Amos, For consideration without implications.

You've argued in the past that the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes you gave. I still question whether these are mutually exclusive to such a degree that it is truly "either..or". Or that the "material law" as characterized isn't more of a middle ground.

To accept what you categorize as the "material law" when it is, essentially, convenient, (when it reenforces what I want to believe) but not when it doesn't support what I want to believe, seems to be in the "Knowing" mode. That is, I'll accept the material laws for this but not for that, the criteria being...what?. Each mode would seem to have an internal logic with the "Knowing" not having any real criteria for what is known, it would embrace the "material law" construct when necessary. Conversely, accepting the material law as an absolute in the old reductionist/predictability sense seems in the same mode.

Why do material causes yielding, essentially, spiritual events (such as opinion, will, and so on) cause such a problem? I would argue they are a problem only if predictability is grafted to the material causes model. (And I'm not sure "material" is exactly the right word when you think about quantum states and superstring). I think its amazing bordering on the astounding that a jumble of nerves and neural nets and experiences and hormones and interactions and butterflies flapping their wings in Brazil, can produce the remarkable outcomes and diversity it does. If chaos theory holds at that level, such outcomes as intent, will and the rest will remain blessedly unpredictable as to specifics, but understandable as to genesis.

Reformulating your models, the "Knowing" and the "Material- Predictable" and combinations of the two are not medians and extremes but different words for the same thing. The other extreme, if you will, would seem to be a combination of any the following: data/experimental based, logically based, or a combination of the two.

It would seem that the first complex requires that there either has to be an explanation/acceptance or a rejection of all things, material, spiritual or psychic, (or a rejection because it doesn't fit the pattern of materialism/predictability and is therefore impossible): The second would seem to allow for, both inherently and philosophically, the unknown and the unknowable.

To tie it back (albeit loosely) to the thread, is there in some people a need (caused by all those neural nets and experiences and hormones and interactions, though outcomes are not necessarily predictable) to have a unified world view that either embraces or rejects the unknown as a necessity?. Which came first, the psychic experience or the need for same to explain something.

Regards John