Specter of Reason

I'd like to elaborate on a point I made in my last post (the topic was consciousness), as it will help explain my views on science in general and consciousness in particular. I wrote: "If there were any evidence that consciousness (or anything else) were so unique that it could not be explained objectively, that evidence could not be shared. For, if it could be shared, then it would be objectively determinable. Therefore, from a scientific point of view—that is, from a point of view which regards facts as sharable and repeatable through well-documented experiments—there can never be any evidence that consciousness (or anything else) is beyond the hopes of a scientific explanation." One might ask, W hy can't we have evidence that is not scientific? Can't we have evidence based on our own intuition or personal experience? Why must all evidence be sharable and repeatable? I acknowledge the fact that we are often in the position of having to make decisions based o...

Nothing is more obvious or immediate to our minds than the fact of our own consciousness. And yet, consciousness seems so bizarre and mysterious, some say it is beyond any hope of an explanation. How can something be so clear and present in our minds, and at the same time be so hard to understand? Philosophers and scientists have argued for ages about how to solve this puzzle, and sometimes about whether or not there really is a puzzle at all. My view is that consciousness is not a philosophical puzzle, but a scientific issue which can only be worked out through a better understanding of physiology. In our case, that means understanding how our bodies and brains function. One of the reasons consciousness is so valuable to us is that it allows us to capitalize on amazingly complex information processes without having to pay attention to many of them. If we had to focus on everything going on in our heads, we'd never get anything done. C onsciousness is not directly concerned wit...

In the comments to my post, Irrationality and Religious Belief , my friend Erik has been pushing me to offer a more comprehensive statement of my views on order, intentionality, and the universe. What I want to do here is fully explain what plans are and how they are different from order in general. I will also explain why order is never, in itself, indicative of a plan, and why DNA and evolution by means of natural selection should not be confused with intentional, planned behavior. I'll start by responding to these two questions: Is a plan the predetermination of an event or series of events? Does your conceptualization of "plan" differ in any significant way from this? A plan is an idea which directs behavior towards a specified end. Ideas indicate, to varying degrees, an end result, but they do not predetermine events. Rather, they organize events in a relatively flexible manner, with many undefined variables, and usually in a way that allows for their own modifica...

In a reply to my post, Irrationality and Religious Belief , a friend of mine asked the following question: What's the difference between asking, "Why are the laws of chemistry as they are, such that atoms react to form molecules, and so forth" and, "Why are the laws of physics and everything in the Universe the way that they are? Why does matter behave as it does? Is there an ordered end or 'goal' toward which it, and ultimately the universe, is progressing?" There are four distinct questions there, and I want to explain how I think they are unique. First, consider how many different ways we can answer "why" questions. Aristotle famously identified four ways. First, the material cause, which tells us the materials which comprise a phenomenon. Second, the formal cause, which tells us the organizational principles which define a phenomenon. Third, the efficient cause, which tells us the entities which are historically responsible for a phenom...