-------------------------------------------------------------
Note on TA 2, G. Schouborg, 'Methodology for the Science of Consciousness',
by P. Morgan
I would prefer a more direct discussion of the 'philosophy' of consciousness,
tho I like the eloquent sentence, 'The scientist and the philosopher become
one' [42]. I like the initial appeal to the first person [2]. I admire the
scope and the suggestiveness of the article overall: the appeal to poetry
[10, 26], perhaps made in the spirit of Heidegger. On the other hand, irritating
is the unpoetic, indeed unphilosophical use of abbreviations, for example,
'SOC is a SSS peculiar to OCS' [29]; 'scientists of consciousness must have
the skills required for r-attention, which must extend from OCS to ACS'
[38]. Perhaps more could be made of the contribution of phenomenology [22].
A Biblical source could be acknowledged [45]. The final discussion of wisdom
is highly appropriate.
Reference
Heidegger, Martin. (1971) Poetry, language, thought
[Peter Morgan is Professor Emeritus of English]
<pmorgan@chass.utoronto.ca>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note on the Note by V.V. Raman (N2), by Ratan Singh
This write up by Raman is very good as far as popular understanding and
simplification of communication goes. But it sure is far from the Truth
or Reality. The reality is that we were born without our choice. WHO chose
? Father, mother ? Then WHO chose for them and who/what produced the choice
in them for 'us' ? These questions cannot be solved because they, much like
Raman's following write up, is based on an ASSUMPTION. The assumption is
that we are independent of the Reality out there. This is the fallacy of
dualism. But if you assume that all is One and that One is evolving, then
these troublesome questions don't arise.
Ratan.
[Ratan Singh is Associate Prof. in Psychology, Dept. of Psychiatry, Univ.
of Science, Malaysia]
<ratan@kb.usm.my>
--------------------------------------------------------
Note concerning KJ Forum TA1,
Response 1 by HFJ Muller
on Terminology and Descartes
ON DEFINITIONS, CONSENSUS AND OBJECTIVITY
by V.V. Raman
Discussions may be conducted at two levels:
(a) With agreed-upon definitions by the participants, of the key concepts.
The advantage of this level is that every discussant will know what the
others are talking about. The disadvantage is that it will lead 'to a dead
end'. That is, it will quickly bring the discussion to a closure.
(b) Key conepts are left undefined, so that each participant argues from
his/her own understanding of what we are talking about. The advantage of
this level is that it enriches the notions involved, adds different perspectives.
The disadvantage is that not everyone will be convinced, and some will think
the others don't even understand what they are talking about.
Consensus: To say that consensus is no criterion for truth (e.g. once everyone
thought that the earth was at the center of the universe) is the old argument
against scientific objectivity. It is valid, but no one has come up with
a better alternative than consensus based on rigorous mutual criticism (as
in the scientific method) for ariving at any universally acceptable Truth.
Scientific objectivity may be defined as 'collective subjectivity based
on available data of perceived reality and resources for logical interpretation.'
It does not and cannot claim to be the absolute truth.
Personal experiential statements as to the nature of reality may be more
valid to individuals than the so-called consensus-based scientific objectivity.
But this is no guarantee for its validity either. Therefore it becomes a
matter of choice as to which experiential truth (of another) one wishes
to take as Truth.
As to the attacks on science and the scientific method, exciting as these
are for philosophers, there is little danger that these will affect the
advance of science since practicing scientists (like Diogenes' answer to
Zeno's paradox), simply ignore them and go ahead.
V. V. Raman
[The author is Professor of Physics]
<vvrsps@ritvax.isc.rit.edu>
--------------------------------------------------------
In response to V.V. Raman's above note:
SCIENCE AND SCIENTISM
by H.F.J.Muller
Raman's formulation is more negotiable than the previous one. I would like
to make a few comments.
re. point (a): for most discussions, agreed-upon definitions are satisfactory,
and closure may be the desired result. But in discussions about subjective
experience there are specific difficulties, with the result that some discussants
have publicly concluded that the various parties 'have nothing to say to
each other'. This would presumably be an instance of what Raman calls a
dead end.
re. point (b): 'Key concepts are left undefined'. The point I tried to make
in my paper (TA1) is that the definition process is important, and that
when the discussion gets stuck, as in the just mentioned case, one has to
look for the reasons. (If the investigators ignore conceptual problems they
are liable to get stuck, and they do this at their own risk.) This may require
an investigation of how certain terms originate, such as 'I' or 'consciousness'
or 'subjective experience'.
Otherwise, one deals with pre-packaged units. If one has to agree from the
start that experience is a neuronal network activity (as F. Crick and some
others propose) the discussion is finished before it begins. One can then
talk about electrophysiology, for instance, but not about experience. If
one wants to discuss the origin of concepts, the discussion becomes difficult,
I agree, but so far I hope: not impossible. The rigoruos mutual criticism
which Raman mentions has to deal also with the concepts themselves.
Consensus is needed for exploration of experience. I have not said that
it is not a criterion for truth; it is one among several criteria, as Raman
also states, but it is not necessarily always the most important one.
'Collective subjectivity based on available data of perceived reality and
resources for logical interpretation' would seem to be the same as what
I call 'structuring of (individual and collective) experience (or formation
of reality) from no structure'. One would want to avoid ambiguous terms
such as 'perceived reality', 'data', and 'interpretation', because they
all imply permanent (Platonic) metaphysical entities which are extrapolated
as being somewhere 'out there', or 'given' by someone, and although these
entities are entirely ungraspable they are assumed to nonetheless being
perceived and interpreted. (The problem with my term 'formation' is that
it may be seen as only subjective, but this difficulty disappears in a non-Cartesian
view which deals with mind-nature experience as a whole.)
Raman agrees that science does not produce absolute truth (and as just mentioned,
neither does it observe absolute reality). This an important point (which,
however, is overlooked in many discussions), and I would like to emphasize
that this is not an anti-science statement. Nor does it criticize the objective
methodsof science where they are appropriate.
But in contrast, it is definitely an anti-scientism statement.
Consensus-based scientific objectivity is an important practical tool (or
principle), and there is no question of replacing it by personal experiential
statements. I would not agree that it has to be a matter of choice which
truth one has to select. Although this happens a great deal, I think (or
hope at least) one may be able to do better. One purpose of my recent study
is to find out how various world views derive from a common origin.
H.F.J. Muller
[The author is psychiatrist and electroencephalographer]
<mdmu@musica.mcgill.ca>