The consciousness-particle
Jun 13, 2013 6:11:46 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 6:11:46 GMT -5
Mr. Nagel's provocative new book, entitled Mind and Cosmos: Why the materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false, is published by the Oxford people.
A certain Mr. Rosen tells us, that "In it he begins with some indisputable facts: living things exist; some living things are conscious, and some of those conscious things are capable of moral and scientific knowledge. He then argues that the prevailing materialist, neo-Darwinian conception of nature cannot do justice to these facts, and that we should therefore be 'in the market' for a new account of mind and its place in nature.
"Currently fashionable inflationary models in cosmology suggest that the universe is very, very large, possibly even infinite." Room for everything but still not enough what!
"Nagel's suggestion," continues Mr. Rosen, "is that the mechanistic laws of physics might be supplemented by teleological principles according to which 'particles' have a basic, otherwise inexplicable tendency to move in ways that realize certain ends, in this case, the existence of creatures with minds like ours. This is shocking [for Mr. Rosen], in part because 'modern' science has defined itself by the rejection of Aristotelian final causes. So it is worth stressing that this is a testable hypothesis. If teleological principles explain the existence of conscious life, they must play a role in explaining the motions of particles. But we have a developed theory of how particles move, and it is not remotely teleological. If a teleological view is correct, this part of physics must be mistaken. And since the processes that led to the formation of conscious life on Earth all 'took place' [claims Mr. Rosen] at energies readily reproducible in the laboratory, we can set up an experiment that mimics the conditions just before the emergence of life. Nagel's theory predicts that in such an environment, we would see particles moving in ways that are improbable given the ordinary laws of 'physics'."
Thus this Mr. Rosen, a northern american of some kind who reviews Mr. Nagel's book.
But I would add, that prior to the performance of such an "experiment," it would be advisable and indeed necessary first to define exactly what a "particle" is! At present the word seems to change its meaning monthly. . . .
In fact "perform a scientific experiment" is no more than an abstruse way to say "add an entry to a dictionary."
A certain Mr. Rosen tells us, that "In it he begins with some indisputable facts: living things exist; some living things are conscious, and some of those conscious things are capable of moral and scientific knowledge. He then argues that the prevailing materialist, neo-Darwinian conception of nature cannot do justice to these facts, and that we should therefore be 'in the market' for a new account of mind and its place in nature.
"Currently fashionable inflationary models in cosmology suggest that the universe is very, very large, possibly even infinite." Room for everything but still not enough what!
"Nagel's suggestion," continues Mr. Rosen, "is that the mechanistic laws of physics might be supplemented by teleological principles according to which 'particles' have a basic, otherwise inexplicable tendency to move in ways that realize certain ends, in this case, the existence of creatures with minds like ours. This is shocking [for Mr. Rosen], in part because 'modern' science has defined itself by the rejection of Aristotelian final causes. So it is worth stressing that this is a testable hypothesis. If teleological principles explain the existence of conscious life, they must play a role in explaining the motions of particles. But we have a developed theory of how particles move, and it is not remotely teleological. If a teleological view is correct, this part of physics must be mistaken. And since the processes that led to the formation of conscious life on Earth all 'took place' [claims Mr. Rosen] at energies readily reproducible in the laboratory, we can set up an experiment that mimics the conditions just before the emergence of life. Nagel's theory predicts that in such an environment, we would see particles moving in ways that are improbable given the ordinary laws of 'physics'."
Thus this Mr. Rosen, a northern american of some kind who reviews Mr. Nagel's book.
But I would add, that prior to the performance of such an "experiment," it would be advisable and indeed necessary first to define exactly what a "particle" is! At present the word seems to change its meaning monthly. . . .
In fact "perform a scientific experiment" is no more than an abstruse way to say "add an entry to a dictionary."