[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Ham Priday]

Hi Case, S.A. --

You've given a fair and reasonable response to SA's questions concerning
Science.  Personally, I dislike comparing Philosophy to Science because the
aims and methods are different in each case, and crossing from one
discipline to the other tends to disparage the other (e.g., Richard Dawkins
debunking religion; Karl Popper on falsification of scientific theory).
Inasmuch as Science is not intrinsically opposed to Philosophy, nor is
Philosophy opposed to Science, I see no need for this kind of debate.

I also think there is a legitimate human perspective that can be called a
"scientific viewpoint".  Typically it is pragmatic, objective, and
analytical with regard to what is defined as "reality".  I've known and
worked with scientists I would characterize as "hard-core realists", meaning
that they have no use for metaphysical concepts, are generally agnostic, and
live in a world of pure facts.  Conversely, I've talked to people (on this
foum) who've had no scientific training, seem unable to discriminate between
fact and fiction, and live in a world of make-believe.  Most of us who fall
somewhere between these extremes can appreciate the intellectual value of
both Science and Philosophy.

As regards scientific methodology, I like the "balance" of this statement,
copied from a science website under the heading "Ways of Finding the Truth":

"The modern scientific method synthesizes rationalism and empiricism.  The
logic of the rationalist is combined with the observational experience of
the empiricist. There is an overwhelming consensus, though, that empiricism
is the main emphasis. No matter how much logical deduction and mathematical
analysis is used, at some point the world must be checked for the
confirmation of a belief.  Historically, however, spurred on by the power of
mathematics and the tendency to conclude that we know something even though
complete empirical observations are not available, rationalism has played
both a constructive and creative role in development of science.  The
criticism of those who are too rationalistic and who create ivory-tower
fantasies from speculative logic, overlooks the fact that many great
discoveries have been made by scientists sitting at desks, following the
elegant trails of mathematical equations.  Creative ideas are the result of
a complex web of influences.  The key is to have ideas with which to make
connections."  --  http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s6.htm

I note that you answered SA's question about whether Science teaches morals
in this unequivocal fashion:

> No. Simply put, science is about what "is".
> Morality is about "ought to be".

My answer would have been somewhat different: Science is about the "what"
and "how" of experiential reality.  Philosophy is about the "what" and "why"
of ultimate reality.  Morality is about what man's life "could be".
However, I agree that Science can "inform" morality, and that the
pronouncements of Science are continually being tested.

Now, in defense of "Platt and others (myself included)"...

> Platt and several others seem to believe in a consciousness
> and purpose that are not tied to processes occuring here
> and now in nature. They believe our destiny is being
> determined by a divine plan or in harmony with some
> ultimate cosmic principle or as the result of some Absolute
> Source or the unified nature of all things. These various
> views are challenged by efforts to test and measure and
> specify. The results of science in biology and physiology
> do not square with these views and so folks vilify the likes of
> Dawkins who intentionally sets himself up for such vilification.

Here's where your objective bias upsets the balance of your previous
answers.  It demonstrates why I don't like to pit Science against
Philosophy.  If anybody believes "our destiny is being determined by a
divine plan or in harmony with some ultimate cosmic principle," it's the
author of the MoQ, whose theory is that morality is innate in the universe
and is moving us toward betterness.  I can't speak for Platt and "the
others", but I happen to believe that we live as free creatures in an amoral
universe and that our destiny is largely what we make of it.  Such a belief
does not have to be "tested, measured and specified"; it can be observed in
the history of man's intellectual, cultural, medical, and technological
advancement.

Also, I don't see how Dawkins' "vilification" is relevant to your argument.
He's joined the ranks of the celebrities by putting down religion, an
objective that's as irrational as the myths he's annoyed with.  No doubt
notoriety will make him richer as an activist than as a biologist, but it
will also give Science a bad name and make it an adversary in a world of
believers.

Since I don't really understand your concept of "levels of relationships
emerging from lower orders of relationships" or what you mean by "the
inverse of emergence," I'll opt to ignore that statement.

> But I think the single biggest point I have been aiming at
> in many conversations here is that the "ought" of morality
> originates in us. It does not derive from divine authority
> or the interpretation of mystical experience. Purpose arises
> from us, not from the external world.
>
> If you asked me what our purpose is I would say it is to be
> stewards of life here and to help it be fruitful and multiply
> elsewhere. ...

By "elsewhere" do you mean establishing life on Mars or in outer space?
Otherwise, you are expressing the law of Nature which is that all life seeks
to survive and flourish.

> Life is growth. It is the ultimate manifestation of dynamic
> quality. Our purpose should be to foster this. But looking
> for purpose outside of ourselves is just passing the buck
> to some abstraction and shirking our ultimate responsibility.

It would appear that you have no use for metaphysical concepts and have
concluded that finite life and its replication is the sole purpose of
existence.  That is your prerogative as a free individual, of course.  As
"the ultimate manifestation of dynamic quality," however, it doesn't measure
up to my idea of an enlightened personal philosophy.

But I could be wrong.

--Ham