WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA (11/08/83)
agory.
These two paradigms are the basis of the argument of
Science versus Religion, and are not resolvable EITHER WAY. The
reductionist model, based on the philosophy of Parminides and
others, assumes a constant, unchanging universe which we discover
through observation. Such a universe is, by definition,
repeatable and totally predictable: the concept that we could
know the total future if we knew the position and velocity of all
particles derives from this. The success of Science at
predicting the future is used as an argument for this paradigm.
The miraculous model assumes the reality of change, as
put forth by Heraclitus and others. It allows reality to be
changed by outside forces, which may or may not be knowable
and/or predictable. Changes caused by outside forces are, by
definition, singular events not caused by the normal chains of
causality. Our personal consciousness and (by extension,
perhaps) the existance of life in the universe are singular
events (as far as we know), and the basic axioms of any
reductionist model of the universe are, by definition,
unexplainable because they must come from outside the system.
The argument of functionalism versus dualism is not
resolvable in a final sense, but there are some working rules we
can use after considering both paradigms. Any definition of
intellegence, consciousness (as opposed to Consciousness), etc.
has to be based on the reductionist model: it is the only way we
can explain things in such a manner that we can predict results
and prove theories. On the other hand, the concept that all
sources of consciousness are mechanical is a religious position: a
catagorical assumption about reality. It was not that long ago
that science said that stones do not fall from the sky; all
it would take to make UFOs accepted as fact would be for one to
land and set up shop as a merchant dealing in rugs and spices
from Aldebaran and Vega.