "intelligence" declares its own meaning as the activity of "bringing into relation" or "connecting between".
Perception is by necessity fragmentary and distributive. It is the intervention of intelligence that brings the percepts into a more holistic arrangement by mandating the relationship that obtains between them. This element is not given by nature. It is not in the percepts.
The activity of intelligence is therefore related to the activity of integration. These terms express the same dynamic holism. The activity of intelligence is the aim of integration, which integration is synthesis, and which synthesis is called "peace of mind". Without the activity of intelligence as integrating activity, the percepts are merely a "blooming, buzzing confusion".
I find it even apocryphal (if not apocalyptic) that "perception is reality" can at all be taken seriously today -- a conclusion derived from the pernicious activity of propaganda and public relations since WWI only. It omits from our complete reality the activity of intelligence. Perhaps that belongs to a deficient Cartesian hangover in which the factors contributing to consciousness were abstracted out of reality completely.
Therefore I ask, is this "perception is reality" not unconnected also with "the closing of the Western Mind", the "end of history", or "the vicious downward intellectual spiral" into dark age, etc, etc?
It is not as though this cannot be tested directly, after all. One can prove this experimentally even. Simply quiet the perceptual apparatus through disciplined effort, turn away the nagging insistence of the percepts, and the factor that is remaining after you have quieted the "monkey mind" (as the Buddhists say) will be the immediate reality as opposed to the mediated reality of the percepts and perception.
Boltonian, I would like to see what SpacePenguin has to say about your physics book quotation for the reason I gave above, having said that there are diffraction phenomnena to explain, nevertheless the "but it is almost certainly neither" seems like rather loose talk for a self respecting Physics book.
Don't you think this 'different aspects of the same thing' approach is a bit too easy and for many a response that does not move on to enquire what the 'thing' might be.
Brain-mind? For myself it is pretty clear that 'mind' is a term that denotes brain function.
Perhaps there could be a question of definition of 'material', but so far as I can see material either exists or does not. Certainly, Science does not admit to anything other than 'material', in fact it is pretty much the case that if it is treated by Science then it is material (the ghosts/ telepathy discussion touched on this).
What interests me about Heissenberg's uncertainty principle and the nature of reality is that the principle demonstrates that there are propositions that cannot be tested. Tnis then raises the question: is the propositon untrue simply because it cannot be tested? I think there is a problem if we conclude that reality is restricted to that which can be tested, however unless it is possible to define some strict constraints there is a worse problem if untestable models are admitted to be valid representations of reality. Although I think that Heissenberg does provide specific narrow constraints (one ot the reasons it has nothing to do with 'freewill' the soul or whatever), I am not sure that it is completely meaningless to enquire what is the electron doing?
Has anyone read Quantum Enigma by Rosenblum and Kuttner?
It may be my next read-at-diners-and-on- trains book but I have many books to choose from and a rave review (or negative critique) by someone here might influence my choice.
Thanks in advance!
Bill
Martin:
Just a quick response before bed.
I would say that the quote is more honest than loose. I will try to dig it out and find who said it. None of the authors I have read recently has anything certain to say about the nature of reality - they concentrate largely on the interpretation of existing knowledge. They include the following:
Michio Kaku;
Martin Rees;
Lee Smolin;
Leonard Susskind;
Marcus Chown;
Jim Al Khalili;
John Gribbin;
Robert Laughlin; and
Paul Davies.
Respectable theoretical physicists or cosmologists all but none (with the possible exception of Susskind) claiming any of their ideas are anything more than hypotheses.
I don't think 'Different aspects of the same thing,' easy at all. It would be easier to be a materialist - as most people, I suspect, are. The examples I gave earlier show, to me at least, how easy it is to think we know something when we don't.
Day follows night and vice versa but one does not cause the other, as was once thought, but they are both the outcome of something else.
As far as mind being a consequence of brain function, all I can say is that not only has that not been proven but from my (scant) reading it is not terribly convincing. The Churchlands are great proponents of this and their, 'Engine of Reason, Seat of the Soul,' does not convert me.
Nor am I a dualist either, which is why I steer a middle course. But I am almost certainly wrong as, I suspect, are all of our current hypotheses. This is not meant to be a counsel of despair just trying to ensure that we don't close down options as we often do and have to wait for the next generation of scientists for further enlightenment.
If you are a materialist then you must define what you mean by material - is it energy; information; point-like particles; strings; membranes? All these, and more, have been seriously propounded; all have their advocates; none has been proven.
Are you a reductionist, by the way? If so, what do you think will emerge from the LHC later this year and early next that will help us in our search?
Not such a short post after all.
Catch up tomorrow.
Weeding out some old university papers, I fortuitously came across an essay by BCJ Lievegoed called "The Concept of Development", a fairly good examination of the distinction between growth, maturation, change, and development in systems theory (organic and inorganic).
One passage in particular was providential in terms of my previous post on perception, where Lievegoed, crediting a biologist by name of Heinz Werner, writes,
"...biological development follows the same basic rules as those described in the orthogenetic law of perception and learning. First comes perception, an overall generalised taking-in of the physiognomy of an object. Then follows a process of analysing the specific nature of the parts (differentiation). And, finally, in a process of synthesis the parts are integrated again into the whole."
This threefold phasic process pretty much maps to the one I followed in my own post on perception, except that I make Werner's first two phases into a single act of perception (and I see no necessary reason to differentiate the first two phases as Werner does in the sequence totality-partition/differentiation-whole).
The final stage, the integral or synthetic stage, is what I referred to as the activity of intelligence, although this isn't made explicit.
Lievegood continues, "Seen biologically, development is a number of steps in levels of organisation, with hierarchization, and with direction towards a specific objective. A remarkable trait of the concept of hierarchization is that the control of lower levels by the higher ones does not take place by means of commands but through *selective permission to function specifically*. In other words, the higher levels in the hierarchy govern the lower subsystems by sometimes *selectively restraining* and sometimes *selectively permitting* their activity."
Perception, in this assessment, is a lower subsystem of the whole, not the whole itself, and it takes its direction from a higher function which specifies permissions and restraints on the act of perception.
Interpreted, this means that perception is a lower order function of consciousness which is not itself conscious! Or in any event, conscious only *as* function but not *of* itself as function. It receives its permissions and restraints from a higher, integrating system which is the principle of selection.
If so, then the principle "perception is reality" must be false, for its inability to account for all reality by the fact that it is a lower subsystem of awareness.
There is yet further objection to "perception is reality" insofar as, pursued to its logical conclusion, it must deny to all living things any real interiority whatsoever which interiority is imperceptible to the sensory array and the perceptual organisation. Such interiority would be systematically reduced to objectively observable changes in physical state alone (brain wave patterns, chemical flows etc). This is not "interiority" or subjectivity. The result would lead necessarily to the total objectification of man (and life) in which what is imperceptible would be denied as real by definition.
In such a circumstance, the line between "perception is reality" as descriptive principle or as prescriptive principle could become very murky.
steve :
I'm not a physicist I just know enough to be able follow (most of) the papers that come out . I assume you are referring to Hameroff and Penrose's Orch-OR theory ? From what I can tell the main problem for that theory is that the brain functions well inside the classical limit where quantum effects are not measured . Though Hameroff is an anesthesiologist , not a neuroscientist .
I have a pet hate of equating quantum effects with magic as well . To be fair the quantum world is weirder than most supernatural belief systems , but the amount of unsupported speculation you see from new agers and some traditional religious people is quite depressing .
MartinRDB :
"My (qualitative) understanding is that wave particle duality is not a real opposition in that Schroedinger describes the standing wave of a probability function and does not assert the non-existence of the particle (electron or photon)."
Well the debate over whether the probability function is epistemological or ontological goes on . I fall in the realism camp myself , but you are right it is a matter of interpretation .
The double slit experiment does seem to show individual particles interfering with themselves , and this is what I meant by them being neither wave nor particle .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit#When_observed_emission_by_emission
"SpacePenguin: "I'm not sure I've seen mind/body dualism defended via quantum theory", I am almost sure I have seen you respond authoritatively to such ideas (- perhaps it was freewill, which to me is much the same). If you mean seriously defended (as opposes to used and abused) then you are doubtless right."
Yes that was free will . The obvious point was that even if quantum effects are important in the brain the best we would have is random will . That isn't dualism though , when I talk about mental things being different from brain things I mean in terms of the subjective experience of a brain state .
"Tnis then raises the question: is the propositon untrue simply because it cannot be tested? I think there is a problem if we conclude that reality is restricted to that which can be tested, however unless it is possible to define some strict constraints there is a worse problem if untestable models are admitted to be valid representations of reality."
The scientific method requires testability , however it is not written that the scientific method can encompass the whole of reality . It is , after all , just a technique developed by slightly puzzled primates trying to make sense of things .
fixing the link ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Double_slit#When_observed_emission_
by_emission
I thought some of you might be interested in these quotes from, 'A Different Universe,' by Robert Laughlin, theoretical physicist and Nobel prizewinner:
'Despite its (Supersymmetry)having become embedded in the discipline (Physics) the idea of absolute symmetry makes no sense. Symmetry is caused by things, not the cause of things. If relativity is always true there has to be an underlying reason. Attempts to evade this problem inevitably result in contradictions. No workable fix to this problem has ever been discovered.'
'If Einstein were alive today he would be horrified at this state of affairs (that relativity is held to be the underlying cause of other phenomena). His approach to physics might be summarized hypothesizing minimally, never arguing with experiment, demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated belief. The unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would mean that the fabric of spacetime was not simply the stage on which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there might be something beyond.'
Lee Smolin says something similar in his book, 'The Trouble with Physics.' That relativity has become an unchallengeable Shibboleth; the undisputed premise upon which all our understanding is built.
What we think we know will one day be overturned, as Einstein himself foresaw. There are no anchors. Einstein named one only - the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And I understand that even this is under threat.
SpacePenguin, Boltonian and all, it was the conjunction of "almost certainly" and "neither" that struck me as odd, a statement such as 'there is almost certainly more to it than this' would not have bothered me. Looking at SpacePenguin's link I am reminded of the of some of the interpretative problems.
As for reality/ matter, it may seem odd to have to agree that it exists before looking for a definition, but any definition must allow for debate about its fundamental properties.
Am I a reductionist? Probably though specifically what kind I leave open. Perhaps Scientific naturalist is appropriate. So far as freewill, the mind, soul or spirit are concerned I do take them all to be part of the immaterial dualistic world, I cannot separate one from another. So, Boltonian, I am at a loss to imagine how 'mind' might be independent of the brain and somehow exist separately from brain function. None of these immaterial dualistic conceits are subject to proof and are scarcely subject to definition.
My main concern in these kinds of discussion is to create maximum distance from subjective, first person arguments. I am particularly interested in how far explanations can be satisfactory from a third person viewpoint that attempts to be as objective as possible. For example I do not see much point in debating issues in terms of 'consciousness' when it cannot be adequately defined and the only consciousness we really are aware of is our own; from a third person viewpoint consciousness is a much more limited concept.
I have a great deal of sympathy with SpacePenguin's paragraph "The scientific method requires testability , however it is not written that the scientific method can encompass the whole of reality. It is , after all , just a technique developed by slightly puzzled primates trying to make sense of things." The trouble is I do not see how to have a rational discussion outside the scientific method.
I suppose as with discussions of responses to works of the Arts, you could create pockets of emotive subjectivity in the discussion and hope that it may contain something that strikes a chord for someone else. Nevertheless when indulging in a little emotive excursion it is still important to acknowledge what you are doing.
MartinRDB :
I think an electron , say , can be neither particle nor wave because of what we define waves and particles to be . Perhaps we could call them warticles , or possibly paves ?
"I have a great deal of sympathy with SpacePenguin's paragraph "The scientific method requires testability , however it is not written that the scientific method can encompass the whole of reality. It is , after all , just a technique developed by slightly puzzled primates trying to make sense of things." The trouble is I do not see how to have a rational discussion outside the scientific method."
I'd say you can have a rational discussion outside the scientific method , it's just you have no way of verifying if you are touching reality . I tend to resort to mysterianism , we're lucky we understand as much as we do and there is no reason to think we will understand everything . Though it is important to keep in mind that whatever it is that we don't understand probably doesn't object to bacon .
I'd like to return later with something more substantive - meanwhile, in response (primarily) to Martin; isn't "the mind" just the brain in motion?
....and 10/10 to Spacepenguin for making me laugh with : "Though it is important to keep in mind that whatever it is that we don't understand probably doesn't object to bacon ."
Martin:
The reason I didn't say, 'There is almost certainly more to it than this, ' is because that is not my memory of the quotation (I really will look it up). Nor is that my understanding. We picture and describe things with relation to our experience. So, we know what a wave looks like upon the water and we know what a particle looks like, as a grain of sand, for instance. But quantum entities are unlikely to be either. That is what I understood the quote to mean and that is why it resonated with me.
The Laughlin book is very interesting because it challenges the fundamental premise of reductionists, that the smaller we are capable of examining the nearer we are to the truth. He thinks that nature is much more about organisation and emergent properties than reductionism. I will suspend my judgement until completing the book but, so far, he is convincing.
Re- brain vs mind. I did not say that mind was independent of brain - I do not think that it is - what I said was that I am not convinced that the mind is solely a consequence of the brain function (a la Churchland). I do not have an alternative but his argument did not persuade me. If we are able to build a brain, molecule by molecule, in the future then I might have my answer. But, as SpaceP said elsewhere, how would we know such a thing was conscious?
SpaceP:
This blog is a living example of primate exploration. Lots of questions and no answers. Talking of which, there was an interesting article about Neanderthals and their possible relationship to homo sapiens in today's Telegraph. There is some new evidence, apparently.
Did Neanderthals eat bacon?
Steve:
There must be some material here for your next creative venture.
The scientist of the future will restore the unity of experience and experiment. He or she will do this by making himself or herself the first subject of the experiment.
This is even necessary now if scientia is to have a future at all. The methods applied to the study of inanimate orders are not suited to the study of animate orders. When they are so applied in the life and the human sciences, they are pernicious.
Today the man of science who brings methods appropriate to the study of inanimate nature to bear on the animate appears ridiculous. Indeed, the man on the street contemns him as an "ivory-towered academic", and with good reason. In the experimental setting, he investigates the experiences of others (or even of rats) and then substitutes these experiences for his own. He stands aloof with his "objective attitude" from the life and death struggles of Mr. Everyman and of the common life around him. But no man can speak with the authority of truth who has not first himself got his hands grubby in real experience, and has himself passed through the crucible of the perils of real experience.
Experiment and experience both testify to their common roots in a life and death struggle -- ex-periculum -- "from out of peril." At one time they were unified and integrated in man's activity. Instead, the man of the objective attitude splits experience, and relies on experiment while leaving the experience to others. At best, he retires to the relative safety of the third person, objectively and indicatively, and espouses facts. Facts which do not engage his whole being for coming second hand, and so he speaks in the third person, without the authority of truth because he has not experienced it himself.
He is perplexed by the division between mind and body. The body is relegated to the struggle for survival, while the mind contemplates the truth of the matter. In the experimental setting, he merely replicates and reinforces this division between body and mind by the division between experiencing subject and objecting experiment.
The scientist of the future will restore the integrity of experience and experiment by making himself the first subject and not the third person of experience. Such new scientists are already here, or are in formation. We all have the equipment -- a sensory array, a perceptual apparatus that may be weighted and tuned, a consciousness that may be focussed with the precision of a microscope's objective lens, and a common language for registering the methods that others may follow to observe and test the results. The scientist of the future will need to be as intimately familiar and skillful with these instruments as he has been with oscillators and scales or bunsen-burners, particle accelerators and atom-smashers.
There is no other way over the impasse and out of the cul-de-sac into which contemporary science is ending. Science of the old type is not fully valid for the urgent requirements of the Life Era and the Planetary Era. The thorough-going Cartesian, fuming that he was not born like Athena from the head of Zeus, is history's past man. The scientist of the future will restore the integrity of mind and body and of the full (and fulfilled) times and spaces of life. The first subject of experiment, but not the last word of experience.
longsword - you may or may not remember a short conversation we once had on CiF, where I challenged you to show you weren't just "'avin' a larf"....and you agreed you were; we subsequently found some common ground.
Now, I'm just wondering, given your recent comment:
"Experiment and experience both testify to their common roots in a life and death struggle -- ex-periculum -- "from out of peril." At one time they were unified and integrated in man's activity."
You see, my dictionary gives both "experiment" and "experience" as deriving from "periri" meaning to try, through "experiri" - to try thoroughly.
So, I ask, in a spirit of friendly curiosity, are you 'avin' another larf, or have I bought a dud dictionary?
boltonian : "There must be some material here for your next creative venture."
Some of *your* phrases earlier started the creative juices flowing ;-} ....but I don't yet have enough....for a stopgap, you could read a short ditty about "the pun" here (about 10 posts up from the bottom....look a little way further up for the best/worst pun ever, which inspired it):
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/07/vintage_twins_will_only_be_vin.html
Boltonian, do not worry I have not confused you for your Physics book.
I get mildly irritated by labels for schools of thought, if reductionism does not permit consideration of organisation then I am not a reductionist! (It is a bit like the atheist/ agnostic label - I really do not want to make too much of it)
Consciousness? I shall probably keep on repeating myself trying to explain why subjective consciousness is unlikely to lead anywhere. If you could build a computer that did the job of a functioning brain, you would mot be able to know what it 'feels like' to be the computer.
I notice that Steve has put in a comment, getting in ahead of me (no surprise there), I hadn't forgotten your CiF comment either.
Despite taking it all with a pinch of salt, I enjoyed your latest contribution Longsword, however, I don't mind being stuck as "history's past man". May be the past still has a great future.
I don't know whether you guys remember Flanders & Swann, and their song "The Gas Man Cometh" - the original's here for reference:
http://www.iankitching.me.uk/humour/hippo/gas.html
....but here's a new version...."The Quantum Physicist Cometh"
'Twas on a Monday morning, I invented a new science
(The old ones don't explain the workings of my new appliance)
Two universal constants died to give my science space
(But that's a tiny price to pay to help the human race)
Chorus: Oh, it all makes work for the physicists, don't you know
'Twas on a Tuesday morning when I thought outside the box
But Einstein's laws got in the way - my theory hit the rocks
The obvious solution: Mr Einstein got it wrong
My new machine's so perfect, I deserve a Nobel gong
(Chorus)
'Twas on a Wednesday morning when Sir Isaac bit the dust
"If his ideas are sacrosanct, my new invention's bust!"
So Newton's laws, one two and three, were booted out the door
(It took me all the afternoon to calculate some more)
(Chorus)
'Twas on a Thursday morning when the awful truth was clear
That even Feynman's mathematics couldn't save my gear
The numerator was too high, the bottom bit too low
I needed some new integers to make the damn thing go
(Chorus)
'Twas on a Friday morning when the quantum johnny rang
He reckoned twixt the two of us, we'd disproved the Big Bang
We drank a toast, high-fived (and, after several bottles, kissed)
We'd proved what theists never did - we'd proved that God exists!
Oh, it all makes work for theologists, dont you know....
Longsword: "The scientist of the future will restore the unity of experience and experiment. He or she will do this by making himself or herself the first subject of the experiment."
Dear Longsword (btw, are you ever wary of those short thrusting swords the Romans were fond of?):
I agree but would expand.
This can be and is being done now, but mostly by those who would not be called scientists. This is much more of an art today. (Of course contemporary science had such beginnings, once.)
Early beginnings, perhaps, can be seen at Charlie Tart's TASTE site found here.
Toynbee's early 20th Century experiences could be said to point in this direction, too (found here).
At this stage, many have already made truly amazing and even basic or foundational discoveries (or rediscoveries, depending on your POV). The problem is that these are only believed by those who have made similar discoveries or those who are open to their possibility.
No one else takes them at all seriously, while "proof" is not possible in the way it is currently defined.
I find this mildly frustrating, as I have shared a number of truly powerful experiences with others, in addition to having had some very significant solitary experiences, but I have long been somewhat resigned to this.
I have no academic reputation to destroy by occasionally writing of these, which is both a plus and a minus, but it can be mildly annoying to be treated as a lunatic.
Even so, when I pause to review everything, I realize we are living on the verge of a truly exciting era (some of us, anyway -- it turns out that there is some validity to the "Many World" QM interpretation, provided certain caveats and qualifications are included).
Bill I.
Steve you are really in overdrive these days (I have seen some of your verses in CiF): keep the output coming, may be we will all have the courage and dedication to follow your example.
P.S. did you ever manage to get access to the 'On having a poem' lecture?
Boltonian et al
Most interesting discussions as usual.
Wonder if someone might deal with my thoughts on consciousness and reality.
I’m of the mind that reality is only ever going to be a question of reaching consensus on a metaphorical understanding of the world. Reality lies in the agreement. There is ultimately no way, as MartinRBD mentioned, of really experiencing the world through the eyes of anybody else. Further, it’s equally impossible to experience the world as anybody but oneself. One relies on ones own fallible senses and consequently shares that experience with others of the same level of consciousness by way of a consensus through the metaphorical language we employ.
The level of information that humans manage to acquire does increase and even become more sophisticated, but there’s no possible way of escaping the technology we have (the mind) to utilize that information.
A soothing analogy (to me) is that the consensus we perpetually re-establish amongst ourselves is the garden in which our consciousness's thrive and grow, without that we are lost.
I mentioned miles up thread that consciousness is only possible if shared. It’s impossible to be a conscious being without having another conscious being with which to share and reach consensus on the experience of being alive.
In this analysis the idea of a material reality existing outside of the experience of being alive as a conscious being is of secondary importance to the consensus of metaphor shared by conscious beings. We have no choice (it seems) but to struggle for knowledge (perhaps thankfully) but we actually have already arrived at the place where reality exists, in the garden of our shared conscious experiences.
Hi Lester. Welcome back.
I like the idea of reality lying in our agreement about the world but we often do not agree. Perhaps we only disagree about interpretation but it is difficult (impossible) to know whether we actually experience similar things when subject to a particular stimulus. I think it likely, given our genetic homogeneity, but not proven.
I agree that we cannot exceed our capacity but we can, and do, stretch it but perhaps not as far as we like to think.
I am not sure that consciousness only exists if shared. When I dream I am aware of certain things but it is not shared. One thing that, for me, tends to count against solipsism is that I need to have had experiences on which to base my dreams. I suspect that even an unborn child dreams but it can only dream about the world it inhabits. This tends (I put it no stronger than that) to suggest that there is something external to our subjective self that we interact with in order to have those experiences.
Where I think you are spot on is that the perceived (whether real or imagined)interaction we have with each other is what makes life worth living. This blog would not exist, for a start, and a world without that would be unimaginably bleak :-}. So, in this sense at least,(at the risk of provoking another tirade from longsword) perception is reality.
All:
I think my quote from earlier was from Feynman but I can't lay my hands on it just now. But I did re-read some of his stuff in my fruitless expedition and he really emphasises the value of doubt in one of his lectures - doubt everything is more or less his position. Doubt is the key to learning and certainty is its enemy.
Elephantschild:
I hope you are still tuning in. If so, did you read these new revelations (they seem more speculations to me) about Neanderthals? And, if so, what did you think.
Steve: keep 'em coming.
Who’s Minding the Mind?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/health/psychology/31subl.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1186071371-XWQpVLcq/PWu4Q9UyWODZw
Hi Boltonian,
Thanks for the welcome, I always do keep an (not so close due to the demands of life) eye on your blog and I enjoy it greatly so it’s very appreciated to be welcomed again.
Individuals do disagree about interpretation, that’s a given, CiF would be a much duller place otherwise as would any discussion. And yes it’s impossible to know whether we all experience the same things given the same stimuli, highly probable in fact that we don’t, but that was what I was getting at, what’s important is the consensus reached. It’s likely as you suggest, that our shared genetic homogeneity establishes the ground rules so to speak, so that predominantly the fluctuation in experience of stimuli is smaller than greater, but as they say “God is in the details”. In place of being able to enter the mind of others we have consensus of metaphor.
If I explain to you how I feel or think about any given event you will accept what I say as my experience, compare it to your own, and together we can reach an understanding. We have agreed to metaphorically explain an event according to the vocabulary of metaphor that we share. And hopefully in doing so reach a consensus that feeds back into our conscious experience of the world. Something like the software (thoughts, culture and conscious experience) developing, although the hardware (the matter that makes up the mind /brain) remains fixed in its capability.
This leads onto the idea that consciousness is impossible without being shared. As already part of a family of conscious beings with all the hardware in place for conscious existence it’s likely that unborn children do dream. The capacity for dreaming is a result of the evolution of the human brain, its hardwired. But the themes of the dreams are entirely due to the interaction an individual has with their shared consensus of metaphor. Similarly a newborn is capable of language and perhaps even has a hardwired function for grammar. But a child that never speaks and develops its inherent ability to use language will eventually reach a point where they lose that ability and it cannot be regained.
The process of establishing human contact and establishing relationships is the very “initiation ceremony” (if you’ll pardon the metaphor) of being welcomed into the Garden of Shared Consensus of Metaphor. Once roaming in the garden, barring tragic circumstances, disagreements about interpretation are all the exercise of choice. From then on it’s all politics.
I’m glad you mentioned the idea of relationships making life worth living. I don’t want to head off into another direction but I completely agree, and its one of the important aspects of human interaction that is often forgotten, especially by those who pedal monotheistic faiths. It’s the love that is inherent in each human that gives life quality and the giving and receiving of that love, sharing that essential humanity which for me at least beats the unanswerable questions of the supernatural hands-down.
"So, I ask, in a spirit of friendly curiosity, are you 'avin' another larf, or have I bought a dud dictionary?"
@steve
You have bought a dud dictionary. I had to laugh at your allusion to our previous joust, and appreciate your wit. But, no, your dictionary is correct, just not complete, as is usual for off-the-shelf dictionaries which give less than satisfactory historical derivations of key words. "Periri" signifies "trial" but is also principally "peril". I'm sure you see the connection between experiment and experience. As Nietzsche once put it, too, "live dangerously" should be the watchword of any true scientist (and Nietzsche was a philologist before he was a philosopher). He had reasons for that statement that go beyond mere wimsy or idiosyncracy. In "live dangerously" there is a subtle truth -- also the call for the reunification of experience and experiment.
Bear in mind, too, that "trial" refers to a threefold situation. Monadism, dualism, trialism represent a historical mutation in human representation of reality, fully corresponding to Blake's holistic grasping of our reality in terms of single, twofold, and threefold vision leading up to the fourfold vision.
@bill
"Dear Longsword (btw, are you ever wary of those short thrusting swords the Romans were fond of?):"
Bill, this made me laugh uproariously -- and into a coughing fit. Your wit is exquisite. Do you intend to use such short sword on me?
I am largely thinking of the physicist David Bohm, who tried to expand the parameters of method precisely in order to save the prospective integrity of scientia. His conversations with Krishnamurti, and his social work in the dialogical principal are not unconnected with his concerns as a physical scientist or his membership in western civilisation. He saw them, correctly, as integral to the whole. An admirable figure.
I much admire Bohm the Bold (a viking raider on the citadels of conventional rationality), and was thinking of him as an exemplar of the "scientist of the future" when I wrote my post.
As to dictionary summaries of the etymology of words (and I insist that the collective experience of life is compressed into words over 10,000 years), don't trust them. "Truth", "trust", and "truce" are three aspects of one process. But you will never find that out from a dictionary. Likewise, you will never discover that "maya" and "math" are related, or that "mens" (moon, measure, matter) and "men" ( measure) are also related. You will not discover that "primordial" means both "to spin the first web" and "to begin to speak". Yet, there is a reason why the mind was compared to a spider, and Maya was "the web of illusion" in consequence. Even the words "Reason" and "Reality" are related in the same way as Man and Maya or mens and mensity. There are "sound" reasons why this is so which point to the forgotten history of the emergence of human consciousness from "the void".
Boltonian:
Yes, I'm still here. What 'new revelations' about the neanderthals are you referring to? I must have missed something -but then the palaolithic period is not one of my particular interests. Can you point me to a reference?
I said a while back that I would report on the Finkelstein/Silberman book. I have started on it only recently, having had little time for reading lately, and have still not quite finished it, but I am finding it highly readable and I think you would find it interesting. Whereas many people, up to and including Rohl, have tended to interpret the archaeological evidence in a selective manner on the assumption that the biblical accounts of the exodus, conquest of Canaan, united monarchy etc are historically reliable, broadly speaking (and have generally run into difficulties in so doing), F & S aproach the problem from the opposite direction, and examine the OT historical and religious narrative in the light of the whole of the known archaeological evidence, including the demographic evidence produced by large-scale surveys carried out over the past 30 years or so. They go on to argue persuasively that the historical and theological narrative which forms the matter of the Pentateuch and the books of Judges, Samuel, Judges and Kings was compiled in the second half of the 7th century BCE, partly as an original composition and partly adapted from a variety of earlier sources, at a time when the kingdom of Judah was undergoing a religious reformation and demographic expansion and a new national identity was being forged. This, therefore, is the context in which the narrative should be understood and in which the narrative and the very different picture which emerges from the archaeological evidence can to some extent be reconciled.
E:
The article in the DT is a puff for a new book by Professor Chris Stringer, which touches on the existence of Neanderthals in Britain.
Also, there is evidence of Neanderthal/sapiens co-existence in France lasting about 2,000 years.
A DNA study in the USA and the Max Planck Institute has begun to map the genome of Neanderthals to identify possible evidence of interbreeding.
Preliminary research from Cambridge has found no significant flow of genes from Neanderthals.One skeleton of a possible hybrid has been found in China.
It is thought that climate change about 45,000 years ago led to the demise of Neanderthals, although they did not finally die out until between 24,000 and 28,000 years ago, which seems a awfully long time to survive if one's food source has largely disappeared.
Not much, really.
The Finkelstein/Silberman book sounds interesting. I might order it anyway, although I am miles behind with my reading pile.
Boltonian:
I have checked out the DT article. It presents what seems to be a fairly comprehensive summary of recent work and current theory on the neanderthals but, as so often with journalistic coverage of scientific subjects, in a simplified form which is misleading in places.
The current work on sequencing the neanderthal genome is, I understand, being carried out independently by two separate teams using different methods, and is still some way from completion, but it already seems clear from this and earlier work on mitochondrial DNA that the neanderthals and early modern humans were indeed quite separate species which probably branched from a common ancestor around half a million years ago. Both teams are using samples from the same specimen, though, and the work on mitochondrial DNA was done on samples from, I think, only 12 individuals, so it seems unlikely that the results will settle the question whether or not neanderthals and early modern humans ever interbred. The evidence of supposedly hybrid specimens from China and Rumania seems highly debatable, at best.
The two species certainly overlapped chronologically, and when early modern humans reached western Europe there were still neanderthals around, but the article is incorrect in stating that the evidence from Grotte des Fees demonstrates that they 'lived together'. The excavations there uncovered a series of successive and quite separate occupation levels. Four of the uppermost five levels were characterised by chatelperronian (neanderthal) artefacts, but sratified between the lowest of these and the upper three there was a layer containing Aurignacean artefacts characteristic of early modern humans. Radiocarbon dating, using modern high precision techniques, indicates that the neanderthals occupied the cave c.40,000 BP and returned some time after 35,000 BP, and the intermediate Aurignacean level is dated between 39,000 BP and 36,000 BP. Not exactly evidence of co-habitation!
It has to be remembered that populations of both species would have been very small at this time.
Theories concerning the extinction of the neanderthals remain highly speculative and there was probably no single cause. The sudden deterioration of the climate c.45,000 years ago may have driven them south, but it cannot have been the sole reason they died out, and the evidence from Gorhams Cave in Gibraltar (artefacts only) suggests that they adapted to living in the mediterranean coastal region and hung on there as late as 28,000 -24,000BP. One suggestion is that they were simply less versatile than their competitors, and that the fundamental reason for this may have been linguistic - i.e. modern humans had a greater capacity for language, genetically determined, and thus a greater capacity for abstract thinking and the communication of complex ideas, enabling more rapid and flexible cultural and social development. It is certainly true that while, physiologically, there is no reason why neanderthals could not have been capable of speech, their cultural remains include no form of art or decoration and no evidence of complex social organisation. (This brings us back, I suppose, to the question of language and consciousness).
Hello Lester, I am not sure I have understood your position and wonder if in interpreting what you say I am moulding your words to fit my own conception of things.
When you state that consciousness has to be shared, is this a 3rd (or 2nd) person concept that requires some independent verification?
[e.g. 'you see that red cup over there?' 'You mean the one next to the one with green stripes?' 'yes that's the one.'] Without shared consciousness of the reality of the cups and shared language signs, this conversation is impossible and mutual understanding verifies the shared reality.
This, I think, can be extended to abstract concepts, however for many the idea of consciousness is more often used in a non verifiable first person sense. They say they are fully conscious of what they are thinking, but they would say that wouldn't they! An extreme position is when religious types claim to be conscious of a supernatural force. All I can see in such cases is that they are conscious of their own very personal reality, which is OK for them but not much use to me.
This is why I think it is important to draw a line between the 3rd (and 2nd) person shared and verified world and the mental excursions of first person world. One of the , perhaps egotistical, problems here is that whilst we own the first person world we are only sharing participants in the third person world. Shared communicated experience is for me crucially important, in fact the second Cartesian coordinate, and starting point for accounting for our understanding of reality.
Elephantschild/Boltonian, I really ought to know more than I do about this, but I thought that there were some evidence of Neanderthal funeral rites (use of flowers for example) and possibly some carved artefacts, pointing to some degree of social organisation and culture.
A degree of language and consciousness has I think been demonstrated in other primates where recordings of the responses to birds of prey and big cats have been played back and shown to elicit appropriately different responses. From this I would tend to assume that Neanderthals did possess language of an admittedly indeterminate level of complexity. This is of course entirely compatible with your argument (that they just couldn't understand the modern world!)
Martin:
'(that they just couldn't understand the modern world!)'
So that's why I have so often been accused of being a Neanderthal! :-)
Will respond to other contributions asap.
A primate (Diana monkey) link:
http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=253
Martin:
The argument, as I understand it, is not that the neanderthals did not have language; clearly, they must have done, almost certainly including speech. What has been suggested is that their innate linguistic capacity may have been more limited than that of early modern humans, most probably affecting their ability to express abstract concepts. This might also mean that their manner of reasoning and their consciousness was of a slightly different order to ours. As you say, they might not have understood, or been capable of understanding and adapting to the modern world.
Almost all we know or can surmise of their culture and social organisation is what is reflected in the tools thay made and their burial practices (in effect, all that has survived). Their stone tools are often elaborately crafted, beyond the level of the purely functional, although they do not appear commonly to have fashioned bone into tools or weapons. Their prowess as hunters is attested by the quantities of animal bones found on the sites they occupied, and scrapers, used for dressing hides, which are among the most numerous of the tools they made, provide indirect evidence that they also made clothing (and tents?) from the skins of the animals they killed. There is, indeed, also widespread evidence that they (sometimes, at least) buried their dead with some care. As far as I can remember, plant remains were found in only one such grave, but there are also occasional instances of animal bones being interred with the body or bodies, which is indicative of ritual practices and (possibly) a belief in some kind of afterlife. The pathology of some neanderthal skeletons suggests, also, that they cared for disabled members of the group, including some who had suffered from birth defects.
All this is evidence of a moderately high degree of social complexity, but the social groups appear always to have been small and there is little sign of development or elaboration in neanderthal culture or society except towards the end, with the emergence of the characteristic range of tools termed 'Chatelperronian', which some have seen as evidence of interaction with early modern humans. What above all distinguishes neanderthal culture from that of early modern man is the absence of any evidence for decorative,figurative or symbolic art, or any items of personal adornment, which is the reason for thinking that they may have lacked the ability to conceptualise the world around them in symbolic terms.
MartinRDB writes:
"..An extreme position is when religious types claim to be conscious of a supernatural force. All I can see in such cases is that they are conscious of their own very personal reality, which is OK for them but not much use to me."
You connect "religious" with "supernatural force" but you need not.
In some circles this "supernatural force" is known simply as "the energy" and there are fairly simple ways to "amp it up," such that it becomes quite palpable to all present. This will be experienced differently depending on who is present and other unknown parameters but can be related to so called "chakras" or "energy centers" within the body and even what old-time marijuana smokers called a "body buzz."
Our language (and culture) is poorly suited for "inner" explorations; there's a tendency to put all such experience into a "religion" box and that can drastically limit and/or distort it.
Bill I.
Dear Longsword:
My aside regarding Roman swords was made after observing some of your interactions on CiF, wherein you seemed to be attracting such with your comments.
Thanks for the compliment but this was not exquisite wit on my part but more of a surfacing of my martial side. (You can find descriptions of encounters between those wielding longswords and Romans -- with their short swords -- in many places).
I've started to review your Dark Age site, which provides lots to ponder. Have you closed off commenting? (I wasn't able to register).
Regards
Bill I.
Elophantschild, thanks for your explanations and clarifications.
Bill: yes I suppose I do want to put "religion" into a box and drastically limit it. I tend to feel that religion is OK if it is kept entirely to oneself. Unfortunately, I cannot use words such as 'energy' and 'amp' in the way you have done: you probably think I am limiting myself and in a sense you would be right.
Anyway I'm off to Italy for a few days.
"Bill: yes I suppose I do want to put "religion" into a box and drastically limit it. I tend to feel that religion is OK if it is kept entirely to oneself. Unfortunately, I cannot use words such as 'energy' and 'amp' in the way you have done: you probably think I am limiting myself and in a sense you would be right."
Dear Martin:
Our interaction is very connected with previous topics of words, subjective experience, and even a new kind of scientist.
I was referring to _experiencing_ the "supernatural force" you linked to the word "religion," not religion itself, although religion can refer to it or even be based on it. Depending on how this is defined, however, it need not be linked to religion.
We could probably sort this out w/o too much difficulty. First we'd have to reach agreement on the terms "supernatural," "force," and "religion."
"Anyway I'm off to Italy for a few days."
I wish I were doing so! May I ask where?
Bill
Martin:
Lucky man!
Probably my favourite country outside the UK.
Anyway, enjoy it.
Hello, I'm in Ravenna and I have had a nice long swim in the Adriatic, but it hasn't gone all my way as I think I have had a touch too much sun!
Hi Martin
Hope you have recovered from your sun overdose.
The thing I remember about my one and only visit to Ravenna many years ago(we tried to visit a couple of years ago but there was a train strike and we were foiled) was the fabulous mosaics in those wonderful Byzantine churches that abound in the town.
The star, from memory, was Sant' Apollinaris (I think that was its name).
Anyway, enjoy the rest of your break and don't frazzle your brain with too much sun - we need it to return here intact and fully functioning.
It's all gone very quiet.
Is everybody either busy reading or sunning themselves on Italian beaches?
E:
How are you getting on with the Finkelstein?
SpaceP:
Have you read anything by Laughlin? The book I am reading is very interesting, particularly his view that we have rather lost our way as scientists. He also thinks reductionism is a dead end. If you have not read it I will try to give a synopsis when I have finished it.
All:
A thought (not original) occurred to me the other day. As I was following my wife into the kitchen she put a note on the table but she had not placed where she thought she had and it fell to the floor. I picked it up and placed it on the table on the spot that she thought she had put it. I said nothing but I was aware that we now have two versions of history with the same outcome.
Had I been somebody that she did not trust and I told her what had occurred, she might have denied it. My word against her's. What had actually happened, then? Add to that the fallibility of human memory and that I had recounted these events, say, three months later, how could I be sure that my version was correct?
History, then, is merely a collection of subjective experiences - a regression to the norm, depending on how many versions and supporters for each we have. It can only ever be an approximation at best.
E, as an archaeologist do you think that there is an objective set of events that occurred independently of our recollections, or is all history perception, from whatever standpoint one happens to view it from?
Hey y'all. Hope everyone is well (and I grudgingly extend that to those fortunate enough to find themselves on the Mediterranean too). V interesting q Boltonian asks about historiography - though must rush, so can't give it a go - look forward to what stellars on this thread have to say (and, I hope, a poem from the laureate).
But, a quick question - which I ask because I'm curious how it will be treated in the calmer, more reflective environs of this thread:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Discuss.
Hello Everyone,
Sorry for having been quiet for the last few weeks..days.. I have been busy working, job-hunting, womad festival, being sick and last but niot least, reading in Search of the Miraculous. I haven't been on Cif for ages either..
In (tentative) answer to Boltonian's questions...
"There is no future because it has not yet happened.
But the present does not exist either because there is not a moment which is neither past nor future, so time cannot exist."
Me: Time exists and the present is only what we physically experience, we experience past and future in our thoughts. Our thoughts exist too and their are alive, in their own way. I suscribe to the theory that everything is alive, there is no dead matter in this universe, dead matter is made out of atoms and electrons and they are alive, they move, there is questioning about that. The whole imagery of "same as above as below" make a lot of sense when you consider the scale of what makes the universe.. stars, atoms, all in perpetual motion, all experiencing time according to their own scale... And organic life is exactly the same, stuck with time at its own scale.
How, then, does this square with your suggestion that we live in the moment?
Me: Great quote from the work of Gurjieff and Ouspensky: "Time is breath." I guess this is the moment/time you're refering too.
PS: I believe that everything breathes, in their own way of course which could be drastically different from organic breath. For instance vegetals don't breathe the same way as animals, yet they still breathe; It's much harder to understand the breath of atoms or planets but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Temperament is interesting but why is that not a genetic inheritance? 100% of me comes from two people.
Me: It comes from your influences. We're born from our parents and they are the first people who will influence you, so you will develop similar personality traits as your parents. It seems "subconscious" because we're all half asleep and our thoughts are dictated by our experiences rather than our real essence. The whole point of Gurdjieff's work is to free yourself from influences and exercise in self-remembering. Meaning that for everything you do, understand why you do it and "who" in your personality is actually speaking.
I believe that we all do "suffer" from multiple personality disorder, although subconsciously again which doesn't make the behaviour threatening at all... except for those who are diagnosed with MPD. It just means that they went on personality overload and their real essence has completely lost control. A simple illustration of the phenomenon would be how easy it is for us, the humans to have a face for work, a face for your parents, a face for your partner, a face for your children. Personality becomes quite functional.
If we are 100% a chemical computer, what is consciousness? Where is it? And what is its purpose?"
Me: Why wouldn't consciousness be chemical too?
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug1/consciouswater.html
To all of you, have a great day! It's all nice and sunny here in London*
Hi folks. I got very engrossed in the Harry Potter book and thoroughly enjoyed it. I have a house full of kids most days until the end of the school holidays, so probably won't have much to say for a while.
Thanks for the support re WML. He didn't get to me, I've coped with far worse than a load of hot air from a grumpy old man! I knew I would wind him up (naughty me).
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Discuss."
Hello ChooChoo,
A terrible thing really, Hiroshima and Nagazaki.
A testimony that humanity is far from being conscious. No one in his "right frame of mind" could let such an atrocity happen or press the destruction button.
The nuclear scale just raise the stakes on humanity; It begs humanity to evolve if it is meant to control its own destiny since we're just a button push from total destruction.
Bear in mind, some very unorthodox and fancy Old Testament interpretation suggest that humanity has already experienced nuclear warfare, described as God's Sodom and Gomorrah destruction to be a sort of nuclear bombing... changing people into pillars of salt.
Thanks all for the usual thought-provoking posts.
I will give deeper consideration to the time issue perhaps on Monday, as we are away this weekend.
First thoughts about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The atom bomb was developed because it was thought (rightly) that Germany was working on it. What was not known is that they had not got very far but when such luminaries as Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg are thought to be on the project chances could not be taken.
There was much agonising over the dropping of the bomb and it was a decision not taken lightly. Also, it was not simply a method of killing lots of Japanese; it was a way of shortening the war and thus reducing the total number of casualties on both sides.
The USA actually offered to soften the term of surrender before the bomb was dropped. The Japanese military took this as a sign of weakness and decided to continue the war. It was a massive cultural misfit - the Americans were trying to make it easier for them to surrender without losing face.
We cannot know what would would have happened had the bombs not been dropped but at least the decision was taken for the best of motives - at least by our moral standards.
We now have the technology and cannot uninvent it - all we can try to do is limit the consequences as far as possible. I understand, and perhaps SpaceP can comment on this, that fusion cannot be used for aggressive purposes and so, if we crack that (and share the technology) it will be easier to finger states who develop nuclear weapons under the guise of energy generation. I am not sure what we do about it even if we are sure that that is what they are up to.
The book I am reading by Robert Laughlin is very scathing about how the world has changed from being genuinely interested in getting and sharing knowledge to better understand the world to getting and secreting knowledge to gain a competitive advantage (either by corporations or states). He largely lays the blame for this on his own country (USA), as does Smolin in his, 'Trouble with Physics.'
Sorry that this is all a bit rushed. I will be interested in the responses both to this and the time and consciousness discussion.
Biskieboo:
Glad you're unscathed and you are right, it is very easy to predict his response to most things.
boltonian :
I haven't read anything by Laughlin , I am mostly aware of him via his criticism of string theory . I'd appreciate your synopsis and recommendation , you steered me right with the Endless Days of Being Dead .
Regarding fusion .. Nuclear weapons can use either fission or fusion to create an explosion , however as I understand it fusion based power , at least in designs being currently pursued , don't produce much , if any , weaponisable material as a byproduct . Thus you are pretty much correct ; trying to use a fusion reactor to produce material for a weapons program would be quite easy to detect .
Hi Boltonian & fellow metaphysicists (or is it metaphysicians?)
Have been keenly following events here, but every time I feel I disagree with a point made, I can't find the right words to make sense....but I'll be back....
ChooChoo : Have you seen Caroline Watt's piece on parapsychology and psi on CiF? If you're desperately in need of a dose of doggerel, you *might* find a piece there, near the bottom:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/caroline_watt/2007/08/making_our_presence_known.html
Also, we had a limerick flamefest here:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/08/publishing_never_had_a_golden.html
....which I reckon I won, hands down :-0 (but you'd need to get the context)
Boltonian:
I have finished the Finkestein/Siberman book and would recommend it to anyone interested in the subject. Alongside a lively summary of the historical and theological narrative of the OT they present the archaeological and (non biblical) documentary evidence for the origins of the Israelites and the emergence of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the wider context, with an evaluation of the different interpretations of this evidence. And their thesis (that the biblical narrative in its present form is essentially a product of the late seventh and sixth centuries BCE, woven from legends, myths and earlier historical records and 'spun' to serve the ideological and political ends of Judah in the late monarchic period and of the leaders of of the post exilic returnees) is well argued.
As to your other question: is there an objective set of events that occurred in the past, or is all history perception, there is really no short answer. My definition of history would be that it is first of all the narrative or narratives which historians construct on the basis of their analyses of contemporary written records of all kinds. Then there is the 'Ten Sixty Six and All That' version - 'history is what you can remember' - which, judging by some of the comments I have seen on CIF, for example, seems to be a mish-mash of what people recall of their study of the subject in school, things remembered or half remembered from books or articles they have read, and traditions which have become accepted as 'fact'.
Archaeologists construct their narrative from analysis of the material record, which is as near as you can get to concrete 'fact': a pot sherd is a pot sherd, though its date may be a matter of opinion; a wall is a wall, (notwithsanding the excavators' saying that 'one stone is a stone, two stones are a coincidence, three stones are an archaeological Feature, and four stones are a wall'); and stratigraphy is stratigraphy, though it may require good spacial sense, acute powers of observation and a certain amount of training to 'read' it.
My view is that there is such a thing as an obective event. Things happened in the past, whatever is made of them subsequently. For example: all contemporary witnesses agree that a battle took place on June 18th 1815, near a village called Waterloo situated south of Brussels; and no doubt farmers on the site were ploughing up the detritus of battle for decades afterwards - maybe still are, for all I know. But the account given by a witness just after the event might vary greatly according to whether he was an infantryman holding his ground in a square, a dispatch rider, the Duke of Wellington or the farmer whose crops were being pounded into the mud. Written accounts such as letters, diaries and official dispatches to the government back home may be equally partial, even where not distorted by such factors as a wish to gloss over the worst of the horrors, or to exaggerate the writer's own contribution to the action, or to present a succinct and coherent version of the proverbial confusion of battle. Memoirs written after the event may be further distorted by the vagaries of memory. To take another example, there can be no doubt that, during the 19th century in Britain, industrial towns grew rapidly in size and population, and that many people migrated from the countryside into those towns. The raw statistics may be compiled from detailed studies of a variety of relatively impartial contemporary records but landowners, factory owners, factory hands, farm labourers seeking work in the towns, social commentators and politicians of different stripes all viewed this phenomenon from a different perspective.
The historian has to take all the varying records, assess their relative reliability, and construct his or her narrative accordingly. At this stage another level of subjectivity is introduced, because the historian will have his or her own interests and (probably)prejudices. Then come the synthesists, using the work of others (secondary sources) to construct their own narratives for their own purposes, often influenced by whatever happens to be the current historiographic trend or fashion. So while history may be an attempt to reach a consensus on the objective facts, it can never in itself be wholly objective.
Where events or processes in the past are attested by both written records and material remains, archaeology can be used to complement the historical narrative, and may support or counterbalance it, sometimes in surprising ways, and it is here that my current interest lies. Unfortunately, there are still some historians who apparently do not regard archaeology as 'evidence'.
Just a sincere word of thanks for Biskieboo for her support at the limerick flamefest (I assume you got there from the link above).
If I may vent here what I couldn't there - that pair of tossers were irritating the hell out of me. No f+++ing talent at all, yet they (probably he - one guy with two handles) were producing amazingly naff limericks - unscanned, badly rhymed and unfunny - like an incontinent cow. Abuse seemed his substitute for wit.
The biggest joke of all is that one of him [sic] began the whole thing days ago, by claiming to be an established published writer, and moaning about the number of untalented Sunday wannabee writers cluttering up publishers intrays. He told such wannabees in vigorous terms to stop wasting their - and, staggeringly, his - time.
You couldn't make it up - well, *he* certainly couldn't.... ;-}
Thanks again, Biskieboo - who (for the benefit of readers here) put the word-deaf twosome/onesome to shame with a perfectly metred limerick....
Steve:
Just quickly scanned (no pun intended) the limerick wars.
Your enemy sounds like a single anti- British entity to me.
Great riposte from Biskieboo.
SpaceP:
Thanks. I will certainly give a summary when I have finished the book - nearly there.
E:
Will definitely buy the Finkelstein.
Will comment on other issues in the next day or so.
Steve - wonderfully amusing to see that one unfold. Safe to say you won (4-0 up at half-time by my reckoning). On metaphysic-ian/-ist: the former sounded immediately better to my ears, but now I've confused myself and have lost my hearing for this sort of thing. You're the poet - go by what scans better...
PlasticGypsies - hello once again. I tend to side with your kind of take on Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Though, while nuclear weapons do raise the stakes in terms of destructiveness, it's not so clear to me that there's a huge chasm between H/N and more 'conventional' bombing (of civilians/innocents): hence, h/n I'm just interested in as stark types (though the 'scandal' of using nukes may be an additional object for analysis).
Boltonian - thanks for your thoughts on this too. (The reason I asked was it was being debated on various internet sites - not always reasonably, I don't think, more on which in a sec - and I think the 9th was the anniversary for Nagasaki).
While I think that H/N were ultimately unjustifiable (if understandable), I think you raise some v important points, incl the sketch of the development to nuclear weapons, as well as this:
"There was much agonising over the dropping of the bomb and it was a decision not taken lightly. Also, it was not simply a method of killing lots of Japanese; it was a way of shortening the war and thus reducing the total number of casualties on both sides."
Even if I think that h/n were unjustified, this is v important. It goes without saying that the decision was agonised over: v occasionally there are puerile portrayals of heartless 'yanks' and I just don't buy this. As you say - and putting the 'soviet factor' controversy to one side - the motives reasonably seem to have been to end (not just shorten) the war. And casualties may have been borne in mind (though the counter-factual figures given immediately after were plucked out of the air). In terms of the structure of the act (grossly oversimplifying chains of command etc): the 'end' in mind was, let's say, to hasten the end of the war, while the 'means' by which to accomplish this were the bombings. Unpacking the 'means' further, the bombings entailed the deliberate and intentional killing of, among others, many many civilians - or, to put it in different though I think non-contestable terms - innocents. Undoubtedly the motives which this act served can and indeed must be analysed. Here's where some critics go awry: assuming the 'soviet factor' argument doesn't hold, the bombings' legitimacy might partly depend on ends or motives: a (noble enough) aim of ending the war would differ from bloodlust, and so on.
But, the question is can this act - deliberately killing the innocent, or murder, which I assume is ostensibly unjust - ever be 'made just' by noble motives?
ChooChoo, PG and others:
A couple of observations - you quite rightly imply that this is not a simple black and white issue. But here are some thoughts:
- The wars were waged nation against nation, not armed forces against armed forces , which is why factories manufacturing armaments were targeted for bombing.
- How do you decide who is innocent? And if there are innocent people are there also guilty ones? Doesn't everybody (except, possibly, pacifists) want to do everything they can to protect their homeland?
- Are factory workers innocent, even though they are manufacturing armaments? Are conscripts, even though they have no choice but to join up? What about regular forces who must obey their commander at all times? What about the general staff who must carry out the wishes of the politicians? What about the politicians, who have been elected or chosen to protect the nation's citizens? What about the citizens who demand that the politicians protect them from aggression and the consequences of war with everything at their disposal? Selecting the 'Innocents' from everybody else is not easy.
- H/N were chosen so that as much of Japan's industrial muscle could be incapacitated with the least impact on civilians (I prefer that term to 'Innocents'), otherwise Tokyo, Yokohama or Kyoto would have been chosen.
- Politicians must act strategically, even if the short-term is very painful. For example, Churchill deliberately targeted German cities for his bombing campaigns so that Hitler would retaliate and start bombing ours, which he did. That turned the Luftwaffe's attention away from our airfields where they were destroying our aerial capability. The price was lots of civilian casualties on both sides. But Churchill, quite rightly, saw his job as winning the war and protecting the long term future of his country.
- All war demands moral decisions from its leaders, so that the rest of us don't have that problem. We, the citizens, delegate that responsibility - at least that is so in an open society such as ours.
- Morality is not absolute, nor is it consistent in time and place. Although we would broadly agree about a moral code, I doubt we (you and I) would coincide in every particular, so who is right? This gap grows larger depending on one's culture, class, location, political system, education, and so on. Whose is the right one? Pacifists, for example, will not fight under any circumstances. I, on the other hand, would do everything I could to protect my family and friends from harm. I could argue that pacifists are hindering me from doing that by not fighting an aggressor - they would argue the converse. So, again, who is right?
- The objective of war is to win - that is what we demand of our leaders. Had Truman not ordered the dropping of the bombs because he had qualms about killing civilians and the allies had subsequently lost the war, he would have been vilified by history as a weakling, or possibly a traitor, who was not capable of doing his job.
On War and Peace:
My own feelings are quite mixed and often in conflict.
This is in large measure owing to my personal inner explorations. These have included accessing far too many life experiences in times and places different from my present experience.
Such explorations must be unique in every case -- everyone's collection of life experiences is distinct from everyone else's in the same way that everyone's personality is distinct from everyone else's, although there are of course common patterns, similar traits and experiences, and so on.
For whatever reason, my own "multiple life history" includes a great many male experiences but very few feminine experiences (and those I'm aware of were not pleasant).
Since the beginning of our species males have often been directly involved in war, particularly in recorded history, much more so than females (although they too have of course suffered from the direct and indirect consequences).
This means that anyone with a preponderance of male experiences will very often have accessible experiences of direct involvement with armed conflict, possibly ranging all across the board, from a lowly Mesopotamian standard bearer to an active field commander or even a battlefield monarch.
The reality of warfare will be somewhat familiar, then, even if there is no present involvement whatsoever.
I see warfare as a form of organized murder and can only justify it when it is defensive in nature, although I'm aware of other selves who saw (see) it differently.
One self, for example, was the monarch of his country; he saw warfare as an extension of statecraft and, becoming aware of the plans of monarchs of large nearby kingdoms and empires, tended to seize the initiative by striking first.
He lived (lives) before Napoleon, however. Small, professional armies were the order of the day, not the massive citizen armies raised and used by N.B. that in time became the industrialized armed forces of "total warfare," beginning with the American Civil War and extending into the Franco-Prussian war and World Wars I and II.
He was successful in unifying and enlarging his kingdom while preventing huge nearby states from crushing it, but he did not foresee how his own pattern, his own creation of a militarily efficient unified state could (and would) grow into a monster after his death.
(This is a very old pattern, one that can be seen in many times and places. Power corrupts, as is said.)
He was twisted, too, in a certain way, partly owing to a very traumatic event in his youth -- his feelings, including any natural empathy, were buried within him.
I believe in the dictum "You get what you concentrate on" but note that it is often much easier to be against war than to be for peace. The problem with being against war is that doing so forces you to concentrate on it, thereby enabling its creation in your reality.
Peace can be more difficult to imagine or visualize, tougher to concentrate on.
Even so, this strikes me as the way to go.
Back to the inner conflict I feel -- this has to do, again, with the many martial personalities found within my sub- and un- conscious, and not necessarily very far from the surface at all.
Other examples include a Roman officer stationed in Britain and an officer in the army of Charlemagne; both consider it normal to suppress those who resist the power they are part of with force, if necessary.
Fortunately, I do not belong to any military organization at present.
Soldiers who kill and commanders who order them to do so -- whether in a defensive situation or as aggressors -- necessarily develop a kind of hardening to enable them to do this, creating a disconnection from their natural feelings.
Often this is merely buried, surfacing later -- and not always within the same life experience; the inherent conflict must be worked through, sooner or later, and this processing itself can generate more violence, more trauma, more murder.
It would be great for humanity to finally end this perpetual cycle, a cycle clearly seen in such examples as the relation of Prussia (then the German Empire) to the France of the various Louis, Napoleons, and later Republics. Look what resulted from that, the untold misery of millions! (WWI shells are still killing those tasked with removing them from the soil of France.)
Regards
Bill I.
E: I have just ordered the Finkelstein/Siberman book. I'll let you know how I get on.
Re-the objectivity of history, you have succinctly voiced my fears over that proposition. Your example of Waterloo is a good one.
Is it (history)not, therefore,a compromise, a group-based average, a regression to the norm if you like. The extremes have been eliminated by collective memory and what remains is more likely to have been so than not, simply because it approximates to most people's views. But that version can only be acceptable as a general proposition - the big things (that the battle took place, where it happened, the outcome etc) - but the detail, as you imply, can never be anything more than subjective recollection.
The only reason, I suggest, that the general picture has been agreed is that more people think that x happened than y or z. It is a group-shared version that is vital for social cohesion. It reminds me a bit of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in that a sub-atomic particle can exist in an infinite number of potential locations but when observed it collapses into a probability of 1 in that place.
PG:
Interesting take on life. I know some QM theorists have suggested that all sub-atomic entities are alive in the sense that they decide which slit to go through n the two slit experiment, for example. Or each decides on its precise location.
Laughlin, whom I am reading at the moment, says otherwise. He thinks that this sort of reductionism is self-defeating because life is emergent - an organisational phenomenon.
You will need to explain a little more to me about experience being in the present. I have tried to consciously locate the present but I cannot - something has either happened (memory) or it has yet to happen (anticipation). There is no 'Now' that I can locate. Also, as everything we experience is mediated in the brain how can we differentiate between thoughts and actuality? Isn't everything reduced to thought - if by thought we mean pictures created in the brain?
That does not mean that thought is not real (subjectively real I mean) or to be denigrated. Nor that it does not in some way reflect something outside ourselves - although that would be difficult to prove. It seems to me that memory is easily fooled and we are almost always wrong about the future, so experience is illusory in that sense - we make up our history through our thoughts and that is our accumulated experience. What else is there? Physical sensations are mediated in the brain - it is we that distinguish between thoughts and experience but it all happens in the brain.
Re -personality, are you suggesting that we choose our own personalities, or that we can, within certain limits (genetics, upbringing etc)exercise choice?
I would agree that we select (or emphasise) certain of our characteristics at particular times, so that our behaviour adapts to the situation. But that is not the same as choosing whatever personality we feel like picking. I can amend (or feel that I can)certain aspects of my personality at the margins, either through a learning experience or by a big effort of will. But I cannot do very much about the basics, which I have inherited. I think I have said before that Matt Ridley's view, based on twin study research, is that about 50% of adult behaviour is governed by genes; 45% by outside the home environment as a child; and only 5% inside the home childhood environment.
Consciousness might be chemical but that has not been proved. We do not (yet) know whether it is a function of the brain or not. If not then what is it and where does it come from?
Hi Boltonian,
"Interesting take on life. I know some QM theorists have suggested that all sub-atomic entities are alive in the sense that they decide which slit to go through n the two slit experiment, for example. Or each decides on its precise location."
Absolutely; The problem is that we are so far unable to observe accurately sub-atomic entities. after all our observation capacity is relative to our physical reality. But I would actually even say that planets and stars are doing pretty much the same however their own space/time reality is obviously much larger than ours, yet it doesn't mean that they're not "alive", we all know that stars are born and stars die, their body change along their life, exactly the same as us, or the same as cell at at a micro level. For what is observed, there is more evidence that the phenomenon would be applicable to pretty much everything in this universe... on different scales.
"Laughlin, whom I am reading at the moment, says otherwise. He thinks that this sort of reductionism is self-defeating because life is emergent - an organisational phenomenon"
As Einstein said "God doesn't play dice". Life in itself, is an organisational process; it doesn't contradict what I say, it just makes "free will" nearly impossible because the first rule to obey would be the one we need to survive. We all need to breathe and to eat to stay alive; It's our categorical imperative. It dictates our life, first and foremost, we can't get "free" from the food cycle. We could sacrifice or renounce to pretty much everything, but the air you breathe or tonight's dinner is a different matter. Existence is a matter or choice but essence is anything but.
"You will need to explain a little more to me about experience being in the present. I have tried to consciously locate the present but I cannot - something has either happened (memory) or it has yet to happen (anticipation). There is no 'Now' that I can locate. Also, as everything we experience is mediated in the brain how can we differentiate between thoughts and actuality? Isn't everything reduced to thought - if by thought we mean pictures created in the brain?"
that's because of the split between essence and existence(personality); essence experiences the present all the time but is unable to articulate it; it breathes it in and out. Existence (thought) is completely unable to experience since it project itself in the past or the future as you've illustrated. I think (not sure maybe someone here will be able to confirm) that it is one of the key principles of Buddhism.
I don't know if you've watched "I heart Huckabees", it's a silly "existential" comedy, very funny imho, there is one part that sort of explain the "pure being" (or essence) part of the body where the tow main characters keep knocking themselves with a ball so that.... they stop thinking and enjoy simply "being".
Our thoughts cannot experience the present because they keep "traveling through time" but our pure being is experiencing the present all the time... otherwise we'd be physically travelling through time! Thoughts happen in the brain but the ageing process of your cells, bones, skin... is not.
"Re -personality, are you suggesting that we choose our own personalities, or that we can, within certain limits (genetics, upbringing etc)exercise choice?
I would agree that we select (or emphasise) certain of our characteristics at particular times, so that our behaviour adapts to the situation. But that is not the same as choosing whatever personality we feel like picking."
It's not as easy as that; I wouldn't say we can easily chose what influences our personality (ies); First of all there is only one personailty that is the reflection of your essence ( existence is the mirror of essence - can't remember who said that); However we are both nature and nurture and why it is possible we can ourselves select what personality side to put forward most of the times it works as subconscious influences that dictates you to be, think, feel one way when you're actually not really sure to understand why you would. You process what someone else has passed on to you without understand it, and very likely the person that has passed on the concept to you didn't understand it either. That could be expressed in "knee-jerk" reactions people are most capable of entertaining; but deep down this side of personality has no essence. ( or actually the essence of that side of personality is not theirs )
"Consciousness might be chemical but that has not been proved. We do not (yet) know whether it is a function of the brain or not. If not then what is it and where does it come from? "
I definitely agree, I was joking about it... because we don't really know much about the nature of consciousness.
Did everyone watch "The Enemies Of Reason"?
I thought it was quite good on the whole. He was quite restrained when dealing with people.
I still don't think he really gets the underlying reasons why people go for the new-age therapy/faith healer/clairvoyant stuff. It usually stems from some sort of emotional trauma or problem that people have. Nobody gets into spending lots of money on such things if they are in a perfectly healthy frame of mind. Intellectualising about it doesn't really help under these circumstances. A lot of people would probably benefit from a course of counselling or pyschotherapy but there are long NHS waiting lists, and its costly to go private. There is no quick fix but people want one and will turn to anything they think will help them. The rise in popularity of the new-age therapies may have far more to do with the break down of supportive communities and extended families than anything else. Far better to talk your problems over with a friend than hand £30 over to a stranger.
The two clairvoyants were particularly rubbish. Some people may really have a gift in this area, but they certainly didn't.
I'm looking forward to the next one. What did anyone else think?
PlasticGypsies writes: "that's because of the split between essence and existence personality); essence experiences the present all the time but is unable to articulate it."
Actually essence (this has a number of names; I tend to use entity or greater self) can express itself but this expression is mediated or colored ("filtered" some say) by what you call personality. (I tend to call this "egoic self" or "conscious self.")
This is accomplished by putting conscious self into a mild trance or dissociated condition and isn't particularly difficult (although it took me many years to learn to combine this with typing into my computer keyboard -- I am still quite primitive this way compared to many others I know -- let's say that this is more difficult for some than others, until some kind of breakthrough is achieved; it all depends on personality and its beliefs -- some personalities are much more restrictive than others when it comes to allowing or enabling a mild trance condition).
The "split" you mention is not nearly as stark as the word suggests but once again, as with trance, this isn't apparent until or unless some kind of initial breakthrough experience. (There are those who seem to be born with a minimal separation between "essence" and "personality;" my first encounter with someone like this was quite wild, accompanied by some truly impossible to ignore sensations, although she, a published author, later changed in certain ways, such that essence became much less pronounced, at least in my perception of her.
We are dealing here with an area that is very poorly understood, at least in our official culture, with its formal philosophies, crude religions, and primitive science (primitive in terms of its ability to deal with exactly this area, no matter that physics touches upon it, even though it has yet to firmly grasp it.)
More on this later (I work at home and am presently overwhelmed with 'to do' items).
There is a definite _conceptual_ and _experiential_ barrier here, one I've long struggled with. I find the challenge of this sometimes tiring but definitely stimulating.
Regards
Bill
PG:
Thanks for this. I will need to spend a bit of time digesting your post (not literally, of course) and then get back to you.
BTW, when you dispense your priceless nuggets of sound advice are they known as PG tips?
Biskieboo:
I can only take so much Dawkins, and decided to give it a miss but if you recommend it I will try the next one. How does he manage to get so much air time - perhaps he has a brother at C4?
Boltonian:
'Is it (history)not, therefore,a compromise, a group-based average, a regression to the norm if you like. The extremes have been eliminated by collective memory and what remains is more likely to have been so than not, simply because it approximates to most people's views.'
Yes, I would agree to some extent, although the way you put it suggests that there is a point at which the view of the historical past becomes fixed, and I do not think that it is quite as simple as that. I would also argue that if several different historians look at all the available accounts of a well documented event, compare them, taking into consideration the various viewpoints of the witnesses and the factors likely to have influenced them, and eliminate what is completely incompatible, then what remains can, potentially at least, be used to construct a fairly accurate and detaile picture of what occurred. The further back in time an event happened, of course, the fewer documentary sources there are likely to be, and the greater the potential for inaccuracy. The interpretation which is put on an event is a separate matter - French and British historians might have quite different views on why the Battle of Waterloo had the outcome it did, and those views would also change over time.
The myths of history are something else again, and these are very much a matter of popular perception . To give just one example, the traditional idea of the stoic and cheerful public mood in the face of the Blitz in WW II is very different from the impression one gets reading contemporary Mass Observation surveys, but for the majority of people it remains and will no doubt persist as the 'true' version. And there are plenty of other examples from recent history where the popular version of events differs from that of the historian.
On another level, history is not just about events but about continuing processes, by which I mean such things as the origins and development of the feudal system in medieval England (highly complex, that one), or the Industrial Revolution, or the development of the British Constitution, and here it is a matter of shifting perspectives rather than the establishment of a consensus. Nineteenth century historians tended to go for the Grand Narrative, leading inevitably up to the present (in line with nineteenth century ideas of Progress), whereas modern historians would generally see this approach as far too simplistic.
Just one further point on the subject of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the moral implications thereof. The use of the atomic bombs should, I think, also be seen in the context of the conventional bombing of Japanese cities which had already taken place and which had already resulted in enormous loss of civilian life, as well as the destruction of much of Japan's industrial capacity. Most of Tokyo had already been pretty well levelled in a series of fire bombing raids, the first of which, alone, resulted in an estimated 75,000-100,000 deaths, mainly of women, children and the elderly, and by May 1945, well before H & N, most of the major cities in Japan had also suffered devastating raids, resulting in over a quarter of a million deaths. And in Europe the carpet bombing of cities in Germany had, of course, already caused loss of life on a commensurate scale. The response to the news of Hiroshima in Britain, judging from Mass Observation diaries and newspaper reports, was shock and horror, not so much at the scale of the loss of life, but at the fact that it was a single bomb which had done this. The fact that there would be continuing loss of life from the after effects of radiation was at that stage,of course,not understood
E: Just received the Finkelstein - will let you know how I got on.
Re- H/N; presumably it was felt that conventional weapons had failed if the Japanese had decided to continue the war, and the atomic option was very much a last resort.
Re the history question: on re- reading what I wrote yesterday I realise that there is one point which I meant to expand on but didn't, although perhaps it is obvious enough. The historical past is under constant scrutiny and re-examination, as new lines of enquiry occur to people, new documents come to light, and documents already known are studied again in the light of increased knowledge of and insight into the period in which they were written and the purposes they were intended to serve. So the narrative is never static, never entirely 'fixed', and there is always the potential for a genuine increase in understanding of the people and events of the past, whether in affairs of state or in the politics of a medieval village
E:
I love the idea of history as an evolving story. Also, I guess. there is no reason why a later interpretation should be nearer the truth than earlier ones, despite the emergence of additional data.
Another source of confusion is bias (either deliberate or not) - the selective use of data, stretching and manipulating evidence to support a particular conclusion etc.
It is often said that history is written by the victors but the 'Losers' also perpetuate a tendentious view (if they are still around). I am thinking here of the numerous romantic tales of English perfidy in both Scotland and Ireland, where military failure is glorified and enshrined in the national psyche. I did not know, for example, that more Scots fought for Cumberland than for the Jacobites at Culloden. It was really a rather local affair but that is not how most of us remember it.
There are other motivations such as one's philosophical, political or religious viewpoint. I seem to remember Antonia Fraser painting Oliver Cromwell as a democrat many years ago. Much of Biblical era research has been muddied by either Jewish or Christian interpreters with an agenda.
And so on. Read widely and keep one's critical faculties intact is probably the best solution.
"BTW, when you dispense your priceless nuggets of sound advice are they known as PG tips?"
haha!! Freshly brewed tips! feel free Boltonian!! :*)
Yes, I've heard the pun a few times already. By the way that name is the name of an old weird -satirical tongue-in-cheek hip-hop band that a few friends and I created for fun a few years ago out of boredom, a plastic beatbox and a cheap computer based sequencer... I don't think we've ever recorder anything sober and never seriously... We tried for a while but that was against the band ethics of not taking things seriously; we all moved on to other music things and have the occasional jam session like in the good old days; I've kept the name as my Cif name and wanted to change it to something else but couldn't and the damage was already done..
( and that's the boring story behind my internet name... sorry for personal anecdote- i'm usually not very good at talking about myself!)
have a great day... I'm off on holidays this evening; quite looking forward to it.
There's a new Sue Blackmore thread on CIF about the new Dawkins vehicle. I've just posted almost the same there as I posted here earlier.
Just so I don't feel left out with all you folks going off on hols, I will be going abroad tomorrow!
Yes indeed, a day trip to France has been booked and paid for. I will be eating pan au chocolate, galettes and ham baguettes all day.
I'm taking the car so will be restocking my extensive wine cellar (and my grenadine squash - I LOVE that stuff).
It's only £49 return on the Eurotunnel - not bad at all.
PG:
Thanks for the anecdote. Not as boring as mine.
Enjoy your hols - can I ask where to?
It will give me time to respond to your recent post.
Biskieboo:
Thanks - I might look in on the CiF thread.
Enjoy the day trip.
Our next holiday will probably be January (Thailand)- the last was May in Scotland. We might get away for the odd short break before then but no summer holiday :-(.
I love history. Clearly, historians create it:
"It is not just technology, however, but the questions being asked that have changed: cultural diversity, the relation of centre to periphery, social relations, power structures, economic systems, ecological change and gender issues are only some of the most recent concerns of historians and archaeologists. Such perspectives and goals inevitably reflect the thoughts and intellectual 'fashions' of our own time. The same texts, the same architecture, the same pots have been and will in the future be evaluated and understood in quite different ways that often say more about the society seeking such answers than about the ancient society itself."
-- Gwendolyn Leick in the preface to Mesopotamia.
Ms. Leick's comment goes beyond the simple fact that historians choose certain facts or evidence and leave out others, then creatively assemble these, all in accordance with their own beliefs. (Plus, to the extent history relies on prior history, a combination of facts, myths, and errors are transmitted across time, adding to the mix.)
There's a deeper, metaphysical side to history though, one I wouldn't expect all to acknowledge.
This is that each of us creates our own histories as we create "the past" and this applies to individuals and groups. This all happens now, in the present.
An added dimension is that of 'many worlds' or 'probable realities,' while anyone enthused with history may also be quite curious as to the nature of time itself, as I am.
Further, and related to this, is the concept of "simultaneous time."
This suggests that all times exist at once, including other selves as in what some refer to as "incarnations."
Again, I don't expect too many folks to even believe in such selves, as I do (based primarily on long experience) but if they do, this means that history is alive, versions of them alive within it.
Ok -- so I remain heavily influenced by the Seth material and related ideas, those having influenced my own beliefs and experiences; such material tends to be 'unacceptable,' its enthusiasts judged harshly.
I can deal with this and suggest that even if someone wrinkles their nose when encountering even a whiff of such ideas, history is still fascinating -- metaphysical dimensions or not -- and not the dead thing many of us might once have imagined when presented with some very, very dry and grossly oversimplified example in school, presented by someone lacking any real enthusiasm for the subject.
"I shall Return."
-- General George Armstrong Custer.
Regards
Bill I.
Boltonian:
'Read widely and keep one's critical faculties intact is probably the best solution.'
Yesss! Bias will always be present to some degree, but the discerning reader who is not content to accept just one p o v will usually be able to spot where it lies: 'caveat lector' therefore.
The popular version of Culloden which you cite(and the Battle of the Boyne, for that matter) fall into the category of what I termed 'the myths of history'. And don't get me started on the 'Hollywood' versions of historical events, which some people seem to be prepared to accept at face value!
Bill:
I am sure that we each create our own histories to suit all sorts of predispositions: temperament; philosophy; political preferences; religious convictions etc.
Also, each of us has a unique set of experiences which we like to relate to other happenings, therefore we will subconsciously skew the data, so that the story more nearly fits our cognitive capability. We like to rationalise and that must be based on experience.
Time is an enigma - I used to think that everything that had happened was happening, if that makes sense. But then I couldn't find the present when I looked for it, as I pointed out earlier to PG.
As for 'Many Worlds' it is certainly possible - and some eminent physicists think it is probable. I could not say whether we inhabit each simultaneously - it depends on one's views about time. Accessing or inhabiting other worlds as well as the one we are in might be possible but unless and until a critical mass actually has that experience - and it is incontrovertible - it will be difficult for it to remain other than a minority view; a hypothesis at best.
E:
As somebody said recently, 'There is history; there is proper history and there is Mel Gibson's history,' or something like that.
I am a fan of Patrick O'Brien and I went to see the film, 'Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World,' a couple of years ago. Apart from the serious miscasting and the solecisms, such as the captain addressing his coxswain by his Christian name, and the sheer superficiality of interpretation, what angered me most was the substitution of a French ship as the villain for the American of the book. Now, this might not matter as it was inspired by a novel and the film needed to sell in the States but the book is based on actual events. American ships were preying on British whalers in the southern oceans during the Napoleonic wars.
Boltonian writes:
"Time is an enigma - I used to think that everything that had happened was happening, if that makes sense. But then I couldn't find the present when I looked for it, as I pointed out earlier to PG."
and
"As for 'Many Worlds' it is certainly possible - and some eminent physicists think it is probable. I could not say whether we inhabit each simultaneously - it depends on one's views about time. Accessing or inhabiting other worlds as well as the one we are in might be possible but unless and until a critical mass actually has that experience - and it is incontrovertible - it will be difficult for it to remain other than a minority view; a hypothesis at best."
Dear Boltonian:
Minority views are fine with me, while my own experience inevitably leads to my holding such.
Both areas or topics (time -- including simultaneous time -- and 'many worlds' or 'probable realities and selves') are nearly impossible to adequately explore without introducing some concept of fluctuating consciousness.
Colin Wilson, mirroring George Gurdjieff, addresses this over and over in many of his books.
What is 'real' to us at one moment changes, depending on the degree of expansiveness we are experiencing at that moment.
Each person has a 'normal' or 'groundstate' experience -- normal to them -- but even this can and does vary quite a bit over a lifetime.
They can experience a much wider existence or, alternatively, a much narrower one, and all of their thoughts about such questions will reflect where they are at the moment of reflection.
I enjoy history and pondering about it and the nature of time in practically all such conditions, from the narrowest to the widest (maybe, though, at my narrowest, it would be more honest to say that I become a bit like Henry Ford, who called history "bunk.")
I do recognize, however, the difference between the version of me who is simply enjoying reading about some other time and place and another version who is much more directly connected with that time and place, a probable version of it, or all times and places.
(Toynbee has something to say about this -- if you haven't read the excerpts from A Study of History I've put on http://www.realitytest.com/time02.htm , you might enjoy doing so.)
I've posted many times (and to many places) a reference, also, to Exercise 2. found at http://www.realitytest.com/doors.htm .
This deals with probable realities and selves. I have no idea how many on-line folks have actually done it (I've obtained next to no feedback) but those I've physically handed the exercise to have invariably reported later on the resulting mind blowing experiences (in one case quite upsetting, too; the lady in question tuned in to a pregnancy/abortion decision she made many years ago and, thanks to the exercise, was able to explore the choice she didn't make. The problem she experienced was that this other self was much happier.)
Regards
Bill I.
Hi all:
Have you all been following the CiF Blackmore debate? I know some have contributed.
I have decided to opt out - it was all getting a little heated and, dare I say it, irrational.
Even I got a bit hot under the collar at one point.
One thing occurred to me - what a very approximate thing language is. There were accusations of, 'You said this,' ,'No I didn't.' 'Well you meant that,' ,'No I meant this,' ,'But that's exactly what I said,' ,'No you didn't you said this.' Etc. Elliot and Pandora were classic examples of this. I don't actually think they were that far apart ( and neither was particularly wrong)but anger and ego had taken over. Listening to each other they were not.
Why? I think we are are at bottom always trying to simplify the world and relate it to our own experiences. Part of this is evident by our obsession with categorisation - we must place things and people into particular boxes. This is what happened here I think. The two named above had placed the other in a specific category which meant that neither had anything valid to say according to the other thereafter. Sad. It's a cliche but that is how wars start on many (most?) occasions.
This is when CiF becomes a competitive sport rather than a learning experience. Fun, on occasions, but not very useful.
It's a pity because I find the subject matter very interesting but I am not terribly keen on joining in a slanging match.
What do others think?
boltonian :
I think most people will follow their a priori beliefs to the bitter end . I am interested in parapsychological research , a year or so ago I was convinced it was impossible because of a prior commitment to material monism . Once you give up that commitment , not necessarily replacing it with anything , certain studies and experiments become more persuasive because you can judge simply on the data .
The trouble with knowing something is impossible is that you have to ignore the information from your senses that conflicts with that knowledge because your senses can be fooled . But if your senses can be fooled how can you be sure of the knowledge that lead to your prior commitment ?
You are certainly right about the inadequacy of language , at least in the blogging format . Giving people the benefit of the doubt and taking your opponents argument at its strongest is not much of a CiF tradition .
Boltonian -
I know what you mean. Though I have just posted with a question (August 17th 15.02 for ease of ref) which I'm hoping someone will answer (nothing to do with the debate admittedly). SpaceP I need you!
I've given up engaging in this sort of debate, unless it's to inject a joke. I always feel like I've sullied myself if I lose my rag on CIF (it does still happen sometimes though).
I had a lovely day in France. We went up the bell tower in Boulogne - great view from the top, and had a very nice meal in the Cafe de Paris in Calais.
I now have a large vat of syrop de grenadine which should keep me going for a while. And the boy has enough chocolate brioche to last him, ooh, the next few hours at least ;)
SpaceP:
I agree but where do the a priori beliefs come from. I think much is to do with temperament. In other words, I would prefer x to be true, so I will naturally lean that way until the evidence becomes overwhelmingly against it. Temperament, I surmise, is purely genetic in origin, although it can probably be tempered to a degree through nurture.
In this case evidence-based consensus might be futile but that is not to say we should give it up for there is no obvious alternative that I can see.
Language is a difficult one because it takes time, effort and a tolerance of others to ensure that they have understood what you wanted to convey. Even so, we can never be sure that this is the case. CiF, in my view, actively encourages misunderstandings because point-scoring is its primary purpose, at least on most threads that I have witnessed.
Biskieboo:
I will leave that one to SpaceP - my 'O' Level physics is not up to it.
Glad you enjoyed France - I like Boulogne - as superior to Calais as Venice is to Athens, in my view.
Steve:
I will be interested in your take on the CiF thread, particularly following the 15 rounds you seem to have endured with your adversary.
BTW, I enjoyed your poem inspired by my post. That post, incidentally, was a bit of mischief that (predictably) had its desired effect. CiF sometimes brings out the worst in me, which is why I post there sparingly nowadays.
Hi boltonian & other friends
The Blackmore thread has its spicy moments....I can't help myself sometimes - my later comments *do* have a lot of wind-up in them - but posting in anger is (I know from painful experience) a sure way of making an ass of oneself. I thought your comments, though, boltonian, were typically restrained. I know you don't favour the extremism which WML & I espouse from one side, and the rod-wigglers and vision-seers from the other - the middle ground has a tough time on such threads! Glad you saw the doggerel - "shut up and calculate" is such a great line; what doggerelist could resist?!
Also saw Biskieboo's question, and thought about it, but wasn't sure enough of my ground to comment.
Those types of threads are strange in a way. It genuinely mystifies me why "evidence" is such a taboo word for some. These are people who require evidence in their daily lives - would they go to work without evidence that they will subsequently get paid? Would they get into a plane without evidence that it really will fly and not crash? Or would they give me money without evidence that I would give them something in return?
And yet....reason is the major part of their lives, but it deserts them when *things that we would like to be* are at stake. Boy, what wouldn't I give to be able to make myself invisible at will! Or to be able to see into the future....but why waste effort trying, when we know it's impossible? Why can most of us distinguish between the possible and the impossible in daily life, but have blind spots elsewhere? I *know* there isn't an elderly female novelist living in my fridge, but some of these people would accuse me of having a closed mind for not checking every five minutes....or for not checking my neighbour's fridge when mine proves empty....how open does an open mind have to be? How many times does one have to show a negative, before the search for a positive can be called off?
Steve:
The issue I have with WML (and why I am occasionally tempted to lay some bait) is not that we differ but that he seemingly has so little imagination that anyone who disagrees with his world view must be fair game for insult and ridicule.
Also, I find his style of debate utterly childish and charmless.
If he really behaves like that he must be a very lonely chap - perhaps that is why he spends such an inordinate amount of time on CiF. Maybe we are his only friends (scary thought), so in that sense I ought to feel pity rather than contempt.
This is an example of why I find his style so repellent:
'I think they (dowsers) need to be challenged, exposed and held up to public ridicule at every opportunity.'
Now, I hold no candle for dowsers, although I did a bit in my youth and there seemed to be something in it, but why on earth speak to anybody in such an ill-mannered and violent manner. The man is a yahoo in my book.
Now, on to your other point about evidence and why I do not take such an extreme rationalist view of the world as you.
Had nobody experimented with crazy notions and feelings that couldn't be proved but felt right then we would still be living in caves. Not acting until we have solid evidence for something would advance us not one jot - almost all the great leaps forward have been through (dread phrase) paradigm shift rather than incremental progress: Galileo; Newton; Einstein; Faraday; and so on.
Another is this - we are subjective beings and all our understanding of the world comes to us through our senses and is mediated in the brain. Through our own senses and not somebody else's. You do not know what other people sense, you can only surmise. So, when somebody says to you that they feel x, and you have no experience of x and, therefore cannot relate to it, how will you react. You could condemn it as nonsense and they are either mistaken (deluded to use a favourite term of abuse on CiF) or lying; or you could think that you trust that person and will take their word for it (but still not understand); or you have sufficient evidence that lots of others feel this also but you cannot, so you just accept it as one of those things (whilst still not understanding it).
Now, because everything comes to us though our own subjective brains we project our own beliefs and feelings on to others and feel uncomfortable when they do not coincide with that projection. So, we try to make them conform through argument (as am doing now), aggression, coercion, ridicule, and so on.
Next we come to evidence. Evidence for you will be different from my version, which will be different again from SpaceP's, Biskieboo's, a theoretical physicist, a post-doc mathematician, and so on. Some require a higher standard of proof than others to be convinced, particularly if it conflicts with something they hold dear and want to continue believing in.
An example is this. WML sets inordinate store by the peer review system for scientific papers. I pointed out (in that post) that certain eminent scientists have incontrovertible evidence that this system is close to being discredited because it it is so flawed and, in places, corrupt. He did not want to hear that because it took away one of the pillars of his core belief system, so he reacted predictably but without refuting my assertion.
Another aspect of evidence is that I must take on trust what experts tell me is so, because I am not an expert. What happens when the experts disagree, as they do frequently? It is left to us then to sift the arguments and muster as much knowledge as we can and make our own minds up. But we can only do that if we have not already closed off some of the options. In other words an open mind is not only helpful to learning it is essential and I have spent the last 30 years trying (against the odds sometimes) to cultivate one.
Some of the arguments formulated on CiF to support rationalism are a little facile, in my view. 'Water boils at 100C at sea level,' was one. Well it does for us now but then Newtonian physics did ok for 200 odd years until Einstein realised that it was not the full story. And one day, as he knew, Relativity will be overturned. Special Relativity is being challenged at this moment. so, what is sacrosanct? Nothing is the answer and when we look back in 200 years we will be amazed that we believed what we did. For, at bottom, it is all belief. What drives these beliefs? I have argued that temperament plays a huge part because we are all, to some degree, selective with the evidence (and evidence to one is not so to others) - even so-called rationalists.
Finally, I do not like denigrating the experience of others simply because I have not had that sensation. And to condemn others for being different from oneself does a number of negative things:
1) It is narrow-minded;
2) It leads to cynicism (and who wants to emulate WML?);
3) It is insulting; and
4) It is a barrier to learning and understanding.
There will always be those who prey on people's weaknesses and exploit their desires for nefarious ends. And one of Laughlin's key points is that is exactly what many scientists are now doing, so this behaviour is not just confined to clairvoyant wing of the party. There are snake-oil salesmen in all walks of life.
I can best summarise my position in two quotes, which I have used before here.
‘For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all that he condemns, or can say that he has examined to the bottom his own, or other men’s opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than to constrain others.’ John Locke.
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’ Shakespeare (Hamlet).
Sorry for the ramble but I hope you get the gist.
Just a quick note.
Bill Deedes died yesterday. For me he epitomised everything that is good and civilised about our species in general and this country in particular.
He was knowledgeable, compassionate, intelligent, unshowy, and unsentimental. He hated humbug, could spot a charlatan a mile off and did not take himself too seriously. He was hard working but knew how to enjoy the pleasures of life to the full.
When I grow up I would like to be bit more like that.
I shall miss him.
Boltonian, Steve et al Hi!
Lovely comments Steve I could hardly agree more.
I saw some of the Sue Blackmoor thread, but lost it latterly. I die notice your (Boltonian's) tetchy responses to WML. You appeared to be responding through gritted teeth.
I haven't really engaged with WML, but I reckon that if he did not exist then someone would have to invent him. Why he reserves such venom for self confessed agnostics is anyone's guess. As I have mentioned before I find the agnostic/atheist divide very much blurred. Bizarrely, after much jousting, he seems to be more indulgent towards a religiously motivated evolution denier. nevertheless he really has unlimited energy to challenge religious claims and his challenge to find any evidence for a historical 'Jesus', has been interesting as I had never questioned this before.
I think he has discovered that unless you seek to outrage, you are less likely to elicit any reaction on cif; we are all flattered when we get a response!
As to the peer review system, could you explain more about "that certain eminent scientists have incontrovertible evidence that this system is close to being discredited because it it is so flawed". The problem is that although it is a very conservative process (in part this is its frustrating strength), I cannot see any viable alternative. Particularly not one that does not give free rein to all manner of crackpots.
Incidentally, noting one of the comments, I too have read Feynman's 6 easy pieces on holiday, (even the way out of date chapters) I am impressed by Feynman's sense of an overall picture.
(Biskieboo: 'with the metal' proper sense, in or within is better. I am not 100% sure but the Q seems very theoretical as I think the 'wafer' has to have negligible thickness)
Hi Martin and welcome back. I hope you enjoyed Ravenna - wonderful city in my view.
I would dispute that my first post was tetchy. I don't engage with him any more for many reasons but I occasionally post something that I know will have him mounting his high horse, which is fun but childish (which is one reason - another being time - that I don't post much on CiF these days). When directly challenged (second long post) he seldom responds - as he didn't on this occasion. My view, for what it is worth, is that he cannot deal in anything other than certainties. He used to be a committed Christian (by his own confession) and became a vehement atheist - this is quite a common shift (and vice versa) in my experience - veering from one set of certainties to another. That, I think, is why he hates agnostics with a passion, because they (we) are very comfortable with uncertainty. Anyway, psychology is not my bag, so I will leave it to others to speculate, if they wish.
Why is it not possible to challenge without sarcasm, ridicule and invective? I do not understand why rudeness and aggression are essential to CiF. Each to his own but this is not my way of discussing anything. This approach also diminishes any possibility of learning because it simply results in entrenched positions, tribal affiliations and willful misunderstandings.
I set up this site precisely to avoid such a 'Hammer and tongs' knockabout forum that can sometimes occur on CiF. It is meant to be different from , not a substitute for, CiF. Here, I hope we can explore ideas and play around with concepts without having the need to defend a particular position. I also hope we can disagree with respect here and try to understand other views without denigration or put-downs. I accept that CiF can be fun (and funny) sometimes but there are different ways of achieving that and I hope we offer an alternative here. Also, this blog can serve as a civilised refuge from other more bruising sites.
As for the peer review system, can I refer you to Messrs Laughlin and Smolin, eminent physicists both? They both attack academic institutions, funding criteria and the peer review system for being partial, self-serving, hostile to new ideas and, in some cases, corrupt. Laughlin, in particular, thinks that science is no longer a search for the advancement of knowledge but a source of competitive advantage for academic institutions, corporations and nations. The system actively discourages the sharing of knowledge, in his view.
I cannot speak from direct evidence but I have read others who, whilst not so outspoken, have voiced their unease in this area. The example I gave on CiF, that tends to support this, is the one Steve magnificently turned into verse. A friend's son, who studied physics at Oxford, gave it up as a post-grad when he was told that string theory is the only game in town and was more or less ordered to, 'Shut up and calculate.'
Now these might not be evidence of a widespread problem - perhaps you are more directly plugged into this world and can shed some light on it.
No, no the tetchy response was where you didn't mention his name at all. If he is very egotistical he may have missed it entirely! I sensed how you were feeling, nevertheless it amused me.
Now I did not know that he, who I do not name, was once a committed christian...hmmm. The psychology stuff is very tempting, but I agree with you in that domain. What would you do if he contributed here? He might behave differently, after all as I said, if you must have a response on cif, the easiest ploy is to go out of your way to be provocative.
One of his favourite sarcasms is about those whose minds are so wide open their brains fall out. I keep wanting to retort about those who have closed their minds so firmly that their brains cannot get back in!
Ever since published and quoted papers have been an indicator of the success of an institution, there have been problems with the role of scientific publications. Even before that though there has been an innate conservatism. No journal wants to be the one that published the absolute howler and no one wants to be shown up as an idiot. This is why Kuhn's model of how Scientists work is at one level fairly persuasive (the idea of falsification works at a different level - they are not necessarily incompatible).
The 4th to 6th C mosaics of Ravenna were astonishing, a real link between the Roman-Latin art and later medieval art. The history also set me thinking about the rôle of religion and that whilst it served a unifying purpose in medieval times, in a multicultural world religion has become dangerously counter-productive. Something to discuss another time perhaps.
Hi again.
The Blackmore thread does seem to have attracted some right weirdos, and not all from the "spritual" side of the fence either!
I have just invited ElliotCB to join us, as I found his posts to be intelligent and thoughtful.
Martin - I'm not sure if you are referring to me when you mention the "evolution denier". If you are, then I should point out that I have been a little disingenuous on some CiF threads. I do like pointing out that the theory of evolution is just a theory, but I am in agreement that it is the best theory (currently) to explain the world around us.
I have managed to wind people up quite spectacularly this way, without even having to try very hard. Some people appear to have *way* too much invested in a particular view point, which I find interesting. I am just as interested in psychology as I am in science, and CiF is good value for money for studying the interaction of the two.
I didn't know that WML used to be a Christian, but it doesn't surprise me. Nearly all the most outspoken atheists that I have come across on CiF have eventually confessed to a Christian upbringing, or a period of embracing Christianity. Dawkins certainly fits into this category, and I would bet money that A C Grayling does too.
Hi all
At the risk of upsetting our host here, I'm with Martin in sensing a degree of tetchiness in one or two of boltonian's posts on Blackmore's thread - and why not?! It's good to see, sometimes....even Biskieboo's been known to snap back on occasion.... ;-} We all get rattled sometimes, but I've never been offended here....I like being able to discuss things calmly here, but it's good to be able to let rip on CiF sometimes....in any case, what do you do when you're clearly arguing with a nutter? Walking away may be the smartest policy, but it's easier said than done....
I'm intrigued by hearing that you-know-who used to be religious - I'm sad enough to try to track down where he might have said that - any clues to relevant threads would be helpful. For the record, I also had a Catholic upbringing, a bit stop-start, but enough for Biskieboo to say "Aha! I thought so...." (I've described it previously on CiF.)
I agree totally with Martin that we shouldn't discard the peer review system until we can find something better. I've had two papers rejected in my career; one justifiably so, the other bugs me still. (The other side of the coin saw me, whilst still a student, wrongly reject a paper from a guy I subsequently worked for!) But how else can they be assessed? It would be far worse to publish *everything* without some kind of filter. Then, no matter what ridiculous idea you subsequently espoused, you'd be able to give an apparently impressive reference as back up.
I also pricked up my ears at boltonian's mention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics being under threat - can you point me to further info? My gut feeling towards this is scepticism, but I'll reserve judgement for the mo....
Martin:
Yes, I can see how I came across as tetchy in that post. I don't usually bother to respond but perhaps I had enjoyed a glass or two of wine by that time :-}.
I agree with you that Kuhn and Popper are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
My view is that he would not behave very differently here because I don't think he can help himself - I might be pleasantly surprised. I would not invite him, however - too much water and all that. The history is quite a long one. Yes, that piece of sarcasm is well used but not original. And I do believe he has a closed mind but I have no idea what it might take to open it.
I think the role of religion in our cultural development is a very legitimate topic for discussion here.
Biskieboo:
Elliot CB would be very welcome here - I too found his posts interesting.
Re- evolution. Laughlin is quite scathing about how much we take on trust here. He just doesn't buy that evolution explains everything about life. His view is that citing evolution at every turn is just plain lazy. I have promised a synopsis of the book when I have finished it - nearly there.
Wait a minute Steve has just posted something.
OK guilty of tetchiness. I confess.
He posted something a few months ago where he talked, in almost confessional mode, about being brought up a Christian and being committed until uni, whereupon he underwent a 180 degree transformation. He also talked, in the same post, about being aware of how much pain he caused his parents (still very much church-going Christians) by his volte-face.
In an earlier post he mentioned his father as being involved in good works and that he aspired to that someday. Perhaps he is just intellectually and emotionally torn between two worlds.
Re- 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - it could be one of several authors:
Susskind:
Rees;
Kaku (most likely)
Al-Khalili; or
Gribbin.
The memory I have is that it is being challenged by certain hypotheses, not that it has been overturned. The reason it caught my eye is that this is the one theory that Einstein thought would never be overturned.
I will try to find the reference if you like but it might take me some time.
I greatly doubt that the principle that entropy will always increase in any spontaneous process can be overturned as in my understanding this is a function of mathematical probabilities. So unless the principles of probability are overturned, I think Einstein is right and we are stuck with the laws of thermodynamics.
Don't worry I am not about to invite anything that might approximate to a woolly monster loony on to this site. Biskieboo, I thought you were one of the targets, if I had been referring to you I would have mentioned your moniker.
As for evolution it is the backbone of Biology. Biology as it has developed from natural history is the study of the consequences of evolution. You might just as well complain that it is lazy to assume that matter is particulate.
Martin, Woolly has been uncharacteristically kind to me for two threads now, that's why I thought you might be referring to me. I think I do know who you mean now, and I think it is because he recognises that this person is highly intelligent, even though he doesn't agree with him. Progress perhaps?
I must admit that I do actually quite like the chap, despite all the abuse he gives out to me and others. It's quite fun to go head to head with him sometimes, as long as you don't take him too seriously. I admire the fact that he doesn't give a stuff if people don't like him because of what he writes. That is a very honest way to operate. I can't stand it when people just say what they think other people will want to hear.
I admire our friend Bill here for the same reason.
One can be morally brave, express one's views strongly and yet be respectful and well-mannered to those with whom you might disagree. Anyway that's quite enough of him from me.
Martin:
I am sure you are right about entropy (although I had not made the link with probability) - I will try to find the reference if I can find the time. Perhaps SpaceP has something to contribute here.
I have located the chapter from the Laughlin book on evolution. Obviously I cannot quote the whole chapter but here is a paragraph to give you a flavour.
'Evolution by natural selection, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! Sometimes one hears it argued that the issue is moot because biochemistry is a fact-based discipline for which theories are neither helpful nor wanted. the argument is false, for theories are needed for formulating experiments. Biology has plenty of theories. They are just not discussed - or scrutinized - in public. The ostensibly noble repudiation of theoretical prejudice is, in fact, a cleverly disguised antitheory, whose actual function is to evade the the requirement for logical consistency as a means of eliminating falsehood. We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or a magician - a discoverer and exploiter of pre-existing physical principles or a worker of miracles - but we shouldn't. The former is theory the latter antitheory.'
Following my recent rant on the abuse of quantum theory by consciousness researchers, I found myself at this website :
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/your_friday_dose_of_woo_a_homeopathic_jo.php
where a recent issue of the journal "Homeopathy", devoted exclusively to "the memory of water", is discussed. The blogger and commenters seem to share my views on the invocation of quantum theory (and, indeed, any insufficiently understood hypothesis) to "explain" pseudoscience....
Incidentally, I found that website via Ben Goldacre's Bad Science blog, which many of you will know as a good read - here's the link for others (there's recent stuff about Dawkins & homeopathy, amongst lots more):
http://www.badscience.net/
Biskieboo - can I be a page boy when you and WML tie the knot? ;-}
boltonian martinRDB :
I'm not familiar with any hypothesis that requires the overturning of the second law , I'd be interested to see one . Laws are established through observation , an observation that is never contradicted is a law . Before I'd take any such hypothesis seriously enough to call it a theory I'd want to see an observed deviation from the second law .
It should be pointed out , though , that laws are the least interesting thing in science as they don't explain anything . This is why theories are the summit of scientific understanding .
boltonian :
Interesting quote from Laughlin .
As an aside I have to admit that as I read it i was instantly wondering when some ID/Creationist would quote mine "antitheory" as support for intelligent design . Though I am sure Laughlin is no creationist .
Steve :
Sounds like the kind of thing Gell-Mann called "quantum flapdoodle"
SpaceP:
I have been trawling through all my science books trying to locate the relevant piece, so far without success. I am sure I didn't dream it, so I will persist. Freeman Dyson, in an essay, speculates about the Second Law and indulges in some what ifs but that is not what I was looking for. I can definitely rule out Kaku now.
Laughlin, I am equally sure, is not a creationist. My take on his beef, so far, is that the scientific community has lost its rigour and drive to enhance knowledge for its own sake.
steve:
Thanks. Will try to follow up the links tomorrow.
Boltonian, I googled for Laughlin and found a similar or perhaps the same quotation on an ID site.
The tone and content: "Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution!" - leaves me deeply unimpressed. I doubt Laughlin himself could explain what "Your protein defies the laws of mass action?" is supposed to mean; it is scarcely believably ignorant.
Actually the question is usually: How has this evolved to be like this? (not, oh it's evolution what's done it) and this line of inquiry has not only been highly productive, but apart from a politically driven Soviet version of Lamark in the 50s, no one has come up with an alternative strategy. I very much doubt Laughlin provides an alternative.
I imagine Laughlin would be unimpressed by a critic who claimed that Physicists lazily explain any odd phenomenon by saying 'it's a quantum effect'!
Does his book display the qualities of "rigour and drive to enhance knowledge for its own sake" that Laughlin finds lacking today? This conclusion may well be right, but for other political and socio-economic reasons.
Now I shall risk displaying ignorance by trying to give a simplified explanation of the entropy and probabiilty. Imagine an amount of energy in one place; for a transfer to take place there needs to be a second place, this means that there are now possibilities, in fact finite probabilities, for the energy to be in two places. However small or great the probability neither can be 0 or 1 (100%). In reality there are many possibilities, but any transfer introduces more ways of distributing the energy: the energy is less ordered (in more places) and entropy increases. Another way of putting this is that if you double the volume of a gas, the mathematics of random movement dictates that particles will spread throughout the available volume - this is both a mathematical as well as an observable truth; (actually I would guess that in a very simple model of particulate behaviour with 2 or 3 particles you could get the same result without the random element). This is why I think that the 'laws' of thermodynamics are as much Mathematical (synthetic apriori?!) as Scientific (empirical).
(or SpaceP have I got this very wrong?)
MartinRDB :
That's an interesting take on it . I think you are mostly correct , though thermodynamic entropy can be increasing even if all the gas molecules in a beaker suddenly form a pyramid shape . As long as the energy is dispersed the entropy increases .
I would say that the probabilistic approach based on random movement from pure mathematics is approximate . With enough information the behavior of gas molecules in a beaker isn't random but deterministic . Though , of course , it is practically impossible to get that much information .
I suppose the main point I would make is that until you go out and measure you can't be sure of anything . People thought that action at a distance was impossible till Newton for instance .
Martin:
Thanks for that.
You will need to read the whole book rather than my amateurish summary and (possibly incorrect)interpretation thereof.
I am not a Laughlin apologist, by the way, but he is a Nobel laureate - not that it makes him immune from either prejudice or poor judgement.
SpaceP - thanks. I am much clearer now on the relationship between probability and entropy.
All:
There is a TV programme on tonight at 11 15 BST on ITV1, called, 'The Muslim Jesus,' presented by Melvyn Bragg (always a good recommendation, in my view).
It is an exploration of Islam's relationship with Jesus.
Catch up with you all tomorrow.
Boltonian - I forgot the programme was on and missed it. Can you post something about it? Thanks.
Hi Biskieboo:
It was a little predictable and disappointing for me.
It comprised a number of imams talking and preaching about how Jesus is a role model for Muslims but he is, for them, merely a messenger and prophet. He is emphatically not the son of God - there is only one god with one nature and to suggest otherwise is blasphemy.
In the name of balance there were a number of Christian scholars who were trotted out to show that Islam's interpretation was flawed because it relied on documents that were either very late or known to be spurious.
None of this was news, nor was there any evidence of a meeting of minds. The core beliefs (if not the values) of one religion is inimical to the other and the best that can be hoped for is some sort of agreement to disagree in a spirit of mutual tolerance.
From a personal perspective I became slightly exasperated at the silliness of it all. The metaphysics of both religions, in my view, is risible (no offence to you intended).
I am interested in the causes of such phenomena, both from an anthropological and a historical viewpoint. This programme advanced my knowledge not one jot in this area.
I was trying to understand the purpose of the programme and the only thing I could think of was that it wanted to show that Muslims too can be humble, unmaterialistic, merciful, challenging of religious authority and so on. That they also base their behaviours on the example of Jesus. In other words that the two religions share similar values and should try to get along better. If so, it failed - broken on the immovable rock of dogma.
It was uncharacteristically superficial for Bragg, in my view.
E:
I have read the first couple of chapters of the Finkelstein/Silberman book (Genesis and Exodus) and I cannot put it down. Thank you for the recommendation. It makes much more sense, so far, than Rohl's thesis.
At the same time I bought, 'Who Wrote the Bible,' by Friedman (much referenced by Finkelstein). Have you read it and, if so, what is your opinion?
All:
I caught the last 40 minutes or so of the Dawkins opus last night. Did anybody else watch it and what did you think?
I missed it. If anyone knows where I can watch it online please let me know. I had a quick look on youtube earlier today and couldn't see it.
Biskieboo:
If you don't track it down let me know and I will give you a brief summary. There were no surprises, though.
Boltonian:
Glad to know that you are finding the Finkelstein/Silberman book worthwhile. I haven't read 'Who Wrote the Bible' but have checked out some of the reviews and it sounds as if it would complement F/S perfectly, explaining the background of textual analysis which they touch on only briefly. All the accounts of it I have seen are agreed that Friedman writes very well, in a highly readable style, and gives a lucid account of a complex subject.
I didn't see the Dawkins programme. I had it marked as possible viewing but, in the event, it was almost over by the time I had finished dinner. I doubt, though, whether I would have learned much from it; 'shooting fish in a barrel' came to mind!
Is it just me, or is CiF rejecting everyone?
1.) A web video version of Dawkin's show is accessible from The Daily Grail -- if this link doesn't work, look under "TDG Video" on the upper right of The Daily Grail's opening page.
2.) Commenting is down at CiF: "Apologies to our readers. Comments are currently disabled by a technical fault - we're working to fix the problem."
Bill
E:
I have just caught the last hour of an interesting programme on BBC 4 about the Dead Sea scrolls.
One of the interviewees was a scholar who first got me interested in the inter-testament period - Geza Vermes. He is elderly now and a little frail but sharp nonetheless. Have you read anything of his? His view is that it will take many decades of painstaking forensic investigation before the 17,000 fragments yield up all their potential information. Of course, he is one of only a few real experts on the subject.
One thing that slightly puzzled me is that all the scholars interviewed seemed to take it as read that Jesus and John the Baptist existed as per the Gospels. It is true that Vermes was not asked to discuss anything in this area but others were.
I have also bought a book (the third of three) called, 'Who Wrote the Bible?' It is a textual analysis of the NT, which should provide some insight.
E:
Correction to the last para of my previous post.
The third book is called, 'Misquoting Jesus,' by Bart D. Ehrman. 'Who wrote the Bible,' is, of course, the Friedman book.
Sorry for the confusion.
Boltonian:
I have read a couple of books by Vermes (The Changing Face of Jesus and The Authentic Gospel of Jesus) but not his work on the Dead Sea Scrolls. The BBC4 programme on the scrolls was,I think, shown earlier this year, when I saw part of it. Unfortunately, I did not check the TV listings for yesterday evening; if I had known they were showing it again I would certainly have watched. I was, at any rate, aware that there is still a great deal of work to be done on the scrolls, and that more is being discovered as techniques of conservation and reconstruction of the manuscripts improve and new methods of making them legible are developed.
Most of my reading on the subject of biblical criticism was done many years ago, and I have probably retained only a fraction of what I read, but I, too, am puzzled by those scholars who seem to accept so much of the gospels, in particular, at face value. I see no reason to suppose that John the Baptist and Jesus were not genuine historical individuals - it is hard to see how they could have had the impact they did if they had not been - but the books of the NT were written with the hindsight of belief, and while the synoptic gospels, at least, probably retain the core of their teaching, I doubt whether anyone is capable of disentangling this entirely from the accretion of material from other sources, including the purely mythical. As I understand it, it would in any case have been entirely consistent with 1st century practice to attribute words to a teacher or prophet which he never actually said, not with the intention of misleading, but in order to make a theological or doctrinal point.
I will try and get hold of the Friedman and Ehrman books and bring myself up to date on the subject.
I see someone is after my crown
(Said cynicalsteve with a frown)
My online chum Biskie's
Poetically frisky -
You just can't keep a bad woman down....
;-}
....none of which will make *any* sense, if you haven't seen the jousting in Another Place....
Well, you know what they say Steve, if you can't be good be careful with your rhyme scheme.
In scansion,metre and rhyme
They triumph every time
Biskie and Steve,
you'd better believe,
Are the CiF laureates sublime
I find I cannot compete,
Though try as I might
With your poetical posts,
Where your feelings take flight,
So I read and admire
Things I find such a slog
Proud of such talents
On Boltonian's blog.
To Mr boltonian : Sir,
I request that it be de riguer
To discuss metaphysic
In language poetic
(I trust that the others concur).
Philosophy written in rhyme
Might seem a huge mountain to climb.
But to see ChooChoo's views
When transcribed by the Muse
Would be treasured by me for all time!
;-D
('Tis August; the Silly Season; what more can I say?)
....there's a couple more here, plus one later, if Biskie (or anyone else) fancies another go:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/agnes_poirier/2007/08/pauvres_britanniques_1.html#comment-780411
It started off as a blog in French, btw, moved on to discussing languages in general, then the assignation of gender to nouns in some languages; finally - ?
My muse, alas, is dressed in motley,
She has no place debating hotly
The matters posed in this arena,
Where subtle verse or sonnet leaner
Would fit the topics under question
My muse would suffer indigestion.
Ha! Bloody brilliant! The best by far, elephantschild! 9.9/10!
To Steve (AA's poet in residence), in response to your request:
Should I be forced to post in verse
My compositions would be terse,
'Hurrah,' say some and 'Shame,' the rest,
'A gallant try,' 'A noble jest.'
I can't compete with you or 'boo,
E's good as well but where's ChooChoo?
Like you I'd love to read his view
Cast in rhyme with words so few,
And SpaceP's thoughts on quantum things
In verse'd augment the light he brings.
Another 9.9 for boltonian from this judge!....but then....:
I've emulated poor Pandora,
Opened boxes best left sealed,
Released the Beast of Rhyme, just for a
Joke, and now He will not yield.
Still, midnight soon arrives, it brings
(As Cinderella knows) the chime,
When metaphysics spreads its wings,
And bursts forth from the chrysalis of Rhyme....
Verse it was we used to write
when she was in her glory.
Then she died and that was that,
with no more to her story.
Wandering in a spreading fog
I found myself in Boltonian’s Blog.
My apologies; I'm several centuries out of practice.
Bill
Bill:
No need to apologise - I am a little rusty too, having last wrote in verse sometime around the Iron Age (pun intended).
E:
Just finished the main body of F/S and just about to start on the Appendices.
The main piece of new learning for me is the revelation that most of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges and Kings was composed before the Babylonian Exile, during the late Monarchy. I had understood that most of these texts, along with Isaiah, Jeremiah and some other prophets, had been composed during and just after the Exile.
Also, I thought that the Israelites/Jews only became a distinctive people at this time. In other words it was the trauma of being uprooted from their homeland that drove the need for homogeneity, so the mythology grew from the need to explain and comfort. Much as exiles today are often more fiercely patriotic than those that stay at home - Irish Americans is one example that springs to mind.
But, I suppose there must have been something that gave them a cohesion in the first place - language, customs, diet etc.
I will post a fuller summary when I have finished the Appendices.
Some might be interested in this, Sue Blackmore on free will, an article stimulated by Libet's recent death:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2007/08/mind_over_matter.html
Steve:
Thanks. Very interesting.
Any views on this here would be very welcome - after all it is the title of this thread.
Boltonian:
The books which F/S argue were compiled in late monarchic times did, of course, undergo further redaction in the post exilic period, in the light of the disappointed hopes of the original writers and to meet the changed circumstances. Nor does their view contradict the idea that it is only after the exile that one can speak of the Jews as a consolidated group who defined themselves by adherence to a single, monotheistic religion and concomitant set of laws (though one could argue that the monarchy of Judah, with its cult centred on Jerusalem, was in some sense proto-Jewish). On the other hand, the first reference to Israelites is in Egyptian inscriptions dating from the end of the thirteenth century BCE, and it is clear that by the time the two kingdoms were established these people had a distinct cultural and geographical identity, centred in the highland regions. Their origins (or so F/S argue) can be traced back at least as far as the point at which settlements in that region, continuously occupied up to and during the monarchic period, were first established. One piece of information which I found interesting was that these settlements were, in the Iron Age, characterised by the absence of pig bones, in contrast to Philistine settlements, for example.
Apologies for the following (I'm not going to compete with Steve and Biske on CiF) but apropos the Blackmore thread
'I will', I said, but then thought, am I free
If in my consciousness there is no 'me'
To will the deed or choose a course of action
Among life's branching paths? But this see,
Without free will there is no satisfaction.
And so we yet sustain, if as illusion,
The notion we may will our own conclusion.
Funny what the muse comes up with on a trip to Sainsbury's
From ChooChoo on the CiF Blackmore thread (I hope you don't mind CC but I will not have the time to study your post on CiF and the thread closes soon)
'I've finally served out an admittedly brief, self-imposed period of penitence (in the form of abstaining from posting) for my earlier verbal misadventures.
Boltonian - "If you choose not to act on that impulse it just pushes the cause elsewhere - that there is a stronger impulse not to act thus. If you really want to eat that cake but resist are you acting freely or mechanistically?"
I think this raises another complicating factor - as if there weren't enough - namely, first and second order desires (i.e. I want to eat the cake, and I don't want to want to eat the cake). I think you rightly noted that we can only see our actions through a glass darkly. But it is difficult (for me) to strictly identify even our desires (and, of course, desires about desires) with brain states: there clearly appears to be some sorts of profound connections (which makes forms of substance dualism - and possibly even epiphenomenalism (phew) - awkward insofar as the connection is attenuated), yet individuating a desire does not 'map out' simplistically into an individuated 'brain state'.
Second order desires (with apologies to proponents of certain lines of 'enlightenment' thinking) might also raise the question of rationality (which, again, I think might also be relevant to free will). When we have ideas or, better, formulate ideas, they are not (*so it appears* - and here is one possible little push that encourages the Churchlands go down the route they do) structured in terms of material and efficient causation: formulating a syllogism or working through a complex inductive argument does not seem to be structured in this way. Brain processes are (in an absurdly complex way) structured in terms of material and efficient causation. Now, there are (I understand) huge problems with trying to identify (in the strict sense of the word) idea x with brain process y. And the problem I have with epiphenomenalism is that, first, while it accepts a connection going in one direction (material brain processes to 'mental processes' - note that - as far as I understand it - epiphenomenalism does not argue that 'mental states' [qualia, ideas, etc] are material) but not the other: mental states have no efficacious capacity whatsoever. Now in terms of our ideas, they have meanings, significances etc (which, a cursory glance at 20thc history would suggest, do have efficacious capacities): the brain processes on which these are said to be *wholly* dependant and of which they are the product, do not have these meanings, significances [what is the meaning of neurone A firing off to neurone B?]. But, then, how is it that there are any such meanings (if mentality has no efficacy)? In some senses, this is where I think that the analogy between (our) sense of consciousness, intentionality etc and computers breaks down, though I can understand (and in certain moods) might share SeattleDodger's advocation: does my computer 'understand' the (crap) chapter I've written on it? Moreover - as, I think, Searle has noted - computational systems are, in a sense, relative to us: we compute using computers etc (and I don't think it is irrelevant that computers are artifacts).
At the same time, I find neuroscience - from my squinting, short-sighted layman's perspective - fascinating. I've briefly met (don't ask how - complete fluke, through a crazy friend I have who somehow hobnobs with all manner of worthies - Geoffrey Raisman (who coined 'plasticity' in relation to the brain) and Sue Greenfield and found what they have to say exhilerating (I have no idea whether they are now at the pinnacle of the field - for these purposes, it's irrelevant). One interesting things, for me, was to do with 'ethics' broadly construed. Virtue ethics - i.e. dealing with the relevance of our good and bad dispositions, character etc - is respectable once again (not sure if on CiF, but at least in some philosophy departments). And it has some interesting (though at the embryonic-stage) connections with neuroscience: neuroscientists fruitfully show how important habituation is to the brain's (and our) development, and virtue ethics tries to resurrect 'habitual dispositions' as being of importance in moral discourse. (Hope the connections are clear, even if general and, at this stage, slightly superficial).
Doesnotexist - that's right on the medievalist front wrt standardised spelling - I spent quite a while yesterday stressing over a word which, it turned out, had lost its diphthong from the days of classical latin (paene --> pane): I kept asking myself, why the hell is this dude talking about bread (panis, -is) all of a sudden? I guess Braulio of Saragossa must be embarrassed of himself now, just as I was yesterday in these parts. That said I'm affecting vengefulness - and despite your sympathy - I will have my dictionary, thesaurus and, just for the hell of it, lectionary on my lap whenever I read your posts from now on. My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth... '
As promised a brief synopsis of 'The Bible Unearthed,' by Finkelstein and Silberman.
E: could you please correct me and add anything you think I have missed.
It is based mainly on the archaeological evidence, although there is a fair chunk of historical data (mainly Egytian, Assyrian and Babylonian) and some textual analysis of the scriptures.
Their conclusions are these:
- The timescales in the OT are wildly incorrect;
- No evidence for the patriarchs;
- The captivity did not occur, therefore there was no Exodus;
- There was no united monarchy;
- If David and Solomon existed at all they were likely to have been local tribal chieftains from the hill country of Judah, ruling over very small populations;
- There is evidence to suggest that there was a common culture in Palestine, which might loosely be termed Israelite, from about 13thC BC (absence of pig bones in certain sites);
- Joshua did not exist;
- The first scriptures (The Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges and Kings)were written during the final days of the monarchy in Judah during the reign of Josiah (7thC BC);
- There were further redactions during and just after the Babylonian exile (6thC BC);
- The cult of the monotheism of YHWH only rose to prominence during this time - 7th and 6thCs BC;
- Some of the scriptures might have been based on orally transmitted folk tales and myths, although which is difficult to say;
- Much of the motivation for the writings was to demonstrate the superiority of Judah and, in particular, its king Josiah;
- By the time the scriptures were written the northern kingdom had already been destroyed by the Assyrians, which is the reason it gets a bad press in the OT - history is written by the victors, or at least the survivors;
- The Israelites, far from destroying the Canaanites, were Canaanites;
- Manasseh was a successful monarch presiding over a long period of peace for Judah ( and not as in the OT), whereas Josiah is more likely to have precipitated the events leading to the destruction of the kingdom.
SpaceP:
I will finish the Laughlin and give a summary soon.
Bill posted on the Blackmore thread:
"I imagine (don't know) that consistently high levels of unmetabolized adrenaline could be nasty but years ago I read about a [theory? research?] suggesting unmetabolized adrenaline can degrade into a mescaline-like substance.... "
I would be VERY VERY interested if anyone knows any more about this.
biskieboo:
Googling adrenaline +mescaline brings up lots of pages.
The third link is a Britannica article.
This link is interesting.
Bill
Boltonian:
That seems to be a pretty comprehensive summary, though I would add that the authors stress what they see as the religious as well as political motives of Josiah - the wish to establish the cult of YHWH as the sole religion of the people of Judah. They also make the point that, although the stories of the Patriarchs were presumably based on legends, hero tales and folk traditions, the archaeological evidence does suggest possible circumstances in which they might have originated. For example, there seems to be a recurrent pattern in which some of the people of the region shifted back and forth from a nomadic and pastoral way of life in times of political stability and prosperity, to a settled, agricultural subsistence when things were more unsettled, and this might perhaps be seen as the background to the stories of the early Patriarchs. And although there is no evidence for the Exodus or the Conquest of Canaan as depticted in the biblical account, Semitic peoples from Canaan did periodically move into the region of the Nile Delta and settle there, the most notable instance being the immigration which led to the Hyksos establishing a ruling dynasty in Egypt c.1670 BCE (later accounts depict this as a violent invasion, but the archaology suggests otherwise). The Hyksos were, of course, eventually defeated and driven back into Canaan.
PS. I forgot to say that, although the accounts of the 'empire' of David and Solomon have no historical basis, there is some independent evidence that the rulers of Judah traced their descent from David, namely the inscription from Tel Dan, in which Hazael of Syria boasts of his defeat of Jehoram king of the House of David c.835 BCE. The authors also note the correspondence between the tales of David as chief of an outlaw band and the 14th century BCE Egyptian accounts of the Apiru as a class of brigands on the fringes of Canaanite society.
Cheers Bill, I will do some investigating.
This is a very interesting - and complicated - blog.
Could someone comment on the following experience which anyone can undergo at any time, apparently at will?:
In your field of vision your attention is by default on the object(s) in the centre of the field. Without moving your eyes at all, you can however, shift your attention to an object in the peripheral field. The colloquial term is "looking out of the corner of your eye". Similar attention allocation can be done with hearing.
To do the above apparently requires only a pure mental act, and absolutely no physical action (if the movement of the electrons in the neural circuitry is ignored).
Has the attention been shifted as an act of will or is something external to consciousness causing it?
In fact, are the neural electrons that constitute the thought "I will now shift my visual attention to that cup in the periphery of my field of vision without moving my eyes" caused to move by an act of will? Or are they moved by something external (say cosmic rays) and subsequently give rise to a sensation (illusory thought) of conscious free will?
I hope this point is a worthy one!
MHI:
Welcome and thanks for your post. Very worthy, I would say. I will be interested to read the responses.
I am sorry about the complication and I hope you can pick out the things that interest you.
Although Free Will is the title of the thread, you can pick up on anything that you would like to comment on. Or bring in a new subject - there is a wide variety interests and expertise here.
For MHI please read HMI - many apologies - it's been a long day.
Boltonian - no need for apologies.
HM Italy - I second Boltonian - your point definitely is worthy. (And sounds like an ingenious example from which to think). I cannot speak about this from the neuroscientific perspective (i.e. whether there is any brain activity - you suggest there isn't - at the same time, even if there were, that doesn't clear things up so obviously as some might immediately suggest).
Another question - raised by someone (forget who) on the CiF thread - how does rationality and language affect the free will question? I won't attempt to answer this directly. But, I think that there is one thing of note here which might be relevant since the free will debate so often plays out in terms of (a priori - which, unlike some people, I don't mean pejoratively) debates about causation. Our (sophisticated) abilities as language users means that we can represent 'reality' to ourselves. In sum, this might have some implications for 'demanding' (and a prioristically) the primacy of physical, efficient causation. When we look at someone doing x (say, posting a blog), we do not explain it in terms of efficient causation; rather (we rightly or wrongly) attribute reasons and assume purposive behaviour. It is almost offensively obvious to point this out, but when scientists inveigh against intelligent design, they make (among other points) that it is a way of 'sneaking in' creationism. (What a reason for or explanation of ID couched in terms of efficient causation would look like beats me). These purposes are - I take it - very much real (though we can vary in terms of how on the money we are with our attributions). I wonder (and hope) this might be of some interest in this debate and milieu, since it introduces the possibility of talking about 'causes' and 'reasons' for action which do not necessarily involve the (seemingly anathema - as I said, I don't subscribe to it, but the rejections are slightly too speedy for me) substance dualism.
Sorry, if I could just add...
I take it that these reasons are - in some sense - real. I am writing this now because I enjoy speaking about these matters on this site and am specifically interested in etc etc. I cannot see how these reasons are identical to brain processes (where, to repeat from CiF, according to the principle of identity, for two things to share identity - i.e. be the same - they must have the same attributes / properties: this is (surely) not true in the case of 'reasons' for action and neurological processes: one way to think of this might be the same reason we have for doing something, perhaps on a daily basis, will not involve exactly the same neural connections each time).
If different (and I can't quite see how not) there is the question of epiphenomenalism etc, which people might wish to discuss. One thing that interests me: I mentioned on CiF the Churchlands & their thesis that (to put it simply) mental states (i.e. beliefs, intentions etc) simply don't exist (as opposed to most materialists, who say they do exist in some form). I think that part of the underlying genesis of the position is the difficulty of persuasively connecting things like 'reasons' / brain processes (as above) in an epiphenomenalist scheme: the metaphysical commitment to materialism (and reasons for holding to this are such) that the arresting thesis is posited. (I hope this is not unfair, I don't mean to 'psychologise' or 'unmask', and I write tentatively).
Anyhow...
By, "(What a reason for or explanation of ID couched in terms of efficient causation would look like beats me)" I meant what a reason or explanation proffered - in terms of material and efficient causation - for why ID is proposed would look like beats me.
Basically, I think that we already agree - implicitly and embedded in the very discussions we have on these subjects - that not all aspects of our 'mental lives' can even be couched in terms of material/efficient causation.
boltonian - good to see normal service resuming here after the recreational outing to the Disneyland that is CiF....
:-}
ChooChoo - I sense (although you haven't stated explicitly) that you have some sympathy with the Churchlands' "eliminative materialism". Having just become an expert on the topic (good old wiki!), my inclination is against such a view.
It seems to me that if the wiki-ised rough description that "because of the inadequacy of natural languages, people mistakenly think that they have such beliefs and desires" is remotely fair to the EM position, then shouldn't the concept "think" also be a target? In other words, the more diffuse concepts to which they deny existence can only be rejected by using another, equally invalid, concept; that of thought (and its educated cousin, reason) itself. (I gather this isn't an original idea.)
I doubt we'll ever be able to isolate a chunk of matter and/or neuronal activity that corresponds exclusively with, say, "anger". But the end result exists, and at some point just prior to the fist-waving and swearing, there is a potentially isolable bit of activity in defined areas of the brain, and this has to be triggered by something. If this something isn't itself isolable, then what is it?
I'm not sure I'd want to identify *too* closely with either side, but I'd be happier without all those damned "-isms" every time I look something up. Philosophy seems to be just "ismism"....
Steve - I guess I wasn't clear. (Like you) eliminative materialism seems to me to be ultimately unintelligible for the sort of reason you give (i.e. it requires thoughts or ideas - in a sense the very thing it denies - to justify itself). I was fumbling towards an example of (in v general terms) a priori approaches to this question (i.e. materialist commitments are understood, particularly, to entail that ultimately beliefs, desires etc do not exist, because they do not fit the bill. There is a philosopher called - I think - Jaegwon who has explicitly said as much: if we have to throw this out for our metaphysical commitments, then so be it. I do not, of course, think that this is representative of all materialism).
As for isolable brain activity - of course it is just foolish to deny that this is vital for thoughts, ideas, intentions, beliefs, actions even etc.
As for the ismism syndrome - you're dead right (and I apologise for any contributions here). Not all philosophy is so saturated with it, but in philosophy of mind - perhaps intended as some sort of clarification aid - the isms proliferate.
ChooChoo, Steve, HMI (and anybody else who might be interested):
To start with steve's last point first.
I too am suspicious of too many isms but re-philosophy, I think you are being a bit harsh to dismiss an entire discipline because it attracts a few charlatans. I feel the same about psychology sometimes.
I know the late, great Richard Feynman claimed to loathe philosophy, and yet I would argue that he was a philosopher himself.
There are lots of philosophers I have little time for but some are really worth the effort. My favourites are: Hume; Spinoza; Berkeley; Descartes; Kant (although not easy to read); Russell; and Popper.
PG asked me why I wasn't a Platonist on the CiF thread. Apologies for not getting back to you. I do not denigrate or underestimate the huge influence that Plato has had on the whole subject but I do not buy into the main planks of his philosophy. I do not accept that our perception is a shadow of reality and that, conversely, if we were able to see the real world it would be like our view of it but much clearer and more perfect. Also, he was an aristocrat concerned with protecting his class and its privileges and the Republic does not work as either a social or political treatise. Read Popper's demolition thereof.
I know, Steve, that you will disagree here, but I think we have no evidence that our perception bears any resemblance to the real world at all. I think it was SpaceP who said some while ago that physics is metaphor all the way down.
Moving on to consciousness, I read, 'The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul,' by Churchland(s)a while ago, so I might be misrepresenting their position.
Their thesis, as I remember, was that consciousness was a function of the organisation of the brain. In other words it was an emergent property that could not, therefore, be reduced or isolated but was nonetheless wholly a function of the brain. And that was all there was to mind.
Now, I am no dualist but their argument did not convince me - I would need to re-read bits of the book to say precisely why. I think it was because it seemed to be based on a hunch rather than a scientifically presented argument.
I agree with Laughlin that reductionism only gets one so far (and not very far at all according to him) but proving emergent properties is very difficult. Perhaps this delineates the limits of the scientific method. You scientists here would know that better than me.
Just read ChooChoo's latest. Yes, the philosophy of mind falls into a certain amount of ismism. I am not a fan of John Searle - the two books of his I have read on the subject are very lightweight and not very convincing. He seems to have built an entire reputation on one concept - the Chinese room.
ChooChoo - your earlier posts I think were concerned with will. Where does will live and can it be detected in the brain before the act? This is the HMI conundrum - what is it, if nothing physically moves, that directs the attention? It must be will.
I cannot say whether there is detectable brain activity that precedes the intention to act - have there been any studies on the will as a brain function?
You mentioned that we tend to attribute reasons or motivations behind actions, rather than causes. I think, though, that this might be a simple shortcut to the search for a cause. If we spent all out time trying to discover the underlying cause for an act we would get into an infinite regress, go mad, and starve to death because we should have been out there looking for food.
We need to know just enough to enable society to function, avoid getting eaten and find sufficient to eat. That is why our reasoning, at a normal (rather than heightened scientific) level is simple.
I wonder if we are not limited by our prison of causation dependence. We are conditioned to understand the world through causation but what if that is not at all how things work? Hume (the great sceptic) had much to say on the subject and suggested that much of what we perceive to be cause is illusion. Perhaps it is we that attribute causes to effects because that is how our brains work, and not that there really is a cause at all. I have often wondered this about time - if time is an illusion how can causation be real because it depends upon one thing following another in time.
Just a few thoughts to throw into the mix.
boltonian :
"I think it was SpaceP who said some while ago that physics is metaphor all the way down."
I don't remember saying that , but in the sense that all we have is models I think it is correct . After all , what actually is an electron ? We can list its properties but I don't think we can know it in the sense we know a tree or a dog . And of course when we list its properties , such as mass , spin and charge , we are talking about things that are themselves somewhat metaphorical .
For instance what actually is mass ? A measure of how much stuff is in a thing , so what is stuff ? It's what we measure when we measure mass . All that matters is the model makes useful predictions . A good example is Einstein defining time as : "what we measure with a clock" for the purposes of Relativity .
"ChooChoo - your earlier posts I think were concerned with will. Where does will live and can it be detected in the brain before the act? This is the HMI conundrum - what is it, if nothing physically moves, that directs the attention? It must be will.
I cannot say whether there is detectable brain activity that precedes the intention to act - have there been any studies on the will as a brain function?"
Libet's experiments showed (though the interpretation is contested by Dennet ) that brain potentials appeared about a half second before the conscious knowing of a decision .
Looking for 'will' in the brain seems like it would be fruitless . Such an area could only be a switch (to put it very crudely) that activated based on neural activity elsewhere in the brain . Anything else would imply that an area of the brain can suddenly bootstrap itself into activation . This in turn implies either dualism or random activation .
boltonian - I certainly didn't intend to imply by my "ismism" jibe a dismissal of philosophy (in this context, at least) - indeed, I seem to be more sympathetic to them than to the neuroscientists when it comes to consciousness, free well, etc. And they always have the comback to the scientists of "too many -ologies"!
ChooChoo - OK, I think I see your stance now. No need to apologise for the "isms" (except, perhaps, epiphenomenalism, for which I still haven't found a rhyme....)
It was remiss of me to fail to say Hi! to HMItaly, and to ignore his/her comment. I'm not sure how straightforward it really is to concentrate on objects peripherally as an act of will, without moving one's eyes. Have you tried doing this with someone else checking to see if your eyes move or not? With hearing, it's obviously a little different. That's certainly one that the anti-free willers need to address....
Oh, and I forgot to say that reading about Mrs Dr Churchland, it seems she's keen on "neuroethics", which sounds like an ugly duckling of a discipline, if ever there was one....in fact, almost an oxymoron in this context....
I wish I could magically invoke the "souls" of all involved in this discussion, that is, enable them to speak through the conscious minds of our personalities.
Some of them, I'm sure, would have much to say, likely cutting through endless words and the beliefs of a great number of philosophical schools.
Writing in trance is one way to accomplish this -- somewhat -- but I am only able to induce a very light trance, while those who are skilled at communicating in deeper trances often are _not_ conscious of their communication. (Some who can type in this condition, for example, may read the results afterwards and marvel at them.)
This isn't practical, then, and I doubt those here are intrepid in that particular way.
(I've used the word "soul" only because that is closest to that which to I refer, in many minds. Generally, I prefer entity or essence, and am comfortable also with "greater self.")
Except perhaps as a child, I have never subscribed to the Christian idea of soul; when I did begin to suspect the reality of the being I'm calling "soul," this was primarily conceptual -- at first.
This didn't stay that way; in various ways, I eventually _experienced_ the living concept, but without reference to any specific religious beliefs, as they are usually considered.
Even now, however, I am usually just as "egoic" as the next person, offered merely occasional glimpses of this other realm of self. Every so often these glimpses are much more powerful, but for me, anyway, such experiences have duration and gradually fade.
(I suppose, then, that I'm not "enlightened," haven't attained "gnosis," haven't had a full "kundalini awakening" and so on, but then I'm generally wary of those who claim such attainments.)
Few of our souls would likely be capable of discoursing on the details of physics or neurology (I could be wrong -- you never know what experience and knowledge might exist in that region of self) but all would have much to say regarding philosophy, the nature of self, reality, the universe, and so on.
Meanwhile, I'm finally reading the short Quantum Enigma. It serves as an effective review of the history of physics and its concepts.
The mystery at its heart (the authors are physicists -- although very basic, this is no Tao of Physics, Dancing Wu Li Masters or any such book) is the interpretation of QM, which has, for the most part, been put aside for decades while the primary focus has been on the incredible applications we are enjoying even at this moment.
The puzzle for physicists deals with the fact that the scientific method relies on an artificial construction -- that of reality without the self who creates it.
(Of course they don't see it in exactly those terms.)
I believe a genuine unification of physics and currently officially unacceptable 'philosophies' is in the cards, and this particular puzzle could be a key to it (I am disregarding a great deal of popular material on this subject, which helps no one towards resolution).
Back to "soul" for a moment.
The Seth material is officially unacceptable. It's channelled, and I would never expect those who are unfamiliar with such things to appreciate it.
Material related to the teachings of George Gurdjieff is still primarily in the unacceptable category, no matter how fascinating.
Both point to soul, entity, or essence, and offer the means for experiencing it.
If these are unacceptable, what's left?
Well, there's Krishnamurti and Sri Aurobindo, among many others, in terms of written material.
I'm forced to dance around these issues -- soul and what is often called reality creation.
This can be frustrating to me and, perhaps, annoying to others, too.
At the same time, these are so very basic that I don't believe any valid discussion of the nature of reality can ignore them.
Nevertheless, I am willing to tackle, to a certain extent, issues usually reserved for formal philosophy and metaphysics.
I lack the extensive vocabulary -- quite impressive, really -- or conscious knowledge of authors and philosophical schools demonstrated by posters here; my knowledge in these areas is fairly rudimentary and requires me to look up references.
In terms of my own "soul," there's a Thracian philosopher, a Samaritan magician, and a few others who delve into such areas, their experience found somewhere in my larger awareness, but connecting that experience with on-line discussion threads is a feat I have yet to master.
I end up facing a worthy and stimulating challenge.
Bill
SpaceP:
'"I think it was SpaceP who said some while ago that physics is metaphor all the way down."
I don't remember saying that , but in the sense that all we have is models I think it is correct .'
Your quote from 14th April here.
'In blunt terms what we have uncovered so far is partially successful though , probably necessarily , incomplete explainitory models for what makes our sensory equipment go ping . I'm not a fan of positivism , but in scientific terms that is all we can say about the scientific method . In other words I think physics is metaphor all the way down .'
E:
Thanks for the amplification on the F/S book.
I would be interested to read an account of Jewish identity from a linguistic perspective - perhaps the Friedman book will do that.
boltonian :
Well I'm glad to see I agree with myself !
SpaceP:
LOL!
I am glad that my memory is not completely defunct.
Steve:
Can you give me a definition of 'Neuroethics,' or at least that according to Dr Churchland.
Like you, it sounds a bizarre concept to me.
boltonian - I don't know any more about neuroethics than that the word occurs on Mrs Doctor Churchland's wiki page....for all I know, it's an exciting and fundamental branch of philosophy and/or neuroscience....on the other hand, it might just be the gobbledegook the word itself suggests....I suppose I should at least be grateful that it's not been rendered "neuroethicalism"....
Wrt 'Neuroethics' - I have heard this used generally as a way of saying bioethics-as-it-pertains-to-neuroscience (e.g. the specific ethical issues a neurosurgeon etc might face).
I think it also is used - in this context - to mean something along the lines of doing ethics with neuroscience, possibly through the Churchlands' eliminative materialism (i.e. without reference to thoughts, beliefs etc and focussed upon neural networks etc).
Boltonian wrote:
"PG asked me why I wasn't a Platonist on the CiF thread. Apologies for not getting back to you. I do not denigrate or underestimate the huge influence that Plato has had on the whole subject but I do not buy into the main planks of his philosophy. I do not accept that our perception is a shadow of reality and that, conversely, if we were able to see the real world it would be like our view of it but much clearer and more perfect. Also, he was an aristocrat concerned with protecting his class and its privileges and the Republic does not work as either a social or political treatise. Read Popper's demolition thereof."
Ironically Popper's metaphysical realism stance is very close to Plato's...
sorry for the short answer... up to my eyes at the moment! I hope to get back to it soon once i find the time to indulge!
ChooChoo:
Wrt 'Neuroethics' - I have heard this used generally as a way of saying bioethics-as-it-pertains-to-neuroscience (e.g. the specific ethical issues a neurosurgeon etc might face).
I think it also is used - in this context - to mean something along the lines of doing ethics with neuroscience, possibly through the Churchlands' eliminative materialism (i.e. without reference to thoughts, beliefs etc and focussed upon neural networks etc).
It sounds like a more sophisticated tool to identify the nature of ethic mechanisms; Assuming that morality is largely a social construct, it is possible that this discipline can shed some interesting "light" on our mechanical behaviour... But I'm not convinced it will solve everything about the nature of consciousness; after all it's just mechanisms so it boils down to wether we're only mechanical being or if we're a bit more than that and that we actually create the mechanisms ourselves...back to free will again I suppose!
A real chicken and egg dilema!
Plastic Gypsies: "It sounds like a more sophisticated tool to identify the nature of ethic mechanisms; Assuming that morality is largely a social construct, it is possible that this discipline can shed some interesting "light" on our mechanical behaviour... But I'm not convinced it will solve everything about the nature of consciousness; after all it's just mechanisms so it boils down to wether we're only mechanical being or if we're a bit more than that and that we actually create the mechanisms ourselves...back to free will again I suppose!
A real chicken and egg dilema!"
I certainly think that this sort of undertaking - in general terms (i.e. thinking about ethics and the brain) - is worthy and interesting. I think I said on CiF one fascinating (for me) example might be the focus on 'character' (or habitual dispositions) in virtue ethics, and the so-called 'plasticity' of the brain. (There are, I imagine, many other examples).
The thing that tickles my curiosity is how one would aim to enhance (or advance) thinking about ethics by looking at the brain but holding that 'beliefs' etc are of no use in such an endeavour. What exactly does ethics (or a whole host of other clusters of subjects) look like without some notions - whether or not articulated - of 'intentionality' etc?
Of course, the undertaking - even from (this sort of) eliminative materialist perspective - will still be worthwhile, I think. As you hint, however, there are deeper questions it doesn't exactly resolve (but rather assumes - I don't mean this pejoratively - one must assume things to investigate etc).
For one, what are ideas? I'm not sure I could provide a satisfactory answer - which is really a way of saying I'm sure I couldn't. But, I cannot see how ideas - with their own interrelations and so on, and - most importantly, albeit in varying degrees - their intelligibility means that they really are not identical to neural connections, which aren't 'intelligible' in the same way (they do not have 'representative content'). I am not even certain that 'ideas' can be reduced to some sort of offshooting of neural connections (which is not to deny the ontological correlation if not dependence): the 'reduction' must be done v carefully. For us to posit a wholly passive dependence of ideas on neurones (shorthand for the complex workings of the brain) we are ultimately positing - depending on emphases - something illusory about ideas insofar as the (non-efficient) causation or relations that connect them are not the same - so it seems - as those connecting neurones.
Either we abandon the notion that ideas are connected in the ways we (generally?) think - propositions connecting one another etc - or we don't (and end up in my, I freely admit, not literally satis-factory position or, more likely, peregrination). The problem with the former - or tension, if you like - is: does this 'demeaning' of ideas undermine the cases made for various forms of 'reductionism'?
(PS - still haven't seen the Todd Solondz film - saw Requiem for a Dream some months back and my constitution is still in recovery).
SpaceP:
I have finally finished reading, 'A Different Universe,' by Robert B. Laughlin.
I can summarise it quite simply by saying that, 'Reductionism is dead, long live Emergence.'
He thinks that we have gone as far as we can along the reductionist path and to try to discover the ultimate truth this way is futile. He believes that there is not one truth anyway, so TOE is out. The world, he asserts, is a function of its self-organisation rather than merely a collection of its individual components.
His style is quite entertaining if egocentric - even his self-depreciatory anecdotes are told with a slight suspicion of false-modesty. It is a very anecdotal work and, as such, quite lightweight in tone. But there are some rather obscure bits that baffled me (and I do not just mean the technical stuff).
He is a sceptic about the current state of our scientific knowledge and the direction we are taking. He thinks that knowledge for its own sake is no longer valued and academic funding reflects this trend. Smolin (in 'The Trouble with Physics' says much the same thing, only better). Talking of which, I can understand Smolin's beef as he has suffered at the hands of the academic establishment but Laughlin seems to have done very well out of varsity life and is still there. Perhaps it takes an establishment figure to point out the Emperor's desabille with impunity.
My recommendation is that if you only have time to read one or t'other of the Smolin or this I would choose the former.
...........
I have been trying to get to grips with Eliminative Materialism, so I would be grateful if anybody can put me right here.
Does this mean that without language we would be unable to experience qualia? And/or that concepts such as beliefs, wishes etc. are a consequence of language? And that consciousness does not really exist other than as a function of language, which is in itself a public means of exchange, as it were? So, mental states do not exist other than as a convenient explanation (or catch all) for things that would otherwise seem inexplicable to us?
I wonder how we can prove this other than by saying (to take ChooChoo's ideas example) that we have examined the brain and can find no evidence of ideas in there, so they cannot exist. Is not that confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence?
Mary Midgley was quoted in the Wiki entry on this attacking the whole concept as reductionist nonsense. It is not often I agree with her but I think she is right here.
I must re-read the Churchland's, 'Engine of Reason, Seat of the Soul,' but I remember it as being materialist but asserting that mental states were phenomena of the organisational function of the brain. In other words they were positing an emergent, rather than a reductionist theory. Have I misremembered (or misunderstood)?
Hi y'all.
There's a prog on telly tomorrow night 'bout some bloke that knows what's going to happen before it does. Sounds right up my street so I'll be watching it.
It's part of the "Extraordinary People" series, and is on Channel 5 at 9pm. Here's some blurb about it:
"Chris Robinson claims to have foreseen the attack on the Twin Towers and the 7/7 London bombings in his dreams. His supporters include an American academic and an ex-US military intelligence officer, but his detractors dismiss his claims of precognition out of hand. Now a couple have called on him to help find their missing daughter. Will his remarkable claims of premonitions stand up to scrutiny?"
Biskieboo:
Thanks for the tip.
I caught the last 30 or 40 minutes. He did not seem very convincing to me - what did you think?
E:
Can you find a reference to Cayton village in any of your books? It is a deserted (Mediaeval?)village in North Yorkshire. Thanks.
Just started the Friedman book - I think I will enjoy it.
All:
A new religion vs atheism thread just started on CiF (Alex Stein). Ding dong time. I think I might try to keep out of this one.
boltonian - Stein's piece does have a slightly different slant - but it'll no doubt end as usual....CK & WML have declared themselves non-combatants, and I've only had the one moment of weakness....
The recent Bunting thread - disgracefully handled by CiF in my view - took its toll. It closed early, and left more deleted comments than I've seen in a while. At least 2 bannings, too - Theophobic & douglas clark - yet neither Bunting nor CiF apologised for the clear (and clearly misleading) errors of fact in the original article, which those banned were merely complaining about.
For those who take an interest in the political CiF blogs, MarkGreen0 is back, having also been banned for a disgracefully offensive comment (I suspect CiF were looking for an excuse.) His new moniker isn't hard to link back to him....I also - by accident - found his real name, and his blog....not a pretty site....shame I didn't stumble across it earlier, or I'd have outed him for the prat he is....
Enough gossip....
Steve:
Thanks.
I had always thought MarkGreenO to be a piss take.
If he is a serious human being you must spill the beans.
Re- CiF there seems to be a change of policy to try to reign in the more abusive posts.
But one man's abuse is another's humour, although I suppose we are all guests at somebody else's party and they make the rules.
Boltonian: "Re- CiF there seems to be a change of policy to try to reign in the more abusive posts.
But one man's abuse is another's humour, although I suppose we are all guests at somebody else's party and they make the rules."
I had a great time on the recent Bunting/Dawkins thread, once it got going. (I posted my usual lunacy but came up with some new adjectives that appear to be effective in the situation -- I particularly like "barbarian science" -- and gained some new insight, too.)
I note that Wooly M. Liberal managed to get his later comments deleted. Fair or not, he won't win any arguments this way.
Meanwhile, I'm actually quite enjoying revisiting the early days of QM courtesy the slim _Quantum Enigma_ (with some supplemental web research -- I'd never heard of The Ultraviolet Catastrophe before; it sounds like the name of a sci-fi movie).
Imagine you shared my belief in a "soul" or greater self, a larger non-material part of yourself who sees through your eyes, your mind.
If you reach "behind" or "beneath" your conscious mind, no matter what you might be doing -- even composing a CiF comment, you can sometimes just barely catch a glimmer of this being and its thoughts.
Occasionally another self (or selves) of a CiF poster becomes mildly discernible in this fashion (at least in my imagination -- the soul/entity/essence expresses itself simultaneously through any number of physical selves of endless times and places and can recognize the selves of other souls in this way).
Longsword is a case in point. I get both a fairly well known poet of long ago and a certain Elizabethan nobleman known for both his wide ranging interests and political difficulties, but now I begin to wonder about ChooChoo. What soul is expressing itself here?
(Have you any clues, ChooChoo, or is this a topic of no interest? I don't wish to pry, nor would I push this idea if it is not to your liking.)
Another odd belief of mine, shared with a number of those I've met on the Internet, is that our time is one of a great "soul reunion" even more so than most prior moments in time and history.
This is owing to a rare conjunction of factors, a chief factor being the rediscovery of "soul," or its re-awakening within our conscious minds (this could be phrased in any number of differing ways; Sri Aurobindo spoke of "the descent of the supermind;" that will do, too).
Regards
Bill
boltonian :
Thanks for the review . I think I will go with Smolin . I am interested in emergence and complexity theory but I'm not sure they will ever be truly satisfying answers . I'd always want to know why discrete entities have the properties they do , but I suppose this approach is doomed to always run into a conceptual brick wall at some point . You can't seek lower level explanations for ever , you either run into an infinite regress or a brute fact at some point .
Boltonian:
All I know of Cayton is that it is the site of a medieval grange (monastic farm)of Fountains Abbey and of a deserted village. It is a Scheduled Monument, but I no longer have direct access to SM records, even assuming that they contain any useful information on the subject. There has been nothing published on the site,as far as I can discover, although there is an unpublished MA dissertation (www-users.york.ac.uk/~ma154/ ). You might be able to get further information from the local Historic Environment Record (HER) either through North Yorks County Council www.northyorks.gov.uk/archaeology or the Yorkshire Dales National Park HER http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/collections/blurb/420.cfm
Let me know how how you get on with the Friedman book.
I was totally shocked by the censorship on cif: comments appeared to be deleted because they pointed out that Bunting, was wrong, was commenting on a book she had not read and used perjoratively tainted language to attack Dawkins. I really believe that Dawkins' own reply might have been deleted had it been from someone else.
It appears that criticism of Bunting amounts to a sexist attack. WML pointed out that similar criticism is applied for similar reasons to Theo Hobson and that it is the censors who are beingt sexist. This was deleted.
"I note that Wooly M. Liberal managed to get his later comments deleted. Fair or not, he won't win any arguments this way." In some ways I think that the censorship is more eloquent than the original comment. These were posts that expressed outrage at the nonsense and errors in the article rather than abuse.
I do note that the censors have markedly increased their activity.
SpaceP:
Good choice.
Re-reductionism vs emergence, I am not sure that it is an either/or. We tend to simplify and categorise things so that we can understand the world a little. Also, we are incurably tribal.
One can infer some things through reverse engineering but not others. They are complementary. But some people feel more comfortable with one than the other (and vice versa).
For example, supposing we irrefutably identified fundamental particles and their properties, could we extrapolate from that that I, boltonian, exist as a a living, conscious entity and prefer Mozart to Wagner?
Conversely could we understand what it is to be alive, conscious and human without knowing anything about molecular biology, chemistry and physics?
Knowledge is knowing both what things are made from AND how they are organised.
E:
Thanks for that. I just happened to be out that way and noticed the deserted village reference on the OS map.
There are many granges round here - some linked to Fountains and others to Byland (which is quite a way from here).
Will keep you informed on progress with the Friedman - so far, so good.
Martin:
I didn't follow the Bunting thread but I have noticed a tightening of the editorial regime.
I have a couple of things to say about that:
- Firstly, one must abide by the rules of the club or suffer the consequences. I don't know whether CiF was breaking its own rules in these cases - if so, that is not good news.
- Secondly, the rules should be applied impartially, otherwise the club becomes tainted with corruption and loses credibility (and, therefore, customers). So, if rules are applied differently for, say, bloggers and commenters, one can legitimately cry, 'Foul.'
- Thirdly, bad manners is itself a form of censorship. I know a few people who will not participate on CiF because of the loutish behaviour of some posters. I join in less now than I used to partly for that reason.
I set up this site so that we could discuss things of mutual interest without feeling one needed to defend a position or insult anybody with differing views. Now it will happen from time to time, however inadvertently, but if I felt someone was deliberately trying to humiliate another poster (as happens on CiF)I would enforce the rules. Without rules and adherence to them we have anarchy and there is no freedom in that.
Yo dudes.
Boltonian - shame you missed the start of the prog, it was the more interesting bit.
I have decided to try the technique myself (asking a question before going to sleep) to see what happens. One thing that someone said during the programme struck me, and that was that when someone has a pre-cognitive dream it is qualitatively different from normal dreams. On waking from the dreams that I have had that have turned out to be pre-cognitive, I have always felt this to be the case.
Before I watched the programme, I had my first dream about a CiFer! I dreamnt that ChooChoo (who I have never met, and therefore don't have a clue as to what he might look like) was living in the woods up the road from me. I wonder what *that* could mean?
I'm sure I read on a blog that he's off to India tonight, so I don't expect a answer from the man himself.
So Theophobic got the push did he?
Can't say I'm too bothered. He struck me as an annoying little wotsit (to put it politely) with nothing much to say apart from horrible comments about other people.
Dawkins himself was a true gent in his calm response. Shame everyone else didn't follow suit.
Actually it occured to me that in this case Bunting may have demanded that she be above criticism. Whatever the truth it did not look at all good.
Boltonian/ Spacepenguin, I think I am with you on the reductionist/ emergence issue, though I think it is only those who want to attack reductionism who make out that the emergence from the organisational aspects is ignored.
I think that the strength and validity of Science is also an emergent property: whilst believers may attack particular facets of Science, they fail to appreciate how the whole cohesive edifice resists and mocks their efforts. Unfortunately politics is much more malleable, which to me amply justifies Dawkins' concerns.
Although I am pretty much a determinist, I do not like the term as it seems to imply prediction, which in most cases is impossible. Quite apart from the shear volume of knowledge, reiterative loops of knowledge (the knowledge of knowing) get in the way.
On the other hand if we accepted uncaused effects (such as freewill), I don't think there would be any organisation of knowledge (and nothing to emerge from).
Apart from the problem of induction, which I think is mitigated by the cohesive organisation of scientific knowledge, the principle of causation both implies the sequential nature of time and that 'a first cause' is a contradiction in terms.
Another attribute of Science is its ability to blithely lay aside these semantic and logical conundrums and get on with elucidating the process of the 'big bang'.
Complicated, the meta-politics of blogs. One of the things that brought the Bunting thread to a head was Sedgemore's attempted rebuttal. Although I agree with him on this point, he has a blog ring with some fairly unsavoury types - for info, this is it (though do bear in mind these guys are heavy on what they think of as "satire", so don't take it *all* at face value; and there's no home page as such, this is just a sample blog, from which you can look at others) :
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2007/09/12/taking-dawkins-to-task
You may be interested to know that "MarkGreen0" is one of that blog ring....I'll not spoil your fun by naming him....yet....
Also following the Bunting of the Snark, I did some perusing of Dawkins's website:
http://richarddawkins.net/
and the accompanying forum:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php
Maybe some of you are already familiar with it. The main website is OK, but the forum - Ye Gods! [sic] Full of obnoxious sycophants, desperate to get a glimpse of the Prophet's coattails....I gather Dawkins doesn't have a lot to do with the forum, and I can't say I blame him (although I have posted a couple of times).
Most embarrassing of all is the philosophy section of the forum (which, for some reason I can't fathom, you need to be registered for & logged in before you can even view - not so for the rest of the site). Schoolboyish doesn't begin to describe the level of comment....I'd *love* to hear ChooChoo's views on these guys....
PS Martin - saw you'd been moonlighting on the rugger blogs(I've posted there in the past, they're generally pretty good) - so how many will SA put on England tomorrow? I reckon we'll be lucky to keep it under 50....
Biskieboo:
I too am sorry I missed the first bit. I would be very interested in your experiment. ChooCoo, Hey? What has he done to deserve gatecrashing your dreams with impunity?
Martin:
I also generally side with the determinists and agree that for all practical purposes it is a fairly useless concept.
'Apart from the problem of induction, which I think is mitigated by the cohesive organisation of scientific knowledge, the principle of causation both implies the sequential nature of time and that 'a first cause' is a contradiction in terms.'
I may have misunderstood you here but how is the error of induction mitigated by the organisation of scientific knowledge? We can never, I would have thought, confirm that inductive logic is true. Science can only offer the latest theory - which is certainly not to be confused with truth. There is alway the possibility (likelihood?) of the exception emerging from round the corner. For example, how do we know that all life is carbon-based just because all (known) life on earth is?
'Another attribute of Science is its ability to blithely lay aside these semantic and logical conundrums and get on with elucidating the process of the 'big bang'.'
Again, I might have misunderstood you but surely one of the tasks of science is to look to solve that very conundrum. The process of Big Bang is all very interesting but what is of more interest to me is the epistemological issue - what are the limits of our knowledge and how does Big Bang fit into it?
What came before Big Bang? How did it occur? What caused the vacuum fluctuation? Are we one or many? What does HUP actually mean for the existence of the world - many worlds? What part does the observer play in the experiment? Etc
I know that we know nothing and that there is more (much or little?) to discover but what is genuine knowledge and what wishful thinking, chalatanry and obscurantist nonsense? That is the challenge; and I accept that the scientific method is the best we have yet devised. Yet I feel that it has many limitations.
Just seen Steve's post. Hey, why the suspense. Give us the lowdown, you tease.
You never know, England might just surprise (I am an optimist by nature). But Farrell at Fly Half? Mmmm.
Last first: I have very little hope for England, SA, Oz & NZ seem to be the only teams to have turned up and have a chance. France was incredibly disappointing. The only chance for England is if the bruises form the SA Samoa clash are still raw. Boltonian is of my generation and can probably appreciate the satisfaction in seeing the Welsh lose (unless they are playing the all blacks)! On the other hand I do like to see France when they are playing well.
I heard a story of a lecture on relativity in the 20s (it makes it better if it was Einstein but I am not sure) in which an academic philosopher stood up to announce that space could not be curved, because there was nothing for space to be curved in. What I mean is that Science pays no heed to these logical impossibilities, it just gets on with it and leaves others to sort out the resultant mess (if there is one). So whether or not the Big Bang is a logical impossibility, or whether it is possible to conceive of anything before the Big Bang may be interesting questions, but do not likely to perturb those working in the field – the philosophy can be sorted out later!
Mitigating the problem of induction. Let me put it like this: just as today, day followed night in the middle ages, just as apples fell off trees to the ground. The difference between now and then is that if either of these two events misbehaved; the sun stopped at midday for a while, or an apple flew off into space, the impact on the world view would be entirely different in the two eras. Whilst the medieval world view would be stirred, it would not have been shaken, at least not to the same extent as such events happening today. The difference is that for such a thing to happen today the whole structure of our scientific knowledge would be overthrown. This is exemplified by the fact that today we see a link – a scientific link- between the two hypothetical events which would not have been appreciated then. Science has given us the context. We would not be able to dismiss such events as merely a result of the limitations of inductive argument.
Russell likes to pose the example or the farmer who feeds his chicken every morning, but one day wrings its neck. By induction the appearance of the farmer was followed by food as surely as night follows day. My point is that we are not chickens! (perhaps a thousand years ago we were more like chickens in this respect) Science provides the context, a structure of interdependent knowledge that is self supporting such that the conjunctions between events are more than simple inductive links.
There was a plausibility to the idea that the heavens might stop moving in their tracks in the medieval mind that cannot be entertained today. To acknowledge this, is to acknowledge that the problem of induction has been mitigated.
Agree about Wales - I spent most of the 1970s in a state of perpetual humiliation. On the other hand how could one not appreciate those who seemed to inhabit another rugby planet - Edwards, John, Bennett, JPR, Mervyn Davies and (my favourite) Gerald Davies? England had, er, David Duckham. Although I used to enjoy watching Peter Squires playing for my local team after his international days were over.
The highlight for me at that time was listening on the radio to the North of England beating the All Blacks at Otley (couldn't get a ticket for love nor money).
The 1980s was better with Bill Beaumont's all conquering 1980 team.
Agree about the French (provided they are not playing England). Sella and Blanco would probably make my all time world XV.
Anyway, I think you are right with your prediction but what sustains me is the very unpredictability of the sport.
That's the important stuff dealt with.
Yes, you are right that we do not believe the same things as we would have several hundred years ago. My point is that this is merely a change in paradigm. I do not think we are any less credulous as a species it is just that we are credulous about different things. the fundamentals of origin, purpose and the future have not changed, only the detail within those boundaries.
At the risk of sounding like the egregious Rumsfeld (Heaven forefend), we do not know what we don't know.
I am familiar with the chicken/turkey analogy - Taleb also uses it. I think we are chickens in that sense - almost all of the things that affect the world and our existence in it are things that we have not (and probably could not have) foreseen. I name a few:
- Gravity;
- Electricity;
- Relativity;
- Quantum Mechanics;
- WW1;
- AIDS;
- 9/11;
- The tsunami.
All of which changed the world in one way or another.
So, I would argue, the problem of induction has not been mitigated, just shifted a little.
Our nature is just as prone to simplifying the world, creating stories, categorising knowledge, drawing conclusions from scant evidence, reductionism, and superstition as it ever was. It is just that we do these things in different areas of knowledge than we did in the Middle Ages. I would say that CiF is testament to that.
Seems like M Bunting is not the only one who doesn't do her research properly.
I just popped over to the Dawkins site (yes, I really am that bored today) and what did I see but a copy of Charlie Brooker's Guardian article on the Dawkins TV vehicle. Nowt wrong with that, only it is credited to a "Charles" Brooker. This is disgraceful! His name is Charlton, or Charlie as he usually uses. Harrumph!
Steve - come on mate, I can't waste *all* day on t'internet trying to find out. You will have to tell us for the sake of my housework.
Heh, heh - you have no idea how much sewage I had to wade through to get to his real identity, so don't begrudge me my bit of fun....
OK, two more links, and the answer will be pretty obvious:
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2007/08/mike-blogger-game-is-up.html
and (the answer is here....if you read the comments carefully....)
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2007/09/07/fur-madeleine-bunting-eine-meditation-uber-religion/
Anyone else spotted his new incarnation, BTW ? (At least, I'm pretty sure it's him....)
E:
First impressions after having read less than a quarter of the book.
He makes lots of assumptions in drawing his conclusions - too many for my liking. He takes as read the biblical account of Jewish history in lots of unsubstantiated areas. For instance, he does not question the existence of the United Monarchy, or that David and Solomon existed as kings of a very large area. He also seems to accept the Egyptian captivity and Exodus as historical fact.
I would accept his main thesis that the OT has several (he says four) authors - there are just too many contradictions and repetitions for it to be the coherent work of one person. It is also probable that they were written down to support the legitimacy of the regime under which they were composed. Like Virgil's writing of the Aeneid to legitimise the rule of his patron Augustus.
However, he has both main accounts (J and E) as being composed before the destruction of the northern kingdom in 722BC. J is the author of the YHWH bits and is from Judah, whereas E (Elohim) is from Israel.
F/S say that the bulk was written after this time - sometime during the 7thC during the reign of Josiah in Judah.
More anon.
Steve:
I must be thick - I still don't get it, so you will just have to spell it out to me.
So much for the gloomy pessimist who predicted 50 points!
Ah, but at least I am pleasantly surprised....if we can muster a team, I'm sure we'll beat Samoa....well, sure-ish....Wales-Oz tomorrow....I always feel like Kissinger did about the Iran-Iraq war when watching games like that....
Oz 32: 20 over Wales....I must be getting soft in my old age, as I found myself cheering Wales on....none of the NH sides have a chance, though, as the SH teams get away with blatantly cynical play at every ruck....oh well, it's only a (metaphysical) game....
Steve:
I missed the game but gather Wales put up a decent performance in the second half.
I would definitely have cheered for Wales, even though many Welsh of my acquaintance support ABE (Anybody but England).
All:
Eliminative Materialism anybody?
Sorry, boltonian; but just a heads up that the zombie mods are out in force again on CiF:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/09/imaginary_gods_are_really_immo.html
Get your comments in while you can....as long as you agree with the blogger, that is....
First results from my experiment are that I woke up this morning with the name "Thomas Edison" and what I think is the first line of a poem, which goes something like "Sleep, now, that you may play" or something like that. I've realised that I will have to have pen and paper handy so I can write down whatever is in my head straight away. It evaporates very quickly on waking.
So today, I've done a bit of reading up on Thomas Edison. I found out that he was a big poetry fan, and his favourite poem was Gray's Elegy In A Country Churchyard. I couldn't find any reference to a poem that starts as I said above.
Edison was very keen on self-directed learning, as I am. He was a very interesting chap, but unlike me, he doesn't appear to have needed much sleep.
This biography was interesting:
http://www.thomasedison.com/biog.htm
Biskieboo : "Edison was very keen on self-directed learning, as I am. He was a very interesting chap, but unlike me, he doesn't appear to have needed much sleep."
Perhaps he couldn't sleep with the light on....
Apparently before Edison came along with his bright idea we all used to sleep for ten hours a night. Now it's just me.
Me: "I note that Wooly M. Liberal managed to get his later comments deleted. Fair or not, he won't win any arguments this way."
MartinRDB: "In some ways I think that the censorship is more eloquent than the original comment. These were posts that expressed outrage at the nonsense and errors in the article rather than abuse."
Martin:
The time difference between the USA and the UK often means missing posts from UK posters before deletion and this was true here.
Aside from the content, was there anything about the style of WML's comments that led to their deletion? (If not, this is disturbing.)
biskieboo:
Do have any more detail of your dream of ChooChoo?
In years past I belonged to mailing lists in which dream experiments were rife -- this was very unscientific (posts to the lists often being suggestive in themselves) and yet quite fun at the same time, particularly when pre-cog, telepathic &/or clairvoyant dreams involving other subscribers (living quite far away from the dreamer) could be validated quickly.
Of course a shared belief on these lists was that everyone is inwardly connected, such that all of these instances served to reinforce it.
Regards
Bill I.
Bill - he was living in the woods with some other people. Not sure why, they weren't vagrants. They were the woods close to my home.
Last night's dream was funny. I've started reading a book about symbols that I have had for years and never got stuck into. Yesterday I was wondering how Thomas Edison as a symbol could fit in with the question that I asked before going to sleep (which is a long running problem that I have not come up with an answer for).
Last night I dreamt that my sister had bought tickets to go a Prince concert, but for some reason I didn't know where the venue was, and my sister was already on her way there and was uncontactable. I was trying to find out on the internet where I should be going (I knew it was some distance) but I couldn't get any information because Prince had changed his name to that squiggly symbol. I was getting more and more frustrated that I wasn't finding anything out and was probably missing the gig. I had a symbolic dream about symbols!
E:
I have finished the Friedman - would you like a summary or do you want to read it first?
Biskieboo and Bill:
My experience of dreams is that I cannot explain or write them down afterwards with any degree of accuracy. When I do that I apply a logic to them that was not there in the dream. It is as if I am trying to tell a story and make connections as I would if this were a conscious experience.
This seems to be an innate and irrepressible part of our nature. We cannot help but try to make sense of the world through narrative, even though we know that what we have experienced is not a logical sequence of events.
When I occasionally bore my wife with a dream account I am aware that what I am saying is not what it felt like. This also demonstrates to me the limitations and approximate nature of language. Or perhaps I am just not very good at painting word pictures.
Boltonian:
I would indeed be interested to see your views on the Friedman book now that you have finished it, although I do intend to read it myself, as soon as I can get hold of a copy. As I understand it, his particular field is biblical scholarship in the narrower sense of text and form analysis, so it is perhaps not surprising that he does not seem to take into account the archaeological evidence which makes it difficult to accept the historical narrative at face value. Even if he was aware of the significance of that evidence, his book was originally published in 1987, when much of the work which Finkelstein and Silberman draw on was still in progress.
My reading of F and S is that they accept the view that there were at least four different source texts. Where they presumably differ is in their conclusions about the way in which these source texts were combined and reshaped, and the date at which it was done.
E:
Herewith the summary of, 'Who Wrote the Bible,' by Richard Elliott Friedman.
There are four main sources for the OT books of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. There is also a redactor (R)who put them together.
The earliest two versions of the Torah (Pentateuch), except Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written at about the same time before (probably just before)the destruction of the northern kingdom in 722 BC. These are called J, where God is referred to throughout as YHWH (or Yahweh) and E, derived from His name, Elohim (which just means 'God' in ancient Hebrew). J was composed in Judah and E in the north. E was brought south after the fall of the northern kingdom by its custodians (probably Shilohite priests). These were from the Mushite (Moses) succession of priests.
Somebody in Judah (we don't know who)combined them to produce a reasonably coherent narrative. The reason why both versions needed to be represented is because there were lots of refugees from the northern kingdom in Judah and if the southern account only had been proposed as the true version there might well have been trouble. This is why there are so many repetitions, inconsistencies and contradictions - two schools representing two different interests.
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were written by one person mainly during the reign of Josiah in Judah (late 7th or early 6thC BC)but partly after its destruction by the Babylonians in 587 BC. That author was Jeremiah (with help from his scribe, Baruch), who fled to Egypt after the Babylonian invasion. He deliberately wrote from a Mushite perspective and emphasising Josiah as the Davidic successor and an example of a good king. This bit is accepted almost in its entirety by F/S.
The fourth element is termed the priestly (P) source and was responsible for most of the Torah as we have it now, including all of Leviticus. It was written from an Aaronid perspective and composed during the reign of Hezekiah (7thC BC) - Josiah's grandfather.
There were two priestly traditions - those who traced their ancestry to Moses and those to Aaron - and both of their writings were combined to produced what we now know as the Torah and histories by a redactor. This redactor was Ezra and it was all put together by him after the building of the second temple following the release of the Jews from their Babylonian exile. He was an Aaronid priest.
Friedman takes as read that the Egyptian captivity happened and that Moses and Aaron were real people. He also seems to believe that David and Solomon reigned over a united kingdom. He does not go so far as to suggest that the Patriarchs existed. But his brief is not an archaeological history of the Bible lands but a textual critique of certain bits of the OT.
It is certainly a book I am glad I read - it is also easy for a non-specialist to absorb.
Now I am on to, 'Misquoting Jesus,' by Bart D. Ehrman. Also a riveting read so far.
Hope this finds you all well. Just wanted to sound a couple of thoughtful CiF types out on something I posted about over last weekend. I wrote that Hitchen's law (That which is claimed without proof can be dismissed without proof) is self-refuting if it is asserted without proof (could there be any for such a claim?) Theophobic was adamant that it wasn't (because it can only be dismissed by tacitly accepting its veracity?) and Woolly did seem a little bit bothered about the lack of proof for it. I should be very grateful to read the thoughts of the thoughtful polite bloggers who post here...
Hi Gerry. Welcome back - long time, no post.
Good question. I too will be interested in the response of the logicians of this parish.
I will give it some thought and reply when (and if) I bring forth anything remotely useful, although I freely admit that formal logic is not my bag.
Can we offer an evidence-free refutation of a conclusion that itself offers no proof of its premise? Is that the challenge?
If so, my initial thought is that no premise is provable beyond doubt, therefore any argument built upon any given premise must be contingent. The debate then becomes one of degree and likelihood given our current state of knowledge, whilst accepting that knowledge to be limited and partial.
Isn't the point of Hitchens's Law (and note that Hitchens didn't name it such; that was WML who admitted that he wanted to see if he could start a meme....and perhaps he has....) that it's a deliberately proof-free, winky-smiley demolition of claims without proof? C'mon, guys - don't get bogged down in trying to analyse a throwaway gag....
Hitchen's law... or similarly Occam's Razor are purely relative and subjective.
They both by-pass Kant's concept of noumenon..."the thing-in-itself". They are limited to phenomenon.
People like Theophobic or WML have double standards, probably subconsciously, like most of us. They use these "logic" tools to get their points forward.
"Hitchen's" law can dismiss black holes, dark matter and quantum physics although you'll never hear Theophobic or WML ranting about the absurdity of dark matter because the theory cannot be "proved" as a phenomenon simply because it's not about an almighty bearded man or sky-pixies... so it's less interesting.
Arguably, you have to differenciate between objective and subjective proof... or relative and absolute proof if you prefer.
I'll definitely agree with Steve, don't get bog-down by this gag.
Did anyone else see "Tribe" this week? For the first time ever Bruce didn't get to the community he was hoping to live with.
It was interesting to see him really getting to grips with the Buddhist philosophy that he had been learning about.
Boltonian:
Many thanks for the summary: the book sounds to be very much what I hoped - a clear, readable account of the conclusions of biblical scholars based on textual analysis. All I have read to date have been brief summaries, from which it has been difficult to assess the validity of the various theories.
'Misquoting Jesus' is another book I shall have to get hold of.
Post a Comment