Science and love, music, art, etc. (The limitations of science)
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 21:47 (5762 days ago)
DHW asks (in his last post in the "Paranormal" thread): However, if you can point me in a direction where I might find what you consider to be a reliable scientific explanation of the nature of love, the impact of music or the origin of ideas, I will be most grateful. - I've done a bit of Googling, and offer these sites for your perusal. You will undoubtedly find some more scientific than others! - Chemistry of Love - http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm - http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2006/February/CupidChemistry.asp - http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/clairemcloughlincolumn1.htm/ - http://www.cyberparent.com/love/chem1.htm - http://www.chemistry.com/datingadvice/LoveExplained - Psychology of Love - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love - http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050517-000001.html - http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/a/theoriesoflove.htm - http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/CY-HOAX.html - Psychology of Music - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_psychology - http://www.oup.co.uk/academic/medicine/psychology/music_psychology/ - http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/music/research/areas/psychology/index.html - Psychology of Creativity - http://www.psychology.org/links/Environment_Behavior_Relationships/Creativity/ - http://www.workpsychologyarena.com/books/Interdisciplinarity-the-Psychology-of-Art-and-... - http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19960701-000034.html - I'm sure this only the tip of a growing iceberg.
--
GPJ
Science and love, music, art, etc.
I expressed my doubts as to whether science could ever explain the nature of love, the impact of music, or the origin of ideas. George wrote that "science already has reliable answers about such subjects as love, musical appreciation, and creative thought", and he has kindly provided us with a number of websites to support his claim. - I appreciate the time and effort involved in hunting for such sites, but I think you had probably already anticipated the difficulty when you diluted my original statement. Science does indeed have some reliable answers, but they are not the answers to the questions I am asking. - On love, we learn that "there are a lot of chemicals racing around your brain and body when you're in love". These include pheromones, dopamine, norepinephine and serotonin. Incidentally, we are not naturally monogamous, whereas prairie voles are. I thought you might like to know that. Researchers have been able "to pin down several regions of the brain that appear to be involved in intense romantic feelings". Such findings tell us nothing whatsoever about the nature of love. They tell us the chemical reactions that take place once the mind triggers the mechanism ... the effect, not the cause. Chemicals are released and different areas of the brain are involved in most human activities, but we don't, for instance, make the most important speech of our lives because the adrenalin is pumping, and it's not the heart attack that causes the stress. - "Psychologists and researchers have proposed a number of different theories of love." The proposal of different theories does not, in my book, constitute "reliable answers". - It's much the same with the psychology of music. The list of themes studied at Sheffield includes "social psychology of musical participation", "music in the workplace", "social and therapeutic functions of singing", and one of the other sites you recommended talks of "the value of music in everyday life". But although it's taken for granted that music has certain effects, there's no mention anywhere of a course explaining why meaningless sounds have such a profound impact on people. This is not meant as a criticism, because obviously I have not attended the course. It's simply an observation that the headings have nothing to do with the subject I have raised. - Nor do the sites have anything to say about the origin of ideas. "Doodling allows the subconscious to render in [sic] symbolic expression", which tells us only that the subconscious is a source of ideas. That's not an explanation. The journal on "Interdisciplinarity" sounds interesting, though again the various headings don't link up with origins. The third site is a joke. The author asks: "How does the creative process work?" And here is his reliable, scientific answer: "My research suggests that many forces act simultaneously on the neural determinants of many different behaviors and that novel behavior is the result of this complex and dynamic process." No further explanation is given, but he does tell us how one day a catchy title "popped into" his head, and he gives us this excellent advice: "To boost your creative output, capture your new ideas as they occur." On this evidence, I can only repeat that science has not come up with any reliable explanation as to why ideas "occur" or "pop", why music has the impact it does, why love binds people even to the extent that one will die for another. George says all this is "only the tip of a growing iceberg". These references barely even touch the tip. - We should not lose sight of the starting-point of this discussion, though I think you were right to give such subjects a thread of their own. I was drawing an analogy between all these real, and so far unexplained, phenomena and certain other experiences under the heading of "paranormal" (though I don't like the term), which may well be just as real. Of course, I have no problem with your personal belief that science "already has reliable answers". I hope, however, that it will be clear to you why, with the current colossal gaps in our knowledge, it's a belief that I can't share.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by Mark , Friday, February 13, 2009, 12:15 (5761 days ago) @ dhw
George: "Science already has reliable answers about such subjects as love, musical appreciation, and creative thought." - Really? Let's make it easier and choose just the last one, "creative thought". Or, to make it easier still, just "thought". Has science got a clue about thought, let alone "reliable answers"? No scientist in the world can observe, measure, locate or prove the existence of my thoughts, yet even George (I trust) believes they exist. Scientists can talk about brain activity, and even make correlations with what I declare my thoughts to be, but the activity they observe is not thought. To say that it is thought is like saying that the ink and paper which comprise the score of Mozart's Requiem is the music. - Science is inherently limited by the fact that it deals with an abstracted model of reality: that which can be observed and measured in time and space. That is fine, as far as it goes. But there is no good reason why reality should be limited to what falls within the scope of the scientific approach. Indeed, I would suggest that thought and all our subjective experiences are untouchable by science, yet undeniably real. - It is because of this that science cannot provide a comprehensive theory for reality. Science can never get to mind. However, if mind is the fundamental reality, and matter is the product of mind, then I have a unified model which explains mind and includes science at the same time.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Friday, February 13, 2009, 13:46 (5760 days ago) @ Mark
It is because of this that science cannot provide a comprehensive theory for reality. Science can never get to mind. However, if mind is the fundamental reality, and matter is the product of mind, then I have a unified model which explains mind and includes science at the same time. - Either you are referring to those quantum theorists who propose that matter exists only because our minds observe it, or to God. Or do you accept both?
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by Mark , Friday, February 13, 2009, 14:38 (5760 days ago) @ David Turell
I mean God. I haven't heard of the other theory you refer to. How does it make sense if matter preceded mind in the development of this universe?
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Friday, February 13, 2009, 17:39 (5760 days ago) @ Mark
I mean God. I haven't heard of the other theory you refer to. How does it make sense if matter preceded mind in the development of this universe? - Quantum theory is very confusing. It is totally couterintuitive. The entire universe comes from an underlying reality at the quantum level. A quanta of energy is either a point of energy or a wave of energy, such as a photon of light. The packet of energy is either a wave or a particle depending on how the scientist measures it! It is never both at the same time as we humans view it! If you split one particle into two parts (this can be done with slits) and separate the two particles even more than 10 kilometers, and then influence one particle to change an aspect of itself, the other sister particle does the same response to the stimulus, and unbelievably, instantaneously, that is faster than the speed of light. All quantum particles are intertwined thoughout the universe. Energy preceeds matter in the formation of the universe. Some quantum theorists fell that everything we see as matter does not exist until we observe it, because our observing quanta always dictates what form of quanta are seen in experimentation or measurement. All math formulas predict averages of quanta to get results. In a mass of quanta a single one can be anywhere and in either form, wave or particle. - Therefore, I think God is on the other side of a'wall of quantum uncertainty', the Heisenberg Principle (a scientific statement), and we are developed in His mind, which is all He is. - I hope that isn't too confusing.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by Mark , Friday, February 13, 2009, 18:15 (5760 days ago) @ David Turell
Thanks for that. I'm familiar with quantum mechanics. The new part to me is the theory that matter in the form we perceive it only exists that way because we perceive it. After a bit of hunting, I wonder if this is the "Participatory Anthropic Principle" advocated by John Wheeler that you have in mind? It's a bit of a red herring anyway in relation to the present debate. It is very clear that matter is stranger than we can imagine, and related to mind in ways that we cannot conceive. And it is hard to see that it is possible to arrive at mind from the building blocks of quanta, bottom-up.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Friday, February 13, 2009, 19:51 (5760 days ago) @ Mark
And it is hard to see that it is possible to arrive at mind from the building blocks of quanta, bottom-up. - I don't think it is so hard to imagine that the mind is an emergent phenomenon. The brain is matter made from quanta of energy, and the network of neurons is so complex that a holographic-type of complex is formed at the quantum level behind the wall of uncertainty and creates our mind in some manner. Memory has been proposed to work this way. That is my best guess.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by Mark , Friday, February 13, 2009, 20:13 (5760 days ago) @ David Turell
Yes, I agree. What I said was unclear. I accept that mind can be an emergent phenomenon. What I cannot conceive is how science, working with the lower level quanta, can explain the emergence of mind, i.e. using space-time physical science get to the point of talking about my thoughts as thoughts. I think mind is emergent but fundamental - there is a top-down as well as a bottom-up.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Friday, February 13, 2009, 20:26 (5760 days ago) @ Mark
Yes, I agree. What I said was unclear. I accept that mind can be an emergent phenomenon. What I cannot conceive is how science, working with the lower level quanta, can explain the emergence of mind, i.e. using space-time physical science get to the point of talking about my thoughts as thoughts. I think mind is emergent but fundamental - there is a top-down as well as a bottom-up. - I agree. Both Wheeler and Bohm struggled with this problem for many years of their careers, conceiving of the multiworld phenomenon, and that the world existed only because of observation. I think Heisenberg will be the final answer: the uncertainty principle. I once met a congresional candidate from my district who was sure God existed and was on the other side of the 'wall'. We are not meant to answer your question by science. God is purposely concealed, to bring in the issue of faith.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, February 14, 2009, 09:47 (5760 days ago) @ David Turell
I see no need for all this wittering on about mind or god pre-existing and hiding behind a fire-wall of uncertainty. This is just a way of retaining your traditional belief in mind or god as a fundamental constituent of the universe, which is just a left-over from primitive animism. For me mind is just the activity of brain. The physical constituents of the brain had to evolve first before mind and thought could be experienced. Supposing that disembodied intelligence can exist is pure fantasy.
--
GPJ
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Saturday, February 14, 2009, 13:50 (5759 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Supposing that disembodied intelligence can exist is pure fantasy. - But this is exactly why ongoing research into the phenomenon of NDE is so important. And the key reports of information being passed under circumstances where the information should not have been learned except by (as the individuals report)some type of telepathy while the person,close to dying is unconscious.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Saturday, February 14, 2009, 14:00 (5759 days ago) @ David Turell
Considering my recent discussion with Mark, on how counterintuitive quantum theory is, the research into it produces much that is very useful: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090212141248.htm This type of finding continues to support my idea that 'mind' is an emergent quantum effect of the brain.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
This is not a reply to David's post but a continuation of the general discussion, triggered by two articles in different Sunday newspapers, which seem to me to epitomize a basic problem. - The first was in The Sunday Telegraph by Christopher Booker, whom David Turell quoted last week and whom George Jelliss characterizes as "a journalist who specialises in being sceptical or ornery about scientific controversies": - Last Tuesday, "various eminent figures from the scientific establishment" wrote to The Daily Telegraph wanting those who reject evolution to accept that the evidence is now "overwhelming". (They also wanted anti-theists like Dawkins to keep quiet "because their vehemence is discrediting the theory".) On Friday, another group of scientists wrote that Darwin might have been right about micro-evolution (Galapogos finches etc.) but the "evidence for how complex organisms developed" is "modest in the extreme". Is it surprising, they asked, "that there is such incredulity" that random mutations alone can "account for the vast complexity of life"? In other words, these questions are far from settled, and if we attempt to shut down the debate, "we dishonour the spirit of science". - In The Sunday Times Christopher Hart, reviewing a book by Michael Brooks entitled 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, writes, on the subject of dark matter and dark energy: "To date, however, there's not a shred of evidence for either, even though teams of scientists have been looking for years. [...] The only alternative to dark matter is to tweak Newton's most fundamental laws of physics and suggest that they don't apply everywhere, all the time, in quite the same way. But physicists are a law-abiding bunch, and detest this idea." - It is worth bearing in mind that dark matter and dark energy are believed to constitute 96% of the universe. Scientists cannot agree among themselves on many basic scientific questions, and they certainly have not come up with "reliable answers" (George) on the topics that form the heading of this thread. Of course, we cannot discount the central role science has to play in the quest for explanations, but the vast gaps and contradictions in its present state do not seem to me to provide much basis for any kind of belief beyond the agnostic one that we don't (yet) know any of the fundamental truths.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Monday, February 16, 2009, 15:55 (5757 days ago) @ dhw
Of course, we cannot discount the central role science has to play in the quest for explanations, but the vast gaps and contradictions in its present state do not seem to me to provide much basis for any kind of belief beyond the agnostic one that we don't (yet) know any of the fundamental truths. - This is one reason for doubting apocalyptic scientific predictions for the future (ie, global warming), when only part of the factors are recognized. The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, about 80% of the influence, then Co2 and methane (which is four times more potent per volume than CO2). But Nitrous oxide plays an important role also and here is the new discovery: Http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16602-laughing-gas-is-no-laughing-matter.html
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, February 16, 2009, 19:14 (5757 days ago) @ dhw
I've come to the conclusion that DHW is an agnostic because he has an agnostic brain. He is incapable of believing anything unless he has absolute proof. And since absolute proof is scientifically impossible he can never come to believe anything. - For me the fundamentals of science consist of our knowledge of for example, Darwin's principle of evolution by natural selection, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, Newton's principles of mechanics, Einstein's theory of general relativity, Bohr and company's theory of quantum mechanics, and so on and so on. All of this scientific knowledge is well established and used daily to great effect. The way we are able to communicate here exemplifies many of these discoveries in action. - Because there are unknowns and controversies on the boundaries or frontiers of these subjects it seems that DHW is prepared to ignore all these achievements and say we don't really know anything about anything.
--
GPJ
Science and love, music, art, etc.
On 16 February I wrote: "Scientists cannot agree among themselves on many basic scientific questions, and they certainly have not come up with "reliable answers" (George) on the topics that form the heading of this thread. Of course, we cannot discount the central role that science has to play in the quest for explanations, but the vast gaps and contradictions in its present state do not seem to me to provide much basis for any kind of belief beyond the agnostic one that we don't (yet) know any of the fundamental truths." - George has come to the conclusion that I am incapable of believing anything unless I have absolute proof. For him, "the fundamentals of science consist of our knowledge of for example, Darwin's principle of evolution by natural selection, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, Einstein's theory of relativity, Bohr and company's theory of quantum mechanics, and so on and so on. All of this knowledge is well established and used daily to great effect [...] Because there are unknowns and controversies on the boundaries or frontiers of these subjects it seems that DHW is prepared to ignore all these achievements and say we don't really know anything about anything." - In earlier posts, I had pointed out that "in most of the contexts discussed and disputed on this website, what you call "the existing paradigm" in fact does not have a paradigmatic existence outside your convictions." Your response then was: "A scientific paradigm very certainly does exist. Do you deny, say, the atomic theory of chemical structure?" Your answer then had nothing to do with the subjects discussed and disputed on this website, and now in this new post you have once more tried to change the context of the argument. So let me yet again stress, as I did on 11 February, that the fundamental truths we have been discussing are "the existence of God, the paranormal, ethics, aesthetics, religion, evolution etc." Apart from the theory of evolution (parts of which I accept), I have never said a word about any of your other examples and achievements, I would never dream of questioning the scientific truths underlying our modern technologies, and I have never said or even thought that we don't really know anything about anything. But when it comes to the existence of God, with all the phenomena connected to that problem and discussed on this forum, I remain agnostic, and I'm afraid that science does not seem to me to support your faith in unproven theories based on chance or on unknown factors about which even scientists cannot agree. However, I understand your difficulty and can see that in the circumstances, changing the context, attributing thoughts to me that I have never had, and suggesting that I am incapable of believing anything is probably your best method of covering the gaps underlying your own beliefs.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 17:07 (5756 days ago) @ dhw
DHW wrote: So let me yet again stress, as I did on 11 February, that the fundamental truths we have been discussing are "the existence of God, the paranormal, ethics, aesthetics, religion, evolution etc." - It seems that we have a different idea as to what are "fundamental truths". - For me fundamental truths are those for which we have definite evidence and which form the basis on which to work towards more complicated truths, or to solve more complex or specialised problems. Biological evolution comes within this realm of fundamental knowledge. - Questions of ethics and aesthetics are real and of some practical importance but not fundamental in this sense. Questions of religion and supposed paranormal events are even more rarefied.
--
GPJ
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by Mark , Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 19:40 (5756 days ago) @ George Jelliss
One fundamental truth, George, is that I am conscious. I have thoughts and subjective experiences. You said that "mind is just the activity of brain", which for me, and I think for most people, just doesn't face up to the "hard problem" (as it is called in the field of consciousness studies). - If my desk suddenly levitated, with the drawers opening and closing to the rhythm of Beethoven's Fifth, with no evident cause, it would pose a comparatively elementary problem. At least the phenomenon could be expressed in terms of mass, distance and time, and I could conceive that one day a physical explanatory mechanism could be found. But how can any description of the activity of my brain, in terms of physical science, ever demonstrate the existence of mind? That is why some serious scientists and philosophers, both theist and atheist, think that mind may be something fundamental, in the manner of space and time. And that is not to say that minds may be "disembodied". Clearly mind depends on the grey matter and in some way emerges from the grey matter, but I don't see how it can be reduced to grey matter. - So I think this is a serious problem. That is why David and I were "wittering" earlier. You have made an assertion that "mind is just the activity of brain". How about some argument in support?
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 09:15 (5756 days ago) @ Mark
My view that mind is brain-activity is hardly controversial. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind - Quote: Pre-scientific theories, based in theology, concentrated on the relationship between the mind and the soul, the supernatural, divine or god-given essence of the person. Modern theories, based on scientific understanding of the brain, theorize that the mind is a product of the brain and has both conscious and unconscious aspects. - Similarly I don't think "consciousness" is the problem it is cracked up to be by those who incline to a paranormal worldview. Here is Susan Greenfield's account: - http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/2/91 - This video from Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society is also amusing and instructive: - http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&q=mind+brain+consciousness&um=1&...
--
GPJ
Science and love, music, art, etc.
George: It seems that we have a different idea as to what are "fundamental truths". For me fundamental truths are those for which we have definite evidence and which form the basis on which to work towards more complicated truths, or to solve more complex or specialised problems. Biological evolution comes within this realm of fundamental knowledge. Questions of ethics and aesthetics are real and of some practical importance but not fundamental in this sense. Questions of religion and supposed paranormal events are even more rarefied. - Thank you for pinpointing this area of misunderstanding, though your relegation of religion and related subjects to the status of the rarefied is, of course, highly contentious. Let me give you two examples of Gestalten to illustrate an agnostic view of two issues that I would consider fundamental. The first relates to a very long article in yesterday's Guardian covering various creationist groups, and their intellectual contortions as they try to make reality fit in with Genesis. One quote especially leapt off the page. A geologist who works full time for Biblical Creation Ministries says: "The young-earth position is the only one that has a coherent understanding of the history that doesn't have suffering, death and bloodshed before Adam's fall." The author of the article comments: "It is, in other words, a life-or-death issue for Christianity: if evolution is true, the creation is founded on competition, suffering and mortality; there never was a paradise; a theistic evolutionist God is an accessory to eternal crime." Creationist conclusion: God is Love, and therefore the findings of modern science in relation to the age of the Earth and the sequence of life's evolution must be ignored. - The second relates to the belief that there is nothing beyond the material world. This Gestalt entails the insistence that life, reproduction and new organs came into being through chance combinations of matter, though we don't yet know how; experiences such as consciousness and thought (see Mark's latest post), love, the so-called "paranormal" etc. are easily explained though we don't yet know the explanation. Atheist conclusion: So that's settled. - The fundamental scientific truths that you listed earlier (incidentally, at least two of your great scientists were believers and at least one was an agnostic) have of course contributed enormously to our sum of knowledge, but I would suggest that in the light of the above there is room for more than one sense of "fundamental". - Postscript: I had drafted this before logging onto your latest post in response to Mark. I read the two articles, and was struck by Susan Greenfield's conclusion: "Just how the water is turned into wine ... how the bump and grind of the neurons and the shrinking and expanding of assemblies actually translate into subjective experience ... is, of course, another story completely." That's the story I would like to hear.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, February 19, 2009, 10:48 (5755 days ago) @ dhw
In his last post and in an earlier one in the "Paranormal" thread, DHW has mentioned Gestalt psychology and "Gestalten". Not being familiar with these ideas I tried to find out more about them. The following two pages give some guidance on these terms: - http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/gestalt.html - http://www.g-gej.org/6-2/gestalten.html - It seems that the findings of the original gestalt psychologists are now incorporated into modern psychology, but just as a particular branch of the study of pattern recognition. - As to "gestalten", which is a German word meaning something like "forms", I'm still unclear as to its implications. - The examples DHW gives of people who believe in the genesis stories or in the paranormal it seems to me are of people who have preconceived ideas and accordingly try to deny any evidence to the contrary. - But surely the point about our ability of pattern recognition is that it should be applied to whatever evidence appears and serves as a guide to understanding what it means. Having preconceptions of what the answer must be and forcing the evidence into that mould is contrary to scientific method.
--
GPJ
Science and love, music, art, etc.
George has been following up my references to Gestalten. - The excellent webspace article tells you all you need to know, but I think you've slightly misunderstood the implications. "Gestalt" = shape, form, structure,pattern, but in the context of perception the emphasis is on the active role of the perceiver. If you look at the illustrations in the webspace article, you will see how we supply what is missing. As the author says, "a set of dots outlining a star is likely to be perceived as a star, not as a set of dots." But it is a set of dots. Rubin's famous figure-ground vase is particularly interesting for us, since it presents two entirely different images (like theism and atheism). Rather than "pattern recognition", in a wider context it's more like pattern imposition. We create a unified whole out of segments for which we (the subjectivity is all-important) provide the links. In terms of figure and ground, we are the ones who promote x (figure) and relegate y (ground). That is why no two people will give you an identical interpretation of scenes, events, literary texts ... because we all bring our own personal linking mechanisms into the way we join up the segments. - You've illustrated the point very neatly with the following statement: "The examples DHW gives of people who believe in the genesis stories or in the paranormal it seems to me are of people who have preconceived ideas and accordingly try to deny any evidence to the contrary." You have foregrounded some of my examples in accordance with your own pattern, and have backgrounded others (i.e. people who believe that everything can be explained in material terms and accordingly try to deny any evidence to the contrary). It's a natural process which we're not normally aware of in ourselves but are quick to recognize in others who disagree with us. You're right that patterns should be based on the evidence, and "forcing the evidence into that mould" is contrary to the scientific method. But the concept demonstrates what happens, not what ought to happen, and even the scientific mind frequently conforms to it, because that too is full of what you call "preconceived ideas". There are theist scientists and atheist scientists, all studying the same realities and forming their different Gestalten by supplying their different links. - How all the ideas and patterns emerge from what Susan Greenfield calls "the bump and grind of the neurons" remains, of course, a mystery for those of us who do not have preconceived ideas about how ideas and patterns emerge.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, February 20, 2009, 18:52 (5753 days ago) @ dhw
DHW writes: /// the emphasis is on the active role of the perceiver. /// Rubin's famous figure-ground vase is particularly interesting for us, since it presents two entirely different images (like theism and atheism). - This seems to be saying that theism and atheism are equally sound views of the world, like the two interpretations of tne vase/faces image. But this is a false analogy. It is not a 50/50 choice. The atheist, being a realist sees that the diagram can be interpreted as either a vase or a pair of faces. The theist sees things that are not there. The atheist sees the spots and that they can be joined up conceptually to form a triangle. The theist insists that the triangle is more real than the spots. - DHW says: You have foregrounded some of my examples in accordance with your own pattern, and have backgrounded others (i.e. people who believe that everything can be explained in material terms and accordingly try to deny any evidence to the contrary). - I do not deny evidence of the "paranormal" I just say it is weak, weak, weak, and hardly worth bothering with when compared to the evidence for the "normal". Vague things are naturally placed in the background, like mist. - DHW says: There are theist scientists and atheist scientists, all studying the same realities and forming their different Gestalten by supplying their different links. - Theist scientists like Francis Collins or Kenneth Miller by and large keep their religion and science in separate compartments. Their attempts to reconcile their religious views with their understanding of science are individual and different, and not part of science. - See the link I will be posting on the Science v Religion thread.
--
GPJ
Science and love, music, art, etc.
In his post of 19 February at 10.48, George wrote: "As to "gestalten", which is a German word meaning something like "forms", I'm still unclear as to its implications." - In my response of February 20 at 08.22 I tried to explain the implications by showing how our perceptions ... and hence our interpretations ... of reality entail using subjective links to form Gestalten. All interpreting follows the same process, and I used several examples, both theist and atheist, to show how it works: we join up segments, we foreground x and background y etc. - In your post of 20 February at 18.52 you wrote: "This seems to be saying that theism and atheism are equally sound views of the world, like the two interpretations of the vase/faces image." Both here and in the rest of your post I'm afraid you have completely missed my point. This may be my fault, if the text did not make it clear that I was explaining how we form Gestalten, not trying to convey value judgements. Alternatively, it may in itself be further evidence of how the process works, as from my perspective you have backgrounded my foreground ... the nature of Gestalten and the process of interpretation ... and concentrated only on interpreting the examples (somewhat contentiously) in the light of your own atheism. Let me stress, then, that the process of interpretation tells us nothing about the validity of the Gestalt ... that is a totally different subject. - In order to make things clearer, it might help if I take an example on which we both agree. Creationists believe that the world is no more than 10,000 years old, God created all the animals and man in a kind of paradise, and it was not until Adam fell that all the trouble started. You and I both believe in the findings of modern science, i.e. that the Earth is billions of years old, and there was a vicious free-for-all long before man came on the scene. And so we agree that the creationist Gestalt ignores vast areas of evidence. The creationists, however, will argue that we have formed our own Gestalt and are ignoring weightier evidence in what they believe to be God's Word (the Bible). Both sides have formed Gestalten in exactly the same way: by joining up segments, by foregrounding and backgrounding etc. We think theirs is wrong, and they think ours is wrong, and we each accuse the other of ignoring the evidence. The difference between the two sides is the subjective manner in which everyone joins the dots: we prioritize science, they prioritize the Bible. It's the prioritization that forms the subjective basis of our Gestalten. - Similarly, you say that evidence for the paranormal is weak, weak, weak, and "vague things are naturally placed in the background, like mist." That may be a "natural" Gestalt for you, but someone who believes he has had a paranormal experience will bring totally different priorities to the argument: he foregrounds his experience, and so for him the evidence is strong, strong, strong. Both of you are indulging in the same process: you see segments of what you think is reality and join them up in accordance with your subjective concept of what constitutes evidence.. - The point about theist and atheist scientists is not to distinguish between religious beliefs/non-beliefs and science, but again to show the process by which each of these scientists analyses the same reality and comes to different conclusions. We have observed this on our own forum. You and David are both scientists: David has examined the evidence and concludes that life is the product of design. You have examined the evidence and conclude that it is the product of chance (plus natural laws). Reality, whatever it may be, remains the same, and so it is your subjective ways of joining the dots that lead to your different Gestalten. Every single disagreement on this forum is the result of that process, and it would be nice to think that once we're aware of the mechanism, it might make us look more closely at our own mental processes and the manner in which we come to our conclusions. Any conclusion will inevitably entail selection and exclusion, and if we do no more than acknowledge our own selectivity, it might possibly lead to a greater degree of tolerance. However, you should not take this as a sign that I hold all beliefs to be equally true! I am merely pointing out that all beliefs are arrived at through the same process.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, February 22, 2009, 14:03 (5751 days ago) @ dhw
DHW says I have completely missed his point, but I don't think I have. - Writing of creationists and evolutionists he says: "Both sides have formed Gestalten in exactly the same way: by joining up segments, by foregrounding and backgrounding etc. We think theirs is wrong, and they think ours is wrong, and we each accuse the other of ignoring the evidence. The difference between the two sides is the subjective manner in which everyone joins the dots: we prioritize science, they prioritize the Bible. It's the prioritization that forms the subjective basis of our Gestalten." He concludes: "I am merely pointing out that all beliefs are arrived at through the same process." - Where I disagree with this is that the evolutionist view is not "subjective" it is objective. DHW seems to take the relativist or postmodern view that objectivity is impossible to attain or approach. - The same applies to the paranormal and material interpretations of psychological experiences, and the differences between David Turell and myself. I maintain that he is too willing to accept accounts of subjective experiences as evidence, while objectivity requires a more sceptical approach. This is not prejudging the issue. It is simply making an objective evaluation of the evidence.
--
GPJ
Science and love, music, art, etc.
I wrote that in the context of Genesis, George and I prioritize science whereas creationists prioritize the Bible, and it is "the prioritization that forms the subjective basis of our Gestalten." - GEORGE: "Where I disagree with this is that the evolutionist view is not "subjective" it is objective. DHW seems to take the relativist or postmodern view that objectivity is impossible to attain or approach." - Once again you are analysing the example and ignoring the process which the example illustrates. Unfortunately, by doing so you have now entered into a second area of disagreement, but first things first. You believe that science is a more accurate guide to truth than the Bible. A creationist believes the opposite. In your Gestalt, science is foregrounded/prioritized and God is backgrounded (you probably think that God comes nowhere, but that's a different story which we needn't go into here). In the creationist Gestalt, God is foregrounded and science is backgrounded. We are not talking about the subjectivity or objectivity of your different approaches to the origin of life. We are talking about your personal, subjective belief that science is a more accurate guide to "truth". (I share your belief in this instance, and would also prioritize science over the Bible, but that is irrelevant here.) - It's obviously difficult for you to separate the example from the process, but it so happens that you have illustrated the latter perfectly with your next comment: "The same applies to the paranormal and material interpretations of psychological experiences, and the differences between David Turell and myself. I maintain that he is too willing to accept accounts of subjective experiences as evidence, while objectivity requires a more sceptical approach." Your subjectivity could hardly be clearer, introduced as it is by: "I maintain that..." I wouldn't like to put words into David's mouth, and so I will reply for myself: I maintain that you are too willing to dismiss subjective experiences as evidence; objectivity requires a more open-minded approach. Your idea of objectivity is not the same as mine. Both our concepts of objectivity are subjective. This tells us nothing about the truth or even likelihood of the different beliefs. What it tells us is that different beliefs are arrived at by the same process of subjective prioritization. - The second area of disagreement is your insistence that the evolutionist view is objective. That discussion, however, is already going on in the "Evolution" thread, and since David has presented a number of important scientific arguments and references that cast doubt on some aspects of the theory, I'd rather leave it to you and him to fight over that particular claim to objectivity.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, February 23, 2009, 18:13 (5750 days ago) @ dhw
Here we are at last getting to the heart of our disagreements. - DHW claims: We are talking about your personal, subjective belief that science is a more accurate guide to "truth". - This is not my personal subjective belief. It is an objective fact that science, or more generally reason, IS an accurate guide to truth, as opposed to mere opinion. There is no need to put the word "truth" in quote marks here, as if everyone can have their own version of it. - DHW then seizes upon my use of the phrase "I maintain that..." as indicating my subjectivity, but I was merely being polite. To rephrase my statement: It is a fact that DT is too willing to accept accounts of subjective experiences as evidence. It is a fact that objectivity requires a more sceptical approach. - DHW writes: I maintain that you are too willing to dismiss subjective experiences as evidence; objectivity requires a more open-minded approach. Your idea of objectivity is not the same as mine. Both our concepts of objectivity are subjective. - This is just playing with words. I've said before that I don't dismiss subjective experiences as evidence. I place less value on them. And this is not just my personal opinion, it is an application of scientific method. Verifiable experiences carry more weight.
--
GPJ
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Monday, February 23, 2009, 20:50 (5750 days ago) @ George Jelliss
DHW then seizes upon my use of the phrase "I maintain that..." as indicating my subjectivity, but I was merely being polite. To rephrase my statement: It is a fact that DT is too willing to accept accounts of subjective experiences as evidence. It is a fact that objectivity requires a more sceptical approach. > > DHW writes: I maintain that you are too willing to dismiss subjective experiences as evidence; objectivity requires a more open-minded approach. Your idea of objectivity is not the same as mine. Both our concepts of objectivity are subjective. > > This is just playing with words. I've said before that I don't dismiss subjective experiences as evidence. I place less value on them. And this is not just my personal opinion, it is an application of scientific method. Verifiable experiences carry more weight. - Since I am being used as an example, let me explain my position about NDE's. I have rejected Susan Blakemore's opinion that they are hallucinations. No medical doctor would conclude they are such. Roughly 75% follow the same pattern or story. They are coherent, not jumbled. NDE's always talk to the dead. They are verifiable if they describe something a third party can verify, and that has happened many many times, expecially about 'knowing' that someone has died recently, and they NDEer cannot have known that before their episode. While on a short vacation last week I spoke with a retired priest who vists hospices for the patients. He told me many of them describe talking with dead relatives just before they die themselves. This is not verifiable but is an interesting aspect of the issue. Also he described patients asking relatives to leave the room for a short interval. When the relatives return the patient has died, as if they knew or allowed the end willfully. I have told George one cannot do double-blind studies with this type of study, but, to repeat, they can be verified! - Further George's Gestalt is to accept nothing but peer-reviewed results, especially double-blinded. Everyone has built in biases! They cannot be avoided and at times are not recognized in themseives by the most astute persons.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
George: "It is an objective fact that science, or more generally reason, IS an accurate guide to truth, as opposed to mere opinion. There is no need to put the word "truth" in quote marks here, as if everyone can have their own versions of it." - But people do have their own versions of it. Millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians say it is true that God exists. You as an atheist say it is not true. None of you have the backing of science. There are, of course, many fields in which science is indeed an accurate guide. Our astonishing technologies provide ample evidence of this. But I don't think the millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians would dispute the accuracy of science in such concrete fields. The dispute lies in those areas that science cannot cover: religion, personal experiences, thought, love...I needn't go through the list again, but these are the truths which require quotation marks, and which are linked to your next statement: - "It is a fact that DT is too willing to accept accounts of subjective experiences as evidence. It is a fact that objectivity requires a more sceptical approach." - Who decides the correct amount of willingness? Indeed who, in this context, decides what constitutes a fact? Here, still in the context of "truth", is a fictional dialogue between three characters whom I shall call DT, GPJ and DHW: - DT: I am a scientist. I have examined the evidence. Life and reproduction originated through intelligent design. - DHW: You are too willing to believe in some vague, conscious, intelligent designer. Objectivity requires a more sceptical approach. - GPJ: I am a scientist. I have examined the evidence. Life and reproduction originated through chance. - DHW: You are too willing to believe in the vague, unconscious, non-intelligent creativity of chance. Objectivity requires a more sceptical approach. - Perhaps you could tell me which of DHW's statements are subjective, and which are factual.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 13:59 (5749 days ago) @ dhw
There are, of course, many fields in which science is indeed an accurate guide. Our astonishing technologies provide ample evidence of this. But I don't think the millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians would dispute the accuracy of science in such concrete fields. - Here is an example of scientific prediction, which perhaps is very accurate, if we could live long enough to be observers. This is the best explanation of Malankovitch cycles leading to glacial ages I have ever seen. It is easy reading for all. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/23/ice-ages-and-sea-level/#more-5804 All religions can live with this.
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 14:30 (5749 days ago) @ David Turell
There are, of course, many fields in which science is indeed an accurate guide. Our astonishing technologies provide ample evidence of this. But I don't think the millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians would dispute the accuracy of science in such concrete fields. Here is an example of 'our astonishing technologies' and in a way addressing this current topic on this website: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090223221230.htm
Science and love, music, art, etc.
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 12:06 (5749 days ago) @ dhw
I wrote: "It is an objective fact that science, or more generally reason, IS an accurate guide to truth, as opposed to mere opinion. There is no need to put the word "truth" in quote marks here, as if everyone can have their own versions of it." - DHW replies: But people do have their own versions of it. Millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians say it is true that God exists. You as an atheist say it is not true. None of you have the backing of science. - I do not say "it is not true". I say it depends on what you mean by "God". And the fact is that science does back the nonexistence of many versions of "God". - DHW continues: There are, of course, many fields in which science is indeed an accurate guide. Our astonishing technologies provide ample evidence of this. But I don't think the millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians would dispute the accuracy of science in such concrete fields. - The trouble is that many of them do so dispute. For instance the young-earth creationists (such as those cited by Christopher Booker in the most recent Evolution article linked to by David Turell). - DHW: The dispute lies in those areas that science cannot cover: religion, personal experiences, thought, love ... - I am arguing here that science has important things to say in these areas. - In the rest of his post DHW takes on the task of putting words into his contributors mouths. Perhaps he doesn't really need us, since he can do all the thinking for us! - It is important to understand that science is a collaborative enterprise of humankind, evolving over time. Dismissing it as being all a matter of personal opinion is like saying "stop the world I want to get off".
--
GPJ
X-Phi
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, March 13, 2009, 21:44 (5732 days ago) @ George Jelliss
There is an editorial comment in today's Guardian about X-Phi, which stands for "Experimental Philosophy", which seeks to solve philosophical problems such as those of ethics by employing experiment, not just armchair thinking. It's symbol is a blazing armchair! Here is a longer article about it that I found via Google: - http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10638 - This supports my contention that the personal and physical are related and cannot be divorced from one another.
--
GPJ