Originally posted on sciy.org by Ron Anastasia on Thu 14 Jul 2005 12:18 PM PDT
From: MICHAEL MIOVIC (mmiovic@yahoo.com)
Date: July 14, 2005 8:51:46 AM PDT
To: rjon@vzavenue.net
Subject:
Re: Question about challenging the materialist view of the evolution of
consciousness Reply-To: postaum2005@sriaurobindocenter-la.com
(Discussion List Post-AUM 2005): Replying to this email will send it to all members of the Post-AUM list. Dear Jan & Don,
The
way I think about this is that discussing the "science" in this debate
at the level of what experimental data show & don't show is a red
herring. I think that there are basically 3 different metaphysical
models of reality that people adhere to for a priori reasons, and there
is no definite proof for or against any of the 3. They are theism,
agnosticisim, and atheism (all broadly defined). Science tells us there
is no definite experimental proof for or against theism and atheism, so
takes an agnostic stance; while logic tells us that in the end
agnosticism has to be wrong, and either theism or atheism correct.
Parapsychology has now established that consciousness is non-local (as
you mention), but that does not answer the question of theism vs.
atheism--because non-locality could be due to an intrusion of a
non-materiality reality (i.e. higher plane consciousness in IYP terms)
into the material universe, or it could be due to non-local
consciousness arising from quantum effects of sub-atomic particles on
each other across time & space but still only at the level of
matter.
Personally, I am skeptical that this latter question can
ever be answered scientifically, because you would have to be able to
materially "measure" the presence or absence of a putative non-material
reality in order to either prove or disprove its existence, which is
logically impossible. Nonetheless, logically impossible things have
happened before, even in science, so it could come to pass (e.g., the
sky could split open and everyone behold the same Divine at the same
time and agree on it). Because of all these considerations, I feel that
all discussions of science should be prefaced with a metaphysical
disclosure that identifies the author's orientation (theistic,
atheistic or agnostic)--just like people currently have to give
financial disclosures that say who is funding the research. This would
avoid pointless conflicts, increase the level of philosophical insight
in discusssions about science, and remind everyone that all of the data
of science can be interpreted in any one of these 3 metaphysical models
and there is no point arguing about personal allegiances. De gustibus
non est disputandem.
As for the reaction of your biologist
reviewers, well, biology & biomedical science are largely mired in
antiquated Newtonian models and atheistic biases. The whole field needs
to be upgraded to relativistic/quantum mechanical models and agnostic
open-mindedness. I wouldn't take their critique seriously as it comes
out of the historical split between Religion & Science in the West
that has produced the utterly stupid debate over evolution vs.
creationism. Just point out the philosophical considerations that limit
which questions science can answer & not answer, and move on to
present how you (we) use the Integral Yoga model to interpret the data.
It
is for these reasons that I began both of my articles on Integral
Psychology with a discussion of metaphysics. The one in the Harvard
Review is more apposite a broad audience. I also have a long and
rambling humorous version written for an Indian audience that I can
send if you want--it fleshes out more fully why material science
probably can never answer the question of whether or not materialism is
ultimately correct, and reviews the Western historical process that
lead people to forget recently that science is agnostic, not
atheistic--and therefore doomed to be wrong about the ultimate nature
of reality in the end. Hope that helps. If not, sorry for the bother
& proceed along a more fruitful line. You guys have collected a
huge amount of data. Great work.
Michael
Attachment: