Letters to the Editor
-
Some points on the discussion of mental phenomena
Some readers have pointed out we have neural imaging as a means of "observing mental phenomena". I would like to point out that as a measurement method, FMRI, PET and do not provide this capability.
PET and FMRI measure metabolism, basically a very rough metric of brain activity. Trying to understand thoughts, emotions, states of concousness in this fashion, is much like trying to understand what an application on your computer is doing by looking at the power consumption of its various components. Its simply a differnt level of abstraction.
Next, I believe that the readers commenting on the mental capacities of buddhist monks, developed over years of mental training (i.e. meditating in silence for many hours a day) -- frankly, have not a clue what they are talking about. One reader commented, he believed not even the most expert monk could see thoughts form. I dare say, even a skilled lay person with a fair amount of practice in silent retreat can experience such things, and can quite directly observe fairly sophisticated causal relationships at the mental level.
The fact is that the introspection of western psychologists and philosphers is at a level quite laughable when compared with the capabilities that have been developed over more than 2500 years in certain buddhist circles. I believe that any self respecting scientist with an open mind when examining these techniques closesly will agree that incorporating these methodologies into the toolbox of modern psychology is an incredibly valuable task.
-
The Varieties of Conscious Experience
Wallace assumes that consciousness is distinct from biological or physical systems. So, it follows that consciousness cannot be measured or studied by making hypotheses about biological or physical indicators of consciousness. This presumption undermines everything else he says. He is not making a scientific hypothesis. He is presuming to have access to a kind of knowledge that cannot be scientifically understood.
His main point is that Buddhist practice is a surer way of understanding consciousness than any other method. Yet, meditation is inherently subjective and prone to idiosyncratic interpretations. The splintering of Buddhist sects testifies to the diversity of possible interpretations Buddhist practice can generate.
Western science is predicated on the idea that theories must be produce results that are publicly comprehensible, reproducible, and falsifiable. It is not enough for Mr. Wallace to believe that he "gets it right" when he contemplates his own consciousness. He must also be able to identify when someone else does the same, when they fail to do so, and how someone else who claims to get it right about his own conscious experience can differ in his experience from Wallace's experience. What are the characteristics of consciousness that tie it uniquely or generally to the experience of a living, breathing, person? What is the mechanism that ties consciousness to personal experience? How can we know when someone is pretending to be in touch with his consciousness? How can it be possible for someone to be out of touch with his own consciousness, and who is to say such a failure has occurred, when no physical or biological measurements pertain?
It seems clear that Wallace is trying to legitimize his religious experience as being, somehow, better in touch with a more meaningful reality. It is not enough for him to be satisfied with his own beliefs and be content in his beliefs about his own consciousness. He wants science to affirm him in his accomplishment. But he has set out the terms of the inquiry in such a way that no scientific method can penetrate the veil of his personal experience.
This effort is as doomed as the efforts of Christians to co-opt science to legitimize their cosmology with the poorly conceived, pseudo-science of "Intelligent design." There may be many satisfactions to religious beliefs, but confusing them with verifiable scientific methods is not the way to make them manifest.
-
NEWS FLASH: buddhist skin scientifically proven just as thin as every other bullshitter's skin
I can't wait for BAW's 3rd installment, where he writes that he wishes there was a hell so those of us who see through his silly profit-driven charade would go there.
See, here's why dickhead can't handle the challenge: science doesn't waste time of pretend bullshit, and 5 minutes of rational discussion knocks reincarnation on its silly ass. It's just Jesus Lite, sans Hell...and if you're lucky you won't come back as a priggish author with a stick up his ass.
Maybe BAW just wants a regular column, that's why he keeps "responding to readers." Hell, he could have Cary's job. Cary's latest padded response (he has a book to fill) tells the LW to lie to her mom. His words: "This situation requires you to be deviously scrupulous." If there is a Hell (there isn't), he's going. If there's reincarnation (there isn't), he's coming back as something horrible...like Joan Walsh.
One question for BAW: When hillbillies die and come back, is that called "reintarnation"?
-
The Darwin Award goes to anonymous:
anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of fascist states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Anti-intellectualism_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Anti-intellectualism_in_Asia_-_Maoist_China.2C_Cambodia_and_Iran
-- Anonymous
Anyone who wishes to lecture anyone else on "anti-intellectualism" and quotes wikipedia as his source is just a fucktard. That's a person so fucking retarded you can't even begin to explain to him why he's so stupid, because he's are incapable of getting it.
-
The Straw Man Resurrected
Dear anonymous, please enlighten us when you determine
exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We're dying to know.
Are you descended from Senator McCarthy, by the way?
-- DC
In the wake of the Protestant Revolution, the canard was frequently repeated that the Catholic monostaries were filled with so-called intellectuals who sat around all day contemplating inane issues like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" rather than doing anything practical. In fact, no such question had ever been asked by a Catholic philosopher or theologian.
Now Annonymous gets the same smear, though his or her point is a good one, unrelated to head-in-the-clouds theorizing: that life is not an either/or choice between intellectual pursuits and addressing the practical issues of daily life.
Besides, if you've got leisure time to read these letters, you've got time to contemplate the universe.