tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85386186077729920082024-03-14T07:45:18.436+00:00I am a cosmic goldfishTime and Space are paradoxes. They cannot be both finite and infinite.PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-58652220831582736872008-10-07T10:50:00.004+01:002008-10-07T11:20:57.316+01:00Conversation With Richard - Does Matter Equal Existence?Here is Richard's reply to my piece on the Big Bang experiments:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi there Peter,</span><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">I have finally found time amidst the hustle and bustle of this busy time of year to reply to your message. Firstly, your first paragraph, it brings me to draw up the question, 'If matter behaves predictably, then why do surprises exist?.. Does this mean it happens outside of our knowledge, or does it happen through another means in something science will never find?' If either is the case, then the scientists are trying to find the answers in the wrong areas, which I suppose agrees with the points you were making towards the end of your message.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">I heard about the Large Hadron Collider and was following the news of it's results very closely, until I heard it may not be fired up again for months maybe. How dissappointing. I hope they find some answers when it is next fired up, or maybe the leak it had wasn't an accident, maybe we aren't meant to find any answers to matter and the dark matter yet. I do however hope we do find answers that will build knowledge.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: georgia; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">I have another point in difference to your point involving matter. I read that you thought "matter=existence". However, I tend not to agree with this, and take the road of a dualist. From my experience of life, life isn't just about substance, you have to experience it subjectively too. So in short, the mind is just as important as materialism, and together they both equal existence.<br /><br />I guess in relation to dark matter a million different responses on what it is could make sense. However if it makes up 70% of the universe's energy, surely it could be said that it could be controlling what happens as we know it without realising? If this is the case, life is a constant struggle, and we will never be in control.<br /><br /><br />I shall leave my response here, and look forward to your response as always,<br /></div><br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">Richard Debnam</span><br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/conversation" rel="tag">conversation</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Big+Bang" rel="tag">Big Bang</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/matter" rel="tag">matter</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/existence" rel="tag">existence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/predictable" rel="tag">predictable</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/science" rel="tag">science</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Large+Hadron+Collider" rel="tag">Large Hadron Collider</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/dualist" rel="tag">dualist</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/control" rel="tag">control</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/dark+matter" rel="tag">dark matter</a>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-19244869183040986372008-09-07T15:39:00.005+01:002008-09-07T19:48:22.256+01:00Conversation With Richard - Big Bang Or Big Whimper?<div style="text-align: justify;">Hi Richard<br /><br />I hope you got my email with a piece from Reuters on Dark Matter. I cannot reproduce it here because of copyright restrictions. Nor can I provide a reference to it because pieces by Reuters' journalists only survive a few days and are then removed as yesterday's news. I do find journalists are exceptionally good at reporting on this particular subject and I recommend Reuters as a source of news for anyone. I have it fed to my email box several times a day, all for free.<br /><br />Dark Matter and things to do with the Big Bang are very much in the news this week, in any case, with the switching on of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN on Wednesday. and to celebrate Radio 4 is having a Big Bang Day. This, at least, means that a lot more people are better informed about the state of our scientific knowledge at the present time. I am, therefore, going to take the opportunity to review what I think the state of play is at the present time.<br /><br />Science, in its various forms, begins from the proposition that the cosmos is made out of <span style="font-style: italic;">substance</span> which, nowadays, is commonly referred to as <span style="font-style: italic;">matter</span>. By very careful observation and experimentation it has been established that matter behaves in quite specific ways, never randomly or unpredictably. The job of all scientists is to detail exactly how this process operates. In order to do this the scientific community put forward various theories to explain a particular part of the story of matter and then set about testing their theory to see how robust it really is. If they find there are problems with a particular theory they will refine it or replace it with a better one. Their belief is that, even though scientific knowledge is changing, it is always moving forward as each new theory is improved upon. The totality of knowledge about matter is growing.<br /><br />There are, of course, many gaps in the scientist's knowledge. The discovery of <span style="font-style: italic;">Dark Matter</span> is a very good example. Not many years ago the scientific community came to the conclusion that there was another form of matter, as yet unrecognised. This version of matter was invisible and could only be discerned by its gravitational effect, hence the name Dark Matter. It is believed to account for something around 80% of the matter in the universe. Incredibly, we know very little about either it, or it's associated <span style="font-style: italic;">Dark Energy</span>. I have dug out a Reuters piece from 07 Sep 2006, just 2 years ago, reporting on the CERN LHC. The quotes are from Brian Cox of Manchester University:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">"</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">We don't know what 95 percent of the universe is made of - which is a bit embarrassing for a subject that claims to be fundamental... There is Dark Matter. It is all over the place but we have no idea what it is."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">"There is also something called Dark Energy, and that is an even bigger question. It makes up about 70 percent of the energy in the universe but again we have absolutely no idea what it is."</span><br /><br /></span>Now, if that were the end of the story, we could leave the scientists to get on with their quest and wish them good luck. However, in spite of their self-declared ignorance, they<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>claim that what they are doing is the answer to all knowledge, that there is nothing else in the universe except matter or matter like derivatives and that their quest is, in fact, a theory of everything.<br /><br />Most people understand conventional physics, put crudely how things we can see work. They can extrapolate from that some idea of how the totality of the universe might work in a similar way. However, alongside all of that there has been developing what is called particle physics, which is the science of the small, very, very small. Although sub atomic physics has been around for about a century it is still a huge puzzle to scientists. Initially, it was believed that there were only a few bits inside the atom. Indeed, the very word atom means an indivisible unit. I think the present count is something like 8 but don't quote me - they may have found some more by the time you read this! The frustrating thing is that as well as finding particle physics just gets more and more complicated, there is a serious problem about linking it in with conventional physics. Unfortunately, the maths just does not add up. Here we go again, I hear you say. So, we have hypothetical Dark Matter and hypothetical particle matter and the only way to make sense of the 2 is to posit another missing bit, known as the Higgs boson particle. The problem is about making sense of mass and the Higgs boson would endow the necessary mass. The trouble is, so far, no one has been able to isolate it. Enter LHC. The prize which the scientific community is hoping to win, as I say, is a theory of everything. They wish to join together the science of the large with the science of the small. LHC will examine the basic structure of the universe and, hopefully, explain how the Big Bang happened and what happened then and then, and then.<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br /><br /></span>I wonder what fate lies in store for my now quite famous quip about astro physics:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"In the beginning was nothing - and then it exploded!"</span></span><br /><br />There are 2 ways of looking at this. The scientific way is to say that matter is all we have and it <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">has</span> to explain everything. If we get bits of it wrong, so what. The quest goes on. All that proves is that we are struggling. The project is still worth while. Crucially, everything is made out of particles.<br /><br />The other way is to say, yes, understanding matter is worth while but where is the evidence that there is nothing more to it than that? We think in material terms most of the time. Matter=facts. Matter=existence. Matter=real. I am not sure that we can even think of existence without thinking matter. And this is becoming so invasive now that even the likes of feelings are considered to be materially produced. And what of God? I wonder how many people today believe that man created God in his own image and not the other way round. But even so the idea is very material like. God does seem very much like a Dark Person.<br /><br />We have some knowledge of substance and how it works, but this is very limited. We are getting close to being able to make scientific comments on the moment the Big Bang occurred. Where does this take us? In my view, not very far at all. Science, at the moment, has its hands full trying to understand the process tracing back to the Big Bang. But there must have been something there waiting to go Bang. Where did it come from? And if that traces back to another Bang, or a thousand Bangs... What if the universe is one of many contained within many... where does that leave us?<br /><br />The answer, I would suggest, is the same as it has always been. Science is not erroding philosophy because science cannot answer philosophical questions. It can only answer scientific questions. The details will change but that fact will not. How do I know this? Because science, patently, is dealing with process - how things work - not where they came from. Follow every scientific process to its logical conclusion and you will find yourself in an infinite regress. Science is not an explanation - it is a method. To be honest, it amazes me that so many people have trouble with this concept. Perhaps my mind is more logical than most. The difference between how matter works and where it came from seem so obviously different to me. Let's try approaching it scientifically. Imagine we have a little package, pre-universe, which is about to explode, and bear in mind, this actually happened, how did it come to be there, just waiting to explode? Let's suppose you say to me "It grew, by a scientific process". We then go through the same process again and we get back to the package that grew into the one that eventually exploded. How did that come to be there?<br /><br />That is an infinite regress and it is why science cannot explain everything.<br /><br />I will leave for another time what can explain everything and, indeed, the other points made in your reply. I think we have plenty to consider already!<br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/conversation" rel="tag">conversation</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Big+Bang" rel="tag">Big Bang</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Reuters" rel="tag">Reuters</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Dark+Matter" rel="tag">Dark Matter</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Large+Hadron+Collider" rel="tag">Large Hadron Collider</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/CERN" rel="tag">CERN</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/scientific+knowledge" rel="tag">scientific knowledge</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Dark+Energy" rel="tag">Dark Energy</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/theory+of+everything" rel="tag">theory of everything</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Higgs+boson" rel="tag">Higgs boson</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/particles" rel="tag">particles</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/existence" rel="tag">existence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/God" rel="tag">God</a><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-59971592228611313162008-08-30T11:54:00.003+01:002008-08-30T12:28:37.741+01:00Conversation With Richard - Why? Why? Why?<div style="text-align: justify;">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.<br /><br />On the problem of time and space he points out that everything has an opposite.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Peter, </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I've just jogged my memory into the flow of where our discussion was going, and I feel back on track again. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I look forward to your response as always,</span><br /><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/conversation" rel="tag">conversation</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/why" rel="tag">why</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/science" rel="tag">science</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/time" rel="tag">time</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/space" rel="tag">space</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/dark+matter" rel="tag">dark matter</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/patience" rel="tag">patience</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/truth" rel="tag">truth</a><br /><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-19182840522987020022008-08-24T16:36:00.004+01:002008-08-24T17:39:54.730+01:00A New Hope?<div style="text-align: justify;">This is the end of my journey through philosophy, courtesy of <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1206684793#/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=120&hash=7c2eb4710341fa409af5f8dd8722d243">Facebook</a>. 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...<br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/hope" rel="tag">hope</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Facebook" rel="tag">Facebook</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/quest" rel="tag">quest</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Gilbert+Ryle" rel="tag">Gilbert Ryle</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/The+Concept+of+Mind" rel="tag">The Concept of Mind</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/materialist" rel="tag">materialist</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Descartes" rel="tag">Descartes</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/dualist" rel="tag">dualist</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/goldfish+bowl" rel="tag">goldfish bowl</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-76504092100875794232008-08-24T15:57:00.003+01:002008-08-24T16:31:30.631+01:00An Afterlife? - Wave If You're There<div style="text-align: justify;">Another one of my diversions. This one concerns some brief postings by Kim. You can read the full text <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1206684793#/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=90&hash=c0adfb616da214871cf75cd812145038">here</a>. 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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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".</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Just a few observations which I offer in the hopes of clarifying your thinking and encouraging further ideas. Good luck!</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Spirit" rel="tag">Spirit</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/translating+medium" rel="tag">translating medium</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Descartes" rel="tag">Descartes</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/philosophy+of+mind" rel="tag">philosophy of mind</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/existence" rel="tag">existence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/matter" rel="tag">matter</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/attributes" rel="tag">attributes</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/self" rel="tag">self</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/ghost+in+the+machine" rel="tag">ghost in the machine</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/pineal+gland" rel="tag">pineal gland</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/computers" rel="tag">computers</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/thinking" rel="tag">thinking</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-10411461109075693232008-08-24T11:22:00.004+01:002008-08-24T15:51:40.345+01:00An Afterlife? - It's Science Jim But Not As We Know It<div style="text-align: justify;">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".<br /><br />My post was made on 14 Jul 2008 at 04:25 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/science" rel="tag">science</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/God" rel="tag">God</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/string+theory" rel="tag">string theory</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/spectrum" rel="tag">spectrum</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Big+Bang" rel="tag">Big Bang</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/scientific+revolution" rel="tag">scientific revolution</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/matter" rel="tag">matter</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/dark+matter" rel="tag">dark matter</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/time" rel="tag">time</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/space" rel="tag">space</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/paradox" rel="tag">paradox</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/infinite+regress" rel="tag">infinite regress</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/why" rel="tag">why</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-41464910508648050962008-08-24T10:46:00.004+01:002008-08-24T11:18:46.769+01:00An Afterlife? - Legoland or Never Never Land<div style="text-align: justify;">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.<br /><br />My post was made on 07 Jul 2008 at 08:39 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Well, I don't know how much sense you will make of this but I'm going to pause now to get your response.</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />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".<br /><br />Richard's post was made on 14 Jul 2008 at 09:41 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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".</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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</span><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/spectrum" rel="tag">spectrum</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/materialism" rel="tag">materialism</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/experience" rel="tag">experience</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Idealism" rel="tag">Idealism</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/divinity" rel="tag">divinity</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/atoms" rel="tag">atoms</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/religion" rel="tag">religion</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/God" rel="tag">God</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/transcend" rel="tag">transcend</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/existence" rel="tag">existence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/ideas" rel="tag">ideas</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/other+than" rel="tag">other than</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/why" rel="tag">why</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-44346100522371012662008-08-24T10:11:00.004+01:002008-08-24T10:42:30.919+01:00An Afterlife? - Doing and Understanding<div style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1206684793#/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=90&hash=c0adfb616da214871cf75cd812145038">here</a>.<br /><br />My post was made on 06 Jul 2008 at 06:20 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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!</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Richard's post was made on 06 Jul 2008 at 03:21 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >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.</span><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Chinese+Room" rel="tag">Chinese Room</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/doing" rel="tag">doing</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/understanding" rel="tag">understanding</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/computer" rel="tag">computer</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/experience" rel="tag">experience</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/language" rel="tag">language</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/spectrum" rel="tag">spectrum</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-10838714537541199782008-08-23T18:08:00.005+01:002008-08-24T09:58:41.390+01:00An Afterlife? - The Chinese Room<div style="text-align: justify;">This post consists of a detailed description of the analogy of the Chinese Room by Prof John Searle. It concerns the difference between a computer thinking and human intentions. It then describes Searle's wider orientation as a member of the group of philosophers who argued the case known as The Identity Hypothesis.<br /><br />My post was made on 29 Jun 2008 at 09:30 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Richard, sorry to be a while replying - life got a bit busy.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I'm not sure whether we are both referring to the same Chinese room analogy. I think we probably are, but, for the sake of clarity I'll go through the whole story. The scenario was invented by Prof John Searle who was a trendy philospher in my student days. Alas, he is now 75 and no longer on the "A" list. Perhaps he should have a word with Pete Townsend to see how to become an everlasting hero! Anyway, to quote from his wikipedia entry (to save me explaining it myself):</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >"Searle asks his audience to imagine that many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. The computer takes Chinese characters as input and, following a program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose that this computer performs this task so convincingly that it easily passes the Turing test. In other words, it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All the questions the human asks are responded to appropriately, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human. The conclusion that proponents of artificial intelligence would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Now, Searle asks the audience to suppose that he is in a room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a book containing an English version of the computer program, and processes the Chinese characters according to the instructions in the book. Searle notes that he does not understand a word of Chinese. He simply manipulates what to him are meaningless squiggles, using the book and whatever other equipment is provided in the room, such as paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. After manipulating the symbols, Searle will produce the answer in Chinese. Since the computer passed the Turing test, so does Searle running its program by hand: "Nobody just looking at my answers can tell that I don't speak a word of Chinese," Searle writes.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Searle argues that his lack of understanding goes to show that computers do not understand Chinese either, because they are in the same situation as he is. They are mindless manipulators of symbols, just as he is. They don't understand what they're "saying", just as he doesn't. Since they do not have conscious mental states like "understanding", they can not properly be said to have minds."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Searle was interested in the idea of intentionality and, indeed, wrote a book called "Intentionality". As you can see he is saying that it is one thing to look at process and quite another to to look at understanding and intentions. No matter how sophisicated the science, can it ever be more than process? In my view the answer has to be "No". I think the point here is that science is invented by people to understand the processes of the real world. But it in no way explains anything beyond "How?"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I have noticed that many of the writers in this forum seem to think that science and matter are one and the same. If we accept that matter is a reality, that still leaves open the question of what science is and how accurate it is. I would suggest that science can never be more than a set of constructs attempting to explain a process. Moreover, it does not really require us to exclude other languages which explain other phenomena. For example, poetry, art, love, human experiences all have well developed means of communication. If they are just processes, like the chinese characters, then what is the point of them?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I suppose the obvious question which this line of thinking poses is "What is the point of science?"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Just to head off those out and out materialists who lurk around this forum, Searle is one of a group of philosophers, myself included, who believe what has come to be known as "The Identity Hypothesis". The idea is that once a line of thinking has developed into a permanent body it cannot be pushed back into its former identity. So, if you try to explain a crackling fire in scientific terms then you lose the point of it in a poem. Another like-minded philosopher called it the Humpty Dumpty Argument because once Humpty was broken into thousands of pieces "...not all the King's horses, nor all the King's men, could put Humpty together again."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >So the science of material reality is just one of many ways of explaining the world around us and the experiences we have. No one language is sufficient.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >All that without even considering the implications of consciousness as "non scientific" but still very real. I think I had better pause there to get some reactions.</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Richard's response is to distinguish between "objective essence" and "formal essence" which seems to be another way of describing the difference between computer and human thinking.<br /><br />He also considers meaning and science as things that happen in life which need to be explained.<br /><br />Richard's post was made on 29 Jun 2008 at 06:21 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Peter, reading all of the last post I can safely say we're thinking of the same one. I have a few questions and answers of my own in response to it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I still think that regardless of whether the person in the Chinese room understands Chinese or not, he can still relate to a human language that he can speak, this gives the Chinese language some form of meaning, instead of meaningless "squiggles". This contrasts with the case involving computers, as they are merely regurgitating what humans have programmed them to do. Computers can know grammar, spelling and dictionary meanings of words, but they have no mind or instinct to actually relate to how a language works in everyday life, slang words for example would seem like nonsense to computers, but some people abide by it by talking their own way. The best way to describe this in philosophical terms is that computers hold the "objective essence", knowing the idea of a language, but never have the "formal essence" of the language, which is what the language actually is.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I also find that scientific definitions and poetry can work together, because if you read a poem and you come across the word "fire", and you didn't understand what it was, and never experienced fire, then you would only look up its meaning in a dictionary or ask someone to find out it's meaning. Therefore, you have to have a sound understanding about what the poem's words mean to understand the point of the poem, which without scientific definitions or a working understanding of "fire", then it would just seem like a crazy random rambling that someone decided to put together.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Another response I have is that one concept we have to grasp in order to understand science, is to know things can happen above anyone's understanding. An example that comes to mind are radio waves that we send out to space. Law of gravity says on Earth "what goes up must come down", however we have sent radio signals into space for a long time, and the radio waves never bounce back to Earth, they continue to run deeper into space, this contradicts the law of gravity. If we didn't know what radio waves were and went out into space, received an alien signal and it turned out to be british world war II songs for example, it would be very hard and quite baffling to work out how it got into space without knowing that radio waves defy the law of gravity.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >This continues onto my conclusion of what the point of science is, well.. It's a way of understanding what happens, and it is everyday life, without science unexplained things would be happening every second of the day, and people would react differently to how these random acts occur. It is from these reactions of the people that poetry lies, meaning "what happens+understanding of meaning=reaction" and equally, "what happens+reaction=understanding of meaning" However much this is juggled about it still all remains balanced and equal, you can't have one without the other.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Science and reactions are part of what happens in life, they just happen naturally, sometimes without a meaning, and most certainly without responsibility sometimes. I see science and reactions as a spectrum, at opposite ends they work together to form what we do, and how we live our lives... I apologise if this is too long-winded, but I look forward to seeing your response to mine all the same.</span><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br />My reply is self-explanatory. It was made on 30 Jun 2008 at 06:34 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: georgia; font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Richard you never cease to amaze me. None of this is what I expected and yet I can't dismiss it even though it is not standard philosophical response to the points I have made. Once again I find myself needing to think before replying to you. Long may it continue. I will think awhile before replying. Stay right there, buddy.</span></span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Richard's reply is also self-explanatory. It was made on 30 Jun 2008 at 11:50 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Peter, yeh.. I found that I tend not to agree with the standard philosophical responses I read and come across, instead I try to think up what my mind tells me is right and I come up with alternate ones that are "outside the box" so to speak. No worries mate, patience is a virtue so they say. In the mean time, I have decided to add you as a friend, because I haven't come across a discussion as interesting as ours for a while.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Speak to you soon.</span><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Chinese+Room" rel="tag">Chinese Room</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/John+Searle" rel="tag">John Searle</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Identity%20Hypothesis" rel="tag">Identity Hypothesis</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/computer" rel="tag">computer</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/artificial+intelligence" rel="tag">artificial intelligence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/intentionality" rel="tag">intentionality</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/science" rel="tag">science</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/objective+essence" rel="tag">objective essence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/formal+essence" rel="tag">formal essence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/meaning" rel="tag">meaning</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-54140658701853676292008-08-23T14:11:00.005+01:002008-08-23T16:26:08.759+01:00An Afterlife? - Science Has All The Answers<div style="text-align: justify;">Another of my diversions follows, this time involving 2 other correspondents and so, once again, I am in the position of having to summarise their part of the debate. You can, however, read the exchange in full in its original <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1206684793#/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=60&hash=2bfcf2af553c29da00aa97a085af4b21">location</a>.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Gareth joined the discussion by pointing out that there are lots of things we don't know but that would just produce a long and imaginative list of unlikely items. Just as there is unlikely to be an invisible lizard living on his shoulder, so he can dismiss ideas of God, the soul, an afterlife and other anti-scientific ideas. He called this rationalism.<br /><br />Gareth's post was made on 18 Jun 2008 at 02:38 pm. My reply was made on 18 Jun 2008 at 04:27 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Gareth. It always amuses me to find someone who dismisses an invisible lizard with a leap of faith, but thinks he's a rationalist, because it is rational to hold that the entire universe was caused by an exploding dot which is so powerful that it gives mankind the ability to make free decisions and have intentions. And as for logic I wonder if you have ever heard of either inductive or deductive logic or pondered what happens when cause and effect in science trace backwards into an infinite regression. Oh, and by the way, Gareth, that's not a lizard on your shoulder - it's a chicken - or is it an egg?</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Gareth made a spirited reply by stating that he believed in science because it is supported by data and that the whole point of science is to explain everything. Otherwise we are at the mercy of superstition and dogma.<br /><br />Gareth's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 12:57 am.<br /><br />Tim replied to Gareth with a moral argument for life after death. He suggests that if people just die then it's "not fair". He suggests a moral force which makes some things true and others false and if there is no such force then he asks what it means to say something is true.<br /><br />Tim's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 01:37 am.<br /><br />Gareth replied to this somewhat oddly claiming, on the one hand, that there is nothing outside the structure which we impose and, on the other, that we are bound by data.<br /><br />Gareth's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 03:08 am.<br /><br />Tim came back with the claim that the universe has its own moral structure and that there is such a thing as truth which we are, therefore, morally obliged to follow. He challenges Gareth to show why anyone should believe his theory of truth.<br /><br />Tim's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 04:08 am.<br /><br />Gareth's reply, again somewhat oddly, is to seek the physical whereabouts of this moral structure. He then presents us full on with his, dare I say it, dogma that science has to be everything, although we are not told why this is so.<br /><br />He then reveals his utilitarian view of morality, namely, that we make rules in order to run societies.<br /><br />Gareth's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 05:35 am.<br /><br />My reply to these exchanges follows. It consists of an attack on the "science is everything" theory by arguing that science is merely an attempt to understand the process which followed the big bang. Also, our knowledge of the "matter" which resulted from this is very limited. Furthermore, we think in time and space, yet both these concepts would seem to be paradoxical. Human beings behave, habitually, in ways which science is unable to explain by their expressions of intentional behaviour. There is a further problem inasmuch as science proceeds by testing its own theories to destruction and is, therefore, always based on uncertain knowledge. Finally, the implication of the entirely materialistic world is determinism.<br /><br />My post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 05:46 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Gareth. Thanks for seeing the funny side of it but get serious now, we must.The data you refer to is a theory about process, that's all. It is an attempt to make sense of an expanding universe. The theory struggles to take account of dark matter which, it seems, accounts for some 80% of the stuff of which the universe is made and about which we know very little. It also requires us to believe that our theory requires the concepts of space and time both of which have to be made to disappear up their own black holes in order to avoid a double infinite regress. If space measures limited distance then what lies beyond the furthest point? If time began with the big bang then where did the matter in the big bang originate? I can see that science is making progress within the confines of how stuff works within our world and universe of worlds but I don't see it getting close to the big issues of how the process first began and for that matter why. Nor do I see how mere matter leads to human will and action. How do we come to have intentions? Matter can't do that. You say nothing lives outside science. I say we human beings live outside science - all the time. Almost everything we get up to is outside science. We need to get our lives back. You say the remit of science is to explain everything. I say the ultimate remit of science is to explain the process of matter, just like a builder constructs a house. He knows everything about it in process terms but the truth is he is following someone elses plan - another issue entirely. But there is a further problem with science. The way in which science proceeds is to posit a theory and test it to destruction. The well known phenomenon then takes place - the scientific revolution - followed by a new theory which is then, itself, tested to destruction. Fine for the scientists, useless for epistemologists because the inevitable conclusion is that science, by definition, is always wrong. Worse still, even if you suceed in doing away with everything except matter then how do you avoid living in a deterministic world in which everything has already been decided by the mother of all explosions?</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />I then replied to Tim, agreeing with his right to pose the moral universe proposition.<br /><br />My post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 05:58 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Tim. I love your line of thinking. This is so far removed from the hard materialism of your opponent that it simply cannot be consumed by science. Why not pose the question "What if we live in a moral universe?" Does that not so clearly point out the limitations of science which has to exclude it, not because it's wrong, but because it's not scientific. A perfectly valid question, nevertheless.</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Tim then decides to look at the utilitarian argument and asks what if it turns out that society works better if people believe in an afterlife. On utilitarian grounds we would have to believe in it, even if it were not true.<br /><br />Tim's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 06:24 am.<br /><br />Gareth's reply was to re-assert his view that science can and will, one day, explain everything. He also indicated that a further big bang along exactly the same lines would produce the same results and that would not make the world deterministic although he offers no explanation for this statement.<br /><br />Gareth's post was made on 19 Jun 2008 at 06:28 am.<br /><br />Gareth made 6 more posts, starting with a reply to Tim's moral argument but all his replies are basically a denial of anything outside his view that science has all the answers.<br /><br />The discussion then returned to the analogy of the chinese room...<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/science" rel="tag">science</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/God" rel="tag">God</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/soul" rel="tag">soul</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/rationalism" rel="tag">rationalism</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/exploding+dot" rel="tag">exploding dot</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/intentions" rel="tag">intentions</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/inductive" rel="tag">inductive</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/deductive" rel="tag">deductive</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/logic" rel="tag">logic</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/infinite+regression" rel="tag">infinite regression</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/data" rel="tag">data</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/dogma" rel="tag">dogma</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/moral+argument" rel="tag">moral argument</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/structure" rel="tag">structure</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/utilitarian" rel="tag">utilitarian</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/big+bang" rel="tag">big bang</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/matter" rel="tag">matter</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/determinism" rel="tag">determinism</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-16107561998772610102008-08-20T20:41:00.004+01:002008-08-20T21:36:58.126+01:00An Afterlife? - Soul Searching<div style="text-align: justify;">Before continuing with the exchanges with Richard, I want to make a brief diversion. At this point in the proceedings I answered a number of other posts, most of which are not worth repeating. One writer, however, did pose a worthwhile question by stating "Until someone offers a good summary of a soul, I cannot even begin to answer the original question." My reply follows. You can find the original posts in full <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1206684793#/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=60&hash=2bfcf2af553c29da00aa97a085af4b21">here</a>. There has not, so far, been an answer from the person who wrote the original post (a common occurence on this site, I'm afraid.)<br /><br />The original post was made on 10 Jun 2008 at 08:10 pm. The first of my replies was made on 11 Jun 2008 at 03:30 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I find your response to be very interesting and absolutely on the mark. I would like to take up your challenge of defining the idea of the soul. There are, I believe 2 enormous obstacles to overcome. In the first place there is a huge historical backcloth to the idea of the soul, going back many hundreds, if not thousands, of years and covering many different religions. The ways in which our ancestors understood the world was very very different from the ways modern thinkers tackle the issues. Having said that some of your own references bear an uncanny similarity to the Aristotelian tradition so sometimes old ideas do stand the test of time even if the context is different. So, obstacle number one is that there is too much material to easily summarise since there have been so many points of view.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Obstacle number 2 is that the context has changed. Throughout much of our history the idea of the soul was set in a context in which people believed in God and saw him actively intervening in their lives on a day to day basis. There was a huge sense that the world was under the direct control of God. Nowadays, we have a different obsession. Most people believe primarily in science as the discipline which explains how the world works and see God as a discredited part of the superstitious nonsense of history. There seems to be a prevailing view that a better understanding of the physical world precludes the idea that there can be anything more to it than that. So the modern challenge is to describe the idea of the soul in a way which is in sympathy with the material world.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I am going to give the matter some thought and post another reply to you when I am ready to offer you a fair summary of the idea of the soul which is relevant to today and accurate historically. Unless, of course, someone beats me to it!</span><br /><br />My second reply was made on 29 Jun 2008 at 11:10 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I promised I would post again in response to your asking for a summary of what the term "soul" has meant historically. For the benefit of others reading this post you should have a look at my earlier reply to Kevin to see what problems I anticipated.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >The idea of the soul as a psychological phenomenon is entirely absent in the ancient world. It was real. Indeed it might best be described as the breath of life, quite literally, capable of entering the body through a wound or the mouth. The ancients thought of a body as having life breathed into it by the soul which then inhabited it but might also leave it to become a free spirit. All ancient ideas, as far as I know, gave the soul attributes. Socrates, for example, describes a 3 part soul, comprising of logos (intellect), emotion and desire and he sees it as the essence of being. Aristotle, in contrast describes the soul as the core essence of a person but without a separate existence and without immortality, although the intellect, which is part of his 4 part soul, is immortal.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >There is, as you rightly say, much emphasis in the ancient world on various places which are thought to exist and which become available to souls which are no longer inhabiting a body. Although these places change with the onset of Christianity, the principle survives in the idea of souls being saved and rewarded in Heaven in the after life. Less fortunate ones, of course, go to Hell! Both are immortal.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >It is, of course, quite easy to dismiss these historical ideas from a modern perspective and certainly fewer and fewer believe in a world abundant in spirits and a God actively intervening in the world. The Western World, at any rate, is no longer dominated by the Church, as it once was.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >However, the story does not end there. The philosophers Avicenna and Descartes looked at the idea of self-awareness, the essence of the self, as a primary given. This is an idea in logic in which an argument is either inductive or deductive. The latter contains nothing new whereas an inductive argument proceeds from some "given" starting point or premise. Both of them argued that the one thing you could not have doubts about was your own existence. This put epistemology (what it is possible to know for certain) into the forefront of philosophical thinking and for that alone it is immensely important, even if you reject everything else about Avicenna and Descartes. For Descartes this was a deductive argument and formed the basis of his belief that reason rather than perception formed the basis of knowledge.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >The idea of the soul, at this point, has no attributes. It is a "ghost in the machine" which controls the body.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Whilst the Cartesian notion of a mind/body dualism is rarely argued today the issues which it raised live on. After all, each of us still has a unique point of view and can never be a different person seeing things as that person. So the idea of describing the self as first person and everyone else as inferred rather than known in the same way continues to attract. Also, there does appear to be some merit in noting that human beings have desires and intentions and purposes in contrast to machines or matter. Finally, it is difficult to conclude that all there is is the processing of matter because this does not explain why we have a universe or, indeed, how, since matter cannot of itself be the first thing at the beginning of everything which starts it all off, can it? If it is like that then there would seem to be no room for any kind of choice. Each of us is following a pre-determined pathway dictated by the exact rules of matter and what we think of as free will is, in fact, an illusion.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >So, as you can see, the context has shifted. The modern argument is about the concept of the self rather than the soul and it is set in the context of the philosophy of science rather than religion. The issues, though, are remarkably enduring.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I hope this helps.</span><br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/soul" rel="tag">soul</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/history" rel="tag">history</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/religion" rel="tag">religion</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Aristotle" rel="tag">Aristotle</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/God" rel="tag">God</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/science" rel="tag">science</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/material+world" rel="tag">material world</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/psychological+phenomenon" rel="tag">psychological phenomenon</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/breath+of+life" rel="tag">breath of life</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/free+spirit" rel="tag">free spirit</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Socrates" rel="tag">Socrates</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/intellect" rel="tag">intellect</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/emotion" rel="tag">emotion</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/desire" rel="tag">desire</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/essence" rel="tag">essence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/immortality" rel="tag">immortality</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Christianity" rel="tag">Christianity</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Heaven" rel="tag">Heaven</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Hell" rel="tag">Hell</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Avicenna" rel="tag">Avicenna</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Descartes" rel="tag">Descartes</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/inductive" rel="tag">inductive</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/deductive" rel="tag">deductive</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/existence" rel="tag">existence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/epistemology" rel="tag">epistemology</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/reason" rel="tag">reason</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/perception" rel="tag">perception</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/ghost+in+the+machine" rel="tag">ghost in the machine</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/dualism" rel="tag">dualism</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/intentions" rel="tag">intentions</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/free+will" rel="tag">free will</a><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-40925463558290178582008-08-15T23:45:00.003+01:002008-08-16T00:38:52.743+01:00An Afterlife? - Unlocking the Mysteries<div style="text-align: justify;">Much of the next exchange consists of further elaboration of themes already mentioned. I will not, therefore, comment in detail about them. There are, however, a couple of important points introduced which should be mentioned.<br /><br />Richard is at pains to point out that there is a bigger picture which we should not lose sight of, namely, the explanation for why any of us are here at all. Many modern philosophers argue that we don't, and can't, ever know and so that should be an end to it. Further speculation is pointless. Richard takes the view that we cannot make sense of the human predicament without this perspective.<br /><br />My own response, at this juncture is to return, this time in detail, to the issue I raised originally concerning the difference between a computer thinking and a human being thinking.<br /><br />Richard's post was made on 08 Jun 2008 at 05:32 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Peter, in continuity in response to your last post, I think that the reason humans have aims, but computers don't, is because they have reasons for having an aim to achieve a certain goal which relates to human life. Life seems to reflect an aim, a process and a result in everything we do, which is just part of how we live our lives, if we choose not to have an aim, then you get what you are given, if you choose not to do the process, then you live with the ambition and not the drive to complete it, and the result is just what comes afterwards from ambition and the work process.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Solipsism is the route of thought I always try to avoid, because I disagree with it, yet it exists as an argument for the meaning of life, but, Solipsists think that you only live your life, and when you die, the world you lived in ceases to exist, in effect making your life unmaterialistic. I do wonder what a Solipsist response would be to historical artefacts, which obviously involve other people's lives, I would imagine something along the lines of that it is made up, as irrelevant information in one's life that isn't really "real". In response to a question of yours, we relate to materiality all the time as sources of evidence in the court of law for example. Myself I believe experience is only half the story, the other half is the material world we relate to in order to experience.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I believe personally that Philosophical flair unlocks mysteries, rather like when people believed you would fall off of the face of the Earth if you sailed too far, yet the sailor (sorry cannot remember names) kept sailing to find the end of the Earth, even though people thought he was barking mad, and how Sir Isaac Newton revolutionally discovered gravity. Without this kind of thinking outside of the box, answers to mysteries will never come, and until the day a computer can do this without humankind, then it is only the human mind who can achieve the unlocking of the great mysteries in the present day.</span><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br />My response to Richard's post was made on 09 Jun 2008 at 04:45 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Richard. Like you, I don't believe in solipsism and I hope no one will suggest otherwise. When I say that anything other than my own direct experience, my unique point of view, is inferred I don't mean to cast doubt that there really is something to be inferred. So we are in agreement about your second paragraph. Similarly, I think we have to accept that it is probably impossible to do away with either the material world or the world of experience and very difficult to argue that they are one and the same. Describing them is another matter!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >With regard to your third paragraph, I can only applaud your enthusiasm and since you believe any ability a computer might have to do away with humankind remains in the future we can safely postpone any disagreement on that issue.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >What really interests me, however, is your first paragraph. You seem to be maintaining that a computer can have aims of its own and it is that which I would like to examine with you. Before I say too much can I ask you if you are familiar with the analogy of the chinese room? If not I will go into greater detail but I don't want to teach Aunt Nelly to suck eggs.</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Richard's response is included here in order to complete the exchanges up to the introduction of the analogy of the chinese room. His post was made on 14 Jun 2008 at 07:15 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi again Peter, I'm glad we both agree to disagree with Solipsism, and yes I also think it is impossible to reject either the material world or the world of experience too.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I think a computer cannot have aims without human input to start the processing. I have some hazy idea in the future that a computer will be soon be powerful enough to do things such as be your personal planner, tidy your house, etc.. But, we're forgetting one thing in this idea, computers can only be made from the idea of a human, then the engineering piece it together to create a computer. Humans created computers for their advantage of speeding things up as well as being lazier. Without humans, computers are isolated pieces of machinery, and they won't know what to do if they did become isolated. However, I have just had an idea, we could be computers made by another lifeform too, who gradually built us more complicated to the point we could not be improved, then do as we wish, this makes this topic quite deep but also rather intruguing, and I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >In reference to your last paragraph, I can safely say I have heard about a chinese room thought experiment, that says if you teach a computer and a human to write chinese in a separate room to yourself, and are not told who wrote which piece of chinese writing, how would you be able to tell the difference between what the computer wrote and what the human wrote?... I hope it's the same one I'm thinking of anyway, I'll end my post here to save extra detail and see if we're thinking of the same thing, otherwise it will be obscured.</span><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/mysteries" rel="tag">mysteries</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/bigger+picture" rel="tag">bigger picture</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/computer" rel="tag">computer</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/thinking" rel="tag">thinking</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/aims" rel="tag">aims</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/solipsism" rel="tag">solipsism</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/real" rel="tag">real</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/materiality" rel="tag">materiality</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/meaning+of+life" rel="tag">meaning of life</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/experience" rel="tag">experience</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/point+of+view" rel="tag">point of view</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/analogy" rel="tag">analogy</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/chinese+room" rel="tag">chinese room</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-75019209967019829912008-08-14T14:48:00.004+01:002008-08-14T17:16:06.165+01:00An Afterlife? - Soft Solipsism<div style="text-align: justify;">Richard found my previous post disconcerting because he believed my attempt to introduce the idea of a "contentless, experiencing self" entailed a belief in the doctrine of solipsism. This is the view that nothing else exists apart from my own self and, since the material world does not exist, except in my mind, then the self, in this context, is taken to be mental only. I have included my reply to the point because it can best be understood as a single exchange. Whereas the solipsist wishes to argue that nothing else can be known for certain, I am trying to use this as a starting point to establish what else there is. My argument that each of us has a unique point of view which we experience directly, in contrast to our experience of everything else, which we must, therefore, infer, might be called a soft solipsism but, unlike the solipsist, I use it to point to there being more than just myself.<br /><br />Richard then introduces a different context, in a sense, by suggesting that we need to "know the meaning of life" before we can consider the possibility of an afterlife.<br /><br />Richard's post was made on 12 May 2008 at 12:31 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Peter, thanks for your reply. I'll get straight down to what I have to say again. From what I said from "the aim of a computer", I meant it from the point of view that the computers do not have aims of their own, but instead that us humans rely on them for their aims. As in, computers are used for our advantage to speed up the processing, memorising and calculating abilities that outperform us humans.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >For example, if one would like to work out 1,267.89 x 568 for a business matter, one would consult a calculator, then for the accounts of their business they could record this in Microsoft Excel for an invoice to print off and send to the customer of their business etc. Therefore the computer would remember, calculate and create the process of buying, and the person is only using the computer for an aim of their own, not for the computer's own gain. I apologise if it was bad wording on my part, and I hope this clarifies my point.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I have one question that relates to your mentioning of the afterlife. If we "establish a self which is not tied to the physical world", then it doesn't make sense, because the only thing we can relate to is our materiality in our lives. If materiality doesn't exist, then nothing we are experiencing is real, which means there is no life or afterlife. It seems that this way of thinking has gone down the road of the solipsism, which is a theory I do not agree with.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I myself think that to consider the possibility of an afterlife, first you must know the meaning of life. If you cannot know the meaning of life for certain, then there is no reason to consider there being an afterlife. However, if you think you have a meaning to life, then it holds the key to the prescence of an afterlife.</span><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br />My post was made on 12 May 2008 at 02:31 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Richard. I very much like your assertion that we have to address "life" before we address "afterlife" and that does raise some real problems for anyone of a Cartesian inclination. As you will know, the Cartesian view of Selfhood is that it is an entity which has no describable attributes. It is what we are and is not dependent on any "features" all of which could be the product of the evil genius. I will give some thought to your point and write again later. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do the point justice at the moment.</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />My next post was made on 02 Jun 2008 at 02:43 pm<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Richard, I have given some careful thought to your comments. We seem to be in agreement that there is a considerable difference between the performance of a computer, however spectacular, and the "aims" as you put it, of a human being. To use the conventional philosophical jargon, a computer simply processes whereas a human being has intentions. So, if human beings are simply complex amalgamations of organic materials how do they come to have intentions and why is it that computers don't? It is not that I am attempting to deny materiality but rather to ascertain whether or not there are elements of humanness which are non material in nature.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >On the question of solipsism I am having some problem understanding your point. You have introduced the idea that we can have experiences which are "real" and that these are contingent upon what you call "materiality". Does this mean we can also have experiences which are not "real"? Also you state that it is materiality which we "relate to" whereas the traditional answer is that the one thing we cannot doubt is our own existence. Since no one else can be us, experiencing our unique point of view then all else has to be, in some sense, inferred, except our own existence.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >As to the "meaning" of life let us first consider the "nature" of life and how it differs from matter. Perhaps we should also consider why we have matter, why we have life and how they came to be. That would be a scientific or evolutionary approach. And right in the middle of all that let us consider the place of intentionality and the place of experience. Does the evidence suggest that the clever way in which a computer works provides a close approximation of the sense of it all? Or does the unique, purposeful intentions of the conscious human being give a better clue to the underlying mysteries of the universe? You decide.</span><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/self" rel="tag">self</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/solipsism" rel="tag">solipsism</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/meaning+of+life" rel="tag">meaning of life</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/aim" rel="tag">aim</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/computer" rel="tag">computer</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/phsical+world" rel="tag">physical world</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/life" rel="tag">life</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/cartesian" rel="tag">cartesian</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/intentions" rel="tag">intentions</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/real" rel="tag">real</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/materiality" rel="tag">materiality</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/experiences" rel="tag">experiences</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/doubt" rel="tag">doubt</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/inferred" rel="tag">inferred</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/existence" rel="tag">existence</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-77217167168930252622008-08-14T10:21:00.003+01:002008-08-14T10:44:39.395+01:00An Afterlife? - Peter's 2nd Post - A Unique Point of View<div style="text-align: justify;">I develop further the notion of experience in contrast to the processing ability of a computer. In particular I introduce the idea that each of us has a unique point of view and can never be another person having his experiences. The idea of a contentless, experiencing self as a foundation for developing a theory of an afterlife is raised.<br /><br />My post was made on 11 May 2008 at 11:52 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi Richard. Thanks for your reply. Straight away you go to the heart of the matter. You say that "the aim of a computer...". In what sense can computers be said to have aims of their own? Not at all. They exist only as creations of a human being. If we were to come across a computer in a jungle would we think that it had grown out of the ground? Of course not because we know that they are produced by humans, at least on this planet. As you say, they think but they do not experience thinking. So the issue is not about thinking but about experiencing, not the "cogito" but the "sum" of Descartes much troubled formula.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >So we come, with ease, into the mainstream of philosophical thinking - the issue of experience. It seems to me that experience is in a different category from say, thinking or doing something. In a sense we can think the same thought as another person or, indeed, as a computer. This is because we construct language to define thinking in a way which is of use to more than one person. What would be the point of describing unique thoughts all the time. And yet there is something unique about each thought and it is not the "thought" part of it but the context. It is the point of view of the person having the thought which cannot ever be duplicated. I can only ever be "me" when it comes to experiencing something. My point of view is always unique even if I am describing something that many others have had experience of.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >In order to consider the possibility of an Afterlife, which is the topic under discussion, after all, we need to establish a self which is not tied to the physical world and by positing a contentless, experiencing self we have, at least, opened up that possibility. There remain, however, many obstacles along the way.</span><br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/experience" rel="tag">experience</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/computer" rel="tag">computer</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/point+of+view" rel="tag">point of view</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/thinking" rel="tag">thinking</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Descartes" rel="tag">Descartes</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/self" rel="tag">self</a><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-62335637250817854202008-08-14T09:59:00.003+01:002008-08-14T10:17:27.359+01:00An Afterlife? - Richard's 5th Post - Thinking and ExperienceRichard's first reply to me agrees that computer thinking is a process whereas human thinking is an experience.<br /><br />Richard's post was made on 11 May 2008 at 05:55 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi there Peter, I cam across your post with a huge interest, as I studied Philosophy of mind a little in my first year at University, we also covered a question you asked in your post, about whether computers can think. The conclusion I came to back then was that the aim of a computer is to speed up the processing and memorising abilities us humans have, of which these do not neccessarily need a conscious subjective mind like us humans have.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >The other thing I gathered a few thoughts on was the meaning of thinking, as to answer this question it is vital you can say what it means. The definition I come up with is that to think, one must have at least one experience of anything not being able to read thoughts in one's head. This is the difference between the processing ability of a computer, and the thinking of a human. A computer's processes can be logged and read like a book, whereas a human's thoughts can never be realistically confirmed until the person says what their subjective thoughts were.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I hope you find some things in there that strike chords of interest with you, and I look forward to hearing from you.</span><br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/thinking" rel="tag">thinking</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/experience" rel="tag">experience</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/philosophy+of+mind" rel="tag">philosophy of mind</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/computers" rel="tag">computers</a><br /><br />Richard DebnamPerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-7283809711474049322008-08-14T08:52:00.003+01:002008-08-14T09:20:58.190+01:00An Afterlife? - Peter's 1st Post - Do Computers Think?<div style="text-align: justify;">At this point I joined the Facebook discussion with a reply to Richard's contributions. I discuss apparent differences between the way in which a computer can be said to think and human thought. The issues of process, in contrast to experience, consciousness, and emotion are considered. I refer, also, to the limitations of physical science in explaining the full meaning of time and space.<br /><br />My post was made on 10 May 2008 at 07:43 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hi everybody. I have recently joined Facebook and found this site. I have read your various contributions with interest because I specialised in the philosophy of mind many years ago and am still as fascinated with it as ever. All of you make some kind of reference to experience or consciousness which does seem to be crucial in coming to some kind of conclusion. I remember, long before the rise of microsoft, being asked to consider the question"Do computers think?". The question is appropriate because a computer can perform many sophisticated tasks and even have some sort of memory of what it does. If we run a computer program can we say that the computer has had an experience? Can we also say that it has awareness of what it is doing? What also do we make of the issues used to date the beginnings of human identity, namely the production of art. Of course a computer could produce art but could it do it for pleasure? Could it experience emotion? I am suggesting that the ability to build sophisticated physical structures does not take us very far at all toward an understanding of what it means to be human. Therefore we need some other means of addressing these clear features which physical science is unable to describe. Consider, again, our ability as physicists to describe the structure of the physical cosmos so precisely that we can describe the process of physical evolution all the way back to the dawn of the known cosmos - the big bang. If the cosmos began then does time begin also, and space. Can we imagine what preceded time, and space. What sense is there in saying "In the beginning was nothing - and then it exploded"?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >These are just some of the issues which have haunted me over the years. I do not pretend to have the answers and I am probably further away from answers than when I started - but I am inclined to continue the quest.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Best wishes to you all. I hope you find my small contribution of interest and that you will reply to it.</span><br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/computer" rel="tag">computer</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/thought" rel="tag">thought</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process" rel="tag">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/experience" rel="tag">experience</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/consciousness" rel="tag">consciousness</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/emotion" rel="tag">emotion</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/science" rel="tag">science</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/time" rel="tag">time</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/space" rel="tag">space</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/philosophy+of+mind" rel="tag">philosophy of mind</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/big+bang" rel="tag">big bang</a><br /><br />Peter Rayner<br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-48029022507979767652008-08-14T07:26:00.006+01:002008-08-14T08:38:00.941+01:00An Afterlife? - Richard's 4th Post - The Point of Death<div style="text-align: justify;">The reply which Richard received defined the self as essentially spiritual and discussed how we may come to know our true selves. It attempted to harmonise the "mundane scientific" with the "transcendental scientific" which it further defined as "the science of self-realization". The ultimate goal of this endeavour is to reveal the "Absolute Truth". Death is defined as the moment of transmigration of the soul into another body which is selected for you according to your state of mind at the moment of death. You can read the full reply <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1206684793#/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=30&hash=8153469aaef2df8d2c44f955b316e7de">here.</a> Richard's reply to that post is the second one quoted below.<br /><br />In the meantime, another writer picked up on the original post concerning brain activity continuing up to 3 years after death. The writer did not make any submissions but thought this meant that Richard was claiming to "have the answer and proof to this whole question" and asked for further elaboration. What follows is his reply.<br /><br />Richard's post was made on 08 May 2008 at 04:46 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Yeh. Apparently we only know a reasonable amount of knowledge about the conscious part of the brain, and only a very limited amount about our unconscious. It was described to us as there are deep fathoms that have never been explored in our unconscious. This person's body was preserved in some way, (how exactly I don't know) and they did brain scans and saw that their mind was still active.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >We can only pronounce someone dead once they have no pulse, they have stopped breathing totally, and after a number of times of electronically charging the patient's chest, they won't have one breath or give out a heart beat. But we don't know what happens to the people afterwards. This is a light that breaks open the full possibility of out of body experiences, near death experiences etc. However in the dead person's mind case, their mind didn't stay alive forever, and many people's minds can die a lot lot earlier than this case. This means you can either understand this in two ways, your mind dies last and it is unlikely there is an afterlife, or your mind dies last and it gives hope of an afterlife. Still no absolute answer to an afterlife I'm afraid, where there hasn't been enough testing and exploration of the mind after death.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I still find things like this fascinating though, there are peculiar things that happen to people when they are unconscious. I've heard a couple of cases in the news however long ago where people have woken up in hospital with a completely different voice and speaking accent to what they had before they went into general anaesthetic. The unconscious could be the very key into the real and distinct answer of an afterlife, and a lot of other branches of knowledge too, but for now, it seems to be a step forward rather than a real answer. I hope what I've said helps, and that you share the same curiosity as myself.</span><br /><br />Richard's reply to the first writer was made on 08 May 2008 at 05:21 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hey, I've not been on facebook in a while, and I sign in to find two replies to posts of mine in this forum! lol It's been rather sunny and hot where I live for about a week now, so maybe the Summer Sun is here at long last! Anyway, back on track...</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >"It is said that according to the particular state of mind/consciousness one may have at the time of leaving the material body (death), one will receive that particular body suitable for such state of consciousness..... (tell me what u think and 'll tell who u r)."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I'm not sure I totally understand what you mean here, I've got to ask because I'm open-mindedly curious... how would that connect in with myself, and how would I recognise this in myself from what you said?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I dont tend to ignore religion, in a way I just find it unreliable. Religion relies heavily on hear'say learnt knowledge, and that's when all the flaws start to creep in, and as sad as it may be, this is how there are so many wars caused just from conflicting religions. If you take a religion that believes there are 10 gods, and christianity which believes in one, they both can't be right, because that doesn't make sense. So I tend to try and keep away from religions and try to make sense of the world through making a connection to a given topic through experiences I have and things I learn.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Best wishes, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.</span><br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/scientific" rel="tag">scientific</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/transcendental" rel="tag">transcendental</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/self-realization" rel="tag">self-realization</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Absolute+Truth" rel="tag">Absolute Truth</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/death" rel="tag">death</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/soul" rel="tag">soul</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/body" rel="tag">body</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/moment+of+death" rel="tag">moment of death</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/consciousness" rel="tag">consciousness</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/brain" rel="tag">brain</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/unconscious" rel="tag">unconscious</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/mind" rel="tag">mind</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/religion" rel="tag">religion</a><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-13043213370672999182008-08-12T14:35:00.004+01:002008-08-12T15:09:00.990+01:00An Afterlife? - Richard's 3rd Post - You Are What You Think<div style="text-align: justify;">Richard had a reply to his post which hinted at the duality of mind and body and discussed the spiritual inner life of a person in relation to the universe around him. His correspondent argued that what best defines a person is what he is thinking and indicated some Indian philosophical texts which support this idea. His post can be found <a href="http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=30&hash=8153469aaef2df8d2c44f955b316e7de#/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=30&hash=8153469aaef2df8d2c44f955b316e7de">here.</a><br /><br />Richard's post was made on 10 Apr 2008 at 04:16 pm:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >Hey again thanks for your reply, how is the weather over in India? It is very cold over here in Britain at the moment! lol I must say your response was very interesting, I especially found the part about the sanskrit texts very interesting indeed, as I have never come across them before. From what you think, would you say the mind is part of the body, or would you say that the mind is totally separate to the body? Also, do you see the mind as a brain process, or do you see it as a separate spiritual presence? I'm interested to see what you think.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I totally agree what you said about "you are what you think" I've found that is very true from experiences with people. I suppose myself I am more satisfied with values of physical scientific evidence more than religious beliefs, hence why I am not a strict Church of England Christian, even though I was christened one when I was younger. Although I do believe in one creator who created the Universe for a specific purpose, only I wish I knew what it was, and why it was created. I guess it's a great universal mystery of life that remains to be solved.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I've seen that European physicists are going to try and find traces of God in a huge project starting this summer, the outcome will either be hugely dissapointing or massively intriguing. I only hope they find good answers, as it is a massive job to attempt.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I look forward to hearing from you again. Take care.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/think" rel="tag">think</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Indian+Philosophy" rel="tag">Indian Philosophy</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/sanskrit" rel="tag">sanskrit</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/mind" rel="tag">mind</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/body" rel="tag">body</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/brain" rel="tag">brain</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/experience" rel="tag">experience</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/evidence" rel="tag">evidence</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/purpose" rel="tag">purpose</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/God" rel="tag">God</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/creator" rel="tag">creator</a><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br /></span></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-30828346359786070312008-08-12T13:31:00.003+01:002008-08-12T13:58:54.358+01:00An Afterlife? - Richard's 2nd Post - Metabolism and Reincarnation<div style="text-align: justify;">This post, also made before I joined the site, was written in response to a post from an Indian gentleman who described how the entire physical attributes of a body are replaced over the space of 7 years. Since there is continuity of experience through this renewal he argues that reincarnation is a logical conclusion. As before, since I do not know the author and don't have permission to publish his account I refer the reader to the original which can be found <a href="http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=30&hash=8153469aaef2df8d2c44f955b316e7de#/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=0&hash=11b210ea2abb59c5a37753eb754342ea">here.</a><br /><br />Richard's post was made on 04 Apr 2008 at 02:05 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:georgia;" >I like your post on Metabolism and reincarnation, and they are very interesting. However, although you're right about our appearance changing physically over time, I found when I related a few things to myself, it did not work out right.<br /><br />I cannot agree that life is eternal, because it would have no end or beginning, and the facts state that the Universe was caused by the big bang, which means a limited life.<br /><br />Another thing is that the reason we change in our appearance is due to our growth hormones that are linked into our genetic DNA structure. Our genes say how tall we are, how our character is, what we look like etc. This means that our cells aren't recycled at all, for example, our skin is renewed every time we wash, whilst our dead skins cells die, fall off and turn to dust.<br /><br />Now, if our bodies are doing this all the time, then the only rational conclusion would be that we die too, as we live in a Universe that had a beginning, and eventually it will have an end too.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;">Tags:<span style="font-family:arial;"> </span> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/metabolism" rel="tag">metabolism</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/reincarnation" rel="tag">reincarnation</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/life" rel="tag">life</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/big+bang" rel="tag">big bang</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/universe" rel="tag">universe</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/beginning" rel="tag">beginning</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/end" rel="tag">end</a><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /><br /></span></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-77556415916308036872008-08-12T12:23:00.007+01:002008-08-12T14:05:43.133+01:00An Afterlife? - Richard's 1st Post - An Active Mind<div style="text-align: justify;">This post was made before I joined the site and was preceded by a post about a woman who's mother had died and whom she had seen sitting on the bed several days later. Each time she subsequently saw her mother she looked more and more ghost like. As I don't know the author of this post I am not publishing it here but you can read it on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/fbnew.php?next=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fhome.php%3F#/topic.php?uid=5855427379&topic=4760&start=30&hash=8153469aaef2df8d2c44f955b316e7de">the original forum.</a><br /><br />Richard's post was made on 04 Apr 2008 at 01:02 am:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" >I found out in a University lecture last year that your mind is still active even after you're dead. An example I was told was that one person's mind had been active for 3 years after they had died.<br /><br />Whatever the outcome, I remain curious as to why the mind is the last part of the body to pass away, and whether the mind holds the key to proving or disproving an afterlife.</span><br /><br />Tags:<span style="font-family:arial;"> </span> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/afterlife" rel="tag">afterlife</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/ghost" rel="tag">ghost</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/mind" rel="tag">mind</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/proof" rel="tag">proof</a><br /><br />Richard Debnam<br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-88253815861283015472008-08-12T11:03:00.005+01:002008-08-12T14:04:15.992+01:00An Encounter With Facebook<div style="text-align: justify;">It has been quite some time since I started this blog and posted the beginnings of what I hope will be an epic journey into the realms of the philosophy of science. I have been away, but not idle. My natural, in fact abnormal, curiosity has led me to explore many other treasures around the web and, before I knew it, many months had gone by. Along the way I found myself caught up with one of those many phenomena which the web throws up (good choice of words there) in the form of Facebook. The addiction which followed was akin to an illness but, happily, one from which I am now cured. Apart from a slight twitch in my right eye, I promise you, I am my "normal" (bad choice of words there) self.<br /><br />Along the way I found a philosophy site called The Philosophy Pages which, I think, had been hacked and fled to Facebook to seek refuge. This is, basically, a forum for anyone to express ideas and raise topics on any aspect of philosophy. The main site still exists but from what I discovered by writing to the manager no longer receives the attention it deserves since the manager has too many other responsibilities. I am sorry to say that most of what I read in the forums was complete rubbish, high on opinion and mostly totally lacking in argument or anything that might pass for proof. There was the odd exception and I was lucky enough to find it in the person of an esteemed gentleman called Richard Debnam. I replied to his first few posts and from then entered into what turned out to be quite a fascinating exchange.<br /><br />I have, now, decided to leave Facebook, to all intents and purposes, but felt I should rescue this philosophical discussion, so I am transporting it over to this weblog. It may take a little while because I will need to edit it item by item but I hope it will prove worthwhile.<br /><br />Since all of it is relevant to my original purpose it does not really detract from that, other than to say that the tidy and systematic account I had planned will now be untidy and unsystematic. That's Life (note the capital!)<br /><br />Pierre<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://www.blogger.com/technorati.com/tag/philosophy+of+science" rel="tag">philosophy of science</a> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/technorati.com/tag/Facebook" rel="tag">Facebook</a> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/technorati.com/tag/forums" rel="tag">The Philosophy Pages</a> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/technorati.com/tag/philosophy+of+science" rel="tag">forums</a> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/technorati.com/tag/Richard+Debnam" rel="tag">Richard Debnam</a><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-81718589951330933862007-11-17T06:56:00.000+00:002007-11-21T15:53:24.999+00:00Am I Making Sense?<div style="text-align: justify;">Communication is a funny business. By definition it has to have a common mode of operation for any one to make use of it. Nevertheless, it can be extremely personal and idiosyncratic. I pity the non English speaking community who try to make sense of our language. "Lost in translation" is the understatement of all understatements when describing some of the cultural nuances which we convey. Small groups, through familiarity, develop what is, essentially, a private language with a history of its own built up from many exchanges and interactions. The members of such a group do not have to ask if they are making sense because they have defined "sense" in a way which is acceptable to their own members.<br /><br />The philosophical search for truth is not, as it turns out, a million miles away from that private group. Let us first attempt to define the nature of the quest, however. In its simplest form we are concerned to discover "what is the case" or in other words are there certain things which are "true" or "real"? Oh dear! Already we have stumbled upon a couple of scary ideas which are far from the "simplest" form of the problem. Both "truth" and "reality" are so packed with complex ideas that they must both be laid aside for the time being for detailed analysis at a later time.<br /><br />So let us try again. We need to find something which is "true" in a simpler form, in other words, "correct". Ah ha. Now we are getting somewhere. There are, as it turns out, quite a lot of rather nice examples of things which have to be true in this sense. The most famous of these is the one that states that something cannot be a contradiction of itself. For example, a book cannot be red and green at the same time. All very well, I hear you say, but that does not tell us even if the book is red or green. So all we know for certain, so far, is that it cannot be both.<br /><br />Well, in a way, it does tell us more because there is a message hidden in our universal truth. If we really have found something which makes sense then we have to accept that there is such a thing as "sense". Can we conceive of any circumstance, any alternative universe, any private group, any fictitious story in which something can be at one and the same time 2 different and contradictory things? I think not.<br /><br />In a way this astounding "truth" is a bit disappointing. Where is the proof? Wot no clever argument? Well, there wouldn't be, would there. At this stage we have not defined what constitutes a valid argument, only what makes sense. So, begging the question, how do we know it makes sense? Did I miss something? 'fraid not. The answer is, it just does. We call this intuition...<br /><br />Let us slip into a little Latin at this point - always good when the going gets tough! We have identified 2 kinds of "truth" namely, those which are self defined as in the group with its private language and those which are intuitively discerned as following on from some self evident fact. In Latin these are called <span style="font-style: italic;">a posteriori</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">a priori</span> respectively and they traditionally constitute the basis of all rational thinking in Western Philosophy. Impressed? Well I'm not. What this amounts to is a statement, confession even, that all arguments are based on something that is "given", assumed, a premise and so, obviously, in order to demolish someone's argument you simply find which bit is assumed and attack it. That is what philosophers have been doing for centuries.<br /><br />Just to put this into context a little consider the scientific community. You will remember that in the previous blog entry I described the notion of scientific constructs in which everyone agrees on the nature of the current paradigm and set about testing it to the point of destruction. They then replace it with a new paradigm based on the short fallings of the previous one and the whole process continues. In Latin, they proceed from <span style="font-style: italic;">a priori </span>assumptions or, in other words, the same method as our search for universal truth. We have already established that they have no hope of finding any universal truths, indeed, the whole point of the enterprise is to re-group every so often and continue the search. So why should our search for "that is the case" truth be any different?<br /><br />One answer, and a very powerful one, is that it has to be so. We began looking for the basis of "truth" and therein is the problem. How can anything be the first thing to be true? And for that matter, how can you prove that something has to be true before you have proved that anything is true? Well, it just goes round in circles. Another conundrum. And yet the impasse this creates gives us another of those "contradiction" moments in which you can't just forget it because it seems to be telling you that to believe it makes more sense than not to believe it...<br /><br />Pierre<br /><br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/sense" rel="tag">sense</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/communication" rel="tag">communication</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/language" rel="tag">language</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/truth" rel="tag">truth</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/reality" rel="tag">reality</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/contradiction" rel="tag">contradiction</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/proof" rel="tag">proof</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/intuition" rel="tag">intuition</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Latin" rel="tag">Latin</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/a+posteriori" rel="tag">a posteriori</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/a+priori" rel="tag">a priori</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/paradigm" rel="tag">paradigm</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/contradiction" rel="tag">contradiction</a><br /><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-76017355134775516402007-09-02T13:56:00.000+01:002007-09-02T16:08:59.277+01:00Begin at the Beginning<blockquote>In my beginning is my end. In succession<br />Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended,<br />Are removed, destroyed, restored, or in their place<br />Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass.<br />Old stone to new building, old timber to new fires,<br />Old fires to ashes, and ashes to the earth<br />Which is already flesh, fur and faeces,<br />Bone of man and beast, cornstalk and leaf.<br />Houses live and die: there is a time for building<br />And a time for living and for generation<br />And a time for the wind to break the loosened pane<br />And to shake the wainscot where the field-mouse trots<br />And to shake the tattered arras woven with a silent motto.</blockquote>T S Eliot "Four Quartets" (East Coker)<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Philosophy is one of those peculiar subjects which only really makes sense in the round. In order to understand any one bit of it you have to understand the whole of it. I well remember, as a student, getting hopelessly confused by it all and only making some kind of sense of it the second time around. I think that may be one of the reasons first year philosophy students are obliged to read Plato's "Republic" as an introduction to philosophy. Also it is written in deceptively easy language to follow but is, nevertheless, very profound. I am a great believer in the notion that simple is good.<br /><br />Like Plato I am going to follow the discourse wherever it may lead. I am going to start with a problem of everyday usage because that seems to me to be a real problem. It may be that everyday ideas are wrong but it must, surely, be the philosopher's job to demonstrate this if it is the case. Also I believe that it is less open to arbitrary preconceptions. I do not mean that it is without preconception for common usage is full of such things. I mean that any other starting point will demand a basic proposition which might have no obvious relationship with anything other than the fertile imagination of its author. At least by being culture bound there is a case to answer which has some history and popular support.<br /><br />I have a further reason for avoiding the stylised logic of science and that is that science, by definition, is always wrong. That might seem a little surprising but consider the nature of scientific enquiry. We used to believe rather naively that science concerned itself with the establishment of matters of fact. If that were so then we philosophers could pack our bags and leave all enquiry after knowledge in the capable hands of the scientists.<br /><br />Readers may be familiar with a now highly celebrated book by T S Kuhn (b. 1922) entitled "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (NY, 1962). Kuhn was originally a particle physicist who turned to the philosophy of science in order to explain what scientific endeavour was all about. He describes long periods of settled scientific development in which one set of concepts or paradigm, as he calls them, holds centre stage. This is followed by a period of revolutionary change in which the paradigm is replaced by another one which the scientific community accepts as a better way of understanding science. He holds that the nature of scientific enquiry is that a set of constructs are put forward and are then subjected to rigorous testing. Eventually it emerges that the concepts fail the testing and so it is necessary to re-think and put forward fresh theories. So scientific theory is always right until proven wrong or, in other words, is always wrong. Not much of a basis for establishing sound philosophical reasoning!<br /><br />I want to suggest a further aspect of scientific enquiry which needs to be clarified at this stage. Science concerns itself with <span style="font-style: italic;">process</span> - how things happen. Now, cause and effect used to be the province of the philosopher and I am glad to say that it is most certainly not so any longer. So, if you want to know <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span> the chicken crossed the road - ask a scientist. However, if you want to know <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> the chicken crossed the road then you should look to either psychiatry or philosophy (more of that later). If you want to know which came first - the chicken or the egg - then unless it is a <span style="font-style: italic;">process</span> question (which it is not) the scientist will be of no use.<br /><br />To put the problem into a cosmological framework then you could say that science will eventually trace back the sequence of events to the Big Bang. And that's all. So there is no point asking a scientist what preceded the Big Bang because that is either unknowable or before science began. Nor is there any point in asking <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> because scientists only deal with <span style="font-style: italic;">how</span>.<br /><br />I will return many times to the nature of scientific enquiry but for now I want to move on. I said earlier that I wanted to begin with the every day problem of time and space.<br /><br />As I sit and ponder on the world around me I am aware of an apparent distance between any 2 objects. Indeed, I find it quite impossible to imagine those 2 objects without distance of some degree or another. We call this the dimension of space, rightly or wrongly. Whatever it is it does seem that it is essential to any attempt to make sense of the world. I have tried to do without it or to replace it with another concept and, quite frankly, I cannot.<br /><br />Now, the idea of measuring 2 things seems simple enough. So let me get a little more ambitious and measure not just 2 objects in front of me but 2 objects a huge distance apart - 2 stars for example. Still no problem. We have the technology! So let us go the whole way and measure from one end of the cosmos to the other. We may struggle with the technology here but we can probably extrapolate and come up with a reasonably accurate distance for the entire cosmos.<br /><br />Well, there's the problem. I am sure you have guessed what's coming next. My question is if you are at either point, at the edge of the cosmos how can you even think of their being something beyond that point? That is the whole problem with space. It eventually cashes out as a paradox. It is by definition about finite measurement and yet cannot make sense without implying infinity.<br /><br />Exactly the same thing happens with time. Follow the sequence back to the very beginning and ask what came before it. Eternity?<br /><br />So what do we do about this predicament. We have 2 totally central ideas which we cannot get rid of, time and space, and neither of them makes any obvious sense.<br /><br />And that is what this blog is all about...<br /><br />Pierre<br />Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/beginning%22rel=%22tag%22">beginning</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/end%22rel=%22tag%22">end</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/T+S+Eliot%22rel=%22tag%22">T S Eliot</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Four+Quartets%22rel=%22tag%22">Four Quartets</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/philosophy%22rel=%22tag%22">philosophy</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Plato%22rel=%22tag%22">Plato</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Republic%22rel=%22tag%22">Republic</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/discourse%22rel=%22tag%22">discourse</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/logic%22rel=%22tag%22">logic</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/science%22rel=%22tag%22">science</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Kuhn%22rel=%22tag%22">Kuhn</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/scientific+revolutions%22rel=%22tag%22">scientific revolutions</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/paradigm%22rel=%22tag%22">paradigm</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/process%22rel=%22tag%22">process</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/cause%22rel=%22tag%22">cause</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/effect%22rel=%22tag%22">effect</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/how%22rel=%22tag%22">how</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/why%22rel=%22tag%22">why</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Big+Bang%22rel=%22tag%22">Big Bang</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/time%22rel=%22tag%22">time</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/space%22rel=%22tag%22">space</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/cosmos%22rel=%22tag%22">cosmos</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/paradox%22rel=%22tag%22">paradox</a><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8538618607772992008.post-67618149018014328812007-08-26T17:47:00.000+01:002007-08-26T17:54:04.977+01:00Under Construction<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">This site will shortly be under way. To visit our sister site go to <a href="http://perilouspierre.blogspot.com">http://perilouspierre.blogspot.com</a><br /></span></span>PerilousPierrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16963728712307760171noreply@blogger.com0