Posted by DSCH on November 11, 2003, at 12:20:05
In reply to Re: DSCH » DSCH, posted by EscherDementian on November 11, 2003, at 4:21:37
> >I am fairly convinced that philosophical materialism is quite true.
>
> Clarify?Human beings and all life for that matter are indeed matter. Physical systems. Ensambles of organic molecules. However, they have the odd abilities of self-replication and performing thermodynamic work cycles. Odder still is the ability to act on one's own behalf. But I am convinced that the supernatural and the mystical do not enter into this. I believe "God" and "soul", like spatial, temporal, material continuity, are comforting illusions that result from our lack of sense impressions and objective understanding of fine enough scales.
> >However I am not a die hard genetic determinist as it seems to me the brain has a degree of plasticity. I also believe QM points to there being a fundamental degree of stochasticism/probabilistic function of the universe (probably introduced at the level where spacetime ends up getting quantized itself... a question that only seems to be dodged by string theory, which has been developed classically). I think complete continuity in the physical and mathematic realms is a comforting illusion.
>
> Ah-so. i don't see how continuity could ever NOT be true, however i am comforted more by it's incompleteness, don't you think? Someday i'll fluently understand 'mathematical realms' enough to be comfortable there *sigh*. Unification occurs to me differently from String Theory.Umm, how does it "occur" for people differntly? The theory, hopefully, is either right or wrong (and if wrong, hopefully fruitful in other senses) for the universe (or multiverse(s)) as a whole. Indeed the biggest problem for the theory at present is that there is no experiment known yet that can DISPROVE it. This is called (thanks to the ascerbic Wolfgang Pauli) being "so awful that it isn't even wrong"!
>But i am comforted and thrilled by quantum's _proofs_ of 'improbable' events and validity of probability theory. Probability has always been another Gravity Well, to my thinking. Kinda like _proving_ the mechanics of reality creation and manifestation. (was wondering when scientific proofs were going to 'catch up' with Eastern religion/philosophy's role of consciousness in the evolutionary patterns of the universe - but that's another Shrodinger's Cat, isn't it?) And our dear PB Barbara Cat already let THAT one out of the bag ;-D (appreciative nod to you, BC)
Errr. That's why I felt compelled to bring up Pagels. Many people try to piggy-back Eastern mysticism on the back of QM and Pagels was one of the few members of the legitimate working community to take the time to call them to task for it.
My favorite resolution to the Schroedinger's Cat problem was the one succinctly stated by Bohr himself but which most people do not find enough metaphysical comfort from (and Bohr's message to that basically is: "tough cookies!").
The "half-dead/half-alive" state collapses to one or the other whenever the box is opened to make the observation. Hence, the mixed state cannot be observed, and because of this it is pointless to bellyache over it. Science is made distinct from philosophy by being concerned only with the fit of theory to observations rather than the fit of theory to our preconceptions of how the universe works.
> > Anyway, which posts of mine sparked this connection?
>
> i could be mistaken, but i thought at one point you posted something about ayahuasca?Nope, not me. :-)
> "The Cosmic Serpent" is a study in ethnopharmacology. The author suggests that intelligence and conciousness may have come into man's existence through the DNA of Earth's pre-existing biological life. (plants. plants and spit. spit and dirt. dirt and wind. wind- and eating more plants.) It may be touted as a paradigm shift in our perspective of reality, but IMHO i think it describes in definitive pharmacological/anthropological terms, what religions as older than (and including) scripture have always been describing outright.
Then again, it could just be another set of notions knocked loose by the use of psychotropics. They take on an air of reality (or even "ueber-reality" to make a gross cross-linguistic construct) to the user, but do any of them necessarily conform to objective reality? Is it even testable? However, they are indeed interesting for revealing what is latent inside of our own "mental territory".
> * :You do occur to me German- is it your composer/moniker? Probably a throwback from conversing with my Swedish friends via text.
DSCH is the Germanization of his initals that corresponds to a four note figure he used as a musical signature. He himself was most definately Russian (St. Petersburger to be precise). As for me I am of Norwegian-German(Holsteiner)-English heritage. :-)
poster:DSCH
thread:276748
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20031031/msgs/278567.html