Realism and Religion: A Physicist Examines the Basis for Belief

Physicist Milton Rothman examines the relationship between science and religion and the extent to which a scientist should apply his belief in realism to all aspects of our knowledge of the universe. Link.

48 comments:

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

I highly recommend reading the original article. It is quite excellent.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

It seems to me that experimental physics is different from theorhetical physics. Isn't theory the basis of experiment? And isn't theory an "idea"? Many "ideas" that were outside the "traditionally" validated theory have made scientific history. So, how are we to separate idealism and realism so starkly? Unless we are only talking about the mind/body of the human.

The mind has to be informed by the 'frame" of a particular discipline, culture, or value system, to even begin to engage or understand or "create". Therefore, sense experience has little to do with the intellectual aspect of "mind".

So, can you clarify for me, please?

LadyAtheist said...

You're confusing the conversational use of the word theory with the scientific context.

Conversational: "In theory (which should explain things) I would care enough about my diet not to buy ice cream on the way home, but I now have cookie dough ice cream in my freezer."

Scientific: "I came up with a hypothesis, which I then tested, and repeated tests resulted in a theory which explains why the results came out the way they did."

Better explanation:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Thank you Lady Atheist.
But, a theory is "just a theory" and becomes an hypothesis for experimentation before it becomes "accepted" by scientists, right?
That was the way I was thinking...

When psychologists have done experimentation to predict human behavior, they have used mice. But, do mice have "minds" in the same way humans do? Then, how is the "mind" to be understood without experimentation on humans, which leaves me a litle quesy...

Steven said...

Hi Angie,

But, a theory is "just a theory" and becomes an hypothesis for experimentation before it becomes "accepted" by scientists, right?

No, not within the scientific use of the word theory. The hypothesis always comes first. It is true that new hypotheses may be extrapolated out of a given theory, which are then tested, and if the hypotheses are validated, they become a part of the original theory. But strictly speaking, those extrapolations really are just hypotheses until they are validated by experiment.

As for experiments on mice... Yes, extrapolating from experiments on mice to humans can be a very tricky business, and in these cases, such extrapolations are rarely definitive, but they often do provide useful insight if not sure answers.

I don't feel queasy about that as long as the people that are performing such experiments, are aware of the difficulties and limitations that are involved in doing so... It's not like the people that are doing these experiments aren't cognizant of the differences between the cognitive functions of a mouse and a human, but that doesn't mean that there aren't similarities there that can be used to help us learn something about ourselves.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Steven,
Please clarify:
I understand that conditioning and stimulus response is what has been an accepted view as to animal behavior. Are humans understood as more than animals? Isn't the cognitive element of man distinct from a mouse? Or not? I would concede that a human is just a more complex animal, so how is that complexity understood?

Mind control is useful for totaltalitarian regimes, whether religious or statist. So, how does one evaluate "mind" without "control" elements? (Aren't there always control groups to help elevate biased conclusions?)

Psychiatry is another way of controlling behavior or thinking. On what basis is there a determination that one's mind has to be controlled by drugs, or therapy? How are standards created?

Steven said...

Hi Angie,

Well, my field of expertise isn't psychology, but...

Are humans understood as more than animals?

Not in my book...

Isn't the cognitive element of man distinct from a mouse? Or not?

Well, what I do know of cognitive science leads me to suspect that there is something of a "progressive" continuum here, so I'm not so sure that cognition is necessarily distinct, but clearly while our cognitive faculties are greatly expanded from that of a mouse, they also seem to be built around or on top of what a mouse has.

I would concede that a human is just a more complex animal, so how is that complexity understood?

Well, I think that's the problem with the extrapolation issue in a nutshell. I don't think that our complexity is well understood, but looking at simpler systems on which our own cognitive abilities are based does give insight into underlying fundamental principles even if it doesn't solve the larger and more complex problem. That's the whole point of reductionism, after all. Of course, there's still the question of how fruitful reductionism can really be in the face of our cognitive complexity. I don't think that question has been definitively answered either way.

(Aren't there always control groups to help elevate biased conclusions?)

Well, there is a reason why psychology is called a soft science, and it is precisely because removing biases and gathering statistically significant findings is extremely difficult except in the most simplistic of tests. It is often not even clear if the principles being tested are properly defined in the first place, and that's before we even get into questions about control groups and biases.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Thanks, Steven.

You're not a psychologist, so what discipline are you an "expert" in? (I looked at your blog profile but it didn't give any info except science. Are you a 'hard scientist then?)

Mind control has been used in "intelligence" for security reasons. I just wonder how conscious those that are "under mind control" are. It doesn't seem that religious people are aware of being "controlled' from the "outside". I guess there will always be justification for what one chooses to do or believe or not do or choose to believe....

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I might add in re-reading the first portion of the article, it seems that 'ideas' are "out the door' in regards to realism. But, ideas DO drive political agendas, and real world politics, doesn't it? This is where "ideas" are reirregardless of what realism might suggest.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

and I might add, since humans are more than animals in their complexity, then it follows that humans are more than machines in their complexity. And society is more complex than a system.

Paul Rinzler said...

If I may make a small point:

Angie wrote
since humans are more than animals in their complexity. . . .

Your wording here sneaks in something beyond what most atheists would agree to, I think.

Atheism is perfectly content (note I'm not saying all atheists must believe the following) to say that humans are animals - period. We have special things about us (notably, our brains), but, then again, every animal is special. That is, we can look at other animals and find special things about them, too (octopus with all its arms; cheetah with its speed; a bear with its strength; etc.).

Of course, primates are *so* close to us, not only in terms of DNA, but in terms of their social life, etc., that it's only a lack of self-esteem that would force one to say that we are some special type of animal, like we have a soul, etc. None of that is required by the evidence, only by our egos or upbringing.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Granted that my wording "jumped off" at Stephen's acknowledgement that the mind was more complex than brain functionality.

Your suggestion that apes are so close to us socially suggests anthropology (Mead?). But, what of your suggestion of ego? What is THAT? Why are we morally offended if we didn't have a sense that we were more than an ape? Is ego JUST how we have been brought up? If so, then do apes show signs of an "ego"? How is this gauged?

Paul Rinzler said...

Your suggestion that apes are so close to us socially suggests anthropology (Mead?).

'K.


But, what of your suggestion of ego? What is THAT?


Huh?


Why are we morally offended if we didn't have a sense that we were more than an ape?
Rather than "more than" an ape, how about "different from" an ape. What prevents us from being morally offended if we are "different from" an ape?

Also, remember that primates exhibit behavior that is indistinguishable from morality, altruism, etc. Read Frans Waal's "Good Natured" for a great introduction to morality in primates.

And, just to be clear, we have similarities to apes, and we have differences from apes.


Is ego JUST how we have been brought up?
Did I say that? I'm not clear what you mean.

By "ego," I merely meant "our sense of importance" or something like that, I wasn't using the word in a strict sense, but in an informal sense.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Paul, Thank you for "bearing with me".

You said, "Of course, primates are *so* close to us, not only in terms of DNA, but in terms of their social life, etc., that it's only a lack of self-esteem that would force one to say that we are some special type of animal, like we have a soul, etc. None of that is required by the evidence, only by our egos or upbringing."

I understood you to mean that our egos are bruised because we'd been socialized to think we were different from apes. Does ego not exist in your assessment? except as a "feeling of importance"?

Do you not agree with ego development theories then? or moral development? Is alturism something that animals learn from their social communities, or is it innate? How does one study those differences? isolating an ape to see if his social environment determines his behavior? I think such has been done with monkey concerning viability. Young monkeyes died without affection or social interaction.

The question as to ego has to do with moral choice and value. We choose something other than instinct. But, instinct is still a driver or determinor of 'fittest", in scientific thinking, isn't it? So, is it wrong for someone to want to survive the attempt to "take their life"? Self protection is a defense which all living beings find appropriate in certain circumstances. How do scientists view the value of "equality before the law", as to life choices and self protection? and the "fittest"?

Ethics means that one would not determine or control another's life choice, as long as that choice was within the boundaries of societial health. But, even then, humans have the right to "go against the herd" mentality or status quo to resist what they deem as tyranny/life threatening. Does such behavior happen in primate communities?

Steven said...

Angie,

My background is in physics, astronomy, math, a little geology, and I've studied a little cognitive science within the realm of education and pedagogy. So feel free to take what I say on the subject of psychology with a huge helping of salt. :)

I think the issue of "mind control" certainly falls within the concept of control beliefs that John periodically mentions here on DC. I think it certainly is the case that people who have been brainwashed/indoctrinated are conscious in the sense that they are self aware, but they may not be aware of what control beliefs they have that are influencing how they interpret the world around them. My own road to agnostic atheism is littered with various rejected control beliefs that I ultimately found were unsupportable. I think that's the path you have to take if you really want to become as aware of the world around you as possible...to figure out what control beliefs you have as best you can, examine those beliefs closely and see if they hold up under scrutiny. I might add that this process is essentially John's OTF in a broader context.


It certainly is the case that ideas aren't physical in the sense of the desk I'm sitting at, but they certainly are real things that exist within the context of our minds, and I think it likely that ideas do have some kind of physical representation within the brain.

Granted that my wording "jumped off" at Stephen's acknowledgement that the mind was more complex than brain functionality.

I'm with Paul in this, and what you attribute to me here is actually a misinterpretation of what I meant. What I was acknowledging is that the human mind/brain is more complex than that of a mouse. That was not intended to imply that I think the mind is more complex than the brain in general. My intuition tells me that the "mind" cannot really be any more complex than the underlying brain processes, however, since noone has really coming up with an adequate definition of what the mind really is, either quantitatively or qualitatively, I think it is premature to strongly affirm or deny such a statement.

Paul Rinzler said...

I understood you to mean that our egos are bruised because we'd been socialized to think we were different from apes.

Not at all that our egos are bruised. I only meant that it's our ego that tells us we're so important because we're so different than apes that we're really a whole 'nother type of animal, we have a soul and apes don't, etc.


Does ego not exist in your assessment? except as a "feeling of importance"?
I don't know how you think ego doesn't exist in my assessment when my assessment specifically used the very word "ego."

I only meant "ego" in the sense of that which can give us a sense of important. Don't read any other meaning of the word "ego" into my use of it.


Do you not agree with ego development theories then? or moral development?


See directly above.


Is alturism something that animals learn from their social communities, or is it innate? How does one study those differences? isolating an ape to see if his social environment determines his behavior? I think such has been done with monkey concerning viability. Young monkeyes died without affection or social interaction.


Not sure how this is relevant to the larger point, which is, "we're just animals."


The question as to ego has to do with moral choice and value. We choose something other than instinct. But, instinct is still a driver or determinor of 'fittest", in scientific thinking, isn't it? So, is it wrong for someone to want to survive the attempt to "take their life"? Self protection is a defense which all living beings find appropriate in certain circumstances. How do scientists view the value of "equality before the law", as to life choices and self protection? and the "fittest"?

Ethics means that one would not determine or control another's life choice, as long as that choice was within the boundaries of societial health. But, even then, humans have the right to "go against the herd" mentality or status quo to resist what they deem as tyranny/life threatening. Does such behavior happen in primate communities?


Sorry, there is so so much packed in there, that I'm having trouble dis-entagling it.

Paul Rinzler said...

I understood you to mean that our egos are bruised because we'd been socialized to think we were different from apes.

Not at all that our egos are bruised. I only meant that it's our ego that tells us we're so important because we're so different than apes that we're really a whole 'nother type of animal, we have a soul and apes don't, etc.


Does ego not exist in your assessment? except as a "feeling of importance"?
I don't know how you think ego doesn't exist in my assessment when my assessment specifically used the very word "ego."

I only meant "ego" in the sense of that which can give us a sense of important. Don't read any other meaning of the word "ego" into my use of it.


Do you not agree with ego development theories then? or moral development?


See directly above.


Is alturism something that animals learn from their social communities, or is it innate? How does one study those differences? isolating an ape to see if his social environment determines his behavior? I think such has been done with monkey concerning viability. Young monkeyes died without affection or social interaction.


Not sure how this is relevant to the larger point, which is, "we're just animals."


The question as to ego . . . .

Ethics means that o. . . .


Sorry, there is so so much packed in there, that I'm having trouble dis-entagling it.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Stephen,
Sorry I mis-represented you, but I guess that only reveals my bias.

How does one "do" an experiment on if and how the mind is different from brain? Does brain imaging given certain stimuli differ between people? How does one determine if the biases that a person has impacts how the brain function is interpreted? Perspectivism then would be defended scientifically, then.

Cognitive dissonance has to do with more than the ideas that don't fit, but also with experiences that aren't as expected. Where do the expectations come from except from an interpretation about the social/political? and then, there is prejuidice from one's background... And when these experiences do not match up, or our biases are not affirmed, then the questioning begins (or perhaps the defenses begin).

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Paul,'
Our American society has valued the individual and the value of liberty. Therefore, Americans have been able to develop into "egos".

Animal behavior is "survival". And the fight is to win, so survival is assured. There is nothing wrong with the need to survive. It protects life. But, life that is inhibited, or devalued is limited as to liberty. So there is a balance between survival, and liberty, as we live in social units.

Ethics is about equal rights under law. That is, protection from tyranny.

Steven said...

Hi Angie,

Sorry I mis-represented you, but I guess that only reveals my bias.

No apology needed, I can see how that could've been misinterpreted, I was maybe not all that clear. No big deal.

How does one "do" an experiment on if and how the mind is different from brain?

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? First off, like I said in my previous post, I don't think we really have a good definition/understanding of what we're talking about when we are talking about the mind. We have a conglomeration of various concepts, qualia, emotions, logical abilities, etc, and these all sort of fit together to make up the mind, but none of this is integrated into a really coherent picture of what the mind is, and I don't think the mind/body problem will every be fully resolved until we can do that (or neuroscience elides those concepts away). So, the short answer is, I don't think anyone really knows how to do that right now, although there are some things coming out of neuroscience now that might eventually point the way...

Does brain imaging given certain stimuli differ between people?

Well, this is the sort of stuff that is coming out neuroscience now. Brain MRI's do seem to show that similar stimuli invoke a similar response in the brains of different people (at least when brain function is normal, brain injuries or malformations can throw that off, although even there it looks like it ought to be possible to recalibrate in those instances).

How does one determine if the biases that a person has impacts how the brain function is interpreted?

I don't think we know how to do that right now, but it is looking like future findings in neuroscience may very well allow this to be done though.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Steven,
Are you then, a physicalist? Doesn't that mean that one is a monistic being...and how is this different from reductionism? I didn't think that "ego" was one and the same as "soul". I don't value soul, as it speaks of Greek mythology.
What ethical implications for man and society are we facing if we find that this is so? Do we allow those in power to use "mind control" on their subjects? how are we to protect from such abuse of power, if the use of science is useful to those in power? Etc.

Limited resources validate the right of every one of us to fight to survive. But, where is civil society, then? And what do we do with those that think they are "the fittest" when there is no way to hold these accountable/responsible?

Paul Rinzler said...

Our American society has valued the individual and the value of liberty. Therefore, Americans have been able to develop into "egos".

I *just* cautioned against using the word "ego" in a way that I didn't mean it. In any event, I have no idea how what you wrote is relevant for the issue of people being just animals.


Animal behavior is "survival". And the fight is to win, so survival is assured. There is nothing wrong with the need to survive. It protects life. But, life that is inhibited, or devalued is limited as to liberty. So there is a balance between survival, and liberty, as we live in social units.


Uh, I'm a little uncertain what you mean.

All animals strive to survive, but altruistic behavior is possible, even to the extent of the animal dying.

Life is not necessarily limited as to liberty, although I grant you that if someone kills you, you don't have any liberty anymore. So Life is necessary for liberty, but merely being alive doesn't guarantee that you will have liberty.

We are surely social animals, so we have to balance our liberty to do as we please with the needs of the social unit.

What is your point? It would help me greatly if you could say in a *single* sentence what your ultimate point is, and then you can explain it with lots of other stuff.

For instance, *my* initial point was "people are merely a type of animal (primate)."

Angie Van De Merwe said...

The difference IMO of the human species is the self and consciousness.

I equate "self", and "ego". Consciousness is a distinction between the "self" and "other". And distinction is necessary for any identity.

Life, as a physical reality is "survival". But, life is much more than just a physical reality. Life is about living in liberty, under a government that values life and liberty. And that protects, not just the physical reality of life, but individual choice.

Social units are formed from consent of those 'governed' or as a collaboration of will.

Does that clarify how i am thinking?

And yes, animals die for the needs of the fittest in the animal world. The dead are "meat" to be devoured.

Paul Rinzler said...

Angie, it seems that at least some scientists and philosophers accept, that at least some non-human animals have consciousness.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Thanks for the link, Paul!

Steven said...

Are you then, a physicalist? Doesn't that mean that one is a monistic being...

Yes and yes.

and how is this different from reductionism?

Well, reductionism is a couple of different things. Within science, reductionism is about breaking observed phenomena into smaller and smaller pieces to try to understand phenomena as a whole from the bottom up.

Within the context of Monism, reductionism has a similar meaning, but not quite the same thing. It just means that everything reduces to the physical. I think this is probably right, however, that doesn't necessarily mean that the emergent properties of the mind will be found to be fully reducible in the scientific sense. (Think how the properties of a volume of water differ from the properties of a single molecule of water, both properties are physical, but the properties of a volume of water emerge from water molecules in aggregate and not from the individual molecules).

What ethical implications for man and society are we facing if we find that this is so? Do we allow those in power to use "mind control" on their subjects? how are we to protect from such abuse of power, if the use of science is useful to those in power? Etc.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this. You seem to be asking where ethics/morality comes from if materialism is true, and throwing in an appeal to consequence as an attempt to discredit such a notion...which implies that you're asking the question based on an unstated premise.

If you're really interested in materialist theories of morality I'd suggest googling that as it is a pretty large and broad subject, I really can't do it justice in a short blog comment. You might also take a gander at the common sense atheism blog, the writer there discusses this subject fairly often and is in the process of forming a moral theory of his own.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Paul,

I believe that any life form has consciousness, but "self" is different. Therefore, a "self" becomes individuated at the time that the young adult begins to differetiate themself from the "other" (parent). And "Self" development has to do in many areas; moral, intellectual, faith, and social.

"Self" is "ego" identity, where "self" commits to ultimate values in a free society. So, "self" has to come first if one believes in a non-deterministic frame of "being". So, I don't adhere to a determinism model from reality, as for now, but I am open to being convinced!. This is where physicalism, or scientific materialism determines and limits in many ways.

Paul Rinzler said...

Hi Angie:

In my humble opinion, you've brought up a ton of very complex subjects, but I'm still not clear what you now think about the very first one I brought up. You said:

since humans are more than animals in their complexity. . . .

and I attempted to refute that, and your responses to my refutation just opened up more complex subjects, some which I'm not even sure relate to the original one.

So unless we refocus back to the original point, I don't see a useful conversation. Thank you for at least what we've covered so far, though.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Stephen,'

You are using a scientific understanding of "matter" to formulate your understanding of humans and their societies. I think this leaves little room for diversity as to understanding models of reality. And how those models impact life in this world.

You, as a physist understand that there are various models that are useful for certain things or ways of understanding...wave/particle theory of light. If I used only the wave theory, I would miss an element of understanding light, wouldn't I? And since there are so many "universes", contingencies, probabilities, and dimensions to reality, aren't we shooting in the dark? And isn't it dangerous to impose a theory where the outcomes may not be controllable?

As to your last statement, what is the purpose of understanding reality in this depth? Albert Einstein didn't presume to know everything, but he believed in order, (God doesn't play dice with the universe), but then, he probably wouldn't have embraced chaos theory or quantum theory, would he? Is understanding order what you are after? Be careful, then, as order and determinism can bring about a limited and closed system, which will become totaltalitarian...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Linguistic systems is one way to understand truth, but there is also correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic.

Since humans communicate to a greater extinct than animals, wouldn't a linguistic understanding of life be of value? Linguistics has to do with understanding, and values, as it concerns culture...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

And to make it clear how I connect what I have said, let me state;
1.)we are talking about realism...what makes for reality in the real world, which includes the ideas of political liberty, as well as physical materiality.
2.)we are talking about religion and whether the human is distinct from an animal, and why or why not?
3.)we are talking about how we know what we know and how we apply what we apply as knowledge to society and humans.
4.) we are talking about ethics and how we want society to be...and humans to be...

Shawn said...

Quite honestly the most convincing and well reasoned paper on the difference between science and religion that I have ever read.

How any intelligent person can read this and still hold onto their religious superstitions is beyond my understanding.

But that's because I'm a realist.

Shawn said...

Angie Van De Merwe

Because no-one seemed to answer your original question, I will attempt to.

Q Isn't theory the basis of experiment? And isn't theory an "idea"? Many "ideas" that were outside the "traditionally" validated theory have made scientific history. So, how are we to separate idealism and realism so starkly?

Dr Rothman is not saying ideas are not part of science (actually I'm sure he specifically states this in the paper), but that whereas realists will perform (many) experiments and mathematically test the validity of ideas to determine if they are reality (i.e. comply with the laws of physics which govern what is reality), the idealist will just rely on "I believe it is so, therefore it must be".

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Shawn,
Thanks for clarifying. But, the attempt to come to conclusions about mind/physicality and whether they are unified "wholes" or not, and how to make that distinction, is what the conversation has been about.

And since Stephen who is the physicist has stated, as well as Paul that questions are abounding in regards to the solution or answer to such questions. There doesn't seem to be a suggestion about how to begin to answer all of them....

Steven said...

You are using a scientific understanding of "matter" to formulate your understanding of humans and their societies. I think this leaves little room for diversity as to understanding models of reality. And how those models impact life in this world.

Angie,

That is just about the biggest misinterpretation that I've ever seen anyone make. You've completely misunderstood the point of that analogy I made to the emergent properties of water. The point of that analogy was not to dismiss the study or utility of ethics or linguistics or psychology or sociology...or art or culture or ... The point of that analogy was only to show that physical systems can have emergent properties that the component parts of the system lack. And therefore, it is not unreasonable to presume that consciousness is an emergent property and that there is no need to resort to invoking any sort of special magic to try to understand who and what we are and where we came from.

That was not a value judgement about any other field that studies different aspects of the human condition, nor was I saying that these other fields of study lack importance or utility. My only contention is that adding in magical thinking into these other fields of study doesn't advance them at all, it only hinders them.

And I have no idea where any of your following paragraph is coming from:

As to your last statement, what is the purpose of understanding reality in this depth?

What is the purpose of understanding anything in depth? If you're asking that question, I don't know why you are bothering to comment here at all.

Albert Einstein didn't presume to know everything, but he believed in order,

Who is presuming to know everything?

(God doesn't play dice with the universe) but then, he probably wouldn't have embraced chaos theory or quantum theory, would he?

Again, what does this have to do with anything? But for your information, Einstein's problem with quantum theory was its probabilistic nature, that was Einstein's problem, not mine. In addition, Einstein would most definitely not have had a problem with chaos theory, chaos theory is not probabilistic, chaos theory is the result of finding that the outcomes of complex systems are indeterminate due to the complexity of the system. They are indeterminate in a fundamentally different way from quantum theory, and it does not run afoul of any of Einstein's objections.

Is understanding order what you are after? Be careful, then, as order and determinism can bring about a limited and closed system, which will become totaltalitarian...

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I thought we were talking about how we come to understand the world we live in? Now all of a sudden you're bringing in all this baggage about determinism and totalitarianism. What has that got to do with any of this? As I said above, you're making an appeal to consequence to try to discredit *something* (materialism? I don't know.), and your doing this on some basis which you have yet to explain.

I'm not going to continue this conversation any further unless you explain yourself. No more being coy, just say what you believe and what is your beef with the discussion we've been having? No more leading questions, no more misinterpreting what any of us say here, just tell us what you think or believe. Without that context, I don't think I can respond to you any further without you misinterpreting me.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Stephen,
I am very sorry that we have been "missing" each other. But, I'm very grateful that you continue to try to understand me and question me and give me information.

The "system" is human knowledge itself. No individual holds all knowledge of any subject or of everything. There is just too much to know. And the disciplines have missed the whole, for the most part, because of being narrowly focused. So, the emergent properties are those that use the different parts to create a "vision or view".
It is systems thinking. But, with systems come dangers, as well, because without a dynamic (communication) then there is not growth or learning and "journey" but a stagnated and stale "truth" stance toward knowledge. Parts are those that are necessary for the basics, the foundations of knowledge, the basis of understanding and this is the discussion of the various disciplines.

Your field? physics, which is grounded in math, as the reality and way of seeing. Physics is based in the metaphysical, as it used to be called natural philosophy. So, the Enlightenment gave us an "ordered" universe, through an understanding of the laws of nature (and nature's God). But, the laws of nature are more than physical reality, because we are dependent on our brains to form, speculate, innovate, and create for the future of knowledge.

Steven said...

The "system" is human knowledge itself.

Ok, I think see where you are coming from. I think your approach may not be coherent, but I'll provisionally accept it for the sake of argument.

No individual holds all knowledge of any subject or of everything. There is just too much to know.

But nobody argues against this notion. I certainly don't, and so I'm left wondering why you're bringing it up...

And the disciplines have missed the whole, for the most part, because of being narrowly focused.

What exactly is this whole that you speak of? I get that your trying to make "a can't see the forest for the trees" sort of argument, but I think you need to explain what the forest is, and what exactly it is that I'm missing.

So, the emergent properties are those that use the different parts to create a "vision or view".

I disagree, emergent properties are the result of higher order interactions that don't or can't occur within simpler physical constructions. They are independent of any view or vision (or theory) that we might construct to describe them.

Steven said...

It is systems thinking. But, with systems come dangers, as well, because without a dynamic (communication) then there is not growth or learning and "journey" but a stagnated and stale "truth" stance toward knowledge. Parts are those that are necessary for the basics, the foundations of knowledge, the basis of understanding and this is the discussion of the various disciplines.

Ok, you seem to be trying to form some sort of epistemological argument here, so I think you need to figure out what that argument is and what your justification for it is. I can't really tell what you are arguing for other than that you are trying to warn against some particular point of view that I'm pretty sure I don't hold.

Your field? physics, which is grounded in math, as the reality and way of seeing. Physics is based in the metaphysical, as it used to be called natural philosophy. So, the Enlightenment gave us an "ordered" universe, through an understanding of the laws of nature (and nature's God).


Ok, I think this is a mistake. Physics (and more generally science) isn't grounded in a mathematical view as the basis of it's epistemology. The sciences base knowledge claims on what would be best described as inter-subjective reliability. Mathematical correspondence is at least a couple of steps up the ladder from this. In other words, science doesn't need math to discover patterns in the universe. What we find though is that the laws of the universe are observably mathematical, this isn't something that we have imposed on the universe, this is the way we observe the universe to operate. The Enlightenment didn't give us an ordered universe, it gave us the tools to allow us to see how the universe is ordered.

Are you familiar with the concept of inter-subjective reliability? Do you agree with it? Disagree? And if you disagree, what is your alternative?

But, the laws of nature are more than physical reality, because we are dependent on our brains to form, speculate, innovate, and create for the future of knowledge.

How do you know the laws of nature are more than physical reality? What does that even mean? We are stuck within the physical bounds of nature, yet you're making claims that require that you have knowledge that comes from outside of physical reality. This implies that you have some knowledge of where these laws come from and how they came about. Science doesn't make this claim, and I don't think you can defend it either.

The laws of the universe are what they are, and they are completely independent of what we think. Our scientific theories attempt to approximate the laws of the universe as best as they can according to what we are able to accurately observe, and when we try and speculate beyond that bound, we are always careful to note that we're on thin ice when we do.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Steven,
Thank you for correcting me on several fronts. Many times I do not express what I mean.

The Enlightenment didn't give us an ordered universe, it only reflected our understanding of it. (You caught my "anti-realist" tenet :)...

What humans seek is a "whole"/universal, but we'll never get there. So, I agree with your assessment that a "point of view" is the only way to understand and frame our view.

I will read and consider the other aspects of your "corrections", so I will 'be back".

Neuroscience Ninja said...

Angie,
I didn't read through all your comments, but I did want to comment on one repeated theme that I saw, and hope it can clarify some things for you: you seem to be asking whether the mind is separate from the brain, and most neuroscientists agree that it is not. the mind is basically our awareness of our own brains. we can do brain imaging studies and see clear physical changes induced by psychotherapy, for example.

If you're interested in altruism research, go to pubmed.org; a search using the term "altruism" brings up nearly 5000 papers.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Steven,
As an 'aside", but as still relevant to the topic of conversation, one of my children's high school friends was interested in physics and wanted to be a nuclear physicist. She was "on her way to becoming one" until, she had a car accident, which caused much neurological damage.

After her recovery, she was literally a different person. She didin't like physics anymore, and chose to become a social worker!! Her whole personality was changed. This was fascinating to me and still is.

Is our personality such that every aspect of our being is determined by our brain make-up? What difference does one's environment have when it comes to these interests? and personality, what is that exactly? Brain function?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

So, Carrie, and Steven,
Since alturism came up in the conversation, can we hypothesize that one's tendency toward alturistic goals is innate in one's personality?

I think I read where alturism was more prevalant in children whose mothers were more nurturing. Then, where and how does one separate and know where the nature and nuture question begins and ends? Is there intanglement of the two that we will never be able to disengage them?

And what about genetics? How are genes and brain function or chemistry understood? and how are these disengaged from one another in a scientists understanding and evaluation?

Steven said...

Is our personality such that every aspect of our being is determined by our brain make-up? What difference does one's environment have when it comes to these interests? and personality, what is that exactly? Brain function?

Cases like the one you noted are quite common, and I think they make a strong argument against any sort of dualism.

As for the whole nature vs nurture argument, an old biologist friend of mine put it this way: Our most fundamental drives are inborn. They might not necessarily be genetic, but they are hardwired into our brains by lots of different genes that regulate brain formation. However, having said that, most of those most fundamental behaviours can be modified, rechanneled, or occasionally elided away by our experiences (although they rarely can be eliminated entirely without serious effects).

The only open question is figuring out where the line is drawn between inborn behaviour and what behaviours have been modified and changed or even developed by our experiences. I don't think anyone really has a good handle on where that line can be drawn though, we're too complex to make that easy.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Steven,
I appreciate your humilty before "man", because we are complex beings.

Some have suggested that "habit formation" is the "way to go", as to developing humans into a "what"??? That is the question for me. What is the goal of such "formation"? And really is this ethical, if the individual has not chosen it? And how can we tell that our natures are similar as to that formation. And what and how, as you rightly point out, does human experience impact such "outcomes". Do humans respond to such social "cloning"? What about critical thinking? representation? definitions and meaning?, etc. etc.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Steven,
Continuing our conversation...

The traditional model as to "formation" is for Church or family to be such a forming "order". Today, though, social institutions such as government itself is the "order". And such forming of individuals by government beauracracies (or scientific experiments) do not benefit the individual, because of objectifying the individual into a project, and systemizing information that is not individually (or contextually) driven.

Care cannot be co-erced, it comes from the heart and not the head. And care is what our society needs, because we are bereft of families able to support the needs of their children or their elderly. And these needs are as much emotional as physical.

Parenting or care is hard and no one can be completely prepared for it. No one can teach you how to be a parent, or a care-taker, as it is on the job training that is individually refined, and tested each time a child is born into that family or a family member becomes "in need". People don't have time for family anymore.

Steven said...

Some have suggested that "habit formation" is the "way to go", as to developing humans into a "what"???

That doesn't sound implausible to me, but I don't think I'm in a position to comment on the idea any further.

What is the goal of such "formation"?

I think statements like this are where your thinking isn't very clear, I'm not really even sure what you're asking. To talk about goals implies there's an agent that has some goal in mind, which means you need to know something about this agent. I don't think speaking of goals without an agent in mind is coherent.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "formation," formation of what, exactly? The universe? self awareness? something else? Based on your next post, I *think* you are talking about ethics/morality, but before we move on to that, I think it would be better if you made this clear, both on the point of agency and on formation.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Your question is exactly the question I was asking. A moral agency must decide what is of value to pursue.

It just seems today that government is making choices that are deemed inappropriate. Just today I read in the Washington Post where the EPA wants to protect the Chesapeake, so private homes are going to be encouraged to have "natural lawns". How will the government encourage such behavior? by arm-twisting? taxes? I suppose so. So, we will not be allowed to have protection of our "private property". What we do with what is "ours" has become "government business!

George Washington has become irrelavant because the environment is more important. Where will the lines be drawn as to personal property? Will we loose property rights? And where is moral agency, then? Is "moral governance" intrusive "do-gooders" that prevent liberty to protect life? And how will that life be defined, except by the most narrow strictures, regulations and limited resources. Is this to be America's future?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

so, when one talks about habits, will government be the ones to enforce which habits we must embrace? Will Americans become an "animal farm"?