Are we beginning to see a major paradigm shift, steadily moving away from the prevailing physicalist, materialist.mechanistic mindset?
Integral theory is one attempt to move beyond any narrow,exclusive views of reality proclaimed by representives of science, religion, philosophy, spiritual traditions or whatever. Jennifer Gidley writes about integral thinking and the evolution of consciousness here
There are periods in human and cultural evolution when humanity passes through such fundamental transformations that our reality shifts and new patterns of thought are required to make sense of the unfolding human drama . . . The profound transformation we are now witnessing has been emerging on a global scale over millennia and has matured to a tipping point and rate of acceleration that has radically altered and will continue to alter our human condition in every aspect. We must therefore expand our perspective and call forth unprecedented narrative powers to name, diagnose, and articulate this shift… Integral philosopher Ashok Gangadean in the opening quotation encapsulates what many integral theorists have been voicing over the past decade. It is this integral research on emergent movement(s) of consciousness that I am referring to as the evolution of consciousness discourse This research points to the emergence of a new structure,stage(s) or movement of consciousness that has been referred to by various terms, most notably, post-formal integral and planetary.
Jude Currivan says that instead of big bang we have the big breath. The “outbreath” that gives rise to the physical unverse. Matter and energy are the products of information. The physical universe is in-formed as she puts it.
She discusses her views here in “Restating and reunifying reality: Our in-formed and holographic universe”.
This is part of an annual Mystics and Scientists conference promoted by The Scientific & Medical Network
The metaphor of the big bang conjures up images of a destructive explosion leading to chaos. But we should imagine the universe as a birth of order and organisation and this is more in keeping with a breathing process by which we communicate compositions of song, poetry and prose. Evolution is the creation of order out of chaos.
So are we seeing a movement to a more integrated, holistic understanding of reality where, rather than being a mere by product of a particular arrangement of matter, consciousness plays a primal, central role? The cosmos is breathed into existence, the out-breathing Word, the Logos, creates the living universe. Consciousness is the alpha and omega.
To me, this seems to be pure unadulterated bovine excrement.
All life is related. Mayby you feel a certain affinity with dung beetles 🙂
Rather than predictable comments, I would prefer to see specific, informed criticism that has a chance of stimulating further discussion.
It is hard to give specific criticism of a vague waffle.
I can understand that you don’t want to take any more than a superficial look at the links I provided. But the reason I provide these links is so that you don’t have to depend solely on my vague waffling.
The thing is, there is nothing in your post that entices me to look at the links. If anything, your post is a repellent. Your commentary about the links leaves the impression that they are nonsense.
I see evidence of a major paradigm shift, in which everyone is moving towards accepting all my views on everything. Furthermore I gather that everyone else sees a paradigm shift like that — one in which everyone is moving toward accepting all their views on everything. It is wonderful to have such a consensus.
The cosmos is breathed into existence, the out-breathing Word, the Logos, creates the living universe. Consciousness is the alpha and omega.
Charlie … this is word-salad. Pure, unadulterated, high grade word-salad.
sorry if its a re-post. summink funny going on.
No.
No.
I’ve noticed over the years that everyone is tending to see things my way.
And those that aren’t, I ignore.
I suddenly realised what our Charlie is getting at. Verily, the scales fell from mine eyes.
Its ….. gaia!
Lovelock or Greek god, take your pick.
Neil Rickert
Well Mandarin makes no sense to me but it is understood by millions of people.
In her talk Currivan tells us that all the three dimensional information of a black hole is held on the two dimensional surface area of the event horizon. In this regard it is similar to a hologram. The information is held at one digital bit for every planck scale area.
Is this correct? Is it nonsencical to discuss this? Do you have any opinion regarding this?
I have not looked at the video but from your description she is referring to a well-known claim in physics, the Holographic Principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Here’s something on panpsychism that is in the ball park of some of the claims I understand you as making.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/beyond-physicalism/
Panpsychism, and in particular the IIT version, is a standard theory in philosophy of mind and in neuroscience of consciousness.
But the article also refers to pandeism, which was a new one for me:
[start of quote]
“pandeism: the view that God used to exist, and be the only thing that existed, and then transformed himself into the universe, and so no longer exists. The reason God did this was basically for fun, or to see what happened. And maybe at some point the universe will transform itself back into God—that would be like nirvana or heaven. But then eventually God would get bored again and start the cycle over. As I understand it, this is close to some parts of Hindu cosmology.”
It is obvious that in the early stages of a paradigm shift those remaining committed to the old paradigm are in the majority. The consensus views are not easily shifted. It takes time.
It is becoming recognised that reductionist, mechanistic science is only one narrow way of understanding reality. And even this should be held as tentative and subject to constant updating. There are more holistic ways of gaining knowledge that are open to everyone and does not involve the situation in which very selective knowledge is confined to small groups of experts in their specialised fields. The current situation is in danger of leading to experts in one field having little understanding of subjects outside of this field.
We use metaphors from life to describe many cosmic processes such as the birth, generations and death of stars. Why, as opposed to metaphors such as “big bang”, would you say these metaphors are word-salad? What is the difference in your opinion?
There is a creative principle in the universe that physics just does not explain.
There’s another obvious scenario where the consensus is not easily shifted, and that’s when the proposed new paradigm is not new and makes no sense whatsoever
I would say that at the moment you are with the majority of thinkers. But you never know, things might change.
On the other hand, I am here reading the views of a wide variety of people. And many of those views are in opposition to mine.
I doubt that any of our views will be changed much here, but, rather than ignoring them, I do like to here what others have to say 🙂
Why do we have to choose? Could they both be saying the same thing in their own way?
Yes, it’s hard to know. When one is convinced, but in the minority, it may seem obvious that a paradigm shift is beginning to happen. But then again, how do you know you’re not being left behind yourself?
Actually, the number of people who believe in stuff that strikes me as off-the-wall is enormous. Good science is probably a minority view. A consolation is that all the off-the-wall viewpoints are different from each other and conflict with each other.
Indeed they might. But I believe we disagree as to whether it would be a good thing if they did.
For the record (not that anyone asked) my view is that mechanism is the hallmark of a good causal explanation: we have a good explanation of causal regularities to the extent that we have a mechanistic model that we can manipulate.
It perhaps need not be stressed that mechanism is not reductionism, but I shall stress it anyway: one can be (and I think should be) committed to multiple “levels” (to use one metaphor) of mechanistic explanation. There is no commitment to a single all-inclusive model to which all other models are “reducible”.
(I see reductionism here as being a hangover from theology — a desire to see all things from a God’s-eye view.)
No doubt there are some phenomena that are so immensely complicated that we can’t explain them in mechanistic terms — or at any rate we don’t yet know how to do so. But this says more about human cognitive limits than about the very nature of the phenomena involved.
Given all that, I regard views that aim at overcoming mechanism as basically giving up on explanation altogether — in favor of something that might sound spiritually uplifting, and might feel as if it were a profound insight into the nature of things — but not giving us the cognitive tools that genuine explanations provide.
Unfortunately panpsychism seems to be all the rage these days. Here’s a rather polite but ultimately scathing review of the just-published Galileo’s Error
Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. Goff defends panpsychism, relative to the argumentative standards of analytic (armchair) philosophy. I think that Hustvedt does a rather good job of explaining why that approach is badly mistaken. (Among other things, one can see here the dividing line between philosophy of mind and philosophy of cognitive science!)
It may be correct, that this is what she says.
Yes.
Bullshit.
It is not “becoming recognized”. That has always been recognized.
Reductionist mechanistic science as the way of understanding reality — that has long been the accusation of what the other guy does. But, as best I can tell, it is a description that does not fit most scientists.
Well perhaps there is. But the bullshitters don’t explain it either. They just keep bullshitting about it.
I cannot rule out panpsychism. However, as best I can tell, it does not explain anything.
We never did disprove the ether theory of light. We just abandoned it when we realized that it did not explain anything. The same should happen to panpsychism.
You can use modern conception of mechanism to do something like reduction; eg section 6.0 in this overview of approaches to reduction:
http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/research/bechtel.hamilton.reduction.pdf
Goff has definitely made it his position; I think he was a dualist in the past. He is appearing in print and podcasts to push that book (NB Walto).
Frankish and Goff exchange views in Aeon
https://aeon.co/search?q=panpsychism
Goff also pushed it when it appeared on Sean Carroll’s podcast a few episodes ago (and ran some philosophical circles around Sean).
Scott A takes on the IIT version of Panpsychism and Tononi, the IIT creator, replies :
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1823
ETA: Tonini and his collaborator, Koch, are both neuroscientists.
I think you enjoy TV show The Good Place; here Ezra Klein has a lengthy interview with the producer and one of his philosopher-consultants on the moral theory used in the show
https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast
I had a look at that review. As I read it, it seems to be saying that Goff ignored radical enactive approaches to consciousness: that is that our consciousness depends on our embodied, encultured existence.
If so, I don’t see that has a complete counter to panpsychism. I can agree that consciousness must be embodied and that it then can be modified/enriched by our encultured life, but that does not account for the basic qualitative experience that we share with babies and animals. I suspect Goff would point to that raw qualitative experience as being unexplained by radical enactive approaches.
Have you seen the Feynman interview where somehow asks him, in effect, to explain magnetism in more basic terms?
Feynman replies that he cannot: he says that magnetism (in its QED form) cannot be explained in more basic terms because it is part of our basic explanations of everything else.
I understand that panpsychism say the same about qualitative experience.
They do have other issues, eg how does the consciousness in (eg) atoms become human consciousness via embodied brains. But those are different issues.
Thanks for your input and links. It gives me a lot to think about and I don’t have time at the moment to reply as we’re taking the grandkids to the pantomime. I’ll reply when I can. After reading your posts I found a few discussion on IIT involving Hedda Hassel Mørch which I’d also like to watch when I get the chance.
Here’s one more for you if you enjoy that sort of speculation: Bohms’ implicate and explicate order.
Bohm was a recognized QM authority. These were his ideas on how to develop a metaphysics of reality based on QM theory, in particular entanglement. They have not had much uptake in philosophy AFAIK, but there is a small group of followers. Don’t ask me to explain it.
Enjoy your time with your grandchildren.
“The implicate order represents the proposal of a general metaphysical concept in terms of which it is claimed that matter and consciousness might both be understood, in the sense that it is proposed that both matter and consciousness: (i) enfold the structure of the whole within each region, and (ii) involve continuous processes of enfoldment and unfoldment. For example, in the case of matter, entities such as atoms may represent continuous enfoldment and unfoldment which manifests as a relatively stable and autonomous entity that can be observed to follow a relatively well-defined path in space-time. In the case of consciousness, Bohm pointed toward evidence presented by Karl Pribram that memories may be enfolded within every region of the brain rather than being localized (for example in particular regions of the brain, cells, or atoms).”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order
http://dbohm.com/david-bohm-implicate-order.html
Memories are behavior rather than stuff in filing cabinets.
Behavior is a function of the whole person, even though there are communities of neurons pulling and tugging on their private strings.
No. But (from your description), that seems to be the more basic point that scientific explanations never actually explain. They give us ways of controlling. That can be very useful, but it’s not the same as explaining. It is still turtles all the way down (or unanswerable “why?” questions all the way down).
Explanations don’t explain? Now I’ve seen everything!
I’m puzzled at this distinction between “explaining” and “useful ways of controlling”. They seem to be the same thing to me!
Difference between how and why.
You have a black box that does useful things occasionally.
You turn knobs and twill switches and stuff comes out.
You devise a systematic method for testing the results of twiddling, and you record the results.
You notice patterns.
I’ll await your answer to KN but also ask you to address this:
For me, an explanation in science is mostly (but not always) a causal model.
ETA: causal models are embedded in theories: science is not just a list of observed results.
To control and predict, (ETA eg to validate a theory by prediction) you need to predict in counterfactual circumstances. How can you do that without a causal model to determine what will happen if you vary x (but maybe not y.)
ETA: How and why both can be covered by causal model, eg in biology :
How question is how something works, eg causal model of vision for eyes.
Why question can be: why have eyes or why are they structured as they are– causal model of evolutionary fitness. Both are perfectly good explanations that allow us to intervene in the world or to build technology.
Evolution is a how model.
So if someone asks, “why is the sky blue”, the right answer is science cannot answer that question? Or are you just saying that asking why is merely a disguised way of asking how.
Yes, but it is usually a causal model based on something that is not explained.
A few times in the past folks here have insisted on the how/why distinction as if it marks a real difference in kinds of questions.
I’d like to see a clearer articulation of whatever distinction it is that people think it is being tracked by how and why.
Why questions sort of imply a responsible agent.
Why is the room messed up implies that an agent messed it up, rather than an earthquake or such.
How questions are asking about a history (which doesn’t exclude an agent).
But in common usage there isn’t much difference. Why is the sky blue could be translated as Who or what entity designed the color of the sky, or it could be asking about refractive indexes.
I’m pretty much with Neil. Explanations are potentially an infinite regress.
I like the emphasis on responsible agents as a place where we might draw some distinctions — some things are due to responsible agents, and some things aren’t.
I wanted to press this point because while it might seem more ‘natural’ to use “why” as a request for the identity of the agent responsible, and “how” as an agentless history, it’s easy enough to imagine deviant uses of both “how” and “why”.
I suppose one way of expressing a commitment to naturalism is as follows: the regress of explanations does not terminate in the actions of an intentional agent.
Also the sky isn’t really blue. And, yes, science can’t tell us why, only how.
Neither are cornflowers. They just seem that way because they only reflect light of certain wave lengths.
the whole vocabulary of causation is full of gremlins that defeat communication.
Not terribly high grade, IMHO.
So? How does that stop it from being an explanation?
The thing is that I have the same impression of the extended quote from Bohm that I reproduced from Wiki above. But he knew a lot more than me. So is there something there I am missing…?
It makes a difference to the type of answers expected.
Since I don’t have a problem with scientific explanations in some domains involving agents, I don’t have a problem some some scientific questions in certain domains being best answered by speaking to purposes:, eg
How did the chicken cross the road?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Even without agents, there can also be free-floating reasons (as Dennett puts it) to answer eg why questions in evolution with metaphorical agents like mother Nature choosing the fitter.
ETA: Example:
How does a heart work the way it does?
Why does a heart work they way it does?
The first calls for an answer detailing the mechanisms of the heart to pump blood. The second calls for the purpose of the heart, and a naturalist’s explanation would involve either evolutionary history or the heart’s role in maintaining homeostasis of the organism. (Yes, that’s the naturalising norms issue).
I’m not saying that science does not have a limited set of explanation types, eg causal models for most sciences, but laws and DN for fundamental physics. I am saying the why vs how question determines which particular explanation from those types is expected in answer.
There seem to be a lot of arch-reductionsists here who appear to believe that only “ultimate explanations” (whatever they are) could be called valid explanations.
I would have thought that they then would point to theology or philosophy for ultimate explanations, but they don’t for some reason.
Yes, she explains this in the video. It’s an interesting principle. It brings to my mind the way that our vision works. The outer world which we regard a three dimensional is reflected in each of our retinas as a two dimensional image. But the information contained in these images allows us to understand the three dimensional nature of the world around us. Understanding comes from the act of combining the multiplicity of sense data into a unity.
I didn’t know anything about Hedda Hassel Mørch but I do have a copy of John Horgan’s book, “The End of Science”.
I don’t know that much about IIT (integrated information theory) and I’m interested in learning more about it, both pro and con. Like you I hadn’t heard of pandeism.
Have you ever come across ontopoetics?