Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Goga (40)

``Even some experiments in the philosophical domain will remain unconclusive as Godel and others have shown.``

It is probably better to first understand what Godel really says before making any declarations. Earlier in replies to this article, there was a mention of the ``second law of enthropy``, without any understanding about what it really says and hence a wonderfully amusing reference to it.

Some concepts need not be undefined buzzwords which anyone can summon at will to support any argument. While that may work in a domain where people would not like to define what they want to talk about, in the physical sciences or mathematics, unfortunately, this luxury is not present.

So please, if you must quote Godel, then do it in a proper context.

cheers

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Godot (36)::

Somethings are mysterious, and others we would want to be mysterious :) Pointlessness or purposefulness, who knows, but at least ... ``dil kay behlanay ko Ghalib yeh khayyal acha hai!``.

regards
W

The Daily Grind Really enjoyed reading this.

`` ... gahay gahay baaz khwan aen daftar-e pareena ra``!

best
W

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Venki (34)::

``It would be a postulate only when there is no direct observation.``

Then it must be demonstrable. Considering me to be an amateur in this field, can you explain to me:

(a) What is this direct observation? Please give me a specific example(s).

(b) Why is one necessarily led to the conclusion that a simpler (material) explanation will not suffice?

best
W

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Venki (28):

Dear Venki,

I apologize for the harshness of my last message. SR is right, we will have to learn to disagree. On my side, I push myself to try to get to the core of issues, at least as I see them, and to the best of my ability, I have not been able to see any reason why one would have to postulate a `ghost in the machine`.

If I were to describe the `seer` as a higher emergent property of our present human mind, then it would be an acceptable hypothesis. Something akin to what a chimpanzee must sense, our remote ancestors must have sensed or a child senses long before she is an adult.

But beyond that, I see no reason or evidence, and until one is available, why complicate? There`re enough mysteries already, and one`s days are always numbered.

regards
Wasiq

Kafir (31):

Dear Kafir,

Thanks for the message. Your illustration of the mythology associated with natural phenomena is very apt. As SR wrote, the power of our imagination is truly phenomenal and marvellous ... it can create whole new worlds. Yet, if one looks deep into the structure of a myth, one possibly sees an Intellect at work which is trying to connect the observed world around it into an understandable set of relationships.

It seems that it is very hard to get to objectivity, to a point where one can step out of the confines of one mind`s imaginations and biases. Perhaps, that is where Venki, myself and others want to go anyway, but have different ways of expressing it.

regards
Wasiq

SR (32):

Rabbani sahib,

You have observed very well. You are right, our imaginations are indeed very powerful and very basic. (Is it a mere coincidence that language and story-telling are associated with us since the dawn of humans?)

I think Dawkins made a very interesting point, about the cumulative nature of ``scientific`` knowledge. Definability, communicability and verifiability make it possible for a person like myself today to surpass towering minds of yesterday. This also implicitly defines an ``objective`` nature of this pursuit, though at times it may be slow in its realization. Hence a knowledge not possessing those three attributes is perhaps not cumulative and bound to be subjective.

Continuing on your very nice comparison of the imagination and intellect, I would like to share something that I read a long time ago, and have never forgotten. A preface to a proof in real analysis contained the following verses concerning the nature of mathematics:

Fire of imagination,
Frozen in rigor.

The original was in French, and I have forgotten the name of the mathematician who wrote this.

regards,
...Wasiq

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Venki (29)

The issue of the existence of underlying reality is an important topic of 20th century. I mentioned it assuming you were aware of it. I was wrong.

The example that you have given has been answered in my previous message. You continue on to say:

``Surely by the law of entrophy this `life-force` cannot be destroyed. Perhaps transmuted, but not destroyed....``

This is a joke! I am sorry but you have NO idea what you are talking about! I really dislike pseudo-intellectual babble. No wonder we are going nowhere.

cheers

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Venki (25)

This is an interesting discussion -I must commend you on presenting your point of view very well. And (un?)fortunately it is turning towards really interesting issues!

``I concede that the confusion ...``

Thank you, but I want to persist. How do you know that there IS an underlying reality of nature?

``...what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body` ...``

This way of phrasing needlessly complicates the issue, and leads to confusion. If I were to give a one-line answer to it, it would probably be: ``It is the physiological ability of a complex system called the body to sustain the critical functions required for its persistence.``

The human body is a complex system, held together by inter-dependencies of different sub-systems (respiratory, digestive, transport, immunity etc). It is a case of extreme specialization and therefore absolute interdependency. On top of that, it is a biological system, which means that a living body exists in a dynamic state of equilibrium with the external world which is the source of nourishment and threat for it.

If (a) the body were not supported by complicated set of inter-dependencies and (b) was not amenable to degenerative and irreversible decay and hence loss of functionality of its constituents once the body ceases to act as a system, it might be possible to reverse the state of death. Case in point, people can be brought back to ``life`` by restarting the heart provided certain conditions apply.

Many non-living examples around you of this scenario: Complicated machinery (Challenger disaster, minute fatigue in an O-ring leads to a large scale catastrophic and irreversible failure), large scale computer networks (corruption of system files or loss of critical routers lead to a large scale failure), market economies (withdrawal of investment capital from a fledgling economy leads to a complicated set of inter-dependent events), turbulence in fluids (local non-uniformity can spread into a large area change in fluid flow) ... there is nothing ``miraculous`` in all of this, at least not in the conventional term of the word, there are simple deterministic rules that can lead to extremely complicated situations, some of them quite irreversible.

The body, with its hundereds of billions of constituent cells, is another example. Despite the resiliency conferred to it due to redundancy, it is after all an inter-dependent system.

Therefore to say ``...what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body` ...`` is at the very least an inappropriate use of terms.

regards

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Godot (21)

Actually I tried to answer your question in as few words as possible (for obvious reasons).

For a materialist (of any flavor) the answer is completely definable and verifiable. For a believer in life after death, there are two possibilities: he is right or wrong. If he is right, then the answer is completely definable and verifiable. If he isn`t then my example applies.

You haven`t convinced me of your assertion of there being things which are neither definable or verifiable.

best

Muslims should take control of their own image Despite my reservations about some ideas in the article, I think that you have done a great job in bringing up this issue. And I should not forget to compliment you on that.

Your mention of another group in the U.S is very interesting. Yes, there is a lot to be learnt from them. The language of U.S is the dollar, if the Muslim community had comparable wealth (hence influence), there would be no large scale negative stereotyping. Apart from mere activism, it would really help if the Muslim communities produced some Bill Gates and Warren Buffets. Miracles could happen overnight. That`s where getting-down-to-work attitude would be required.

best

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Godot (re 18)

``What happens to us after we die?``

Depends on who is looking.

An example: A lunatic in an asylum believes he is the king of the land. Is he actually the king?

best

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Dear Venki,

I am sorry for the delay ... I have to rely on my Intellect to solve the mundane problems, therefore can`t do everything at once :)

``I don`t see how lack of understanding of the connection between the different levels negates the discimination between `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and `the known`.``

How can it not? The very definitions of `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and the known derive from an underlying model of knowledge.

``...What is the difference between a `live body` and a `dead body`? Where is the `emergent complex state` of the `dead body` assuming materialistic origins?``

I understood exactly what you said. Perhaps you did not appreciate what I said. Let me ask you a very simple question: What is the difference between a computer with its power on vs. one with its power off? And what happens to the programs running on the computer when you switch off its power? What happens to the system programs which monitor the computer when you turn off the power? You are unnecessarily complicating the issue without providing any reason for doing so. My example of the market illustrates just how a complicated state arises from simple and deterministic rules. Why shouldn`t that be true of the mind without pulling a metaphysical monster out of the hat?

``As I mentioned, the realization will come at the level of the `seer` not at the level of the intellect, which is where we are operating.``

I am sorry for being direct: This is pure intellectual waffle-making until you substantiate it. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, so why don`t you provide me with some knowledge that you can only get through the `seer` but not through the `intellect`? Once you tell me something, which no other Intellect has discovered, and I verify it to be true, then I will say that there is substance to what you are saying.

As I said earlier, its easy to say anything if (a) you cannot define your terms and (b) you cannot verify anything.

best regards
Wasiq

Muslims should take control of their own image While I would agree with your views in general, I think the article as written is incomplete. You did not give any specific examples of the portrayal of Muslims in the movie and the reactions of the Muslims to this movie (which I personally have not seen). For all I know, they may have been perfectly reasonable. Before making any sweeping statements about the lack of prudence of the American Muslim community, you must give specific examples.

Condemning terrorism is very important, criticizing US foreign policy while doing it is not as easy as you claim it to be.

And dealing with the popular caricatures of themselves is a different issue. If you were to state that Muslims should not respond to any negative portrayals, I would say that would be extremely naive.

best

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Venki

``Lets take the case of a subject and object.``

I enjoyed reading this nice argument, and I think you presented it well. I think, however, that this argument is an extended version of Cartesian Dualism. The problem with this argument therefore remains in explaining the connection between the different levels from body to seer.

To say that ``The `seer` is the seed. The intellect is the root. The mind is the stem and branches and the body the leaves`` is admittedly very poetic, however it sheds no light on how this actually happens. Even if the mechanism is very subtle, it must be decipherable and communicable, otherwise how does a human being realize its existence in the first place? Ironically, in an attempt to provide a unified view, this approach leads to a hopeless situation of incompatibility and division.

I think it is far more probable that an explanation of the mind, for example, will derive from purely physical arguments. Physical arguments are by definition connected to the world around them, and thus carry the possibility of a unified view, if it exists.

If I were to take a direct analogy with a plant, then I would say that the genetic code of a human being includes in itself the potential to develop an organ called a brain, which by its sheer existence, would necessarily give rise to mind, intellect and the `seer`. The `seer` could be interpreted as an emergent complex state that relies upon the body and the brain`s potential to give rise to the mind.

One example of such a complex state is the market. It starts from the mundane business of people buying and selling, supply and demand. Yet, at every point, it can be made arbitrarily complex depending on the sheer number of possibilities related to buying and selling. In a manner of speaking it bootstraps itself, to give rise to an extremely complicated entity. The behavior of the market is essentially unpredictable right now, however, no one makes the claim that it arises from a completely separate category of entities that is not related to the physical world and the clients around it.

regards

March on! Fellow Robots and Cyborgs! Re: Shahbaz

Thanks for the reply.

The question is not whether I, or some other person, is not aware of the ``unrosy`` side of Islam. To a priori assume that everyone is ignorant is highly naive.

The question is whether you have done your homework in this issue. Reading a book by Ibn Warraq does not necessarily imply that. My question to you is whether you feel that you have convinced yourself completely about your interpretation.

And coming back to your original quotation, it was a regrettable statement on your part, because it does not mention the all important fact that in that case the members of the tribe themselves chose a Jewish arbiter whom they knew would try them according to Mosaic law (which implied a death sentence to males and enslavement of others). Despite the original appeal of Muhammed, the tribes-people chose to be tried according to their own law.

Maybe you should have also taken the time to examine why the scenario arose in the first place, and what context did it have in the broader struggle for survival for Muhammed and his followers.

Maybe it is also possible that just as there are people who will consider Islam to be purely rosy, there are also people who are too tied up in their biases to treat Islam fairly. Maybe the truth lies closer to somewhere in the middle.

Maybe we should talk again on this issue after you have thought about this.

best regards
Wasiq

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Godot (Reply 15)

``There are ``Things`` or ``Non-things`` ... that cannot be demonstrated, defined, validated, or verified.``

Can you give me an example?

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Godot

``There are statements that go beyond science and philosophy.``

I know of no statements that do that and have a decipherable meaning. Maybe I am an ignoramus, and maybe you could educate me on that.

regards,
Wasiq