Posted inScience

A physicist talks about how likely supernaturalism is wrong

I like how physicist Lawrence Krauss speaks about "more likely" and "less likely" in a short video than "true" and "false."  Our knowledge about reality is on a fuzzy continuum, not a sharp dividing line. Rarely, if ever, can we say that this is absolutely 100% true, and that is absolutely 100% false.  Still, I don't totally understand Krauss' statement that "Science doesn't prove anything... science can only prove things to be wrong, not right... the Earth isn't flat, we can go around it, so that's wrong." This might have to do with one popular view of the scientific method,…
No Comments
Posted inBooks Science

“Self” is a confabulating part of the body

After buying the new book by noted biologist Edward O. Wilson, "The Meaning of Human Existence" (can't pass up a book with this title, so long as it isn't written by someone religious), I couldn't resist jumping this morning to the Free Will chapter.  The excerpts below, in bold, are some of the clearest writing about how the brain/mind works I've ever come across. And I've read a lot of books about modern neuroscience.  I've taken the liberty of commenting, in italics, on Wilson's words. Conscious mental life is built entirely from confabulation. Ooh, I love that word, confabulation: "to…
No Comments
Posted inBuddhism Science

If I’m not the one inside my head, then who is?

I enjoy Zen. But I have no desire to actually practice Zen. Not formally. Too much work. Too much discipline. Too much bowing before a master who, you eventually realize, doesn't deserve veneration. I prefer the idea of being my own Zen teacher. That way, I can do as much Zen-stuff as I want, in the way I want to, when and how I want.  Which includes giving myself koans to solve. This is my new one: If I'm not the one inside my head, then who is? l really like this koan. I'm SO happy I thought of it.…
6
Posted inScience

Why evolution makes it difficult for people to believe in evolution

Recently I've been blogging about Sam Harris' new book, "Waking Up," whose central thesis is that our sense of being a Self or Soul separate and distinct from the brain/body is an illusion. Harris doesn't talk much, if at all, about how this sense came to be. It must have been an evolutionary advantage to early humans. Perhaps it is an add-on, so to speak, to our species' extraordinary ability to be not only aware, but self-aware. Aware of our awareness in a way that other animals aren't, the brain seems to look upon itself as if from the outside, fostering a…
19
Posted inScience Spiritual practice/meditation

Non-duality is simply this: observer and observed are one

There's a lot of stuff written and said about non-duality. I've both partaken of it and spewed out my own in various blog posts. For example, see here, here, here, and here. After reading a bunch of neuroscience books, Sam Harris' "Waking Up," and several books by Moller De La Rouviere, the simple truth of non-duality is finally sinking into my non-dual mind. Which, like yours, also has been, is now, and forever will be non-dual. Meaning, undivided into an observer and what is observed. Or awareness and objects of awareness. Or consciousness and contents of consciousness.  In short, there…
18
Posted inReligions Science

Religion stifles innovation. Glad I live in Oregon.

Thanks to an email from a regular reader of this here Church of the Churchless, I learned about an interesting article in Mother Jones, "Study: Science and Religion Really Are Enemies After All." Are science and religion doomed to eternal "warfare," or can they just get along? Philosophers, theologians, scientists, and atheists debate this subject endlessly (and often, angrily). We hear a lot less from economists on the matter, however. But in a recent paper, Princeton economist Roland Bénabou and two colleagues unveiled a surprising finding that would at least appear to bolster the "conflict" camp: Both across countries and also…
1
Posted inScience

There was no first human. Which explains a lot.

Today I watched a video called "There was no first human." I found it here. It makes a lot of sense. Also a lot of nonsense.  By "nonsense," I don't mean that this explanation of evolution isn't true. Because it is. The thought experiment described in the video came from Richard Dawkins, someone who knows what he is talking about when it comes to the origins of life on Earth. Here he describes the thought experiment in words. The nonsense reference flows out of the difficulty I have understanding how there can be completely different species along an evolutionary branch…
3
Posted inReligions Science

Subjective and objective: the key to understanding everything!

"Ah, it's all becoming clear to me... so clear... I'm on the verge of grasping The Meaning of It All!" (Mentally insert the sound of cackling laughter, and a vision of a crazed man rubbing his hands together with glee). This is how I've been feeling lately. After fifty years of so of searching for the big "T" Truth through science, spirituality, mysticism, psychedelic drugs, philosophy, dog walks in nature, prayer, pleading, meditation, pondering, athletics, caffeine, and more, it's dawning on me that two words pretty much sum up both the Question and the Answer. Subjective. Objective.  This blog post…
3
Posted inBooks Science

Core and extended consciousness. Here and now, there and then.

Today I came to an interesting chapter, Mind and consciousness, in "The Systems View of Life," a book I blogged about a few days ago. One of the main conclusions is an unsurprising one: mind is the brain in action, not something transcendent. Let us now summarize the recent advances in cognitive science discussed in this chapter. The main achievement, in our view, has been the gradual but consistent healing of the Cartesian split between mind and matter. In the 1970's, a few cognitive scientists recognized that mind and consciousness are not "things" but cognitive processes, and they took the…
1
Posted inReality Science

No need to choose between Wonder and Science

For about a week I've been reading two books during my morning pre-meditation time. To most people they'd seem incompatible. Or at least, pointers in divergent directions of reality.  But I happily read some of each, using a highlighter and pen (thanks for blank back pages, publishers) to note what I like, and sometimes don't like, about "The Way of Wonder" and "The Systems View of LIfe."  Here's a blog post that includes links to other posts I've written about Haas' books; I haven't finished The Systems View of Life, which is a fascinating, but quite technical, undergraduate textbook that…
1
Posted inReality Science

Modern science demolishes archaic “as it is” views

Whenever I read a book about Buddhism or mindfulness, I've got my highlighter poised to make a skeptical marginal question mark when (usually not if) I come across mention of perceiving reality "as it is." This is an absurd pre-scientific notion, as I've discussed here and here. With so many interesting ideas to choose from, I'll take the easy way out in this post and share some of what I read this morning about how humans attribute what actually is within to without -- the world outside our craniums.  Frequently I take issue with those who claim it is possible to know reality "as…
1
Posted inReligions Science

Physics and religion are both weird, but in different ways

I'm an avid consumer of physics books aimed at the general public. "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn" and "The Island of Knowledge" are my most recent reads.  What comes through loud and clear in both books is how freaking far out modern physics and cosmology have become. Believe me, this isn't the sort of science I remember from high school, where the teacher had a model of an atom that looked like a miniature solar system. That way of looking at the atomic realm was recognized to be wrong even back then, of course. Quantum mechanics demolished the old way of…
No Comments
Posted inScience Wu Project

Best explanation of Schrödinger’s cat I’ve ever seen

Schrödinger's cat is a perplexing animal that seemingly is both alive and dead before an observation is made of it. This thought experiment was intended to show how the weirdness of quantum mechanics could be applied to everyday objects. It's always bothered me that a human, or some other observer, was needed to make the twin potentiality of "dead" and "alive" become a single actuality. Why couldn't the cat observe itself? In Amanda Gefter's book, "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn," she has the best explanation of the Schrödinger's cat paradox I've ever come across. The implications of this are huge -- a…
6
Posted inReligions Science

Five simple rules of science from Neil deGrasse Tyson

The final episode of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" ended with host Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, cogently describing how science is able to comprehend mysteries of the universe that other ways of knowing reality are unable to fathom. Like religion. Consider how Tyson's Five Simple Rules are almost diametrically opposed to the faith-based belief systems espoused by religions the world over.  They ask us to revere authority, not question theological dogma, have unshakable faith, remain within a single chosen religion, and accept that some saint, prophet, or other godly person was able to perfectly know divine truth. Whereas this, according…
8
Posted inReality Science

In a God’s eye view, who does the seeing?

I've heard the term, "God's eye view," before. But I haven't given it much thought. Maybe it was because I believed in God for so many years. I never questioned the notion that there could be a way of looking upon reality that was godlike. After all, even scientists -- not just religious believers -- assume the cosmos can be viewed from some sort of detached objective transcendent perspective. This is the way things are.  OK. But says who? And where is that entity? If inside the cosmos (which I define as everything that exists), then this being with a…
2
Posted inScience

Glimpses of observer-dependent reality on “Einstein’s Lawn”

"Excellent book buy, Brian." I enjoy praising myself. I rarely fail to make sense when I'm speaking to someone who understands me: Me. The book I'm talking about to myself is Amanda Gefter's "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn: A Father, a Daughter, the Meaning of Nothing, and the Beginning of Everything." I was worried it'd be too sentimental, with too much father-daughter stuff. I was mainly interested in the physics, the meaning of a cosmos that, as the subtitle says, is mainly (or completely?) comprised of nothing. No worries. Three chapters in, I'm hooked. Both on Gefter's compelling prose and the search…
No Comments
Posted inFree will Science

Society would do fine without a belief in free will

I'm fascinated by free will. Especially the lack thereof. Do a "free will" Google search of my blogs (via the box in the right sidebar) and you'll find lots of posts I've written on this fascinating subject.  (Some are here, here, here, and here.) It doesn't bother me at all that modern neuroscience is steadily demolishing philosophical and religious reasons for believing in free will. If this is the way the world works, where's the problem? To me, worrying about the consequences if people stop believing in free will is almost exactly the same as previous worries about what would…
1
Posted inDeath/Rebirth Science

Inference to the best explanation. Fancy words, simple way of living.

Idly glancing at a bookshelf in our house a few days ago, I noticed a book that I bought back in 2010, Paul Thagard's "The Brain and The Meaning of Life." Since, I've been re-reading some of it each morning. Great book, with some great ideas. I blogged about these before in "Reality is real, but brains construct knowledge" and "Divinity isn't necessary to make life meaningful." Here's an excerpt from the first post. When we go on our evening walk, my dog has a very different experience of reality than I do, given her vastly superior sense of smell.…
No Comments
Posted inReality Science

Try to have your philosophy disturbed every day

Driving home this evening, on my car radio I heard the end of an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist who hosts the new Cosmos series. Tyson said: I try to have my philosophy disturbed every day.  Beautiful. That's obviously an open-minded scientist speaking, not a fundamentalist religious believer. People of faith don't want to have their philosophy disturbed, because its foundation is so shaky. They don't know. They aren't sure of the facts. They don't possess demonstrable evidence. No, they just have faith that maybe, perhaps, possibly, what they want to be true really is: salvation, eternal life,…
No Comments