From: Davin Enigl (enigl@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Jun 25 2001 - 13:53:02 MDT
I find it interesting that while there is recorded
evidence of spiritual
experience (subjective) and now recorded evidence of spiritual perception
(objective),
To me, "spiritual" is an aspect of anti-realism/immaterialism (e.g., Bohr)
metaphysics. The metaphysical anti-realists would say your objective perception
is also subjective via the immaterialism of Hume, Berkeley, or Mach. These
people are at least (I hope) epistemological realists (and not epistemological
anti-realists -- there would be nothing to "know" at all). They say, human
perceptions are *always* suspect. Which I think is true, yet I disagree that
this stops-us-cold because I think if we learn where human perception goes wrong
and we can correct it (e.g., Einstein's relativity and the quantum physics
learned from Bell's proof).
many have difficulty with the idea that there could be the
possibility, however remote, that there is a spiritual aspect to the
universe.
Of course "evidence" supporting anti-realism is just "data"
as-yet-to-be-interpreted to a metaphysical realist. So the metaphysical realists
will have an "impossible" time with this idea. They will say, why *cannot* the
universe work just as well without the spiritual idea? So, why adopt it? I think
there *are* fruitful times to adopt it (ala Kant's transcendental idealism of
space/time -- now thought of a space-time), but not for such unobservables as
fermions (leptons and quarks) and boson (and Higgs) interactions.
If there are no contradictions in realty, however....my own thought would
be
not to simply close the question, but to work out the contradictions.
If I understand "spiritual" as metaphysical anti-realism: Bell's proof is a
possible refutation (contradiction in reality) of anti-realism (Berkeley's
"perceptions") because in Bell's proof humans have no perception (even in
principle *can* have no perception) before observation/measurement, therefore
the spin-orientation must be indeterminate according to the language we have (so
far) invented to describe nature how nature really is (not just humans "saying"
about nature). We *must* know that nature *is* this way and not simply an
appearance "as if" it is real nature. It is not a matter of human subjectivity
or inductive reasoning and it is even *more* than intersubjective testing of a
theory (more than corroboration vs. falsification). It transcends the perception
(*appearance* of nature) and crosses over to the *reality* of nature. This is
anti-Bohr and pro-Einstein.
My question is: Do we need a meta-language before we start talking about the
"spiritual," similar to Tarski's meta-language for the correspondence theory of
truth? If not, is the "spiritual" just "hot air?"
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael B. Hubbard To: extropians@extropy.org
Sent: 6/24/01 8:03:23 PM Subject: Re: BOOKS: How to Think Like
Leonardo da Vinci
I find it interesting that while there is recorded evidence of
spiritual
experience (subjective) and now recorded evidence of spiritual
perception
(objective),
many have difficulty with the idea that there could be the
possibility, however remote, that there is a spiritual aspect to
the
universe. I can understand that there is apparently
contradictory evidence.
I can understand that there are those who do not in their
lifetimes have a
spiritual experience.
If there are no contradictions in realty, however....my own
thought would be
not to simply close the question, but to work out the
contradictions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amara D. Angelica" amara@kurzweilai.net
To: extropians@extropy.org
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 5:02 PM
Subject: RE: BOOKS: How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci
Transhumanism has no
place for spirituality in their minds.
See "Tracing the synapses of spirituality"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/588566.asp for interesting
neuroscience
explanations
of the "spiritual" experience.
--- Davin C. Enigl, Microbiologist
--- enigl@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:17 MST