NAGEL’S NESCIENCE OF NUN’S GNOSIS

It is satisfying to see a serious Philosopher of Mind acknowledge the notion that science has hitherto failed to solve the central problem conceptually confronting cogitant Mankind: namely, how inert matter gives rise to consciousness. Nagel correctly contends that consciousness is the most complex, most astounding accompaniment of life extant in our corner of the Cosmos. He understandably argues that the nature of scientific investigation necessarily impairs its ability to offer an adequate explanation of the emergence of awareness from insensate matter and, further, that the invocation of Evolution does not diminish this deficiency. Impressively, irrespective of his acknowledged atheism, he encourages intellectuals to take certain arguments advanced by advocates of Intelligent Design seriously (however sentimental and self-serving such simple-minded statements seem). In essence, what Darwinian theorists unduly dismiss is the difficulty, indeed apparent impossibility, of naive Natural Selection sufficiently accounting for the creation of consciousness prior to the origination of organized life. While Natural Selection can clearly explain the efflorescence of intelligence (owing to its inherent adaptability) after the emergence of self-replicating structures, it cannot conceivably account for the factors that would have made this property productive prior to the appearance of Life.

If the Author is inclined to agree with Dr. Nagel’s aforementioned analysis, wherein does the distinguished Philosopher err? To elucidate the intellectual indictment of his heuristic enterprise we must mention the main metaphysical muddle—the Mind/Matter Mystery. Simply stated, matter is marked by properties such as ponderosity (weightiness), extensibility (space occupation), and ostensible insentience (absence of awareness). Obversely, the mind is immaterial—it occupies no space and possesses no mass. Further, it feels. To employ Nagel’s apt ideational imagery, there is “something it is like to be” aware, sentient, conscious. Despite their undeniable dissimilarity, the immaterial mind is dependent upon the physical brain. Though the best thinkers in the Western tradition have systematically studied this thorny issue since Descartes, it is arguable that the Ancients of the East and elsewhere also appreciated the problem and sought to effect a synthesis of soul and soma, spirit and substance. And yet, even in our advanced age of scientific sophistication, we seem no closer to an edifying understanding of this most fundamental philosophical problem. Persons privy to the pronouncements of “Mind, Matter, Mathematics, & Mortality (M4)” may not be so pessimistic in their assessment of our understanding however.

M4 maintains that modern science has established the infinitesimal (hence immaterial) essence of matter on its minutest level (i.e. that of leptons and quarks). This eradicates the alleged incommensurability of matter and mind in the materialistic sense—for fundamentally, there is no such thing as “matter”. M4 maintains that modern science has established that elementary particles exhibit irreducible awareness (as indicated, for instance, in the modified Double Slit Experiment). This eradicates the alleged incommensurability of matter and mind in the subjectivist sense. Admittedly, I am biased, possessed of pride and prejudice alike. What else could I be? M4 is my “Baby”, my Magnum Opus, and is arguably the most elegant exposition of Metaphysics since Plotinus’ “Enneads”, perhaps Plato’s “Timaeus”, mayhaps even the monumental “Memphite Theology” of the ancient Egyptians secured Shabaka, that Sudanic Sovereign of Nubian nativity. [Aristotle’s Metaphysics is anything but elegant, but this is purely the opinion of a professed Platonist.] It would be easy for an objector to eschew my self-appraisal as excessive intellectual egotism. However, a real refutation of my work would require a repudiation (or reinterpretation) of the sound science and substantive empirical evidence upon which it is based, not an unreasoned, reflexive rejection of my grandiloquent claims. Regrettably, my relative academic obscurity makes the task of kindred colleagues somewhat difficult, especially given my disciplinary dalliance in diverse areas of investigation. However, my manifest (and ambivalently desired) obscurity has not prevented prominent scientists and intellectuals from appropriating my ideas without proper attribution or acknowledgement. It is incumbent upon intellectuals (especially if they endeavor to ensconce their musings in a manuscript) to know what is known and already articulated, if indeed intellectual novelty is among their ideals—as it ought to be. In short, Dr. Nagel should know the nature of my work and adjust his arguments accordingly, even if he ultimately opposes them. Like Dr. Colin McGinn, with whom he shares a modicum of Mysterianism, he would be disinclined to dismiss the principle of Proto-Mentalism (or what I call ‘Immaterial Monism’) if he understood the implications of the inherent awareness (or ‘Proto-Percipience’) of elementary matter. But his inattention is altogether innocent, not malicious, and I take no umbrage thereat. But what, we may rightly wonder, would he say about this excerpt from M4 concerning the crucial Quantum Mechanical experiment cited previously:

“If the particles that certain suitably contrived machines detect are somehow, in some sense, ‘aware’, being cognizant of the conditions under which they exist, it should come as no surprise that a collection of quanta, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, and organ systems should, over the course of hundreds of millions of years, under the influence of a selective, guiding principle aimed at ensuring survival, result in the accretion of awareness and the emergence of what we call consciousness. Consciousness is the epiphenomenal result of the assemblage of molecules whose very elementary constituents are demonstrably possessed of the capacity for awareness. We do not know what it is like for a quark or an electron or an atom to be aware, but there seems to be little reason to doubt that they are in some sense aware. We know, moreover, that we are composed of these very entities. The key to consciousness may lie in the rudimentary awareness of the constituents of which we are composed. Animism is alive (pun intended).” (M4, p.46)

There is something superficially novel about one of Nagel’s arguments. This concerns Naturalistic Teleology. In Dr. Nagel’s estimation, Darwinian developmental doctrines that describe the emergence of awareness from insentient matter are unconvincing; there is, instead, an overarching Order, Intelligence, or Entelechy inherent in existence. This Entity appreciates and is oriented toward “value”—that is, it is able and inclined to discern “good” and “bad”; we sentient souls are manifestations of this Entity; any adequate Theory of Everything (TOE) must explain the irreducible value of value. M4 explicitly embraces Teleology—the idea of an overarching, Proto-Mental Entity inherent in the Universe. I call this abysmal, nebulous entity “Nun”. [See “Nun, Nous, & Numerous: Symbols, Science, & Supreme Mathematics”, in Ch IV of M4 (Amen-Ra, 2007).] Of course this idea is not entirely new, hence my employment of ancient Egyptian iconography to express it in M4. I could just as easily have employed the appellations Amen, Ishvara, Brahman, Purusha, Ptah or other ancient cosmogonic concepts conveying the primacy of consciousness in the Cosmos. What does make the M4 dispensation of Divine Teleology nearly novel is that it dispenses with a Divinity and offers naturalistic arguments and evidence for its principal postulates and conclusions. Thus, Nagel’s admonition to intellectuals to take Teleological Analysis seriously is appreciated though anachronistic. M4 has already introduced and explored the explanatory implications of Teleology for the mystery of Mind. Our case is cogent and compelling. It need only be considered.

Dr. Nun Sava-Siva Amen-Ra, Ascetic Idealist Philosopher
Damascus, Maryland USA
7 September MMIV

Linky

 

What secret sides to human nature do therapists see that non-therapists would be surprised by?

That 90% of humans are walking around with shot gun wounds in their psyche, like zombies.

They live their lives, repeating the same mistakes, believing the same things matter that actually don’t, and worry about the same problems that in reality don’t deserve the time of day.

They do this because they run away from the things they have problems with; they are afraid of believing something else.

They believe others care about what they do, what kind of people they are, or even what they are wearing, when in reality we are all just extras in everyone else’s movie of their own life; if we die, their life goes on. In fact 99.99999999% of the planet won’t even know you when you die.

Very few people see the world for what it really is; that nobody really gives a care about you in the long term; they simply can’t. And when they think they do, do they really even know you? The real you? You are more alone than most people think, you are stuck in your own little world, amassing your own success, chalking up points to what will soon be dust, getting offended by words, pretending people hate you or think about you when they really don’t, getting upset when someone cuts you off, worrying about winning a lottery or the size of your genitals, and all the while you can’t do anything to stop your forced march into the permanent abyss.

The truth is, you’re just visiting this spinning rock in a vacuum, with no life for at least trillions of miles besides here, and you’re not taking anything with you when you go. Making others lives better, including your own, is the only way you will ever matter in any positive way for any amount of time to anyone.

…and that this bleak belief system is actually really awesome and happy, perhaps the coolest thing anyone could ever realize, because it gives you the only real purpose you have; to make things better, for everyone, just because it’s the only thing that matters, not because God says, or because someone is watching, or to prove your self worth because your parents didn’t love you enough, but just because it’s “right”, and right being that it both feels that way when we think about it, and after we do it, and brings us joy and elation.

Thats the one change you can make that lasts forever; just doing “good” as in doing something besides causing suffering; it adds up and we all feel it, even though we may not know your name, what you looked like, or what your favorite song was… what you did mattered; your life mattered and will matter to all the life that is to come, and that’s enough. In fact that’s all it ever can be. Yet almost everyone is afraid to even think about life in terms like that, to let go of the illusions we think matter so much, even though we all seem to already know it’s true.

Nick Steele

Final comment on the election

From the Globe and Mail, Weds Oct 21 2015 – Leadership, Jeffrey Simpson

FYI: Simpson is a political pragmatist. Facts come first. The kind of integrity in journalism that is becoming increasingly rare.  This is extracted taken from his article.

” Politics will and must always feature robust, vigorous debate. Politics is how we sort out choices and priorities in a democratic society. And since we do not all agree on these matters we debate them endlessly and make a rough choice every four years or fewer, among ideas and leaders. But it helps protect or restore our faith in the way we make these choices if the debates around them are attended by some measure of restraint and dignity.

We can do debates better if the one at the top of our political institutions, the prime minister, leads with a tone of civility and respect; if he indeed calls upon the “better angles” of our country’s “nature”.

Such calls have been in short supply. Those with the fortitude for sour memories will remember the shrieking, ceaseless partisanship of the Harper government, epitomized by such ministers as John Baird and Pierre Poilievre; the bulldozing of parliamentary scrutiny with omnibus bills; the negative advertising campaigns seeking to denigrate the persona of opposition party leaders; the disdain for the media; the instructions from the Prime Minister’s office to Conservative MPs of how to manipulate and control parliamentary committees; the flagrant and persistent misuse of taxpayer funds to support pro government advertising; the targeting of non-governmental groups critical of those in power; the deliberate attempt to drive wedges among groups using trivial but emotional issues; the disregard for objective facts provided by scientists or civil servants; the pervasive, sickening spin surrounding every government deed; the sense  of being enveloped by “enemies” largely harbored among “elite” groups; the bunker mentality and the daily operational axiom that every action had to be part of the “permanent election campaign” so the even the most mundane of announcements and decisions had to deliver some sort of partisan political punch.” 

How I will vote in the Federal Election

We got our last (Conservative) majority by vote splitting.

Vote splitting example: Libs 32%, NDP 31%, Conservatives 35% = possible Conservative majority, despite almost 2/3 of electorate clearly against their policies.

Here is a simple rule if you are ABC (Anything But Conservative):

To avoid vote splitting in your riding (between Libs and NDP) use the polls as a guide. i.e. if the closing polls show Liberal lead, vote Liberal, else vote NDP. This is a positive feedback algorithm. It has the potential to go exponential! 

See the poll tracker

Also check out VoteTogether

Right now it looks liberal.

State of Climate

I know, right?!  If only there were a huge project that involved every government on Earth and all the people who know what they’re talking about (i.e. scientists) and every 5 years produced a 3 volume, 3000 page, 30,000 footnote report that scrupulously documented the current state of human knowledge about the human dimensions of climate change!

Fifth Assessment Report – Synthesis Report

Good news! Start with the synthesis report.

If you want a three-sentence summary of the situation:

  • Ignore deniers.
  • The longer we pump out GHGs, the more we raise the floor on future temperatures and the more we acidify the oceans.
  • All the things that we should do anyway (TTWSDA) to improve food, water, health, economic security, energy efficiency, etc. will help us limit and mitigate the anthropogenic component of climate change.

Fact:  CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from about 250 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 150 years.

Fact: CO2 blocks infra-red (heat) radiation from the earth to space.

Fact:  Ocean levels are rising.  Mostly from the ocean warming up for now, but also from melting glaciers.

Fact:  Oceans are getting more acidic.  Shellfish in places no longer can make shells.  Corals are dying.

Fact:  It’s getting warmer.  This one is often disputed.  We are measuring very small differences, and so a lot of thought has to go into how you use the data.  (E.g. A weather station that used to be in the country is now surrounded by city, so it reads warmer.  A weather station uses a different kind of paint on it’s weather hutch, and the average temperature falls by .02 degrees.)

Fact:  Mountain glaciers are smaller than they were 50 years ago.

Fact:  Greenland is melting.

Fact:  Mountain glaciers are smaller than they were 50 years ago.

Fact:  Greenland is melting.

Fact:  Parts of Antarctica west shelf are melting at rates up to 60 feet a year.

Fact:  The USDA has produced new climate zone maps (plant hardiness maps) in 1990 and in 2012.  In both case zones moved north.

Models:  The mechanisms that heat moves through the atmosphere are complex.  Different models give different results in detail, but give the same general overview:  It’s getting warmer.  It’s going to continue to get warmer.

Part 2.
Are we doing all we can?

Not hardly.  We are barely doing anything at all.

We should be:

  • Taxing carbon at the point it comes out of the ground.  Start at $100/ton and increase it at $50/t/year.  $50/ton increases theprice of gas by about 35 cents/gallon (8 c/liter) or about 10%.  This is small enough that present car owners can live with it for the remaining life of their vehicles.  But in 10 years it doubles the price of gasoline.
  • Rezoning our cities allowing light industry, retail, and professional businesses to occupy residential areas so that a much larger fraction of people can live within walking distance of work.
  • Pushing the development of biochar hard.  This looks like the simplest way to sequester carbon.  Many ag areas have tons of waste per acre to deal with.
  • Implementing time of day pricing of electricity at the retail level.
  • Redo building codes to require buildings to be far more energy efficient.  Researching how to best re-insulate existing buildings.
  • Require cities to set aside space for mass transit systems as they expand.
  • Encourage telecommuting, both for the worker and for employers.

Start with this website:  Climate Etc.  It is written by Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and former Chair of the gatech.edu School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciencesat the Georgia Institute of Technology.  It is balanced and very thorough in its coverage of the issues.  Beware, though, it will take many, many hours to even begin to explore the complexities reflected on her blog.

Source

 

How do you think gas guzzlers vote?

 

Really, would Jesus of Nazareth have driven to church in a Jag? Or how about an Escalade or a Land Rover or a big old Suburban?

Hey we want him to be safe.

And to go with that gas guzzling shrine to conspicous consumerism would he have also worn something “prosperous” like a sold gold cross on a solid gold chain?

No surprises to this study – who drives what.