[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Well, its more than an argument about what do we mean by knowledge; it is also an argument about what we mean by  rationality. I hope that it is now clear and apparent to all that the notion that  you can call one group of people who hold religious beliefs as irrational  and another group who are socialists as rational is an utter absurdity.  . It is absurd not only because it is entirely possible for a religious person to want and understand socialism  and therefore be a socialist but also because there is no such thing as a person who is not both rational and irrational

This is a bit of a caricature of our position. I don’t think any member says that all religious people are irrational or that all socialists are entirely rational. What we are talking about is taking a rational attitude, i.e. one based on tested and verified evidence, to the evolution of the Earth, of life, of humans and of society but, more importantly, about social change, ie accepting that humans make history and that gods don’t intervene in this.I don’t think even you would be in favour of admitting every religious person who agreed with socialism (and getting it through majority democratic political action) whatever their religious views, would you? Take this lot for instance:http://www.paradism.org/Some good stuff there about a world without money.Then there’s this, which is not bad either, which reveals who they are:http://www.raelpress.org/news.php?item.274.1And who are the Raelians? What do they stand for? According to the wikipedia entry on them:

Quote:

Raëlism, or the Raëlian Church, is a UFO religion that was founded in 1974 byClaude Vorilhon, now known as Raël. The Raëlian Movement teaches that life on Earth was scientifically created by a species of extraterrestrials, which they call the Elohim. Members of this species appeared human and when having personal contacts with the descendants of the humans they made, they previously misinformed (on purpose) early humanity that they were angels, cherubs or gods. Raëlians believe messengers, or prophets, of the Elohim include Buddha, Jesus, and others who informed humans of each era. The founder of Raëlism, members claim, received the final message of the Elohim and that its purpose is to inform the world about Elohim and that if humans become aware and peaceful enough, they wish to be welcomed by them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism )

Over to you, Robbo. Rational or irrational? Acceptable or not?

  I think it is certainly implied in the Party’s position that individual’s with religious beliefs cannot be admitted, no matter how sympathetic to the socialist cause, because they cannot be trusted to stick to the party case.  The suggestion is made that if such individuals were to be admitted they might in time become a majority and thus by a process of boring from within – entryism  – subvert the Party and what it stands for. This is an essentialist view of religious minded individuals .  You are not just talking about the need for “taking up a rational attitide”  You are saying that religious people cannot take up such a rational attitude because they are religious, this despite the fact that Ive shown that religious ideas can be highly rational in that sense.  Saying  something is rational is NOT the same thing  as saying it is sound   and you constantly tend to confuse these two things. Do you know what “rationality” is? In any case, you forget that membership of the SPGB depends on many things not just (currently) on a rejection of religion.  The membership application form,  if I remember correctly,  asks applicants for their views on such things as what is capitalism, what is socialism, class struggle ,  reformism , leadership  and the need to democratically capture state power to abolish capitalism amongst other things So my answer to your question is that someone who is a Raelian cultist  is: 1) probably very unlikely to want to even apply for membership of the SPGB so you are worrying about nothing . The process of “self selection” would take care of your concernsand2) Even  if he or she did apply  his or her Raelian views on all these other much more important aspects of the Party  case would presumably soon or later reveal  themselves in the very  process of applying for membership and so would lead to rejection of the applicant. You don’t need to screen out Raelians on the basis of their religious beliefs – a sufficiently dense screen or barrier already exists to ensure that such people do not get into the Party.  One other thing that is often overlookied is that membership of a relgion does NOT imply acceptance of everything  that that religion stands for. Most , or many, catholics, for example,  reject the Church’s teachings on contraception, sex before marriage and abortion. So you have to look at the individual religious applicant on a case by case basis and not just assume what he or she thinks on the basis of his or her religion The problem with the Party – and this is where is shows its irrational side too – is that it cannot seem to see that if you explicitly incorporate opposition to any and every  form of religious beliefs into this “protective screen”,   you  effectively screen out all sorts of people who are as much socialists as you but who just happen to have certain religious beliefs that in no way interfere with their socialist convictions.  People like Northern lights, for example. This is just absurd.  There is no rational justification for doing this  and in fact it makes the SPGB itself look like a religious cult itself in competition with other religious cults: “we are the pure ones, we are the chosen people”. Bollocks to that. I want socialism and therefore I adopt a hands-on pragmatic view to getting socialism which means getting as many people as possible to join the cuase and as quickly as possible. I have no interest in dogmatically displaying my  “socialist purity” If someone’s religious ideas were ever going to interfere with their socialist convictions then this would come out “in the wash”, so to speak, and show itself in one form or another –  perhaps in the form of advocacy of some form of political leadership and the abandonment of a democratic approach to politics. Fine – if that happens,  then expel the individual on those grounds but don’t presume that the religious applicant to the Party is going to develop those ideas, automatically .  That is a prejudiced and irrational position to take but it is one that the Party unquestionably does take.  One could just as easily say that because 99% of atheists are non socialists and some of these are enthusiastically pro capitalist  – that one should therefore ban atheists from joing the party Thats nonsense but so is the party’s attitude to religious applicants

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Can you please explain  how “the mind is matter”?  How is the thought that I am thinking right now that I fancy a cold beer and a pizza , “material”?  For sure it might be influenced by  material considerations – I am hungry , I am thirsty,  the weather is hot etc etc  – but does that make my thought , “matter” as such? What, for that matter,  is “matter”?  

Mind states = Brain states. We know brains are there.  We know that mind states can be altered by chemical influence on brains, and by physical interference.  We have no evidence, whatsoever, of a none material mind beyond the brain.

 But mind states don’t equal brain states!  This is old fashioned “Identity theory”  you are talking about which has long been  overtaken by “emergence theory” in the cognitive sciences – at least  since the 1970s if not earlier It is pretty easy to refute the proposition that there is a “type  identity” between brain states and mind states. For example, identical cognitive tasks can be performed by different individuals – whose brains may not be exactly identical in their biochemistry and neuro-anatomical make-up – even using different parts of the brain to perform these tasks.  Similarly, identical cognitive tasks can be performed by the same individuals at different times in their life despite the neurophysical re-configuration that would have occurred in the process of aging.  I could go on piling up many more examples which would completely undermine the case for identity theory Of course mind states can be altered by chemical influences but  in no way does that demonstrate  mind states = brain  states.  Causation and correlation do not in themselves constitute evidence that a mental state is ontologically identical – and, hence, reducible – to a brain state.   As Max Velmans notes: Ontological identity is symmetrical. If A is ontologically identical to B, then B is ontologically identical to A.  Ontological identity also obeys Leibniz’s Law which states that if A is identical to B then all the properties of A are also properties of B and vice versa (A and B must exist at the same time, occupy the same location in space and so on. A classic example of apparently different entities being shown by science to be one and the same are the “morning star” and the “evening star” which are just the same planet Venus (viewed in the morning and evening) (Velmans, Max, 1996 “Goodbye to Reductionism” In S. Hameroff, A Kaszniac, A.Scott (eds), Towards a Science of Consciousness: The Second Tucson Discussions and Debates, MIT Press, pp.45-52, 1998This is simply not the case with brain states and mind statesYour problem is that you think that if mind states do not equal brain states then somehow this suggests there must be a “non material mind beyond the brain”. But it doesn’t!   Indeed,  this is whole point about non-reductive physicalism. It is actually a monistic materialist theory – ironically enough  – that asserts that there is no mind without the brain but,  unlike identity theory , argues that the mind cannot  possibly be reducible to the brain or to neurophysical activity 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

I wasn’t appealing to authority, just referring people following this thread to the opposite point of view.But I don’t see what your problem is. Those studying sub-atomic particles observed that this part of the universe (of everything) moves in a different way from other parts and came up with a theory to explain this (quantum physics). I don’t see how the Observer Effect is a problem, it’s just another observation to be taken into account when formulating a theory (essentially describing the pattern observed). It doesn’t mean that the universe has a mind or is a mind. That’s a hypothesis of course just as is that a god created the universe in 5 or 6 days. Whether it’s worth testing any more than the Creationist view is a matter of debate, not that I can see how it could be tested. It doesn’t seem to be taken seriously by most people involved in this research and analysis.I’m not an expert in quantum or any other kind of physics, but this is an argument about what do we mean by knowledge.

 Well, its more than an argument about what do we mean by knowledge; it is also an arguement about what we mean by  rationality. I hope that it is now clear and apparent to all that the notion that  you can call one group of people who hold religious beliefs as irrational  and another group who are socialists as rational is an utter absurdity.  . It is absurd not only because it is entirely possible for a religious person to want and understand socialism  and therefore be a socialist but also because there is no such thing as a person who is not both rational and irrational We have discussed quantum physics on this thread and the religious views of physicists like Peter Russell who draws on his understanding of Physics.  Whatever you might think  of Russell’s views and whether or not they are sound, they are not irrational in the ordinary sense of the word. Russell and others like him, marshall a great deal of scientific  evidence and logic to make their case and this hardly constitutes an example of a irrational mind at work.  Maybe a deluded mind  – the jury is still out on that one – but not an irrational mind I recently came across a book by someone called Ray Percival  –  The Myth of the Closed Mind: Understanding Why and How People Are Rational.  I have not read it  but it seems that Percival ‘s argument is that people always are inevitably rational.  I think this going too far but we seem to have the opposite problem  with the SPGB which holds that religious people are irrational and justifies the exclusion of religious  people from the organization on the grounds that a socialist organisation requires a rational approach to changing society and admitting religious and therefore irrational people will undermine the socialist project.   This is false not just because socialists too are fully capable or being irrational at times  but also because  religious ideaa, whatever else they may be,  are often highly rational and sophisticated ideas. as we have seen   The SPGB needs to follow up on this insight  and come to the rational conclusion that you don’t actually need the bar on religious applicants to ensure the socialist nature of the organisation and that without such a bar you have everything you could possibly need to ensure that only socialists  can join the SPGB  – whether they be religious or not

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

As a layperson  I do find  phenomena such as the Observer Effect,  which seems to be an established fact in quantum physics to be somewhat troubling.  How can the mere fact of a person observing a laboratory experiment actually affect the result – in this case when  a beam of electrons is emitted?  I cant  get my head around this one .  If this is indeed the case what does it imply?  .  Can you explain that to me in simple plain terms becuase it is precisely phenomena like this  that people like Russell see as providing providing scientific proof  for their theories of the universe

You had me worried for a second there that I had misunderstood the observer effect, but a quick cross check to Wikipedia: “In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.” Seems simple to me, in experiments, measuring can change the state of things being measured.  At a macro scale, most often not a problem, but at the micro and below, this is significant.

 Well yes I understand the point you are making but – and here I might be qute wrong as I am not a physicist –  I thought that the “observer effect” entailed more than just what is called the “measurement problem” – the influence of  some measuring instrument on what is being measured.  After all,  to determine whether there has been effect at all you surely have to measure both before and after  the event  which suggests that what is being measured is the effect of the presence of the human observer  independently of the measuring intrument itself and not the effect of this measuring instrument as such.  At any rate, thats how I understood it. The more wacky interpretation of this is that it is the actual “thought wave” or “force field”  of the observer that is somehow interfering with the behaviour of the electrons. But then what do I know.  Perhaps what we we need on this forum is a competent physicist who can puts us all out of our misery! Anyway for what its worth I came across this at Belief.net  (which means it will probably go down like a lead balloon on this forum!):In the late 1920s, scientists-led by Neils Bohr–were convinced, based on observations of their data and mathematics, that our reality was dependent on an “observer effect,” an interplay between how our reality manifests and how we observe it. It became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Meanwhile, Albert Einstein’s followers, by far the majority of physicists at the time, disagreed, and spent the next 40 years searching for the “hidden variable” that would explain quantum mechanics and enable them to do away with the Copenhagen interpretation.Finally, in 1964, physicist John S. Bell came up with a mathematical theorem, known as Bell’s inequality (or theorem), which, for the first time, made it possible to physically test which of these two views was the correct one. Henry Stapp, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley and an authority on the implications of Bell’s theorem, believes that all the strange concepts we have learned to adjust to since Einstein–where time goes slower as we goes faster; where the mass of the sun bends space such that earth travels in an ellipse while also going in a straight line through space; the atom bomb; quantum tunneling; and the like–are merely the tip of the iceberg. The heavy-duty, bottom line all along has been, “Is the observer effect real?”The first experimental test of Bell’s theorem was conducted eight years later, in 1972, by Professor John Clauser at UC Berkeley. Clauser conceived his experiment in 1969 while at Columbia University, and completed it in 1972 at Berkeley using calcium atoms. The results were that reality is based on an observer effect. In 1973, Holt and Pipkin repeated the experiment using mercury atoms, which was repeated by Clauser in 1976-and both showed conclusively the observer effect is real.In 1975 scientists at Columbia repeated a 1974 experiment done in Italy, again confirming the observer effect. In 1976, Lamehi-Rachti and Mittig at the Saclay Nuclear Research Center in Paris carried out another experiment, which again confirmed the observer effect.The final bit of evidence came in a March 1999 article in Nature by Alain Aspect from the University of Paris-South, in Orsay, France. He announced the conclusions of his team’s experiment, which closely aligned with the requirements of Bell’s theorem. Again, the results were in favor of the observer effect.So here we are, faced with the most startling discovery in the scientific history of mankind, and very few people know a thing about it. Recall that when we were faced with the discovery that the earth goes around the sun, it took the general population well over a century to adopt this as fact. We still speak of the sun rising and setting.Now we are faced with the notion that there is an interplay between our local space-time reality and human consciousness. Worse yet, it means objects are not really solid. Here I will summarize points made by Evan Harris Walker, writing in his book, The Physics of Consciousness: Strained by the conflicts between Einstein and Bohr over the ultimate meaning of quantum mechanics, subjected to further stress in Bell’s theorem, and finally ripped through in recent tests, the whole cloth of the materialistic picture of reality must now be rejected. We must now recognize that objective reality is a flawed concept, and that consciousness is a negotiable instrument of reality.We stand at the threshold of a revolution in thinking that transcends anything that has happened in 1,000 years. Now the observer, consciousness, something self-like or mind-like, becomes a provable part of a richer reality than physics or any science has ever dared to envision.Why hasn’t this incredible discovery reached the front cover of Time magazine? Give it a couple of decades. We have yet to figure out how to handle it.http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Pagan-and-Earth-Based/2003/12/Shamanic-Healing-Why-It-Works.aspx?p=1

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

However, I dont know if I would go along with the rest of what Russell is talking about  but whatever else one might think of this point oif view, one thing is certain –  I dont think you can can reasonably come away from it with the dismissive  notion that this is just  some sort of irrational mubo jumbo. It is a highly thoughtful attempt to make sense of reality whether in the end  you agree with it or not.

Well, having looked at his CV, his website and what others have said of him, I’m afraid I’m inclined to the opposite conclusion: that, as someone has put it, he’s just spouting “New Age nonsense pseudo- scientific babble”. One of many who have misconstrued quantum physics as a repudiation of materialism and a confirmation of idealism, mysticism and religion. Not our cup of tea.For an opposite view to “quantum mystics” like Russell see:http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

 It might not be your “cup of tea” but it does not mean the guy is not attempting to put forward a rational argument to support his thesis and that surely is the point.  His thesis may or may not be correct but that doesnt necessarily make it “irrational” I really dont know what to make of Russell’s argument.  I’m not a physicist, and neither, I think,  are you,  but I would be wary of just  dismissing someone as spouting ” New Age nonsense pseudo-scienttific babble” without fully understanding the arguments.  – though I note that the references you provide don’t make any mention of Russell and it is not clear  to whom you are attributing this quote.   Appealing to authority may well be a source of comfort and a means of reaffirming one’s prejudices but it is not a substititude for rational argument and only goes to show that you, like me – indeed like everyone else – has an irrational side. As a layperson I do find phenomena such as the Observer Effect,  which seems to be an established fact in quantum physics to be somewhat troubling.  How can the mere fact of a person observing a laboratory experiment actually affect the result – in this case when  a beam of electrons is emitted?  I can’t get my head around this one .  If this is indeed the case what does it imply?  .  Can you explain that to me in simple plain terms because it is precisely phenomena like this  that people like Russell see as providing providing scientific proof  for their theories of the universe

[robbo203]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

How can mind be anything other than matter? What is wrong with determinism? The case for socialism depends on it? Without ‘crude determinism’ there  is no science. In fact without ‘crude determinism’ we wouldn’t have the confidence  to move or get up out of bed. The attack on ‘determinism’ is a defence of capitalism. 

 Well no  – I would have thought it was exactly the other way round. It is the belief that our future is not  predetermined that give us hope that there can be an alternative to capitalism. Otherwise what you are advocating is teleology and this is specifically what Marx rejected.  Thus  he welcomed Darwin’s Origin of the Species  precisely because “it deals a death blow to teleology in the natural sciences” (Marx’s letter to Engels , January 16, 1861 Selected Correspondence Moscow 1975).  In The German Ideology he dismissed the notion that “later history is…the goal of earlier history” as a “speculative distortion”.Of course things are “determined” in the sense that something  happens because of something that happened before.  But “crude” determinism purports to explain the total picture and not just individual events. This is why I recommended Castoriadis’ text – because it has some rather useful things to say about determinism and its scope.  A rejection of teleology does not mean a rejection of causality as such and this is perhaps where the confusion arises. ThusContrary to what the idealist philosophers said , history is the area par excellence where causality makes sense to us for it assumes there at the very outset, the form of motivation.  We can  therefore understand the “causal concatenation” in it, something we can never do in the case of natural phenomena.  An electric current makes the bulb glow.  The law of gravity causes the moon to be in such and such a place in the sky at such and such a time.  These are, and for us, will always remain , external connexions: necessary, predictable , but incomprehensible.  But if A treads on B’s toes, B swears at him, and A responds with blows, we understand the necessity of the links even if we consider them contingent”  (History as Creation p.14-5)However when comes to consider history in general terms, unpredictability or indeterminacy expresses itself as  “an emergence or creation of which cannot be deduced  from what was there before, as a conclusion which exceeds the premisses or  positing of new premisses” (ibid p.17).  Hence , my  suggestion that we need to think instead in terms of emergence theory.  David Graeber, in summing up the broad outlines of Roy Bhaskar’s “critical realist” approach, alludes to emergence theory thus:Reality can be divided into emergent stratum: just as chemistry presupposes but cannot be reduced to physics so biology presupposes but cannot be reduced to chemistry, or the human sciences to biology.  Different sorts of mechanisms are operating on each. Each, furthermore, achieves a certain autonomy from those below: it would be impossible to even talk about human freedom were this not the case, since our actions would simply be determined by chemical and biological processes.(Graeber D, 2001,  Towards and Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, Palgrave p.52-3)You might want to ask yourself – if our actions were simply determined by chemical  and biological processes what then would become of the Marxian claim that “men make their own history” albeit under conditions not of their own making.  Is it rather that chemical and biological processes make history and human beings are just means by which they do so?The point is not only that different sorts of mechanisms operate at each stratum of reality but  also most and especially in the case of society, within society.  There is not just one “master mechanism” that  determines how we think and pushes society in a given directionThere is a great quote from Carolyn Merchant  which kind of sums up rather well how I see the relationship between the ideas people hold and the nature of the society they live in.  Note that at the individual level the ideas are not strictly predetermined by society – “crude determinism”  – as a whole but rather it is that at the aggregate level that a “determined” pattern begins to emerge:An array of ideas exists available to a given age: some of these for unarticulated  or even unconscious reasons seem plausible to individuals or social groups; others do not.  Some ideas spread; others die out.  But the direction and accumulation of social changes begin to differentiate between among the spectrum of possibilities so that some ideas assume a more central role in the array, while others move to the periphery.  Out of this differential appeal of ideas that seem most plausible under particular social conditions, cultural transformations develop (The Death of Nature: Women , Ecology and the Scientific Revolution,  Harper and Row 1980 p.xviii)

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Yeah but then you are only assuming what you need to prove – that there is only one kind of  “stuff”. I’m saying this with my devil’s advocate cap on but how would go about  proving that  ” mind is  matter” – as opposed to, say, mind is influenced by matter?

I don’t think you could solve the monism (there is one kind of stuff) / dualism (there are two kinds of stuff i.e.. mind and matter) debate empirically, it has to be done logically.If there are two completely separate realms that follow different laws how can these realms meet and interact with each other?If the realms do meet and interact with each other are they not one after all?This is the classic argument for accepting a monist viewpoint, probably stated quite badly.Once we accept everything is ‘one kind of stuff’ we can either take an idealist view, everything is mental. But this poses the problem of other minds…Or, we can take the materialist viewpoint, everything is matter and minds are at least an effect of matter…But then we have the problem of consciousness, the ‘Hard Problem’ as it is known to some.Perhaps ‘Panpsychism’ is not such a silly idea after all?Anyone read A.N Whitehead?

 Hhmmm  The problem is that again you are making assumptions that  appear to undercut your own argument.  (incidentally, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your argument  but am just engaging in a bit of “devils advocacy” to try to get a bit closer to the truth, whatever that is). You say the monism/dualism debate cannot be solved empirically but only logically.  How so, logically? The classic argument for monism,you say, is that if the  the realms of mind and matter meet and interact they must be one and the same thing,  But why “must ” they be?  Logically if you think about it,  if they ” meet and interact” this presupposes their separateness to begin with,  not their oneness.  Something cannot meet itself and interact with itself.   So you cant exactly use the meet and interact argument  to make the case for monism .  Which means the logical argument for monism  does not seem to be anymore up to scratch ]than the empirical approach Also, going along with this line of argument could be said to make your argument vulnerable to the claims of idealism   You say idealism poses the problem of “other minds”..  However that is an empirical problem  and you’ve  just agreed that you cannot solve the monism/  dualism problem empirically.anwyay.  All of which means you are left with material or idealism (and nothing in between ) with no reliable means of choosing between them.  Each has to be considered just as legitimate as the other Personally I think the only way of out this dilemma is emergence theory  which is monist in the sense that  it takes mind to be dependent on matter  but at the same time does not seek to reduce mind  to matter.  In other words you can only hold on to a monist viewpoint  at the expense of a deterministic  viewpoint

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

 I think it may be easier if I rephrase: “If there is only one kind of stuff and this kind of stuff follows deterministic laws then minds must follow these laws as well. Therefore ‘free will’ as traditionally concieved cannot exist.”Maybe that answers some of your other points?

 Yeah but then you are only assuming what you need to prove – that there is only one kind of  “stuff”. Im saying this with my devil’s advocate cap on but how would go about  proving that  ” mind is  matter” – as opposed to, say, mind is influenced by matter?Incidentally, would the converse be true  – is matter , mind?    This seems to be the position held by Peter Russell who I mentioned on the religion thread and who holds that consciousness is immanent in the universe (see the “Observer Effect” proof) and is not dependent on the brain but is , rather  “amplified”  by the brain

[robbo203]

ALB I dont have to accept Castoriadis’s political ideas  – some of which I think were bollocks   –   in order to recognise that History as Creation is a brilliant demolition job – say what you like  – of  the crude  reductionism  and determinism of some  people who call themselves “scientific materialists” which even you must recognise is the case and indeed seem to implicitly acceptStop being so hyper-sensitive about things.  You suggested I come over to this thread . Well,  here I am

[robbo203]

DJP wrote:

 If matter is deterministic and the mind is matter then we cannot have free will since the mind must also run on deterministic methods.

 Can you please explain  how “the mind is matter”?  How is the thought that I am thinking right now that I fancy a cold beer and a pizza , “material”?  For sure it might be influenced by  material considerations – I am hungry , I am thirsty,  the weather is hot etc etc  – but does that make my thought , “matter” as such? What, for that matter,  is “matter”?   Surely, even being hungry and thirsty does not necessarily have to result in  me  desiring a pizza and a cold beer? .  Or does it in your view?  Do you consider that I have no choice but to desire this and  not , say,  a plate of ravioli  and a glass of red wine and that everything has been “predetemined” beforehand?BTW Any observations on Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle ( http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm)  It might be relevant to this debate  but Im not exactly certain

[robbo203]

steve colborn wrote:

If you can get hold of a copy of Vin Marattys dissertation “Is Marxism a determinist ideology” do so. Its a good read.

 Is there a link to this Steve? I would be interested in reading this.  Who is Vin Marratty BTW?

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

PS.

robbo203 wrote:

The observer effect in quantum physics mentioned above has also given fuel to the idea  that the universe is essentially “conscious” at some deep level and this is the point made by  Peter Russell, a physicist,  in his book “From  Science to God”. In a sense what he is saying is quite ” rational” and to deny it would be “irrational”.

Just looked up who this Peter Russell is and see that he is a mystic and believer in a god. So maybe this discussion does belong here after all!From here:  http://www.peterrussell.com/SG/index.php

Quote:

From Science to God is the story of Peter Russell’s lifelong exploration into the nature of consciousness. Blending physics, psychology, and philosophy, he leads us to a new worldview in which consciousness is a fundamental quality of creation. He shows how all the ingredients for this worldview are in place; nothing new needs to be discovered. We have only to put the pieces together and explore the new picture of reality that emerges.Integrating a deep knowledge of science with his own experiences of meditation, Russell arrives at a universe similar to that described by many mystics — one in which science and spirit no longer conflict. The bridge between them, he shows, is light. From Science to God invites us to cross that bridge to a radically different, and ultimately healing, view of ourselves and the universe — one in which God takes on new meaning, and spiritual practice a deeper significance.

I haven’t read the book myself, but what is the “new meaning” he says “God takes on”? Is he a pantheist or what?

 Well, bearing in mind my  previous comments about the  “observer effect”   (see this link for further info:  http://theobservereffect.wordpress.com/the-most-beautiful-experiment/ ) and how the mere fact of observing can have a measurable, if infintesemal effect, on a  beam of electrons, Russell deduces from this, if I remember correctly that the universe  in a certain sense , is conscious or sentiient  inasmuch as its “responds”  to the mere fact that we obserrve it.  Or to put it differently, we are part of the very thing we observe and if that is so then the fact that we are conscious means it too  is “conscious.” at least in this special sense .  There is more to Russell’s argument than this and he goes into some detail about the significance of light in Physics and how this relates to his  argument about religion .  My  take on him is that he is some sort of neoplatonist – or “panpsychist” – with a kind of religious materialist  -or materialistic religious – perspective,  if I can put it like that. Its a while since I read the book so I cannot remember all the details but I have it in  front of me  and here is a rather relevant passage from the book  (p.34) “The underlying assumption of the current  metaparadigm is that matter is insentient. The alternative is that the faculty of consciousness is a fundamental quality of nature.  Conscousness does not arise from some particular arrangement  of nerve cells or processes going on between them, , or from any other physical feautures, it is always presentIf the faculty of consciousness is always present , then the relationship between consciousness  and nervous systems needs to be rethought. Rather than creating consciousness. nervous system  may be amplifiers  of consciousness, increasing the richness and quality of  experience. In the analogy of a film projector , having a nervous system is like having  a lens in the projector.  Without the lens  there is still light on the screen , but the images are much less sharp” Russell goes on to talk about the fruitless attempt to try to link mind states to brain states – that is, to trace thoughts to the biochemistry of the brain  – and as someone who supports “emergence theory”  or “non-reductive physicalism” I have some sympathy for this part of his extended argument.  There is now a huge amount of evidence that in my view flatly contradicts the old fashioned crude materialism that went under the name of so called “identity theory” – identifying mind states with brain states. However, I dont know if I would go along with the rest of what Russell is talking about  but whatever else one might think of this point oif view, one thing is certain –  I dont think you can can reasonably come away from it with the dismissive  notion that this is just  some sort of irrational mubo jumbo. It is a highly thoughtful attempt to make sense of reality whether in the end  you agree with it or not.  Which kind of illustrates my basic point   – to dismiss religious people or bar them entry to the SPGB on the grounds that they are ” irrational”  is a gross caricature. We are all both irrational and rational  whether we are religious or not.

[robbo203]

I suggest people here read Cornelius  Castoriadis’ brilliant demolition job  on the crude reductionist materialism of some Marxists  in his short work History as Creation.  Its enough to give our so called “scientific materialists” pause to hopefully rethink …. Check it out here (it comes in 3 parts)http://eagainst.com/articles/cornelius-castoriadis-history-as-creation-part-i/ Ive got the original pamphlet  but the translation above is a bit iffy  so make allowances for that

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

No, but that’s not what I said. I said have a rational approach to things, ie history, society, solving problems, etc. You’re just making a cheap debating point by playing on words. .

 No, you don’t get it at all. Everybody has a “rational approach to things” but equally everybody  is subject to irrational impulses – you , me, members of the SPGB and religious applicants to the SPGB.  Your whole argument is based on a completely false premiss.  You don’t – you can’t!!!  – ensure that people have only  a “rational approach ” to things in the Party by blocking entry to  supposedly irrational  religious applicants.  This kind of “trojan horse” argument against the case for reforming the entry requirements is manifestly false because1) you cannot say a religious person is not “rational”. Period2) you cannot say that you and other members of the SPGB are not “irrational”. PeriodI repeat – – we are all an admixture of both these things You emphasise the need for a “rational approach” to things like  history, society , solving problems etc.  But how we view history, for example,  is very much bound up with our value system.  What we call history is not some kind of objective process which simply goes on “out there” to which we supposedly relate as “objective”observers.  It necessarily involves a process of subjective interpretation – for example in the very selection of the historical facts that we deem significant.  We select these facts in accordance with our values and preconceptions which – inevitably –  we mostly take for granted and in doing so behave “irrationally”Its one reason why I am very ambivalent about the use of the term “scientific materialism” because it is potentially highly misleading.  It  ignores what is called the problem of “reflexivity “in sociology/ anthropology.  We are part of the very thing that we are supposedly “observing” – society.  Its not comparable to a situation where we have group of white coated scientists hanging around monitoring some laboratory experiment.Actually, as a matter of fact, the Observer Effect  is  even evident in the realm of the natural sciences.  Perhaps you with your obsession with paranormal phenomena might want to explain something even  wackier  which developments in quantum physics have brought to light.  See for example this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm.  To me as a non-physicist this is just simply bizarre beyond words and yet one must trust the scientists that such a thing actually happens. There – another example of me being  irrational perhaps!  But in that case so is everybody else  

ALB wrote:

. But what is religion without the idea of a god that intervenes in the lives of human beings? The Epicureans didn’t contest that the gods existed somewhere in the ether but denied that they had any influence on human affairs and so didn’t need worshipping or placating. Were they religious?

 Yes of course they were religious.  The fact that you don’t  have the gods intervening does not mean they are not accorded a supernatural existence.  There is also the troubling phenomenon of pantheism too  in which the idea of intervention does not really make much sense since it implies a separation of god and his/her/its creation in the first place.  The observer effect in quantum physics mentioned above has also given fuel to the idea  that the universe is essentially “conscious” at some deep level and this is the point made by  Peter Russell, a physicist,  in his book “From  Science to God”. In a sense what he is saying is quite ” rational” and to deny it would be “irrational”.  The fact that a beam of electrons is actually affected by. or seems to respond to,  the mere act of observing it , would seem to imply a very crude kind of sentience of some sort.  How else do you explain it? .  For myself, I couldn’t begin to comment because I am  simply not familiar with   the detailed arguments but it does suggest the world may be a far more weird and wacky place  than your old-fashioned pre-Einsteinian “scientific materialists” could ever have imagined. Hence the need to keep an open mind –  always  

ALB wrote:

 I don’t think a Conference resolution would be required to admit Lucretius to the party.  His reputation as a metaphysical materialist precedes him.

 This is not really the point is it.  You said Northern Light was twice welcomed to apply for membership of the Party. You said this knowing full well that Northern light had expressed a belief in the idea of a creator.  So unless you are playing some kind of cynical game  here,  this can only mean that you think belief in a creator is compatible with membership of the SPGB.  I am asking you  -is it ? If it is not  why then did you suggest Northern Light apply for membership  when that would require a conference resolution to change the entry requirements to the Party?

ALB wrote:

That’s what they say, but “scientism” is a perjorative term which nobody would claim for themselves. Looking it up I see it’s said to reject all “metaphysical” claims. You can’t have it both ways: we can’t be metaphysical materialists and scientists. And, since we’re having a pub debate (at the moment still inside it), what other sources of knowledge do you think there is apart from empirically-based science? Religion perhaps?

 No this is sheer bunkum .  “Scientism” might be loosely described as the over-reliance or  overemphasis on science and the scientific method  as a means to knowledge.  Where did you get the idea  that  this is “said to reject all metaphysical claims”  (a link would be appreciated). Metaphysics is conventionally defined as that branch of philosophy to do with the ultimate nature of reality.  Everyone has a metaphysical standpoint  – a taken for granted framework within which they view the world around them . Metaphysical materialism is one such kind of framework, dualism is another and philosophical idealism is yet another. You cannot avoid having a metaphysical point of view and in that sense it is  fully compatible with scientism

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Even on a single thread on religion over the past week on this forum  you lot  have managed to disillusion one or two potential members and one or two existing members.

I always assumed that this was your intention in continually stirring up such debates.

 Yeah , go on,  deflect the blame on poor  Robocox (LOL) as you and Mr Copy-n-Paste Gnome have been doing all along.  Its not me who has been the cause of their disillusionment.. My motives  have been obvious from the start: I would love nothing more than for the SPGB to flourish and grow but it aint gonna happen unless it gets off  its complacent arse and makes some pretty radical changes..  Thats what I and others who have left the Party would hope for  but perhaps I am more naive  than them  in thinking such change is possible in the face of the such entrenched conservatism as we have seen here.  Those who defend the organisation, come hell or high water,  will do everything possible to avert their eyes from the pretty obvious shortcomings of the organisation rather than face up to the plain truth.  Why the SPGB is in steady decline had got nothing to do with the SPGB, in their view ;  its all the fault of troublemakers outside or whatever.  As if But quite seriously – why do you think the SPGB is an organisation in decline?  I know it is about half the size it was when I was a member (and, no, I’m  not imputing any causal connection between these two things  – LOL).  I would love to hear a genuine up front explanation from a die-hard member.   I don’t think, for example, pointing to the general malaise on the Left is an adequate answer since you would have thought this would have been excellent opportunity to recruit from the Left.  Yet  go the Revleft  where,  irony of ironies, I have have often been stoutly defending the  SPGB against Leftist criticism while people like ALB and Gnome whinge pathetically about bad boy Robocox but couldn’t be arsed to participate in the debates in  Revleft themselves, and you wont find much sympathy for the SPGB.   I wonder why?

[Author]

Posts