for some reason..sterio-types
suggests a dueality

Endless War..and the “Pictures in Our Heads”
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/endless-war-and-the-pictures-in-our-heads/72059/

Over ninety years ago..political analyst Walter Lippmann
noted how the masses//rely on independent conjectures–“the pictures in our heads,”..or what he termed “stereotypes”–to make sense of the world.

“The stereotype,” Edward Bernays..similarly observed,
“is the basis of..a large part of the work..of the public relations counsel.”

<<..tendency for possessing..a “Manichean” worldview—
one where social..and political phenomena..are typically perceived as binary opposites..>>

<<..good-evil, sacred-satanic, right/wrong..
realimagined..relitive irrelitive..and so on.[2]

<<..Such a belief system is anticipated..and encouraged
by the carefully-crafted propaganda and disinformation..that pervades government pronouncements..and corporate news reportage and commentary on both foreign..and domestic affairs>>

lecturers/hero/stars etc

its all programed..into us
[whether from child hood..or via an idol
[or authority figure..or peer pressure..or just a point..we cant refute....

its done via stereo di-vision..dire-version
lor lack of..falsifiable fact?

.

Dear David,

.

« I think the analogy of languages to a tree with branches and roots is faulty. Languages stem from one another, but they also interact with one another … The tree model seems appropriate only in cases where branches are isolated from one another.”

.

Yes, thanks, David. I fully endorse that. My reference to roots compared to branches was simply to illustrate a point I was making to George that while the latter develop from the former, they do not duplicate them. Their nature and structure may be different (e.g., absence of a corresponding noun for a particular meaning of a verb - which is what George was looking for). Their scope and application may be different, also.

My evocation of roots and branches was purely symbolical. I specifically employed the expression “Latin is to be found among the roots …” in order to avoid suggesting that the only roots were Latin.

But you are right: it is difficult to evoke roots and branches without evoking the image of a tree, the roots and branches leading to and emanating from a common trunk.

As I place my remarks in a symbolical context, allow me to take a step further and imagine a world of fantasy in which the symbolical “tree” in question has, as you rightly point out, “multicultural roots” and “multicultural branches” and, if it so pleases our fancy, why not a “multicultural trunk” also ? In fact, we could have a whole forest like that which is, in fact, probably what we have.

Should be really nice and colourful in the autumn - perhaps even all the year round.

.

Dear david f,

>>How has your belief in God affected your science? <<

I could quote from the article:

“A contemporary Christian scientist’s acceptance of divine acts of both kinds - whether on their face value, or suitably interpreted - does not have any effect on his/her scientific investigation and conclusions. This is known as methodological naturalism, which is not exactly the same as Randall’s “simply not care”. Laplace’s famous remark to Napoleon about not needing the “God hypothesis” to explain the movement of planets is today self-evident to any student of Newtonian mechanics, theist or atheist.”

Something similar with “my science”. Belief in Something (or Someone) beyond the reach of science by its very definition cannot interfere with what “science can see”. In other words, my METHODOLOGICAL naturalism/materialism dos not imply METAPHYSICAL naturalism/materialism. The problem arises when this belief includes interaction of this God with physical reality (“divine action”) that is within the reach of science, which my article was actually trying to address. What I was suggesting was, that this meeting of the "natural" with the "supernatural" was along the inexplained (and perhaps inexplicable) phenomenon of human consciousness.

So my believing in God does not affect my understanding of science, it is rather the other way around.

[In addition to Einstein’s well known “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” one has also Jon Paul II’s "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." You might agree with at least one half of this.]

>>I think the analogy of languages to a tree with branches and roots is faulty.<<

You are right, mathematically speaking languages can be modeled as nodes of a graph (mathematical structures used to model pairwise relations between objects - Paul Erdoes' home territory), of which tree (connected graph without simple cycles) is only a very special case.

.

Dear George,

.

« What I was suggesting was, that this meeting of the "natural" with the "supernatural" was along the inexplained (and perhaps inexplicable) phenomenon of human consciousness.”
.

This statement presumes the existence of the supernatural.

In the absence of proof of the existence of the so-called “supernatural”, is it not logic for a scientific mind to presume that “the “unexplained (and perhaps inexplicable) phenomenon of human consciousness” is due to natural causes ?

If not, shouldn’t this be interpreted as an incursion of belief in God (the supernatural) into science (the scientific method - recourse to belief as an alternative to science ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the challenge.

>>This statement presumes the existence of the supernatural.<<

Yes, it does, provided we can agree on what existence means, in particular that it is not restricted to reality that science has access to (abbreviated to “natural” in quotation marks).

>>In the absence of proof of the existence of the so-called “supernatural”<<

As I said many times, I do not understand what you mean by proof (or evidence) of the existence of the “supernatural” e.g. God ? Can you suggest something, which would not imply that what it would prove the existence of would necessarily be something science can investigate, hence not "supernatural" or even God?

>> is it not logic for a scientific mind to presume that “the “unexplained (and perhaps inexplicable) phenomenon of human consciousness” is due to natural causes ?<<

Yes, but only a scientist with a naturalist/materialist world view MUST presume that this is all, i.e. that "natural casues" explain everything about consciousness.

>> If not, shouldn’t this be interpreted as an incursion of belief in God (the supernatural) into science (the scientific method - recourse to belief as an alternative to science ?<<

Again, I was assuming the “existence” of God (that also david f assumed I was believing in), hence also that consciousness was a phenomenon that was not reducible to physical reality. It is no more an "incursion" into science than when a believer who is ill prays asking God to heal him/her (again consciousness involved) AFTER having seen a doctor and undergone all necessary treatment.

What I was starting from is the fact, that as yet science has not found an explanation of consciousness, like it found e.g. an explanation for the movement of planets or the great variety of species. Science will probably find AN explanation of consciousness but I doubt it will be as satisfactory for EVERYBODY as in the two above cases.

(ctd)

(ctd)

This, of course is possible and would reduce my assumption to another “god of the gaps” (like Kepler’s assumption that angels keep the planets in their orbits). My doubts are based on the essential difference between the case of consciousness and the other two cases mentioned above, because, roughly speaking, in this case it is the consciousness that is seeking an explanation of itself, something like in the story about baron Münchhausen, who escaped from a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair.

Nevertheless, even in this, in my opinion unlikely case, it would be just like when Newton removed the need of angels to hold the planets, but still kept his belief in God. So also a neuroscientist (or quantum physicist or whoever) who will find a “scientific explanation” of consciousness will probably not convince EVERYBODY - I mean all scientists - to accept it as evidence of the reducibility of consciousness to its physical carrier, and hence abandon their belief in God.