--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
To: pearson@panam1.panam.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:19:58 -0700
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Tom wrote: "But I am curious as to why you are so emphatic in saying
"absolutely no" to the possibility that consciousness is grounded in
biology, Burgy. Can you ay more about the firmness of your conviction on
this matter?"
That consciousness is "grounded in" biology is not in question. By the
words "writ large" in my original post I was using them as I perceived
Polkinghorne using them.
As a physicist, I believe the chemistry is physics "writ large." That is,
given the natural laws of physics, chemistry necessarily follows
"mechanically."
Polkinghorne, posing the question "is biology chemistry writ large" was
asking if the same assertion could be said to hold for those two
concepts, indicating that, at least for him, that the question was,
unlike physics-chemistry, at least in doubt.
I then extended it to the biology-consciousness idea, in a similar way.
While not all data are in (not even a scant amount, I'd assert), it would
be my assertion that consciousness must be much more than "biology writ
large." The datum that everyone looks at the world through his own,
unique, eyes is so fundamental to our reasoning that, like fish in the
sea not perceiving the water they swim in, we also do not take it into
account. Yet our consciousness -- the fact that I AM, is possible the
only datum I can be absolutely sure of. Nothing in biology suggests this.
For me, at least, it is the single most important evidence I have that
something greater than myself exists.
Jaynes wrote a book some 25 or 30 years ago called "The Origin of
Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." Not a Christian,
he argued natural causation for the phenomenon, one which could equally
well be explained (although in a philosophical, and not in a scientific
sense) by a "God-infusion" of consciousness at a point in history. being
a "Progressive Creationist," or "Episodic Creationist," as Howard
suggests, that explanation makes some sense to me. And so, I said
"absolutely not." In reflecting on this, I would have to admit I'd shade
that a little, to "almost absolutely not." But its a close call.
Thanks for asking -- sorry for long response -- no time to do a short one
this morning. <G>
John Burgeson (Burgy)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 10:35:44 EST