Destiny

[Sriram]

Hi everyone.

People of science claim that life is entirely predetermined based on natural laws and forces. However they are unable to explain random events that they resort to very often nor emergence that goes against a reductionist model.

My impression is that life is both predetermined and also influenced by intelligent external intervention. Though it is not clear as to what this influence is or why and how it works....it is quite clear that it is there. 

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/destiny-freewill/

Cheers.

Sriram

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

...it is quite clear that it is there.

No it isn't. If it was "quite clear" that it was there there'd be some evidence for it. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Sriram,

No it isn't. If it was "quite clear" that it was there there'd be some evidence for it.

Absolutely - Sriram regularly comes up with these hand-waving assertions that something or other is quite clear or must be the case or other similar claims.

If something is quite clear Sriram, then you will be able to provide compelling evidence to support that assertion. But, of course, you never do.

[Sriram]

We have already discussed many times the several problems associated with evidence. Evidence could be all around...but.....!

[ProfessorDavey]

We have already discussed many times the several problems associated with evidence. Evidence could be all around...but.....!

We certainly have discussed the problem you have with evidence when it doesn't support your un-evidenced assertions.

Of course there are things we don't know, evidence still to be uncovered so to speak. My professional world of scientific research is entirely driven by the notion that there is always more to know and we should always strive to uncover that new evidence.

But Sriram - something where we haven't yet uncovered evidence is indistinguishable from something for which there is no evidence to uncover, however hard you try. So the correct approach is to accept the things on the basis of evidence, accept there are things we might not yet know and strive to find that evidence. But that isn't your approach - your approach is to dismiss evidence where it doesn't fit with your assertions, and then claim that your unevidenced assertions must be right (for reasons I don't really understand). And then claim it is the rest of us who can't accept evidence (which isn't actually evidence at all), when you dismiss exceptionally strong evidence (e.g. how evolution works) all the time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

We have already discussed many times the several problems associated with evidence. Evidence could be all around...but.....!

But… now you’re contradicting yourself. In your earlier post you claimed:

My impression is that life is both predetermined and also influenced by intelligent external intervention. Though it is not clear as to what this influence is or why and how it works....it is quite clear that it is there.

If it’s “quite clear that it is there” then you need evidence to justify that claim. If you’re now retreating to “Evidence could be all around” then your claim reduces to “it is clear that it could be there”.

And the problem with that is that it justifies nothing. It is clear that there could be a dragon living in my garage too. So what though?

Your poor reasoning has let you down again here.   
 

[Sriram]

We certainly have discussed the problem you have with evidence when it doesn't support your un-evidenced assertions.

Of course there are things we don't know, evidence still to be uncovered so to speak. My professional world of scientific research is entirely driven by the notion that there is always more to know and we should always strive to uncover that new evidence.

But Sriram - something where we haven't yet uncovered evidence is indistinguishable from something for which there is no evidence to uncover, however hard you try. So the correct approach is to accept the things on the basis of evidence, accept there are things we might not yet know and strive to find that evidence. But that isn't your approach - your approach is to dismiss evidence where it doesn't fit with your assertions, and then claim that your unevidenced assertions must be right (for reasons I don't really understand). And then claim it is the rest of us who can't accept evidence (which isn't actually evidence at all), when you dismiss exceptionally strong evidence (e.g. how evolution works) all the time.

We all know that consciousness exists. There are then two possibilities. One....consciousness is just a product of the brain and is a result of evolutionary processes. Second is that consciousness is fundamental and directs evolution from inside organisms. Neither view has been established beyond doubt.   

I take the second view and my philosophies naturally follow accordingly.

[Outrider]

We all know that consciousness exists.

We all know that some creatures manifest consciousness, but we need to be careful we don't presume that it's something that exists independently.

There are then two possibilities. One....consciousness is just a product of the brain and is a result of evolutionary processes. Second is that consciousness is fundamental and directs evolution from inside organisms. Neither view has been established beyond doubt.

I'm not aware of any, but I can also not rule out the possibility that there are other options. However, one of those has a body of supportive evidence, and one of them has some old stories about magic. 

I take the second view and my philosophies naturally follow accordingly.

And you're at liberty to do so, but you need something more than this attempt to depict the two possibilities as somehow equally unproven to convince many people to agree with you.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

We all know that consciousness exists. There are then two possibilities. One....consciousness is just a product of the brain and is a result of evolutionary processes. Second is that consciousness is fundamental and directs evolution from inside organisms. Neither view has been established beyond doubt.   

I take the second view and my philosophies naturally follow accordingly.

Then you have no interest in following the evidence.

I agree that there is always more that can you found out, but that doesn't mean that the two options therefore have equivalence in terms of credibility and evidence.

Your first possibility has a massive amount of incredible robust evidence in support of it. You second possibility lacks any credible evidence in support and much of the evidence we have contradicts it.

I tend to follow the evidence, which is why I consider the first possibility most likely to be correct. However if, like you, you want to totally ignore the evidence and take a faith-based approach on this matter then I can see why you might prefer the second possibility.

[ekim]

We all know that consciousness exists. There are then two possibilities. One....consciousness is just a product of the brain and is a result of evolutionary processes. Second is that consciousness is fundamental and directs evolution from inside organisms. Neither view has been established beyond doubt.   

I take the second view and my philosophies naturally follow accordingly.

Maybe there is a third view, which I believe is one of the ideas behind Advaita, that there is no goal to creation, so I suppose there would be no direction.  It is seen as if it is spontaneous play, Lila,  which implies freedom as opposed to conformity to a plan.

[splashscuba]

Hi everyone.

People of science claim that life is entirely predetermined somewhat explainable based on natural laws and forces.

Cheers.

Sriram

Corrected it for you

[Sriram]

Then you have no interest in following the evidence.

I agree that there is always more that can you found out, but that doesn't mean that the two options therefore have equivalence in terms of credibility and evidence.

Your first possibility has a massive amount of incredible robust evidence in support of it. You second possibility lacks any credible evidence in support and much of the evidence we have contradicts it.

I tend to follow the evidence, which is why I consider the first possibility most likely to be correct. However if, like you, you want to totally ignore the evidence and take a faith-based approach on this matter then I can see why you might prefer the second possibility.

You don't even regard plants, simple organisms and microbes as having consciousness in the first place....which is absurd!

There is no evidence that consciousness is merely a product of the brain. That is just the assumption. Not that scientists have much of a choice to think otherwise given their material mind set.

[Sriram]

Maybe there is a third view, which I believe is one of the ideas behind Advaita, that there is no goal to creation, so I suppose there would be no direction.  It is seen as if it is spontaneous play, Lila,  which implies freedom as opposed to conformity to a plan.

The idea of lila is just an assumption as seen from the point of view of Brahman.

If we ask...why does a string vibrate in eleven dimensions and generate the world? We don't have much of an answer except to say...that's the way it is. Similarly, why does Brahman vibrate and generate the world...its just lila.

Evolution and development are however obvious.... and need to be explained. Problem is that currently evolution theory only considers biological evolution because that is all scientists can see. Evolution of consciousness needs to be considered as the fundamental basis of evolution.

[torridon]

You don't even regard plants, simple organisms and microbes as having consciousness in the first place....which is absurd!

There is no evidence that consciousness is merely a product of the brain. That is just the assumption. Not that scientists have much of a choice to think otherwise given their material mind set.

That consciousness emerges from brain function is not an assumption, it is something we have discovered through research.  it is what the evidence points to.  Ideas like universal consciousness or panpsychism on the other hand make no testable predictions and so remain in the realm of hand waivy fantasies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You don't even regard plants, simple organisms and microbes as having consciousness in the first place....which is absurd!

That evidence contradicts your personal faith beliefs does not render that evidence absurd. Your personal faith beliefs on the other hand...

Once again your poor reasoning is letting you down here.

[Sriram]

That consciousness emerges from brain function is not an assumption, it is something we have discovered through research.  it is what the evidence points to.  Ideas like universal consciousness or panpsychism on the other hand make no testable predictions and so remain in the realm of hand waivy fantasies.

Of course it is an assumption!  It is just one model.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594/full#:~:text=Neuroscience%20today%20says%20consciousness%20is,be%20dependent%20on%20the%20brain.


*************

What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models

Neuroscience today says consciousness is generated by and localized in the brain because it emerges from brain activity. Alternatively, we propose that consciousness may not originate in the brain, although some aspects of human perception of consciousness may be dependent on the brain. We also suggest that awareness also extends beyond the brain. These non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness may be due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered.

In conclusion, our reported phenomena of non-local consciousness present intriguing examples that should be addressed when evaluating whether consciousness may be more than an emergent property of brain activity. Despite sophisticated physicalist theories of consciousness dependent on brain function, these examples apparently demonstrate non-local aspects of consciousness, perceiving information in a way that is not limited by our conventional understanding of time and space and that is not dependent on the brain function. Many of these data have been observed with objective measures in the laboratory in a valid and reliable way or collected in the field with impeccable methods and exclusion of fraud. While materialism explains much in our world, it does not explain everything, including these phenomena. Non-materialist theories encompassing consciousness as fundamental and/or non-local may provide a pathway to understanding these phenomena. Perhaps holding the hypothetical assumption that consciousness is fundamental and focusing on what we can learn about the mechanism, mediators, moderators, and practical applications of non-local consciousness will reveal novel areas to explore.

*************

Hear! Hear!

[jeremyp]

Of course it is an assumption!  It is just one model.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594/full#:~:text=Neuroscience%20today%20says%20consciousness%20is,be%20dependent%20on%20the%20brain.


*************

What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models

Neuroscience today says consciousness is generated by and localized in the brain because it emerges from brain activity. Alternatively, we propose that consciousness may not originate in the brain, although some aspects of human perception of consciousness may be dependent on the brain. We also suggest that awareness also extends beyond the brain. These non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness may be due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered.

In conclusion, our reported phenomena of non-local consciousness present intriguing examples that should be addressed when evaluating whether consciousness may be more than an emergent property of brain activity. Despite sophisticated physicalist theories of consciousness dependent on brain function, these examples apparently demonstrate non-local aspects of consciousness, perceiving information in a way that is not limited by our conventional understanding of time and space and that is not dependent on the brain function. Many of these data have been observed with objective measures in the laboratory in a valid and reliable way or collected in the field with impeccable methods and exclusion of fraud. While materialism explains much in our world, it does not explain everything, including these phenomena. Non-materialist theories encompassing consciousness as fundamental and/or non-local may provide a pathway to understanding these phenomena. Perhaps holding the hypothetical assumption that consciousness is fundamental and focusing on what we can learn about the mechanism, mediators, moderators, and practical applications of non-local consciousness will reveal novel areas to explore.

*************

Hear! Hear!

There's no evidence for any of this. Why should we believe it?

[torridon]

Of course it is an assumption!  It is just one model.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594/full#:~:text=Neuroscience%20today%20says%20consciousness%20is,be%20dependent%20on%20the%20brain.


*************

What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models

Neuroscience today says consciousness is generated by and localized in the brain because it emerges from brain activity. Alternatively, we propose that consciousness may not originate in the brain, although some aspects of human perception of consciousness may be dependent on the brain. We also suggest that awareness also extends beyond the brain. These non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness may be due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered.

In conclusion, our reported phenomena of non-local consciousness present intriguing examples that should be addressed when evaluating whether consciousness may be more than an emergent property of brain activity. Despite sophisticated physicalist theories of consciousness dependent on brain function, these examples apparently demonstrate non-local aspects of consciousness, perceiving information in a way that is not limited by our conventional understanding of time and space and that is not dependent on the brain function. Many of these data have been observed with objective measures in the laboratory in a valid and reliable way or collected in the field with impeccable methods and exclusion of fraud. While materialism explains much in our world, it does not explain everything, including these phenomena. Non-materialist theories encompassing consciousness as fundamental and/or non-local may provide a pathway to understanding these phenomena. Perhaps holding the hypothetical assumption that consciousness is fundamental and focusing on what we can learn about the mechanism, mediators, moderators, and practical applications of non-local consciousness will reveal novel areas to explore.

*************

Hear! Hear!

That was an interesting read though very speculative.  Not anywhere near being a 'hypothesis' for example. If you are hoping that if we merge quantum entanglement across spacetime with consciousness, then souls and reincarnation will nealty fall out, then I think you are being overly optimistic 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Of course it is an assumption!  It is just one model.

But only in the sense that women giving birth is "just one model" of where babies come from and storks delivering them as "just one (different) model" of where babies come from. The difference between these "models" though is that one has a huge amount of evidence to justify it, and the other has no evidence at all to justify it.

Rational thinkers opt for the former type of model because of the evidence for it; you opt for the latter type of model because it suits your a priori faith belief.

Again, your poor reasoning is letting you down here.

[Sriram]

That was an interesting read though very speculative.  Not anywhere near being a 'hypothesis' for example. If you are hoping that if we merge quantum entanglement across spacetime with consciousness, then souls and reincarnation will nealty fall out, then I think you are being overly optimistic 

The point is not about any detailed understanding of such matters. We are far away from that....if at all any kind of objective understanding of consciousness is possible or necessary, since it is the ultimate subjectivity.

Instead of understanding consciousness through QM, we may have to understand QM through consciousness.

The real point is that people of science are increasingly beginning to look in directions that seem to be alien to many of you people here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The real point is that people of science are increasingly beginning to look in directions that seem to be alien to many of you people here.

"People of science" may or may not be "increasingly beginning to look in directions that seem to be alien to many of you people here", but one thing these supposed "people of science" sure as hell aren't doing is abandoning the basic rules and methods of science so as treat woo as real.

Once again, your poor reasoning is letting you down here.

[Outrider]

The point is not about any detailed understanding of such matters.

The point is ALWAYS about a more detailed - i.e. better - understanding, if only to avoid the sort of vague assertions you regularly come out with.

We are far away from that...

Possibly, yes. If that's the case, the appropriate response is 'we still don't know, let's keep looking' and not '...therefore woo'.

...if at all any kind of objective understanding of consciousness is possible or necessary, since it is the ultimate subjectivity.

You just leapt, within  a sentence, from 'we lack sufficient understanding' to 'therefore ground-breaking conclusion'. Do you need a whiplash injury doctor?

Instead of understanding consciousness through QM, we may have to understand QM through consciousness.

Given that your express opinion, as of two sentence ago, was that we don't have a detailed enough understanding, can you explain what you've learnt in the last sixty characters or so to justify this claim?

The real point is that people of science are increasingly beginning to look in directions that seem to be alien to many of you people here.

No. The real point is that scientists are ALWAYS looking in different directions, that's what science is about. What science isn't about is presuming that because they've looked it's therefore a valid conclusion. When you look you have to actually, you know, find something.

O.

[Sriram]

Rules can provide direction but they can also become a straitjacket if used obsessively.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Rules can provide direction but they can also become a straitjacket if used obsessively.

Not when those rules are the only means you have to distinguish justifiable conclusions from woo they can’t. Without rules, all you have is guessing.

Again, your poor reasoning is letting you down here.   

[Outrider]

Rules can provide direction but they can also become a straitjacket if used obsessively.

Not rules, standards. If you don't have standards, you have no basis for anything. You have woo.

Science says 'we need a basis for claims' and then proceeds to consider those earlier findings which have been based on valid claims to be a suitable basis of their own. That's always, by its nature, going to be provisional, but it has an established basis. What science doesn't do is assume that all claims are equally invalid until disproven, that's not having any standards at all. That's woo.

You keep doing woo. Please stop. Please actually have something more of a basis for a claim than 'it's not impossible'. Please.

O.