mckeeman@wivax.UUCP (06/28/84)
The success of science in explaining "things" leads many to
the position that science explains all. Perhaps. But it
is not a productive approach, any more than attempting to
explain the operation of unix in terms of the quantum
states of the constituent parts of its underlying hardware.
It makes little sense to go on with life, for instance,
without considering how we interact with our fellows on
this planet. There are no 3-digit accurate solutions to
equations in this space; the best we can do is work on
commonly accepted concepts like good and evil. If "mind"
as a concept helps us live together, then it exists.
"Mind" may exist only in the mind, but that is OK.
Science does not stand apart from the other conceptual
models of mankind. Our observations are filtered through
the limitations of physics (quantum, relativistic, and so
on), through the limitations of our senses, through the
limitations of our brain, through the limitations of our
knowledge, through the limitations of our self-interest,
and most importantly, through the limitations of our
ability to communicate -- the electronic whiffle you are
reading for example. To stand on an article of faith that
there are no pitfalls in all of this machinery, and thus
science is sacrosanct, only detracts from what science does
have to offer.
/s/ Bill McKeeman.Wang-Inst at CSNet-Relay
...decvax!wivax!mckeeman
Wang Institute of Graduate Studies, Tyngsboro, MA 01879