[Don Salmon]

I’ll try to respond to your comments in brackets:

• • You question whether a scientific experiment can demonstrate the reality of the physical? Do you have an example of a scientific experiment which does not presuppose that reality? [IF YOU CAN’T SAY WHAT “PHYSICAL” MEANS, TO PRESUPPOSE IT HAS NO MEANING. WHAT DOES “PHYSICAL” MEAN? I’VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE COME CLOSE TO DEFINING IT WHEN IT REFERS TO AN ONTOLOGICAL OR FUNDAMENTAL REALITY? AND WHEN YOU SAY “PRESUPPOSE THE REALITY OF THE PHYSICAL” YOUR EITHER CONSCIOUSLY OR IMPLICITLY REFRRING TO AN ONTOLOGICAL STUFF. OF COURSE IF YOU JUST MEAN THE ORDINARY DICTIONARY DEFINITION, THE HARD STUFF YOU EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU SLAP A TABLE, OBVIOUSLY THAT’S PHYSICAL AND THAT’S REAL. BUT THAT’S AN EXPERIENCE WITHIN AWARENESS.

    Presupposing the reality of the physical allows us to do science. [IT WOULDN’T MAKE THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE OT THE PRACTICE OF SCIENCE IF YOU PRESUPPOSED THATTHE ONTOLOGICAL REALITY WAS MADE OF LIFE FORCE, MIND FORCE, CONSCIOUSNESS, OR WHATEVER – ALL THAT IS NEEDED IS THE ASUMPTION OF SOMETHING EXTERNAL TO HUMAN EXPERIENCE THAT IS CONSTANT. WHAT IT IS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PRACTICING SCIENCE. That science demonstrates high accuracy in predicting the outcomes of experiments which themselves presuppose the reality of the physical. WHAT A STRANGE ASSUMPTION – IF WE WERE IN A COLLECTIVE DREAM, THE OUTCOMES WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME (there was a scientist ion the late 1800s, I can’t recall his name at the moment, who would set a machine working, then visualize the same machine, measure the friction that occurred in his mind and then measure the friction of the “physical” machine and the measurements were exactly the same]=

    If reality were merely a conscious dream, [WHY ‘MERELY”] and the physical unreal [NOBODY HAS EVER SAID THE “PHYSICAL” IN THE SENSE OF HARD PHYSICAL OBJECTS IS UNREAL; I’M SPEAKING OF “PHYSICAL” AS THE ULTIMATE, FUNDAMENTAL REALITY OF THE UNIERSE, WHICH IS WHAT ALL MATERIALISTS AND PHYSICALISTS MEAN BY IT] the repeatable accuracy of scientific results which presuppose the reality of the physical would be nearly impossible to explain [ONCE AGAIN, YOU ASSUME THAT IF THERE WAS A UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE REPEATABLE ACCURACY. THE OPPOSITE IS ACTUALLY TRUE – IF THE ULTIMATE “PHYSICAL” REALITY IS NON INTELLIGENT AND NON CONSCIUOS, HOW CAN THERE BE LAWS OF NATURE, AND HOW CAN THEY CONTINUE? ALL OF SCIENCE BECOMES AN UTTER INEXPLICABLE MYSTERY UNDER THIS ASSUMPTION . IT ONLY SEEMS EXPLICABLE IF YOU HAVEN’T TAKEN TIME TO EXAMINE THIS BASIC ONTOLOGIAL ASSUMPTION ABOUT PHYSICALISTY. After all, when we dream, everything in the our dreams is in flux, without the reliable consistency we find in the physical world. Clearly, the physical world is more than a dream. [THE DREAM WAS ONLY AN EXAMPLE TO HELP YOU GET A DIFFERENT SENSE OF THINGS. BUT ALSO, CLEARLY, YOU’RE USING YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE OF DREAMING IN TEH ASSUMPTION ALL DREAMS ARE LIKE THAT. BUT IT’S POSIBLE TO HAVE A COHERENT DREAM LIFE, WITH THE SAME STORY CONTINUING NIGHT AFTER NIGHT. IN FACT, IT’S BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN – NOT THAT SCIENCE IS NEEDED HERE ] THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE WHEN AND HOW AND WHERE YOU’LL DREAM, YOU CAN ENTER THE DREAM FROM WAKING CONSCIOUSLY ,YOU CAN MEET OTHER PEOPLE IN YOUR DREAMS AND UPON WAKING, SHARE THE SAME EXPERIENCES, AND YOU CAN GAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WORLD, FROM PLACES YOU’VE NEVER BVEEN IN WAKING, IN DREAMS]

    That science works so well as it does in so many areas, given that it starts by presupposing the reality of the physical, means that every useful result of science is evidence towards proving the reality of the physical. YOU’RE REALLY SAYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN FACT. THERE’S NOTHING ABOUT THE ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF “PHYSICAL” -= WHICH IS REALLIYI NOTHING BUT MEASUREMENTS – THAT GIVES US EVEN THE REMOTEST CLUE AS TO WHY THINGS REPEAT IN PATTERNS. IT WOULD IN FACT BE IMPOSSIBLE, IF THE WORLD WAS AS MATEIRALISTS AND PHYSICALISTS CLAIM, FOR THERE TO BE ANYTHING BUT CHAOS. ORDER ITSELF IS CLEARLY A REFELCTION OF CONSCIOUSENSS, AND IT IS FAR MORE LOGICAL TO ASSUME A UNIVERSAL WORLD OF CONSCIOUSNESS THAN ONE OF ‘MEASUREMENTS” – IF THAT EVEN MAKES SENSE. This does not show there’s nothing in reality beyond the physical, nor that entities with a physical aspect may also have a non-physical aspect, as in dual-aspect monist theories. AS LONG AS YOU HAVEN’T DEFINED PHYSICAL THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

    But to deny the reality of the physical is to deny the very possibility of science. Yet, we have science. McGilchrist’s books have more pages devoted to science than to more RH claims which point beyond it. YOU’RE ASSUMING THAT HIS PAGES DEVOTED TO SCIENCE IN ANY WAY PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF, MUCH LESS PROOF OF, THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING THAT STANDS ALONE AND IS COMPETELY NONCONSCIOUS AND ON ITNELLIGENT! I very much share his conviction that those RH claims are “substantial.” Yet, he also states repeatedly that the LH does real and valuable work, including especially large parts of science. His goal for us would seem to be to bring the LH back into harmony with the RH’s larger perspective, not to exile the LH, nor science, nor science’s appreciation of physicality. [THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC “APPRECIATION” OF PHYSICALITY IN THE ONTOLOGICAL SENSE SINCE NOBODY HAS DEFINED WHAT THAT MEANS AND UNTIL THEY DO SO, IT’S IMPOSSOIBLE TO EVEN CONCEIVE OF HOW SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY NO MORE THAN A COLLECTION OF MEASUREMENTS COULD EXIST ON ITS OWN