[Oe List ...] Groundbreaking thinking

Fri Jul 12 12:50:36 PDT 2013

This is great Janice. Ellie wanted to know what my difference's with Dowd
were, this is a key one. I believe there is a psychic-spiritual dimension
in everything. Michael and Connie are of the emergentist understanding of
this type. We begin with dead or inert matter and at there is increasing
complexity at certain stages there are phase shifts. So, e.g..,
consciousness is an epiphenomenon of complexity.

Here's an explanation, satisfactory to me, of why this is not the case:

It seems that if we accept the modern scientific view of nature, we must
accept the human phenomenon as supernatural, either emerging out of the
natural realm but categorially quite different or else the product of
special creation by some supernatural power. In science, we recognize the
emergence of certain properties. For instance, water has properties not
possessed by the elements that constitute it. But the elements and their
organization explain water and its properties. However, there is no
accounting for categorial structures. We cannot explain subject matter with
normative and inherent meaning structures in terms of subject matter with
only factual structures. If a categorially enriched subject matter should
appear in a context with only existential and factual structures, its
appearance would be a total mystery. In fact, there would be two mysteries:
the new categorial structures and their appearance at the time and place in
which they came into being. This has led some to think in terms of special
creation. But that generates the mystery of a transcendent creative power
with its categorial structure. That amounts to explaining a mystery by
embedding it in a larger mystery created for the purpose. The intellectual
quest drives us toward the reduction of mystery, not the multiplication or
enlargement of it.

 The most plausible course seems to be to rethink nature in such a way that
we can account for the appearance of the categorially rich biological and
human realms as developments in or fulfillment of preexisting nature. In
other words, the fact that biological and human phenomena appear on this
planet in a “natural” environment tells us something about the “natural”
environment, for it must be such that it brings forth the biological and
the full array of human phenomena. . . . Hence, we seem compelled to
reintroduce humanistic categories into the descriptive/explanatory language
of science in its account of nature. If so, we have a new humanistic view
of nature and less mystery. Of course the categorial structures of
factuality, normativity, semantic intentionality, and causality (whether
naturalistic in the modern sense or teleological) remain givens without
explanation, for there is no logical room for an explanation of such basic
features of the world.

Here's a discussion of "emergentism" as distinguished from "emergence."
Connie and Mike clearly stated to me that they are emergentists:

All varieties of emergentism strive to be compatible with
physicalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism>,
the theory that the universe is composed exclusively of physical entities,
and in particular with the evidence relating changes in the brain with
changes in mental functioning. As a theory of mind (which it is not
always), emergentism differs from
idealism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism>
,eliminative materialism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism>
, identity theories
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theory_of_mind>, neutral
monism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism>,
panpsychism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism>,
and substance dualism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dualism>,
whilst being closely associated with property
dualism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism>.
It is generally not obvious whether an emergent theory of mind embraces mental
causation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_causation> or must be
considered epiphenomenal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenal>.

Some varieties of emergentism are not specifically concerned with the mind-body
problem <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem>, and instead
suggest a hierarchical <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy> or layered
view of the whole of nature, with the layers arranged in terms of
increasing complexity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity> with each
requiring its own special
science<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_science>.
Typically physics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics> is basic, with
chemistry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry> built on top of it, then
biology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology>,
psychology<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology>
 and social sciences <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciences>.
Reductionists respond that the arrangement of the sciences is a matter of
convenience, and that chemistry is derivable from physics (and so forth) *in
principle*, an argument which gained force after the establishment of a
quantum-mechanical basis for
chemistry.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism#cite_note-1>

Other varieties see mind <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind> or
consciousness <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness> as specifically
and anomalously requiring emergentist explanation, and therefore constitute
a family of positions in thephilosophy of
mind<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind>
. Douglas Hofstadter <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter>
summarises
this view as *"the soul is more than the hum of its parts"*. A number of
philosophers have offered the argument that
qualia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia> constitute
the hard problem of
consciousness<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness>,
and resist reductive explanation in a way that all other phenomena do not.
In contrast, reductionists generally see the task of accounting for the
possibly atypical properties of mind and of living things as a matter of
showing that, contrary to appearances, such properties are indeed fully
accountable in terms of the properties of the basic constituents of nature
and therefore in no way genuinely atypical.

I am a panpsychist, or I prefer a "panexperientialist."

Here are some of the other differences I have with Connie and Mike:

I don't believe you can divide the world between the empirically
verifiable--by the five sense and logic--and the subjective. I accept Henry
James radical empiricism which recognizes other ways of knowing including
somatic (or bodily), intuitive and conative (will, impulse, desire, and
striving).

I don't accept God as simply reality, or as we often have said "the way
life is." I believe that God is the subject of God's own experience and
acts.

I don't believe there can be a marriage of religion and science--science
here meaning empirical science, that which is measurable, that which covers
primary but not secondary qualifies.

I agree with Connie and Mike that there is a religious dimension of the
scientific quest and that there is awe and mystery in scientific discovery.

What evolution means deserves its own email, which I will send later.

The phone call you note sounds wonderful Janice. I won't listen in Saturday
but I will listen to the recording.

Herman

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Janice Ulangca <aulangca at stny.rr.com>wrote:

> **
> Colleagues,
>
> So much bubbling right now.  And our "movement" needs to be part of it if
> we are to find the relevant niches/roles for our unique experiences going
> forward.  I've been very interested in the list serv discussion of Charles
> Taylor's "The Secular Society" - along with Michael Dowd's  "Thank God for
> Evolution".
>
> Some familiar names, along with some perhaps not so for all of us, are
> coming up on a phone call this Saturday.  Ken Wilbur's ideas have been
> discussed by many of us - we read Riane Eisler's book "The Chalice and
> the Blade" - and I remember hearing Barbara Marx Hubbard at 4750 the summer
> we heard people like Jean Houston.  Laszlo's book "The Chaos Point"  we
> studied here in Binghamton the year it came out.
>
> For those interested in the deeps of current reality, including the role
> of consciousness, this phone call might be worth checking out.
>
> Janice Ulangca
>
> -------------------
>
> *Saturday, July 20, 2013
> 12pm US Pacific / 3pm US Eastern
> Sign up to listen live or receive the recording<http://track.namastelight.com/c/443/9af276896b8fea8a0c7547791cfeca4dea308f6efac0a3f5b6237681fe29e284>
> *
>
> The evidence is mounting from every direction: the materialist paradigm of
> science is breaking down. Data that traditional scientists tried to ignore
> or dismiss has become more robust every day.
>
> What will replace the materialist paradigm? And how will that new paradigm
> change how we think about... everything?
>
> In this groundbreaking online event, some of the foremost thinkers of our
> day will look at the implications of startling evidence that materialistic
> science cannot explain, such as non-locality – that consciousness is
> connected at a distance, instantly – and what they are calling the Akashic
> Field – a kind of record-keeping function for the cosmos.
>
> They will look at how the cumulative body of evidence forces a major, even
> historic shift in how we see the nature of reality. Consciousness comes to
> the foreground, not as an evolutionary afterthought but a prime mover and
> causative factor.
>
> How might this reshape the paradigm at the very foundations of science?
> And how might it lead to the evolution of our culture and our consciousness?
>
> Join us for scintillating insights, powerful dialogue, and a spirit of
> adventure into the unknown.
>
> You’ll hear powerful insights from pre-eminent panelists, including
> scientists, philosophers, and futurists who are in public dialogue for the
> first time:
>
>    - *Ervin Laszlo* – Author of more than 80 books and one of the most
>    prodigious, systemic thinkers of our day
>    - *Ken Wilber *– Renowned integral philosopher who has bridged worlds
>    from spiritual practice to complexity theory to create a comprehensive map
>    of our Kosmos that includes our interiors
>    - *Barbara Marx Hubbard *– Celebrated as a visionary and futurist for
>    her ability to see future trends and possibilities
>    - *Riane Eisler* – Bestselling author, social scientist, pioneer of
>    the “partnership paradigm”
>    - *Duane Elgin *– Futurist, social visionary, author of five books,
>    former senior social scientist with Stanford Research Institute
>
> This teleseminar event is completely free. So invite your friends and
> allies and skeptics as well to join you for what is sure to be 60 minutes
> of brilliant and provocative insights that give you a powerful glimpse of
> what the science of the next millennium just may look like.
>
> Even if you can’t make the call live, do sign up and you’ll receive access
> to a recording.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at lists.wedgeblade.net
> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
>
>

-- 
__________________________________________________
Herman F. Greene
2516 Winningham Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-942-4358 (ph & fax)
hfgreenenc at gmail.com

-- 
__________________________________________________
Herman F. Greene
2516 Winningham Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-942-4358 (ph & fax)
hfgreenenc at gmail.com

-- 
__________________________________________________
Herman F. Greene
2516 Winningham Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-942-4358 (ph & fax)
hfgreenenc at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20130712/2f9f9911/attachment.html>