tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post7919264934672968234..comments2024-03-14T08:38:46.219-07:00Comments on Biophilia: Tempest in a nonspatial entityBurkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08135758421220520531noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-51263063273420576932009-06-10T09:50:19.855-07:002009-06-10T09:50:19.855-07:00My thoughts in response to this post are now on my...My thoughts in response to this post are now on my blog. Since I don't know how to create a link when writing a comment on another blog, I will simply offer the url: http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com/2009/06/few-thoughts-concerning-naturalism-five.html <br /><br />Regard,<br />EricEric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-80199162624962641362009-06-08T19:47:16.426-07:002009-06-08T19:47:16.426-07:00"So cultivated consciousness comes in two qui..."So cultivated consciousness comes in two quite complementary forms- the didactic, intellectual consciousness of how the world works and our place in it, complemented by subjective consciousness of the range of human experience, of empathy for others and spirituality, of how to get along with one's own unconscious, however it works. Both are deeply valuable and valid in their appropriate ways."<br /><br />Have you read "The Universe in a Single Atom" by the Dalai Lama? This is quite similar to his thesis.Steven Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677314285938844360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-10558193179297912662009-06-08T19:45:39.142-07:002009-06-08T19:45:39.142-07:00Excellent! I agree completely. 3rd person (obj...Excellent! I agree completely. 3rd person (objective) and 1st person(subjective) experience can complement each other and keep each other in check. Balance.<br /><br />I use 1st and 3rd person because I feel that they don't have the connotation that "subjective" and "objective" have - namely that they are possible states to completely achieve. The terminology I prefer implies (to me at least) that one is just taking precedence, not that the other is completely absent.<br /><br />And please understand that my feeling that complete 3rd person mastery of the universe is impossible, because we are 1st person players, is not a critique of 3rd person study. Heck no. We need 3rd person, critical thinking desperately.<br /><br />One reason I invoke the term "god" is because of the 1st person side of things. After a "deep" experience, or meditation or whatnot, I feel the term "god" more rightly describes the experience because of the personal sense of the word.<br /><br />Stepping back from the word "god" to me is casting my 1st person experience into a 3rd person light. That's not to say everyone needs "god". What is IS. But how do I describe the warm, overflowing feelings? The hope and feeling that all will be well? A 3rd person discussion is totally fine with me (serotonin, neurology, psychology, etc.), but it doesn't negate the 1st person experience (god).<br /><br />Dropping "god" for me is kind of like trying to score with your wife by discussing the mating habits of humans from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist. It might work in the classroom, but not in the bedroom!Steven Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677314285938844360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-70111948952652572172009-06-07T10:03:42.674-07:002009-06-07T10:03:42.674-07:00Woops- make that "non-overlapping"!Woops- make that "non-overlapping"!Burkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11158223475895530397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-75591737406846459372009-06-07T10:01:04.857-07:002009-06-07T10:01:04.857-07:00Hi, Steven- I agree completely. I have the deepest...Hi, Steven- I agree completely. I have the deepest respect for meditation, art, introspection, psychology .. the study of man. And creativity is critical to all science too, as you. say. Introspection tells us what it is like to be us in all its subjective richness and diversity, yet it does not tell us what the mechanism behind that being is- it simply can't. <br /><br />For one thing, our design is strongly outer-directed. We have great sense organs for sight, smell, etc, but poor ones for internal states. For all the complexity of our construction and workings, hunger amounts to the vaguest sensation- it is never going to tell us how the stomach works. All the introspection in the world won't tell us how the brain works either. It just isn't built that way.<br /><br />So cultivated consciousness comes in two quite complementary forms- the didactic, intellectual consciousness of how the world works and our place in it, complemented by subjective consciousness of the range of human experience, of empathy for others and spirituality, of how to get along with one's own unconscious, however it works. Both are deeply valuable and valid in their appropriate ways. <br /><br />Perhaps this is an alternate formulation of the "overlapping magisteria" idea in a way makes a little more sense to me than Gould's original one, returning to a basic subjective/objective distinction.Burkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11158223475895530397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-18047058252963749092009-06-07T09:02:05.034-07:002009-06-07T09:02:05.034-07:00I should add that "intuitive searching" ...I should add that "intuitive searching" is dangerous when it seeks to supersede observation. But respect for observation does not mean that intuitive searching should be done away with. How would a scientist find the motivation to formulate a hypothesis without it?Steven Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677314285938844360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-28580192791183632772009-06-06T07:34:32.286-07:002009-06-06T07:34:32.286-07:00I'm not so sure I agree, but I think it's ...I'm not so sure I agree, but I think it's a worthy goal.<br /><br />We are a part of the universe. Even the act of observation becomes a player in affecting outcomes. <br /><br />Once again, it is a worthy goal that we should strive for, but I think there will always be room for intuitive searching and introspection in the pursuit of knowledge.Steven Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677314285938844360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-34539442292417707892009-06-06T06:33:18.641-07:002009-06-06T06:33:18.641-07:00"Is it possible to fully measure the lake whi..."Is it possible to fully measure the lake while we're swimming in it?"<br /><br />Yes, it is, if one asks one's friendly surveyor to do so. Scientists do not as a rule study their own brains, but those of others, and coming up with a description of how consciousness works is going to rely on this approach too, for all the millennia spent in introspection. What it will mean to describe the subjective experience in such terms is not clear yet, but in the case of the sun circling the earth, the experience remains the same- we only have a new (larger) conceptual frame by which to intellectually interpret it.Burkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11158223475895530397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8807685073027188764.post-72226448921635234052009-06-05T21:48:48.307-07:002009-06-05T21:48:48.307-07:00"not explaining them away, but giving concret..."not explaining them away, but giving concrete accounts of their origin, mechanism, and role without impairing their subjective enjoyment."<br /><br />Good point. Cries of "reductionism!" are not the result of observation, but of the attitude of the offended. Observation reduces nothing. In the same vein, however, a scientist might maintain the same approach to religion as they would to humor, art, sports or sex. Giving ever more detailed descriptions of their mechanism and role, "without impairing their subjective enjoyment."<br /><br />I tend to agree with you regarding naturalism. Logic is wholly contingent on the inter-connectedness of all things (naturalism). <br /><br />However, as a "religion-friendly" naturalist, I would ask a scientist - Is it possible to fully measure the lake while we're swimming in it?Steven Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677314285938844360noreply@blogger.com