Conversation With Richard - Why? Why? Why?

As predicted, Richard has replied to my last post to him, the one entitled "It's Science Jim But Not As We Know It". He takes exception to the idea that science is always wrong and argues that it does answer some "Why?" questions very well. He makes a plea for patience in judging science.

On the problem of time and space he points out that everything has an opposite.

Hi Peter,

I've just jogged my memory into the flow of where our discussion was going, and I feel back on track again.

Firstly, I need some help if possible, wherever I look for a reliable cosmological resource on dark matter, it ceases to exist, as I'm not totally sure what it represents, and I remain intrigued into what it is. However, continuing on, I don't fully agree Science is ultimately wrong. Instead, isn't it true of the answers we are trying to find now? Our discussion's ideal aim is to try and find answers to philosophical questions we propose, but I find there are different types of "why" questions, one of them, Science does find an answer to.

If for example, one was to ask, "Why does the Sun dissappear from our sky during the day?" One would simply answer, because the Earth is rotating on it's axis which creates daytime and nighttime. This is the type of "why" question Science can answer in today's scientific knowledge. On the other hand, if one was to ask, "Why do we have daytime and nighttime on Earth?" This is where Science cannot answer, and can either only trial and error until it answers the question properly, or it can just explain, "because it does". Then it begs the question, "Who started daytime and nighttime on Earth, to answer the question of why?" Therefore, Science can answer the "why" inside it's knowledge, but not outside of it. However, Science has proved it can answer the main "why" and "who" questions gradually and somewhat controversially, contradicting faith of strong religions. Therefore I find Science needs patience in order to find an answer, and the way round it, is not to expect an answer to questions we face now, but to patiently contribute and accept that our future ancestors may know the answer before us.

In answer to your point about "..applying finite space to infinity, or time with eternity." I have to say that without one, we cannot know what it's opposite means. For example, if we do not know what infinity means, but you know what finity means, then you can only know from learning about things which could apply to infinity. Which means in order to find a true answer to whether Space is finite or infinite, we have to look at both possibilities in order to not miss something which could lead to an ultimate answer, regardless of Earth and human time that we have created and abide by.

I see Science, truth and our life-reflective curiosity as a jacket that is unzipped. We all wear different jackets, due to our diverse interests. Some people couldn't care about if there are other dimensions to life, so their jacket is done up very quickly, but then there are others of us who want to know about the unknown, making our jackets a whole lot bigger. The more Science finds a true answer to what originally seemed an unanswerable question, the jacket zips up, and completes part of the gradual journey science is made for, to chase true answers to curious questions or challenges we propose, whether involving everyday life, an afterlife, a parallel life or any other possible different dimensions which occur from the human mind. Therefore once our jackets are zipped right up, we continue in our course of paradoxical Earth days of eat, drink, and sleep to keep us alive until our dying day. Some of us need to wait longer for our jackets to be zipped up, and the obvious need to abide by our materiality in everyday life at the same time as zipping up our jacket.

I look forward to your response as always,


Richard Debnam

Tags: conversation why science time space dark matter patience truth

A New Hope?

This is the end of my journey through philosophy, courtesy of Facebook. There are no more posts to transfer across. My plan is to make one last post on Facebook, which refers anyone interested to this blog.

Although the journey through Facebook is ended, the philosophical quest, itself, goes on. The point at which I stopped was as far as I have gone and, I believe, as far as anyone has gone. Richard is still to reply to that all defining post and it may be that that will be the next event. I will ask him. Beyond that I think I need to take stock of what has been said and what is missing. After all, I began in an orderly fashion but long since lost the well prepared script! In the year I was born, Gilbert Ryle wrote his seminal book "The Concept of Mind" and I am ever conscious that I have, until now, made no reference to him. He represents one end of the spectrum of argument, being a hard line materialist. Descartes represents the other end, as a dualist and many fall in between the two.

The academic in me wants to define each contributor carefully. If I do that then I will, in all probability, contribute nothing new to the debate, except a magnificent work of reference! So, without too much delay, I will press on to the edge of the goldfish bowl...

Peter Rayner

Tags: hope Facebook quest Gilbert Ryle The Concept of Mind materialist Descartes dualist goldfish bowl

An Afterlife? - Wave If You're There

Another one of my diversions. This one concerns some brief postings by Kim. You can read the full text here. Kim speculates about the idea that the Spirit uses waves to communicate. I picked up on her concern that there would need to be "a translating medium" and replied to her because this seemed so reminiscent of Descartes. It provides a summary of what Descartes thought and also what the central issues are in the philosophy of mind.

Kim's posts were made on 18 Jul 2008 at 08:36 and 08:43am. My post was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:13 pm:

Hi Kim. I am not surprised that you are struggling with your ideas but at least you can console yourself with the knowledge that you are in the greatest of company. I would like to pass on a few observations of your post in the hope of advancing your ideas which I do find intriguing. You may or may not be aware that you have expressed ideas which are very similar to those of the great philosopher, Rene Descartes, who also struggled with the same material.

Descartes, like you, argued that there is an essential self which is not material and which inhabits our bodies. Matter does not have this self awareness but it does have attributes and so can do things. This is not the same as having life. He believed that the self has no attributes, no physical characteristics because its essential quality is its own existence. To be alive is to able to say "I am me" and we can never say "I am you" even if you and I share similar qualities. We can never be another person. In contrast physical matter is defined by its attributes and abilities. Essentially, he described a "ghost in the machine".

Also, like you, Descartes believed that there had to be some kind of interface which allowed the mind and body to relate to each other and rather oddly he believed that this was located in the pineal gland. Although that is obviously not the case, it is intriguing that you share his worry!

I suppose the central issue is whether selfhood is really a physical thing all along and consciousness and self identity is just a manifestation, an illusion, if you will, which can wholly be explained by physical processes or whether ultimately it is not possible to provide an adequate explanation of life by re-arranging matter to form being. The scientific approach provides a very powerful case for matter being the answer to everything. Set against that is the fact that things we associate with being, such as the ability to have free choice and intentions do not easily fit into an entirely physical universe. How can the strict rules of matter allow us to make decisions? Would that not cash out as no more than a string of inevitable occurences entirely governed by the detailed actions and reactions of material processes? Also, how can matter, alone, account for why as well as how the universe came to be?

Just a few observations which I offer in the hopes of clarifying your thinking and encouraging further ideas. Good luck!

Peter Rayner

Kim replied that our brains are, in some respects, like computers and went off to do some thinking. I referred her to our series of posts, now re-produced in this blog.

Kim's post was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:28 pm. My reply was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:33 pm:

Hi Kim. You might like to look back over my discussions with Richard in which we discuss intentionality and how computers think with particular reference to John Searle's chinese room illustration.

Peter Rayner

Tags: afterlife Spirit translating medium Descartes philosophy of mind existence matter attributes self ghost in the machine pineal gland computers thinking

An Afterlife? - It's Science Jim But Not As We Know It

In this post I look at what science has to offer and where it falls down. I suggest that science is good at analyzing the known universe but fails when we ask it to explain anything beyond that. Our understanding of time and space suggest that they are paradoxes which we can't live with, scientifically, but can't live without, either. This suggests that we need to find something very big which is currently missing from our understanding. It would have to be non material to avoid an impasse. In order to identify it we may have to ask "why" rather than "how".

My post was made on 14 Jul 2008 at 04:25 pm:

Hi Richard. This is really getting tricky now so I think we need to just backtrack a little. You will be relieved to know that I do not believe there is an alternate universe out there inhabited by some geyser called God, although we could have a different conversation about string theory but not now, please, not now. I think we are both agreed that we have quite enough on our hands trying to make sense of the one world we do know. In trying to make sense of it we have identified what most people feel happy to call "matter" and we believe that matter behaves in predictable ways which we can discover by applying techniques which we call science. I have no problem with that. However, these intrepid scientists often claim that everything can be explained by science. I have a couple of problems with that.

Firstly, science is about process, by which I mean it attempts to make sense of matter, starting from how we find it behaves in our current environment. It projects forward and backwards but it never goes completely beyond that spectrum. The furthest back it goes is to around the Big Bang or thereabouts. In formulating its theories it posits various explanations which it then tests out with experiments. Eventually, these experiments hit upon problems which cannot be explained by the theories it is trying to prove and so another scientist has to posit a different theory which, therefore, requires a further set of experiments. This so called scientific revolution proceeds by a process of trial and error, with the ultimate aim of one day understanding everything there is to know about how matter works.

Therefore, at any one time, current scientific understanding is about to be superceded by the latest scientific revolution. In other words science is, by definition, always wrong. It is, simply, a part of the process of understanding matter and very imperfect at it. Only a few years ago our fearless scientists discovered a form of matter which it called "dark matter" and subsequent investigations revealed that it accounts for about 85% of the matter in the universe. Moreover, virtually nothing is known about it. Now, our understanding of matter is very limited and our understanding of dark matter even more limited so we can hardly look to science to give us anything approaching knowledge which will, in the foreseeable future, be adequate enough to explain even what is going on in the material universe, let alone anything further than that. Yet the scientists confidently tell us matter will explain everything!

But there is a further problem. As long as science confines itself to the process side of science, all is well. What happens when we try to take that process to its ultimate? We all rely on 2 very important concepts in our understanding of matter and they are "time" and "space". I have tried to think scientifically without applying these concepts but I can't. Even using Einstein's theory of relativity there does seem to me to be a fundamental problem. Both these ideas are about measurement, finite measurement. If we can measure time and space then we can, logically, project this measurement into infinity. Travel, if you will, beyond the edge of the universe. Project time back before the beginning of time. At this point both ideas become paradoxes. It does not make sense to juxtapose finite space with infinity or time with eternity.

I draw 2 conclusions from this. The first is that the current scientific language is fundamentally inadequate. It not only does not but cannot explain what it sets out to explain. Secondly, there is something missing which is so huge that it blows an almighty hole in our understanding of everything.

Arguing from ignorance is not something any of us like to do, but I think it is the position we are in. So, how far can we go? Well, my answer is that there must be something radically different which explains what is going on, not more of the same. An alternate universe inhabited by God would not cut it. That would be just another material universe and would, therefore, re-create the infinite regress we already have encountered. So, we are looking for something non material, in order to escape the problems of materialism.

We are, of course, surrounded by things which are non material, but we are also surrounded by people who want to make out that they are, in fact, material. As long as we base our thinking on the material, the logical impasse will persist.

As you say, some very different issues arise when we replace the "how" of science with, for example, "why" and it may be that we have to answer these non scientific questions in order to have a context for the mere process of science.

Peter Rayner

Tags: afterlife science God string theory process spectrum Big Bang scientific revolution matter dark matter time space paradox infinite regress why

An Afterlife? - Legoland or Never Never Land

Picking up on Richard's idea of a spectrum, I look at the problems of trying to fit everything into a single unity and the alternative, which is to invoke another realm to deal with what does not make sense in this realm.

My post was made on 07 Jul 2008 at 08:39 pm:

Hi Richard. You talk about a spectrum with materialism at one end and experience at the other. I like the idea that everything is ultimately hooked up and forms a complete system but I'm not sure that the evidence is compelling. It is, of course, the view which dominated philosophy 100 years or so ago known as Post Kantian Hegelian Idealism or just Idealism for short. The idea was that everything was a part of the Absolute and it did seem to solve a lot of problems at the time, not that I was around then, I hastily add. It also created some problems as in the case of the theologian who was accused of denying the divinity of Jesus. His reply was "I have never denied the divinity of any man!" In an age in which we think materially and mathematically it is easy to believe that all matter originates from one atom which explodes and starts a huge reaction and results in the cosmos. I suppose you could argue that seemingly non material entities were, in fact, made of the same atoms but they are so arranged as to look different. I dare say the makers of Lego would be overjoyed to think that we live in a Lego universe in which you can make anything from a box of building bricks. However, I don't buy it. This is more process stuff and I think the logic of it is that everything is made of matter, but some things just don't look as if they are. It is naive materialism in disguise. What I am trying to assert is that process is what matter does and understanding is what process and matter can't do. Therefore - and it's the biggest therefore in philosophy - matter is not the only thing to exist. Moreover, matter does not explain a lot of things with which we are familiar. In particular, it does not explain the grand scheme of things. As long as matter goes on recycling itself, all is well. However, the issue of beginnings and endings does not make sense in a world of matter alone.

The whole idea of something "other than" or just different provides, I think, a more attractive solution to these weighty philosophical problems. It takes us into the same logical territory as religion has been in throughout history. The basic idea of God is that he is "other than" and has to cross over or transcend into our world in order to communicate with us. Now, I would not go so far as to argue for the existence of God as an entity. I do think that is a bridge too far. But I do think there is a realm unreachable and unfathomable, and part of my thinking is directed by the nature of our own world and our own experiences.

In itself the non material is not that difficult to get your head around. We can all understand, for example, the concept of language. It is very evident and clearly, in essence, non material, although we communicate it through material channels. The problem, I think, that arises, is that we think about things as having existence and that is a more perplexing word. We use the word existence in just about every conceivable way. Matter exists. Ideas exist. But what is existence?

Well, I don't know how much sense you will make of this but I'm going to pause now to get your response.

Peter Rayner

Richard's response is uncompromising in its rejection of any kind of other world explanation although he accepts that such a thing cannot be disproved. He does, however, turn the issue from "how" to "why".

Richard's post was made on 14 Jul 2008 at 09:41 am:

Hi Peter, I find myself having to think twice before I post this just to make sure I've taken in everything, and I appreciate you informing me about what my thoughts were, as I haven't learnt or read much of the post-Kant era of Philosophy. Without going off in a tangent, I find myself in a position at the moment where I am going to respectively disagree with you about your point involving "other than" and "God".

I think for the universe to work properly, if there is a "God", then I do think if this God is untouchable and in a transcendent universe to our own, then anything from our universe should be able to transcend into the other world beyond what we know. As Albert Einstein said, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

However, if the transcendent beings including God and spirits of the dead (I won't argue for the dead people's existence), are in another universe, and people in our material world do come across them, then what is to say our worlds aren't as far apart as we think? Another thought that crops up is that if this does happen, would we actually know if we were in a different world to our own? Because when we dream whilst asleep, we are in a different dimension to what anyone else can experience this could be linked to another world apart from our main conscious material world, and I thought that the human mind and the unconscious part of the brain could be the key to unravelling the mystery involving other worldly type experiences people have.

As well as these thoughts though, I do have doubts about whether one can actively appear in God's world [if it does exist], without having to morbidly and reluctantly sacrifice life in the world we know. Which from my perspective, it's a sacrifice I would never be willing to make whilst I am me!

Descartes touches on the topic of existence, famously saying "I am I think I am, therefore I am" which I think is the best possible answer anyone can come up with without some form of Godly entity confirming and explaining to everyone what existence actually is. Which is obviously a very highly unlikely occurence.

In some form of conclusion, to wrap up my post, and in order to pause to await your response, I am reluctant to agree with an existence of another world, but at the same time I don't want to pass it off either, as it could be a possibility as much as it doesn't exist. However, existence I think is exactly what it is, how, who, when and what we know. Without existence there is nothing, and the more science evolves, the more I think existence is less doubtful. The question I would ask is why do we exist?.. I think we find we've gone around in a circle in our thoughts. lol

Richard Debnam

Tags: afterlife spectrum materialism experience Idealism divinity atoms process religion God transcend existence ideas other than why

An Afterlife? - Doing and Understanding

As we approach the interface between material and non material I try to pin down the difference between a computer processing and a human understanding. You can read the original here.

My post was made on 06 Jul 2008 at 06:20 am:

Hi Richard. I have let your post "sink in" to my brain because I think we are close to the critical issues and I don't want to spoil it with rashness.

I believe the question posed by the Chinese room is about the difference between doing and understanding at the first level, of which there are several. The point is that however well the computer runs the Chinese language program, it will never understand it. All it can do is process. Now, if you analyse this process you will find that the computer uses various software and hardware devices to achieve its objective. Similarly, if you analyse the human you will identify various brain processes, chemical processes and physical processes which also achieve the same end. So are they identical? Both are capable of processing. However, the computer can only process, the human has something more to offer.

So far, so good. Now it gets tricky.We know that the human has "understanding" of the process but it is not clear what this means. Certainly, you won't find understanding by dissecting the brain. So, we seem to be moving toward a description which is non material. You cannot locate an understanding. You cannot build one or buy one in the shops. So can you understand something without having a body to understand it in? Now there's a question!

I was going to say a lot more but reading my post thus far I think I should pause for some reaction to that point. I can't wait!

Peter Rayner

Richard's response is to agree with much of my post. However, he suggests that understanding is one end of a spectrum with materialism at the other.

Richard's post was made on 06 Jul 2008 at 03:21 pm:

Hi Peter, I'll get stuck in straight away and say that I believe we are in agreement from your first paragragh. However, I'd like to add something if I may. I think the difference between when a computer processes, and when a human processes, on average, the computer is more reliable. A human is susceptible to errors of calculations, and a human's memory can also be brought in doubt sometimes. I think a computer is like paper people used to process calculations on before computers existed, except with the growth of technology, humans have brought in a new tool to speed the processing up, by making it process itself, after a human has ordered it to do so.

Peter, I have to say I like your third paragragh, it brought a smile to my face because we both know it is true, it cannot be rejected, and causes it to be more tricky. However, I do have a response. I think that although understanding isn't a physical attribute, it is on the other end of the spectrum from materialism, and that would be experience. From the day we were born, we can naturally tell if someone understands us. Before we can talk, we cry until we know our parents understand us so they know what we want. Everyday as we grow older our understanding grows as we learn, which is why it is dependent on experiences, something computers do not have as it does not have a mind of it's own. Understanding is what makes human languages work, which involves everything. Without it, everyone would be confused.

In response to your question, until the day computers can interact with humans from their own approach, without human command, with something different from what it is programmed to do, then from my experiences so far, I can safely say I've not come across anything that understands without having a body to understand it in.

I've just looked back and realised how much I've said, which I grossly underestimated! I look forward, as ever, to the continuity of this discussion.

Richard Debnam

Tags: afterlife Chinese Room doing understanding computer process experience language spectrum