Thank you. Nice to see somebody steering free of the blinders of reductionism. Noe's observations strike me as right on.

One of the favorite metaphors of those who favor the reductionist view of consciousness is to say that the phenomenon of consciousness is like the rainbow. There is not "actually" a band of color in the sky. It is an illusion created by observation. Ignoring the hubris of assuming that we are capable of saying what is "actual" and what is not, let us ask a simple question. You say the rainbow is an illusion. Fine. But the word "illusion" implies an observer, if a mistaken observer. Who or what is the observer who falls for the "illusion" of consciousness?

Noe does not believe there is a god. I do credit the existence of divinity, if not exactly of an easily-described local being named "God." But there is room for that sort of disagreement if we are all trying to be honest.

I have mentioned the following episode in other places. I do so again here because I think it is telling with regard to fashionable assumptions in contemporary thought, and germane to the interview question about seizures and religious visions (I have had seizures, by the way).

In Discover mag a little over 2 years back, there was a story about a researcher who claimed to have invented a helmet that electronically stimulated the "religious center" of the brain, causing trance-like religious visions. (It only worked on about 40% of the subjects, however.)

The most famous and vocal "scientific" atheist of all, Dawkins, the inventor of the extremely useful metaphor of memes, decided to try the helmet out. No vision. His conclusion: There is no god. I'm not a scientist but I can come up with a dozen equally reasonable conclusions off the top of my head.

It seems to me there are a number of easily identified logical errors in his thinking in this episode, which he did not notice because he had formed his conclusion in advance. 1) The helmet didn't work on everybody. Surely that has implications. 2) Presumably if there WERE a religious center in the brain, that in itself would lend support to the no-god idea. How then is his failure to experience divine visions because of the stimulation of that supposed center evidence that there is no god? 3) Or even if the "center" were taken to be actual, this: Disproof of the contrary of logical proposition A is not proof of the truth of A--or as we phrase it in the contemporary cliche, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Because he didn't have an experience of the divine using a helmet whose actual function had been asserted but not demonstrated, he concludes there is no god? Dawkins is a brilliant man, but this is sloppy, sloppy thought.

I am not arguing for the existence of a god. Each of us must come to our own conclusions in that regard, and I have no quarrel with any whose conclusions are different from mine, provided the thinking and the arguments are honest.

Reductionism is an assumption, not a fact. Reductionism places human thinking at the center of (usually grim and meaningless) existence, which is definitely a form of hubris. Do reductionists really think we can decipher the entire nature of existence, and that the universe is compelled to obey our models?

As I have said before, when double stars swing around each other, they are not performing a continual calculation in differential equations. They're just doing what they do. The equations are our MODEL of their behavior. It is to our credit the model is so accurate. But the model is NOT the phenomenon it models. Modern thinkers tend to overlook this fundamental fact, which must be a fact in any system of thought, unless you are willing to claim (as Noe points out that many do) that there is no "actual" universe beyond the brain.

Which is an outlook that only a Laputan philosopher could sustain without breaking down in laughter.

Finally: If you claim that one of your primary tools is logic, as most scientists do, then it is indeed VERY dangerous for you to wander off the path. One logical error destroys the whole argument. Noe is quite right to be careful.

I was not going to comment on this fiasco, but your comment disturbed me. Blaming the underwriters for the salemen's mistakes? Are you a salesman? I worked for a major insurance company as an actuarial analyst. I cannot tell you how many times I would calculate a rate based on the information we had, only to be told by marketing that they were unilaterally changing it, based on no facts whatsoever, but because "we can't sell this rate." In effect, the marketing division ran the insurance company. All the top executives were from marketing. The analysts were ignored. We were just window dressing.

I would be VERY surprised if it were different at AIG.

I look at the photo of Blunt heading the article and I wonder how much anybody believes these old white men any more (I am white, male, and probably older than Blunt, by the way).

The private health care industry is going down. Their only hope to salvage anything is to sign on with universal health care. They private insurers know that, given a better alternative, people will leave in droves. So instead of cooperating in an attempt to improve the quality and affordability of health care, they are desperately attempting to block the change, using their usual tactics of lies and fear. This time it won't work.

HEALTH CARE

You told them, gathered together in that room,

that, like the banks, they were inviting doom,

the ax that would reduce their firms to kindling,

to wit: overvalued assets and a dwindling

customer base. Those are the facts of the case.

Oh call it universal health care, Ace,

who cares? Why not save what you can of your wealth

while getting credit for caring about our health?