Karma

[SusanDoris]

That is precisely what I asked you. How would you go about investigating these phenomena with standard scientific methods?  If you cannot, how do you suggest a 'scientific' investigation can be conducted? 

My question is...since you maintain that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena, if some aspects of reality fall outside the scope of science...what will you do? How will they be investigated?

Or do you suggest that such phenomena cannot exist or that since they cannot be investigated through scientific means they should be abandoned as meaningless ideas?

You keep asking the same question, don't you? In order to investigate something, you need an observation to start with, not just one person's expressed thought. Others must be able, independently, to have a similar observation before a hypothesis can be put forward and the scientific method followed.

If I have not exactly expressed this correctly, I will of course happily defer to whatever torridon and others say.

[torridon]

That is precisely what I asked you. How would you go about investigating these phenomena with standard scientific methods?  If you cannot, how do you suggest a 'scientific' investigation can be conducted? 

My question is...since you maintain that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena, if some aspects of reality fall outside the scope of science...what will you do? How will they be investigated?

Or do you suggest that such phenomena cannot exist or that since they cannot be investigated through scientific means they should be abandoned as meaningless ideas?

If 'outside the scope of science' means 'untestable' then any such idea is going to remain speculative, and rightly so.  If we cannot put an idea to the test then there is no way to gain confidence in it through empirical means. We could say that string theory is similarly somewhat speculative in as much as strings would be too small to observe directly using a light source.

On the other hand, string theory does have an immense body of theoretical work in the form of fiendishly complex mathematical descriptions of reality at that level. As far as I know there is no such body of work underpinning your notions of spirits - nothing on their form, substance, energy levels or means of interaction.  At the very least we would need to see suggested a new term in the Dirac equation to account for how immaterial stuff interacts with matter and an explanation of how the Dirac equation has been so successful to date in describing matter interactions within the contexts of quantum electrodynamics and special relativity without ever referencing all this immaterial spirit stuff, which in your account, must be absolutely ubiquitous.  Without any detailed working hypothesis, there is nothing there to test for. All you have is a woolly speculative ancient notion that forever floats conveniently just out of reach of empirical validation or falsification.

[ekim]

I do have absolute certainty that there is something which perceives and controls my thoughts, and I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.

Some questions on that. How does that 'something' control your thoughts, especially the thought that you have absolute certainty?  In the context of your religion, how do you know that it is not Satan creating the illusion of absolute certainty within you?  Stage hypnotists can initiate the sense of certainty within suggestible volunteers, how do you know that you have not fallen under the spell of religious persuasion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If 'outside the scope of science' means 'untestable' then any such idea is going to remain speculative, and rightly so.  If we cannot put an idea to the test then there is no way to gain confidence in it through empirical means. We could say that string theory is similarly somewhat speculative in as much as strings would be too small to observe directly using a light source.

On the other hand, string theory does have an immense body of theoretical work in the form of fiendishly complex mathematical descriptions of reality at that level. As far as I know there is no such body of work underpinning your notions of spirits - nothing on their form, substance, energy levels or means of interaction.  At the very least we would need to see suggested a new term in the Dirac equation to account for how immaterial stuff interacts with matter and an explanation of how the Dirac equation has been so successful to date in describing matter interactions within the contexts of quantum electrodynamics and special relativity without ever referencing all this immaterial spirit stuff, which in your account, must be absolutely ubiquitous.  Without any detailed working hypothesis, there is nothing there to test for. All you have is a woolly speculative ancient notion that forever floats conveniently just out of reach of empirical validation or falsification.

Yes and let's not forget Brobat works without spiritual reference but I guess just saying that would detract from the Charles Hawtrey image of science you are trying to cultivate here.
Another masterwork in the statement of the bleedin' obvious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is precisely what I asked you. How would you go about investigating these phenomena with standard scientific methods?  If you cannot, how do you suggest a 'scientific' investigation can be conducted? 

My question is...since you maintain that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena, if some aspects of reality fall outside the scope of science...what will you do? How will they be investigated?

Or do you suggest that such phenomena cannot exist or that since they cannot be investigated through scientific means they should be abandoned as meaningless ideas?

Yes that's exactly what they mean and they do so on what justification but a circular argument.

[torridon]

Yes and let's not forget Brobat works without spiritual reference but I guess just saying that would detract from the Charles Hawtrey image of science you are trying to cultivate here.
Another masterwork in the statement of the bleedin' obvious.

Here's a thought Vlad, why not help Sriram out with some positive suggestions.  He'd like to see how his notions could gain traction in the modern world.  I've said the problem is they lack substance, they lack detail, so the implication is, put some detail in there.  You could do better than just sniping from the sidelines, never sticking your neck out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Here's a thought Vlad, why not help Sriram out with some positive suggestions.  He'd like to see how his notions could gain traction in the modern world.  I've said the problem is they lack substance, they lack detail, so the implication is, put some detail in there.  You could do better than just sniping from the sidelines, never sticking your neck out.

Come on you know I take the position:
Science good, science not the only show in town, other ways of describing the world, reductionism can give an inaccurate perspective and it is perspective which my Brobat comment seeks to re-establish as opposed to your elevation of the magisterium of reductionist materialism.

[torridon]

A very nice piece of Vlad-speak, that, deftly deflecting the previous invitation

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum

Gonnagle.

[Alan Burns]

Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum

Gonnagle.

Thanks for this. 

An excellent article from a highly qualified medical scientist.  Brings up some very valid points.  Well worth a read

[Sriram]

Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum

Gonnagle.

Wow! Yes...that's a good article Gonnagle.  I have no doubt that scientists will have to start looking seriously at such matters as the soul, afterlife, reincarnation and Karma in the years to come.   

Not that all these areas will be amenable to investigation through the standard methods. No... that is unlikely.  But it will definitely become necessary to value personal experience also as a valid means of receiving inputs from the world. Greater value will have to be paced on our lives and our insights. 

For too long has the scientist community been sitting in its ivory tower and telling the world what to think and what to believe. They have had their value and successes of course....but it is time for a reversal, which is inevitable.

I agree that human fear, desires and  imagination can produce considerable noise and clutter in the mind because of which it is often very difficult to separate them from real insights.  But it is not impossible.  Some people have always managed to do it and now with the spread of such scientific principles as Yoga, Pranayama (breathing exercises), meditations etc. more and more people will be able to manage to differentiate between imagination and inner wisdom.

To add to that, such experiences as NDE's, ESP, other 'paranormal' experiences will become more common and more accepted as real phenomena. 

I think a time will come soon when the extreme materialism that has become so deeply ingrained in the human psyche (in some parts) will give way to greater value being placed on peoples experiences and insights. Valuable experiences can no longer be dismissed as anecdote and delusion.

[Alan Burns]

Where is it located? What does it consist of? What are its characteristics? How does it connect to the physical?

An interesting clip which gives some insight to your queries about the soul's existence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AAcYDXYwdc

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#996

I do have absolute certainty that there is something which perceives and controls my thoughts, and I am absolutely certain that science has not been able to define what this something is, or how it does it.

A very clever man once said this: 'Do not feel absolutely certain of anything' - good advice.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

In which case, we should not feel absolutely certain about his advice then?

[Sriram]

Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum

Gonnagle.

Gonnagle...there is a thread on Biocentrism in the Science board (with a Wiki link) which elaborates on this stuff. As can be expected, no one has contributed to that discussion.

[torridon]

Dear Sriram, Alan Burns, Vlad, Jack Knave and other Soul mates, ( Hey! maybe we are all just one big soul )

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

They are beginning to ask questions, its all Quantum

Gonnagle.

Thanks for this. 

An excellent article from a highly qualified medical scientist.  Brings up some very valid points.  Well worth a read

Well, hardly an independent assessment of the biocentrism idea, since it was written by the proponent, and as far as I know, the only notable scientist that supports this notion.  Lanza is something of a self-publicist, needing to make money from his book sales; this is a lucrative field that has perennial appeal amongst people who want a sciencey sounding validation of their traditional beliefs.  For a more balanced overview don't forget that the overwhelming majority of scientists are underwhelmed by Lanza's book, derived as it is from a popular misunderstanding quantum mechanics which imagines that a conscious observer is required to collapse wave functions. Any real particle physicist will tell you that is nonsense; all the evidence says that the quantum world was busy doing its thing quite happily for 14 billion years before any conscious observers started to evolve.

[Sebastian Toe]

Thanks for this. 

An excellent article from a highly qualified medical scientist.  Brings up some very valid points.

Especially the bit where animal souls are mentioned alonside human ones.

[torridon]

An interesting clip which gives some insight to your queries about the soul's existence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AAcYDXYwdc

Oh dear,  upon death our information encoded is passed on into the 'spiritual quantum world' ?  You can find some real desperate stuff on Youtube;  The spread of real knowledge is being sidelined as flakey disinformation, false news and conspiracy theories prosper thanks to the internet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks for this. 

An excellent article from a highly qualified medical scientist.  Brings up some very valid points.  Well worth a read


Well, hardly an independent assessment of the biocentrism idea, since it was written by the proponent, and as far as I know, the only notable scientist that supports this notion.  Lanza is something of a self-publicist, needing to make money from his book sales; this is a lucrative field that has perennial appeal amongst people who want a sciencey sounding validation of their traditional beliefs.  For a more balanced overview don't forget that the overwhelming majority of scientists are underwhelmed by Lanza's book, derived as it is from a popular misunderstanding quantum mechanics which imagines that a conscious observer is required to collapse wave functions. Any real particle physicist will tell you that is nonsense; all the evidence says that the quantum world was busy doing its thing quite happily for 14 billion years before any conscious observers started to evolve.

You sound fairly feasible Torridon.....but then I'm sure you know I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily.
Taking your last point and talking of real physicists didn't the famous antitheist and physicist Lawrence Krauss express some fears that our observations of the universe would bring it an earlier demise? Apparently Tegmark stepped in to make your point about plenty of non conscious observation going down at any one time. Perhaps you can clear that up for us?

[Sebastian Toe]

You sound fairly feasible Torridon.....but then I'm sure you know I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily.
Taking your last point and talking of real physicists didn't the famous antitheist and physicist Lawrence Krauss express some fears that our observations of the universe would bring it an earlier demise? Apparently Tegmark stepped in to make your point about plenty of non conscious observation going down at any one time. Perhaps you can clear that up for us?

Whilst you are in a clearing up mode. Maybe you could help clear up the dilemma as to whether Jesus is God or not. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about it elsewhere on this forum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Blimey - a few days away in Mitteleuropa and the toys here are well and truly out of the box: AB ploughing the same old logical fallacy furrow; Sriram lumping pseudo science and real science together in the hope that no-one notices; SOTS relentlessly missing the point and essaying some bad reasoning of his own; Vlad sniping from the wings and suddenly finding something else to do when asked how we should distinguish "different ways of describing the world" from just guessing about stuff...

...clearly my people need me!

Curious too by the way that those who would denigrate science are suddenly over it like an ill-fitting suit when they think a real scientist says something that supports them. Shames it turn out not to be real science at all, but the damascene conversion to what they thought to be rational thinking was remarkable!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Blimey - a few days away in Mitteleuropa and the toys here are well and truly out of the box: AB ploughing the same old logical fallacy furrow; Sriram lumping pseudo science and real science together in the hope that no-one notices; SOTS relentlessly missing the point and essaying some bad reasoning of his own; Vlad sniping from the wings and suddenly finding something else to do when asked how we should distinguish "different ways of describing the world" from just guessing about stuff...

And the above is what wasn't missed while you were away. In your absence, everyone on all sides have been able to defend their position.

I suppose it's back to normal now ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Perhaps you can clear that up for us?

As you seem to relaxed about asking others to clear things up for you, perhaps you'd be so good finally to clear someone up for us?

You tell us that your personal faith beliefs - "God" etc - are also true for the rest of us. What method would you propose we use to investigate these remarkable claims so we know you're not mistaken about them? A simple point-by-point rationale will be fine thanks - you could call it an early Christmas present to your waiting minions if you like.

Go for it!

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

And the above is what wasn't missed while you were away. In your absence, everyone on all sides have been able to defend their position.

Using bad arguments etc isn't defending anything.

[SusanDoris]

And the above is what wasn't missed while you were away. In your absence, everyone on all sides have been able to defend their position.

I do hope you don't think you are speaking for anyone else but yourself.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Using bad arguments etc isn't defending anything.

You're missing my point.

Everyone on all sides have been able to state what their position/views are and why. You're back and it's back to dismissing posts with the pejorative, rather than addressing the content.