A revolution in the mind sciences

Today I'd like to discuss a lecture given by B. Alan Wallace called 'Toward the first revolution in the mind sciences'. It was a talk delivered at Google headquarters. (So you know it has to be both important and good.)

Quotes and comments;

A. B. Alan Wallace (lecture at Google) [1.] mocks the clerics for not looking through Galileo's telescope. (If you can believe the story.) I think he's overly harsh here. Let's remember that the telescope had just been invented (let's ignore speculation the ancients had the telescope)... so it shouldn't strike us as that bizarre. People were utterly unfamiliar with such an instrument. If G. was the first true scientist (in a modern sense) it's not shocking that most people didn't think as he did.
- I'm just giving rough notes I made during the lecture. (Be kind.)

He chastises them for not thinking they needed to look (i.e. investigate it for themselves) Fine; but how many people in our day think they need to investigate Darwinism for themselves? Not many... they just accept the dogma of the day and move on. ie. why look at it? you might find some 'shadows' and imperfections in what is claimed to be a perfect theory...

- how many people in our day have looked at the stars through a telescope? not very many I would think :=)

B. W. critiques academics and scientists for materialist ideas that deny the mind. "How could such intelligent people believe such idiotic ideas?" he says. (i.e. denying the mind or consciousness exists; refusing to talk of mind, emotions, etc.) I agree with him here; but not in his defense of Darwinism. I think academics are as wrong about Darwin as the behaviorists (e.g. Watson, Skinner) were about the mind. He celebrates empirical observation... but where is the observation of macroevolution? There isn't any. ie. we don't ever see any... that's our observation. When people claim this is a fact, they're letting dogma triumph over observation.

- when our professors (the clerics of our day) refuse to look at the fossil rocks in the way offered by young earth creationists they are in effect saying we don't want to look at the data thru your lens.... and why? because they don't feel they need to. The theory of e. is founded on a particular understanding of the fossil rocks... but despite what people claim, there is more than one way of viewing this data. (As an aside, it's amusing to me that this popular foundation for materialism depends upon a non-material theory :=)

C. He points out that there's nothing in physics that predicts life. ["Physical theories alone do not predict, define or explain the emergence of life in the universe."] Everything is supposed to 'boil down' to physics; but physics doesn't account for life. Therefore everything cannot be boiled down to physics. i.e. physics cannot explain the universe we live in. (As I've said many times in these pages; there needs to be an explanation of where intelligent information comes from... and materialism can't offer one.)

D. biology doesn't predict consciousness he says...

- consciousness is the basis (foundation) of what our magazine writers are pleased to call science, but yet materialist science denies c. even exists. (ie. not being material it can't exist) Materialist science (scientism) would be a great theory if only human consciousness didn't exist :=) If only information (genetic) didn't exist. How terrible... a perfectly wonderful theory gone down the drain for the sake of such trivial data :=)

E. He says there is no scientific definition of consciousness.

F. There is no objective way of detecting c. he says...

G. We don't know the causes of c. he says. (The e. tells us e. is a fact... but we have no idea what the cause of such an ability to affirm theory is... so what kind of a fact can it be :=) what we're dealing with here is a claim made by a mind... by people who claim there is no mind :=) I don't know about you... but I find this amusing.

H. Science doesn't know how chemicals generate consciousness... these are just ordinary substances as it were. (It's obvious to me that chemicals could only create (facilitate) c. with the help of information. ie. that it's only code that makes this work.

Notes;
1. Toward the first revolution in the mind sciences - B. Alan Wallace/Google talk
Google TechTalks August 8, 2006
- I've recently read 'Embracing Mind' by Wallace, and thought it was a rewarding read.
2. I like a lot of things affirmed by certain Buddhist writers... but the big blind spot (failing) is creation. People like W. just affirm the big bang theory and evolution. I'd point out to W. that this isn't observational.
- Buddhism as 'defined' by intellectuals like W. isn't the b. of the people. (Which seems akin to popular Hinduism) It's like the Christianity of Spong vs the C. of Falwell.
3. at certain moments of doubt I've wondered if a belief in c. or e. effects the mind so radically that it changes the brain... in such a way that we see the evidence differently... ie. that we're looking at the world with a different mind from each other.
4. he refers to a Cristof Koch (a physicalist I guess) speaking of the relation of the brain to consciousness he says 'for now it is best to keep an open mind on this matter...'' Too bad we don't have people saying this about macro evolution.
5. he keeps mocking people for believing the bible is the word of god. (This is an aspect of buddhism I don't like.) I agree with van til that special revelation is the only foundation for sure knowledge that there is; that there could be. He speaks of the necessity of revelation.
6. Wallace tells us we shouldn't think our 'western' ideas trump all ideas; that our thinkers trump all thinkers. There's ancient India to consider... What people like this rarely admit is that India was a basket case before the Europeans 'discovered' it; people living in utter poverty, darkness and depravity... (e.g. the caste system; etc.) If the philosophy was so good why did they set living widows on fire? I guess we shouldn't ask. (I have no flag to wave for the Greeks or for western philosophy, believe me.... and I accept the idea great thinking was done in the East... but let's be realistic.) I've read accounts of people supposedly so blissed out that their families must look after even their bodily needs... even put them in diapers. Let's be honest here.
7. As I understand him; he defines western thinking as one that postulates a radical separation between subject and object. He calls this the god's eye view of things... that objective reality exists outside of and apart from the human being, the human mind. (Didn't Kant put an end to that?)
- the Indians were trying to understand experience... not objective reality.
8. he talks of a telescope of the mind... developed by the ancient Indians who studied the mind. (I kind of like that.)
9. I should not here that I made an extensive (for me at least) study of Buddhism and Zen many years ago... so I'm not ignorant or hostile to the tradition. I meditated for several years... I read more than a hundred books. etc.
10. For Wallace C. is religion and this makes it boring. (i.e. it's based on truths that can't be tested or rejected) B. however is based on experimental testing... and so is exciting. (His view of c. is only true of b.c. not of liberal c.) It's a view that is only true for intellectuals like himself, not for the the b. masses. This assumes that truth doesn't exist I guess... but isn't his quest one for truth? but why bother if it doesn't exist? is truth boring Alan?
11. I"m not sure why but he tells us creationism in the schools makes most of us gag. Gee; I guess most of us engineers at Google :=) Well; I consider Darwinism a creationism of it's own; ie. it's a 'religious' view of origins; a wview assumption... not reality. (I utterly refute the idea of government schools, but apparently wallace doesn't. I see them as instruments of wview tyranny. I fail to see how a critic of materialism can be an advocate of the statist school system... but perhaps I need to meditate on it :=)
12. "what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
- if you want to meditate on something I would recommend this claim... it's potentially revolutionary.
13. I apologize for the sloppy writing in this post... these are just notes made watching a lecture.

I believe in evolution because I have to

If the theory of evolution is true, people must believe that it's true. In other words, it's not intellectual decision, but only a chemical reaction.

Quotes and comments;

A. In the move Expelled we see William Provine tell us that if you believe in evolution you cannot believe in free will, ethics, etc. (He's very passionate... but why.) He seems to have bought the myth (from scientism) that everything must reduce to physics.

- He tells us 'I never wish for a moment I had free will...' (I don't believe him for a second.)

B. Peter Atkins tells us 'religion is pure fantasy...'

- Really? How would he know that? Does he believe the chemical reactions in his brain deliver up to him absolute truth about ideas? (A cynic might call this pure fantasy.)

He concludes his sound bite by telling us 'it's evil as well.' Gee; is there some reason he believe the chemical reactions in his brain are giving the truth about this concept called religion? Hmm... I wonder why he believes that. Are some chemicals causing him to believe this?

Notes;
1. Expelled; No intelligence allowed
I encourage you to watch the film... it's informative, clever and humorous.

Reductionism; and the assault on human experience

Reductionism as an approach to human experience is making large inroads into popular psychology and self help books. In this post I'll look at an example from Joe Dispenza.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'More important, if we decide to alter the dynamics of our relationship with a particular person in our life who has been close to us, the change that is represented by heartache and suffering is likely just the chemical feeling that we are missing from ceasing to fire the same synaptic neural networks. [1.]

- Do you see what he's saying? He's claiming that heartache and suffering are just epiphenomenon, and that the 'reality' of our situation exists at the level of neuronal firing. This is reductionism as it plays out in popular psychology. I consider this approach scientism, and I reject it. People were designed to feel emotions and to engage in intimate, loving relationships. This makes emotions the reality, and neuro transmitters (etc.) are the foundation that makes this possible. (Dopamine, in and of itself, has no emotional component; it only produces emotions in organisms designed to use dopamine. The 'magic' is not in the chemical, but in the genetic code that makes use of the chemical. Without the code the chemical is nothing.)

You can see how the reductionist model is tailor made for drug based treatments for mental illness. If suffering is just chemical reactions, then the solution is bound to be some chemical intervention in the system. (Reductionism is far from being merely a ball philosophers kick around; it has life and death implications for everyone's daily life.)

This reductionist approach trivializes human emotion, and human experience. (It's the dehumanization of man.) It belittles and degrades people, treating them as things instead of persons. (As one neuroscientist likes to say; ''people are just walking bags of chemicals.") I don't accept the creationist model because it saves human experience, but this is a positive advantage of it.
- note the use of the word 'just' in his statement. This is a reliable guide to a reductionist interpretation. [emphasis mine]

B. 'Regardless of whether a feeling is positive or negative, it results from the release of certain chemicals. Love (or what we think is love), then, may indeed be all about chemistry. [2]

- We see here the downside to our establishment view of science; of science being equated with materialism. Materialism inevitably leads to reductionism, and all the falsehoods and fallacies associated with it. To equate love with chemicals; to conflate the two, is about as stupid as it gets. Not only does it do away with poetry, but it leads people down the wrong path in their thinking. This is akin to saying a computer is all about electricity. In both cases people are ignoring the most important bit of data, and that's the code that makes both love and functioning computers. Human beings are capable of love because they were designed (by an intelligent being) to be able to love and be loved. It's the coded information in our cells that makes this possible. The chemicals involved in the background of the process aren't determinative of the process; they aren't equivalent to love, but make love possible. If this r. model were correct, you wouldn't need someone to love, all you'd need would be a pill. (You could go on a date with your pill case I guess :=)


Notes;
1. Evolve your brain - Joe Dispenza/323
2. ibid
3. Most of the errors in science (etc.) come from absolutizing partial truths. This is what I see happening in neuroscience. Fascinating discoveries (even momentous ones) have been made, but we mustn't give in to the reductionist temptation and reduce human experience to the material level. To treat people as chemicals is not only false, it's anti-human; inhuman if you will. (As we have death of god theology, so we have death of man psychology.)

Ruling the evidence out of court

Materialists like to claim that there is no evidence for creation. If this is so, it's only because certain kinds of evidence has been ruled out of court.

Quotes and comments;

A. "For much of the twentieth century, the problem of consciousness was simply avoided. Starting before World War 1, the reigning movement in psychology was behaviorism, which ruled out discussing mental events." [1.]

- We might say that in the same way that Behaviorism rules out mind, Darwinism rules out design. i.e. it's a matter of methodology rather than data or evidence. Despite B.F. Skinner and later peers, consciousness still exists. Putting on eye shades doesn't make the world disappear. The fact that physicists tell us reality is composed of particles doesn't do away with human experience.

B. "As we have seen, most theories of mind and consciousness are based in classical physics, which treats consciousness as an anomaly to be explained away." [2.]

- As materialism treats consciousness as an anomaly to be explained away, so Darwinism treats design as something to be explained away.
- As materialism can't account for consciousness, Darwinism can't account for complex, specified information.

C. "After a century or more of looking, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn't exist." [3.]

- As materialists claim consciousness is an illusion, Darwinists claim design is an illusion. (e.g. "All we see is the appearance of design,'' says e. guru Richard Dawkins. i.e. we don't see design, just what looks like design.)
- As most neuroscientists deny that the self exists, so materialists deny that God exists.
- If there is no self man becomes an it, an object. As materialism turns man into an object, so it turns God's creation into a hunk of matter.

D. 116. As neuroscientists deny free will, so materialists deny divine creation.

E. "Of course the placebo effect doesn't make sense if you assume that the mind does not exist or is powerless." [4.]

- As the placebo effect refutes reductionism, so complex information (genetic code) refutes evolutionary materialism.

Notes;
1. Spiritual Brain - Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary/p.109
2. ibid p. 111
3. ibid p.115 quoting Lemonick
4. ibid p.141

Evolution and pornography

The most obscene pornography I've heard of is the dream of some Darwinists (including Richard Dawkins) to create a hybrid of man and chimpanzee. We see here the depth of perversity in some opponents of creation. That they can find such a fantasy titillating (exciting their hatred of God and Christianity) shows us how incapable they are of giving an objective account of the evidence at hand in the origins debate.

Quotes and comments;

A. No doubt drooling at the mouth, Dawkins writes of his fantasy, ''Politics would never be the same again, no would theology, sociology, psychology or most branches of philosophy. The world that would be so shaken, by such an incidental event as a hybridisation, is a speciest world indeed, dominated by a discontinuous mind." [1.]

- In case you weren't aware of it, for many evolutionists, being labeled a speciest is about as evil a thing as they can imagine. (A speciest being someone who imagines humans are unique; that they are not in fact animals.) You might wonder how Dawkins can know all this change would happen, especially since the 'continuous' model is already accepted by the great majority of academics. They already act as if the dream were true, or had already happened. (Why he calls it incidental I don't know.)

The bible expressly forbids beastiality by the way. (It might seem that this law was implied in the repeated refrain from genesis that each animal reproduced after its kind.)
- There always seem to be people who find it exciting to do what the bible forbids. (Is this one of the big attractions for espousing evolution over creation?)

The Mosaic law has some rules forbidding hybridisation that I've always found puzzling. (At one time I wondered if they might have had their source in speculation about kinds.)

B. David P. Barash is another devotee of humanzee pornography; one who dreams of seeing human/animal hybrids in the future. I see in this more evidence of how Darwinism degrades the human mind; how it turns people into idiots. [2.]

- I can't imagine any animals having interest in such a project, but then animals aren't depraved as human beings are. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, there are many essential differences between human beings and animals; one of these being the ability to sin.

C. Barash claims such a hybrid would erase the line between animals and humans. "It's a line that exists only in the minds of those who proclaim that the human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine and that we therefore stand outside nature." [2.]

- Why does he say 'only' in the mind? Doesn't evolutionary theory exist only in the mind of humans as well? We see here that a prime motivation for some evolutionists is the desire to disprove God and Christianity. Evolution isn't so much a search for truth in that case, but the search for the disproof of God. Such a hybrid, if such a monstrosity were to be produced, wouldn't disprove man as created by god, it would only prove the bible's claim that the heart of man is deceitfully wicked above all things.

That they'd be willing to produce such a creature (I doubt this would be possible) only goes to show what hatred animates these people. What could possibly be the fate of such a thing? Apparently they don't care.

If this hybrid would prove evolution theory is correct, does the failure (on the part of Stalin, etc.) to produce such a hybrid then disprove evolution? This would seem to be the downside of the Barash/Dawkins dream. (I'm not saying it would.)

Notes;
1. Spiritual brain - Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary p.14
2. ibid/p.15
3. see p.14 for a reference to the Stalin incident.
4. A key question for e.s is why humans and apes are so different. Since the theory states they had a common ancestor something must have happened to make humans so radically different. But what? I've never seen any answers to this question that were at all convincing. Since evolutionists can't answer this question they either (for the most part) ignore it or claim (despite the evidence) that the differences are trivial.
5. In my opinion the idea man is just an animal (which is the reigning model of academic thought at the moment) gives modern thought a pornographic foundation.
6. The SF stories of Cordwainer Smith featured animal/human hybrids; cat people, dog people, and so on. (I've always seen it as an element of horror in his work.) Without a strong creationist perspective I don't see any way to prevent such experimentation. It's my view that the role of man (as a steward under God) is to do his best to preserve the original created kinds; not to in any way add to them, or to create new kinds.

An explanation for the modern rejection of creation

- The philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed that man 'constitutes' reality; that what we call reality is only a chimera created by the categories of the mind. This idea quickly became the foundation of all modern thinking. As I see it, this basic idea lies at the heart of the resistance to biblical creation among most intellectuals. The implication is that if man were created (fully formed) by a divine being then it's not man who creates reality but God. How so?

In the biblical 'model' man is not an accidental and independent creature who somehow created himself, but someone who was given his abilities and nature by god. While it's still true that man 'creates' reality, this is true only in a secondary sense - the ultimate cause of human experience is God. Therefore man cannot take credit for creating reality, all he do is experience things in the way God intended and intends.

Kant didn't deny the noumenal realm, but denied man can know it in and of itself. Here is the source of the animosity against special revelation, as it claims that man can indeed know the noumenal realm. We see here that resistance to creation stems from the very core of modern man's intellectual beliefs. Kant puts man at the center of things, while biblical creation puts God at the center.

Notes;
1. Modern intellectual tradition; from Descartes to Derrida; a lecture series by Lawrence Cahoone/Teaching Company [lecture #8 Kant's Copernican revolution]
- This series is the best introduction to modern philosophical thinking I'm aware of. There are two lectures on Kant.
2. By calling 'reality' a chimera, I may have overstated what Kant had in mind. (I find it hard to understand exactly what he had in mind.)