[MD] Mystics and Brains

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Case <Case at iSpots.com>:

> [Case]
> No, I said ideas like mathematics can't exist without someone to think them.
> I assume that mathematical relationships expressed in nature would continue
> to exist until someone else came along able to think them. Man arises from
> the physical processes, thinking arises from man.

Isn't there a contradiction between the first and second sentences? First, ideas
can't exist without some to think them. Second, math relationships in nature
would exist whether someone came along to think them or not. Are not math
relationships in nature ideas? I believe Plato thought so.   

> [Platt]
> The "systems" you speak of are a far cry from a singular event in a football
> game whose interconnections to the universe within that moment are infinite.
> Anyway, complexity theory is even younger than the social sciences and has a
> long way to go to even accurately predict the weather in Miami a week from
> now. Finally as I've claimed before, randomness is science's way of saying,
> "We don't know and probably never will."  And as I've suggested before, I
> think it significant that some experiments have shown human intention can
> affect what is otherwise thought to be random events. Such inexplicable
> phenomena as the placebo effect suggests there's more going on than meets
> the scientist's eye.
> 
> [Case]
> A football game is a complex set of interactions. While each interaction
> follows its own set of deterministic rules the combination of possible
> outcomes is in principle impossible to predict. We know that certain
> interactions are more likely to influence the final outcome of a field goal
> than others. The rate of photosynthesis of the grass on the field is likely
> to be less relevant than whether the kicker's shoes are tied.
> 
> It is not that they are saying "We don't know and probably never will." They
> are saying it is in principle impossible to know until it happens.

"Impossible to know." The limit of science acknowledged, and an implication that
the only way to know truth is by using scientific methods. Mystics and artists
among others would argue otherwise. I'm no mystic and only a mediocre artist, but
lean in their direction.

Maybe we could settle on the idea that some events are simply a matter of luck
or its opposite, depending how one is affected. If as some experiments show
intentions can influence luck, so much the luckier for us. 


  

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/