Karma

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#1023

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

Actually, on reflection, I'll exclude you from my #1020. All you ever do is hang on to the metaphorical coat-tails (i.e. posts) of others, the worst form of cowardice!

[torridon]

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?

I have no idea about that without spending some time googling to discover what remarks you refer to.  Anyway I really ought to be getting back to work and now Hillside has returned to his monitor duties I think I'll excuse myself from the playground for a while. Or at least try to resist the temptation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

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.

You seem to have forgotten that I regularly rebut your arguments, and that you ignore the rebuttals and repeat the same mistake nonetheless. What else can I do - just pretend that you don't rely on very bad arguments?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

I would be pissed if one of my pin up boys was questioned too. However since Torridon is more likely to know what Krauss actually meant than any of us I think it is a fair point in time just to get the record straight.

Are you associating Christ with, er, Krauss?

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

I have no idea about that without spending some time googling to discover what remarks you refer to.  Anyway I really ought to be getting back to work and now Hillside has returned to his monitor duties I think I'll excuse myself from the playground for a while. Or at least try to resist the temptation.

I've got this my friend - I've already cleaned the blackboard rubbers and taken out the bottles from morning milk time. SOTS seems to have sneaked in before playtime ended, but I have high hopes he'll finally manage to engage in a rational dialogue if we keep at him for long enough.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Are you associating Christ with, er, Krauss?

No - Krauss knows a lot more about physics than Jesus did.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no idea about that without spending some time googling to discover what remarks you refer to.  Anyway I really ought to be getting back to work and now Hillside has returned to his monitor duties I think I'll excuse myself from the playground for a while. Or at least try to resist the temptation.

I'll take that as a no.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No - Krauss knows a lot more about physics than Jesus did.

Not if Jesus is the Logos.

[Enki]

Hi Sriram,

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?

Good grief, Sriram, you didn't ask this at all. You asked how 19/20th Century methodologies could be up to the task of explaining such ideas as those that you enumerate. I simply gave you three examples of recent experimental data which have been important in clarifying ideas which started life as hypotheses backed by mathematical models and data. I also suggested that the failure so far to find(experimentally) supersymmetric particles(which are predicted as an indicator of space-time having extra dimensions) could well have important effects, either for the hypothesis to be modified or even discarded. The fact that any of these ideas could be falsified was and is an important facet of 19/20th Century scientific methodologies (as you put it), linked closely to the idea that these hypotheses make predictions.

On the other hand I have asked you a totally different question, which I repeat:

What different scientific methodologies would you recommend in place of 19/20th century methodologies....to which you have, so far, given no answer.

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?

I have never maintained that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena. I simply find it the most credible way to investigate the natural world. I am always open to  the possibility of alternative methods. So far, I have found none. Please come up with one or more such methods. however, please see my response to the next part.

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 I have powerful personal experiences(which I have had) which suggest that there is no such thing as universal consciousness, that would not be a credible position for me to take on the basis that I am aware that others have had powerful personal experiences that say the opposite. There is no method that I know which can distinguish simply on the basis of such experience between my subjective experiences and those of others as to the truth of the matter.
 
It might well be meaningful for me(and, therefore, not meaningless at all), but it may well be meaningless to others.

So, if I wish to ascertain the credibility(and reliability) of such ideas as afterlife, universal consciousness etc. I have to seek paths and methods which are likely to produce the least subjective evidence. So far, I have no alternative than to look at scientific methods in pursuing this course, methods which so far have had outstanding success in increasing our knowledge of the natural world. The trouble is science cannot adequately deal with such ideas as those above, because they do not lend themselves easily or at all to mathematical structures, falsification challenges or predictability. That is not to say they are not true. It may be quite possible for instance that Alan's 'soul' actually exists even though he cannot produce anything but his own subjective assertions for the same.

I am, of course, open to any methodology which explains any phenomena as long as it has strong evidence to support it and is rigorous enough to convincingly answer/explain/rebut genuine challenges to its authority.

So, I take(what seems to me) the sensible course of not holding any conviction that there is an afterlife or that there is some form of universal consciousness etc. because, it seems, they cannot be evidenced and no methodology can be offered which might verify them.

Unless, of course, you know differently...

Incidentally, for those reading Lanza's most interesting exposition of the soul, kindly given by Gonners:   

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

You may well be interested in this challenge to Lanza's and Chopra's ideas on biocentrism and the the conscious universe, here:

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

[Sebastian Toe]

I would be pissed if one of my pin up boys was questioned too. However since Torridon is more likely to know what Krauss actually meant than any of us I think it is a fair point in time just to get the record straight.

Are you associating Christ with, er, Krauss?

All very nice I'm sure.
You forget to mention if you are going to help clear up the Jesus God/not God quandry.

[Sriram]

Hi Sriram,

Good grief, Sriram, you didn't ask this at all. You asked how 19/20th Century methodologies could be up to the task of explaining such ideas as those that you enumerate. I simply gave you three examples of recent experimental data which have been important in clarifying ideas which started life as hypotheses backed by mathematical models and data. I also suggested that the failure so far to find(experimentally) supersymmetric particles(which are predicted as an indicator of space-time having extra dimensions) could well have important effects, either for the hypothesis to be modified or even discarded. The fact that any of these ideas could be falsified was and is an important facet of 19/20th Century scientific methodologies (as you put it), linked closely to the idea that these hypotheses make predictions.

On the other hand I have asked you a totally different question, which I repeat:

What different scientific methodologies would you recommend in place of 19/20th century methodologies....to which you have, so far, given no answer.

I have never maintained that the scientific method is the only way to investigate phenomena. I simply find it the most credible way to investigate the natural world. I am always open to  the possibility of alternative methods. So far, I have found none. Please come up with one or more such methods. however, please see my response to the next part.

If I have powerful personal experiences(which I have had) which suggest that there is no such thing as universal consciousness, that would not be a credible position for me to take on the basis that I am aware that others have had powerful personal experiences that say the opposite. There is no method that I know which can distinguish simply on the basis of such experience between my subjective experiences and those of others as to the truth of the matter.
 
It might well be meaningful for me(and, therefore, not meaningless at all), but it may well be meaningless to others.

So, if I wish to ascertain the credibility(and reliability) of such ideas as afterlife, universal consciousness etc. I have to seek paths and methods which are likely to produce the least subjective evidence. So far, I have no alternative than to look at scientific methods in pursuing this course, methods which so far have had outstanding success in increasing our knowledge of the natural world. The trouble is science cannot adequately deal with such ideas as those above, because they do not lend themselves easily or at all to mathematical structures, falsification challenges or predictability. That is not to say they are not true. It may be quite possible for instance that Alan's 'soul' actually exists even though he cannot produce anything but his own subjective assertions for the same.

I am, of course, open to any methodology which explains any phenomena as long as it has strong evidence to support it and is rigorous enough to convincingly answer/explain/rebut genuine challenges to its authority.

So, I take(what seems to me) the sensible course of not holding any conviction that there is an afterlife or that there is some form of universal consciousness etc. because, it seems, they cannot be evidenced and no methodology can be offered which might verify them.

Unless, of course, you know differently...

Incidentally, for those reading Lanza's most interesting exposition of the soul, kindly given by Gonners:   

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

You may well be interested in this challenge to Lanza's and Chopra's ideas on biocentrism and the the conscious universe, here:

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

enki,

Ok...that is fine then. 

My point is not that I or you or anyone individually would have a ready methodology on a platter to use for such exotic phenomena that don't fall within the range or scope of standard methodologies. The new methodology has to evolve....just as the standard one  has also evolved over time through the efforts of many people.

But the environment for the evolution of such new systems, principles and methodologies....needs to be conducive. It will not happen in an environment of scorn,  deep hostility and antagonism.   

It is important that scientists have the necessary mental makeup required to face up to such exotic possibilities. This mental make up only will give rise to necessary new methodologies and systems. And there are sufficient grounds for scientists to adopt such a changed attitude from the one they have traditionally adopted to such matters.

These grounds are the new areas  and the theories of science that cannot be readily investigated using standard methods, that I have mentioned many times. These point to the fact that the world is not as clearly defined as we had thought in earlier times.

If you add to these ideas such experiences as NDE and spontaneous healing, it makes it all the more imperative that such a changed attitude is adopted among scientists.

I know there will be a hue and cry among some people who are wedded to traditional science. For them it will seem blasphemous....like asking Christians to stop believing in Jesus.  For sadly, science really has become a religion among some people.   

Cheers.

Sriram

[Udayana]

Surely "religionists" have been working on and perfecting these techniques for millennia and not got anywhere.

Now you want scientists to help out with this pointless exercise when they have already got their work cut out? ... And get denigrated whenever they point out basic logical fallacies?

[Enki]

enki,

Ok...that is fine then. 

My point is not that I or you or anyone individually would have a ready methodology on a platter to use for such exotic phenomena that don't fall within the range or scope of standard methodologies. The new methodology has to evolve....just as the standard one  has also evolved over time through the efforts of many people.

But the environment for the evolution of such new systems, principles and methodologies....needs to be conducive. It will not happen in an environment of scorn,  deep hostility and antagonism.   

It is important that scientists have the necessary mental makeup required to face up to such exotic possibilities. This mental make up only will give rise to necessary new methodologies and systems. And there are sufficient grounds for scientists to adopt such a changed attitude from the one they have traditionally adopted to such matters.

These grounds are the new areas  and the theories of science that cannot be readily investigated using standard methods, that I have mentioned many times. These point to the fact that the world is not as clearly defined as we had thought in earlier times.

If you add to these ideas such experiences as NDE and spontaneous healing, it makes it all the more imperative that such a changed attitude is adopted among scientists.

I know there will be a hue and cry among some people who are wedded to traditional science. For them it will seem blasphemous....like asking Christians to stop believing in Jesus.  For sadly, science really has become a religion among some people.   

Cheers.

Sriram

Fair enough, Sriram.  I won't labour the points any more. However, if science is to develop  new methodologies which would aid in investigating what you call 'exotic' phenomena, as long as they are developed with as objective an aim as possible and produce evidence which is as intersubjective as possible, I certainly wouldn't complain. The trouble is, I can't see where they are coming from, and, obviously you can't either, or you would have given some intimation of this. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that such methodologies have to be conducive. Conducive to what? The only thing I can think of is that such methodologies are conducive to be as objective as possible, and are going to lead to as accurate explanations as possible, which already is the aim of the present methodologies(e.g. peer review, falsification, rigorous examination etc.)

The only other points I will make is that 1) you and I differ considerably as to what NDEs and OBEs show 2)spontaneous healing should be looked at, and, if/when possible explained, just as spontaneous deterioration(e.g. stroke victims) should be examined and, if/when possible, explained.

[SusanDoris]

#1023

Actually, on reflection, I'll exclude you from my #1020. All you ever do is hang on to the metaphorical coat-tails (i.e. posts) of others, the worst form of cowardice!

You know, that sounds just the teensiest bit like an ad hominem? But perhaps you can cite where there is cowardice in my posts.  I await your response with interest.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All very nice I'm sure.
You forget to mention if you are going to help clear up the Jesus God/not God quandry.

What seems to be the problem?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

I think the soul is another ''problem'' for some scientismatists, just like the ''problem'' of apparent fine-tuning and the problem of consciousness.
Let's take the problem of fine tuning. Sean Carroll, who talked of the ''problem'', inspired doubts from atheists and scientists and atheist scientists about whether the endeavour to rule it out was a fit and correct and indeed scientific motivation for the pursuit of multiverse theory.

For whom is consciousness a problem?...and why the obvious endeavour to class it as intelligence when intelligence could work perfectly well without consciousness? What is the motivation then for wanting to find it as a sophisticated intelligence rather than a novel property?

Finally there is the soul. Does science do souls?, what is the motivation for finding the self to be an illusion (who or what is being illuded?).And yes the idea that the self doesn't exist is perhaps the best candidate for something actually being ludicrous, particularly when illusion of selfists justify themselves in proposing argumentum ad ridiculum concerning God.

Those who propose illusion of self should not be as arrogantly disrespectful of their opposition as they are. 

[Sebastian Toe]

What seems to be the problem?

I cant figure out if Jesus is divine and God or whether he is a man.
Do you know?

[Sriram]

Fair enough, Sriram.  I won't labour the points any more. However, if science is to develop  new methodologies which would aid in investigating what you call 'exotic' phenomena, as long as they are developed with as objective an aim as possible and produce evidence which is as intersubjective as possible, I certainly wouldn't complain. The trouble is, I can't see where they are coming from, and, obviously you can't either, or you would have given some intimation of this. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that such methodologies have to be conducive. Conducive to what? The only thing I can think of is that such methodologies are conducive to be as objective as possible, and are going to lead to as accurate explanations as possible, which already is the aim of the present methodologies(e.g. peer review, falsification, rigorous examination etc.)

The only other points I will make is that 1) you and I differ considerably as to what NDEs and OBEs show 2)spontaneous healing should be looked at, and, if/when possible explained, just as spontaneous deterioration(e.g. stroke victims) should be examined and, if/when possible, explained.

enki,

I meant that the 'environment' should be conducive to the development and evolution of suitable new methodologies through which scientists could study exotic phenomena. A hostile environment that ignores or rubbishes such possibilities is unlikely to allow the development of suitable methodologies.

So...the first requirement is a positive mental make up with genuine curiosity towards such phenomena....and not a scornful and antagonistic one.

We must remember that experiments and methods used are  secondary. The assumptions we make when we design and set up our investigations are primary.   These assumptions drive the entire investigation process.

My point is simple. The old methodologies and principles may not be adequate or even suitable to investigate new and exotic phenomena. These phenomena include not only 'paranormal' aspects but also exotic ones that are proposed by scientists themselves.  Suitable new  methodologies have to be developed through the efforts of many people. This requires a positive attitude.

That is all I am saying.

[Gordon]

#996

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

He'd agree with you, since he also said 'I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.'

[Gordon]

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.

When the content is fallacious the only option is to dismiss said content: all you (and others) need do to correct the situation is stop blithely using fallacies.

[torridon]

I think the soul is another ''problem'' for some scientismatists, just like the ''problem'' of apparent fine-tuning and the problem of consciousness.
Let's take the problem of fine tuning. Sean Carroll, who talked of the ''problem'', inspired doubts from atheists and scientists and atheist scientists about whether the endeavour to rule it out was a fit and correct and indeed scientific motivation for the pursuit of multiverse theory.

For whom is consciousness a problem?...and why the obvious endeavour to class it as intelligence when intelligence could work perfectly well without consciousness? What is the motivation then for wanting to find it as a sophisticated intelligence rather than a novel property?

Finally there is the soul. Does science do souls?, what is the motivation for finding the self to be an illusion (who or what is being illuded?).And yes the idea that the self doesn't exist is perhaps the best candidate for something actually being ludicrous, particularly when illusion of selfists justify themselves in proposing argumentum ad ridiculum concerning God.

Those who propose illusion of self should not be as arrogantly disrespectful of their opposition as they are.

Perhaps it is time for the illusion of self to have a thread of its own.

Being a kindly chap, I've done the honours and started one here  : http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13109.0#new

[torridon]

The driver is an emergent property of the car...?!!  That is a good one that is! 

 And quite an apt example of the way scientists seem to think.   

Rather than clogging up this already very fruitful Karma thread even more, I've expanded on this thought, driver as emergent property of the car here The Illusion of Self

[Sriram]

Rather than clogging up this already very fruitful Karma thread even more, I've expanded on this thought, driver as emergent property of the car here The Illusion of Self

Yeah....thanks. I have contributed! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I cant figure out if Jesus is divine and God or whether he is a man.
Do you know?

As a Christian I find myself involved in something which I don't think can be understood and is often misunderstood by the believer by which I mean worship of Jesus.

Now, this is something completely new to me until I was a Christian. I could not and still would not worship, in the ultimate divine sense, a mere human...after all if that were the case who would we end up worshipping but ourselves.

But on the other hand reflection on the Gospels makes me understand Jesus as a human and so I have to put Jesus as both Human and Divine.

[Sebastian Toe]

As a Christian I find myself involved in something which I don't think can be understood and is often misunderstood by the believer by which I mean worship of Jesus.

Now, this is something completely new to me until I was a Christian. I could not and still would not worship, in the ultimate divine sense, a mere human...after all if that were the case who would we end up worshipping but ourselves.

But on the other hand reflection on the Gospels makes me understand Jesus as a human and so I have to put Jesus as both Human and Divine.

Thank, I think.
I will ponder.