[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[ian glendinning]

Ron,

Ron; My original "how I came to find the MoQ credible" presentation
from the 2005 conference, makes it clear Josephson (& Stapp)  was my
personal "seed crystal" - a "real" (Nobel prize winning) scientist
linking eastern philosophy (and psychology) to current problems of
science generally AND the science of consciousness - not some whacko,
hippy, new-ager, with extravagant claims and a book to sell ;-)

I don't think Bryan would see himself to be aligned with Pirsig and
MoQ, but I've been joining up the dots between his work and the MoQ
for several years. Particularly the significance of the evolution of
Iife / consciousness, particularly his rejection of hyper-skepticism /
"pathological disbelief" culture inherent in scientfic rationale -
which is where I joined the dots with Maxwell. I agree with you.

That particular lecture is not great ... pretty amateurish, not just
in the technology, but in the delivery too, and very hard to follow
his thread after a few minutes. The unintelligibility is kinda what
says ... there really is something hard to explain here and that's
important. (I had the pleasure of meeting the guy once - he wouldn't
remember me - archetypal mad professor apearance, keeping his bicycle
clips on in the audience, during a public lecture.)

Ian

On 7/27/07, Ron Kulp <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ron, Gav, Jos, (Marsha mentioned)
>
> I'll stay out if the "observer" debate for now ... collapse of the
> wave-function / many-worlds / you-name-it ... but it is the classic
> illustration of where the conceptual limits of science are being
> stretched ... to no particular conclusion that I can see, using current
> (1,2,3,4) methods alone.
>
> Schroedinger was right ... the problem has something to do with "life"
> (consciousness, maybe) ... but exactly what, typical physical scientists
> are some way off getting to grips with - even if biologists and
> psychologists may be closer (ref the Josephson piece I posted.)
>
> [Ron]
> Thanks for that link Ian, Josephsons piece illustrated what I was trying
> to get across to Ham.
> how do you feel about Josephsons presentation and MOQ, I feel they take
> similar approaches.
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>