X-Message-Number: 8239 Date: Fri, 23 May 97 12:30:24 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Science and Religion From "Perry E. Metzger" <> >The "day-person hypothesis" is just such a quasi-religious belief >system. Sure, whether you believe it changes your behavior -- but do >you have any reason to declare this a non-religious question? If I understand you right, "religious" questions are those that deal with untestable hypotheses, while "scientific" questions deal with what is testable through experiment, etc. If this is the terminology you want to use, so be it, and I will not "declare this a non-religious question." (I might use "philosophical" or "purely philosophical" in place of "religious" but you are entitled to your preferences.) At least I think you agree that "religious" questions are (sometimes) important ones, and that it makes a difference which stand you take on some hypotheses that are not testable. A further thought on these is that often the reason they are not testable is that they involve a confusion or imprecision of definitions. (This point has come up in your argument with Thomas Donaldson over consciousness.) For example, with the day-person concept we are not given a precise enough definition of "person" to settle the question experimentally. Often the reason for such imprecision is not that "there is so much we don't know"--though certainly that can be a factor too--but "there is so much we don't agree to." In any case I have to side with what seems to be Thomas's position here: We might hope, eventually, to arrive at fully elucidating definitions that most or all will agree to, that will reduce a "religious" question to a purely "scientific" one. But this is not to be expected in the early stages of investigation of a difficult, important phenomenon such as consciousness (and we are still in the early stages here) but only later, when our understanding --and maturity--are up to it. Meanwhile, though, we might *individually* strive for maturity and understanding that are beyond that of others who we think "ought to know better." On that basis, I continue to side with those who think consciousness would reside in a machine, suitably programmed, that does nothing at the low level but crunch bits. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8239