> Bruce Buchanan writes:
>>What may be an unacceptable mistake for a scientist, however, is to assume
>>a dualistic view which accepts the Cartesian error of separating the
>>physical and mental (as talk of spiritual mind stuff seems to do.)
>
> This is a valid objection. What you are implying here is that I hold a Cartesi
an
> perspective. Is this true? No. I believe that consciousness and physics merge
> into one at a very deep level. But just because they are one does not mean tha
t
> we can arbitrarily smear them together as memetics does. Originally electricit
y
> and magnetism were conceived as two different forces. Later they were connecte
d
> by a common theory. But they didn't unify the two forces by smearing them
> together, saying they were one. That would be severely bad science. Fortunatel
y
> for science the two forces are still regarded as *distinct* but related. In
> other words, there is a huge difference between distinction and separation.
> Cartesians *separate* the physical and the spiritual, I *distinguish* them. Th
e
> smearing that Dawkins has done is bad science and philosophy; that's why
> I reject it, and that's why serious scientists and philosophers also reject it
,
> I
> believe.
>
>
> In my view physus and logos relate to each other geometrically.
>
>
> Physus:
> The physical world is always the world as seen from the *outside*, always on t
he
> surface of things, always behavioral, always from a distance. This is why the
> laws of physics never answer ontological questions such as: what IS matter?
> Physics ultimately cannot answer this question, it can only answer how matter
> appears, how it behaves, describe its properties.
Rosen deals with this very systematically in "Fundamentals of
Measurement". I think Onar has basically the same perpective. From Rosen's
and Bohm's use of Aristotelian causality, Physics answers "how"
questions, but NEVER "why" questions.
>
>
> Logos:
> Consciousness on the other hand is the world seen from the *inside*, always
> depth, always phenomenal, always close. Quite contrary to physics, the laws of
> consciousness is concerned with the nature of being.
>
And therefore is intimately wrapped up with "why?" questions.
>
>
> Physus and logos are literally two sides of the same thing, but they should
> nevertheless be distinguished. Smearing the insides and outsides of things int
o
> one only produces a mesh.
>
>
> Onar.
One point I have been trying to stress in my interpretation of the
reductionsit/complexity dialog is the impact of Cartesian Dualism on our
willingness to see cognitive (for lack of a better word) properties in systems
other than those with brains. My hobby horse is cellular networks in organisms
(in the usual biological sense) but as I see Rosen's meaning a bit more clearly,
I may begin to side with Onar about other systems as well. Here's a suggestion,
:
the rejection of Cartesian Dualism does not require that we accept
matter and some of its more complex interactions as one thing. Ontologically,
organised matter has many properties only some of which comfortably fit into
the realm of classical physics and chemistry. Biology is one example of
new levels of interaction, organization, etc. which are outside that realm.
Are there others? Why not? The main message I am getting is to stop
shaping my perception to conform to the few categories physics and chemistry
have traditionally prepared us for and to begin to ask other questions ("why?")
and see where this goes. We already have seen people seem to become
liberated when challenged to look at their own research objects from
the vantage point of final cause. I don't want to read too much into
this, but we do seem to need to break free. I hope we can facilitate
that for one another.
Best regards, Don