Karma

[Walter]

They do try to explain away the individual identity of self by saying it is just an illusion of  feeling of being an agent. Once you've done that then experience is relegated to just being input/output data and so on.

It was some years ago now, probably on In Our Time with Melvin Bragg, or a programme like that, that wouldn't invite some charlatan.

Jack Knave
I'm going to require you to blow into this bag!

[Jack Knave]

Funny that, a few years ago, a guy in a pub told me he'd seen a leprechaun.   It must be true, because the pub is really nice.

Any citation for 'an illusion of feeling of being an agent'?

So you are equating top scientists with some geezer down the pub? You're really gonna please Blue and co. with that one. 

Your second point - That is what some have said on this thread. It's an illusion caused by the emergent property of the brain's complexity. Don't ask me to find it I don't keep a log of where all this stuff was said. You could ask them.

[wigginhall]

So you are equating top scientists with some geezer down the pub? You're really gonna please Blue and co. with that one. 

Your second point - That is what some have said on this thread. It's an illusion caused by the emergent property of the brain's complexity. Don't ask me to find it I don't keep a log of where all this stuff was said. You could ask them.

No, I am equating hearsay with hearsay.   Some unnamed top scientist, whom you heard on the radio several years ago, and it was a good programme.  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Sriram]

Just to point out that it would be useful if you didn't use the term theory here as it would indicate a misunderstanding of its meaning in this context.

If String theory and Parallel Universes  theory ....can be called theories....PAP and Biocentrism can also be called theories.

There is a clear bias here though it is shrouded in contrived language and supposed logic and rationality. Not only are the possibilities of of such phenomena as Spirit, After-life etc. rejected wholesale, but even recent ideas proposed by scientists such as the above are kept at a safe arms length distance and viewed with scorn. 

There is so much fear....it is palpable! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Funny that, a few years ago, a guy in a pub told me he'd seen a leprechaun.

It wasn't Bluehillside was it?

[Nearly Sane]

If String theory and Parallel Universes  theory ....can be called theories....PAP and Biocentrism can also be called theories.

There is a clear bias here though it is shrouded in contrived language and supposed logic and rationality. Not only are the possibilities of of such phenomena as Spirit, After-life etc. rejected wholesale, but even recent ideas proposed by scientists such as the above are kept at a safe arms length distance and viewed with scorn. 

There is so much fear....it is palpable!

neither of them should be called theories. And I note that you cannot resist attacking posters rather than posts.

[Maeght]

If String theory and Parallel Universes  theory ....can be called theories....PAP and Biocentrism can also be called theories.

None of those are scientific theories.

There is so much fear....it is palpable!

Fear of what do you think?

[Sriram]

neither of them should be called theories. And I note that you cannot resist attacking posters rather than posts.

I attack posters...oh...really?!!!  LOL! 

[Nearly Sane]

I attack posters...oh...really?!!!  LOL!

Yes.

[Sriram]

None of those are scientific theories.

Fear of what do you think?

Fear of unknown territories. Everyone wants to stay in their comfort zone. The moment they find that science is venturing into philosophical matters and coming up with ideas like Consciousness could be driving the universe...people tend to become uncomfortable.

[Sriram]

Yes.

No!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jack Knave,

I disagree. The materialistic attitude has been gathering speed since Greek times and the enlightenment ushered in a new perspective to life. The problem is it has degraded the aspect of our lives that is related to our human natures; often referred to as our spiritual side. It is the orthodoxy of this materialism that is channelling the ideas and concepts etc. down a soulless cul-de-sac. It is an ideology that "punishes" anyone who steps out of line and forces the party line on all. Sadly it is even an unconscious attribute to science so it functions in the shadows and so is insidiously pernicious in its demands because our culture is set in this historical framework. As such, as it is not fully consciously seen it proceeds unnoticed and without hideous and the whole milieu is taken as a given, as a presumption that colours the researches into areas that involve these human/spiritual/psychological subjects.   

I can kind of understand what you are trying to say, science ( I think ) has been a kind of ivory tower pursuit and we need to remember that scientists are human, subject to hate, envy, jealousy, pride, they are no different to anyone else.

Albert Einstein is a case in point, although he was a genius he was subject to all that ails us, it took him ten years to admit to an expanding Universe and from what I have read it was manly his pride which got in the way.

Only quite recently we were debating the Aquatic ape and from what I can garner a lot had to do with the lady in question not being a scientist, I also get the feeling that being female was also another contributing factor and we do have evidence that females were discouraged when it came to scientific pursuit.

In fact old Torridon can back this up, he invited a few of us to join a little course thing where some Prof had a relatively new way of looking at the mind, anyway this Prof stated that he had met with some resistance because his peers saw no merit in the direction he was going.

So yes, I can understand what you are trying to say, there was a certain toeing of the line in science but thankfully I think that is changing, we are seeing scientists more ready to share their knowledge and also step outside their little box, the internet has opened this up and I think over the past ten years we are seeing far more women in science.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

No!

It's demonstrably true. Instead of dealing with posts in a straightforward fashion, you make comments about fear being palpable, thereby making ad hominem attacks rather than rational arguments.

[Sriram]

It's demonstrably true. Instead of dealing with posts in a straightforward fashion, you make comments about fear being palpable, thereby making ad hominem attacks rather than rational arguments.

I made a comment against all scientists as a community and not against any individual.

If you really are policing this sort of thing... it would be worth your while to check out the comments made about me in most of the threads (including this one). Now...that would be ad hominem comments. 

And not that you are guilt free!

[Udayana]

Dear Jack Knave,

I can kind of understand what you are trying to say, science ( I think ) has been a kind of ivory tower pursuit and we need to remember that scientists are human, subject to hate, envy, jealousy, pride, they are no different to anyone else.

Albert Einstein is a case in point, although he was a genius he was subject to all that ails us, it took him ten years to admit to an expanding Universe and from what I have read it was manly his pride which got in the way.

Only quite recently we were debating the Aquatic ape and from what I can garner a lot had to do with the lady in question not being a scientist, I also get the feeling that being female was also another contributing factor and we do have evidence that females were discouraged when it came to scientific pursuit.

In fact old Torridon can back this up, he invited a few of us to join a little course thing where some Prof had a relatively new way of looking at the mind, anyway this Prof stated that he had met with some resistance because his peers saw no merit in the direction he was going.

So yes, I can understand what you are trying to say, there was a certain toeing of the line in science but thankfully I think that is changing, we are seeing scientists more ready to share their knowledge and also step outside their little box, the internet has opened this up and I think over the past ten years we are seeing far more women in science.

Gonnagle.

Scientists are human and carry around the same kind of baggage as the rest of us. Often, in the search for objective truths, the worst aspects can be filtered out but sometimes not.

And "baggage" is what the idea of karma is about ... we could all examine the prejudices, biases, desires, drives and fears that determine our views and behaviour or how we conduct our affairs. Discussing and resolving the issues that we find could help us build a more satisfying, rational and equal world.

[Maeght]

Fear of unknown territories. Everyone wants to stay in their comfort zone. The moment they find that science is venturing into philosophical matters and coming up with ideas like Consciousness could be driving the universe...people tend to become uncomfortable.

I think people who have an interest in science are not like that at all. Science takes us all on 'journeys of discovery' and as we learn more we are often taken out side of our comfort zone. The issue I think is when ideas are pushed as being equivalent to science when they don't follow the scientific method and rely on annecdote and 'experience' rather than actual scientific testing. Those who are interested in science and see it as being the wonderful thing it is are bound to be a bit frustrated when attempts are made to push things which aren't science under that umbrella.

[wigginhall]

Actually, if a team of scientists found evidence that 'consciousness is driving the universe', they wouldn't be uncomfortable, they would be ecstatic.   They would be guaranteed at least one Nobel prize, and undying fame.   They would be ranked with Einstein. But so far, nothing has turned up, except a bunch of woo, (hello Sriram), and some interesting ideas about panpsychism, which don't seem to be demonstrable.  Recent interest in the 'hard problem' has rekindled interest in this, mainly among philosophers, but as yet, there is no empirical aspect to it.   It's rather like the Matrix, it is possibly true, but there is no way of telling if it is.

Some of the philosophers and scientists, who have been interested in panpsychism: William James, Whitehead, Bergson, Russell (for part of his career), Hartshorne, Eddington,  Bohm, Nagel, Galen Strawson, but there are lots of others.

[Sriram]

Actually, if a team of scientists found evidence that 'consciousness is driving the universe', they wouldn't be uncomfortable, they would be ecstatic.   They would be guaranteed at least one Nobel prize, and undying fame.   They would be ranked with Einstein. But so far, nothing has turned up, except a bunch of woo, (hello Sriram), and some interesting ideas about panpsychism, which don't seem to be demonstrable.  Recent interest in the 'hard problem' has rekindled interest in this, mainly among philosophers, but as yet, there is no empirical aspect to it.   It's rather like the Matrix, it is possibly true, but there is no way of telling if it is.

Well...ok!   'Possibly true'...is good enough!  If it is good enough for String Theory and Parallel Universes and Dark Matter...et al....it is good enough for Consciousness driving the universe, After-Life...etc.  No problem.

[Sriram]

I think people who have an interest in science are not like that at all. Science takes us all on 'journeys of discovery' and as we learn more we are often taken out side of our comfort zone. The issue I think is when ideas are pushed as being equivalent to science when they don't follow the scientific method and rely on annecdote and 'experience' rather than actual scientific testing. Those who are interested in science and see it as being the wonderful thing it is are bound to be a bit frustrated when attempts are made to push things which aren't science under that umbrella.

Maybe so. But how are String theory or Parallel Universes theory more acceptable as 'Science' than After-Life or Spiritual Worlds? And what if many of the phenomena are not amenable to examination through the Scientific Method?  Should the method be reexamined and expanded or should all such phenomena be dismissed summarily?

[wigginhall]

Well...ok!   'Possibly true'...is good enough!  If it is good enough for String Theory and Parallel Universes and Dark Matter...et al....it is good enough for Consciousness driving the universe, After-Life...etc.  No problem.

Surely dark matter is quite different, in that it has strong inferential support, e.g. certain gravitation effects, for example, gravitational lensing.    I think there are many experiments under way, designed to detect it.  I don't know how you would design an experiment to detect a universal consciousness.

[Walter]

Well...ok!   'Possibly true'...is good enough!  If it is good enough for String Theory and Parallel Universes and Dark Matter...et al....it is good enough for Consciousness driving the universe, After-Life...etc.  No problem.

people like you should be banned from using the above scientific terms until they know what they mean.

[wigginhall]

Maybe so. But how are String theory or Parallel Universes theory more acceptable as 'Science' than After-Life or Spiritual Worlds? And what if many of the phenomena are not amenable to examination through the Scientific Method?  Should the method be reexamined and expanded or should all such phenomena be dismissed summarily?

Well, a phenomenon is always an observed phenomenon, so if we are using the word accurately, and not as part of woo-ology, then it is possible to construct experiments to detect it and study it, and eventually, explain it.    I don't think the after-life is a phenomenon at all.   

As with 'logic' you use these words very sloppily. 

[Sriram]

Surely dark matter is quite different, in that it has strong inferential support, e.g. certain gravitation effects, for example, gravitational lensing.    I think there are many experiments under way, designed to detect it.  I don't know how you would design an experiment to detect a universal consciousness.

The point is that ...as we go along we will be leaving behind the  comfy and familiar world that we have known all these years through science.   The universe and even human life are likely to seem more abstract and speculative. That is the nature of the world.

Our senses have evolved for the purpose of our survival on earth and their limitations are going to become apparent more and more. 

So..either we remain content with philosophical and speculative 'theories', instead of harping on and on about empirical evidence or find ways to examine phenomena outside the hitherto useful 'scientific method'.

[Sriram]

Well, a phenomenon is always an observed phenomenon, so if we are using the word accurately, and not as part of woo-ology, then it is possible to construct experiments to detect it and study it, and eventually, explain it.    I don't think the after-life is a phenomenon at all.

'I don't think'...is not a good enough argument...is it?! 

[Walter]

The point is that ...as we go along we will be leaving behind the  comfy and familiar world that we have known all these years through science.   The universe and even human life are likely to seem more abstract and speculative. That is the nature of the world.

Our senses have evolved for the purpose of our survival on earth and their limitations are going to become apparent more and more. 

So..either we remain content with philosophical and speculative 'theories', instead of harping on and on about empirical evidence or find ways to examine phenomena outside the hitherto useful 'scientific method'.

If you are so convinced of the phenomena you talk about Why don't you devise the experiment to determine their existence instead of waiting for someone else to do it .
I for one would be very interested in your method and results . there is definitely   a Nobel prize in it.