Skip to main content

View Diary: Reason to Hope: A New Deal for Religion and Science (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  already there: read this: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, wilderness voice

    State-specific science, Charles Tart, originally published in the journal Science in 1970.  The guy was fifty years ahead of his time with this one.

    Reprint:

    http://www.gruntose.com/...

    Further brief comment:

    http://www.imprint.co.uk/...

    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

    by G2geek on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 12:20:13 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Charley Tart (0+ / 0-)

      A great guy.  I encountered him at a Buddhist retreat on emptiness many years ago singing, "I got plenty of nuthin' nuthin's plenty for me...."

      Alan Wallace has also addressed this topic in his book "The Taboo of Subjectivity".

      Unfortunately these views are not accepted by what I would call mainstream science.

      On a related note, it is my experience that most scientific materialists will insist on remain in denial of this defect in scientific materialism.

      •  yep, exactly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wilderness voice

        I've spoken with him on a few occasions; his theories have been foundational in my overall paradigm.  

        His proposal for state-specific sciences was accepted for publication in a leading mainstream journal, so that's progress, but that was decades ago, and the full implementation of the idea has not occurred.  

        Mainstream science has if anything become somewhat more retrenched in material monism today than it was then.  Religious extremism started attacking science, and science went on the defense with vigorous atheism.  Somewhere in the midst of all of that, objectivity was compromised.  

        Re. your piece on materialism:  I'd say the situation is more complex than that (but I'm reading Chalmers these days so go figure:-).  Material monism doesn't hold that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, but rather is solely the product of brain functioning and enculturation, and has the functional value of being an asset to natural selection.  The old form of dualism that held mind and body to be entirely separate, is long since dead, but the dualist version of interactionism is still viable.  Interactionism is still not quite mainstream, but Chalmers' work is ferociously capable and I believe will eventually become the accepted paradigm.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 10:35:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dirkster42
          Material monism doesn't hold that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, but rather is solely the product of brain functioning and enculturation
          Materialism rests on the denial of any distinction between subjective and objective phenomena.  Yet they are clearly distinct - when we experience the color "red", that corresponds to the firing of some neurons, but it is not the same as the firing of some neurons.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site