 |
Lee Patterson, self awareness
hated this stuff doing philosophy at Uni but it is like an itch under the skin that needs constant scratching. I think that there would be an awareness of being.
Jane - materialism
Oh bless Peter Chia. Not everybody can thrive on the reductionist mechanical views of an uncaring, "Godless" universe which so many glassy eyed and wondrous scientists love to promulgate and defend. Maybe in their particular bubble of consciousness it is truly comfortable and appealing but in mine it is everything Peter Chia speaks of. Without meaning - what is the point of anything? I am made of different stuff from these people, obviously. I was able to "see" with my mind (much to my alarm as I had not the slightest inclination towards motherhood) both of my children before they were conceived. In that moment my chemistry shifted to one of maternal nature and my longing for that child was overwhelming. I saw both children accurately and was able to describe them before and after conception. There are many witnesses. Events like this indicate further strata than our normally accepted senses register. I can only think that many scientists preclude such things from their rationale because their minds and sensibilities are structured differently and the old saying about one man's meat etc applies here too. The majority would dismiss my experience with some sardonic remark in order to resume, as quickly as possible, the real men from the boys talk, failing to grasp the simple fact that human beings are an incredibly diverse group of entities with myriad natures. Some of the best application of science as materialism could be to use groundbreaking research into the chemistry of the mind and body. What lifts and sustains chemistry and what suppresses and depresses it. I sometime wonder if we are instruments of teleology and if and when we "arrive" at health and wellbeing and live evolved lives compatibly with all of life - we shall have finally 'filled in the dots' correctly. I recently read a book called 'The Happiness Hypothesis' which said that altruistic behaviour appears to create a positive brain chemistry such as people seek in gratification. However, self gratification is an up and down ride whereas the effect of altruism sustains. The materialists and the religiously inclined could actually find some common ground even if based on differing hypotheses. So, maybe materialism holds a big clue if put in a seemingly appropriate place ie. to research its nature for clues. The answers would involve individual as well as generic tendencies but much could be learned and subsequently applied. Ideologies, by their very nature, can't really work but a materialistic understanding of how we operate - including anomalies such as psychopaths etc could be incredibly practical and deeply humane in its application. The chemical morphology of despots would have to be understood before anything else otherwise we wouldn't be in with a chance! Anyway - I have now missed the supermarket but it was worth it to get this off my chest and to thank Peter Chia. With very best wishes to you all.
michele roohani on materialism
great program as usual - loved Baron d'Holbach's quote - here is another good one from him: "If ignorance of Nature gave birth to gods, then knowledge of Nature is calculated to destroy them.""We don’t know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life."Steven Weinberg
Robert Taylor: Materialism / Determinism
If the programme had been, say, four hours long you might have got around to the implications of chaos theory for the debate on determinism v. free will. This is something I would like to hear discussed. I am no expert but it seems to me that chaos theory shows that the world is inherently unpredictable, certainly in practical terms and I suspect in theoretical terms too. We living organisms have to differing degrees evolved the capacity to respond to and survive in an unpredictable environment. "Free will" might be as good a name as any for this ability.
Peter Chia - Materialism
Peter Chia – MaterialismEver since man started thinking about the big questions, for instance WHY we are here and, in particular, the origin of the universe, philosophy has played a key role. However, because of conflicting views his thirst for knowledge has not been slaked, unlike the legendary “lager” that reached all parts!In the midst of his suffering he turned to a god or gods in the hope of salvation on earth and in the hereafter.It is clear that both philosophy and religion have not delivered the promise. This is because they are dealing with abstract ideas that are liable to be most contentious and are beyond the scope of us mortals to deal with effectively.The advent of the dark ages and the inquisition, in particular, have prompted the intelligentsia to look in other directions. Over a period of about 400 years science has come to the fore. Today it is the dominant force in intellectual life.The current consensus among scientists is that the universe came from nothing, or “absolutely nothing” according to Stephen Hawking. Somewhat reinforced by Darwinian evolution today materialism is the only show in town! This has the effect of rendering life as both meaningless and purposeless. Unfortunately life without meaning or purpose is a prelude to mental illness. Hence the findings of WHO that disease of the mind is on the rise right across the globe. So Rich or Poor Educated or NOT Is this our LOT?It does beg the question: “Is materialism the worst scourge of humanity?” Or has it spawned such philosophies as existentialism. Did it also prompt Nietzsche to espouse the concept of nihilism? Both may be described as absolutely despairing philosophies which do not offer any hope whatsoever. Whilst it is not the expressed intention to knock the dead it is right and proper to draw attention to the fact that Nietzsche suffered a mental breakdown from which he never recovered.Can the universe come from nothing? Such a claim is, in actual fact, unscientific for it runs directly counter to the first law of thermodynamics. This law clearly stipulates that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In the event how can a universe of energy, as in e=mc2, come from nothing? There appears to be a huge chasm in our scientific knowledge.The other claim is that life emerged from matter. That such complexity is inherent even within the simplest organism would suggest that physical life cannot emerge from matter. This is a topic that, along with the origin of the universe, will be the subject of a dissertation on a future occasion. Powerful, corroborative evidence will be provided, discounting wild assumptions that do not possess any credibility.On the basis of the above the case for materialism is very weak indeed. In fact it needs a serious reappraisal. There are many global issues that are screaming at us for our immediate attention and constructive action. We are no longer evolving but, worse, we are pretty close to annihilating our species along with the others, not to mention doing irreparable damage to spaceship earth. Moreover, space colonisation is not an option.Materialism is suspect. It may have had a few uses. Even then this is most doubtful.
Kirk - materialism
I really enjoyed the program, although I think Epicurus (for all his merits) was given the credit rightly due to Leucippus and Democritus for atomistic materialism (not enough time to be pedantic). An interesting tangent to this discussion is the way religious thinkers have appropriated materialism into their understanding of God etc., which was mentioned in the discussion on Hobbes and Gassendi, and was later maintained by such as Joseph Priestley and Joseph Smith (the Mormon founder). Nan, maybe you could email her re her thoughts on P. Pullman: caroline.warman@jesus.ox.ac.uk or caroline.warman@exeter.ox.ac.uk and report back?
Dave Smith Consciousness
Discussing whether consciousness is rare or relatively common is somewhat premature for more than one reason. First, it is a big universe and frankly we still have no idea of the probability that we will find life anywhere else. Second, we don't know if life (as in DNA based entities) is necessary for awareness. The fact that we observe a high correlation between consciousness and life on this planet may have as much to do with the remarkable ability of DNA based organisms to tenaciously replicate and evolve, and we tend to equate ubiquity with necessity. Thirdly, most scientists studiously avoid the issue of the distinction between subjective awareness and objective awareness when discussing consciousness. Yet this is THE heart of the problem that consciousness poses for materialism. Science understandably focuses on objectifiable awareness since science is optimized to study what is distributed in space and time and ultimately that is what we mean by objectifiable. Also objective awareness correlates strongly with the sensory mechanisms that enable our interaction with the space-time environment and these are easily studied by science. Subjective awareness however, cannot be understood by our present system of science and mathematics, not simply because, as usually portrayed by scientists, we are trying to understand a fiendishly complicated system (which of course is also true of the human brain), but because it has all the hallmarks of behaving as a singularity. When we try to examine our own personal subjectivity, we never reach it. Not only does it always become an object when we try to examine it (reflexive nature of subjectivity) but no matter how many laters of objective perception we peel off, the "I" never disappears and always appears to lie deeper. By any definition this is a singularity and singularities create a barrier to objective knowledge at a very fundamental level for our system of math and science. When science can start to address singularities in a meaningful way, then perhaps then we will start to make progress. If science can never address the true nature of singularities, then I suspect consciousness may well be the fundamental problem for materialism.
Lars Danman, materialism
The problem with the materialist standpoint is that it is unable to say what material is; it can define it only in contradistinction to the non-material or immaterial. This would in itself not be a problem, if the materialist admitted the existence of the immaterial, as it would make sense to define e.g. the yolk of an egg by saying that it is that part which is not the white. But as the materialist maintains that the immaterial does not exist, then his definition, reduced to logical terms becomes: 'the material is that which is not that which does not exist', i.e. it becomes tautological. The materialist can no more say what material is than it is possible to say what God is. The term material - at least as used by the materialist - is, strange to say, a purely metaphysical concept.
Caroline Warman replying re. Pullman
Readers of Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy will remember that the thriller mystery that drives the books is illicit scientific experimentation into the 'dark matter' which composes the universe. In the last book, the looming disaster is the strange behaviour of these particles. Instead of descending, they are flying upwards and being lost, seeping out of the holes cut between the parallel universes. The thing which returns the behaviour of these particles to normal is Will and Lyra's kiss. Which makes a sort of newtonian epicureanism into the plot for the books, given that Epicurus defined the downward movement of matter, and talked about pleasure the reason for all movement, and that Newton further elaborated this model with gravity, or 'attraction' as it was called in French. Will and Lyra's attraction for each other makes the particles gravitate back downwards again.
Materialism, Stephen Fleming
What a brilliant programme! Melvyn, at the end, indicated that there were some delicious aspects that there wasn't time to fit in. So, please can we have the same three guests, who were so excellent in their explanations, back again for Part II, which may include Hegel, Marx and Philip Pullman amongst others?
David in Brusels Materialism/moral courage
I would be more inclined to be persuaded by the materialists, if a human were able to create a simple protein from basic elements (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen etc), secondly, create a fully functioning living system made only of inorganic (dead) chemicals and these prepared proteins, thirdly, create a thinking system within this cell, fourthly, develop an intelligent and wise component to this thought process, and fifthly, give it free moral judgement and a sense of time of the long-lost ages before it existed and a future age after it ceases to be. It should not be too difficult for the greatest computer in the material universe (the human brain) and the greatest fabricating machine to replicate in a laboratory the supposedly random, purposeless material processes that resulted in beings such as those in this radio studio discussion. However, scientists have not even got to first base. I remain therefore a sceptical scientist and a philosopher who believes in the necessity of the spiritual. I reject materialism as despising wisdom. ‘Wisdom was appointed before the world began; all who hate wisdom love death’ is an axiom written 3000 years ago, and not by a Greek tinker of tales. Logically, we should reflect on our lack of wisdom, deduce that a certain modesty is required and act accordingly. I am still not convinced that this planet has intelligent life.
Tristram Hill - Materialism
I would like a programme specically on Consciousness that included noted mathematician-physicist Roger Penrose as one of the panel. His theories are very interseting and may hold the right approach to future progress.
Frances Mann Materialism
A.C.Grayling is wrong to imply that Christianity is dualistic, (he said that Christian doctrine had a dualist view of matter). The main heresies that orthodoxy condemns tend to dualism. Melvyn Bragg is also not quite right, in saying, as he did during the programme, that the Arians said that 'Christ was just a man' . They held that Christ was a created being, and therefore he was not God, but, was a sort of demiurge with divine qualities and certainly was more than just a man. Its very good to hear that Melvyn Bragg has been awarded a prize for his broadcasting. In Our Time is one of the very best things on radio perhaps the best
C P Robinson. The Determinism/Free Will Questi
Some months ago a programme on the radio drew my attention to the irritation and unease that determinism can conjure in relation to the effort and commitment that we put into life. I identified with this and it left me thinking. I concluded that this disturbance comes from a more everyday emotional question that is often raised, without realising, alongside the intellectual one when the subject of determinism and free will is aired.The emotional question is, “can I be bothered?”; can I be bothered to employ my higher faculties in earnest, or shall I simply recline in apathy? This more emotional question inevitably is concerned with emotional factors such as how wearying or how inspiring is the employment of these higher faculties, how stubborn or determined is our nature, and countless other human influences. It is not necessary to reconcile determinism and the concept of free will in order to appreciate that the argument that we might as well just relax because atoms will carry on colliding in a pre-determined way regardless of our effort, is clearly a sloppy one. It is the mischief that we can imagine this sloppy argument creating by giving a spurious legitimacy to apathy that is perhaps the source of the irritation. A similar situation arises concerning evolution theory and morality.
In Our Time: Materialism
Dear Melvyn,I thoroughly enjoyed this week's programme too and your newsletter. It's a shame that you don't allow the listeners to the programme to come up with future suggestions for topics for discussion. I am sure that there are many of us who have ideas on subjects which would be interesting to delve in to...:-).Yours sincerely,Douglas Rankine.
Ann: Materialism
Can we have another programme on this subject to discuss what there wasn`t time for in the first one?
jane materialism
I just, ever so slightly smugly, sent my comments to this website via email and wandered downstairs. My head was chattering in its usual way " you didn't use any of the impressive big words you've accumulated over the years to add credibility"etc. followed by lots of deep. tortuous inner questioning (still based on the 'not enough information' I'd prattled on about in my response). Then I thought to myself "I wish I'd said how much I like Melvyn Bragg as well as admire him and how I often laugh at his little humorous interjections" because at the end of the day - to be human is so much about liking and laughing and loving and all that and a lot of this clever intellectual talk is divisive in its way. You only have to read Bill Bryson's 'Short History of Nearly Everything' to realize that science is often, almost shockingly, about the personal agendas of the scientists (with exceptions of course). So - to be humbly human - I would like to say that, whatever my consciousness is - I really enjoy Melvyn Bragg's input. Thank you Melvyn,you make life richer.
Chris Thomas
Very much enjoyed the Materialism debate. This reminded me how overdue I think a programme on the history of atheism is. Mr. Grayling would be an exellent contributor to such a programme, as of course would Dawkins, Hitchens et al. It could be a programme that traces atheism through the ages from the Greek atomists to the present day. What say you Mr. Bragg?...
Tom Milner-Gulland - materialism
Perhaps the most interesting question, which was not discussed, is whether it is axiomatic that any justification of materialism is entirely dependent upon reductionism. In any case, one may identify three basic epistemic realms that, prior even to questions about free will and so on, the materialist must address, the consonance of which is surely questionable in the absence of a holistic approach. The first is the resolving of matter exclusively to particles; the second, the interconnectedness of all matter as though by an indivisible and incognisable substrate, and the third, a phenomenalist aspect, that matter, as framed by human understanding, can in principle be resolved to experience. Taking the last of these, if specific electrical operations in the brain are synonymous with experiences then any attempt to resolve matter exclusively to particles has failed, since the particles have associated to them a potential the outcome of which - experience - is irreducible in all regards save the psychological. As I have said previously, it is the very rigidity of the fundamental constants of nature, themselves sustaining the structure of matter and, with it, the Cartesian/Newtonian principle of the conservation of momentum, that renders matter tangible. The constants thus serve as the universal substrate. Quantum mechanics, through which it becomes apparent that a purely atomistic approach to materialism is untenable, deserved discussion.
Jane materialism
Seems to me our view and therefore interpretation of anything is as relatively limited as a nasal hair's to the scale and complexity of our world. We can occupy ourselves endlessly, each according to our diverse conditioning,but at the end of the day we haven't even got enough knowledge to ask the questions. There's also the fact that we see the universe as we are and not as it is and our ability to edit life to suit our world view is little short of remarkable. Melvyn Bragg is a superlative media person and his ability to be subjectively objective and objectively subjective give wonderful fluidity and humanity to whatever he does. I marvel at his ability to stay focussed. At the end of most of the programmes I've listened to I've been left with my own interpretation in relation to other peoples' interpretations plus a warm admiration for Melvyn Bragg. I have also decided that 'mystery' is a euphemism for 'we don't know' and that the more we seemingly know, the more life is a mystery. Incidentally, there are thousands of cases - many recorded - where people have been conscious and aware with vision and hearing (though often thought reading rather than hearing speech )whilst outside of the body. I know several people myself whose word I have no reason to doubt. It's just another aspect of life we don't understand but materialists frantically reduce this one as quickly as they can. Of course there's a material aspect to anything human but - hey - you know - words words words. - I'm starting to bore myself! All the best.
Josephine - Materialism
Antony Grayling seems to be describing not Christianity but Manichaeism. A Religion that believes that God became incarnate could never hold that matter was bad. In the Christian tradition, life has become unbalanced because of a 'fall', and the redeemed perfect life, including the practice of asceticism, is precisely the attempt to re-set the balance and identify with the Man, Jesus. This recognition of the essential goodness of matter is at the heart of the central belief of Christianity viz: the Resurrection. I think the critique of the Reformation was very simplistic too - but I'll leave that!
David Derrington - What is matter?
"Quart into a thimble" said Melvyn as a throwaway at the end. Can a duck swim??Enlightening the excellent contributions were, on materialism in antiquity and the C17-8, without some C19 reference (Melvyn did note the omission of Marx) or the C20 (mention of Quantum Mechanics) they amount to little more than history.Diderot and d'Holbach knew what matter was, and were confident that their ideas were thoroughly scientific. From what I understand of Quantum Mechanics, not many scientists at the cutting edge of particle physics are very sure of just what matter is - without this perspective, any evaluation of materialist philosophy has to be severely limited.How about a programme on "Spirituality and Particle Physics" with John Polkinghorne as one of the guests, to develop a proper and up to date debate on materialism?
Martin Flatman Materialism
I really enjoy your programmes but there were some errors this week. It is certainly true that some Christians have been dualists, but the idea that matter is bad is not and never has been Church teaching. It is why Genesis saysa that God made everything and it was good, and why the ancient Creeds make a point of stressing that God made heaven AND earth, all things VISIBLE and invisible. Melvyn has got the Arians wrong too. They believed that Jesus was neither God nor man but something im-between. The Christian belief that Jesus is both God and man reinforces the fact that material flesh is basically good, or God would not have become flesh.
Deepak - Materialism
When, for instance, I hear the voice of a R4 presenter (never having seen the image), my mind forms a 'person image' concomitant to the voice in my mind. Next time I hear the voice I recognise it as the same 'image'. For this abstraction no material interchange transpired and yet a phenomenological event is permanently established. The Universe, even before the appearance of any material atoms had to have been conceived as a colossal 'IDEA' that was, I guess, nothing but a pool of incredible 'Energy'. Its amazing the depth of abstract thinking that the mind is capable of. In our mind's eye we observe the unobservable.
Susan Rae - Materialism
Absolutely brilliant programme - BUT - this could have constituted a series of programmes there was so much more to cover.
Paul emergence
Disproving spirituality by exaiming atoms is like saying there are no steamshovels (backhoes) because none are dug up in open pit irom mines.
Neil Ferguson -A C Grayling's Grotesque Caricature
I was amazed at both A.C Grayling's caricature of the thought of the 'Christian era' and the fact that none of the other panelists challenged him on it. Far from being opposed or disdainful of the body, mainstream Christianity has always insisted on the sanctity of the material world as it is ultimately created by God. Perhaps it might be better if prof. grayling stuck to his own subject, or perhaps if he did some proper reading on the 'Christian era' and the body. Peter Brown's 'The Body and Society' or Caroline Walker Bynum's 'Fragmentation and Redemption' would be good places for him to start. I'm also surprised that Mr Bragg, who knows about this period, didn't challenge him. Fair enough if people want to challenge Christianity, but they ought to do it from an informed position.
Christopher Snow SY23 INB 01970 623 137
ConsciousnessFishes, birds and other animals all have the same internal organs and functions as we do, including a brain, so their only difference from us is that they have not developed a sophisticated verbal communication system and control of their fore limbs which seems to be associated with adapting to standing on our hind legs,leaving our hands available to cling onto tree branches with a simple progression to using our hands to make things. So it follows that most animals have consciousness because they have all the same senses and bodily functions as we do. Animals must have memory because and can learn because they are no different from a human baby before it learns to talk. All learning involves memory, including bodily movement and general living requirements such as eating, seeing. Consciousness is partly the accumulation of all these memories and could be thought of as the accumalation of memory used in conjunction with sensory input at a particular instant. So for example if I want to pick up something I resort to memory for the procedures (I learnt when I was about 2 years old) I need to apply to various parts of my body to achieve this. As far as I am concerned a computer explains a lot about the brain, because it is based on the simple mechanism of an electronic switch which explains how it could easily evolve and yet when you look at what a modern computer can do it is hard to believe that it is just lots of switches. The point about this is that it demonstrates how the brain which appears to be a very complicated mechanism is based on a similar simple basic mechanism except it is bio chemical/electonic rather than just electronic. The only question that remains is will we reach a point at which we can say a computer has consciousness and what will be the step which takes computer design through the consciousness barrier. This is the question that has been raised by science a long time ago.
Today's Programme
Dear Melvyn Bragg, 24 April.You can’t just leave us in mid-air on materialism – as you did this morning!I’d been waiting for a satisfactory explanation of ‘dialectic materialism’ – which I’ve never been able to understand – and your programme came tantalisingly close to providing one. An account of Kant’s work, towards the end to the programme, gave an inkling of what this could be, though soon afterwards the programme ended!Please reconstitute your ‘materialism’ team at the earliest opportunity – and continue where you left off!Meanwhile, thanks for your efforts so far - in fact so far so good.Yours sincerely,Richard Phillips.
mark knight/materialism
Anthony O'Hear was somewhat quick in his dismissal of Kant's account of our place in the world. Kant's genius was to refute (sic) any possibility of our having knowledge of that which transcends all our possible experience (thus putting a damper on much of the metaphysics which had gone before). His account of the limitations of our cognitive capacity established that it is more likely than not, that we can experience all that lies in the external world. He thus established the possibility (in fact, the probability) of things which could not be accounted for in physical terms. A notion which does not find much favour today.
Brian Eggins on 'Materialism'
Are materialists and hence atheists ‘narrow minded’? They are certainly not ‘free thinkers’. One should be open to all possibilities in this life, not just restrict our thoughts to one dimension of existence. There are (at least) three dimensions to consider: the physical (material), the emotional and the spiritual. For most people the emotional response to our surroundings, to life and especially to other people, is far more significant than the purely material.Is there a spiritual dimension? There is a great deal of evidence that there is. However it is not easily subject to strict scientific investigation, but often depends on anecdotal descriptions of people’s experiences. We rely all the time on such factors, especially in courts of law, which depend largely on the verbal evidence of witnesses, aided by forensic evidence, though it can sometimes be wrong or at least misleading.The response of the jury is very much an emotional response to his evidence and to the, often emotional, interpretation by the barristers. There are attempts to explain emotions in terms of the operation of the brain, which I find fascinating but they are so far very incomplete. Interpretation of life involves all three dimensions which interact with each other.Love is the highest factor in a good life. It obviously involves the emotions and can be expressed through material effects. However, perfect love can only be found through the spiritual dimension. For me that means through God as revealed in Jesus Christ. To deny God as a presupposition is just as narrow minded as the views of some fundamentalist ‘believers’. Keats said that 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know Aesthetic experiences are a wonderful contribution to life, but people who devote everything to beauty are equally narrow minded. We must be open to the evidence for all kinds of truth. Scientific truth is just one kind. My career was in science – chemistry and biochemistry mainly –but I have always accepted that the wonders of creation must be due to a higher power. The likelihood that everything occurred in some random fashion is just not credible, nor is it statistically conceivable.The words of a hymn express my feelings well:For the beauty of the earth, For the glory of the skies,For the love which from our birthOver and around us lies. Gracious God to thee we raise This sacrifice of praise.
John Clements - Materialism
As the human Brian is the most coplicated thing known it is highly likely there are large elements of the brain we know nothing of. It may well be that religion or some form of spiritual experience is the best or only way we can access these un known unconscious areas and it is this that is what we call spiritual when in fact it is just unknown materialism as yet not able to be measured.
Per-Arne Öberg, materialism
The concluding remark was liberating and strongly appealing. It said that however detailed our picture of our nervous system becomes, we will always live in accordance with an 'as if' strategy. In other words, even if determinism can be proved in a scientific/philosophical way - and I think determinism has a strong case - I think I will always feel AS IF I have a free will. It's part of my being human to feel responsible for my actions rather than having someone excusing them on the grounds that I did not have a choice.
Bernard van Lierop Consciousness
Anthony O'Hear said at one point that consciousness presented a problem for materialists because it was an isolated phenomenon in the universe. Did he mean consciousness is unique to human beings, because this is not congruent with Darwinian continuity between nature and ourselves. Darwin detected mind in the Earthworm in his (1881) "Formation of Vegetable Mould through the action of Worms etc" p. 24. If feelings and some level of consciousness pervade the animal kingdom, it it cannot be described as a rare or isolated phenomenon.
Neil Catto - Surely a man just created and being d
The body can live without the mind (as long as it is fed with essential nutrients) but the brain/mind cannot live without the body – if one assumes the difference between brain and body is the difference between area fed by blood and areas fed by cerebral spinal fluid.Maslow – you cannot progress up the hierarchical pyramid to thought until the basic physiological needs have been fulfilledThe physiological level of Maslow’s hierarchy can be defined for an absolute need of air, heat, light and water and balance for homeostasis. Our hypothalamus controls homeostasis of our autonomic system in reaction to the external influence of air, heat light and water - weather.Good neural flow across the blood-brain barrier via the five circumventricular organs provides consciousness, awareness of actions, thought and memory storage. Poor neural flow creates subconsciousness, not fully aware of actions, thought and memory. How ever certain triggers can activate thought and memory. No neural flow across the barrier – no awareness of actions, no thought and no memory.Only certain molecules cross over the blood-brain barrier. When L-tryptophan crosses the barrier it can synthesise either serotonin or melatonin in our cerebral cortex. This affects how we feel, when serotonin levels are high we feel happy and vibrant and when melatonin is high we feel sad and miserable.Every human action, thought and memory is controlled by the weather (their surrounding environment)
Nan Materialism
I was tantalised by Caroline Warman's parting words that she had wanted to talk about Philip Pullman in relation to this subject. Is there some way in which we could find out what she might have said?
Tony Brooke: Materialism
Fascinating stuff. Most of us spend our lives negotiating our survival through the material world with only a vague awareness that it only exists in the mind. But what mind? When does survival turn to philosophy and philosophy become religion. If thou and me are parts of the same material world then are we not products of the same mind?
Richard........ Sensory input and self-awarenes
The five-sense paradigm is misleading, as we seem to have at least two 'senses' that are not affected by what we think to be 'external', namely an awareness of where the limbs are in relation to each other, and equilibrium (i.e. balance). This would seem to suggest that a person can be self-aware without sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell. Vilyanur Ramachandran said that this capacity for self-awareness is the 'holy grail' of neuroscience, and I would suggest that there is good reason to think that this is seperate from sensory 'input' as conceived of in the five senses.
|
|
