Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on June 24, 2021, 07:47:13 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an article examining whether the universe is conscious. Scientists like Johannes Kleiner are trying to answer that.
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
***********
"Consciousness — or better, conscious experience — is obviously a part of reality," said Johannes Kleiner, a mathematician and theoretical physicist at the Munich Center For Mathematical Philosophy, Germany. "We're all having it but without understanding how it relates to the known physics, our understanding of the universe is incomplete."
With that in mind, Kleiner is hoping math will enable him to precisely define consciousness. Working with colleague Sean Tull, a mathematician at the University of Oxford, U.K., the pair are being driven, to some degree, by a philosophical point of view called panpsychism.
This claims consciousness is inherent in even the tiniest pieces of matter — an idea that suggests the fundamental building blocks of reality have conscious experience. Crucially, it implies consciousness could be found throughout the universe.
"If there is an isolated pair of particles floating around somewhere in space, they will have some rudimentary form of consciousness if they interact in the correct way," said Kleiner.
So according to IIT, the universe is indeed full of consciousness. But does it have implications for the physical part of the universe? The math of the theory says it does not. A physical system will operate independently, whether it has a conscious experience or not.
His and Tull's math version of IIT, on the other hand, is intended to be what could be called a fundamental theory of consciousness. "It tries to weave consciousness into the fundamental fabric of reality, albeit in a very specific way," said Kleiner. And if it's shown that the universe is conscious, what then? What are the consequences?
"There might be moral implications. We tend to treat systems that have conscious experiences different from systems that don't," said Kleiner.
Yet if it is proven that consciousness plays a causal role in the universe, it would have huge consequences for the scientific view of the world, said Kleiner. "It could lead to a scientific revolution on a par with the one initiated by Galileo Galilei," he said.
***********
It would also prove that religions and spiritual philosophies have been right all along!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Well, that's a dog's breakfast of an article. Orch OR and IIT are entirely different (and highly speculative) conjectures about consciousness. If one is true, the other isn't. About the only thing they have in common is that you'd expect some sort of rudimentary consciousness to be present in (relatively) simple systems - although IIT is more restrictive as Phi can actually be zero.
The comment about the universe at the end (and the title) appears to have little to do with either IIT, Orch OR, or what the rest of the article says. Rudimentary consciousness being more common in the universe does not mean that the universe itself (as a whole) is conscious. I can see no why in which either conjecture would lead to that conclusion.
Science journalism at its worst.
-
Well, that's a dog's breakfast of an article. Orch OR and IIT are entirely different (and highly speculative) conjectures about consciousness. If one is true, the other isn't. About the only thing they have in common is that you'd expect some sort of rudimentary consciousness to be present in (relatively) simple systems - although IIT is more restrictive as Phi can actually be zero.
The comment about the universe at the end (and the title) appears to have little to do with either IIT, Orch OR, or what the rest of the article says. Rudimentary consciousness being more common in the universe does not mean that the universe itself (as a whole) is conscious. I can see no why in which either conjecture would lead to that conclusion.
Science journalism at its worst.
Thank you for writing that - I didn't think there would be any need to read the OP or follow any link, so just read your post!
-
Hi everyone,
I know it is difficult (maybe impossible) for people who are used to the old school science and its mechanistic model of the world, to accept or even understand how consciousness could be fundamental....but then, reality is often surprising and even bizarre.
Once consciousness is accepted as fundamental, explaining the order and patterns in life and also explaining such things as evolution and complexity become so much easier. We don't require convoluted and twisted explanations that rely so much on randomness and chance factors.
-
I know it is difficult (maybe impossible) for people who are used to the old school science and its mechanistic model of the world, to accept or even understand how consciousness could be fundamental....but then, reality is often surprising and even bizarre.
Your rather childish habit of referring to real, evidence based science as 'old school' has been noted before. It's far from difficult to understand that consciousness might be fundamental (it's trivially easy, actually), the point being that we currently have nothing but speculation on the subject; no actual evidence.
The two different (and mutually exclusive) conjectures in the article are not impossible, it's just that we currently have nothing to suggest that they are probable. They remain entirely speculative. And, as I noted before, if either one turns out to be correct, the other is wrong.
Once consciousness is accepted as fundamental, explaining the order and patterns in life and also explaining such things as evolution and complexity become so much easier. We don't require convoluted and twisted explanations that rely so much on randomness and chance factors.
There is nothing at all 'convoluted or twisted' about the theory evolution. It's essentially very simple. As Richard Dawkins puts it:
"Natural selection is not some desperate last resort of a theory. It is an idea whose plausibility and power hit you between the eyes with stunning force, once you understand it in all its elegant simplicity. Well might T. H. Huxley cry out, ‘How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that!’"
The fact that you refuse to learn the basics, doesn't mean that it's complicated.
What's more, neither of the conjectures in the article would make the slightest difference to evolution. The process of evolution would just have taken advantage of them in order to produce 'concentrations' of consciousness. The conciousness that either speculation would lead to outside of brains would be minimal flickers of awareness, not fully functioning minds. You don't even seem to understand the speculations you refer to.
-
Randomness, which is the basis for the theory of evolution that you profess....does hit us between the eyes...rather painfully.
I know evolution is valid. I have no problem with evolution in itself as long as it is not based on randomness. It becomes far more elegant when we recognize the intelligence (consciousness) behind the process.
-
Randomness, which is the basis for the theory of evolution that you profess....does hit us between the eyes...rather painfully.
And yet again you show your lack of understanding. Natural selection is not random. Random variation supplies novelty and natural selection chooses those new traits that are useful in the context of the environment.
It becomes far more elegant when we recognize the intelligence (consciousness) behind the process.
On the contrary, it becomes more complicated and totally contrived - and there is exactly zero evidence to support the idea.
-
And yet again you show your lack of understanding. Natural selection is not random. Random variation supplies novelty and natural selection chooses those new traits that are useful in the context of the environment.
On the contrary, it becomes more complicated and totally contrived - and there is exactly zero evidence to support the idea.
There you go again.....'natural selection chooses those new traits that are useful...'. Very anthropomorphic...! ::)
Environmental changes are random. So the entire process has to be random.
-
Randomness, which is the basis for the theory of evolution that you profess....does hit us between the eyes...rather painfully.
I know evolution is valid. I have no problem with evolution in itself as long as it is not based on randomness. It becomes far more elegant when we recognize the intelligence (consciousness) behind the process.
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you! Tell me: How do you think two species of for instance a rabbit-like animal, can become two separate species no longer able to interbreed. How long do you think this would take? Why would it happen?
-
There you go again.....'natural selection chooses those new traits that are useful...'. Very anthropomorphic...! ::)
The mechanism via which it does so is very, very simple and requires no intelligence or consciousness. It's virtually a truism. Obviously you are desperate not to understand or accept it (because it might undermine your precious beliefs) but, yet again: those individuals that have traits that aid their survival and reproduction in the context of the environment, by a staggering coincidence (not!), tend to leave more offspring in the next generation than those that lack them. Hence said traits will increase in frequency over generations. Similarly, those traits that hinder survival and reproduction will tend to die out (for equally obvious reasons).
That's it. Simple, elegant, and with incredible explanatory power.
Environmental changes are random. So the entire process has to be random.
What we are actually explaining here is the diversity and complexity of life and each species' suitability to its environment. Even if we add intelligence, it would have to respond to changes in the environment, so by this 'argument' intelligent design would also be random because the environment is random. ::)
-
No. Intelligence gives a direction even if the overall environment is random. Just as we humans react intelligently and with clear intent even though the over all environment (climate change, earthquakes, tsunamis) is largely random. We have however learnt to predict the changes in our environment.
That is Intelligence at work in evolution. Phenotypic changes lead to adaptation. Intelligent responses to the environment lead to phenotypic changes.
-
No. Intelligence gives a direction even if the overall environment is random. Just as we humans react intelligently and with clear intent even though the over all environment (climate change, earthquakes, tsunamis) is largely random. We have however learnt to predict the changes in our environment.
You would still be being pulled around by the environment - just like natural selection. The point is that everything has to survive in its environment and natural selection is not random with respect to the environment because bacically it is the environment.
Populations adapt to their environment over generations and that is explained by random variation and natural selection.
That is Intelligence at work in evolution.
Baseless assertion. There is simply no need for intelligence and you have provided no evidence or reasoning - just your own complete failure to comprehend the actual science.
Phenotypic changes lead to adaptation. Intelligent responses to the environment lead to phenotypic changes.
A phenotype's ability to react its its environment consists of traits that have evolved in the usual way. Your endless foot-stamping doesn't change the evidence.
-
Changes in phenotype to suit the environment shows a responsive intelligence within organisms.....even the simplest ones. This is the process by which an organism adapts to its environment and survives.
This simple fact cannot be denied.
Your contention that something called random variation and Natural Selection has created this complex process within all organisms is neither here nor there. It is just an assertion.
Coming back to the thread....panpsychism (and cosmopsychism) are here to stay. You can't be in denial for long.
-
Coming back to the thread....panpsychism (and cosmopsychism) are here to stay. You can't be in denial for long.
Flat-Earthism is here to stay.
::)
-
Changes in phenotype to suit the environment shows a responsive intelligence within organisms.....even the simplest ones.
No, it doesn't. Evolution by natural selection explains apparently 'designed' or 'intelligent' responses to the environment without any need for actual intelligence.
Your contention that something called random variation and Natural Selection has created this complex process within all organisms is neither here nor there. It is just an assertion.
You seem to be confusing real science with your own attitude. It is you who have offered nothing but baseless assertions.
There is endless evidence for evolution and the mechanisms of random variation and natural selectio. It is directly observable (not least in the current pandemic) and can be simulated on a computer. None of the evidence is secret, it's trivially easy to find if you had any real interest in the truth of the matter.
You are effectively accusing the entire scientific community that studies these subjects of being wrong - and offering nothing but endless assertions to back it up. It's quite comical, actually.
Coming back to the thread....panpsychism (and cosmopsychism) are here to stay. You can't be in denial for long.
More foot-stamping. ::)
-
Science will get there...by and by.
-
You keep questioning the credentials and quality of the reporting whenever something you don't understand is investigated or discussed in science journals.... clutching at straws in other words..! Here is an article in Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/
**********
What if consciousness is not something special that the brain does but is instead a quality inherent to all matter? It is a theory known as “panpsychism,”
In our standard view of things, consciousness exists only in the brains of highly evolved organisms, and hence consciousness exists only in a tiny part of the universe and only in very recent history. According to panpsychism, in contrast, consciousness pervades the universe and is a fundamental feature of it.
Some people use it to mean something quite sophisticated, such as self-awareness or the capacity to reflect on one’s own existence. This is something we might be reluctant to ascribe to many nonhuman animals, never mind fundamental particles. But when I use the word consciousness, I simply mean experience: pleasure, pain, visual or auditory experience, et cetera.
Human beings have a very rich and complex experience; horses less so; mice less so again. As we move to simpler and simpler forms of life, we find simpler and simpler forms of experience. Perhaps, at some point, the light switches off, and consciousness disappears. But it’s at least coherent to suppose that this continuum of consciousness fading while never quite turning off carries on into inorganic matter, with fundamental particles having almost unimaginably simple forms of experience to reflect their incredibly simple nature. That’s what panpsychists believe.
There is a deep mystery in understanding how what we know about ourselves from the inside fits together with what science tells us about matter from the outside.
While the problem is broadly acknowledged, many people think we just need to plug away at our standard methods of investigating the brain, and we’ll eventually crack it. But in my new book, I argue that the problem of consciousness results from the way we designed science at the start of the scientific revolution.
Physics tells us absolutely nothing about what philosophers like to call the intrinsic nature of matter: what matter is, in and of itself.
So it turns out that there is a huge hole in our scientific story. The proposal of the panpsychist is to put consciousness in that hole. Consciousness, for the panpsychist, is the intrinsic nature of matter.
What this offers us is a beautifully simple, elegant way of integrating consciousness into our scientific worldview, of marrying what we know about ourselves from the inside and what science tells us about matter from the outside.
There is a profound difficulty at the heart of the science of consciousness: consciousness is unobservable. We know that consciousness exists not from observation and experiment but by being conscious.
The moral of the story is that we need both the science and the philosophy to get a theory of consciousness. The science gives us correlations between brain activity and experience. We then have to work out the best philosophical theory that explains those correlations.
I think we can have hope that we will one day have a science of consciousness, but we need to rethink what science is. Panpsychism offers us a way of doing this.
**********
-
Science will get there...by and by.
This is why you're unquestionably being irrational. One of these speculations may turn out to be true and science may show that to be the case. Making up your mind before we have the evidence is nothing but blind faith. Latching on to any and every speculation that you perceive as fitting with what you want to believe, regardless of its basis or whether it contradicts other ideas you've been peddling, makes it desperate blind faith.
-
You keep questioning the credentials and quality of the reporting whenever something you don't understand is investigated or discussed in science journals.... clutching at straws in other words..! Here is an article in Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/
Things I don't understand? That's funny. It appears to be you who lack a basic understanding of many of the speculations you post about - like not grasping that they are mutually exclusive or thinking that ideas like IIT or Orch OR would make the universe conscious. And that's before we get to your basic misunderstanding of evolution and stubborn refusal to learn anything about it. Your endless (and contradictory) posts on the subject of consciousness are the epitome of straw clutching.
Also, space.com (the OP article) is not a science journal and the article you linked to was a complete mess for the reasons I pointed out. The fact is that pop-science sources are often somewhat inaccurate or sensationalised and that article was a particularly egregious example.
Scientific American isn't a science journal either. This article is just a philosopher talking about panpsychism. What's your point? Everybody knows that some philosophers believe panpsychism (everybody who's at all interested in the subject, that is). Many other ideas from philosophy on the subject of consciousness are available.
-
A nice interview with Donald Hoffman on reality and consciousness.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
-
No. Intelligence gives a direction even if the overall environment is random. Just as we humans react intelligently and with clear intent even though the over all environment (climate change, earthquakes, tsunamis) is largely random.
Large scale events such as climate change, earthquakes and tsunami are anything but random - they are quite well established consequences of readily identified precursor events and activities. Within, say, climate change, individual weather events are functionally random, inasmuch as we lack the depth of information and the processing power to accurately predict them to that level, but they are also inevitable consequences of the prior status of the world.
That is Intelligence at work in evolution.
No, that is nothing like evolution, and there is no evidence that there is 'intelligence' at work in evolutionary mechanisms.
Phenotypic changes lead to adaptation.
No, variation leads to adaptation, and adaptation leads to relative increases in replication which, over time, leads to phenotypic changes.
Intelligent responses to the environment lead to phenotypic changes.
This is a possibility, although we've perhaps not had enough time to witness it, but it's an example of evolution, and the intelligence in question (i.e. human intelligence) is itself a function of earlier, apparently unguided, evolution.
O.
-
This is why you're unquestionably being irrational. One of these speculations may turn out to be true and science may show that to be the case. Making up your mind before we have the evidence is nothing but blind faith. Latching on to any and every speculation that you perceive as fitting with what you want to believe, regardless of its basis or whether it contradicts other ideas you've been peddling, makes it desperate blind faith.
Rationality is not everything. It has its uses but is largely microscopic in nature. Not useful for broader, more holistic perspectives of life.
-
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/psychology/consciousness-fundamental-quality-universe-07291.html
Author: Steve Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Leeds Beckett University.
************
There used to be an assumption that consciousness is produced by our brains, and that in order to understand it, we just need to figure out how the brain works. But this assumption raises questions. Apart from the fact that decades of research and theorizing have not shed any significant light on the issue, there are some strange mismatches between consciousness and brain activity.
If you held a human brain in your hand, you would find it to be a soggy clump of gray matter, a bit like putty, weighing about 1.3 kg. How is it possible that this gray soggy stuff can give rise to the richness and depth of your conscious experience? This is known as the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness.
As a result, many eminent philosophers (such as David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel) and scientists like Christof Koch and Tononi have rejected the idea that consciousness is directly produced by brain processes. They have turned to the alternative view that it is actually a fundamental quality of the Universe.
the idea of consciousness as a fundamental quality offers elegant solutions to many problems which are difficult to explain using the standard scientific model.
First, it can explain the relationship between the brain and consciousness. The brain does not produce consciousness, but acts as a kind of receiver which ‘picks up’ the fundamental consciousness that is all around us, and ‘transmits’ it into our own being.
One of the arguments for assuming that the brain produces consciousness is that, if the brain is damaged, consciousness is impaired or altered. However, this doesn’t invalidate the idea that the brain may be a receiver and transmitter of consciousness.
Conventional science also struggles to explain the powerful effect of mental intention and belief on the body (as illustrated by the placebo effect and the pain numbing effects of hypnosis). If the mind is just a byproduct of matter, it should not be able to influence the form and functioning of the body so profoundly.
these effects are comprehensible if we presume that mind is more fundamental than the matter of the body, a more subtle and fuller expression of fundamental consciousness. As a result, it has the capacity to alter the functioning of the body.
I believe the idea of consciousness as a fundamental quality of the Universe has a great deal of weight.
***********
-
Rationality is not everything. It has its uses but is largely microscopic in nature. Not useful for broader, more holistic perspectives of life.
This both tells us a lot about you and is rather funny. If you ditch rationality, you can forget understanding reality. You don't get a "broader, more holistic perspective", you just open the door to literally anything you'd like to believe.
-
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/psychology/consciousness-fundamental-quality-universe-07291.html
Author: Steve Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Leeds Beckett University.
-Yawn-
-
:D :D :D
-
How is it possible that this gray soggy stuff can give rise to the richness and depth of your conscious experience? This is known as the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness.
As a result, many eminent philosophers (such as David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel) and scientists like Christof Koch and Tononi have rejected the idea that consciousness is directly produced by brain processes.
The argument from incredulity, with a Ph.D. attached - evidence, if it was required, that just having a qualification isn't sufficient basis to accept a conclusion.
O.
-
It is questions and doubts like these that lead to breakthroughs and better understanding. If everyone was as cocksure as the old school people on here, we would be stuck with the same old forever.
Its funny (and quite telling) that many of you are scornful of qualified scientists and professors just because they have ideas that are different from yours. ::)
-
Sriram,
It is questions and doubts like these that lead to breakthroughs and better understanding.
Sometimes questions and doubts lead to breakthroughs (which is why science is essentially provisional) and sometimes they lead to dead ends. Your various claims and assertions for example are dead ends because there’s no accompanying means to investigate them. If you don’t think reason-based enquiry isn't up to the job, what other means would you propose?
If everyone was as cocksure as the old school people on here, we would be stuck with the same old forever.
The only “cocksure” person here appears to be you. The reason science deals in theories is precisely that it isn’t cocksure – it’s always open to new information that could change its explanatory models.
Its funny (and quite telling) that many of you are scornful of qualified scientists and professors just because they have ideas that are different from yours.
No-one is “scornful of qualified scientists and professors”. Regardless of someone’s job title, if they commit a fallacy in reasoning (the argument from personal incredulity for example) then a fallacy it is. There is also a penchant for woo merchant such as yourself to cherry pick quotes from academics in entirely unrelated fields who comment on subjects in which they have no qualifications at all.
-
It is questions and doubts like these that lead to breakthroughs and better understanding. If everyone was as cocksure as the old school people on here, we would be stuck with the same old forever.
It is, but the bit in between the idea and the breakthrough - the accumulation of evidence and the rigorous process of hypothesis, testing and rejection and refinement is not an inconsequential thing. You can't simply presume that because someone has a question that therefore the established conceptual framework is fundamentally flawed.
Its funny (and quite telling) that many of you are scornful of qualified scientists and professors just because they have ideas that are different from yours. ::)
As I indicated, it's not that the idea differs from mine, it's that nothing is offered in support of the idea apart from the incredulity of the author - whilst a qualification often merits at least paying attention to the argument being proffered, there is no argument being put forward here, there's just 'well I can't believe it' as though not believing with a Ph.D is somehow more evidentiarily solid than not believing with just a GCSE in PE.
O.
-
It is, but the bit in between the idea and the breakthrough - the accumulation of evidence and the rigorous process of hypothesis, testing and rejection and refinement is not an inconsequential thing. You can't simply presume that because someone has a question that therefore the established conceptual framework is fundamentally flawed.
As I indicated, it's not that the idea differs from mine, it's that nothing is offered in support of the idea apart from the incredulity of the author - whilst a qualification often merits at least paying attention to the argument being proffered, there is no argument being put forward here, there's just 'well I can't believe it' as though not believing with a Ph.D is somehow more evidentiarily solid than not believing with just a GCSE in PE.
O.
That's the way it is going to be, I am afraid. As we cross over from the measurable physical world to the quasi physical aspects of life....we are bound to face such challenges. It's no longer going to be 'bring out the microscope/telescope and lets have a look'.
If Dark Matter and Dark energy and multiverses and strings can be taken seriously....'consciousness existing outside the brain' can definitely be taken seriously.
The problem is that such matters are relegated to the realm of the supernatural and scoffed at as religious beliefs. That is a major obstacle in the way of any meaningful discussion or research.
-
It is questions and doubts like these that lead to breakthroughs and better understanding. If everyone was as cocksure as the old school people on here, we would be stuck with the same old forever.
You can't even assess accurately what's going on here. Nobody (apart from you) is expressing certainly, there is always a possibility that some speculation may be found to be the start of a new understanding.
It's actually your own, rather comical, certainty and desperation to, entirely uncritically, latch on to anything that you think might support your preconceived ideas, that is generally being criticised.
Its funny (and quite telling) that many of you are scornful of qualified scientists and professors just because they have ideas that are different from yours. ::)
This is generally not the case at all. The problem is that the articles you post are a mixed bag. Some are competent enough, others are sensationalised pop-science, and some have obvious problems (like the latest one here).
I actually have Penrose's original (1989) book on what he later called Orch OR (The Emperor's New Mind). I didn't find its central thesis at all convincing (not many people did) but at least he puts forward his case competently. I'm a great admirer of his work in general, he genuinely thinks differently and isn't afraid to disagree with mainstream ideas.
In contrast, you so often speak like you imagine you're thinking independently and are open to new ideas - but that really isn't the case at all. It's obvious that all you want is for reality to confirm to your fixed ideas and will simply ignore any problems with something as long as it's telling you what you want to hear. You are far more guilty of being cocksure and stuck in your own way of thinking than most others here seem to be.
-
Sriram,
That's the way it is going to be, I am afraid. As we cross over from the measurable physical world to the quasi physical aspects of life....we are bound to face such challenges. It's no longer going to be 'bring out the microscope/telescope and lets have a look'.
Except of course you’ve no means to demonstrate the existence of these supposed “quasi physical aspects of life” at all, let alone that we’ll “cross over” to them. So far the only evidence we have points to the universe being “physical” (ie, material). You can speculate about a non-physical as much as you like, but that’s all you’ll have – speculations.
If Dark Matter and Dark energy and multiverses and strings can be taken seriously....'consciousness existing outside the brain' can definitely be taken seriously.
That’s another failure in reasoning called the non sequitur. How on earth did you just jump from the former to the latter? “If Dark Matter and Dark energy and multiverses and strings can be taken seriously” can tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri also be taken seriously then? Why not?
Your mistake here is to assume that the possibility of something unexpected being true somehow says something to other unexpected things being true. It doesn’t.
The problem is that such matters are relegated to the realm of the supernatural and scoffed at as religious beliefs. That is a major obstacle in the way of any meaningful discussion or research.
No, the problem is (as Outy explained) that you have nothing to bridge the gap between speculation and verification.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
-
That's the way it is going to be, I am afraid.
I don't think it is.
As we cross over from the measurable physical world to the quasi physical aspects of life....we are bound to face such challenges.
No, we won't, there won't be a 'crossing over' to somewhere that there's no evidence for the claims, because in such a place there's no confidence in outcomes.
It's no longer going to be 'bring out the microscope/telescope and lets have a look'.
The instruments may changed, but the process won't. At best you'll find new instruments to measure phenomena that we couldn't previously detect, but they'll remain at best hypotheses until you do.
If Dark Matter and Dark energy and multiverses and strings can be taken seriously....'consciousness existing outside the brain' can definitely be taken seriously.
There is evidence for significant portions of the universe not currently being explained - there isn't currently any evidence to suggest that consciousness exists outside of brains.
The problem is that such matters are relegated to the realm of the supernatural and scoffed at as religious beliefs.
I'm not seeing the problem with scoffing at religious beliefs; when you've got something that elevates it above a statement of faith I'll stop scoffing.
That is a major obstacle in the way of any meaningful discussion or research.
How can we have a meaningful discussion about extraordinary claims devoid of evidence.
"Look, dude, consciousness is universal..."
"How do you know?"
"Evidenctalist bias, just take my word for it!"
Discussion over.
O.
-
I don't think it is.
No, we won't, there won't be a 'crossing over' to somewhere that there's no evidence for the claims, because in such a place there's no confidence in outcomes.
The instruments may changed, but the process won't. At best you'll find new instruments to measure phenomena that we couldn't previously detect, but they'll remain at best hypotheses until you do.
There is evidence for significant portions of the universe not currently being explained - there isn't currently any evidence to suggest that consciousness exists outside of brains.
I'm not seeing the problem with scoffing at religious beliefs; when you've got something that elevates it above a statement of faith I'll stop scoffing.
How can we have a meaningful discussion about extraordinary claims devoid of evidence.
"Look, dude, consciousness is universal..."
"How do you know?"
"Evidenctalist bias, just take my word for it!"
Discussion over.
O.
There is plenty of evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain...which is why so much of discussion is going on about it currently among philosophers and scientists. You just can't see it.
Many of you do treat these matters more as 'woo' peddling rather than as genuine matters requiring investigation. That attitude itself can be a major hindrance. The two boxes syndrome.
-
There is plenty of evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain...
Why do you never post any, then? More to the point, if there really were plenty of valid, objective evidence, why isn't it world headlines?
...which is why so much of discussion is going on about it currently among philosophers and scientists.
I've yet to see any of the more serious conjectures cite this as a motivation, largely, I suspect, because such evidence doesn't exist and their ideas wouldn't predict or explain it even if it did. The general motivation is to explain the subjective experience, i.e. why we aren't p-zombies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie).
Conjectures like Orch OR or IIT are not going to turn near death experiences (your favourite non-evidence) into death experiences. They do not lead to the conclusion that anything like a fully functioning mind could exist independent of the brain. This is the problem with being stuck in your ancient superstitious ways of thinking and just latching on to anything that looks (to you) a bit as if it might be something like what you want to be true.
You just can't see it.
"I know I'm right, it must be everybody else!" ::)
-
There is plenty of evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain...which is why so much of discussion is going on about it currently among philosophers and scientists. You just can't see it.
If it can't be seen, in what way is it evidence? If there's all this evidence, why are the articles you cite almost invariably a variation on 'we don't have a definitive explanation for consciousness, therefore it must be woo'.
Many of you do treat these matters more as 'woo' peddling rather than as genuine matters requiring investigation.
Everything is worth investigating, but you're offering nothing to investigate. You propose an intriguing concept, but give it no support whatsoever to lend it any credulity.
That attitude itself can be a major hindrance.
I'd consider skepticism to be a boon.
The two boxes syndrome.
Not a reference I'm familiar with, I'm afraid, and Google is giving me information on hoarding and OCD which I don't think is what you were meaning.
O.
[/quote]
-
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/
:D :D Try it.
-
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-two-boxes-syndrome/
:D :D Try it.
OK, you're trying to make 'fetch' happen...
You've fundamentally misunderstood the boxes. People don't arbitrarily assign stuff into the boxes. You've talked about people putting 'phenomena' into boxes, but the examples in the woo box aren't phenomena. Soul isn't a phenomenon, it's not something demonstrable which requires an explanation; gravity, on the other hand, readily apparent to all and therefore needs an explanation.
There are three boxes: there's the box of unexplained phenomena (dark matter, dark energy), there's the box of phenomena for which we have at least some degree of explanation (gravity, evolution) and then there' s a box for weird ideas that might be feasible but for which we currently have no direct evidence whatsoever (everything from souls to parallel worlds).
These boxes are not of equal value to us; which of the items from the third box we choose to entertain in passing might say something about us, but it's largely superficial until someone starts conflating the boxes by, say, suggesting that we should throw away our current understanding of neurology, biochemistry, psychology and sociology because they've got this idea about souls...
O.
-
OK, you're trying to make 'fetch' happen...
You've fundamentally misunderstood the boxes. People don't arbitrarily assign stuff into the boxes. You've talked about people putting 'phenomena' into boxes, but the examples in the woo box aren't phenomena. Soul isn't a phenomenon, it's not something demonstrable which requires an explanation; gravity, on the other hand, readily apparent to all and therefore needs an explanation.
There are three boxes: there's the box of unexplained phenomena (dark matter, dark energy), there's the box of phenomena for which we have at least some degree of explanation (gravity, evolution) and then there' s a box for weird ideas that might be feasible but for which we currently have no direct evidence whatsoever (everything from souls to parallel worlds).
These boxes are not of equal value to us; which of the items from the third box we choose to entertain in passing might say something about us, but it's largely superficial until someone starts conflating the boxes by, say, suggesting that we should throw away our current understanding of neurology, biochemistry, psychology and sociology because they've got this idea about souls...
O.
Why are you imagining that we should throw away our current understanding of neurology etc. just because Consciousness (or soul) is fundamental? They don't impinge on one another. One is the cause and the other is the mechanism.
Just because a car has a driver does not mean the wheels or pistons don't matter. They do!
-
OK, you're trying to make 'fetch' happen...
You've fundamentally misunderstood the boxes. People don't arbitrarily assign stuff into the boxes. You've talked about people putting 'phenomena' into boxes, but the examples in the woo box aren't phenomena. Soul isn't a phenomenon, it's not something demonstrable which requires an explanation; gravity, on the other hand, readily apparent to all and therefore needs an explanation.
There are three boxes: there's the box of unexplained phenomena (dark matter, dark energy), there's the box of phenomena for which we have at least some degree of explanation (gravity, evolution) and then there' s a box for weird ideas that might be feasible but for which we currently have no direct evidence whatsoever (everything from souls to parallel worlds).
These boxes are not of equal value to us; which of the items from the third box we choose to entertain in passing might say something about us, but it's largely superficial until someone starts conflating the boxes by, say, suggesting that we should throw away our current understanding of neurology, biochemistry, psychology and sociology because they've got this idea about souls...
O.
Acknowledged facts don't require a box. It is the grey areas that I am talking about. Take something like the string or parallel universes. Why are these ideas accepted as scientific ideas worthy of discussion and investigation while the idea of a soul or after-life is dismissed outright even though cases of NDE's are available and consciousness is far from understood? This is the two boxes syndrome. One is 'science' and the other is 'religion'...according to you. Its about the labels.
-
Why are you imagining that we should throw away our current understanding of neurology etc. just because Consciousness (or soul) is fundamental? They don't impinge on one another. One is the cause and the other is the mechanism.
I'm not suggesting it, you're the one talking about intelligence guiding evolution, about forgoing all the established evidence the consciousness derives from brain activity. You're talking about causes and mechanisms, but you're citing assertions - what you're suggesting is neither a cause nor a mechanism, because it's not there - it's the acceptance of notions as valid purely on the strength of 'I like the idea' rather than any evidentiary basis that would undermine our current paradigm.
Just because a car has a driver does not mean the wheels or pistons don't matter. They do!
Yes, but you're suggesting that we accept that God is our co-pilot, and that's a claim of a different order.
O.
-
Acknowledged facts don't require a box. It is the grey areas that I am talking about.
There aren't really any grey areas - there are models for which we have supporting evidence, and models for which we don't.
Take something like the string or parallel universes. Why are these ideas accepted as scientific ideas worthy of discussion and investigation while the idea of a soul or after-life is dismissed outright even though cases of NDE's are available and consciousness is far from understood?
The idea of parallel universes isn't accepted, scientifically, it's at best an hypothesis; at the moment, to the best of my knowledge, there are a few sketchy ideas about how we might be able to find some evidence to support the notion. It's something that might become science in the future, because there's a possibility you could detect it, measure it.
Currently, though, it's in exactly the same box as the idea of a universal consciousness - that I think it's perhaps more likely to be validated or repudiated than the idea of souls says as much about my background as it does about the idea; I can imagine mathematically and computationally modelling the interactions of our universe with a parallel universe more easily than I can imagine doing the same for a soul.
This is the two boxes syndrome. One is 'science' and the other is 'religion'...according to you. Its about the labels.
And that just suggests to me that you don't really understand the science. Even if I presume that your use of 'fact' is the conventional day-to-day understanding of science - which is, technically, always provisional - you are assuming that those of us more mechanistically attuned don't differentiate between conjecture like parallel worlds, phenomena in need of an explanation like dark matter, and well-established scientific models like evolution and gravity. And, more to the point, you think that we put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes; we don't, we just make aesthetic judgements about those.
O.
-
There aren't really any grey areas - there are models for which we have supporting evidence, and models for which we don't.
The idea of parallel universes isn't accepted, scientifically, it's at best an hypothesis; at the moment, to the best of my knowledge, there are a few sketchy ideas about how we might be able to find some evidence to support the notion. It's something that might become science in the future, because there's a possibility you could detect it, measure it.
Currently, though, it's in exactly the same box as the idea of a universal consciousness - that I think it's perhaps more likely to be validated or repudiated than the idea of souls says as much about my background as it does about the idea; I can imagine mathematically and computationally modelling the interactions of our universe with a parallel universe more easily than I can imagine doing the same for a soul.
And that just suggests to me that you don't really understand the science. Even if I presume that your use of 'fact' is the conventional day-to-day understanding of science - which is, technically, always provisional - you are assuming that those of us more mechanistically attuned don't differentiate between conjecture like parallel worlds, phenomena in need of an explanation like dark matter, and well-established scientific models like evolution and gravity. And, more to the point, you think that we put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes; we don't, we just make aesthetic judgements about those.
O.
Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes. One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.
If you took souls and after-life (with the NDE evidence) as seriously as parallel universes, there would be more open and 'scientific' discussions about souls and after-life. They would not be laughed at and dismissed the way adam & eve and the six day creation are.
-
One more interesting article....
https://mindmatters.ai/2020/05/why-is-science-growing-comfortable-with-panpsychism-everything-is-conscious/
************
A recent article at New Scientist treats panpsychism as a serious idea in science.
The question of how matter gives rise to felt experience is one of the most vexing problems we know of. And sure enough, the first fleshed-out mathematical model of consciousness has generated huge debate about whether it can tell us anything sensible. But as mathematicians work to hone and extend their tools for peering deep inside ourselves, they are confronting some eye-popping conclusions.
Not least, what they are uncovering seems to suggest that if we are to achieve a precise description of consciousness, we may have to ditch our intuitions and accept that all kinds of inanimate matter could be conscious – maybe even the universe as a whole. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution,” says Johannes Kleiner, a mathematician at the Munich Centre for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany.
At one time, a science mag’s typical contributors would merely ridicule the conscious universe, convinced that science will shortly explain consciousness away anyhow.
So why the thaw toward panpsychism over the past few years? Possibly, panpsychism offers a way to be a naturalist (nature is all there is) without the absurdities of physicalism (everything in nature must be physical).
But dropping physicalism likely entails some changes. Panpsychists need not be Darwinists, for example. That is, they need not account for human consciousness either as a trait that evolved to help ancestors of humans survive on the savannah or as a byproduct of such a trait. Bernardo Kastrup has argued explicitly, in response to Darwinist Jerry Coyne, that human consciousness cannot be a mere byproduct of human evolution because it cannot even be measured in traditional science terms.
Consciousness could be more like a fact of nature of the sort that doesn’t evolve, in the sense that oxygen and photons don’t evolve.
Panpsychists need not reject evolution in principle. But Darwinism, as commonly expressed, is an outgrowth of physicalism (everything is physical). That is why Darwinian accounts of consciousness are frequently restricted to considerations of what traits helped prehuman ancestors survive.
The integrated information theory assigns a numerical value, “phi,” to the degree of irreducibility. If phi is zero, the system is reducible to its individual parts, but if phi is large, the system is more than just the sum of its parts.
This system explains how consciousness can exist to varying degrees among humans and other animals. The theory incorporates some elements of panpsychism, the philosophy that the mind is not only present in humans, but in all things.
One attraction of panpsychism in general is that, if the conundrum of consciousness is resolved by ascribing consciousness to everything, the mystery is subsumed into the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, originally asked by calculus pioneer Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716). If to exist is to be conscious to some degree, the two questions can’t easily be disentangled. And Leibniz’s question is treated as a valid one in science.
************
-
Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes.
Why is it that you are so averse to ever learning anything? How many more times? "Parallel worlds" is not a thing. There are many different ideas for them, some of which are more credible than others. You arrive at one, for example, just by assuming space is infinite. Since space appears to be 'flat', as far as we are able to tell, and an infinite volume is the simplest topology associated with flat space, that is not a massive leap.
One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.
The difference is in how much evidence or other reasoning (like the above for infinite space) there is. There is simply nothing credible to support the idea of souls and some good reasons to reject it.
-
Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes. One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.
I cannot stress this enough - and I appreciate I'm not necessarily speaking for everyone on the 'rational' side of this debate - but parallel worlds is not science. Not yet, perhaps not ever, it's a conjecture which can be wrapped in scientific language; it doesn't suffer from centuries of cultural association with religion like the idea of 'souls' does, but that doesn't make it any more scientific.
If you took souls and after-life (with the NDE evidence) as seriously as parallel universes, there would be more open and 'scientific' discussions about souls and after-life.
Except that there are explanations for much of NDE which is entirely in keeping with the current, evidenced explanation of brain activity which doesn't require introducing unevidenced ideas like souls, and therefore avoiding all the knock-on effects of introducing souls like trying to explain where they are having any noticeable effects.
They would not be laughed at and dismissed the way adam & eve and the six day creation are.
And on the same basis; not just that they have no evidence supporting them, but that accepting the notion would contradict well-established explanatory mechanisms we currently have for other activity. It's not just that there's no evidence, but that they also contradict the current evidence.
Until, and unless, someone comes up with better evidence for NDE, souls, spirits or parallel worlds, they all stay in the box marked 'Must try harder'.
O.
-
Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes. One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.
If you took souls and after-life (with the NDE evidence) as seriously as parallel universes, there would be more open and 'scientific' discussions about souls and after-life. They would not be laughed at and dismissed the way adam & eve and the six day creation are.
Parallel universes and souls are both hypotheses. I don't think there is evidence for either of them being real (depending on your definition of "soul"). I think one has potentially more explanatory power than the other, but neither has evidence AFAIK.
-
Of course you do put parallel worlds and souls in different boxes. One is science and the other is a delusional religious belief. That makes all the difference in how you view them and how seriously you take them.
If you took souls and after-life (with the NDE evidence) as seriously as parallel universes, there would be more open and 'scientific' discussions about souls and after-life. They would not be laughed at and dismissed the way adam & eve and the six day creation are.
HHow do you have a 'scientific discussion' on souls and after-life when there is no evidence whatever that either exists. What can we measure? What mathematical equations can we use? how do we find the characteristics of something if we don't know that it exists? I don't laugh at or dismiss any such supositions, I simply find them wanting in so may ways.
It's no good comparing them with dark matter, dark energy or parallel universes as both dark matter and dark energy, by dint of objective measurement, suggest that something exists, and we simply use these names as place holders for that something. As regards parallel universes, as far as I know, these are simply scientific conjectures which try to explain such things as the nature of quantum mechanics.
So far, on the subject of souls and an after-life, there has been zero progress over the many, many centuries that humankind has embraced these ideas. It might be an idea for the supporters of such concepts to rely less on assertions and start producing solid, objective evidence for their existence. For me, until I see such evidence, I see no reason to accept them in any way.
-
I cannot stress this enough - and I appreciate I'm not necessarily speaking for everyone on the 'rational' side of this debate - but parallel worlds is not science. Not yet, perhaps not ever, it's a conjecture which can be wrapped in scientific language; it doesn't suffer from centuries of cultural association with religion like the idea of 'souls' does, but that doesn't make it any more scientific.
Except that there are explanations for much of NDE which is entirely in keeping with the current, evidenced explanation of brain activity which doesn't require introducing unevidenced ideas like souls, and therefore avoiding all the knock-on effects of introducing souls like trying to explain where they are having any noticeable effects.
And on the same basis; not just that they have no evidence supporting them, but that accepting the notion would contradict well-established explanatory mechanisms we currently have for other activity. It's not just that there's no evidence, but that they also contradict the current evidence.
Until, and unless, someone comes up with better evidence for NDE, souls, spirits or parallel worlds, they all stay in the box marked 'Must try harder'.
O.
There are many other ideas in science such as strings, multiple dimensions, time travel etc. which are also just conjecture. Sure...there is lot of maths on pieces of paper but maths is not everything. But these ideas are considered as 'science' and discussed in seminars and articles are written about them.
But when it comes to the idea of a soul or after-life (for example), which are so fundamental, it all becomes very funny and a 'you can't be serious' view is taken. This is what I am questioning.
Proposing scriptural events like the six day creation is one thing and proposing an after-life is another. They are not the same thing and cannot be categorized together. The problem is that they often are lumped together. A soul (consciousness independent of brain) and an after-life are secular philosophical ideas and have nothing to do with religion or a God (though religions also advocate these ideas).
This is where the two boxes syndrome comes into the picture.
-
There are many other ideas in science such as strings, multiple dimensions, time travel etc. which are also just conjecture. Sure...there is lot of maths on pieces of paper but maths is not everything. But these ideas are considered as 'science' and discussed in seminars and articles are written about them.
That will be because they are scientific conjectures, that is, they take what is known about science and try to go beyond it is some way or other. The things you mentioned aren't really in one category of scientific conjecture, either.
But when it comes to the idea of a soul or after-life (for example), which are so fundamental, it all becomes very funny and a 'you can't be serious' view is taken. This is what I am questioning.
What is actually more funny than the ideas of a soul and afterlife is some people's blind certainty that they are true regardless of the lack of evidence (or reasoning).
Proposing scriptural events like the six day creation is one thing and proposing an after-life is another. They are not the same thing and cannot be categorized together. The problem is that they often are lumped together.
But they're not. An afterlife is just reasoning- and evidence-free while six day creation actually goes against the evidence. What also you don't seem to be able to grasp is that neither of those are actually in the same category as speculations like IIT or Orch OR, which both at least make some sort of attempt to justify themselves and codify what they're actually suggesting.
This is where the two boxes syndrome comes into the picture.
Except, just from this post, I'd need five 'boxes'.
- Untested (untestable?) consequences of well tested (in other respects) theories, e.g. time travel based on general relativity.
- Attempts to extend known science (hypotheses), e.g. string theory.
- Detailed conjectures, not directly connected to known science, with some attempt at reasoning but no evidence, e.g. IIT.
- Baseless beliefs, e.g. an afterlife.
- Evidence defying beliefs, e.g. six day creation.
It seems to be you who only wants two...
-
No boxes for me. I believe in reality as one continuum. Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology...spirituality. They are all real...maybe there is more beyond that.
No natural and supernatural. No compulsion to believe or disbelieve in anything.
No loss of dignity by accepting a soul or an after-life.
-
No boxes for me.
The problem then being, if you don't assess things with regard to evidence and reasoning, you have no standard left except your own whims, imagination, and superstitions. You can completely detach yourself from reality.
That's probably why you have such a closed mind; no amount of evidence or reasoning can possibly puncture your beliefs because they have not been reached via evidence and reasoning in the first place. It also explains why you can't be talked out of beliefs even when they are obviously wrong misunderstandings (natural selection and memes being examples).
-
There are many other ideas in science such as strings, multiple dimensions, time travel etc. which are also just conjecture.
Some of this is at the fringes of my knowledge, so I stand to be corrected but:
- string theory is a mathematical model, built upon our current understanding, of a potential mechanism that would explain some currently not explained phenomena. It is an hypothesis with potentially viable means of testing that are currently beyond our technical capability. I'd classify this is as cutting edge science.
- multiple dimensions is a conceptualisation of a potential cosmology based more on a philosophical than a scientific understanding, and I'd suggest is more science fiction at this point than science.
- time travel, depending on the particular version, ranges from a mathematical model which (currently) precludes any human involvement to pure science fiction: it's at best fringe science.
These are not the same, qualitatively, and they are all different from panpsychism or universal consciousness, which range from pure conjecture (in the vein of multiple dimensions) into deliberate attempts to conflate traditional superstitions with science.
Sure...there is lot of maths on pieces of paper but maths is not everything.
Pretty much everything we have reason to think actually is can be modelled with mathematics - mathematics isn't everything, but it could well describe everything.
But these ideas are considered as 'science' and discussed in seminars and articles are written about them.
Some of them are considered in a scientific fashion; string theory seriously, multiple dimensions and time travel perhaps playfully. None of them, importantly, would be considered to have been scientifically supported or validated.
But when it comes to the idea of a soul or after-life (for example), which are so fundamental, it all becomes very funny and a 'you can't be serious' view is taken.
In what way are souls or afterlives 'fundamental'? If, as I suggest, neither of these things is real, how would we tell the difference? How would we know? Given that we have no evidence for them now, what would be missing if they weren't real?
Proposing scriptural events like the six day creation is one thing and proposing an after-life is another.
In the level of detail, perhaps, in the specificity - six day creation is like the specific heaven-hell-limbo combination of mainstream Christianity, supernatural creation by an interventionalist extra-universal deity is like proposing the concept of an afterlife, and is equally as unsupported by any sort of evidence.
They are not the same thing and cannot be categorized together.
They can, they are unevidenced claims proposed without the potential for falsification.
The problem is that they often are lumped together.
It's only a problem if you arbitrarily deem one of them to be somehow more valid than the other.
A soul (consciousness independent of brain) and an after-life are secular philosophical ideas and have nothing to do with religion or a God (though religions also advocate these ideas).
Absolutely. The reason they are philosophical ideas and not scientific ones is because they aren't based on anything demonstrable. Time travel, multiple universes and string theory are all extrapolated (more or less judiciously) from actually demonstrated phenomena and their explanations; they may be wrong, and souls may be a thing, but we differentiate between them based upon the current weight and availability of evidence.
This is where the two boxes syndrome comes into the picture.
I find it a little ironic that someone who complains about other people's overly reductionist views thinks that this breaks down into two simple boxes.
O.
-
Some of this is at the fringes of my knowledge, so I stand to be corrected but:
- string theory is a mathematical model, built upon our current understanding, of a potential mechanism that would explain some currently not explained phenomena. It is an hypothesis with potentially viable means of testing that are currently beyond our technical capability. I'd classify this is as cutting edge science.
- multiple dimensions is a conceptualisation of a potential cosmology based more on a philosophical than a scientific understanding, and I'd suggest is more science fiction at this point than science.
- time travel, depending on the particular version, ranges from a mathematical model which (currently) precludes any human involvement to pure science fiction: it's at best fringe science.
These are not the same, qualitatively, and they are all different from panpsychism or universal consciousness, which range from pure conjecture (in the vein of multiple dimensions) into deliberate attempts to conflate traditional superstitions with science.
Pretty much everything we have reason to think actually is can be modelled with mathematics - mathematics isn't everything, but it could well describe everything.
Some of them are considered in a scientific fashion; string theory seriously, multiple dimensions and time travel perhaps playfully. None of them, importantly, would be considered to have been scientifically supported or validated.
In what way are souls or afterlives 'fundamental'? If, as I suggest, neither of these things is real, how would we tell the difference? How would we know? Given that we have no evidence for them now, what would be missing if they weren't real?
In the level of detail, perhaps, in the specificity - six day creation is like the specific heaven-hell-limbo combination of mainstream Christianity, supernatural creation by an interventionalist extra-universal deity is like proposing the concept of an afterlife, and is equally as unsupported by any sort of evidence.
They can, they are unevidenced claims proposed without the potential for falsification.
It's only a problem if you arbitrarily deem one of them to be somehow more valid than the other.
Absolutely. The reason they are philosophical ideas and not scientific ones is because they aren't based on anything demonstrable. Time travel, multiple universes and string theory are all extrapolated (more or less judiciously) from actually demonstrated phenomena and their explanations; they may be wrong, and souls may be a thing, but we differentiate between them based upon the current weight and availability of evidence.
I find it a little ironic that someone who complains about other people's overly reductionist views thinks that this breaks down into two simple boxes.
O.
There are probably many more such ideas which are mere conjectures but are taken seriously for discussion and study.
Souls and after-life are fundamental because they are about our basic nature and our ultimate future. These are much more meaningful and important to us and other living beings than parallel universes or strings or multiple dimensions or dark matter or big bang or black holes or higgs boson or whatever.....
Maths cannot be the basis on which our understanding of reality depends. It may help but it is only our personal subjective experiences that are fundamental and important. Merely understanding something intellectually means nothing at all in the final analysis.
There is enough data to suggest that a soul and an after-life are real. It is the two boxes syndrome that makes people of science dismiss such things as mere hallucinations and brain generated imagery etc. etc.
The two boxes syndrome is not just about categorizing phenomena. It is about biases and prejudices that make people view phenomena differently and with different perspectives. Confusing secular experiential phenomena with religious beliefs is another problem.
As I have pointed out many times....evidence depends a lot on our background, natural faculties, open mind, biases, technology and other factors. Reality exists at different levels.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
-
There are probably many more such ideas which are mere conjectures but are taken seriously for discussion and study.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, so long as you remain mindful of what's conjecture and what's within the current bounds of the established science.
Souls and after-life are fundamental because they are about our basic nature and our ultimate future. These are much more meaningful and important to us and other living beings than parallel universes or strings or multiple dimensions or dark matter or big bang or black holes or higgs boson or whatever.....
They might be fundamental, if they exist. Until we have some sort of reason other than wishful reinterpretation of superstitions then they are exactly as fundamental to life as midichlorians. And, again, conflating conjecture like parallel universes and multiple dimensions with hypotheses like string theory and established phenomena like Higgs' bosons and dark matter doesn't help your argument.
Maths cannot be the basis on which our understanding of reality depends. It may help but it is only our personal subjective experiences that are fundamental and important.
Nonsense. We are able to cooperate and collaborate, to communicate and build culture because we have a subjective experience of a reality which retains consistency from individual to individual. Our experiences might be subjective, but the reality we are experiencing is objective and consistent and gives us common points of reference; when only one of us is experiencing something, that's reason to call into question whether it's them or reality. Maths is a tool we can use to describe that reality accurately in a way that helps to remove the subjectivity, to better establish detail about that reality - I can think of no better tool on which to found our understanding of reality, in both its performance to date and its potential for the future.
Merely understanding something intellectually means nothing at all in the final analysis.
If you aren't seeking to understand, then why are you discussing whether something is fact. If it doesn't matter to you, just believe what you will and enjoy your unjustified beliefs.
There is enough data to suggest that a soul and an after-life are real.
No. At best there are some unanswered questions about a few particular details in some personal accounts which may be unreliable.
It is the two boxes syndrome that makes people of science dismiss such things as mere hallucinations and brain generated imagery etc. etc.
That and the lack of an explanatory mechanism which involves souls or spirits, and the lack of any apparent source for these souls or spirits, and the infinite reduction that comes from presuming they must be there to explain consciousness, and the absence of unexplained phenomena in the overwhelming majority of brain activity which could be the result of souls, and then, finally, Ockham's Razor at the end asking why you want to add an unexplained phenomenon to try to explain another unexplained phenomenon when there are still valid hypotheses within the current paradigm which require exploration.
The two boxes syndrome is not just about categorizing phenomena. It is about biases and prejudices that make people view phenomena differently and with different perspectives. Confusing secular experiential phenomena with religious beliefs is another problem.
If you're trying to classify what you percieve as biases fine, but I've pointed out how you've horrendously oversimplified the situation in order to grant superstitions some sort of equal status with provisional science - perhaps tailoring to your own biases.
As I have pointed out many times....evidence depends a lot on our background, natural faculties, open mind, biases, technology and other factors. Reality exists at different levels.
No, just claiming 'levels' of perception doesn't change findings about reality. Yes our background can be influential - people who've been raised and educated in traditions of superstition don't differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable claims, it would seem.
O.
-
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, so long as you remain mindful of what's conjecture and what's within the current bounds of the established science.
They might be fundamental, if they exist. Until we have some sort of reason other than wishful reinterpretation of superstitions then they are exactly as fundamental to life as midichlorians. And, again, conflating conjecture like parallel universes and multiple dimensions with hypotheses like string theory and established phenomena like Higgs' bosons and dark matter doesn't help your argument.
Nonsense. We are able to cooperate and collaborate, to communicate and build culture because we have a subjective experience of a reality which retains consistency from individual to individual. Our experiences might be subjective, but the reality we are experiencing is objective and consistent and gives us common points of reference; when only one of us is experiencing something, that's reason to call into question whether it's them or reality. Maths is a tool we can use to describe that reality accurately in a way that helps to remove the subjectivity, to better establish detail about that reality - I can think of no better tool on which to found our understanding of reality, in both its performance to date and its potential for the future.
If you aren't seeking to understand, then why are you discussing whether something is fact. If it doesn't matter to you, just believe what you will and enjoy your unjustified beliefs.
No. At best there are some unanswered questions about a few particular details in some personal accounts which may be unreliable.
That and the lack of an explanatory mechanism which involves souls or spirits, and the lack of any apparent source for these souls or spirits, and the infinite reduction that comes from presuming they must be there to explain consciousness, and the absence of unexplained phenomena in the overwhelming majority of brain activity which could be the result of souls, and then, finally, Ockham's Razor at the end asking why you want to add an unexplained phenomenon to try to explain another unexplained phenomenon when there are still valid hypotheses within the current paradigm which require exploration.
If you're trying to classify what you percieve as biases fine, but I've pointed out how you've horrendously oversimplified the situation in order to grant superstitions some sort of equal status with provisional science - perhaps tailoring to your own biases.
No, just claiming 'levels' of perception doesn't change findings about reality. Yes our background can be influential - people who've been raised and educated in traditions of superstition don't differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable claims, it would seem.
O.
Reality does not have to restrict itself to 'established science'. We should learn to look outside our comfort zone also if we want to see reality.
NDE's are not superstition. They are real. Evidence is available but they are being reinterpreted by mainstream scientists to suit their comfort levels.
-
Reality does not have to restrict itself to 'established science'.
No it doesn't. However, what we can know about it is limited to that which we can objectively test or deduce. Reality is certainly under no obligation to conform to anybody's favourite superstitions or wishful thinking about how they want it to be.
We should learn to look outside our comfort zone also if we want to see reality.
Irony. ::)
NDE's are not superstition. They are real.
I don't think anybody denies that near death experiences are real. They do not, however, provide evidence of any soul or afterlife.
-
Reality does not have to restrict itself to 'established science'.
Science's remit, though, is reality.
We should learn to look outside our comfort zone also if we want to see reality.
To paraphrase one of the great philosophers of our time, though, the problem with having too open a mind is that your brain falls out. We can look outside of our comfort zone, sure, but that doesn't mean just accepting every unsubstantiated assertion or even presuming they have equal weight.
NDE's are not superstition. They are real. Evidence is available but they are being reinterpreted by mainstream scientists to suit their comfort levels.
Nobody's suggesting NDEs are superstition; falling back on 'soul' as an explanation for them is superstition, though.
O.
-
..
Maths cannot be the basis on which our understanding of reality depends. It may help but it is only our personal subjective experiences that are fundamental and important. Merely understanding something intellectually means nothing at all in the final analysis.
..
Although if you have read Hoffman, and I think you have, you will understand that although our personal subjective experience is important to us and is undeniable, it is no guide to some sort of fundamental objective truth. The nature of our personal experience is something honed by millions of years of evolution to keep us alive at minimal cost, it is not a guide to fundamental reality. In other words, it is chock full of biases, shortcuts, etc so we have to factor that in if we are going to extrapolate from personal experience to objective truth.
-
Although if you have read Hoffman, and I think you have, you will understand that although our personal subjective experience is important to us and is undeniable, it is no guide to some sort of fundamental objective truth. The nature of our personal experience is something honed by millions of years of evolution to keep us alive at minimal cost, it is not a guide to fundamental reality. In other words, it is chock full of biases, shortcuts, etc so we have to factor that in if we are going to extrapolate from personal experience to objective truth.
Objective reality need not be only physical. Objective reality can be quasi physical also. NDE's are personal experiences but the experiences have a lot of commonality and can be considered as objective reality.
All personal experiences cannot be dismissed as something happening in the brain of the individual and therefore of no relevance to objective reality. It is like several people visiting a new exotic place and giving their opinion. There are bound to be both objective aspects and personal perspectives mixed together.
Yes....a degree of personal interpretation is unavoidable but that can be easily weeded out. Even in NDE's there are sometimes personal interpretations and cultural influences but that does not detract from the obvious common objective elements.
-
Objective reality need not be only physical. Objective reality can be quasi physical also. NDE's are personal experiences but the experiences have a lot of commonality and can be considered as objective reality.
All personal experiences cannot be dismissed as something happening in the brain of the individual and therefore of no relevance to objective reality. It is like several people visiting a new exotic place and giving their opinion. There are bound to be both objective aspects and personal perspectives mixed together.
Yes....a degree of personal interpretation is unavoidable but that can be easily weeded out. Even in NDE's there are sometimes personal interpretations and cultural influences but that does not detract from the obvious common objective elements.
No personal experience is objective it is personal. There will be degrees of commonality in experience of course because there are degrees of commonality across brains. The experience of pain you get when you touch something hot is probably very similar to the experience I get in a similar situation and it is probably similar to the experience of other mammals, say rats. That there is a degree of commonality among the experiences produced by hypoxic brains, is not surprising. It's a bit silly to take such experiences as a clue to some grand insight into the fundamental nature of reality; after all we now know that rats for example also seem to go through some sort of intense experience during early stage cardiac arrest, so this may be a phenomenology with a degree of commonality across all mammalian brains.
-
Although if you have read Hoffman, and I think you have, you will understand that although our personal subjective experience is important to us and is undeniable, it is no guide to some sort of fundamental objective truth. The nature of our personal experience is something honed by millions of years of evolution to keep us alive at minimal cost, it is not a guide to fundamental reality. In other words, it is chock full of biases, shortcuts, etc so we have to factor that in if we are going to extrapolate from personal experience to objective truth.
You must remember that people who talk of exotic and non physical realities (like me for example) are not always talking of some fundamental ultimate truth. They are also only exploring and feeling their way around. It is no different from scientists exploring and investigating.
Non physical realities cannot be seen and experienced the same way that physical realities are. It is just that it is not something physical that can be easily sensed and shown to everyone else. It is a personal experience but which can be had by others also if they follow the same method. If I eat a chocolate for example, and feel its taste....the same can be sensed by others also and they could also agree on the same experience, if they take the trouble of eating it. It is a personal experience but has a degree of objectivity to it.
But if people don't want to taste the chocolate but expect the taste to be shown objectively on an instrument, that can't be done.
So, it is about subjective experiences but not without its objective elements.
-
You must remember that people who talk of exotic and non physical realities (like me for example) are not always talking of some fundamental ultimate truth. They are also only exploring and feeling their way around. It is no different from scientists exploring and investigating.
Non physical realities cannot be seen and experienced the same way that physical realities are. It is just that it is not something physical that can be easily sensed and shown to everyone else. It is a personal experience but which can be had by others also if they follow the same method. If I eat a chocolate for example, and feel its taste....the same can be sensed by others also and they could also agree on the same experience, if they take the trouble of eating it. It is a personal experience but has a degree of objectivity to it.
But if people don't want to taste the chocolate but expect the taste to be shown objectively on an instrument, that can't be done.
So, it is about subjective experiences but not without its objective elements.
Not sure what you mean by 'non-physical' realities. All experience derives ultimately from the interactions of our sense organs with our environment. Retinas interact with photos of light in predictable ways for example, and this leads downstream to the experience of vision. What sense organs do we have that could interact with 'non-physical' realities ?
-
Not sure what you mean by 'non-physical' realities. All experience derives ultimately from the interactions of our sense organs with our environment. Retinas interact with photos of light in predictable ways for example, and this leads downstream to the experience of vision. What sense organs do we have that could interact with 'non-physical' realities ?
Non physical means just that....something that cannot be sensed through normal five senses. We can however experience such realities directly through the mind. This is what people probably refer to as the sixth sense.
How do you 'see' your thoughts?
-
We can however experience such realities directly through the mind. This is what people probably refer to as the sixth sense.
So how do you test that you are experiencing something that is outside your own mind, as opposed to some purely internal feeling or state of mind?
-
I think somebody needs to define what they mean by 'mind' so that you don't debate at cross purposes.
-
Non physical means just that....something that cannot be sensed through normal five senses. We can however experience such realities directly through the mind. This is what people probably refer to as the sixth sense.
How do you 'see' your thoughts?
Your brain has no direct access to the outside world except via its sensors. it is dark, damp, and enclosed in bone for its own protection. All knowledge comes in via sensor channels, it has built twin detectors to front to sample ambient information bearing electromagnetic radiation and twin auditory receptors to side which sample information on pressure waves in the air. Add to that, the vast number of tactile sensors distributed throughout the body and the olefactory sensors in mouth, tongue and nasal passage. By such means, the brain gains information about the outside world. There are no hidden internal sense organs in a brain, apart from the pineal gland, perhaps, which long ago used to be a third eye mounted on top of the head, but has long been subsumed into the brain and now serves the lesser role of regulating sleep/wake cycles.
-
Your brain has no direct access to the outside world except via its sensors. it is dark, damp, and enclosed in bone for its own protection. All knowledge comes in via sensor channels, it has built twin detectors to front to sample ambient information bearing electromagnetic radiation and twin auditory receptors to side which sample information on pressure waves in the air. Add to that, the vast number of tactile sensors distributed throughout the body and the olefactory sensors in mouth, tongue and nasal passage. By such means, the brain gains information about the outside world. There are no hidden internal sense organs in a brain, apart from the pineal gland, perhaps, which long ago used to be a third eye mounted on top of the head, but has long been subsumed into the brain and now serves the lesser role of regulating sleep/wake cycles.
A pdf article (47 pages) about NDE 's in the blind.
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799333/m2/1/high_res_d/vol16-no2-101.pdf
By Kenneth Ring, Ph.D. Sharon Cooper, M.A. University of Connecticut
**************
This article reports the results of an investigation into near
death and out-of-body experiences in 31 blind respondents. The study sought
to address three main questions: (1) whether blind individuals have near
death experiences (NDEs) and, if so, whether they are the same as or dif
ferent from those of sighted persons; (2) whether blind persons ever claim
to see during NDEs and out-of-body experiences (OBEs); and (3) if such
claims are made, whether they can ever be corroborated by reference to in
dependent evidence.
Conclusion:
What seemed like an analog to physical sight really was not when examined closely. It is a dif
ferent type of awareness altogether, which we have called transcen
dental awareness, that functions independently of the brain but that
must necessarily be filtered through it and through the medium of
language as well. Thus, by the time these episodes come to our at
tention, they tend to speak in the language of vision, but the actual
experiences themselves seem to be something rather different alto
gether and are not easily captured in any language of ordinary dis
course.
What the blind experience is more astonishing than the claim that
they have seen. Instead, they, like sighted persons who have had
similar episodes, have transcended brain-based consciousness alto
gether and, because of that, their experiences beggar all description
or convenient labels. For these we need a new language altogether,
as we need new theories from a new kind of science even to begin
to comprehend them. Toward this end, the study of paradoxical and
utterly anomalous experiences plays a vital role in furnishing the
theorists of today the data they need to fashion the science of the
21st century. And that science of consciousness,... is surely already on the horizon.
**************
-
Sriram,
I read the whole paper, and, although interesting, I'm not really impressed by the conclusions. The findings in this paper seem to rely almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence, which you might find reassuring as some sort of backup for your ideas, but I do not. Although not the same as NDEs, there is a certain similarity in that it is generally accepted that people who are blind can also experience visual images when they dream, even if they have been blind from birth. It also seems to be the case that before birth humans can exhibit evidence of visual electrical activity in brain scans.
Try reading this:
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2020/02/11/do-blind-people-dream-in-visual-images/
-
Sriram,
I read the whole paper, and, although interesting, I'm not really impressed by the conclusions. The findings in this paper seem to rely almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence, which you might find reassuring as some sort of backup for your ideas, but I do not. Although not the same as NDEs, there is a certain similarity in that it is generally accepted that people who are blind can also experience visual images when they dream, even if they have been blind from birth. It also seems to be the case that before birth humans can exhibit evidence of visual electrical activity in brain scans.
Try reading this:
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2020/02/11/do-blind-people-dream-in-visual-images/
The article is clear that born blind people do not (or may not) actually see real shapes and colors in their dreams, as normal people see them. They might probably just see blobs of colors because they do not identify objects with specific shapes, sizes and colors.
That is not however what the blind NDEers have stated. They have obviously seen objects the way normal people see them.
-
The article is clear that born blind people do not (or may not) actually see real shapes and colors in their dreams, as normal people see them. They might probably just see blobs of colors because they do not identify objects with specific shapes, sizes and colors.
No problem.
That is not however what the blind NDEers have stated. They have obviously seen objects the way normal people see them.
You should read the paper that you referred to much more closely then because it doesn't assume that is so at all. Yes, it gives detailed anecdotal accounts by certain individuals, but later, in the same paper, admits that on further examination problems appear which suggests caution against taking such literal accounts at face value.
Indeed the authors of the report suggest( in the part entitled "Apparent Vision in the Blind: Is It Really Seeing?") that you are simply incorrect to assume that.
As this kind of testimony builds, it seems more and more difficult to claim that the blind simply see what they report. Rather, it is beginning to appear it is more a matter of their knowing, through a still poorly understood mode of generalized awareness based on a variety of sensory impressions, especially tactile ones, what is happening around them.
And it ends this section with:
In summary, what we have learned from our respondents is that although their experiences may sometimes be expressed in a language of vision, a close reading of their transcripts suggests something closer to a multifaceted synesthetic perception that seems to involve much more than an analog of physical sight. This is not to say that as part of this awareness there cannot be some sort of pictorial imagery as well; it is only to assert that this must not be taken in any simplistic way as constituting vision as we normally understand it.
So I would suggest that it isn't obvious at all, and the idea that there is a relationship with dreaming in born non-sighted individuals, stands.
Yes, the article tries to explain this by some sort of holistic transcendental awareness, which, if I read it correctly, involves some sort of extra sensory perception which relies on their definition of consciousness. To this end, they put forward four postulates(which they are happy to accept are assertions), and which will remain in the realms of conjecture unless or until hard evidence supporting them comes to light. To my mind, the paper that they have presented doesn't come anywhere near to fulfilling that requirement.
-
Objective reality need not be only physical. Objective reality can be quasi physical also.
In theory, yes. In practice, you have to show that's the case, you can't just decide to accept that it is. A flat earth could be physical reality, if only it wasn't for all the evidence of something else.
NDE's are personal experiences but the experiences have a lot of commonality and can be considered as objective reality.
No, commonality of experience could be due to an underlying reality, but it could equally be to do with structural commonalities within the human brain that lead to these impressions despite the lack of any objective cause. Very few people turn up naked to work unexpectedly, but it's a relatively common dream; just because people experience it, we can't automatically presume that it's real.
All personal experiences cannot be dismissed as something happening in the brain of the individual and therefore of no relevance to objective reality.
No, the experience is a phenomenon and has to be investigated. We know that people can, and regularly do, have experiences which are divorced from direct stimuli (like dreaming, or hallucinations), and we therefore need to independently corroborate claims of subjective experience before we accept that they accurately reflect reality.
It is like several people visiting a new exotic place and giving their opinion. There are bound to be both objective aspects and personal perspectives mixed together.
Except that the place in question is Narnia, and all the people who claim to have been there were in an extremely altered mental state at the time.... and we can't find the talking lion or the really, really deep wardrobe.
Yes....a degree of personal interpretation is unavoidable but that can be easily weeded out. Even in NDE's there are sometimes personal interpretations and cultural influences but that does not detract from the obvious common objective elements.
That fails to appreciate how fundamentally unreliable our personal experiences of the world are as a guide to what's 'real'.
O.
-
In theory, yes. In practice, you have to show that's the case, you can't just decide to accept that it is. A flat earth could be physical reality, if only it wasn't for all the evidence of something else.
No, commonality of experience could be due to an underlying reality, but it could equally be to do with structural commonalities within the human brain that lead to these impressions despite the lack of any objective cause. Very few people turn up naked to work unexpectedly, but it's a relatively common dream; just because people experience it, we can't automatically presume that it's real.
No, the experience is a phenomenon and has to be investigated. We know that people can, and regularly do, have experiences which are divorced from direct stimuli (like dreaming, or hallucinations), and we therefore need to independently corroborate claims of subjective experience before we accept that they accurately reflect reality.
Except that the place in question is Narnia, and all the people who claim to have been there were in an extremely altered mental state at the time.... and we can't find the talking lion or the really, really deep wardrobe.
That fails to appreciate how fundamentally unreliable our personal experiences of the world are as a guide to what's 'real'.
O.
Showing the evidence for something quasi physical in terms of physical measurements is not possible. The phenomenon may sometimes have a physical component but most often may not. We just have to surmise based on indirect evidence that something exists....like we do for dark matter.
Even when we visit real and exotic places, people do have both common and individual views about it. It is similar with quasi physical phenomena that are experienced directly without sensory inputs.
All experiences are personal. They depend on our brain, senses, culture and so on. We just happen to find similarities with others because they also have similar senses and similar backgrounds.
-
Sriram,
Showing the evidence for something quasi physical in terms of physical measurements is not possible. The phenomenon may sometimes have a physical component but most often may not. We just have to surmise based on indirect evidence that something exists....like we do for dark matter.
You’ve wedged yourself into a cleft stick here. On the one hand you’re asserting there to be something “quasi physical” and telling us that the claim can’t be investigated with “physical measurements”, but on the other hand you’re also telling us that there is “indirect evidence” to justify you claim.
That doesn’t work. Either you position yourself on “there’s no evidence” territory (in which case all you have is guessing) or you accept the evidence-based model paradigmatically, in which case you must play by its rules. What you cannot do though is straddle both horses: you cannot try to dabble in just enough of the evidential paradigm to suit your purposes, and then jump straight to “therefore quasi physical”.
Observation reveals all manner of data. What that data may indicate in terms of knowledge though requires several more steps to eliminate the unfeasible guesses and leave the most feasible one standing. In science, the most feasible explanation is called a “theory”.
What you’re doing though is jumping straight from guess to claim without the hard yards in between.
Even when we visit real and exotic places, people do have both common and individual views about it. It is similar with quasi physical phenomena that are experienced directly without sensory inputs.
No, it’s not similar at all. When we visit “real and exotic places” different people will encounter and remember different data, but no-one doubts that the place itself exists. Your “quasi physical” claim is more akin to me saying I’ve been to Tahiti and you telling me about your trip to Atlantis or Narnia.
All experiences are personal. They depend on our brain, senses, culture and so on. We just happen to find similarities with others because they also have similar senses and similar backgrounds.
Experiences are personal – that’s why we have methods and tools to verify objectively the narratives we arrive at to explain them. Thus my experience of leprechauns is considered less likely to be true than your experience of butterflies. Your problem here is though is that, absent some means to investigate and verify your claims, you’re moored in leprechauns territory.
-
Showing the evidence for something quasi physical in terms of physical measurements is not possible.
Fine, show it in some other method, but just suggesting it isn't sufficient. If you can cite it with no support, we can dismiss it on an equal basis. Worse, though, when you suggest that it interacts with physical things, we can at least look for the evidence of the influence, and that's missing too.
The phenomenon may sometimes have a physical component but most often may not.
If a phenomenon doesn't have a physical component, in what way is it a phenomenon? Phenomenon are, by definition, observable occurrences.
We just have to surmise based on indirect evidence that something exists....like we do for dark matter.
Dark matter is a phrase used to describe something we can show we haven't found or explained but for which we see effects; you're suggesting something you think you've found but can't demonstrate, which doesn't appear to have any effects.
Even when we visit real and exotic places, people do have both common and individual views about it.
And you've not given any reason to think that isn't something common to people and brain architecture rather than a common link to some 'quasi-physical' afterlife.
It is similar with quasi physical phenomena that are experienced directly without sensory inputs.
Such as?
All experiences are personal. They depend on our brain, senses, culture and so on. We just happen to find similarities with others because they also have similar senses and similar backgrounds.
Perhaps, yes. In the absence of any evidence of external influences leading to similar sensory effects, that's a reasonable conclusion. They don't, necessarily, depend on there being an actual afterlife, but a common human idea that there is one perhaps is part of the situation.
O.
-
Fine, show it in some other method, but just suggesting it isn't sufficient. If you can cite it with no support, we can dismiss it on an equal basis. Worse, though, when you suggest that it interacts with physical things, we can at least look for the evidence of the influence, and that's missing too.
If a phenomenon doesn't have a physical component, in what way is it a phenomenon? Phenomenon are, by definition, observable occurrences.
Dark matter is a phrase used to describe something we can show we haven't found or explained but for which we see effects; you're suggesting something you think you've found but can't demonstrate, which doesn't appear to have any effects.
And you've not given any reason to think that isn't something common to people and brain architecture rather than a common link to some 'quasi-physical' afterlife.
Such as?
Perhaps, yes. In the absence of any evidence of external influences leading to similar sensory effects, that's a reasonable conclusion. They don't, necessarily, depend on there being an actual afterlife, but a common human idea that there is one perhaps is part of the situation.
O.
What do you mean 'does not have any effects'...?! Clinical death is sufficient I should think. People who had NDE's were all clinically dead. Born blind people have seen and identified objects like normal people.....while being clinically dead.
-
What do you mean 'does not have any effects'...?! Clinical death is sufficient I should think. People who had NDE's were all clinically dead. Born blind people have seen and identified objects like normal people.....while being clinically dead.
You seem to have lost track of your own argument. It's you who said:-
Showing the evidence for something quasi physical in terms of physical measurements is not possible.
Clinical death, near death experiences, and being blind are not things anybody is disputing. It's what you want to read into them that is disputed. Whatever you mean by "quasi physical", if it can't be investigated with physical evidence, then you need some other methodology that can distinguish what is a genuine "quasi physical" phenomenon from just making things up or guessing. So far, you seem to just what to assert it into existence.
-
What do you mean 'does not have any effects'...?! Clinical death is sufficient I should think. People who had NDE's were all clinically dead.
Clinical death is a process, not a status; it's starts at the cessation of blood-flow, and ends with death typically within five or six minutes of failure to get oxygen to the brain. During that time medical intervention is known to be capable, in some instances, of ceasing the process and having someone recover. It's therefore somewhat inaccurate to suggest that these people are 'dead' in the conventional sense.
Born blind people have seen and identified objects like normal people.....while being clinically dead.
How do we know? If they're born blind, and have no sense of what seeing is, when they attribute a previously unknown state as 'sight' how do we tell that's actually the case? And even if neuronal activation as a result of ischemic damage causing chemical degradation, how is that evidence of anything more than a well understood biochemical process affecting a body part that we only partially understand? Where is the evidence that this is a result of 'quasi-physical' phenomena interacting with the brain?
O.
-
Clinical death is a process, not a status; it's starts at the cessation of blood-flow, and ends with death typically within five or six minutes of failure to get oxygen to the brain. During that time medical intervention is known to be capable, in some instances, of ceasing the process and having someone recover. It's therefore somewhat inaccurate to suggest that these people are 'dead' in the conventional sense.
How do we know? If they're born blind, and have no sense of what seeing is, when they attribute a previously unknown state as 'sight' how do we tell that's actually the case? And even if neuronal activation as a result of ischemic damage causing chemical degradation, how is that evidence of anything more than a well understood biochemical process affecting a body part that we only partially understand? Where is the evidence that this is a result of 'quasi-physical' phenomena interacting with the brain?
O.
I think doctors like Sam Parnia with expertise in intensive care should know what death means.
If you read what Kenneth Ring has written above, I am sure he knows what he is talking about.
-
I think doctors like Sam Parnia with expertise in intensive care should know what death means.
And he does; he acknowledges the process, and wants to change some of the terminology around it because of that, not despite that. It's therefore disappointing that he understands that, with our current understanding, if damage is reversible it's not death and if it isn't reversible then it is death and redefine near death experiences as actual death experiences despite the fact that, by his own definition, they aren't that.
Equally, whilst Dr Parnia is undoubtedly well-qualified, his research on near death experiences isn't published in the same journals, or reviewed with the same authority, as his work on resuscitation techniques. His body of work earns him the right to be listened to, but the quality of the work that he produces in the area of NDE doesn't merit it being accepted as a viable demonstration of his hypothesis.
If you read what Kenneth Ring has written above, I am sure he knows what he is talking about.
Sighted people, in NDE, sometimes have a transendental experience. Blind people, in NDE, sometimes have a transcendental experience, which some of them initially ascribe to 'seeing'. The conclusion from that, for me, is that blind and sighted people have broadly the same experience under the same circumstances, but that blind people are aware that they are blind and so ascribe a previously unknown experience to that lacking sense, whereas people without that obvious lack don't have that easy answer.
It's possible that this is some people becoming aware of something real that we aren't normally aware of; but it's equally possible that this is the result of ischemic damage to parts of the brain triggering neurons and producing sensory experiences. One of those is dependent upon an entire facet of reality that we are completely incapable currently of demonstrating in any way, and the other is entirely in keeping with what we've already established about the brain. Why would we presume the former?
O.
-
Sriram,
I think doctors like Sam Parnia with expertise in intensive care should know what death means.
If you read what Kenneth Ring has written above, I am sure he knows what he is talking about.
“One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.” (Carl Sagan)
If you think these people have published peer-reviewed findings on the matter, then tell us what those findings are. So far though, all you have is assertions (“the quasi physical is real”), cherry picking tidbits of observation and extrapolating from them huge and unwarranted claims, and a range of logical fallacies (the argument from authority being just the latest example).
-
It is quite simple.
1. We cannot separate subjective experiences from objective reality. Collective subjective experiences are called objective reality. Absolute reality is unknown.
2. This is true even of quasi physical (spiritual) experiences. Most so called personal experiences can also be experienced collectively by many people under similar circumstances and if the same methods are followed. These experiences are also therefore part of objective reality as far as we are concerned.
3. NDE's and OBE's are experienced by many people under certain circumstances. Researchers have enough evidence that these experiences are not just brain generated. Cases of born blind people seeing objects just like normal people, are instances. Corroborative details of activities in the surrounding area are also evidence.
4. Therefore experiences of an after-life and of a soul or consciousness surviving death, are also part of objective reality.
-
It is quite simple.
1. We cannot separate subjective experiences from objective reality. Collective subjective experiences are called objective reality. Absolute reality is unknown.
2. This is true even of quasi physical (spiritual) experiences. Most so called personal experiences can also be experienced collectively by many people under similar circumstances and if the same methods are followed. These experiences are also therefore part of objective reality as far as we are concerned.
..
That's not right. Inter-subjective consensus does not equate to objectivity. The fact that there exists a certain amount of commonality of experience merely reflects the common ancestry in the evolution of brains. I see the sky as blue, so do you, maybe so does my pet dog, I don't know, but none of that means the sky is objectively blue, it merely follows from the commonality of visual perception in mammalian brains due to shared ancestry.
-
1. We cannot separate subjective experiences from objective reality. Collective subjective experiences are called objective reality. Absolute reality is unknown.
We can conduct independent measurement and recording, however, and quantify phenomena, and have multiple subjective interpretations of the data to minimise the subjectivity. Absolute reality may be known; our limitation is on our ability to prove that, not necessarily to determine it.
2. This is true even of quasi physical (spiritual) experiences. Most so called personal experiences can also be experienced collectively by many people under similar circumstances and if the same methods are followed. These experiences are also therefore part of objective reality as far as we are concerned.
No, the false conflation of not absolutely proven but reliably evidenced (i.e. gravity, light) with practically unsupported fringe-science (NDE as evidence of souls, genomorphic theory) and absolute woo on the basis that we don't have absolute proof of any of them is nonsense.
3. NDE's and OBE's are experienced by many people under certain circumstances.
Yes, they do.
Researchers have enough evidence that these experiences are not just brain generated.
No, they don't. The fact that you have to assert these are down to 'quasi-physical' phenomena which we can't detect shows that we don't have any definitive evidence that these experiences are a response to any external factors
Cases of born blind people seeing objects just like normal people, are instances.
Because of the way the brain works it actually wouldn't be, but even if it were that's not what's being claimed.
Corroborative details of activities in the surrounding area are also evidence.
No. That people have sensory apparatus that continues to operate partially whilst the consciousness is suppressed is not evidence of the supernatural, it's evidence that our eyes don't disappear when we go to sleep.
4. Therefore experiences of an after-life and of a soul or consciousness surviving death, are also part of objective reality.
No, therefore you are reaching desperately to try to grasp at some sort of scientific validity for ancient superstition in the guise of overarching ancestral wisdom being realised. Every piece of solid evidence we have suggests that consciousness emerges from brain activity; there might be something else, it's a logical possibility, but in the absence not just of direct evidence for that 'other', and in the absence of any evidence of activity in the brain that can't be explained by the conventional mechanics, and in the absence of any need for such a mechanism to explain the observed phenomena, the likely explanation with the information available is that 'souls' need to go in the bucket alongside fairies and magic.
O.
-
That's not right. Inter-subjective consensus does not equate to objectivity. The fact that there exists a certain amount of commonality of experience merely reflects the common ancestry in the evolution of brains. I see the sky as blue, so do you, maybe so does my pet dog, I don't know, but none of that means the sky is objectively blue, it merely follows from the commonality of visual perception in mammalian brains due to shared ancestry.
Absolute objective reality is unknowable.
What you say clearly means that all experiences are subjective though it can be a shared subjectivity. Like watching a movie together. Many people may agree on what they see but it is nevertheless an illusion.
-
1. We cannot separate subjective experiences from objective reality. Collective subjective experiences are called objective reality. Absolute reality is unknown.
Although you could argue that we can't be sure that what we think of as 'objective reality' is actually reality, it doesn't really matter. There is an obvious qualitative difference between what we perceive as 'objective reality' and other mental phenomena, and 'objective reality' is inescapable, we can investigate it with the tools of science, construct theories about it, and use technology to manipulate it.
If what we consider to be 'objective reality' isn't really reality, it might as well be and it is very easy to separate it from subjective experiences.
2. This is true even of quasi physical (spiritual) experiences. Most so called personal experiences can also be experienced collectively by many people under similar circumstances and if the same methods are followed.
Inducing similar mental states, by similar practices, is not the same things a showing that your are perceiving something external.
These experiences are also therefore part of objective reality as far as we are concerned.
Nonsense. Until you can provide proper tests and falsifiable hypothesis, this claim is baseless.
3. NDE's and OBE's are experienced by many people under certain circumstances. Researchers have enough evidence that these experiences are not just brain generated. Cases of born blind people seeing objects just like normal people, are instances. Corroborative details of activities in the surrounding area are also evidence.
4. Therefore experiences of an after-life and of a soul or consciousness surviving death, are also part of objective reality.
This nonsense has already been dealt with multiple times.
Your total lack of objectivity and desperation to jump to a conclusion you want to be true is letting you down yet again.
-
We can conduct independent measurement and recording, however, and quantify phenomena, and have multiple subjective interpretations of the data to minimise the subjectivity. Absolute reality may be known; our limitation is on our ability to prove that, not necessarily to determine it.
No, the false conflation of not absolutely proven but reliably evidenced (i.e. gravity, light) with practically unsupported fringe-science (NDE as evidence of souls, genomorphic theory) and absolute woo on the basis that we don't have absolute proof of any of them is nonsense.
Yes, they do.
No, they don't. The fact that you have to assert these are down to 'quasi-physical' phenomena which we can't detect shows that we don't have any definitive evidence that these experiences are a response to any external factors
Because of the way the brain works it actually wouldn't be, but even if it were that's not what's being claimed.
No. That people have sensory apparatus that continues to operate partially whilst the consciousness is suppressed is not evidence of the supernatural, it's evidence that our eyes don't disappear when we go to sleep.
No, therefore you are reaching desperately to try to grasp at some sort of scientific validity for ancient superstition in the guise of overarching ancestral wisdom being realised. Every piece of solid evidence we have suggests that consciousness emerges from brain activity; there might be something else, it's a logical possibility, but in the absence not just of direct evidence for that 'other', and in the absence of any evidence of activity in the brain that can't be explained by the conventional mechanics, and in the absence of any need for such a mechanism to explain the observed phenomena, the likely explanation with the information available is that 'souls' need to go in the bucket alongside fairies and magic.
O.
Supernatural? Superstition?
Scientific validity does not necessarily mean only phenomena that are external to us. Even personal experiences that have corroborative evidence and are experienced by many people, can have scientific validity.
-
Sriram,
Absolute objective reality is unknowable.
It’s more nuanced than that, but yes.
What you say clearly means that all experiences are subjective though it can be a shared subjectivity. Like watching a movie together. Many people may agree on what they see but it is nevertheless an illusion.
You can’t know that it’s an illusion, but in any case that’s not the point. Axiomatically our understanding of reality is constrained by our ability to understand reality. Nonetheless, within that paradigm we codify truth values as “subjective” and “objective” by reference to various rules. The cheat you keep trying though is to jump straight from the former to the latter without bothering with the rules bit in between.
Take one of your favourites – NDEs. Sometimes people who have been close to death report certain phenomena. Fine. There are various possible explanations for those experiences, and currently no clarity about which (if any) of them are correct. You though just ditch all the possible real world options and jump straight to “afterlife”, apparently oblivious to the problem that you’d have a huge task to establish first such a thing even in principle let alone to demonstrate that the most feasible option is that people were on their way to it.
-
I am not trying to establish anything. Nothing is established beyond doubt...not the big bang theory, not the field theory, not string theory.... Any of these could be proved wrong anytime.
People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences. That is it.
This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.
You can keep repeating the 'brain did it' theory for what all it is worth....but I am not convinced.
-
I am not trying to establish anything. Nothing is established beyond doubt...not the big bang theory, not the field theory, not string theory.... Any of these could be proved wrong anytime.
People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences. That is it.
This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.
You can keep repeating the 'brain did it' theory for what all it is worth....but I am not convinced.
They were never dead!
When they awake their brains try to fill in the gap. If they have heard an near death myth, they will use that.
Just like alien abduction. I can describe alien abduction and give a pretty good description of the aliens. How? because it's well documented.
-
Sriram,
I am not trying to establish anything. Nothing is established beyond doubt...not the big bang theory, not the field theory, not string theory.... Any of these could be proved wrong anytime.
People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences. That is it.
Wrong again. “Clinical death” means just the cessation of blood circulation and breathing. It’s treated as a medical emergency that can sometimes be reversed with various resuscitation techniques. “Dead dead” these days is determined by brain death, and no-one has come back from that.
This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.
Then your opinion is wrong for the reason I just explained.
You can keep repeating the 'brain did it' theory for what all it is worth....but I am not convinced.
Your personal incredulity is not an argument.
-
People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences. That is it.
This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.
'After-life' and reincarnation claims founder because they do not even define exactly what it is that would be reincarnated, except in some sort of vague terms, like 'soul' or 'spirit'. If you cannot define what a soul or a spirit is, then claims of evidence for or against them are baseless.
-
'After-life' and reincarnation claims founder because they do not even define exactly what it is that would be reincarnated, except in some sort of vague terms, like 'soul' or 'spirit'. If you cannot define what a soul or a spirit is, then claims of evidence for or against them are baseless.
Has anyone defined what dark energy is?! Or String? Why should you define or know what something is before you acknowledge its existence? You just know that there is something there that is causing certain effects.
Thankfully many scientists are not so blinkered. Many doctors and psychologists are studying nde's very objectively without brushing them off as brain generated hallucinations. Also, many scientists are studying the possibility of consciousness being independent of the brain.
Your problem is that most of you associate nde's and consciousness being independent of the brain, with religion and supernatural phenomena. That is a major mental block. The two boxes syndrome.
-
Sriram,
Has anyone defined what dark energy is?! Or String? Why should you define or know what something is before you acknowledge its existence? You just know that there is something there that is causing certain effects.
Thankfully many scientists are not so blinkered. Many doctors and psychologists are studying nde's very objectively without brushing them off as brain generated hallucinations. Also, many scientists are studying the possibility of consciousness being independent of the brain.
Your problem is that most of you associate nde's and consciousness being independent of the brain, with religion and supernatural phenomena. That is a major mental block. The two boxes syndrome.
I just corrected your latest mistake (re "clinical death"). Why have you ignored the correction I gave you?
-
Has anyone defined what dark energy is?! Or String? Why should you define or know what something is before you acknowledge its existence? You just know that there is something there that is causing certain effects.
Thankfully many scientists are not so blinkered. Many doctors and psychologists are studying nde's very objectively without brushing them off as brain generated hallucinations. Also, many scientists are studying the possibility of consciousness being independent of the brain.
Your problem is that most of you associate nde's and consciousness being independent of the brain, with religion and supernatural phenomena. That is a major mental block. The two boxes syndrome.
You're not comparing like with like.
Observations that lead to notions of dark energy are not in any doubt. They are not some anecdotal claim, they come out of hard, measurable science. NDEs on the other hand are only anecdotal claims of personal experience voiced by a small minority of individuals who were, admittedly, under severe ill health and stress, literally so ill they were dying.
Science does not take seriously anecdotal claims of people even in the best of health and perfectly balanced of mind. Even when in the best of health, personal evidence is considered the weakest form of evidence, certainly not the basis upon which to form entire new paradigms for the nature of reality.
-
People all over the world, across cultures, have fairly common experiences when they are clinically dead. Their clinical death is not in doubt because critical care doctors world over have certified these cases. Corroborative evidence of objects and events these patients have seen when they were dead, have been documented. Even born blind people have given similar accounts of their experiences. That is it.
This in my opinion, is enough to suggest that there is an after-life and that people do survive death. It is not possible to establish this in any other way through instruments and other such ridiculous methods.
It’s disingenuous to refer to the term ‘clinical death’ to suggest people have actually crossed over to the ‘other side’ and returned to confirm your hope that death is not the end. We all know the difference between clinical death, from which people can sometimes be resuscitated, and actual death, from which nobody ever returns. They are quite different and there is no good reason to suppose that near death experiences tell us anything about actual death.
Your problems don’t end there though. Even if you could establish that a ‘soul’ (whatever that might be) transmigrates into a future life you would have to demonstrate that this entity was in fact the referent of the sense of ‘I’ that gives us a feeling of continuing identity during this life. Otherwise, the transmigration of said soul would be no more significant in terms of personal survival than, say, the post mortem recycling of ‘my’ carbon atoms into another life form. You appear simply to assume this convenience.
If a sense of personal identity did survive death then we would all be able to relate to ‘our’ former lives, but we don’t. When Bramble dies that, presumably, will be the end for Bramble. If Bramble ‘has’ a soul and you could prove that this will eventually go on to contribute to some new life - perhaps a cockroach called Pablo - on what grounds exactly should Bramble care two hoots about this? Will Pablo recall Bramble? Will the reincarnated Bramble find himself thinking ‘eating shit sure beats growing in a hedge?’
In an earlier post you claimed that souls and after-lives were important and meaningful to us, but in what sense could this be so if the ‘I’ of Pablo was fundamentally different from the ‘I’ of Bramble? When he is living as Pablo in a Bolivian toilet in what meaningful way will Bramble have survived his own death?
-
It’s disingenuous to refer to the term ‘clinical death’ to suggest people have actually crossed over to the ‘other side’ and returned to confirm your hope that death is not the end. We all know the difference between clinical death, from which people can sometimes be resuscitated, and actual death, from which nobody ever returns. They are quite different and there is no good reason to suppose that near death experiences tell us anything about actual death.
Your problems don’t end there though. Even if you could establish that a ‘soul’ (whatever that might be) transmigrates into a future life you would have to demonstrate that this entity was in fact the referent of the sense of ‘I’ that gives us a feeling of continuing identity during this life. Otherwise, the transmigration of said soul would be no more significant in terms of personal survival than, say, the post mortem recycling of ‘my’ carbon atoms into another life form. You appear simply to assume this convenience.
If a sense of personal identity did survive death then we would all be able to relate to ‘our’ former lives, but we don’t. When Bramble dies that, presumably, will be the end for Bramble. If Bramble ‘has’ a soul and you could prove that this will eventually go on to contribute to some new life - perhaps a cockroach called Pablo - on what grounds exactly should Bramble care two hoots about this? Will Pablo recall Bramble? Will the reincarnated Bramble find himself thinking ‘eating shit sure beats growing in a hedge?’
In an earlier post you claimed that souls and after-lives were important and meaningful to us, but in what sense could this be so if the ‘I’ of Pablo was fundamentally different from the ‘I’ of Bramble? When he is living as Pablo in a Bolivian toilet in what meaningful way will Bramble have survived his own death?
Ok....I will not go into what is traditionally believed.
If you take NDE cases, you can see that people remain themselves even after death. They don't forget who they were. In fact most of them remember their dear ones and they sometimes wish to come back only due to their children. They also see many others waiting to reincarnate.
Our consciousness is believed to have several levels. At one level we identify with the character that we are in this body. At another level we remain independent of it. During reincarnation, memories of previous lives are retained at the unconscious level and largely forgotten at the conscious level because they are irrelevant to this life. However some children do remember their past lives. Our past life is said to have an subtle unconscious effect on our present life.
Some cases of reincarnation have been documented by Dr.Jim Tucker of the University of Virginia.
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
-
Sriram,
If you take NDE cases, you can see that people remain themselves even after death...
Flat wrong. People "remain themselves" after the temporary cessation of blood circulation and breathing, which is not particularly surprising. People who are actually dead on the other hand don't return to life to tell us about it
The rest of your post collapses accordingly.
-
Supernatural? Superstition?
Yes.
Scientific validity does not necessarily mean only phenomena that are external to us.
Nobody has suggested for a moment that it does.
Even personal experiences that have corroborative evidence and are experienced by many people, can have scientific validity.
Yes they can, especially those: sight, gravity, noise, electromagnetism... But, equally, there is a wealth of evidence to the various manners in which our sensory experience and our cognitive biases make our subjective experience at the best questionable. This is why we have developed a rigorous process like scientific enquiry to attempt to minimise the impact of those all too human foibles.
O.
-
Nobody has suggested for a moment that it does.
Yes they can, especially those: sight, gravity, noise, electromagnetism... But, equally, there is a wealth of evidence to the various manners in which our sensory experience and our cognitive biases make our subjective experience at the best questionable. This is why we have developed a rigorous process like scientific enquiry to attempt to minimise the impact of those all too human foibles.
O.
'rigorous process of scientific enquiry'....that is itself the impediment in such cases. Scienism has taken over from impartial inquiry. Method has become more important than understanding reality.
-
'rigorous process of scientific enquiry'....that is itself the impediment in such cases.
If you have another valid method you're welcome to put it forward, but to just make assertions and complain that science doesn't validate them so therefore science must be lacking is to put the cart before the horse.
Scienism has taken over from impartial inquiry. Method has become more important than understanding reality.
Without a viable method you have no understanding, you have guesswork. Science is a method, but currently it's the most reliable, most consistent method we have.
O.
-
Sriram,
'rigorous process of scientific enquiry'....that is itself the impediment in such cases. Scienism has taken over from impartial inquiry. Method has become more important than understanding reality.
1. That's not what "scientism" means.
2. If you think scientific enquiry is an "impediment", what process for investigation and verification would you propose instead to distinguish your claims from just guessing?
3. Method is the only way we know of to map observation to reality. If you think there's another one though, tell us what it is.
PS Any news on why you just lopped the "N" off "NDEs" to turn "near death" into "death" - presumably in the hope that no-one would notice the attempted cheat?
-
If you have another valid method you're welcome to put it forward, but to just make assertions and complain that science doesn't validate them so therefore science must be lacking is to put the cart before the horse.
Without a viable method you have no understanding, you have guesswork. Science is a method, but currently it's the most reliable, most consistent method we have.
O.
Science can easily become a religion that you swear by.... Method becomes a ritual...something that is adhered to regardless of its usefulness.
-
Sriram,
Science can easily become a religion that you swear by....
Wrong again. It's precisely because science is not a religion - ie, it's not faith-based - that it can provide useful explanatory models for observed phenomena.
Method becomes a ritual...
Depends what you mean by "ritual", but if you're trying to say something like "applied consistently" that's right - it's supposed to be.
...something that is adhered to regardless of its usefulness.
And now you've collapsed into mindless sloganeering.
All you've done here is to parade a set of ill-informed prejudices. Do you have anything to say though to the actual arguments that are undoing you?
-
Science can easily become a religion that you swear by.... Method becomes a ritual...something that is adhered to regardless of its usefulness.
And yet in a few hundred years science has brought us immeasurably further than snake-oil salesmen pulling words like 'soul' out of their arse and waving it around like they've cured cancer. You can dislike science for not backing up your pet superstition if you'd like, but this sort of nonsense is just sad.
Anything misapplied can be a bad thing, but the misapplication of the scientific method is neither an intrinsic flaw in science nor evidence that 'spirit' is in any way a meaningful term. If you can't come up with a viable argument, or a viable alternative to science, just accept that you don't yet have enough evidence to support your contention and keep looking for it. Attacking the single most productive philosophy we've come up with for human advancement just makes you look like a Luddite.
O.
-
And yet in a few hundred years science has brought us immeasurably further than snake-oil salesmen pulling words like 'soul' out of their arse and waving it around like they've cured cancer. You can dislike science for not backing up your pet superstition if you'd like, but this sort of nonsense is just sad.
Anything misapplied can be a bad thing, but the misapplication of the scientific method is neither an intrinsic flaw in science nor evidence that 'spirit' is in any way a meaningful term. If you can't come up with a viable argument, or a viable alternative to science, just accept that you don't yet have enough evidence to support your contention and keep looking for it. Attacking the single most productive philosophy we've come up with for human advancement just makes you look like a Luddite.
O.
The benefits of science and its usefulness in certain areas are not in doubt. I have not questioned that.
It is the misapplication and the mindless adherence to a method that is inappropriate for certain investigations is what I am talking about. You can't use a foot rule to measure your mental state.
-
The benefits of science and its usefulness in certain areas are not in doubt. I have not questioned that.
It is the misapplication and the mindless adherence to a method that is inappropriate for certain investigations is what I am talking about. You can't use a foot rule to measure your mental state.
The first problem is that you haven't actually made a case for science being inappropriate, in fact you seem to regularly switch from claiming science supports your ideas to claiming it's inappropriate. The second problem is that you haven't offered an alternative methodology that we could use instead.
Of course your actual agenda is as clear as day; you want to say science is inappropriate because it's not confirming your cherished preconceived ideas, and the alternative you'd like is for everybody to just accept said cherished preconceived ideas.
You need to cultivate a more open mind and a more rational approach. Reality is under no obligation to pander to what you want to be true. Starting with your conclusion and then trying to find support for it is putting things backwards if what you want is to get as close to the truth as possible.
-
:D Why 'preconceived' ideas?
1. There are enough NDE cases to suggest that there is an after-life. Even born blind cases have been investigated.
2. There are enough researchers who accept that NDE's could point to an after-life.
3. Documented cases of reincarnation investigated by professional people of science.
4. Number of qualified researchers who suggest that Consciousness could be independent of the brain.
Everything is hunky dory as I see it..... :D
-
It is the misapplication and the mindless adherence to a method that is inappropriate for certain investigations is what I am talking about.
Firstly, in what way is the scientific method inappropriate for the investigation? If you have detectable phenomena, science is an appropriate method for investigating it; if you don't have a detectable phenomenon, what are you investigating?
You can't use a foot rule to measure your mental state.
We aren't talking about investigating a mental state, though, we're talking about investigating the poltergeist that's alleged, without evidence, to be influencing the mental state. And the foot-rule (I'd prefer a metre rule, but hey-ho) might be the appropriate device once you can isolate the poltergeist - until then...
O.
-
:D Why 'preconceived' ideas?
You'd have to answer that. That they are things that you want to believe is blindingly obvious from your posts.
1. There are enough NDE cases to suggest that there is an after-life. Even born blind cases have been investigated.
2. There are enough researchers who accept that NDE's could point to an after-life.
3. Documented cases of reincarnation investigated by professional people of science.
This has all been dealt with multiple times before, and near death experiences are totally irrelevant anyway.
4. Number of qualified researchers who suggest that Consciousness could be independent of the brain.
And again you are latching on to tentative conjectures that, for the most part (things like IIT and Orch OR), wouldn't support a fully functioning mind outside of a brain, let alone the transfer of a brain-based mind to some other substrate.
If IIT or Orch OR are correct, it would pretty much rule out any afterlife.
Everything is hunky dory as I see it..... :D
Since you seem to value your comfort zone above actually trying to find the truth, I'm sure it is. ::)
-
Sriram,
:D Why 'preconceived' ideas?
Your woo claims.
1. There are enough NDE cases to suggest that there is an after-life. Even born blind cases have been investigated.
No there isn't. If I walk to the edge of a roof of a tower block I'm having a near falling experience too, but I can't therefore tell you anything about falling.
2. There are enough researchers who accept that NDE's could point to an after-life.
Semantics: rainbows "could" point to leprechauns too. You're conflating possibility with probability here.
3. Documented cases of reincarnation investigated by professional people of science.
Utter nonsense. There are no such cases. If there were, they'd be global news and moreover would fundamentally reconfigure science itself.
4. Number of qualified researchers who suggest that Consciousness could be independent of the brain.
Who are these supposed "qualified researchers" and in any case what epistemic value do you think a "could be" gives you?
Everything is hunky dory as I see it..... :D
That's because your inability to reason is matched only by your incurious arrogance.
Short version: you're al over the floor here.
-
Firstly, in what way is the scientific method inappropriate for the investigation? If you have detectable phenomena, science is an appropriate method for investigating it; if you don't have a detectable phenomenon, what are you investigating?
We aren't talking about investigating a mental state, though, we're talking about investigating the poltergeist that's alleged, without evidence, to be influencing the mental state. And the foot-rule (I'd prefer a metre rule, but hey-ho) might be the appropriate device once you can isolate the poltergeist - until then...
O.
How do you suggest they impartially investigate NDE's 'scientifically'? Merely by assuming that they are brain generated hallucinations....??!! ::)
-
How do you suggest they impartially investigate NDE's 'scientifically'? Merely by assuming that they are brain generated hallucinations....??!! ::)
As many NDErs describe OBEs, most from a height overlooking their bodies, how about producing a visual target(say on top of a high cupboard) which only the person having the OBE could possibly identify? Oh, wait a minute, it's been done, hasn't it, multiple times, including as part of Parnia's Aware studies, and every result as far as I know has come back negative hasn't it?
Indeed, *Kenneth Ring in an exchange with Bruce Greyson, said:
There is so much anecdotal evidence that suggests [experiencers] can, at least sometime, perceive veridically during their NDEs.....but isn't it true that in all this time, there hasn't been a single case of veridical perception reported by an NDEr under controlled conditions? I mean, thirty years later, it's still a null class(as far as I know). Yes, excuses, excuses-I know. But, really, wouldn't you have suspected more than a few cases at least by now?
* Professor Kenneth Ring, of course, was one of the two authors who produced the paper that you linked to in post 68, and with whose interpretation you obviously disagreed when you stated that "Born blind people have seen and identified objects like normal people.....while being clinically dead."
-
Visual targets and so on don't prove anything. NDE's are spontaneous events and cannot be directed. We cannot specify that a person having a OBE should notice such and such. That is ridiculous. Just because you have not noticed some road sign in your high street doesn't mean you haven't been there.
However, such patients have by themselves noticed events and conversations taking place in the hospital. Many such corroborative evidence have been documented. Just read Sam Parnia's 'What happens when we die' or Raymond Moody's 'Life after Life'.
-
Visual targets and so on don't prove anything. NDE's are spontaneous events and cannot be directed. We cannot specify that a person having a OBE should notice such and such. That is ridiculous. Just because you have not noticed some road sign in your high street doesn't mean you haven't been there.
.. whilst the idea that people that don't exist can hear quite well without ears and can see quite well without eyes is not ridiculous in the slightest ? I think you have lost the plot somewhere
-
Visual targets and so on don't prove anything. NDE's are spontaneous events and cannot be directed. We cannot specify that a person having a OBE should notice such and such. That is ridiculous. Just because you have not noticed some road sign in your high street doesn't mean you haven't been there.
As Prof. Ring says "Yes, excuses, excuses-I know. But, really, wouldn't you have suspected more than a few cases at least by now?" :)
However, such patients have by themselves noticed events and conversations taking place in the hospital. Many such corroborative evidence have been documented. Just read Sam Parnia's 'What happens when we die' or Raymond Moody's 'Life after Life'.
Rubbish. Not corroborative at all. Anecdotal evidence runs the constant risk of confabulation. indeed Parnia himself who conducted two detailed studies(Aware 1 and Aware 2), investigating a large number of people with cardiac arrest over a number of years could only find two people who might have correctly recalled awareness before CPR, and one of those only recalled audio stimuli.
You might be interested in this view of the one from the Aware 1 study.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aware-results-finally-published-no-evidence-of-nde/
In contrast to your confident articulation of 'corroborative evidence', Parnia is much more circumspect and vague. Here is his conclusion to the Aware 2 Study.
External awareness and internal cognitive activity may occur during CA. However, it is unclear whether explicit recall sufficiently describes the entirety of cognitive processes during CA, or whether implicit memories may also form. In some survivors, memories lead to greater life-meaning and a positive transformation, which contrasts with negative psychological outcomes such as PTSD. In this context, in place of NDE a more appropriate term might be transformative experience of death (TED). Further studies, are needed to delineate the role of implicit and explicit learning and how cognitive activity during CPR may relate to brain resuscitation quality and overall psychological outcomes.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.140.suppl_2.387
As you said, in post 108, (Everything is hunky dory as I see it..... :D), and no one is going to convince you that you might just be wrong, are they, Sriram?
-
How do you suggest they impartially investigate NDE's 'scientifically'?
Search for external factors that could be affecting the brain - monitor brain function to look for activity that appears to be spontaneous, or at least that appears to arise differently to brain activity under other circumstances. Investigate.
How do you propose people impartially investigate them, or indeed anything else, without the scientific method?
Merely by assuming that they are brain generated hallucinations....??!! ::)
No, by presuming that the experiences are caused by something, and running through the viable possibilities to determine what has a) capacity and b) evidence of actually existing. Of those, test and trial between them to see which is the most likely, and adopt that as the working hypothesis until further evidence comes along.
From that evidence it would seem that these are, effectively, hallucinations; they are mental states that arise, possibly from the breakdown of brain biochemistry under unusual circumstances causing 'misfires' of neurons, as a result of ischemic damage in the brain. There is evidence for the biochemical breakdown, there is evidence for the ischemic damage, there is evidence of the spurious neuronal activity... what there isn't any evidence for is 'soul'.
If you want 'soul' to be in the mix, how do you demonstrate it? If science isn't your preferred toolkit, what is?
O.
-
This kind of to and fro could go on forever... Thanks guys.... :)
-
Sriram,
This kind of to and fro could go on forever... Thanks guys.... :)
There is no "to and fro" in the sense of a debate or an exchange of ideas. Rather you post various assertions. Others here produce reasoning and evidence that shows those assertions to be wrong or at best unjustified. Instead of engaging honestly with the reasons and evidence you've been given though, you just repeat exactly the same assertions as if nothing had happened.
This is intellectually dishonest, and it does you no credit.
Let's take an example: your assertions about NDEs. The important part of an NDE is the "N" - it's a near death experience, not a death experience. The difference is critical - when breathing and blood flow stop for a brief time people who recover report some similar experiences (bright lights etc), which is hardly surprising given that we all have the same neural architecture. What you do though is to remove the N, claim people were actually dead when they weren't, then extrapolate various fantastical conjectures as facts without bothering with any of the hard yards to take you from (already false) premise to conclusion.
Why not then show us that you're not dishonest after all actually by addressing this issue openly and head on?