Civil Christian Debate
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
harvey1
First Post |
 Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:52 am Post subject: Where is the Mind? |
 |
|
In another thread QED and I were discussing IGUSes (information gathering & utilizing systems: a term that physicist James Hartle articulated), and there's one issue I'd like to hear back from materialists of the mind. Where is the mind? By that I mean let's suppose that humans can only "see" atoms and sub-atomic particles (e.g., electrons). That's all that we can see. Now, using this illustration, please tell me in conceptual terms where the mind is. For example, if we look at a computer, we can see the operating system as atoms in energized states on what we normally see as a disk drive. We see how atoms are energized, how electrons flow, etc., upon the booting up of that computer, and we see why the computer works at an atomic level. However what we don't see--can never see--is anything but atoms and sub-atomic particles being shifted about inside the machine. So, I think we can quite naturally conclude that the computer has no internal state that is "non-atomic" in nature. That is, the computer has no awareness of itself, and no feelings, etc. (i.e., qualia).
So, being that we humans have this subjective inner state, I'd like to hear how materialists and identity theorists of mind (i.e., mind=brain) can conceptually account for the mind solely in terms of atomic and sub-atomic particles. Where is it among the stew of particles?
|
|
 |
Bugmaster  Site SupporterGuru
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Total posts: 1000 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
7819.61 tokens
|
Post 371:
Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you're talking about two different concepts here.
1). Mystic writings about the lifeforce can be used as metaphors for the scientific concept of energy.
I would completely agree. Lots of things can be used as metaphors for other things; especially when your target concept is relatively dry and difficult to understand, as science sometimes can be. Alice in Wonderland, Romeo and Juliet, Christianity, Buddhism, those are all wonderful metaphors -- as long as it's understood that they are metaphors, and not the real thing. When we say, "Richard is a lion", we don't mean, "he has whiskers and runs on four paws", we mean, "he is courageous and honorable".
2). The mystical concept of lifeforce and the scientific concept of energy are one and the same.
This is a much stronger claim than (1). Now, you're no longer saying that lifeforce and energy are metaphorically similar (like lions and people); you're now saying that they are identical. In order to substantiate this claim, you need to present some evidence. You need to show how the mystical descriptions translate into formulae (such as "K=1/2 mV^2"), and how formulae translate back into mystic descriptions.
So far, you have not done this. All you've done is say something like, "the mystics say everything is made out of lifeforce, and the scientists say everything is made out of energy, so they're the same thing". But, this is not all that the mystics are saying, and it's not all that the scientists are saying. Both sides assign quite a few attributes, properties, and behaviors, to lifeforce/energy; and, as I'd mentioned before, you're doing both sides a disservice by ignoring the majority of their statements. "Pointing out the parallels" is not enough; there are a lot of differences for you to consider, as well.
Note, again, that I'm not saying that "any interpretation outside of the language [of science, presumably] is false". Lots of things can be true, regardless of whether or not science is true. For example, lifeforce could exist, and kinetic energy could exist, at the same time. Or one of them could exist, while the other one is a fiction. Or, they can both be fictions. But, they're still different entities, IMO. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| CJK Scholar
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Total posts: 264 Location: California Gender: Male
Usergroups:
1587.45 tokens
|
|
Post 372:
Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Note, again, that I'm not saying that "any interpretation outside of the language [of science, presumably] is false". Lots of things can be true, regardless of whether or not science is true. For example, lifeforce could exist, and kinetic energy could exist, at the same time. Or one of them could exist, while the other one is a fiction. Or, they can both be fictions. But, they're still different entities, IMO. |
Sure, they're different as far as you've described it, but let me point out again that the map is not the territory.
| Quote: | | In order to substantiate this claim, you need to present some evidence. You need to show how the mystical descriptions translate into formulae (such as "K=1/2 mV^2"), and how formulae translate back into mystic descriptions. |
Below this quote, you say that you are "not saying that any interpretation outside the language of science is false", but that is clearly what you are saying here. This really makes it difficult to communicate.
| Quote: | | All you've done is say something like, "the mystics say everything is made out of lifeforce, and the scientists say everything is made out of energy, so they're the same thing". But, this is not all that the mystics are saying, and it's not all that the scientists are saying. Both sides assign quite a few attributes, properties, and behaviors, to lifeforce/energy; and, as I'd mentioned before, you're doing both sides a disservice by ignoring the majority of their statements. |
That is the subjective opinion of a reductionist. When I say that the energy in quantum physics and the energy in eastern mysticism are of the same nature, I mean it in a holist manner.
| Quote: | | "Pointing out the parallels" is not enough; there are a lot of differences for you to consider, as well. |
'Pointing out the parallels' between physics and eastern mysticism is quite sufficient, as the epistemological problems confronted by mystics are wholly relevant to the scientific method. Science would not be of any relevance had it not been for the need to seek the 'essential nature of all things', which is the sole purpose of the mystic.
| Quote: | | Lots of things can be used as metaphors for other things; especially when your target concept is relatively dry and difficult to understand, as science sometimes can be. Alice in Wonderland, Romeo and Juliet, Christianity, Buddhism, those are all wonderful metaphors -- as long as it's understood that they are metaphors, and not the real thing. |
I agree, and by the same token, scientific equations are not the real thing. The map is not the territory.
| Quote: |
When we say, "Richard is a lion", we don't mean, "he has whiskers and runs on four paws", we mean, "he is courageous and honorable". |
This is not the kind of thought process that I've been using. Here is the original quote.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Quote: Bugmaster
The mystical energy is (as far as I can tell) a sort of life-force that permeates everything everywhere and flows through all living things, including us -The scientific concept of energy is the ability to do work. |
| Quote: |
I am sorry, but what makes you assume that mystics do not believe that energy has the ability to do work? And how is it possible to, in light of Quantum electrodynamics, refute that energy is 'a sort of life-force that permeates everything everywhere and flows through all living things'? In the Buddhist Avatamsaka Sutra is the description of all things and events as a perfect network of mutual relations where all things and events interact with each other in an infinitely complicated way. This universal interwoveness always includes the human observer and his or her consciousness, and this is also true in physics. At the atomic level, objects can only be understood in terms of interaction the processes of preperation and measurement. The end of this chain of processes always lies in the consciousness of the human observer, which is ultimately responsible for any mystical notions of reality.
|
|
|
_________________
Don''t assume YOU have the best, or only, true opinion. None of us do. Our opinions are our own, are subjective, and for all our right opinions, there are plenty of wrong ones. Basically ... get over yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greatest I Am BannedProdigy
Joined: 04 Jan 2007 Total posts: 3044 Age: 60 Gender: Undisclosed
Usergroups: None
12790.96 tokens
|
|
Post 373:
Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
When mine is not in my head it still exist but not under my control as to location.
In religious terms, is it not more imoportant what the thought contains rather than where it came from.
Regards
DL
PS Telepathy exists |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BugmasterSite SupporterGuru
Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Total posts: 1000 Gender: Male
Usergroups:
7819.61 tokens
|
|
Post 374:
Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | In order to substantiate this claim, you need to present some evidence. You need to show how the mystical descriptions translate into formulae (such as "K=1/2 mV^2"), and how formulae translate back into mystic descriptions. |
Below this quote, you say that you are "not saying that any interpretation outside the language of science is false", but that is clearly what you are saying here. This really makes it difficult to communicate. |
I think you should pick a claim and stick to it. If "the map is not the territory", then all you're saying is that mystic lore can be used as a metaphor for scientific knowledge, and all you need to do is "point out the parallels". I'm fine with that.
But, if you're saying that the mystics and the scientists are talking about the same entity -- i.e., "energy" -- then you are saying that the map is the territory, and you need to offer some proof. The best proof you can offer is a description of how to translate scientific formulae into mystic lore, and vice versa.
Let me offer the famous analogy: there are three blind men in a cave, and they're all feeling up the same elephant. One blind man touches the tail, and says, "I found a rope !" The other touches a leg, and says, "I found a tree !". A third blind man says, "I think your rope and your tree are part of the same thing, and I call it 'elephant'". Do you think the other two blind men should believe him ? Why or why not ? Be careful, this is a trick question.
| Quote: | | That is the subjective opinion of a reductionist. When I say that the energy in quantum physics and the energy in eastern mysticism are of the same nature, I mean it in a holist manner. |
What does that mean, exactly ?
| Quote: | | Science would not be of any relevance had it not been for the need to seek the 'essential nature of all things', which is the sole purpose of the mystic. |
Are you saying that mystics are the only people who want to figure things out ? I think this is false, as Niels Bohr or Marie Curie would've told you (I just picked them at random, there are others). You wouldn't even be able to conceive of convenient notions such as "the electromagnetic spectrum", if it weren't for scientists who figured things out without any mystical guidance.
| Quote: | | I agree, and by the same token, scientific equations are not the real thing. |
Are you saying that scientific equations are metaphors ?
| Quote: | | This is not the kind of thought process that I've been using. Here is the original quote. ... |
Repeating it doesn't make it any clearer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
