David Brooks' TED talk on "Should you live for your résumé ... or your eulogy?"



(also discussed on Charlie Rose, April 18, 2014).

David Brooks (born August 11, 1961, one week after Barack Obama (age 52, Joneser) )

Short and wise. Not being a moderate conservative, I don't always agree with him or his views. But agree or not, I think this talk is great, and puts things in compact focus. He quotes a couple of authors (Joseph Soloveitchik and Reinhold Nierbuhr). I haven't heard of the first one, but he wrote The Lonely Man of Faith, (1965) in which he described Adam 1 and Adam 2, two opposing types within human beings; Adam 1 is outward success seeking, and Adam 2 is internal and moral.

It reminds me a bit of Chas' and Tim's insistence (and others who agree with them) that this is a saeculum of atonement, or that Boomers are prophets of an atonement saeculum, in a double rhythm pattern. I think the other word was Achievement, which applied to Missionaries and the previous saeculum. This double rhythm and double type of prophet would fit with Brooks' summary of Soloveitchik's idea. What Brooks realizes is the fact that our culture emphasizes external success, still focusing on how to achieve (despite what the counterculture has said for 45 years-- my comment), and discourages introspection and faith in something greater that calls us. Brooks puts a good light on Adam 2/atonement, saying we are ignoring it too much.

Generally-speaking, I think, Adam 1 is emphasized during 4Ts and 1Ts and by nomads and civics; Adam 2 in late 1Ts among a few; in 2Ts (and maybe in early 3Ts, or as 3T moralistic culture wars), and by artists and prophets. On the philosophers wheel this opposition refers to the spiritualist vs. materialist axis, and to some extent I vs. E, F vs. T and N vs. S among Jungian types.

I see some subtleties and overlapping qualities in these two types; for one thing, we need our strengths (Adam 1) to "fight our weaknesses" or "sins" (Adam 2), and this is not fully mentioned. Strength of course, in the sense of the ancient virtue, is an internal strength, which needs to be developed in many cases, including certainly through battling our inner demons. But we can't gain strength just by fighting. It also comes through inspiration, as well as through contemplating our mistakes. I also like to pierce through some of the paradoxical logic Brooks refers to regarding Adam 2. That may also apply to my views regarding "atonement vs. achievement." Despite these details, I like the way Brooks has drawn a sharp picture of the polarity we all deal with.

One good point Brooks makes is that real fulfillment or moral success is found through commitment or effort on behalf of a cause or project that will continue after we die; it takes more than one lifetime, and more than one person to do this.

More Brooks on this topic:
http://youtu.be/WlJnNRdVHHw

I'm not participating here very much these days, but I thought I'd chime in on this one.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The 10 dogmas of science are:
1. Nature is mechanical or machine like. We are lumbering robots.
2. The whole universe is made of matter, which is unconscious.
3. The laws of nature are fixed, and there are constants.
4. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same, ever since the big bang.
5. There are no purposes in nature, and evolution has no direction.
6. Everything you inherit is in your genes.
7. Memories are stored inside your brain as material traces.
8. Your mind is inside your head, and your consciousness is only the activity of your brain.
9. Psychic abilities and telepathy are impossible, and people who believe in them are deceived.
10. Mechanistic medicine works, and alternative and holistic therapies do not.

Only two of these is a part of any science.

1) This is an idea from materialistic philosophy, not science. (And the second sentence isn't even from that.)
2) The universe is mostly empty space. It obviously isn't made of matter. The statement that matter is unconscious is scientifically meaningless.
3) This is one of the ones that's an actual scientific statement, sort of. The laws of nature being "fixed" is kind of theoretically true, but in practice our understanding of them is always tentative and subject to improvement. And of course there are constants: the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, etc.
4) Energy is conserved. Matter isn't.
5) While we observe no purpose to nature and no direction to evolution, no biologist would claim that he can show these don't exist. The most you can say is that he would never affirmatively say that they do. And he would be wrong to say that they do, so this is fine.
6) I expect to inherit a house from my mother and that is not in my genes.
7) This, although poorly expressed, is also real science. Memories are indeed brain-based. At least, we can show brain-based memory and have no evidence of any other kind.
8) "The mind" isn't even a clear concept. Many mental functions are demonstrably brain-based, but that doesn't mean the functions are "inside your head," as a function isn't an object and so doesn't have a location. Consciousness isn't a simple concept, either. Hard-problem consciousness isn't studied by scientists because that's impossible. Easy-problem consciousness is another matter. The philosopher David Chalmers wrote a famous and controversial paper on the subject which can be found here: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html. From that paper:

Originally Posted by David Chalmers

T
here is not just one problem of consciousness. "Consciousness" is an ambiguous term, referring to many different phenomena. Each of these phenomena needs to be explained, but some are easier to explain than others. At the start, it is useful to divide the associated problems of consciousness into "hard" and "easy" problems. The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. The hard problems are those that seem to resist those methods.
The easy problems of consciousness include those of explaining the following phenomena:

the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;
the integration of information by a cognitive system;
the reportability of mental states;
the ability of a system to access its own internal states;
the focus of attention;
the deliberate control of behavior;
the difference between wakefulness and sleep. . . .

There is no real issue about whether these phenomena can be explained scientifically. . . . The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect.

Science deals with the easy problems of consciousness and should, but has nothing to say about the hard problem.

9) This is just silly.
10) So is this.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The 10 dogmas of science are:
1. Nature is mechanical or machine like. We are lumbering robots.
2. The whole universe is made of matter, which is unconscious.
3. The laws of nature are fixed, and there are constants.
4. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same, ever since the big bang.
5. There are no purposes in nature, and evolution has no direction.
6. Everything you inherit is in your genes.
7. Memories are stored inside your brain as material traces.
8. Your mind is inside your head, and your consciousness is only the activity of your brain.
9. Psychic abilities and telepathy are impossible, and people who believe in them are deceived.
10. Mechanistic medicine works, and alternative and holistic therapies do not.

None of these dogmas are true, and there is little or no evidence for them. They are merely beliefs and assumptions. If you look at them, they fall apart.

According to my desk-top Merriam-Webster, a "Dogma" is a doctrine proclaimed by a church.

If we should go along with this ... isn't it odd that in the process of obtaining a B.S. and an M.S. in Chemistry, that I've never run into ANY of these?

Furthermore, what's really interesting is that NONE of the actual doctrines of science is listed!

You want to read a stimulating critique of the over-emphasis that sometimes comes about through the use of science, check out Curtis White's The Science Delusion.

Originally Posted by TnT

According to my desk-top Merriam-Webster, a "Dogma" is a doctrine proclaimed by a church.

If we should go along with this ... isn't it odd that in the process of obtaining a B.S. and an M.S. in Chemistry, that I've never run into ANY of these?

Furthermore, what's really interesting is that NONE of the actual doctrines of science is listed!

You want to read a stimulating critique of the over-emphasis that sometimes comes about through the use of science, check out Curtis White's The Science Delusion.

According to the Webster's Dictionary, a dogma is:

"1) a system of doctrines proclaimed true by a religious sect.
2) a principle, belief, idea, or opinion, especially one authoratively considered to be absolute truth.
3) a system of principles or beliefs."

According to this definition, you could have a scientific dogma. However, I agree with Tim that I haven't seen those listed by Eric as being the core of the scientific enterprise. They seem to be a distortion akin to Fox's characterisms of liberal thought.

Originally Posted by TnT

isn't it odd that in the process of obtaining a B.S. and an M.S. in Chemistry, that I've never run into ANY of these?

Not even the conservation of matter and energy?

Furthermore, what's really interesting is that NONE of the actual doctrines of science is listed!

Rupert Sheldrake says that he is a scientist and approves of science. As Rupert pointed out, science does not need to be bound by the dogmas that scientists commonly believe. The scientific materialist beliefs and science itself are not the same.

But the approach of science tends to lend itself to these beliefs (like the 10 dogmas). If you are pursuing knowledge through empirical methods, you are looking at things after the fact, necessarily. As long as you realize the limits of this method, then using empirical methods is not a dogma. But the temptation is to believe that empirical methods are the only way to truth, and that leads to the conclusion that there is nothing spiritual, and that this is an unconscious universe, because that aspect of life is not knowable through empirical scientific methods. You can't know the subjective by seeking only the objective; you need inward experience.

Similarly, if you are using science to establish the causes of things and events, you can gain knowledge. But if you believe all events must have a cause (because that's the kind of knowledge you are seeking), then you have adopted dogma #1, the mechanical universe. If you are seeking knowledge about the "states of matter" or "how matter behaves," then you are liable to adopt the dogma that the universe is made of matter. That's the difference between doing science and having dogmatic beliefs.

It's good if your education did not foist such beliefs on you; if that is truly the case. For most people who study and practice science, it is easy to get sucked into the dogma. When I took science courses, the dogmas were there.

You want to read a stimulating critique of the over-emphasis that sometimes comes about through the use of science, check out Curtis White's The Science Delusion.

Interesting that the 10 dogmas of science listed in the post above come from Rupert Sheldrake's book of the same title.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm not participating here very much these days, but I thought I'd chime in on this one.



Only two of these is a part of any science.

1) This is an idea from materialistic philosophy, not science. (And the second sentence isn't even from that.)
2) The universe is mostly empty space. It obviously isn't made of matter. The statement that matter is unconscious is scientifically meaningless.
3) This is one of the ones that's an actual scientific statement, sort of. The laws of nature being "fixed" is kind of theoretically true, but in practice our understanding of them is always tentative and subject to improvement. And of course there are constants: the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, etc.
4) Energy is conserved. Matter isn't.
5) While we observe no purpose to nature and no direction to evolution, no biologist would claim that he can show these don't exist. The most you can say is that he would never affirmatively say that they do. And he would be wrong to say that they do, so this is fine.
6) I expect to inherit a house from my mother and that is not in my genes.
7) This, although poorly expressed, is also real science. Memories are indeed brain-based. At least, we can show brain-based memory and have no evidence of any other kind.
8) "The mind" isn't even a clear concept. Many mental functions are demonstrably brain-based, but that doesn't mean the functions are "inside your head," as a function isn't an object and so doesn't have a location. Consciousness isn't a simple concept, either. Hard-problem consciousness isn't studied by scientists because that's impossible. Easy-problem consciousness is another matter. The philosopher David Chalmers wrote a famous and controversial paper on the subject which can be found here: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html. From that paper:



Science deals with the easy problems of consciousness and should, but has nothing to say about the hard problem.

9) This is just silly.
10) So is this.

I imagine Brian might still have me on ignore, but whenever I discuss science and related philosophy questions here, I usually think a bit about Brian's ideas.

I thought this was an interesting statement by him:

"Many mental functions are demonstrably brain-based, but that doesn't mean the functions are "inside your head," as a function isn't an object and so doesn't have a location"

That to me is similar to the uncertainty principle, which implies that the same is true of non-mental events or "objects" as well. The principle implies that we need to be mindful of the limits of our scientific knowledge, and thus avoid the dogmas.

I would say that less than two, namely none, of the 10 dogmas is any part of science. A genuine scientific statement, therefore, has none of these dogmas in it. But they are believed in by many scientists; that's why Sheldrake is bringing up the issue, and why he and others were censored by the materialist-oriented TED folks as well as by wikipedia. Materialism is, as Sheldrake points out, the chief philosophy of academia today, and has been adopted by political powers when it comes to making decisions about things like funding. To get his views on this (which I agree with), it is good to watch the videos.

Brian is a materialist, although a more-modern one; but as such, accepts certain aspects of the dogma, although he has his own views and approach to these things. We each have our views, and we aren't going to agree. That's fine and that's the way of the world.

And as for Chalmers, I don't think any of these issues of consciousness are "easy" for science to explain. They all involve that elusive quality of spontaneity, conscious awareness or experience, intention, subjectivity. But science today appears to be able to explain a lot about such phenomena or "problems of consciousness," and as with the other dogmas, scientific materialists tend to go the whole way and think they are all being explained in all their aspects, or someday will be. That is the primary dogma; not even listed in the 10 dogmas, but Sheldrake spoke of it as a sort of preamble to the 10: that science has or will be able someday to explain all things (in Brian's case, a lot of things but not all). As Sheldrake put it, the dogma is that science understands all in principle already, with only the details to be filled in.

Eric, I would suggest you read Chalmers' paper. It's quite interesting. As he points out, "easy" is a relative term, and he acknowledges that our understanding of these phenomena he is calling the "easy problems" is a long way from complete and there's huge amount of empirical work to be done. In my opinion, he was being professionally polite or cautious, and I would be more inclined to call these the "possible" and "impossible" problems of consciousness.

This relates to things I've said in the past. As long as we can describe mental activity in terms of its observable processes, it can be treated scientifically. That's true of all of the things he lists as "easy problems." It's true, in fact, of everything we consider "mental" except for hard-problem consciousness itself: the fact that, as Chalmers puts it, our mental functions are accompanied by subjective experience. He approaches the subject from a materialist perspective (and remains a materialist but more one like myself than a traditional type), concludes that we cannot explain hard-problem consciousness as a function of any observable process, and concludes that it is fundamental to the universe, like energy or space-time, which also have no explanations but just are. (We can model the way they operate, but we can't account for their origins -- they have none.) He also ends up as a panpsychist, seeing precursors to consciousness in non-living matter, and that's where I come from, too.

And yet he remains a materialist, as do I. Materialism, strictly speaking, is only a belief in a single world, the material world, and the denial that anything exists outside it or of a non-material nature. It says nothing about what the nature of the material world is, and our understanding of that nature has evolved dramatically over time. We see it today very differently than Newton did.

By the way, there is no conservation of mass as an absolute principle in physics. It's still used in most kinds of chemistry, because it works most of the time, but nuclear reactions destroy matter and produce energy, so obviously it's possible to destroy matter. The conservation of energy, however, remains in force.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Eric, I would suggest you read Chalmers' paper. It's quite interesting. As he points out, "easy" is a relative term, and he acknowledges that our understanding of these phenomena he is calling the "easy problems" is a long way from complete and there's huge amount of empirical work to be done. In my opinion, he was being professionally polite or cautious, and I would be more inclined to call these the "possible" and "impossible" problems of consciousness.

OK. I would say, not being a materialist, that they are impossible (can never be "complete"), although learning a great deal about them through science and empiricism is possible. But it's good that you have a mate on this, and maybe feel not so alone in your views. Myself, I like Sheldrake and his allies, and I hope you watch his videos I posted above.

This relates to things I've said in the past.

But, of course

As long as we can describe mental activity in terms of its observable processes, it can be treated scientifically. That's true of all of the things he lists as "easy problems." It's true, in fact, of everything we consider "mental" except for hard-problem consciousness itself: the fact that, as Chalmers puts it, our mental functions are accompanied by subjective experience. He approaches the subject from a materialist perspective (and remains a materialist but more one like myself than a traditional type), concludes that we cannot explain hard-problem consciousness as a function of any observable process, and concludes that it is fundamental to the universe, like energy or space-time, which also have no explanations but just are. (We can model the way they operate, but we can't account for their origins -- they have none.) He also ends up as a panpsychist, seeing precursors to consciousness in non-living matter, and that's where I come from, too.

I like pan-psychism. Bergson, Teilhard, Whitehead, Christian De Quincey as well as Sheldrake are good examples of pan-psychism.

And yet he remains a materialist, as do I. Materialism, strictly speaking, is only a belief in a single world, the material world, and the denial that anything exists outside it or of a non-material nature. It says nothing about what the nature of the material world is, and our understanding of that nature has evolved dramatically over time. We see it today very differently than Newton did.

Right, and I remain a single-world spiritualist, in much the same way. Nothing exists of a non-spiritual nature, or outside of it. I align precisely with New Thought and Divine Science in this regard. It's not the old-time religion God. It's tough to change we old dogs.

But Chalmers appears to line up with the hermetic and neo-platonic view of spirit/consciousness as a fifth element (an element being something fundamental to the universe). In this ancient view, "energy" is like fire, and the other 3 elements are related to space and time, and later became known as the "states of matter." (of course I don't know if Chalmers is interested in the 5 ancient elements).

By the way, there is no conservation of mass as an absolute principle in physics. It's still used in most kinds of chemistry, because it works most of the time, but nuclear reactions destroy matter and produce energy, so obviously it's possible to destroy matter. The conservation of energy, however, remains in force.

Or, maybe not, acc. to Sheldrake.

I think we can identity matter with energy. And energy implies a source: spirit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Right, and I remain a single-world spiritualist, in much the same way. Nothing exists of a non-spiritual nature, or outside of it.

Aside from the choice of names, what's the difference? Is there any? If you're affirming one world, and it's the world we experience, then it seems to me you're just choosing to call it by a different label.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Aside from the choice of names, what's the difference? Is there any? If you're affirming one world, and it's the world we experience, then it seems to me you're just choosing to call it by a different label.

That could be; it's just a difference of emphasis, among two concepts. Which is prior, the inner point of view, or the outer point of view? Fundamentally though, there's no difference. The rubber hits the road though, in what sorts of experience you are open to as valid.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The rubber hits the road though, in what sorts of experience you are open to as valid.

And that, in turn, depends on what language-game you are playing. We have, more or less, four different knowledge-systems that address four different sorts of questions.

Science: questions of fact about observable phenomena.
Art: questions of meaning about the world we live in.
Morality: questions of value; "ought" rather than "is" questions.
Spirituality: questions relating to our identity as subjects and the relationship between the self and the cosmos.

Much of the disagreement between you and me, Eric, centers around your apparent belief that science should adopt methods and/or address questions appropriate for the other three. But science is not a complete knowledge-system. As with the other three, it's a partial knowledge-system designed to answer only a certain kind of question, those of fact about observable phenomena. There are very important questions that either aren't questions of fact (those of art and morality) or aren't about observable phenomena (those of spirituality) and it's inappropriate to approach them using scientific method -- and equally pointless to expect science to recognize their relevance and importance.

It's important to preserve the purity of each knowledge-system and not have it be polluted by the others. For example, one finds New Atheists sometimes demanding objective proof of the existence of God. But that is not a valid criticism from a spiritual perspective, since God is not an observable phenomenon but a spiritual metaphor, and spirituality is all about subjective experience and personal transformation; scientific method just isn't appropriate in that arena. Spirituality needs to be kept pure, in its core activities, from pollution by the methods appropriate to science (or art or morality) -- although it can take advantage of knowledge science has gained by properly applying scientific method to questions that are properly scientific ones (for example, deriving metaphors and images from such concepts as the Big Bang, nonlinearity, evolution, or the expanding universe).

The same purity consideration works around science, too. It's not a valid criticism of scientific work that the results are immoral, or that they are not as aesthetically appealing or meaningful as some other outcome, or that they are spiritually soulless. If science is the only knowledge system we use, soulless it will be, but that's not a flaw in science. It's a flaw in us, in our approach, not to science, but to life.

I will add here that probably more people are deficient by using scientific method too little for what it's good for, then by trying to use it exclusively for all questions including those it's not good for. The level of scientific ignorance out there is simply staggering. I have a problem with encouraging that in any way.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And that, in turn, depends on what language-game you are playing.

It could be. I am keenly interested in such subjects as life after death, reincarnation, spirit communication, ghosts; as well as hermetic philosophy, telepathy, UFOs, etc. I don't consider the first three to be superstitions, metaphors, beliefs, misperceptions, misinterpretations, explanable as sensory or brain phenomena, etc., and we disagree on that. Nor do I consider telepathy to be explainable in any sort of materialistic terms. We don't agree on that either. That to me is where the rubber meets the road on the language games of spirit or matter.

We have, more or less, four different knowledge-systems that address four different sorts of questions.

Science: questions of fact about observable phenomena.
Art: questions of meaning about the world we live in.
Morality: questions of value; "ought" rather than "is" questions.
Spirituality: questions relating to our identity as subjects and the relationship between the self and the cosmos.

Much of the disagreement between you and me, Eric, centers around your apparent belief that science should adopt methods and/or address questions appropriate for the other three. But science is not a complete knowledge-system. As with the other three, it's a partial knowledge-system designed to answer only a certain kind of question, those of fact about observable phenomena. There are very important questions that either aren't questions of fact (those of art and morality) or aren't about observable phenomena (those of spirituality) and it's inappropriate to approach them using scientific method -- and equally pointless to expect science to recognize their relevance and importance.

It's important to preserve the purity of each knowledge-system and not have it be polluted by the others. For example, one finds New Atheists sometimes demanding objective proof of the existence of God. But that is not a valid criticism from a spiritual perspective, since God is not an observable phenomenon but a spiritual metaphor, and spirituality is all about subjective experience and personal transformation; scientific method just isn't appropriate in that arena. Spirituality needs to be kept pure, in its core activities, from pollution by the methods appropriate to science (or art or morality) -- although it can take advantage of knowledge science has gained by properly applying scientific method to questions that are properly scientific ones (for example, deriving metaphors and images from such concepts as the Big Bang, nonlinearity, evolution, or the expanding universe).

The same purity consideration works around science, too. It's not a valid criticism of scientific work that the results are immoral, or that they are not as aesthetically appealing or meaningful as some other outcome, or that they are spiritually soulless. If science is the only knowledge system we use, soulless it will be, but that's not a flaw in science. It's a flaw in us, in our approach, not to science, but to life.

I will add here that probably more people are deficient by using scientific method too little for what it's good for, then by trying to use it exclusively for all questions including those it's not good for. The level of scientific ignorance out there is simply staggering. I have a problem with encouraging that in any way.

It's true that there is this deficiency. It's driven by peoples' beliefs, values and concerns. People have different views though, which may not always be ignorant. But as for deficiencies, I don't worry too much about creationists, for example. There's no danger of their beliefs being accepted in science.

I prefer the term philosophy for the moral questions system "sort," and philosophy is more wide-ranging than morals; it includes metaphysics and epistemology too, and is fundamental knowledge that trumps and precedes science.

But yes, I like the 4-fold model too, as you know. As you know also, although I think it would be less confusing if we could totally separate the realms, I don't think it can be done, or that it's such a good thing to do it. They each must inform the others IMO, and seek integration in their knowledge of the one reality. But they each have protocols within their disciplines, and these can be preserved and adhered to (for example, the empirical method, or yoga, acupuncture, etc.). Maybe we can agree on that?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It could be. I am keenly interested in such subjects as life after death, reincarnation, spirit communication, ghosts; as well as hermetic philosophy, telepathy, UFOs, etc. I don't consider the first three to be superstitions, metaphors, beliefs, misperceptions, misinterpretations, explanable as sensory or brain phenomena, etc., and we disagree on that. Nor do I consider telepathy to be explainable in any sort of materialistic terms. We don't agree on that either. That to me is where the rubber meets the road on the language games of spirit or matter.

Well, "language games of spirit and matter" is rather a misinterpretation of what I was saying, Eric. All four of the language games I listed have some relevance to "matter," for example, but they ask and attempt to answer different types of question. For example, consider the phenomenon of fire. Science would ask such questions as what temperature different materials need to catch fire, how quickly a certain type of fire consumes oxygen, how much energy is put out by a fire of a certain fuel given a certain set of conditions, and so on -- treating fire as an observable phenomenon (which it is, of course) and asking questions of fact about it. Art would consider such things as the colors displayed by fire, or the emotional impact of such things as burning at the stake, a warm fire on a winter night, a bonfire, a home catching fire, or Hellfire. Some of these are the same subjects as science addressed, but the questions asked about those subjects are different. And so on.

You can approach each of the items on your list by considering what questions about them are appropriate to each of the language games. For example, regarding telepathy, we might ask what evidence there is for telepathic ability's existence, or what models can describe the operation of this ability, and those are scientific questions; on the other hand, we might also ask how telepathy feels in a relationship or how it should and should not be used, and that is more a moral or artistic question (in fact, I've used exactly that concept in my novel writing). So not everything about telepathy is "explainable in material terms," that is, there are questions about it (as about everything else) for which your concept of materialism is completely irrelevant, but I get the sense that isn't what you mean. Again, you seem to be calling on science to change its approach and allow what you consider "spirit" stuff into its models and theories -- while at the same time asserting that matter and spirit are one and the same, which would mean that science is already doing that. (In saying this, I'm certainly not arguing that science to date has done a very good job with respect to telepathy.)

The rules of scientific method are clear and unambiguous. If we can explain telepathy in terms of already understood functions of the brain (which we can't), then there's no need to look for anything more than that. If we can do so by adding a currently unrecognized but operationally definable natural principle that the brain is able to make use of to our understanding (and that I believe is possible), and if furthermore that same principle explains a lot of other phenomena in an elegant fashion, then there's no need to go beyond that. If that explanation fails to give any comfort to a desire for the personality to survive death, well, them's the breaks.

While I recognize that there are many very important questions for which science is useless as a method, I am a firm believer in its value for the types of questions it is meant to answer: questions of objective fact about observable phenomena.

But as for deficiencies, I don't worry too much about creationists, for example. There's no danger of their beliefs being accepted in science.

In science, no. In politics, unfortunately, yes. And the same is true of climate change denial.

I prefer the term philosophy for the moral questions system "sort," and philosophy is more wide-ranging than morals; it includes metaphysics and epistemology too, and is fundamental knowledge that trumps and precedes science.

You're right that I forgot philosophy. That's a fifth language game and concerns questions about underlying assumptions defining the different language games themselves. In fact the term "language game" is itself philosophical.

But yes, I like the 4-fold model too, as you know. As you know also, although I think it would be less confusing if we could totally separate the realms, I don't think it can be done, or that it's such a good thing to do it. They each must inform the others IMO, and seek integration in their knowledge of the one reality. But they each have protocols within their disciplines, and these can be preserved and adhered to (for example, the empirical method, or yoga, acupuncture, etc.). Maybe we can agree on that?

It's not a question of totally separating them, but of insuring their integrity and that inappropriate expectations are not imposed from outside, such as requiring objective proof of the existence of God or having a problem with the theory of natural selection because it makes nature out to be mean and nasty. Or criticizing Star Wars because it has spaceships making noise in empty vacuum, which is bad science (but not necessarily bad movie-making). Or something like Social Darwinism, which is the worst sort of pseudo-scientific perversion of moral thinking. As you say, each language game has its own protocols and ways of distinguishing true from false, valid from invalid, good from bad. When we call upon one of them to violate these protocols, we are in the wrong.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, "language games of spirit and matter" is rather a misinterpretation of what I was saying, Eric. All four of the language games I listed have some relevance to "matter," for example, but they ask and attempt to answer different types of question. For example, consider the phenomenon of fire. Science would ask such questions as what temperature different materials need to catch fire, how quickly a certain type of fire consumes oxygen, how much energy is put out by a fire of a certain fuel given a certain set of conditions, and so on -- treating fire as an observable phenomenon (which it is, of course) and asking questions of fact about it. Art would consider such things as the colors displayed by fire, or the emotional impact of such things as burning at the stake, a warm fire on a winter night, a bonfire, a home catching fire, or Hellfire. Some of these are the same subjects as science addressed, but the questions asked about those subjects are different. And so on.

You can approach each of the items on your list by considering what questions about them are appropriate to each of the language games. For example, regarding telepathy, we might ask what evidence there is for telepathic ability's existence, or what models can describe the operation of this ability, and those are scientific questions; on the other hand, we might also ask how telepathy feels in a relationship or how it should and should not be used, and that is more a moral or artistic question (in fact, I've used exactly that concept in my novel writing). So not everything about telepathy is "explainable in material terms," that is, there are questions about it (as about everything else) for which your concept of materialism is completely irrelevant, but I get the sense that isn't what you mean. Again, you seem to be calling on science to change its approach and allow what you consider "spirit" stuff into its models and theories -- while at the same time asserting that matter and spirit are one and the same, which would mean that science is already doing that. (In saying this, I'm certainly not arguing that science to date has done a very good job with respect to telepathy.)

It may indeed already be doing that. There are people investigating such things as the afterlife in what I consider a scientific way. The only disagreement we have had is your statements that these things are definitely misinterpretations (etc. as I listed the possible ways). I am open to such things as reality, not merely as needs for emotional comfort. Are you? If not, that's our disagreement. Which is fine; we just see this realm differently.

The rules of scientific method are clear and unambiguous. If we can explain telepathy in terms of already understood functions of the brain (which we can't), then there's no need to look for anything more than that. If we can do so by adding a currently unrecognized but operationally definable natural principle that the brain is able to make use of to our understanding (and that I believe is possible), and if furthermore that same principle explains a lot of other phenomena in an elegant fashion, then there's no need to go beyond that. If that explanation fails to give any comfort to a desire for the personality to survive death, well, them's the breaks.

While I recognize that there are many very important questions for which science is useless as a method, I am a firm believer in its value for the types of questions it is meant to answer: questions of objective fact about observable phenomena.

Yes, I agree that is a good statement of science's area of competence.

My position is that such a principle to explain spiritual realms could be "natural," if "natural" includes the spiritual realm as understood by any mystic or spiritualist. Comfort is an emotional term. But for knowledge, I am interested in these subjects on that basis, and do not agree with attempts to explain them away using "materialist language games."

In science, no. In politics, unfortunately, yes. And the same is true of climate change denial.

Yes, I agree. Although that probably means the problem is not the science we explain to them, but their own beliefs that screen out the science, and make them want to change the science just to justify their beliefs.

You're right that I forgot philosophy. That's a fifth language game and concerns questions about underlying assumptions defining the different language games themselves. In fact the term "language game" is itself philosophical.

Good. I just include ethics as part of that, which it is, according to any college list of courses and departments and the entire history of philosophy.

It's not a question of totally separating them, but of insuring their integrity and that inappropriate expectations are not imposed from outside, such as requiring objective proof of the existence of God or having a problem with the theory of natural selection because it makes nature out to be mean and nasty. Or criticizing Star Wars because it has spaceships making noise in empty vacuum, which is bad science (but not necessarily bad movie-making). Or something like Social Darwinism, which is the worst sort of pseudo-scientific perversion of moral thinking. As you say, each language game has its own protocols and ways of distinguishing true from false, valid from invalid, good from bad. When we call upon one of them to violate these protocols, we are in the wrong.

Natural selection is another area where we may disagree; it's inadequate to explain what it claims to explain. Sheldrake has one intriguing alternative theory, and there are others.

But yes, we can agree that realms of knowledge need to keep to their protocols. Good. If we want to focus on where else we agree, maybe pan-psychism?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I am open to such things as reality, not merely as needs for emotional comfort. Are you? If not, that's our disagreement. Which is fine; we just see this realm differently.

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about here. Perhaps you could explain what "such things" you mean.

But for knowledge, I am interested in these subjects on that basis, and do not agree with attempts to explain them away using "materialist language games."

To "explain away" something is to deny its reality or significance. For example, someone who wants to dismiss the significance of spiritual experience might claim that it is "nothing more" than a flutter in the brain. But I would explain spiritual experience as an awareness of our connection with the cosmos, achieved by finding that connection at the core of our own consciousness, where it's expressed fractal-fashion, and a way of transcending the illusion we carry of our own limited identity. In both cases, we deny that there is any discrete object "out there" that causes the experience, but for the one trying to dismiss it that means it's a hallucination or a delusion, while for me it's merely a statement of the mechanics of the experience and says nothing about its importance. One is "explaining away." One is not. Can you see this?

Yes, I agree. Although that probably means the problem is not the science we explain to them, but their own beliefs that screen out the science, and make them want to change the science just to justify their beliefs.

Indeed. May we make that a general principle?

Natural selection is another area where we may disagree; it's inadequate to explain what it claims to explain.

Current evolution theory includes a number of factors besides natural selection. It incorporates genetics for one thing, and Darwin knew nothing about that. Obviously natural selection is incomplete and no biologist would dispute that today; however, that incompleteness is a valid criticism according to the rules of science. Complaining that natural selection must not be right because it implies that nature is nasty, evolving new species through death and struggle, is not.

But yes, we can agree that realms of knowledge need to keep to their protocols. Good. If we want to focus on where else we agree, maybe pan-psychism?

I suspect we might mean different things by that term, but yes. It follows from the lack of any discrete source for consciousness. Although it then becomes an interesting question what kind of consciousness might be experienced by the huge portion of the universe that lacks mental functions as we observe them in the brain.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about here. Perhaps you could explain what "such things" you mean.

btw, welcome back.

Just what I wrote above; "such things" as reincarnation, afterlife, spirit communication. Not that these are equivalent to mystical experience or samadhi, etc., but as you said, my opinion about "such things" is not to "dismiss (them as) a hallucination or a delusion".

To "explain away" something is to deny its reality or significance. For example, someone who wants to dismiss the significance of spiritual experience might claim that it is "nothing more" than a flutter in the brain. But I would explain spiritual experience as an awareness of our connection with the cosmos, achieved by finding that connection at the core of our own consciousness, where it's expressed fractal-fashion, and a way of transcending the illusion we carry of our own limited identity. In both cases, we deny that there is any discrete object "out there" that causes the experience, but for the one trying to dismiss it that means it's a hallucination or a delusion, while for me it's merely a statement of the mechanics of the experience and says nothing about its importance. One is "explaining away." One is not. Can you see this?

Absolutely. I like the fractal reference. I would extend this "significance of spiritual experience" to include "such things" as the above too. I suspect your philosophy precludes "such things" as being more than delusions (or misinterpretations, metaphors, etc.), and mine does not. That's where we differ (I suspect ).

Indeed. May we make that a general principle?

It seems so.

Current evolution theory includes a number of factors besides natural selection. It incorporates genetics for one thing, and Darwin knew nothing about that. Obviously natural selection is incomplete and no biologist would dispute that today; however, that incompleteness is a valid criticism according to the rules of science. Complaining that natural selection must not be right because it implies that nature is nasty, evolving new species through death and struggle, is not.

OK.

I suspect we might mean different things by that term, but yes. It follows from the lack of any discrete source for consciousness. Although it then becomes an interesting question what kind of consciousness might be experienced by the huge portion of the universe that lacks mental functions as we observe them in the brain.

An interesting question.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

By the way, there is no conservation of mass as an absolute principle in physics. It's still used in most kinds of chemistry, because it works most of the time, but nuclear reactions destroy matter and produce energy, so obviously it's possible to destroy matter. The conservation of energy, however, remains in force.

Actually its conservation of mass-energy since the two are interchangeable (E = mc^2). So when Eric said mass and energy, if you interpret this is mass plus energy he was right.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

For example, one finds New Atheists sometimes demanding objective proof of the existence of God. But that is not a valid criticism from a spiritual perspective, since God is not an observable phenomenon but a spiritual metaphor, and spirituality is all about subjective experience and personal transformation; scientific method just isn't appropriate in that arena.

Quite true. There can be no proof of God, because in the scientific sense God would be an Axiom. Our current physics is based on a set of physical constants that are a given. No reason is given for why they have the values they do and theory says if their values were much different, life would not be possible. A variety of explanations can be advanced for why these values are as they are. Some are unfalsifiable. God could join these notions as such another one of these unfalsifiable explanations.

Recently, one of the few falsifiable explanations has moved closer to being falsified, which, if it happens, will create one of those periodic Kuhnian scientific crises.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The rules of scientific method are clear and unambiguous. If we can explain telepathy in terms of already understood functions of the brain (which we can't), then there's no need to look for anything more than that.

This is not complete. Before you can explain something you must first be able to characterize it. There can be no theory of telepathy without an operational definition of telepathy. To study telepathy there has to be some telepathy to study. Just as to study UFOs one has to produce a UFO (or compelling evidence of UFOs). For UFOs it has been recently established that these do not exist. I say this because with the rise of smart phones with cameras, huge number of people have the means to document and publish UFO sightings over time period too short for effective suppression. If UFOs were visiting the Earth (as claimed by numerous undocumented accounts by eyewitnesses in the past who did not have portable cameras with them) then hundred of cell phone pictures and videos of visiting aliens would have flooded the web as the video of the meteorite over Russia did recently.

For telepathy, the way it has been described implies that it should be testable by experiments. Yet when this has been done the results have been inconclusive, like those involving cold fusion.

The chief issue it all of these "on the edge" phenomena have the property that they were first proposed when our powers of observation were miniscule compared to what we can perceive today and yet with this far greater resolving power they still remain out there on the edge of perception. If they were real they should have become visible.

Mike:

Yes, telepathy needs an operational definition before it can be studied. I would add that after it's given that definition and studies conducted, it further needs at least a wild-guess hypothesis about how it works, that can fit into an overall scientific paradigm. Failing that -- and so far those studying the phenomenon have so failed -- evidence in favor of its existence will meet with reactions from hostility to shrugs. Contrary to what is sometimes asserted, the flaw in parapsychology up to this point has been more theoretical than empirical. Parapsychologists have devoted all their efforts to proving the phenomena exist, without considering that, lacking a coherent theory or hypothesis, they were requiring the scientific community in general to believe in the supernatural, which of course they will not do (and rightly not).

When and if a coherent hypothesis is developed, the evidence already gathered will be found much less "inconclusive" than it is currently judged.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

To "explain away" something is to deny its reality or significance. For example, someone who wants to dismiss the significance of spiritual experience might claim that it is "nothing more" than a flutter in the brain. But I would explain spiritual experience as an awareness of our connection with the cosmos, achieved by finding that connection at the core of our own consciousness, where it's expressed fractal-fashion, and a way of transcending the illusion we carry of our own limited identity.

This is confused. A spiritual experience is a subjective, internal thing. The only person who can "explain away" or dismiss it is the person who has that experience.

When a person who has a spiritual experience asserts it is real to another person, he is asking that person to believe in a subjective experience that he did not have.

In both cases, we deny that there is any discrete object "out there" that causes the experience, but for the one trying to dismiss it that means it's a hallucination or a delusion, while for me it's merely a statement of the mechanics of the experience and says nothing about its importance. One is "explaining away." One is not.

No they are both the equivalent of explaining away. Suppose A has the experience and B did not. The event is real for A, but not for B since he didn't experience it. A wants B it accept the event as real. What we call reality is a concept we share. If Eric, Brian and I go into a room and we all see a wooden chair we will say the chair is real. Yet if I then note that 2 foot high man standing on the chair, while neither you nor Eric can see him what would you assume? That the man is there but only I can see him, or that I am delusional?

The man I see is real to me, even if you dismiss his existence. Suppose I take my meds and the man goes away. I can then acknowledge that he is not real in the sense that I have a rational reason to expect you to believe that he exists, but that doesn't mean that if I go off my meds I won't have to deal with him. He will always be painfully real (as real as a heart attack) and so to avoid him I will have to endure the unpleasant side effects of the meds for the rest of my life.`

As for God, I disagree with the characterization of God as an "axiom." This implies that God is a proposition, which is not the case. God is a description of certain experiences, and ideas explaining those experiences (not very well, in my opinion). Properly understood, God is not an axiom but a metaphor or parable -- a myth, in the deep psychological rather than the dismissive sense.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is confused. A spiritual experience is a subjective, internal thing. The only person who can "explain away" or dismiss it is the person who has that experience.

Untrue. The assertion about spiritual experience is not that it is "real," but that it is meaningful and significant, and it is quite possible to explain it away by offering an account of the experience that makes it meaningless and insignificant. An account of the mechanics of the process that is different from the belief of the person who undergoes the experience, but that leaves it meaningful and significant, is not "explaining away."

EDIT: For example, a simplistic religious believer who undergoes a spiritual experience might explain it as, "God spoke to me in my heart and I understood that He and I are one." I would describe the experience differently. I would say that the person transcended the illusion of his or her small-scale identity, and merged with the cosmos, gaining understanding that his/her consciousness was that of the universe.

Since the significance of the experience is preserved, my account is not "explaining it away." The literal, concrete existence of God is not, and never was, the point here, as the literal, concrete existence of the little man on the chair would be (and no further significance of that vision could be derived).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Contrary to what is sometimes asserted, the flaw in parapsychology up to this point has been more theoretical than empirical. Parapsychologists have devoted all their efforts to proving the phenomena exist, without considering that, lacking a coherent theory or hypothesis, they were requiring the scientific community in general to believe in the supernatural, which of course they will not do.

There is nothing supernatural about telepathy or other kinds of ESP. Supernatural means phenomenon that do not follow the same rules as natural phenomenon. There is no reason why ESP phenomena could not be studied as natural things, provided an objective definition of them (i.e. some way for *any* third party to determine its presence and get the same results as other observers).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There is nothing supernatural about telepathy or other kinds of ESP.

I didn't say there was. But it has traditionally been regarded as supernatural, and unless a natural explanation/model is provided, that is where people's minds will go when presented with the evidence. Those who want to believe in the supernatural will greet the evidence with credulity. Those who don't, will invent spurious reasons for dismissing it like the one you just described.