From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:09:23 GMT

In article <memo.840337@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>In-Reply-To: <1993Jan3.215317.2225@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
>
>>>>other/meta 63 holmes@opal.idbsu.edu(11723)3Jan93 21:53 c55
>TITLE: Re: Buddhism & Science
>
>+Message-ID   : <1993Jan3.215317.2225@guinness.idbsu.edu>
>+From         : holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
>Randall:
>
>>As my name is taken in vain later on, I'm responding to this.
>
>The fact that you ARE responding, means that it wasn't in vain...
>

[...]

>>>
>>>What is the relevance of this to Science and Logic. Immense. Logic is 
>>>the glue that binds the conceptual objects of our worldview together. 
>>>Science is the process of adding to this logical structure.
>
>>This is not precisely correct.  Logic is a feature of the world;
>
>I don't think I agree with you, except in the sense that logic is a 
>feature of human thought, and humans are a feature of the world. To 
>me logic is a system of discrimination, not necessarily an inherent 
>prpoerty - care to expand on why you said that in another thread?

I've posted about this extensively; remember that I'm a mathematical
realist.

[...]

>
>>But you are confusing the child's pre-linguistic interpretation of his
>>experience with the pre-linguistic (actually extra-linguistic
>>altogether) experience itself; there is no reason to believe that the
>>child's interpretation is better than Newton's.
>
>True. And of course in 99% of pragmatic cases Newton's explantion is 
>more USEFUL. However there are two points I want to make in response.
>
>(i) Bryan Appleyard makes a point very clearly in his book 
>'Understanding the present' that utility is only one aspect. It may 
>actually be more effective, for example, for a culture to believe in 
>a divine purpose that causes them to be a 'chosen people' than to 
>feel that the universe has no meaning. Blissful ignorance and 
>superstition may actually be MORE effective in another sense.

My reasons for seeking truth do not rest on efficacy; I recognize
efficacy (combined with other factors) as evidence for truth.

>
>(ii) The point about esotericism is not to claim that the pre-lingual 
>view is 'better' than the post: Rather it sets the boundary on the 
>applicability of the lingual. I believe that is what is meant by the 
>riddles like 'what is the sound of one hand clapping' - it forces the 
>student to examine the reality og his experience, and not get trapped 
>in the language. This pre lingual area is exactly where you need to 
>go when confronted by a set of data that have some apparent order, 
>but whose underlying structure cannot be expressed. I.e. is where 
>creativity comes from - the idea of describing the fall of an apple 
>in terms of a 'force' for example.

That's what I said; Newton was doing the same thing as the child,
_better_.  He was assisted, not hindered, by his superior linguistic
capabilities, by the way.

[...]

>
>>The Buddhist logicians were not sufficiently technically competent to
>>get anywhere near Godel's results, although they were not bad for the
>>time.  If you can give actual quotes which resemble Godel's results,
>>I'll reconsider.
>
>Well - you are presumably a technically competent mathematician, so I 
>will forgive you what appears to be a bias in favor of mathematical 
>formulations. For me, the paradox of recursion - which is what I 
>understand to be the underlying aspect of Godel, is very clearly 
>expressed in a 13th century Taoist text "Seek not to probe behind 
>consciousness with consciousness - that cannot be done" (Wilhelm 
>translation 'Secret of the Golden Flower')

Recursion _per se_ is not paradoxical; show me diagonalization (the
paradox of the Cretan is the only ancient version which really shows
insight of this kind that I know of).

>
>
>[...]
>
>>
>>>In that context it is very necessary to distinguish between 'mind' 
>>>'thought' and 'language'
>
>>It sure is, and you've already started out on the wrong foot.  See my
>>remarks on logic and reason above.
>
>No. I am simply using these terms perhaps in a way which you would 
>not. That, all other things being equal, would make you as wrong as 
>I. However in these matters it is consensus reality which has to make 
>the choice.  I never claimed to have studied the philosophers to the 
>extent where every word I use is as Kant or Wittgenstein or Russell 
>might have employed. Let the net decide.

The point is not the use of specific words; the point is that you use
_no_ word for the _referent_ of logic (the structure of the world) and
assume that it doesn't have one.

[...]


>
>[..]
>>
>>>I have been criticised in the past for criticising science. Randall 
>>>in particular is a firm adherent to the tenet that 'if it works it 
>>>must be true'.
>
>>This is not quite my position.  Not only does it work, but it also has
>>to be possible to see how it works; it should be systematic.
>
>[...]
>
>>>survival - not truth. Science is no better. Science that doesn't lead 
>>>to predictions is non-science,
>
>>This is not always the case.  Science is also a descriptive and
>>categorizing activity.
>
>
>So is myth, and occultism. What makes you happier with a world of 
>'leptons' than a world of 'demi-urges?' I strongly feel that if a 
>particular description merely gives us a 'handle' on a phenomena - 
>for instance I clearly remember going to the doctor once with a 
>persistent runny nose, and being told in majestic terms that I was 
>suffering from 'rhinitis' consualtion of the dictionary revealed that 
>this impressive word meant 'a running nose' - then it is pointless. 
>Science that merely describes is surely only to impress the ignorant. 
>If it simplifies, it *ipso facto* has predictive power. If it 
>describes, but doesn't simplify it is mere mumbo jumbo.

[more of the same omitted]

>:-)
>
>I maintain that is the predictive power of Science that gains our 
>respect - as an explanation it is rather dull.

You omit the possibility of description and categorization based on
insight into the actual properties of the objects; this is clearly
lacking, as much as predictive power, in your example.  Medicine, by
the way, is not a science; it is analogous to engineering.  The
explanation given by science is NOT dull (this may be your most
telling comment in this entire posting)!

>
>
>>> and science that leads to predictions 
>>>of unpredictability (chaos theory?) is borderline!
>
>>Not necessarily.
>
>I think necessarily. I really have to challenge you to come up with a 
>reasoned exposition of why a science that doesn't predict, or 
>predicts unpredictability, should be practised, or adds anything to 
>human knowledge (rather than human myth, or human emotion)

It may be true that the weather CANNOT be predicted; since we are in
fact interested in Truth, not efficacy, we'd sort of like to know if
our theory implies it.  By the way, an effective technique of
predciating the weather would then be a useful falsifier, if it were
produced!  You claim below that science cannot answer certain kinds of
questions, and you certainly seem to regard this as something people
ought to know!


>
>>>  So Science IS 
>>>utilitarian -  a set of rules-of-thumb justified by repeatibility and 
>>>repeatability. But those rules of thumb are built on the basic 
>>>concepts that are inherent in the way we view the world. Esoteric 
>>>traditions go beyond that - to give the power to re-structure the way 
>>>we see the world.

Internal evidence about the structure of science reveals that it is
not merely made up of rules of thumb (like the panoply of knowledge of
you witch doctor); it certainly does include such rules, but there's
more to it than that.

[...]

>
>Not at all. Not in absolute terms. Again I can't prove it 
>mathematically - which is probably the only way you would be 
>convinced, but I would be willing to bet that for any given set of 
>phenomena there is more than one equation that could be used to 
>describe them. You may regard the equations as equivalent - that is 
>valid if you are only concerned with efficacy, but it is not valid to 
>do so if you are after 'Truth' or 'Correctness'.


I can prove mathematically that differnet equations can describe the
same phenomena; and this does not raise any problems with truth or
correctness; you get several different ways of describing the same
underlying phenomena, that's all.  If the mathematical formalisms
predict the same results in all contexts, they are intertranslatable,
and can be taken as describing the same reality; if they disagree in
situations you have not yet examined, set up experiments to decide
between them.

[...]

>
>> Re-structuring our concepts does _not_ change the
>>world; it may change how the world looks to us, but that's quite
>>another thing.
>
>That Randall, is an article of faith, not a fact. It is the a priori 
>assumption of the scientist. You have NO WAY of knowing whether if 
>you REALLY believed in fairies, you wouldn't find them at the bottom 
>of your garden:-) 
>
>But even you - if I ask the question:-
>
>"does what you think and the way you think not alter the world even 
>one tiny little biochemical randall-brain bit?"
>
>will have to answer 'No' or lay yourself permanently open to the 
>charge that what you think has absolutely no effect on the cosmos 
>whatsoever.

Certainly, if I change the way I think, this means that something
different is going on in my brain, and that I may do something
different.  But my believing something about the fundamental nature of
the world does not in the least perturb the fundamental nature of the
world.

[...]

>
>>Aw, shucks, why not?  It depends on what you mean by "paranormal
>>effects".  It's astounding what the effect on the world (itself, not
>>our view of it) was of a change in world-view which can be credited to
>>Newton and Galileo; no mystical school can claim anything _remotely_
>>comparable.
>
>Lets say that one of the side effects of Newton has been to remove 
>most of the supernatural from our worlds. I'll go into that in 
>another thread another time.

I have already had occasion to frame that hypothesis (insincerely, of
course).  Yes, it is astounding how the skeptical glance of Mommy or
Daddy into the closet just _vaporizes_ the bogeyman -- but he WAS
there, really he was!  :-)


>
>>>
>>>The third valid use however, is to develop new fundamental basic 
>>>concepts
>
>[...]
>
>>Sure.  But leave the trendy stuff out.
>
>Which trendy stuff was that? 

Kuhn, et. al.

>
>>
>>
>>>But are they the most appropriate ones? They are certainly highly 
>>>appropriate for a 'tool' 'wielding' 'ape-man' trying to make his way 
>>>in the 'world' (PC female readers assume the feminine alternatives 
>>>please). But are they appropriate for nuclear physics, or even 
>>>weather forecasting?
>
>>Yes.
>
>
>How much rain is going to fall on London in July 1993 Randall? Do 
>tell me.

My theory predicts that I cannot predict that.  See above.


[...]

>
>Oh yes it does. If the rational process starts with the assumption 
>that everything is composed of energy in a space time matrix,

_You_ think it started with that and is committed to that.  It didn't
look like that to Newton (space _and_ time, _if_ you please), and it
doesn't look much like that now.  (the QM stuff counterindicates this
in any naive form; that doesn't mean that science is failing; it means
that it does NOT make these assumptions _a priori_).

 and 
>that events (i.e. changes in quantity at any given point in that 
>matrix) may be predicted by 'laws'

Sometimes and up to a point!

 and yet when it comes down to it, 
>the 'laws' cease to operate at the micro level, and become more and 
>more stochastic,

Such laws have plenty of predictive power, by the way; consider
classical thermodynamics.

[...]

> 
>>
>>>This is where esotericism and metaphysics OUGHT to be coming to the 
>>>rescue. By moving away from assumptions of absolute knowledge towards 
>>>realisation that knowledge is always relative - to our language, to 
>>>our concepts, ultimately to our personal experience, we are prevented 
>>>from our attempts to elevate ourselves to godlike status.
>
>>Science is always concerned with such methodological issues.  But
>>science also assumes that we can acquire knowledge; to assume that we
>>can acquire some reliable knowledge is not to assume that we have
>>god-like powers. 
>
>I think that what I meant by god-like powers, was that science has a 
>monopoly on 'correctness' on 'truth' on 'the nature of reality'. It 
>does not. It has efficacy only. 

It has Truth (to some extent) and does not claim a monopoly.


>
>> In fact, it is your lunatic claim that the world
>>changes obediently if we change our world-view which arrogates
>>god-like powers to humanity.
>
>I never said that it changed obediently, nor did I ever state in what 
>sense it might change. My point there is to try and illustrate that 
>*in the limit* even _you_ have to admit that what you think has an 
>effect on the world. 

Sure, but not a "paranormal" effect.

[...]

>
>>What on earth do you think it means for a model to be accurate?
>>Scientific models _are_ used in the context for which they are
>>intended.
>
>And in many contexts for which they are not. I would say that Marxism 
>is a prime example.

Not scientific.

>
>>  Unfortunately (for you) this includes human life and
>>indicates that our pre-scientific understanding thereof was not
>>accurate. 
>
>And what gives you the assurance that post scientific is more 
>accurate, and how much is 'accuracy' like 'correctness' and 
>'realness' and 'truth' more a question of 'efficacy'.

You assume that, but it is not the case.

>
>> And the conclusions which modern science draws about human
>>life are not in the least incompatible with Buddhism (to nudge the
>>original topic); 
>
>Quite right too.
>
>>they are incompatible with the kinds of Western
>>romantic thought which like to pretend to be Buddhist.
>
>Quite right. But which are you? And which am I? 

I am neither, and you are the latter (I think).

> 
>
>
>>>Investigations of quarks and leptons may just help 
>>>us develop new power sources, better computers or lasers, but should 
>>>not affect personal morality.
>
>>Eh?
>
>Ok. I will answer that one. It goes like this.
>
>"By using a model in which 'inanimate laws of nature'

This is a category error; the laws of nature cannot be said to be
animate or inanimate.

 feature, we are 
>enabled to wield powerful weapons of destruction, cure ills, destroy 
>habitats, feed the starving, posion ourselves etc etc."
>
>"Because this all works so well, it must be becuse our premises are 
>TRUE"
>
>"Therefore the universe is inanimate and uncaring,

All evidence points in that direction for the bulk of the universe (of
course, _we_ are animate and caring, and we are part of the universe,
too).  And where does "caring" enter into your premisses?  Your
romanticism is showing...


 and what we think 
>has no meaning

Surely science is "what we think", and does have meaning.  

 - the only God is the God of Truth and Correctness, 
>and he cares not for man - one way or the other, though Man cares for 
>him, for he is the giver of much Power"

The final end of man is the intellectual contemplation of God.  Power
is only a convenient side-effect of doing it right (and the power
obtained is limited by circumstances).  The contemplation of truth is
the real aim (otherwise, how did the whole thing get started?; it took
a _very_ long time to generate power).


>
>"Therefore since no One is watching, I will nick my neighbours 
>Pontiac, because in an uncaring universe, I will do as I please, 
>because, like Science, I can."

This is not scientific; it may follow from your incorrect premisses
above.  Naturally, the owner of the Pontiac cares, and so do the
police.


>
>"Science does not and cannot talk of Good or Bad or Should or Should 
>Not, and since Science is True, these concepts must be false, or at 
>least well past their sell-by date"

On the assumption that science claims a monopoly on truth; it does
not, and these concepts have generally been left alone by scientists
in their official capacity.  What various pseudo-philosophers of
science have to say is another thing altogether.  Actually, logic does
have something to say about these concepts, but that's going too far
afield...


>
>Geddit? The implications of a deterministic and impersonal universe 
>are in fact quite socially and culturally destructive.

Determinism is now generally held to be false (although not in a way
helpful to your delicate sensibilities).  The universe (and God) are
impersonal (on the whole); if you don't like it, lump it.

 I know that 
>all scientists will shriek that this is not what science is, or 
>should be, but the fact remains that by and large that is precisely 
>the effect it has had on large numbers of people. 

No, that's the effect of their own intellectual errors.

>
>>
>>>It is this terrible
>            ^^^^^^^^
>
>>Uh-uh.  
>
>Sorry: I stand by that Randall. You may think that you are not 
>responsible for the sort of extrapolation that I have outlined.


I'm not.

 It 
>won't make any difference when the fundamentalists beat down YOUR 
>door. I should rather say that you may not be responsible for the 
>mis-representation and mis-interpretation of science, but if you stay 
>stuck up uin your ivory tower and don't come down to argue with the 
>likes of Hawkins and Capra, you deserve whats coming to you.


If I argue with Capra, I can't do my real work.  Who's Hawkins?  By
the way I am NOT a scientist; I'm a mathematician (a quite different
kettle of fish).

>
>>> extrapolation, of 'scientific theory' to 
>>>'universal fact' that has really caused some fundamental human 
>>>problems in the twentyieth century.
>
>>I'm afraid not.  The problems of the twentieth century are political,
>>and science has never been applied in the sphere of politics.
>
>F****ing crap. Marxism was entirely a 'scientific' politics.

Don't believe everything that the vendors of a brand of snake oil say
about their product.

 Based on 
>19th century materialism.

Ditto.


 Science has ALWAYS been applied in the 
>service of, and as justification for, political power broking.

This has nothing to do with the content of science (it is evidence, by
the way, that science is true).  I said the problem is political.  Of
course those who have power will apply whatever knowledge is available
to them.

 The 
>reason why the US won the war in the Gulf is not because of 
>ideological superiority, it was because of massive technical 
>superiority.

Sure.

 Nazism (as we have heard in this group) borrowed heavily 
>on certain philosophical concepts.

Which were not scientific in nature; Naziism suicided partly because
of this.


 Your statement is tantamount to 
>saying 'Well just because I built the gun, loaded it and left it 
>lying in the street, doesn't make me responsible for that kid using 
>it to blow his fathers brains out' Look to your own philosopher's, 
>Randall. Mark Twain I believe has Jim tell Huck Finn 'A rattlesnake 
>ain't responsible for being a rattlesnake, but you kills him just the 
>same'.  If Scientists aren't responsible for the misuse of science 
>and the misrepresentation of science, then they deserve every last 
>bit of criticism for abrogating theior responsibility to the 
>community at large.

The pseudo-scientists say what the public wants to hear; this drowns
out the rational, mundane and uninspiring (but truer) statements of
the real scientists and mathematicians, who DO spend a good deal of
time telling people about what they do.  Sorry, my political
philosophy doesn't allow for a responsibility "to the community at
large".  I am responsible for my own actions; I am not responsible for
the determined irrationality of others.

[...]

>>Tell me what it would mean to bring the scientific attitude to bear on
>>human life.  I assure you, it hasn't been done yet.
>
>It can't be done Randall. The assumptions of Science are not 
>appropriate. They tried Marxism - and look where that lead.

Not relevant -- see above.

 
>
>Science, at its very, very best, might just tend towards telling us 
>what might actually be. Or at least a model so elegant and detailed 
>that we would have almost infinite power to alter ourselves, and our 
>world.

How would the model afford that power if it were not true?

>
>But how can it ever tell us what we ought to be doing about it? Given 
>infinite powers, what would you do? Having arrived at ultimate truth, 
>now what? Having pulled all the pieces of the world apart, what 
>should we then build? How can science tell us that?

It has never claimed that power.  But it can, anyway, if properly
consulted.  There is an ethic implicit in the practice of science;
there is also the possibility of using scientific methods to find out
what it is that we really want.


>
>Lets say we involve some 'Western Romantic' ideals. Lets say we say 
>'listen to your feelings, and follow those' NO. Science tells us that 
>those are just the patterns of our biochemistry, a result of 
>submicroscopic stochastic processes over which we might, or might 
>not, exert control - what does it matter?

_Non sequitur_; why does this tell us we shouldn't listen to them?

 In the end Man and his 
>thinking are still subject to those stochastic laws: we have no free 
>will. If we think we do it is just the manifestation of yet more 
>random subatomic events.

This is not relevant to whether we have free will or not.  Free will
means that we can decide what to do and do it; observation reveals
that this is the case.  Our decisions have causes; what's the problem
with that?

>
>The net result of following the scientific path to the limit is to 
>render us completely powerful, yet to rob us of our reasons for using 
>it. The assumption of a universe governed by laws gives us the power 
>to apprehend those laws - and yet if we reach for ultimate power,

The knowledge of the laws does not always give power; it certainly is
most unlikely to give "ultimate" power.

 we 
>are caught in the Godelian trap - those laws MUST apply to us as 
>well.....instead of freedom, we have built ourselves an intellectual 
>prison. We are trapped within the confines of our own assumptions, 
>victims of the laws we sought to utilise,

No, _we_ sought to _know_ them.  Using them was an afterthought.  They
already applied to us.  And this has nothing to do with Godel.


[...]

>
>Randall: What I am trying to say is this. I do not extrapolate the 
>science I use to dictate the whys and wherefores of my daily personal 
>life.

Nor do I, very often.

 Science cannot and does not tell me anything useful about why I 
>am here, or what I ought to do about it.

It could, if you listened.

 Indeed its primary 
>assumption is that 'I' amd not 'Here' and nothing I do can make any 
>difference: The observer is, in fact, outside of the system observed 
>(cf Buddhist 'detachment').

This is not a scientific assumption.

>
>It is a fact (relative and personal, but a fact) that I percieve 
>myself to be alive and within a universe, not oustide looking in. And 
>in that respect I choose to accept the dictates of the game as they 
>appear, and do as I feel, using science and technology to achieve 
>ends which are personal, romantic, idiosyncratic and not in the least 
>bit scientific. I offer no justification for this other than to say 
>that if I were to extrapolate science to its limits and apply it to 
>my personal life,  I would find in it the sort of rational dullness 
>that you find in socialist cultures - notably scandinavia. Now this 
>may be the choice of the supreme rationalist - to remove all choice 
>and desire from the individual,

Not what I have in mind; but this is politics, not science.

 and equip him with a comfortable 
>sanitised and banal life:

Go for it!  (the banality is in the eye of the beholder).

 It is not mine. And is factory-farmed 
>humanity 'better' than starving in Somalia? 

YES!!!!!!!!

Who can tell? Is one year 
>of anguish amongst the hot african dust better or worse than sixty 
>years of non-events in Copenhagen?

Worse, much worse.  And you know it.  Think what the guy up in
Copenhagen could do if he put his mind to it.

 Science cannot tell me. Science 
>always falls back on 'common sense'. Unfortunately Human nature 
>disagrees, which is possibly why scandinavia has the highest suicide 
>rate in the western world.

Long winter nights might have something to do with it, too.

>
>You want to tell me that science has the answers, one day all the 
>answers, to all problems including human problems.

When did I say that?  That is NOT my aim!  Science is a way of
arriving at truths; that is what I said.

>
>I tell you that there are some questions that science cannot even 
>ask, let alone answer. Esoteric traditions may at least allow the 
>framing of the question, evenm if the answers that they may provide 
>are not the sort of answers that you are used to.

Science is free to ask and maybe answer _any_ question to which its
method can be applied.

>
>>>
>>>And it may not even be a suitable assumption for subatomic physics 
>>>either. 
>
>
>>_All_ evidence without exception indicates otherwise.
>
>I disagree. Even taking the established worldview, we have to admit 
>that thought itself is probably a function of subatomic events. It 
>would be quite surprising if we are not getting quite near the point 
>at which mind and matter (as conventionally described) do interface. 
>The assumption of an independent cosnciousness as we approach those 
>levels is downright hazardous.

There isn't an "independent consciouness", as any Buddhist should tell
you.


>
>Don't dismiss me as an irrelevant romantic Randall, I did my time in 
>the ivory tower, though I have always preferred to build things than 
>to study.

I wish that you _were_ irrelevant; but you aren't.


>
>
>Leo
>
>
>


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu