From: eliota@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Eliot Anderson)
Subject: Re: Science Worship was Re: Science and significance
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:33:50 GMT

epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:

: 	You are correct!  Physics is not concious.  But if physics gives rise  
: to conciousness, then conciousness must follow the laws of physics.  Another  
: way of saying it is that consciousness is physics operating under a particular  
: set of conditions.  Imaginary numbers do not follow the mathematical laws of  
: real numbers precisely because imaginary numbers are not a subset of real  
: numbers.  Real numbers are a subset of imaginary numbers ( real numbers are  
: imaginary numbers ( a + bi ) where b=0.)  Real numbers follow the rules of  
: imaginary numbers.  Newtonian physics are a subset of general  
: relativity-derived physics, and both follow the rules of the second.
: 	The same physical laws that allow the addition of apples must also  
: allow thought.  (If the two are really separate, perhaps we should not be using  
: thought to come up with mathematical ideas.)  So let's say I am an abstract  
: observer from the pi'th dimension ( or square-root-of-two'th dimension, if you  
: prefer), and I observe that two humans have contradictory thoughts.  Obviously,  
: the physical circumstances between the two are not the same, or physics would  
: have given rise to the same thought in both.  Probably some protein is screwed  
: up in one of their brains due to genetic mutation, and has caused this untrue  
: thought that 2+2= 5, or that God exists, or whatever.
: 	I know which thought is true, and therefore whose brain is messed up.   
: However, they don't!  The only ways they have to discover who is right are all  
: based on their thought.  Some primitive ancestor of theirs beleived that  
: scientific methods were the ultimate truth-solving tool and had arrived at this  
: conclusion based on thought.  But might not this ancestor have had the same  
: genetic malfunction that is now causing disagreement?  They have contradictory  
: thoughts and no way of determining who is right except by thought.  But  
: someone's thoughts are screwed up- whose?  Or both?  The only solution is for  
: the abstract observer to come in and say "Hey, guys, I'm not bound by thought  
: processes or the potential screwups in your genetic code.  Trust me on this  
: one: 2+2=4."  But this is outside interference, and no scientist will accept  
: it.  They would say to us "Okay, you were argueing on the nets and an abstract  
: observer from WHAT dimension broke in and told you the answer?"
: 
: 
: 	I would agree.  I have yet to see any belief system so far out that it  
: does not contain at least one truth.  Thank you for a very interesting and  
: polite post!
: 
: 							Erik Powers
 
Well argued from my perspective!

I agree with you on the "conscious" aspects of the language-games (not a
pejorative, a celebration of such) of science.  Science does contain
linguistic constructions as the product of conscious thought that come
close to the real and are therefore "realistic."  

I appreciate the honest dialog around this subject which causes great
anxiety among we who live in this time, the critique of science.  Plato
and Medieval scholars understood the importance of argumentation, which
sometimes (esp. here on internet) is eclipsed by dogmatic/authoratative
desires.

Often science creates proofs and means of proving (machines,
instruments, etc.) that embody the hypothesis that it is attempting to
prove.  It becomes a "tautological machine" which produces some
language to confirm its hypothesis.  By positing some hypothesis a
certain amount of educated guessing and assumptions are employed. 

We can fly, but we sometimes crash.  This is the intrusion of the real,
the thing that we can't fully describe.  But our hypothesis about flying
work most of the time and are therefore "realistic."  The danger comes
when we believe the map for the territory.  That we believe that 2+2=4
and thats that.  The world as we "know" it is signified by change,
theory, which is language changes to attempt to describe in some
functional way how we are in-the-world.  We want to allow for this play
of understanding and change.

There is a book, whose author and title escape me at this point, that
talks about the literary quality of science.  The author spent some time
at I believe Livermore Labs observing how science was "done."  His
finding was that science is literature, a figuration of the real.
Scientists make observations and write them, have them returned with
critiques, re-write their findings, do further tests and then publish.
Once published, someone confirms or rebuts the document.

There is no harm in stating that science is not absolute.  It does not
detract from the accomplishments of science, it reveals the ability for
questioning, thinking and creativity.  It prevents the world from
becoming "ordered" and distanced from our own curiosity and free will.
Science can be a creative act and an art form.

Elliot


-- 
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
(     Elliot Anderson    "I despise mystics, they fancy themselves   (
)			  so deep, when they aren't even superficial )
(			  			- Nietzsche	     (