[Nesster]

On that we are in 100% agreement. Science attempts to describe the physical world--nothing else.

That’s an excellent summary, and a lead in to what I want to bring up… The origin of this split between science and religion originates in the Renaissance, and represents the compromise to allow scientists the freedom to publish and investigate without persecution by the Church – as long as science kept to only describing the physical and stayed away from the spiritual. This has been called the Cartesian Bargain.

While this solution freed scientists to produce large increases of understanding and technology, it also cut off a chunk of experience, of the world, to scientific investigation. It also insulated western churches from the progress of science – traditionally most churches remain conservative and behind the times when it comes to new understandings about the physical world.

From the point of view of science, reductionist materialism became the underlying philosophy. That is, all things can be broken down into physical components and mechanisms. Reductionist materialism ill suits a scientific exploration of consciousness (the Hard Problem) and human experience. Reductionist materialism is also self-selecting: the ‘good’ subjects of science are those that can be measured and reduced to physical bits.

Thus, the materialist will say inane things such as ‘consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain activity’ – the attempt is to reduce our mental processes to a side-product of chemical and electrical activity. The materialist will call religious, mystical or spiritual experience hallucination, akin to the hallucinations of psychotic people. This is because materialist science has no way to measure these things, they are not ‘good’ subjects for science, and therefore must be reduced to examples of better understood malfunctions of the machinery.

Reductionist materialism will crowd out the possibility of a God – however defined – because a priori the philosophy rejects this sort of thing. God, therefore, is a hallucination, a social convention, that has no basis in physical fact.

Never mind the mainstream Christians, I find this stance non-humanistic and limiting. But it’s clear that this sort of materialist fundamentalism finds a home amongst scientists and science, and is experienced as threatening or dismissive by those of us whose experience shows there’s more to life than just the physical.

On the other side, a materialist scientist will experience religion’s resistance to its brand of knowledge illogical at best, and a hindrance to our Best Chance – through scientific and technological progress. The materialist scientist fears a return to the Dark Ages, as he/she perceives what happens in societies where religious fundamentalists rule.

Now, not all scientists are materialist fundamentalists… though those who try to bypass the old Cartesian Bargain are seen as crackpots, pseudo-scientists, or fringe players… with a select few making it to ‘scientific cutting edge visionary.’ The implications of quantum mechanics and sub-quantum events are actually in a sub-matter space, pre-matter (if matter starts with an atom), and these matters are starting to move science in general from its sclerotic adherence to reductionist materialism.

[redrockcoulee]

Most scientists or people who follow science knows the difference between what science is and what it is not. Basically god is not falsifiable therefore not able to be studied in a scientific method. Period. Most of your entire posting is putting words into some one else's mouth in order to discredit them. For example the scientist who studies glacial movements does not even have any more of a clue about how the brain works or quatum mechanics than does many non scientist.
A psedo scientists is one who claims to be doing science but does not use a scientific method to do so. Such as creationists whose only science appears to be trying to find tiny errors in one paper and then claiming it as proof of their theory without a single bit of science on their part and often misrepresenting the facts they claim false.

The Catholic Church does not seem to have difficulties with keeping up with most science now days for example so I think you are even painting all religion (and I guess it sounds like all religion is Christian) the same just as you did with all science.

Many scientists enjoy painting, poetry love their dogs and cats etc. Some of them only think of what you term materialism in their field of study and live 'normal' lives and have families and friends and hopes and dreams.

Sorry but an extremely flawed rant with little validity except for a few points with no context.

[GeneV]

That’s an excellent summary, and a lead in to what I want to bring up… The origin of this split between science and religion originates in the Renaissance, and represents the compromise to allow scientists the freedom to publish and investigate without persecution by the Church – as long as science kept to only describing the physical and stayed away from the spiritual. This has been called the Cartesian Bargain.

While this solution freed scientists to produce large increases of understanding and technology, it also cut off a chunk of experience, of the world, to scientific investigation. It also insulated western churches from the progress of science – traditionally most churches remain conservative and behind the times when it comes to new understandings about the physical world.

From the point of view of science, reductionist materialism became the underlying philosophy. That is, all things can be broken down into physical components and mechanisms. Reductionist materialism ill suits a scientific exploration of consciousness (the Hard Problem) and human experience. Reductionist materialism is also self-selecting: the ‘good’ subjects of science are those that can be measured and reduced to physical bits.

Thus, the materialist will say inane things such as ‘consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain activity’ – the attempt is to reduce our mental processes to a side-product of chemical and electrical activity. The materialist will call religious, mystical or spiritual experience hallucination, akin to the hallucinations of psychotic people. This is because materialist science has no way to measure these things, they are not ‘good’ subjects for science, and therefore must be reduced to examples of better understood malfunctions of the machinery.

Reductionist materialism will crowd out the possibility of a God – however defined – because a priori the philosophy rejects this sort of thing. God, therefore, is a hallucination, a social convention, that has no basis in physical fact.

Never mind the mainstream Christians, I find this stance non-humanistic and limiting. But it’s clear that this sort of materialist fundamentalism finds a home amongst scientists and science, and is experienced as threatening or dismissive by those of us whose experience shows there’s more to life than just the physical.

On the other side, a materialist scientist will experience religion’s resistance to its brand of knowledge illogical at best, and a hindrance to our Best Chance – through scientific and technological progress. The materialist scientist fears a return to the Dark Ages, as he/she perceives what happens in societies where religious fundamentalists rule.

Now, not all scientists are materialist fundamentalists… though those who try to bypass the old Cartesian Bargain are seen as crackpots, pseudo-scientists, or fringe players… with a select few making it to ‘scientific cutting edge visionary.’ The implications of quantum mechanics and sub-quantum events are actually in a sub-matter space, pre-matter (if matter starts with an atom), and these matters are starting to move science in general from its sclerotic adherence to reductionist materialism.

I honestly don't think that reductionism fully describes very many scientists that I know. We have a large lab here and it seems that many of the scientists share an interest with my wife and I, so there are many scientists in my social circle. Yes, biologists may describe the modality of thought transmission, but only a few that I know claim that is all there is to it. I actually know only one, a biologist and his wife, out of dozens of scientists who thinks that is all there is.

I fully agree that the extreme which attempts to describe every aspect of our being only in terms of its mechanics is missing something big. I am not a scientist, but from what I know of quantum mechanics, it seems to postulate a unifying force, particle, wave or string. When we start to talk of a unifying force, we get closer to religion (in its broadest sense) or philosophy. In short, I do not think that science and belief in a higher power or unity or God are inconsistent. It does raise the discussion to a different level, though. But what do I know...

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

From the point of view of science, reductionist materialism became the underlying philosophy.

I don't think that is true for philosophy at least - there were great philosophers on both sides of the fence.

Reductionist materialism ill suits a scientific exploration of consciousness (the Hard Problem) and human experience.

It's too early to say that. The brain is a tough cookie, but psychology and AI have made some progress towards understanding some of the mechanisms of the mind.

For example, it is understood now that we have two sides of the mind - an unconscious one that handles primary impulses and is the one taking decisions when there is no time to think, and a conscious one that performs rational thought. The first one is sort of hard-coded and not under our direct control, although it looks like repetitive training can shape it, while the second one is the "engine" of rational thought. When we fight to not lose our temper, we're really trying to keep the rational engine running and not fall back on the primitive reflex side. It's a tough job and I think it shows that rationality is a small veneer and can crack easily - our species hasn't really got comfortable with it.

Of course, this doesn't explain much about how your mind or mine works exactly, but if we would know that, we would know how to build an artificial mind. We're not there yet. It will take decades, maybe centuries, and I'm afraid none of us today will live to see it. I do hope that some humans will live to see it. Still, insights like this can help us understand better how we think and why we react "stupidly" some times.

I recommend "The Science of Fear" for anyone interested in the subject. You'll be surprised of what you'll find out about your own mind. I was.

Thus, the materialist will say inane things such as ‘consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain activity’

That would be a philosopher talking They do say stuff like this - I think this is why philosophy is no longer as relevant as it used to be - few people can keep up with its language.

I think you are describing philosophers here mostly. For explanations of how the mind works, I think you need to look at the work of psychologists.

Reductionist materialism will crowd out the possibility of a God – however defined – because a priori the philosophy rejects this sort of thing.

Again, I think in philosophy there is still not a clear cut around a materialist position. And in science, few keep up with philosophy or think in its terms. People are usually focused on clear problems and are getting highly specialized.

But it’s clear that this sort of materialist fundamentalism finds a home amongst scientists and science, and is experienced as threatening or dismissive by those of us whose experience shows there’s more to life than just the physical.

Can you provide an example of such experience that does not seem to be within the physical realm?

The implications of quantum mechanics and sub-quantum events are actually in a sub-matter space, pre-matter (if matter starts with an atom), and these matters are starting to move science in general from its sclerotic adherence to reductionist materialism.

Ah, the mysteries of matter. Yes, who knows what we'll find out at the root of these things. But until that happens, we can only speculate.

I think that if there's something, we'll find it, and if there are limits to our knowledge, we'll find those too. But it's too early now to draw decisions about what we can find and what our limits are.

And for most practical purposes of living our life happily and harmoniously, I think these questions don't matter that much.

[causey]

Again, I think in philosophy there is still not a clear cut around a materialist position. And in science, few keep up with philosophy or think in its terms. People are usually focused on clear problems and are getting highly specialized.

There certainly is a way around materialism as well as around immaterialism--a perspective (the broadest one) that makes such metaphysical positions--and any metaphysics for that matter--superfluous. But the understanding that leads to it is silent--not loud, nor quarrelsome as the readily accessible kinds of understanding. Something that comes to mind "in a seclusion in comparison with which any physical seclusion is an exhibition to public view" (second part of the proposition part borrowed from Wittgenstein). Others--books or living people--can help, but among those who can be of any help, none would want or pretend to tell you how things are. Which doesn't mean things aren't in a certain way, so to speak--it's only that one has to find that for oneself. The way things 'are' can't be said.

Can you provide an example of such experience that does not seem to be within the physical realm?

E.g.: thinking--understanding a math problem, for instance. In what sense is it in the physical realm: like carrots in a bucket? (Idealists could easily say--still, wrongly, I think--it's the other way around: matter 'takes place' only in some idea.) Is listening to music an experience IN the physical realm? Not sounds, but music...
Of course, everything occurs in time in some sense... But does time alone constitute 'the physical space'? (Because there seem to be plenty of things that occur in time but aren't material.) Time itself may look like an embarrassment for radical physicalism: I imagine it would have to be reduced to matter after everything else has been so reduced. But let's suppose for a moment there is a perspective that re-signifies the world in such a way that time appears as a sort of veil--in a sense, a necessary one, but a veil, that is, something that covers up rather than discloses: to be sure, from the viewpoint of the experience that's stuck with time the understanding enlightened by that perspective necessarily takes place in time. And, indeed, it does take place in time. So what?
Experience can be said to take place in time, but the significance and meanings they reveal don't happen in time.

[Rupert]

Hmmm..... Very interesting conversation, and not so confrontational as to reduce the value of the comments....so far. Maybe it will stay that way?
Regards

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

E.g.: thinking--understanding a math problem, for instance. In what sense is it in the physical realm: like carrots in a bucket? (Idealists could easily say--still, wrongly, I think--it's the other way around: matter 'takes place' only in some idea.) Is listening to music an experience IN the physical realm? Not sounds, but music...

I think they are both in the physical realm - both the thinking and the music. Of course, I may be wrong, but in the absence of any proof, I will not assume the existence of anything else than matter - because I'll just follow Occam's Razor.

What you are making use of here is an argument from ignorance (it's not an insult, it's how it's called - see the link). You're basically saying - I cannot imagine how thinking or music could be material, hence they must be immaterial.

Is the computational process of displaying these words on your screen in the physical realm? If you would have lived a couple of centuries ago and you would have seen a computer screen, it might have looked like it had a soul. It doesn't.

But does time alone constitute 'the physical space'?

Time is a concept. You bring a good point that ideas and concepts in their abstract form can be argued to not have a physical form. But they are derived and constructed from observations of the physical world. They are useful representations we store in our mind. How we gather these concepts is a fascinating question - one we do not yet have a clear answer for.

[wildman]

Originally Posted by GeneV View Post

On that we are in 100% agreement. Science attempts to describe the physical world--nothing else.

That’s an excellent summary, and a lead in to what I want to bring up… The origin of this split between science and religion originates in the Renaissance, and represents the compromise to allow scientists the freedom to publish and investigate without persecution by the Church – as long as science kept to only describing the physical and stayed away from the spiritual. This has been called the Cartesian Bargain.

******************

I don't think so.
You present the "split" between science and religion as one of a mere human social arrangement arbitrarily made at a particular time in a particular place.

Science limits it's self to describing "only" the physical world because that's the only world that is available to human senses and understanding for direct observation.

There is no arbitrary "origin" to this "split" it's just an honest mature recognition of the intrinsic limits to human knowledge and understanding.

Humans may speculate about the existence of a world beyond our natural world (the supernatural) but it will always remain just that - speculation.

To put it in simple terms - why waste our time speculating on a topic that is, by definition, beyond human understanding?

One could, perhaps, think they directly experience the existence of the supernatural but it still would remain beyond our ability to explain. In other words mysticism. I think there is a bit of the mystic in all of us.

If there was any bargain struck it was a simple division of labor - you (science) describe the actual physical world, which you are apparently much better at, and leave issues of morality and ethics to us (the church) which by definition science must remain silent on. This is certainly the tacit agreement made between main stream religion in the West and science for the last 150 years or so.

It is this working agreement between the main stream church and science that has caused so much angst among religious fundamentalist
throughout the world. They want it all.

[Nesster]

wildman:

You present the "split" between science and religion as one of a mere human social arrangement arbitrarily made at a particular time in a particular place.

Science limits it's self to describing "only" the physical world because that's the only world that is available to human senses and understanding for direct observation.

So you cannot directly observe thought, the associations encouraged by art, investigate the borders where meaning ends, study linguistics...

Traditional science limits itself to "only" the physical world because there was technology to measure it, and because of...

There is no arbitrary "origin" to this "split" it's just an honest mature recognition of the intrinsic limits to human knowledge and understanding.

Perhaps so, yet, several historians of science have identified just such an origin. The problem was, scientists (they have been mentioned in the other thread: Keppler, Brahe, Galileo, et al) observed things heretical to the church. Inprisionment, exile and death could result from publishing your work, if it did not fit the Catholic theology.

While there isn't a one statement or incident that did the split, in effect that was the accommodation. And this accommodation has limited what scientists think proper subjects are.

Humans may speculate about the existence of a world beyond our natural world (the supernatural) but it will always remain just that - speculation.

To put it in simple terms - why waste our time speculating on a topic that is, by definition, beyond human understanding?

One could, perhaps, think they directly experience the existence of the supernatural but it still would remain beyond our ability to explain. In other words mysticism. I think there is a bit of the mystic in all of us.

Yes, at first glance this makes sense. But then: the ability to fly, to speak over long distances, to see moving pictures from far away... these were supernatural once, and would be to someone never exposed to modern culture. So why limit ourselves - as long as mystical experience is 'out of bounds' we shall not understand it not use it to the fullest. Considering that locally the universe has become self-aware at the quantum level, though it doesn't really understand itself fully there, there's no reason to preclude a plausible quantum science and technology of consciousness/matter, just because most of us can't imagine such.

That lack of imagination is a signal.

redrockcoulee:

Most of your entire posting is putting words into some one else's mouth in order to discredit them. For example the scientist who studies glacial movements does not even have any more of a clue about how the brain works or quatum mechanics than does many non scientist.


The Catholic Church does not seem to have difficulties with keeping up with most science now days for example so I think you are even painting all religion (and I guess it sounds like all religion is Christian) the same just as you did with all science.

Many scientists enjoy painting, poetry love their dogs and cats etc. Some of them only think of what you term materialism in their field of study and live 'normal' lives and have families and friends and hopes and dreams.

Sorry but an extremely flawed rant with little validity except for a few points with no context.

Guilty as charged Yes I did put words in mouths, though I did select words that came out of some of those mouths... mainly for the sake of stimulation of discussion.

What's the disclosure stock analysts have to give? Anyway here's mine: my mother did her post-grad phd work on the project that won a Nobel in medicine for a vaccine for Hepatitis B. My stepfather is one of the 'founders' of immunology. I was headed in their footsteps till I had a rebellious moment (not to mention, my intersts were elsewhere during organic chem), but have kept some of my reading up over the years. I am also interested in consciousness and spirituality - where certain incidents turned me from an amused scoffer at certain esotercia to thinking there's something there.

---------- Post added 03-18-2010 at 06:26 AM ----------

I honestly don't think that reductionism fully describes very many scientists that I know. We have a large lab here and it seems that many of the scientists share an interest with my wife and I, so there are many scientists in my social circle. Yes, biologists may describe the modality of thought transmission, but only a few that I know claim that is all there is to it. I actually know only one, a biologist and his wife, out of dozens of scientists who thinks that is all there is.

I fully agree that the extreme which attempts to describe every aspect of our being only in terms of its mechanics is missing something big. I am not a scientist, but from what I know of quantum mechanics, it seems to postulate a unifying force, particle, wave or string. When we start to talk of a unifying force, we get closer to religion (in its broadest sense) or philosophy. In short, I do not think that science and belief in a higher power or unity or God are inconsistent. It does raise the discussion to a different level, though. But what do I know...

I have to agree here also. Most scientists compartmentalize like the rest of us, like the politicians in DC where they officially fight and argue and compete for power, but in private may be the best of pals.

And there's nothing wrong with that, quite natural in fact. This doesn't change the fact that when 'doing science' they are operating largely in a reductionist materialist mode.

---------- Post added 03-18-2010 at 06:38 AM ----------

Laurentiu:

Originally Posted by causey "

E.g.: thinking--understanding a math problem, for instance. In what sense is it in the physical realm: like carrots in a bucket? (Idealists could easily say--still, wrongly, I think--it's the other way around: matter 'takes place' only in some idea.) Is listening to music an experience IN the physical realm? Not sounds, but music..."

I think they are both in the physical realm - both the thinking and the music. Of course, I may be wrong, but in the absence of any proof, I will not assume the existence of anything else than matter - because I'll just follow Occam's Razor.

What you are making use of here is an argument from ignorance (it's not an insult, it's how it's called - see the link). You're basically saying - I cannot imagine how thinking or music could be material, hence they must be immaterial.

Is the computational process of displaying these words on your screen in the physical realm? If you would have lived a couple of centuries ago and you would have seen a computer screen, it might have looked like it had a soul. It doesn't.

But are the words on the screen the sole content and existence of the thought, or merely its signal or artifact? Is brain activity the sole content and existence of thought, or an artifact?

Is language a virus?

Perhaps it is possible to explain in purely physical-mechanical terms what makes life 'alive' and how consciousness works - across groups as well as individuals. Yet again, these can also be termed the artifacts or physical tools that codevelop with consciousness - as consciousness is another order of organization, able to intentionally manipulate itself and its environment (by which I mean both the usual definition and the individual's body).

---

[GeneV]

Originally Posted by GeneV View Post

On that we are in 100% agreement. Science attempts to describe the physical world--nothing else.

That’s an excellent summary, and a lead in to what I want to bring up… The origin of this split between science and religion originates in the Renaissance, and represents the compromise to allow scientists the freedom to publish and investigate without persecution by the Church – as long as science kept to only describing the physical and stayed away from the spiritual. This has been called the Cartesian Bargain.

******************

I don't think so.
You present the "split" between science and religion as one of a mere human social arrangement arbitrarily made at a particular time in a particular place.

Science limits it's self to describing "only" the physical world because that's the only world that is available to human senses and understanding for direct observation.

There is no arbitrary "origin" to this "split" it's just an honest mature recognition of the intrinsic limits to human knowledge and understanding.

Humans may speculate about the existence of a world beyond our natural world (the supernatural) but it will always remain just that - speculation.

To put it in simple terms - why waste our time speculating on a topic that is, by definition, beyond human understanding?

One could, perhaps, think they directly experience the existence of the supernatural but it still would remain beyond our ability to explain. In other words mysticism. I think there is a bit of the mystic in all of us.

If there was any bargain struck it was a simple division of labor - you (science) describe the actual physical world, which you are apparently much better at, and leave issues of morality and ethics to us (the church) which by definition science must remain silent on. This is certainly the tacit agreement made between main stream religion in the West and science for the last 150 years or so.

It is this working agreement between the main stream church and science that has caused so much angst among religious fundamentalist
throughout the world. They want it all.

I don't think I said anything about mainstream religion or fundamentalists or the like. Nor, did I describe a "split" between these. I am just talking about a division of labor. By describing the physical world, I also did not limit that description to our senses. Science includes the use of devices that describe things our senses can't describe, and science includes reasoning outside the senses. I am not sure I understand what your disagreement is, other than that you may consider religion or philosophy a waste of time.

[causey]

I think they are both in the physical realm - both the thinking and the music. Of course, I may be wrong, but in the absence of any proof, I will not assume the existence of anything else than matter - because I'll just follow Occam's Razor.

What you are making use of here is an argument from ignorance (it's not an insult, it's how it's called - see the link). You're basically saying - I cannot imagine how thinking or music could be material, hence they must be immaterial.

My 'argument'--I'm not sure I was making one--would be an argument from ignorance provided that there was something to be proven true. But I'm not saying: "imagine how thinking or music could be material, etc."; rather, I'm saying: "carefully look at things and see how they are!" (You might say: "yet it's not the 'surface' of things that tells us how they are; one must scientifically investigate what lies beneath"--still, whatever that foundation is, wouldn't it have to be perceived in some way? Why would the nature of things reveal itself only after scientific inquiry? Does one decide that all things are material before or after scientific inquiry?)

The following might be the case: my 'argument' seems to be one from ignorance only in light of a need to see the world as constituted by strictly material stuff. (Big question: whence that need? But needs--and need-bounded experiences--don't recognize themselves as such.)

Is the computational process of displaying these words on your screen in the physical realm? If you would have lived a couple of centuries ago and you would have seen a computer screen, it might have looked like it had a soul. It doesn't.

It might have appeared so a couple of centuries ago, but not to anyone who understood that a PC was a machine. Complicated machines can look like living beings, that's why people may wrongly attribute them souls. (If my PC ceases to do its work, I dispose of it and buy another--and it wouldn't be slavery (not even 'in the eyes' of another PC).) (Another thing: I don't have a (metaphysical) notion of an other-worldly kind of soul. Admittedly, "soul" is a vague notion, but it has a common, non-metaphysical meaning.)

Time is a concept. You bring a good point that ideas and concepts in their abstract form can be argued to not have a physical form. But they are derived and constructed from observations of the physical world. They are useful representations we store in our mind. How we gather these concepts is a fascinating question - one we do not yet have a clear answer for.

Time, a concept? Then there's no difference between time and "time"? Is "time" the concept of a concept? Does time pass? What about the concept of time? Don't we all age?
Usually, by "physical space" people mean space-time. I figured out you might have meant something stronger.

[GeneV]

I think they are both in the physical realm - both the thinking and the music. Of course, I may be wrong, but in the absence of any proof, I will not assume the existence of anything else than matter - because I'll just follow Occam's Razor.

That's interesting. To me Occam's Razor has always had an element of an argument from ignorance to it. You are assuming that since you aren't aware of the reason for a more complicated explanation, the reasons don't exist. It is a practical tool for directing a search, but does not result in logical certainty any more than the reciprocal argument from ignorance. Ignorance does not prove or disprove.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

But are the words on the screen the sole content and existence of the thought, or merely its signal or artifact? Is brain activity the sole content and existence of thought, or an artifact?

I was not referring to words in a conversation like ours. I was referring to words like those printed at the top of the forum or in the menus. For example, if a dialog box pops up and says "do you want to update?", it is not a question from an intelligent being - it's just programming.

Is language a virus?

No, but we can argue that ideas are. Language is just a code for expressing them. Same as the protocols used by machines to communicate, except it's more ambiguous, hence the confusions that can arise in conversations. It is tedious for humans to be precise, so they usually are not.

Perhaps it is possible to explain in purely physical-mechanical terms what makes life 'alive' and how consciousness works - across groups as well as individuals. Yet again, these can also be termed the artifacts or physical tools that codevelop with consciousness - as consciousness is another order of organization, able to intentionally manipulate itself and its environment (by which I mean both the usual definition and the individual's body).

Maybe I am biased because I am a software engineer. But I only see a difference in scale of complexity between humans and computers. As I said, I may be wrong, but I don't see anything yet to indicate that.

[Nesster]

The scientific method does work and is productive, no doubt about it. But the scientific method – and many scientists – are not so good at identifying underlying biases (meta-science) when these aren’t directly related to experimental controls or variables. Rather, scientists tend to adhere to some mythologies about their process and its purity and rationality, which is convenient in every sense of the word.

Let me try to illustrate some of the things that go into what mainstream science is about, with apologies to Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I’ll use ‘he’ for convenience, feel free to substitute he/she depending on need. And I’ll try to be a bit provocative.

You’re a newly minted scientist, your work has been around biology and the mind… so now you need to come up with a proposal in order to get funding and employment. The boss (sr. scientist where you work, and the various panels involved in grants, publications, etc) will tend to support the current thinking and direction, so your chances improve if you go with the flow. So you pick some problem area to investigate using existing literature… and figure out a hypothesis to test, and experiments to test it with. By staying in the main groove, you know the landscape is well defined and there is equipment available, you don’t have to also invent your own measuring devices.

The unspoken materialist bias leads you to phrase you questions in this way: what chemical or electrical activity of the brain causes or is correlated with some mental state. This is good and safe, and productive even, and will ‘get you chicks’ in scientific terms – the approval of seniors, citations in papers, a nice set of grants. You are following a well established model of how to approach these problems. You are one of the army inching science forward, as well as your career.

Without that materialist bias, you might have asked a different question: how does a mental state cause or correlate with chemical or electrical activity in the brain (or body)? Perhaps not a huge distinction, but the direction of your hypothesis will be different, and therefore your experimental design. Quite possibly this approach puts you outside the current model, and you may have a difficult time ‘getting the chicks’. You may have to find work at the Noetic Institute or some such.

Even with a materialist bias, if you propose something outside the current standard model, you’ll have your difficulties. For example, there is evidence that light transmission plays a part in cellular communication, and you wish to explore that avenue. As it is outside the standard model, you may become a pariah (the actual scientist doing good science around bioluminescence went from rising star to pariah due to this direction he took. Additionally, he had to build all his apparatus. Only after a couple of decades did the quality of his science begin to have an effect on his peers…)

Assuming success with your work, what sort of practical outcome is there? The materialist standard model approach gives us things such as ECT and Prozak, the manipulation of physical substrate causes changes in mental experience. The non-materialist approach may give us things such as bio feedback. The materialist non-standard approach gives us uv light devices etc.

The points I wish to draw out include these: science tends to be self selecting: the problems selected for study fit established models, and the established models are materialist. Contrary evidence (anomalies) are ignored or pushed aside (that is, few attempt to replicate results), until the day they become prickly enough to force the standard model to be re-evaluated. Often, this waits (per Kuhn) till the prior generation’s young lions start to retire…

There’s no reason why good scientific protocol should not be applied in novel models, with different basic assumptions, in order to increase knowledge, and who knows, maybe produce the next big breakthrough. This does happen, but it happens at the fringe. I do feel there is a fundamentalist contingent in the science community, vehemently materialist and conservative, that effectively keeps science as a whole on the straight and narrow. (This may be undergoing change actually)

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

My 'argument'--I'm not sure I was making one

An example is a form of argument.

--would be an argument from ignorance provided that there was something to be proven true. But I'm not saying: "imagine how thinking or music could be material, etc."; rather, I'm saying: "carefully look at things and see how they are!" (You might say: "yet it's not the 'surface' of things that tells us how they are; one must scientifically investigate what lies beneath"--still, whatever that foundation is, wouldn't it have to be perceived in some way? Why would the nature of things reveal itself only after scientific inquiry? Does one decide that all things are material before or after scientific inquiry?)

Well, matter and material are concepts in themselves, same as spirit and spiritual. Materialistic is just a label that some philosophers who thought they see a great division have thrown at others that didn't think the same. At the end of the day everything being material may be the same as saying that everything is spiritual, because we really don't know what either word means. So you can simply call matter spirit if that makes you feel better, but in the end we still all want to figure out what *it* is and how *it* works.

The following might be the case: my 'argument' seems to be one from ignorance only in light of a need to see the world as constituted by strictly material stuff. (Big question: whence that need? But needs--and need-bounded experiences--don't recognize themselves as such.)

No, the argument is from ignorance because there isn't yet a need to consider that our world is divided in material and spiritual. We can assume there is only one thing - we can call it matter or spirit, or just X, and then the goal is to understand what X is and how X works. If it turns out that X really is Y U Z (U = union), then we'll deal with that, but so far there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that there are two basic distinct components of our universe.

It might have appeared so a couple of centuries ago, but not to anyone who understood that a PC was a machine. Complicated machines can look like living beings, that's why people may wrongly attribute them souls. (If my PC ceases to do its work, I dispose of it and buy another--and it wouldn't be slavery (not even 'in the eyes' of another PC).) (Another thing: I don't have a (metaphysical) notion of an other-worldly kind of soul. Admittedly, "soul" is a vague notion, but it has a common, non-metaphysical meaning.)

Yes, and my point is that we're still ignorant today. We're much more knowledgeable than we were two centuries ago, but we're still ignorant on a big scale. We're just getting started. Things may still appear to us a certain way because we can't think of any better explanation now.

Time, a concept? Then there's no difference between time and "time"? Is "time" the concept of a concept? Does time pass? What about the concept of time? Don't we all age?

Questions that are easy to ask are not necessarily easy to answer. Keep in mind that time is just a concept we have come up with to describe the change of state that happens around us. Our notion of time is based on observable events - Earth rotation around its axes, around the Sun, Moon's rotation around our Earth, decaying of radioactive material, etc. Aging is just us degrading by interaction with the world around us, like the camera you're going to throw away after using it heavily. We don't age because of time.

Usually, by "physical space" people mean space-time. I figured out you might have meant something stronger.

I don't know what space-time is. I was just trying to equate that with what people usually understand by matter and physical - i.e. things they can touch.

In the end, I don't think we'll get an answer here. Most likely and regretably, we won't see one in our lifetimes. It might be more productive to think about whether the answers would really make any significant impact on how we behave. Whatever its nature, reality is all around us and we're all a part of it - there's no escaping that.