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.

"The music of photosynthesis." Wow.

The amusing and whimsical but eerily accurate evocations of the dentist's poem and the mailman's ballet are very fine, too.

Good post. I follow your postings with interest. They're usually lucid and to the point.

Who represents the South at this table?

How about us? Ordinary people? For all the rhetoric about the suffering citizens, I do not see one confounded politician seeking our input. They want us to vote for them, so they strike postures. But they aint LISTENING.

And I do not just mean the Republicans aren't listening.

The most common way to confuse a simple issue is to pretend that it is vastly complicated. It must be left to the big brains in Congress because we poor voters could never understand all the possible consequences, all the ins and outs.

A bunch of money manipulators created false value and ripped off the economy. There are two questions now: How to make sure these clowns never get near the bank again, and how to minimize the damage to the rest of us. Any politician who does not seek those ends is useless or worse.

Incidentally, what a scary picture. I used to think the famous one of him sneering, from early on in that administration, was repulsive, showed his true character. But this one is even more hideous. His "smile" reminds me strongly of the attempt of the penniless noble who wants to marry off his daughter to money in The Corpse Bride. Remember? His wife, equally hideous, commands him to smile.

His attempt is one of the funniest things I have ever seen in the movies. Cheney aint funny, though.