Felt Presence

[Outrider]

It is not an unsupported belief. It is not just plucked from nowhere.

It is. I asked you what methodology you had to validate any evidence you had to support it, and you said you didn't have any. It is, by your own description, an unsupported belief - again, that doesn't make it definitively wrong, but it just doesn't give anyone else a reason to accept that it's right.

I have the instances of QM where observation (consciousness) influences wave-particle duality.

And you've had it explained to you that 'observation' does not need to be a conscious observer - again, that's an unfortunate metaphor.

I have Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle.

Which, whilst put forward by a very eminent scientist, was not in any way anything more than unsupported ponderings on his part. He defined it as speculation, and never submitted the idea in a peer-reviewed paper anywhere.

I have instances of documented NDE's.

Which, when investigated, have better supported explanations that don't involve spirits and which, even if you discount the conventional wisdom of science, still aren't supporting your theory, they're just not contradicting it.

Instances of documented reincarnation cases.

As above.

I have Chalmer's new ideas of panpsychism.

For which there is no methodology for testing or investigating, and no conventional demonstrations of validity.

I have ideas of Jung's collective consciousness.

For which there is no supporting evidence.

I have Eagleman's theories of the unconscious mind being larger and more powerful than the conscious mind.

Which is not really in question, but doesn't support your claim, it just doesn't contradict it.

I also have centuries of world philosophies where consciousness (Self) is considered as the real power behind the apparent events in the world.

And there are centuries of folk-wisdom to support ghosts, witches, black-magic, fairies, kelpies, naga, bakemono and who knows what else. Fairy tales are not a reliable source of data for determining the nature of reality.

You have a pyramid scheme, you have the MLM of woo. Your woo claims stand proudly on the shoulders of other woo-peddlers and hijack the idle speculations of people with actual credentials. None of what you've cited here is any better an indication of reality than me suggesting that the magic of Jesus is supported by the fact that Lewis Carrol wrote about Aslan and Tolkien wrote about Gandalf, therefore magic's real.

You need a methodology, you don't have one.

You need some basis for assessing whether that methodology produces valid results, you don't have one.

And then you need those results, and you don't have them.

You can suggest that these are possibilities, and no-one can argue strongly against that, but you're over-reaching the validity of your claims when you suggest that you've definitively identified a limit to the capability of conventional science to investigate a phenomenon or when you claim that your failure to accept the capabilities of the mechanisms that science has evidenced is therefore sufficient grounds to presume that some unrelated claim is valid.

O.

[Sriram]

I am only suggesting possibilities.  I have no definite proof of all this.

But the materialism that is so much a part of scientific theories is certainly questionable. That attitude is what leads to scientism and the impression that all phenomena need to necessarily be testable through standard methods.

That does not mean that I or any person can immediately present alternative methods of investigation either. It is not about proof  but about opening out our minds (no....your brains will not fall out) to certain possibilities.

[Outrider]

I am only suggesting possibilities.  I have no definite proof of all this.

But you keep denigrating science and suggesting that there are areas where scientific enquiry has no place.

But the materialism that is so much a part of scientific theories is certainly questionable.

Is it? On what basis?

That attitude is what leads to scientism and the impression that all phenomena need to necessarily be testable through standard methods.

As I've said before, at the ideological level they don't need to be, but at the practical level nobody's offering anything else.

That does not mean that I or any person can immediately present alternative methods of investigation either. It is not about proof  but about opening out our minds (no....your brains will not fall out) to certain possibilities.

That we don't abandon the established, reliable, proven methodology we do have is not closing ourselves off from possibilities, but it's acknowledging that there are massively different qualitative and quantitative reasons for treating those ideas differently.

O.

[Sriram]

But you keep denigrating science and suggesting that there are areas where scientific enquiry has no place.

Is it? On what basis?

As I've said before, at the ideological level they don't need to be, but at the practical level nobody's offering anything else.

That we don't abandon the established, reliable, proven methodology we do have is not closing ourselves off from possibilities, but it's acknowledging that there are massively different qualitative and quantitative reasons for treating those ideas differently.

O.

I am not denigrating science. I am saying that there are possibly phenomena which cannot be studied using standard methods. 

[Outrider]

I am not denigrating science. I am saying that there are possibly phenomena which cannot be studied using standard methods.

That's not denigrating science, although my sense is that you've not been suggesting that this is a possibility but that it's a fact - that's perhaps just vehemence.

However, you've described science as 'short sighted' and 'stuck' because it doesn't accept your arbitrary claims of limits or give equal weighting to your unsubstantiated possibilities.

O.

[Sriram]

That's not denigrating science, although my sense is that you've not been suggesting that this is a possibility but that it's a fact - that's perhaps just vehemence.

However, you've described science as 'short sighted' and 'stuck' because it doesn't accept your arbitrary claims of limits or give equal weighting to your unsubstantiated possibilities.

O.

I believe in an after life and a soul and so on. These are my personal beliefs based on my experiences. I believe that these are facts....though I am not clear about the finer details. Based on this, I have philosophical ideas which are also shared by other people like me around the world. These are also supported by some instances that I have mentioned in post 74.

However, when it comes to objective evidence....it is not possible to get physical evidence of the kind that scientists look for. Having said that, there are areas of science where it is possible to discern certain possibilities that could tie up with the philosophical ideas.  This is what I generally talk about.

I am not questioning scientific theories by themselves....unless of course, I find something far fetched such as random variations and NS leading to evolution....more so when more meaningful explanations are available.  I truly find this absurd and in need of serious rethinking.

[torridon]

I believe in an after life and a soul and so on. These are my personal beliefs based on my experiences. I believe that these are facts....though I am not clear about the finer details. Based on this, I have philosophical ideas which are also shared by other people like me around the world. These are also supported by some instances that I have mentioned in post 74.

However, when it comes to objective evidence....it is not possible to get physical evidence of the kind that scientists look for. Having said that, there are areas of science where it is possible to discern certain possibilities that could tie up with the philosophical ideas.  This is what I generally talk about.

I am not questioning scientific theories by themselves....unless of course, I find something far fetched such as random variations and NS leading to evolution....more so when more meaningful explanations are available.  I truly find this absurd and in need of serious rethinking.

Whereas back in the real world, no philospher is going anywhere useful by ignoring the science.  You have to take account of the insights of science otherwise you are just a lightweight timewaster.

[Sriram]

Whereas back in the real world, no philospher is going anywhere useful by ignoring the science.  You have to take account of the insights of science otherwise you are just a lightweight timewaster.

I am not questioning scientific theories by themselves at all. Taking the insights of science is precisely what I believe in doing.

But I don't believe in limiting myself to the self imposed limitations of science and its methods. That would be scienism.

[torridon]

I am not questioning scientific theories by themselves at all. Taking the insights of science is precisely what I believe in doing.

But I don't believe in limiting myself to the self imposed limitations of science and its methods. That would be scienism.

Being true to the evidence is not scientism

[Sriram]

Being true to the evidence is not scientism

Trying to apply the methods of science where it is not applicable or inappropriate....is scientism.

[torridon]

Trying to apply the methods of science where it is not applicable or inappropriate....is scientism.

That's irrelevant.  Nobody is suggesting to do that.

[Outrider]

I believe in an after life and a soul and so on. These are my personal beliefs based on my experiences. I believe that these are facts....though I am not clear about the finer details. Based on this, I have philosophical ideas which are also shared by other people like me around the world. These are also supported by some instances that I have mentioned in post 74.

I think you're overreaching to say that these claims support yours - they don't contradict them, but they are far from offering any support for your claims as they are so subjective and vague.

However, when it comes to objective evidence....it is not possible to get physical evidence of the kind that scientists look for.

And here's where, I feel, you could be clearer - is this an assessment of the current state of science, or is this a judgement on science as a concept? Are you saying that these are intrinsically beyond science's remit, because you can't cite people's experience - a reaction to phenomena which could therefore examined and investigated - and then say that it's beyond science. If you're saying that current science isn't in the right place, I can't disagree with that, but equally that also doesn't mean that your claims are somehow correct.

Having said that, there are areas of science where it is possible to discern certain possibilities that could tie up with the philosophical ideas.  This is what I generally talk about.

Except that when any genuine science comes up you dismiss it as somehow insufficient.

I am not questioning scientific theories by themselves....unless of course, I find something far fetched such as random variations and NS leading to evolution....

You accept, if I recall, Einstein's relativistic explanation for gravitational effects? That's not as robustly supported by multiple scientific fields as the neo-Darwinian model of evolution by natural selection.

...more so when more meaningful explanations are available.

Unsubstantiated but internally consistent possibilities are not a suitable alternative to demonstrable, testable effects. That they're more meaningful TO YOU says more about you than about the ideas.

I truly find this absurd and in need of serious rethinking.

How can I think about it when you don't offer anything to consider?

"This is a possible explanation for something science can't explain."

"Arguably, yes."

"Therefore it's true.

"Hang on..."

"Oh, and therefore we should also consider this well-established piece of robustly supported scientific thinking questionable too."

"Wait.."

"No, look, this unrelated scientist said something when he was philosophising that I've misunderstood, therefore science is wrong."

There is, indeed, some rethinking needed here. I'd suggest that it's not mine.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I believe in an after life and a soul and so on.

And I believe in leprechauns – after all, we can all believe in anything we like.

So what though?

These are my personal beliefs based on my experiences.

Validated by some very bad reasoning, but ok…

I believe that these are facts....though I am not clear about the finer details.

Or for that matter about any “details” at all, finer or otherwise.

Based on this, I have philosophical ideas…

No you haven’t. Philosophical ideas are validated by reason and, often, by evidence too. What you actually have at best are just notions or speculations that lack any of the foundational rhetoric of actual philosophy.

…which are also shared by other people like me around the world.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

These are also supported by some instances that I have mentioned in post 74.

All of which have been quickly and repeatedly rebutted here with not even the attempt at counter rebuttals by you. You might for example want to start by explaining what you think NEAR death experiences have to tell us about ACTUAL death.

However, when it comes to objective evidence....it is not possible to get physical evidence of the kind that scientists look for.

What other type of evidence that could be even in principle to distinguish your beliefs from dumb guessing?

Having said that, there are areas of science where it is possible to discern certain possibilities that could tie up with the philosophical ideas.  This is what I generally talk about.

No you don’t. What you actually assert are some woo beliefs that aren’t “discerned as possibilities” by the findings of science at all. Not contradicting your belief about an afterlife or mine about leprechauns as examples isn’t the discerning of a possibility in either case.   

I am not questioning scientific theories by themselves....unless of course, I find something far fetched such as random variations and NS leading to evolution...

Argument from personal incredulity – yet another fallacy.

…more so when more meaningful explanations are available.  I truly find this absurd and in need of serious rethinking.

See above.

I am not questioning scientific theories by themselves at all. Taking the insights of science is precisely what I believe in doing.

You’re doing no such thing.

But I don't believe in limiting myself to the self imposed limitations of science and its methods. That would be scienism.

No it wouldn’t – “scientism” means something else.

Trying to apply the methods of science where it is not applicable or inappropriate....is scientism.

No it wouldn’t, and no-one does that in any case. If you think your various beliefs to be facts but that science isn’t capable of validating that position then it’s your job to propose a different method to distinguish your claims from dumb guessing.

This has been explained to you countless times but you just ignore the problem nonetheless.

What does your egregious behaviour say about you do you think?     

[Sriram]

I think you're overreaching to say that these claims support yours - they don't contradict them, but they are far from offering any support for your claims as they are so subjective and vague.

When we talk of non physical and abstract aspects of life like panpsychism and soul, it is bound to be vague. Not that everything in science is clear cut and crystal clear.

And here's where, I feel, you could be clearer - is this an assessment of the current state of science, or is this a judgement on science as a concept? Are you saying that these are intrinsically beyond science's remit, because you can't cite people's experience - a reaction to phenomena which could therefore examined and investigated - and then say that it's beyond science. If you're saying that current science isn't in the right place, I can't disagree with that, but equally that also doesn't mean that your claims are somehow correct.

Science as defined by its methods has certain inherent limitations in scope. We cannot examine everything in life in strict objective terms using instruments and stuff.  Take NDE's for example. It is so simplistic to conclude from these events that, since we can only see and examine brains, the entire experience must necessarily  be explained only through reactions in the brain. This is a natural limitation. We have to otherwise rely on anecdotal accounts of what happened during the patients death period. We have no choice. Scientists therefore brush it off as imaginary or hallucination. Nothing much else science can do, especially if the general tendency among people of science is to disbelieve in such matters.   

You accept, if I recall, Einstein's relativistic explanation for gravitational effects? That's not as robustly supported by multiple scientific fields as the neo-Darwinian model of evolution by natural selection.

Nothing is so robustly supported that it cannot be called into question or modified by new evidence in times to come. Science is always tentative.

Unsubstantiated but internally consistent possibilities are not a suitable alternative to demonstrable, testable effects. That they're more meaningful TO YOU says more about you than about the ideas.

As I have said many times....evidence could be all around us but we may not see it. Once the mind is prepared, we might see the evidence and find many things as true ..which was dismissed as nonsense earlier.

How can I think about it when you don't offer anything to consider?

"This is a possible explanation for something science can't explain."

"Arguably, yes."

"Therefore it's true.

"Hang on..."

"Oh, and therefore we should also consider this well-established piece of robustly supported scientific thinking questionable too."

"Wait.."

"No, look, this unrelated scientist said something when he was philosophising that I've misunderstood, therefore science is wrong."

There is, indeed, some rethinking needed here. I'd suggest that it's not mine.

O.

I am not asking you to rethink all this. I am saying that such things as random variations and NS need rethinking in general.

[Stranger]

I am not questioning scientific theories by themselves....unless of course, I find something far fetched such as random variations and NS leading to evolution....

Fallacy of personal incredulity. 

It is utterly absurd to think that one person finding something 'far fetched' has any significance at all in the face of vast amounts of objective evidence, doubly so when said person has shown that they know virtually nothing about the subject and studiously avoids specific arguments for the scientific view, like they're terrified of learning anything.

....more so when more meaningful explanations are available.

You haven't even provided any adequate explanation at all. The mechanisms you keep trying to replace it with would basically lead to the absurd conclusion that genetics has nothing to do with the differences between humans and (say) cucumbers.

I truly find this absurd and in need of serious rethinking.

It is you who needs to do the rethinking. Start by learning something about the current science and stop running away from the facts that confirm the current view, like the vast number of example of evolution for which we know the underlying mutations for and why they were better at survival in the environment.

As I've said before, a very simple and recent one is the classic example of natural selection: the peppered moth. We know exactly what the underlying mutation was and about when it happened, we know exactly why it was better at surviving in the (changed) environment. We also know that, because the environmental change was very short-term (in terms of evolution) because it was due to human activity, that the change hadn't fully replaced the original and when the environment changed back, we know exactly why the original variant then had the advantage again, so the population shifted back. This is a clear example of a random mutation and subsequent natural selection.

Also, as I said, there are a vast number of other examples, all through evolutionary time, for which we can find exactly what mutations led to what changes and why they were advantageous in the environments at the time. We can also see the relics of genes that were useful in ancestor species that then became unnecessary.

[Outrider]

When we talk of non physical and abstract aspects of life like panpsychism and soul, it is bound to be vague. Not that everything in science is clear cut and crystal clear.

Generally, the core elements of (hard) science are extremely rigidly defined and deeply understood, and at the fringes there is some uncertainty. There are, admittedly, 'softer' sciences dealing with complex systems like psychology, sociology and the like where the output is more an identification of trends and likelihoods than fast facts; in those instances, though, there are typically at least some postulated mechanical explanations, and statistical evidence to support the conclusions. With these 'non-physical' claims, though, there's nothing more than a conceptual 'it would fit the observation'. These are not equal states at all.

Even beyond the fringes of science with conceptualisations and possibilities the differences remain - the Higgs Boson for a long time was 'just' an hypothesis, but that was a world beyond your panpsychism claims; it was a hypothesis because we understood at least one way that it could be tested, we just didn't have the ability to undertake that test. With these 'woo' notions we don't even have that possibility of future verification. You'd have exactly as much validity in claiming 'fairies' as an explanation.

Science as defined by its methods has certain inherent limitations in scope.

Yes, it is strictly limited to actual phenomena that have measurable, detectable effects, and it is predicated on the notion that cause and effect are consistent.

We cannot examine everything in life in strict objective terms using instruments and stuff.

Why not?

Take NDE's for example. It is so simplistic to conclude from these events that, since we can only see and examine brains, the entire experience must necessarily  be explained only through reactions in the brain.

No, it's not simplistic to conclude that from the available evidence. It would be simplistic to presume that and not bother investigating, but if you do the testing and that's what the evidence leads to that's not simplistic. What would be simplistic would be to presume that some phenomenon must be beyond science AND to then presume that your pet parapsychological notion is the only other possible notional explanation.

This is a natural limitation. We have to otherwise rely on anecdotal accounts of what happened during the patients death period. We have no choice. Scientists therefore brush it off as imaginary or hallucination.

No they don't brush it off. They look at the history of scientific investigation into the reliability of human perception and memory, particularly in times of high physiological stress. Then they look at the observable activity that is associated with memory and perception and see what's happening in those circumstances. And then they, consistently, in multiple separate investigations, conclude that the most likely explanation is that people are misinterpreting atypical neurological activity brought about by extreme circumstances because it's the explanation that fits the evidence best. It might be incorrect, it might be restricted by the limitations of science but YOU DON'T OFFER ANYTHING BETTER.

Postulations on pseudo-magical 'non-physical' explanations with no methodology, no mechanic, no verification and no validation is not a viable alternative to researched, evidenced, repeated investigation and inductive and deductive reasoning.

Nothing much else science can do, especially if the general tendency among people of science is to disbelieve in such matters.

It's not about belief, it's about acceptance - they don't accept because you don't give them any reason to accept it.

"This could be true."

"Yes."

"Therefore it's true."

"Well, hang on...."   
 

Nothing is so robustly supported that it cannot be called into question or modified by new evidence in times to come. Science is always tentative.

Absolutely right. You're just missing the 'evidence' bit. You have a claim, nothing more. 

As I have said many times....evidence could be all around us but we may not see it.

So could fairies. Until you can demonstrate it, it's functionally just 'fairies'.

Once the mind is prepared, we might see the evidence and find many things as true ..which was dismissed as nonsense earlier.

Evidence speaks for itself. If you need to have a particular 'perspective' I'd question the reliability of the conclusion. You don't have to be a materialist to follow the line of reasoning in science - you don't have to accept it, but the line from cause to effect is demonstrable.

I am not asking you to rethink all this. I am saying that such things as random variations and NS need rethinking in general.

No. They MIGHT need rethinking, but nothing you've offered in the claim 'but I can't accept that' is sufficient to overthrow hundreds of years of evolutionary biology.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

When we talk of non physical and abstract aspects of life like panpsychism and soul, it is bound to be vague. Not that everything in science is clear cut and crystal clear.

Not vague, incoherent. These unqualified claims and assertions are epistemically just white noise. 

Science as defined by its methods has certain inherent limitations in scope.

Yes – its limitations are that it deals only with phenomena with detectable effects.

We cannot examine everything in life in strict objective terms using instruments and stuff.  Take NDE's for example. It is so simplistic to conclude from these events that, since we can only see and examine brains, the entire experience must necessarily  be explained only through reactions in the brain. This is a natural limitation.

Aw no. Yet again – why do you think a NEAR death experience tells you any more about ACTUAL than a near car crash experience tells you about an actual car crash, or for that matter than sex tells you about pregnancy?

We have to otherwise rely on anecdotal accounts of what happened during the patients death period.

There is no “death period” – just a NEAR "death period". Just removing the "N" from "NDE" is dishonest, and you should stop doing it.

We have no choice. Scientists therefore brush it off as imaginary or hallucination. Nothing much else science can do, especially if the general tendency among people of science is to disbelieve in such matters.

Wrong again. The choice “we” (ie, you) have is to find a different method to distinguish your claims from dumb guessing, and “people of science” don’t “brush off” unqualified clams of fact so much as they are indifferent to them. Why shouldn’t anyone “disbelieve” your claims about an supposed afterlife therefore for the same reasons you would disbelieve my claims about leprechauns?       

Nothing is so robustly supported that it cannot be called into question or modified by new evidence in times to come. Science is always tentative.

Yes – this has been explained several times to you already each time you complained about science’s lack of “proofs” – something it doesn’t claim to have.

As I have said many times....evidence could be all around us but we may not see it. Once the mind is prepared, we might see the evidence and find many things as true ..which was dismissed as nonsense earlier.

And as I’ve said many times as a corrective without reply, if you want to claim evidence then you need FIRST to define it, determine how you’d find it, and explain how you’d examine it. Just now all you have for “evidence” is equivalent to me claiming rainbows are evidence for where leprechauns leave their pots of gold – the only problem being that your mind isn’t “prepared” to see this obvious truth as I do.   

I am not asking you to rethink all this. I am saying that such things as random variations and NS need rethinking in general.

Given your deep ignorance of such matters, why should anyone take your personal incredulity about them seriously?