|
Author
|
Topic: James Barham: Thoughts on Thinking Matter
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 19. February 2003 01:05
quote:
Now, I could be wrong, but there is every indication that I am not. Do you wish to defend your Correspondence Theory of Truth, Jacob; or do you simply wish to promulgate incoherence?
Like I said, not here. I dont have to defend "my" so-called promulgation of incoherence because you have not demonstrated that there is ANY incoherence that I promote.
The correspondence theory that I know of (Neils Bohr?) concerned the observations made in QM being applicable in classical scales. Other than that, so long as a model matches known models of science/ reality and is based on facts, it will always add to knowledge and will derive validity from that fact besides its own merits.
Something about Henry P. Stapp's response caught my attention:
quote:
But in quantum physics the basic structure has mindfulness built in from the start.
I think this statement is consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. In Everett's MWI, the mind occupies no special place and has no causative powers except to the observer himself (effecting decoherence) - the rest of the quantum superpositions will evolve forwards (same direction as the arrow of time) as the decohered observer is left in his own world.
The problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation is if the wavefunction is real the theory is nonlocal, if the wavefunction is not real, the theory provides no model for reality.
It also implies that the mind obeys different laws than the non-observer. There is no basis for this other than intuition and perhaps anthropocentrism.
There is no reason in principle to believe that the mind occupies any place in physics (leave alone a "special" place) especially considering Jaegwon Kim's version of reductionist physicalism.
[ 19. February 2003, 07:56: Message edited by: Jacob Aliet ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 19. February 2003 02:26
Jacob,
The way I understand it, there really is no MWI of QT. See Stapp's site on this, there's a chapter in his "The Mindful Universe" link about alternative views which also references a paper on MWI/decoherence ideas.
Dan,
I agree that ID seems to need materialism to have good force to it's detection technique for "grand" design in biological evolution. I've said so in other threads and have also said that since materialism *is* false, believing in it is like believing in leprechauns and these ID/neo-Darwinist arguments *feel* like arguments about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." However, I maybe wrong and ID detection in this or another form may still be useful in an idealists, panpsychists and/or interdependent flux of essenceless existence reality (all others are irrational according to Nagarjuna). So, I'm hoping people would just get out of outdated Victorian thinking.
In any case, I'll wait for more responses and pass relevent ones onto Henry Stapp for response.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 19. February 2003 05:44
Dan: I think reductionism has done remarkably well. Perhaps the philosophical reductionists were too impatient and wanted to reduce too much; I'm not really familiar with them. However, even if philosophical reductionism has failed, reduction has proven one of the most powerful methods we have to understand a process.
You also claim that reason has never been defined, and maybe suggest that it can't be. This is a pity, because I haven't much idea of what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, we use "reason" to denote a fuzzy assemblage of related but distinct methods of manipulating symbolic information. I really don't see this holistic, vital, etc. thing you're talking about.
Mark / Henry: there are a number of equivalent interpretations of quantum mechanics. In particular the Transactional Interpretation completely does away with the idea of a "observer". The attribution of "mindfulness" to quantum physics is, therefore, arbitrary.
Jacob: Given that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote (as dialog for Sherlock Holmes) "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.", isn't your quote a bit of an odd appropriation of credit?
Mark: is "materialism" the same as "physicalism" or...what? There have been materialists who were rather confused about what material was, or about our epistomological position, and yes, those flavors of materialism were false.
IP: Logged
|
|
Dan Smith
Member
Member # 656
|
posted 19. February 2003 11:05
Mark, Rex and Jacob,
Yes, Mark, thank you for that that communication from Henry. I have met with him a couple of times in my travels, and we have both been on the Sarfatti mail list.
I have to agree with Rex and Jacob that the Quantum, per se, does not provide any definitive argument for mindful observers. In the context of Darwinism, that would have to be considered quite a stretch.
Jacob, the Correspondence Theory to which I referred was that concerning the nature of Truth and not Niels Bohr’s Correspondence Principle of QM. According to the CorrTofT, reality is nothing more than some maximal, but otherwise arbitrary collection of facts, of which we know some finite subset. The Coherence TofT states that Truth is an organic, indivisible whole. Yes, you can dissect the One Truth into many smaller facts, but that reduction can be done in innumerable, arbitrarily different ways, and in that process you will invariably destroy the organic whole, as is also the case in biology. And, as in quantum physics, there is a trade-off between the individual precision of your facts or measurements, and your total understanding of a given, quantum entangled system.
People who live and die just by the facts may win every single factual battle, but they will lose the larger war for the Truth. I am here just to demonstrate how that works, for the benefit and enlightenment of the skeptics.
Scientists grossly underestimate the power of natural intelligence and natural language, to their own detriment. Whenever a philosopher comes around they tend to scurry for the nearest exit. This strategy of duck-and-cover was a pragmatic one in the context of analytical philosophy and even in the postmodern pluralist context. But now with the resurrection of Coherence, the scientists will have nowhere to run, especially not with the omnipresence of the Internet. Give Coherence an inch and it will take an Internet mile. My plan is to give Coherence two inches of freeboard. That is all I have to do. The rest will be history.
Rex, I do by no means dispute the historical effectiveness of scientific reduction. Rather, I am looking to the future of Truth. What is increasingly obvious are the decreasing marginal returns that we derive from reduction. What is less obvious are the increasing negative effects that the reductionist, deconstructionist culture has on the human psyche. Yes, we can deconstruct our own psyches. That is just what is known as having a ‘nervous breakdown’. The signs are rampant that modern culture is in the throes of a nervous breakdown. Is it not high time for some of us to explore the alternative to reductionism?
Science has turned itself into a monolithic, bureaucratic Establishment. There are only a few places like ISCID on its fringes where that Establishment might be effectively confronted on its own turf. Once the war of Truth has been seriously engaged, the scientific death grip on Truth will be measured in Internet weeks. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am perfectly serious. How far are we from that final engagement? It’s anyone’s guess right now.
-----------------
What I was previously in the process of pointing out is that coherence is necessarily ‘selfish’. There is, however, an apparent exception, namely, mathematics. Mathematics is certainly coherent. From whence comes that coherence? It evidently does not come from physics or nature. Mathematics is not natural. The ‘unreasonable effectiveness’ of mathematics is as unnatural as it is immaterial. The awesome mathematical depth of theoretical physics is the best evidence to-date of the thought-like nature of reality. What lies behind this depth is not anything obviously connected with the self. Instead we see the Monster Group. This is the largest possible and most complex irreducible structure in the world. It contains as many group elements as Jupiter contains elementary particles. It is increasingly speculated that the Monster Group will be irreducibly embedded in any Final Theory of physics. If there were a mathematical God, it would be this Monster.
But where does the Monster reside? The proof of its maximal existence is spread over numerous articles totaling some 1,500 pages by various mathematicians, no one of whom claims to understand the whole of it. It is this piece of abstraction that now appears to be the foundation stone of the ‘material’ world. If this fact does induce a feeling of vertigo, I don’t know what would.
Could there be anything in the world more impersonal than this Monster Group? Is it not the ultimate object? It is too big for our individual minds to comprehend. But yet, what is it if not mental? The physical world must conform to its intricacies, but it surely knows nothing of them, nor can it contain them. The Monster, rather, points to a higher intelligence, a higher will. If it does not, what else possibly could?
The only arguable question is whether the Creator could have created the Monster, or just discovered it. What if the Monster had not existed? According to the Anthropic Principle, if there had been no Monster there might have been no Creation, or certainly no creatures. The Monster may pose the ultimate challenge to any theodicy.
Setting aside the Monster, everything else, if only by contrast, is up close and personal. The Monster may be the basis of all physical coherence, but every other knowable source of coherence is ‘selfish’. This ‘selfishness’ runs the gamut from Dawkin’s selfish genes to his selfish memes. It is just this ‘selfishness’ that I propose to examine from a metaphysical perspective.
Dan
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 19. February 2003 11:19
quote:
Jacob: Given that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote (as dialog for Sherlock Holmes) "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.", isn't your quote a bit of an odd appropriation of credit?
I had no idea that Conan Doyle wrote that. Alan Alford has the expression in his book as I quoted. I will consider striking it off.
IP: Logged
|
|
Dan Smith
Member
Member # 656
|
posted 19. February 2003 16:26
‘Selfishness’
The crux of the case against reductionism.
Richard Dawkins’ concept of the ‘selfish gene’ has a superficial credibility. It was, however, his attempt to extend this notion to the ‘meme’ that finally called into question his life’s opus. Richard came to regret that stretch of his logic, but it was too late. The meme has taken on a life of its own, and his name is indelibly associated with it.
Let me interrupt myself, however, to make one more observation concerning Intelligent Design. The fatal flaw of ID is that, like any idea that only tries to take up where science leaves off, it becomes a God of the Gaps theory. It is only going to entangle itself in an endlessly running battle with science. It will be forced repeatedly into a defensive posture. I notice that the biggest thread on ISCID concerns the origin of the immune system. I gather that it has been argued to a virtual draw. I am afraid this will continue to be the outcome for any God of the Gaps. The only God I know, has no gaps.
Back to the meme. It is very peculiar that the cutting edge of materialism has become irretrievably ensnared in the defense of an egregiously immaterial entity. Were the materialists really that stupid, or that oblivious to their own oxymoronism? I submit not. I submit that they were very reluctantly forced to take a very big gamble. They were forced to ‘bet the farm’, and it looks as though they have now ‘bought it’.
Why take such a big gamble? Let us blame it on the ‘culture shock’ of the materialists. This was just the inevitable attempt by the Darwinists to be coherent and consistent. If a blind evolution were truly responsible for the origin of the species, then it must also be able to account for the origin of the cultures. If not, then teleology would raise its ‘ugly’ head. If the materialists had to concede teleology on the cultural level, they would, for the first time, be forced onto the defensive. Many of them must have sensed that this would be too big of a teleological pill for them to be able to swallow. If they could be pushed back on the cultural front, their entire edifice would become vulnerable. Their entire house of cards would threaten to come crashing down on their heads.
(being continued…)
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 19. February 2003 18:04
Dan,
Since you began posting, you've been throwing around stereotypes left and right. The principle of charity is to be observed at all times in this forum. A condescending tone has developed in your posts which I don't like very much. In addition, we prefer positive insights from within one's thought system rather than continual critiques of others thought systems.
It might do you some good to read our New User FAQ:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000076
IP: Logged
|
|
Dan Smith
Member
Member # 656
|
posted 19. February 2003 19:20
Dear Moderator,
Thank you for the suggestion. I will, of course, make every reasonable effort to abide.
It is, however, fairly obvious that there is a lot of ground here that has not been previously covered. Yes, most of the individual pieces are not original, but I am not aware of their having been put together before in one coherent package.
I have to paint a very large picture with broad brush strokes. Inevitably, and particularly in the initial presentation, there will have to be instances of oversimplification just for purely logistic and pedagogical reasons.
The bottom line for my message concerns a vision for the future. From the perspective of coherentism, there is a reason for everything; past, present and future. Nothing happens by accident. Motives exist. They must be imputed, even, or especially, if subconscious.
Recall that my claim is that love is the ultimate truth. I will be attempting to establish that fact beyond reasonable doubt. Likely I will fail, but someone will succeed, IMO. Whoever may succeed in that project will have to be accorded a prophetic status of ‘biblical proportions’.
This is the context from within which I operate. If I fail to emulate anything more or less than tough love, then please call me on the carpet. In the meantime, I sincerely believe that my materialist colleagues are deeply ensconced in the ‘slumber of materialism’. It is urgently the case that our survival may depend on their expeditious awakening.
Nonetheless, I am also known to have a reasonably acute sense of humor concerning our present predicament and my own involvement with it. You will recall that I am perfectly convinced that this is the Best Possible World. There is nothing that has happened in the world that was not for the best, including especially the present, putative somnambulence of our materialist brothers and sisters.
Bottom line is that you are the boss here. Your word is my law, here.
Dan
[ 19. February 2003, 19:48: Message edited by: Dan Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 20. February 2003 01:00
quote:
Bottom line is that you are the boss here. Your word is my law, here.
Why dont we cross over to infidels and thrash this out? Unless you are simply interested in empty posturing.
It sounds like what you have in mind is largely philosophical and that(infidels) would be exactly the place for it.
You can find the experience very sobering. You could write up something (just sit down and write up something comprehensive), then start a thread here and at infidels.
With feel-happy ideas like "love is the ultimate truth", that would be the place.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 20. February 2003 01:30
Dan, Jacob, Rex,
I recieved two emails from Henry Stapp. The second was to my request for more specific comments on the transactional interpretation.
quote:
Two points that I tried to make were, I believe, not fully appreciated.
1. Science must, from a very hard-headed, practical view tie the mathematics into human experience. That is why Bohr prevailed over Einstein in the minds of atomic physicists. But the connection of the quantum mathematics to human experience is non-trivial. Process I formalizes this non trivial connection. It is needed not only in the Copenhagen interpretation, but in the von Neumann interpretation and in the many-worlds and Bohmian interpretations as well. These latter two interpretations seek to avoid "collapse" at the ontological level, but they must bring it in "effectively" at the practical level, in order to link their ontologies to the practical predictions of quantum theory, which are formulated in terms of communications among scientists and others about empirical conditions and empirical outcomes. D. Zeh correctly dubbed the "many-worlds" interpretation as "one world, many minds." Everett said one could consider computers instead of human beings, but the Copenhagen/von Neumann reply is that this is not enough. In order to get to the point of being able to make predictions about what will happen under alternative conditions that we might set up we need to tie that ontological description into human experiences, described in the language in which we actually do communicate among ourselves about these matters. One needs, in the end, the connection between these two kinds of descriptions: descriptions of mathematical properties specified over spacetime, and descriptions of experiential properties. In this sense, mindfulness must be built into the basic structure of quantum theory.
2. If one considers the behavioral characteristics of the "stuff" represented by the quantum state, then one finds that is has properties resembling "knowledge" (e.g., sudden changes of "our knowledge" of a faraway property when we learn something about a nearby system that is correlated to that faraway system.) The basic stuff is like cognition imbedded in a mathematical structure extended over space. "Cognition" and "Extention" are unified in the quantum state! Hence "mindfulness" is an aspect of the basic ontological stuff of the universe, in the ontologically construed von Neumann interpretation. But this thoughtlike quality has "extensional" aspects.
quote:
I do not regard the "transactional interpretation" as essentially different from the ontologically construed von Neumann interpretation, with the boundary between observer and observee set between the device and the bodily observer. This is the Copenhagen setting. Then the collapse occurs at the device. If the collapse occurs at the device then the Heisenberg state of the universe, which does not change during the unitary Schr. evolution, suddenly changes so that the expectation values in the two spacelike separated regions of an EPR-Bohm-Bell system, and in the V-shaped region extending forward from the original reaction region O out to these to regions L and R suddenly change. This is just the Heisenberg informal description, in which the action occurs at the device. It is the same as the transactional interpretation without the "handshakes," which seem to me to be an unpleasant addition. But once the situation is thus reduced to its essence one sees the difficulty starkly: what singles out definite locations and orientations of the devices? That comes back to what WE are doing, and hence what our brains are doing. We cannot really get away with not considering how our brains are behaving! But then how, if at all, do our thoughts effect the behavior of our brains. Some sort of theory about this must be considered if the physical theory is going to describe nature, and indeed the most crucial part of nature, from a medical and moral human point of view.
IP: Logged
|
|
Dan Smith
Member
Member # 656
|
posted 21. February 2003 09:27
Mark and Jacob,
It has been over a year since I have read anything of Henry’s. I am presently reading’ The Mindful Universe’ (Jan. 8, 2003) (88 pages). It is the most comprehensive statement of his philosophy of which I am aware.
Here is our difference. Henry is (at least?) a quantum panpsychist; I am a personal idealist. It is difficult for me to tell how much overlap between our positions presently or potentially exists. I should have a better idea when I finish his essay. Some preliminary remarks are in order.
Henry states that quantum physics incorporates a high level of intentionality into its projection operator that is responsible for the ‘collapse’ of the wave function. In fact, the level of intentionality he envisions virtually precludes other than fully(?) conscious agents. This would then pose a major challenge to scientific cosmology. How do we account for cosmogenesis in the absence of a high level of primordial intentionality? Thus does Henry’s quantum panpsychism border on a personal idealism. However, to my own frustration, I have never seen Henry address the issue of cosmology. But neither have I confronted him on this issue.
I have confronted Henry’s quantum idealist colleague, Amit Goswami, on this topic. Amit’s view is that quantum idealism can be bootstrapped by the most primitive of biological organisms, and so he has no real qualms concerning the scientific cosmology. Amit’s ‘idealization’ of scientific cosmology is quite in keeping with the theosophical interpretation of Hindu cosmology, attempting to blend it with science. It should be noted that Henry’s long-time colleague at LBL was Geoffrey Chew, inventor of the ‘bootstrap model’ of particle physics.
For most of my idealist career I was also a bootstrapper. The cosmic superglue of love is the remaining vestige of my original bootstrap. I still see Creation as a self-organizing, bootstrap loop between creature and Creator, with mutual love serving as the vital force. But I no longer see God as evolved. This is a simple but crucial observation.
Simply compare God with the ‘Monster’ group of mathematical notoriety. Would it make any sense to say that the Monster evolved? Certainly not. It is the epitome of irreducible complexity. Neither, however, am I a mathematical Platonist. As a strongly relational idealist, nothing, not even the Monster, can exist in isolation. The Monster exists as the irreducible nexus of logical relationalism. God exists as the irreducible nexus of personal relationalism. There is a primordial tension between the two, almost as the irresistible force and the immovable object. We are partly the product of that tension. We are the resultant, best possible ‘pearl’. The abstraction of the Monster and the potency of God exist necessarily and far beyond the contingency of space and time. If there were a bootstrap in eternity, it would be far beyond our ken. I am a rational theist, in the most pragmatic sense. Human knowledge is a necessary ingredient in the salvation economy, which operates on a need to know basis. We will be given all the knowledge necessary for our inevitable, universal salvation. We will have all eternity to figure out everything else.
As for Jacob’s suggestion concerning ‘Infidels’, what little I have seen of it is definitely underwhelming. It is desperately in need of competent moderation and guidance. I think also, Jacob, that you seriously misconstrue my message and MO. I ascribe to reason the highest possible value. As a relationalist, I am very aware that reason does not exist in a vacuum. I am, thus, not a mimeticist, nor even a panpsychist. Reason is no accident. In fact, it is not even bootstrappable or self-organizable, just as the Monster group is not. I see reason and coherence as virtually synonymous. Please recall the Coherence Theory of Truth to which I strongly subscribe. Reason is nothing if it does not cohere. It can only cohere under the aegis of a primordial self-potency or person. This is the eminently rational basis of personalism. Personalism is the one truly coherent branch of idealism. Ultimately, then, some sort of personal coherence is the vital foundation of the cosmos. To attach the label of ‘love’ to this vital coherence is simply to abide by the highest dictates of linguistic convention. God is love. Love is what makes the world go ‘round. These are the most reasonable statements that have ever been uttered. If we fail soon to comprehend the cosmic and logical necessity of love, we might as well roll over and play dead, right now. Ultimately, love is the only rational alternative to a mechanistic reductionism.
One could discuss irreducible complexity until the cows came home, but if one does not understand the vital source of all irreducible complexity, then that person is missing the whole show, is she not? Think about it, my friend. Your life, and many others, may well depend upon it.
In the meantime I will finish Henry’s essay and report back. It would be a privilege to have the opportunity to discuss the ramifications of quantum idealism directly with him.
And I do want to get back to the self-ishness of the ‘selfish genes’.
Dan
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 21. February 2003 10:56
Dan,
I know it may seem artificial to you, but please do cease the sort of proselytizing that is exemplified in the following two quotations:
quote:
Think about it, my friend. Your life, and many others, may well depend upon it.
quote:
If we fail soon to comprehend the cosmic and logical necessity of love, we might as well roll over and play dead, right now.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Aliet
Member
Member # 578
|
posted 21. February 2003 12:27
Dan,
Thanks for your comments. You sound very earnest. I find it a bit ironic that you say infidels needs moderation and guidance yet here you have been prancing left and right swinging tendentious ideas under the nose of the moderator. One would think you would be most willing to toe the line an obey the moderator.
You cite examples of people who have allowed their religious affiliations to infect their interpretation of experiments conducted on natural/physical phenomena. I once read of this physicist with hindu background (perhaps he is close to the ones you have named or one of them - the name escapes me) who said that quantum entanglement is evidence that God exists.
The gaps will always be there. Filling them with convenient, feel-happy answers that emanate from salvific beliefs is the simplest way.
But I am interested in the truth. Facts. Not good news.
For facts, you go to the lab, deal with data and make inferences. Read books. Peer reviews etc.
Or you go to ISCID.
For good news, you go to church.
I find a mix of the two to be particularly unpalatable and nauseating. So I will excuse myself from such an excercise.
Henry Stapp,
quote:
Some sort of theory about this must be considered if the physical theory is going to describe nature, and indeed the most crucial part of nature, from a medical and moral human point of view.
See, this is what I am talking about, what does morality have to do with fundamental forces, physics etc.?
quote:
One needs, in the end, the connection between these two kinds of descriptions: descriptions of mathematical properties specified over spacetime, and descriptions of experiential properties. In this sense, mindfulness must be built into the basic structure of quantum theory.
Mindfulness is not the only way.
Brainfulness sounds more like it. The mind of one person is unobservable and introducing mindfulness just mystifies instead of clarifying. This is a subverted effort on his part. Mark, does Henry Stapp have any theistic leanings?
I find it misleading to state that Many Worlds Interpretation also incorporates the mind in its formalism.
quote:
2. If one considers the behavioral characteristics of the "stuff" represented by the quantum state, then one finds that is has properties resembling "knowledge" (e.g., sudden changes of "our knowledge" of a faraway property when we learn something about a nearby system that is correlated to that faraway system.)
I do not see the link between unpredictability and knowledge. If dust particles in a liquid exhibit brownian motion for example, that doesnt mean they have knowledge.
They are inanimate, non-sentient matter. Pure and simple.
quote:
The basic stuff is like cognition imbedded in a mathematical structure extended over space.
This is even worse than James Barham's "Thinking Matter". Fluctuation of the energy levels of quanta and the eternal flux does not create cognition. Even Christopher Michael Langans SCSPL and Telic Recursion is more coherent.
IP: Logged
|
|
Dan Smith
Member
Member # 656
|
posted 21. February 2003 12:55
Dear Moderator,
Yes, the tone of these statements was not necessary to my exposition.
Nonetheless, I find myself to be confronted with an unprecedented situation or opportunity that could well have immense repercussions. If my interpretation of this situation is reasonable, then there is considerable urgency and gravity that demands expression. It is easily arguable that human life is in the balance. It would be less than responsible, then, for me, when appropriate, not to represent our situation in dramatic terms.
At the same time, there are some very abstract ideas contained in the mix. I am, in part, reacting against the ‘dry as dust’ pedagogy of the analytical tradition that still predominates in academia. I am not an analyst. I am a synthesizer in its fully anti-reductionist sense. Reason dictates that the ultimate synthesis will be vital and personal. The appropriate use of colorful language would then be a logical and necessary part of any such exposition.
And one more point concerning analysis. When practiced to excess it becomes more than just dry and boring. It becomes positively banal, and I mean that in the sense of the banality of evil. This is that against which I struggle. And mustn’t we all?
Then you use the term ‘proselytizing’. Merriam-Webster: ‘to recruit someone to join one’s cause.’ If my cause is reason and truth, then, yes, I certainly invite you and others to join me in that endeavor. Is this not why professors are supposed to profess? Do they too often fail? Obviously!
I labor under the strong impression that I partake of a calling to rationalize, after the fact, a very significant portion of the prophetic corpus. I do this under the banner of personal idealism and rational theism. If these are not eminently respectable intellectual traditions, in themselves, then I do not know what is. It may well be that these are the only reasonable alternatives to reductionism and materialism. I am here to have this possibility fully tested.
I may be wrong. I may not be wrong. If not, then what? The ultimate rationalization of the prophetic tradition is an outcome that logically ought to reside within that tradition, and, in fact, can be demonstrated to have been prophesied from within that same tradition.
Yes, there are strongly entrenched forces ready to resist attempts to rationalize the spirit. Descartes, the founding father of science and analysis, and the rationalizer of the separation of secular and sectarian, and of thought and matter, has created a very powerful legacy. When I saw the topic-heading here of ‘thinking matter’, well, I saw an opportunity to take on those forces. This topic is rapidly becoming one of the least avoidable, least dispensable topics in the entire panoply of postmodernism. I trust that it will not be avoided or curtailed here, of all places.
But, yes, having said all that, I do still agree with you that I could have made a greater effort to tone down the rhetoric in the instances you quote. I appreciate your moderating skill, and, will, hopefully, successfully channel my residual sense of zeal, without abusing those skills. I do not mean to draw you into the debate, but simply wish to be forthright with you, and, hopefully, with any other parties to this discussion.
Dan
[ 21. February 2003, 13:00: Message edited by: Dan Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 21. February 2003 13:33
This thread will be closed if it does not get back on topic. The topic for discussion is James Barham's paper.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
