Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Soul questions flubbed by neuroscience…

February 22nd, 2015 · 2 Comments

http://darwiniana.com/2015/02/22/neuroscience-and-the-soul/ This is useful discussion but the fact remains that darwinism and neuroscience aren’t going to arrive at the understanding of the soul. Let us cede immediately that religions like Christianity don’t understand the issues either, but they do carry the idea. We should be wary here. This video assumes Darwin undermined traditional beliefs. But Darwin’s theory is false.
The video contrasts Plato and Aristotle: I think Plato, almost an anomaly in Greek thought, in some ways, still had it right. The video refers to the Egyptians, and we have discussed this already at The Gurdjieff Con.

There is something that science can’t find in its framework and the result is a simple strike out on the issue of soul.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Fallacy-Science-Letting/dp/1616149620/ref=pd_rhf_ee_s_cp_12_ECWQ?ie=UTF8&refRID=0WZRVK1D3T4T0FARW8RE: These books are not the answer.
A study of Kant on metaphysics at the end of his classic Critique of Reason: certain issues are hard to resolve rationally: negation of soul beliefs is as metaphysical as their affirmation.
The new age movement has produced a set of possible theoretical starting points, but the results aren’t very clear, the ‘etheric’, ‘astral’ bodies, etc..
Why is conventional science so stuck here?
One thing is clear, if scientists believe darwinists go evolution right they won’t get anything else right. Over at The Gurdjieff Con we have discussed the sufi lore of ‘soul’.

To be clear: science has insufficient grounds to reject ‘soul beliefs’. The sufi stance here, almost completely out of public view, is revolutionary, but obscure still.

We made the provocative statement that that ‘soul’ was material, which is jolting, but the statement is hardly more meaningful than saying ‘soul is spiritual’. Obviously ‘soul’ has no referent and can’t resolve to anything very useful. But the point is significant: in the vein of Samkhya we create a consistent medium low to high and that is material. But this is only by definition.
We haven’t defined soul and the reason is that it could be actually the ‘noumenal’ aspect of a material body. That would explain the confusion better. But the point should be clear that the human frame is partly outside of the conventional framework of space/time: if this as an hypothesis is true the ‘soul’ issue becomes clearer. Physics can’t take us there yet.

http://darwiniana.com/2015/02/20/materialism-low-and-high/
Materialism, low and high
February 20th, 2015 ·

http://darwiniana.com/2015/02/20/new-science-organization-offers-to-set-science-free-from-materialism/
This link is a stub to come back to tomorrow, but a brief comment is helpful: the issue of materialism is really about nineteenth century brands, ‘vulgar materialism’. Religious constantly attack materialism as such, but the question remains equivocal.
We have discussed the old Samkhya artifice of adopting materialism, and then asking how it manifests as the spiritual world. Thus, there is in principle no reason to reject materialism. We have cited Bennett here many times and his different partition from material/spiritual is to think in terms of ‘being, function, will’. It is a useful trick. Materialism and spirit are swallowed up in a different way to slice the pie. Matter and consciousness are aspects of being, and are complements.
In general there is no reason why materialism can’t be an aspect of the ‘spiritual’ (whatever that is). Consider a tricky question: is the soul material? You would say no. But Samkhya yogis and certain sufis might not agree.
There is another goofball question here, which is: can a spiritual ‘x’ like ‘soul’ (what the blazes is that) be material in a higher dimension? Or, can there be matter in a higher dimension. The question nosedives: we have no real grounds, despite string theory, to talk about higher dimensions but the issue is nonetheless somehow real: spiritual worlds ought to have their own materiality although this might not manifest in our dimensions. This is too crude, but the point is that materialism is not so easy to throw away. The attempts to reduce complex systems like ‘mind’ to materialism of the crudest kind is what leads to the problems of scientism…
– See more at: http://darwiniana.com/2015/02/20/materialism-low-and-high/#sthash.KKEjMbtC.dpuf

Tags: General

2 responses so far ↓

Leave a Comment