Science Deals with the Intangible

206 posts / 0 new
Last post
Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Spectrum wrote:

Maybe you can explain the science of emotions for us and how it apples to the perspectve of belief structures? It limitations, and it's freedoms? While subjective, we all experience emotions? Unless, your a psychopath:)

Sinister Automatons link does not work pointing towards comment.

 

Best I can do is direct you to someone who has made a solid attempt to, and also touches on NDE as well as the idea of the mind/body duality/singularity, ghosts, electromagnetism and the brain, brain chemistry, etc, how that applies to the psychology of belief and our subjective experience of emotions. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-believing-brain

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-believing-brain/

http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-believing-brain/ 

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Not to mention, again, that the fact that a scientist has a hallucination does not make it scientific.

NDE's are apparently described in medical journals as having characteristics of hallucinations. Meanwhile a small but growing number of religionists, parapsychologists, and some mainstream scientists claim NDE's are evidence of mind-body dualism.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Are there things about consciousness which we don't understand? Of course. Might there be some supernatural basis to some of it? Again, perhaps, although the fact is once we understand what is behind something it is no longer supernatural, is it?

Not always. The US Military made use of remote viewers during the cold war era as did the Sovs. And a statistician at U of California says that controlled lab tests of remote viewers produced data revealing that their talents are better than chance would allow for. 

I think there are people with certain talents on this earth. Not many but a few, and they are well known to governments and corporations.

Quote:
Funny too, that everyone talks about these white light down the tunnel visions. Very few people want to mention the visions of hell and paranoid nightmares that are also very common - and just as vivid - when people are ill or close to death.

The tunnel of light is but part of the experience. There is another more universal defining characteristic of the NDE. And apparently it is an important one which is generally not reproduced in lab experiements, people with temporal lobe epilepsy or similar conditions.

6079_Smith_W

What I am saying, Fidel is that we are talking about things which are for the most part unknown.

If things which we now consider supernatural or parapsychological or hallucination or cryptozoological or nonsense are in fact real, then there must be some natural foundation to them. They aren't magic. And even if magic were shown to be real it would no longer be magic. When and if any of these things are shown to be real they will no longer be mysteries; they will be part of the natural world.

That goes for those remote viewers you mention, near death stories, all of it.

I have no problem with that, and I have no problem with people investigating them, and I am open to the possibility that there might be some truth in some of these things. I have seen and experienced a few things too which I have no rational explanation for.

But I think so long as a question is open we should recognize that it is open. That is.... unproven, and no more a big deal than any other scientific question for which we do not have an answer.

That is a far more rational approach than I see in some cases - getting all wrapped up in the notion of mystery , or using wholely unrelated things like quantum mechanics or high-energy physics or pseudoscience to leap to conclusions that certain things must be true.

It makes me wonder if it would be a source of joy or profound disappointment if some of these things actually were proven to be true.

 

Fidel

They would fall under the realm of the natural, but perhaps only after a pardigm shift in scientific understanding is realized. As I've pointed out before the quotes of certain scientists of today, it might be a heckuva long time before we advance from the macaque stage of knowing to a point in time when scientific understanding matures in the evolutionary scheme of things. And as Nikolai Kardashev and Freeman Dyson posited, that understanding might only be a few thousand years away depending on whether we survive our own technological adolescence.

Clarke's 3rd Law wrote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
 

I think some of us are possibilists at this end of the spectrum and die-hard skeptics at the other. Nothing wrong with skepticism, mind. It's just that many scientific naysayers of history aren't household names today.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But I think so long as a question is open we should recognize that it is open. That is.... unproven, and no more a big deal than any other scientific question for which we do not have an answer.

Unproven, yes, but not without evidence. For the longest time when people died, they were rarely resuscitated from beyond the grave. Today there is a certain amount of evidence that while the body and physical brain are clinically dead, and for upwards of an hour and now a matter of days WRT to Alexander's experience, that the human mind continues to function at some capacity and length of time and at least until the physical body and brain are resuscitated.

For centuries there was little clinical evidence of life after death. It was mostly the claims of seven major world religions that our existence continues beyond the grave. Today we have scientists looking into the matter and thus far they have barely scratched the surface of human consciousness. The human body is like a relatively unexplored galaxy as far as science is concerned.

Quote:
That is a far more rational approach than I see in some cases - getting all wrapped up in the notion of mystery , or using wholely unrelated things like quantum mechanics or high-energy physics or pseudoscience to leap to conclusions that certain things must be true.

It was never me who proposed these ideas. You'll have to take it up with the likes of Brian Josephson, Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose etc. Although QM theory itself was mocked and ridculed by mainstream scientists just 30 or 35 years ago, today it's QM and various string theories being assessed by the likes of scientific journals Nuclear Physics B and Physical Review D. They are studying fundamental recipes for matter and the universe. and of all that's in it. They are actually looking for new laws of nature, and every time a new law of nature was discovered in the past, it launched an industrial revolution of one kind or another.

6079_Smith_W

I'm not questioning quantum mechanics. I'm questioning what they pretend it means in that "What the Bleep" movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F

I'm not sure what you mean by a "paradigm shift in scientific understanding". If it means no longer adhering to the scientific method, I'd say I disagree.

And asking for evidence isn't quite the same thing as naysaying. After all, Clarke's first law may point to the appeal of fresh new ideas:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

But it doesn't give much credit to learned experience. Clarke's laws don't, after all, have much to do with the body of scientific knowledge; they are about our ways of thinking. Whatever we believe, the fact remains that some things are impossible.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Or at least highly improbable.

What the Bleep extrapolates from quantum theory in ways that are speculative but unrealistic. Did you know they were sued by several of their contributors for editing them so that it sounded like they were supporting ideas they felt were wrong?

Quantum this and that, applied in the way that Deepak Chopra uses the word, is just more bafflegab to make their wonky pronouncements sound more science-y and therefore more credible. It's a humdinger of a technique for selling books and making money on speaking engagements.

6079_Smith_W

Timebandit wrote:

Or at least highly improbable.

Exactly.

I think those who misinterpret these fields of science forget that they apply to subatomic, large-scale or high energy systems, and that for pretty much anything we are going to deal with like falling anvils and jet packs, Newtonian physics works just fine.

In fact, I'd say part of the problem is leaping into this esoteric stuff without a proper grounding in the far more basic laws.

I have a book downstairs on some of the science behind black holes and space time. It all makes good sense, but there is absolutely nothing in there that would indicate it's possible to build a time machine in my back yard and go make a killing in the stock market.

Even the possibility that the laws of physics may not be constant throughout the universe does not mean that everything is possible, and basic things like the laws of thermodynamics no longer apply.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-a...

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Spectrum wrote:

Maybe you can explain the science of emotions for us and how it apples to the perspectve of belief structures? It limitations, and it's freedoms? While subjective, we all experience emotions? Unless, your a psychopath:)

Sinister Automatons link does not work pointing towards comment.

 

Best I can do is direct you to someone who has made a solid attempt to, and also touches on NDE as well as the idea of the mind/body duality/singularity, ghosts, electromagnetism and the brain, brain chemistry, etc, how that applies to the psychology of belief and our subjective experience of emotions. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-believing-brain

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-believing-brain/

http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-believing-brain/ 

Yes, I understand Shermer's position as a Skeptic and seen his work for some time. Thanks.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

Spectrum wrote:
Maybe you can explain the science of emotions for us ...  

I'm not a scientist.  For me it makes sense that emotions are formulated at the biological level as adaptive responses to external criteria, or more specifically, as the product emanating from an inherent capacity to process criteria.  Animals exhibit emotional responses as well as humans do, but very little writing on the subject of animal emotion, at least that I'm aware of, has sought to interpret it as a separate phenomenon from their bodies, certainly nothing that has received general acceptance by either science or pre-science.  Emotion in their case is correctly attributed to their natural, adaptable instincts.

The idea that human emotion constitutes evidence validating non-material belief, or that there is a separate compartment from the physical self that houses our nature in the form of a soul, or some other form of telekinetic propulsion system for human existence, was taken up by Erich Fromm in his 'personal understanding' approach to behaviour considered as being of the authentic type, in contrast to individual conformity with behaviour that is appropriate to the existing cultural norms.  The question of authentic vs. the inauthentic is what we're contending with in threads of this nature.

I don't know if it is true that psychopaths are void of emotion.  It may very well be that their emotions are exhibited in a similar manner to that of predatory animals, where in the case of an animal, no questions are raised in relation to morality governing behaviour.  Psychopathic emotions are likely the result of internalized societal governance mechanisms being switched off until nothing remains but the predatory animal instincts of an individual who thus becomes ill-suited to their surroundings.  Btw, on the subject of human nature, Chomsky's view was deconstructed by Foucault many years ago.

The problem for us today is that the Copernican principle concerning observable material space hasn't been successfully transposed for use amongst other forms of thought; that which continues to insist on subscribing to ourselves not only a central place among all things, but a very special one at that which is capable of transcending all material boundaries.  Lofty cathedrals were and continue to be built to house this view of ourselves.

First I would just like to say I appreciate the careful response in your reply.

Sensor development,  helps to direct attention as to how emotion is demonstrated? Skin Conductance while demonstrate to be measured in one sense ...I might say that the response in the psychological and physiological consideration may be seen as if the MRI would showing the neurons.... how else would this be measured that does not smack of the auras that one would quickly jump too in thought?

Skin conductance response in regular subjects differs when given fair and unfair offers, respectively. However, psychopaths have been shown to have no difference in skin conductance between fair and unfair offers.[2] This may indicate that the use of lie detectors relying on skin conductivity gives psychopaths an advantage that non-psychopaths do not have in criminal investigations.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
To portray any of this as "untangible" kind of defeats the purpose, unless one is more fascinated with the mystery, or speculations that don't have much foundation, than with trying to find out what is actually happening.

I explained the logic to Jas as to it's difficulty and well as it's proof. This does not limit the potential as to demonstrate that consciousness is forging ahead regardless of this opinion. Secondly... I raised the link to Arthur Young's comment to demonstrate what I was saying with regard to the untangible..

6079_Smith_W wrote:
After all, every researcher in every field knows there are far more unanswered questions than answered ones. Despite the fact that the subject in this case is us, it is no more a big deal than in any other field.

So your saying stop the research into consciousness research because nothing can be gained from it, regardless of the scientific parameters required for consciousness to expand that potential? This raises of course the questions about safety of drug use to expand these potentials as exposed in previous discussions on Leary. I am not talking about that.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Funny too, that everyone talks about these white light down the tunnel visions. Very few people want to mention the visions of hell and paranoid nightmares that are also very common - and just as vivid - when people are ill or close to death.

"Your BS( belief structure) dictates the frame of reference established for your experience"....not just of the near death question,  but life in general? Maybe this is a postulate in itself that can be expanded on? Taken to a irreducible summation then maybe we can go from there?

The only way the reference frame can be changed for an individual is if it is somehow knocked out of its loop. Paradigmatic changes as if concerted require revolutions of course and the idea that observations can play a role is a self indicating permission to individuals to allow themself to move away from what is holding the mind to its continuous loop. Often the outlook on life changes and it does not again need the NDE experience just to show this is a natural function of "aha" moments and realizations that allow one to expand that potential to see life differently then they always have.

See for example: Fractals and Antennas and The Economy

6079_Smith_W

Spectrum wrote:

So your saying stop the research into consciousness research because nothing can be gained from it, regardless of the scientific parameters required for consciousness to expand that potential?

Did I say that? No, I don't think so. I said I think legitimate research is a good thing. I also said I am open to the possibility that some of these unknown things might be true.

What I said was that if you really want to study something and find answers it doesn't help to shroud things which we do not know with a false aura of magic and mystery. And it really doesn't help to trot out fascinating but irrelevant science as a means of adding to the smoke and mirrors.

Benoit Mandelbrot was a mathematician, a field which is about as hard as hard gets. And his point was that the beautiful patterns we see in nature can be modelled by those same hard rules that govern the elements and the rest of the physical world. The fact many of these physical laws are awe-inspiring (and they are) doesn't change the fact that at least on our plane of perception they follow a set of rules you can dial up on your slide rule.

Frankly, that's the sort of "a ha" moment that truly fascinates me.

But as with most fascinating stuff, there is a danger in reading things into them which are not borne out by the science, or by making shit up:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

Are out of body experiences and life after death real? I don't know. I would be interested in reading some evidence, even anecdotal. But sorry, pointing out that there are limits ot our understanding of conciousess is not evidence.

 

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Are out of body experiences and life after death real? I don't know. 

I don't think anyone knows. For the moment, at least in terms of my own estimation, I can only assign an extremely low probability factor to the suggestion. Agnosticism in this regard which seeks to remain inquisitive should reserve at least a 0.5 to make room for the submission of evidence, and where warranted, the probability factor can be favourably adjusted, depending on the quality of the submission.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Slumberjack you will never get away from the issue of entanglement:)

Diagram 6. Khu Shijiei triangle, depth 8, 1303.

The so called 'Pascal' triangle was known in China as early as 1261. In '1261 the triangle appears to a depth of six in Yang Hui and to a depth of eight in Zhu Shijiei (as in diagram 6) in 1303. Yang Hui attributes the triangle to Jia Xian, who lived in the eleventh century' (Stillwell, 1989, p136). They used it as we do, as a means of generating the binomial coefficients.

It wasn't until the eleventh century that a method for solving quadratic and cubic equations was recorded, although they seemed to have existed since the first millennium. At this time Jia Xian 'generalised the square and cube root procedures to higher roots by using the array of numbers known today as the Pascal triangle and also extended and improved the method into one useable for solving polynomial equations of any degree' (Katz, 1993, p191.)


The Black Swan Theory or Theory of Black Swan Events is a metaphor that encapsulates the concept that The event is a surprise (to the observer) and has a major impact. After the fact, the event is rationalized by hindsight.

The point about Benoit  and Taleb is to show how perception when not used to its full potential fails to see how the basis of perception has emergent properties that affect the paradigmatic frame of reference that one has always held too. With all this talk now I have made comparisons that regardless of the subject show components of what is natural in consciousness as to see that birth and death are really natural things held within our perspectives.

How would you deny the experience of an NDEr in another when this experience resides in yourself as well? Or as the factor with regard to the subject of the Economy?

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Spectrum wrote:

So your saying stop the research into consciousness research because nothing can be gained from it, regardless of the scientific parameters required for consciousness to expand that potential?

Benoit Mandelbrot was a mathematician, a field which is about as hard as hard gets. And his point was that the beautiful patterns we see in nature can be modelled by those same hard rules that govern the elements and the rest of the physical world. The fact many of these physical laws are awe-inspiring (and they are) doesn't change the fact that at least on our plane of perception they follow a set of rules you can dial up on your slide rule.

Fractal Antenna Example Oh really! You know your opposition to speaking about things that require a greater perception has been lost in the fact that I have to keep pushing you to realize how absurd your examples are when you try to sound as if you have it in the bag so to speak. It is just as bad as the perception you keep creating with your smoke, magic, and mirrors. As bad as securing yoruself in the fact that what is spoken by the "Great Shermer" will help you as a seated perspective about the grasp you have on reality.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Frankly, that's the sort of "a ha" moment that truly fascinates me.

Yes imagine you are not limited to the NDE experience alone but serves to remind one that the experience in consciousness does not need to be distinguishable with NDE experience alone, and does not have to be seen as so magical and spooky by you. :)

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But as with most fascinating stuff, there is a danger in reading things into them which are not borne out by the science, or by making shit up:

">http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

I think you'll get the sense of the triangle as an understanding of the ala'-algorithmic based abstraction underlying perception enhanced in the fractal antenna. Oh okay,  you would actually want to show your perspective and subjectivity as if a Shermer showing how cautious one has to be? Enjoy this. I'd rather imagine my work desk:)

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Are out of body experiences and life after death real? I don't know. I would be interested in reading some evidence, even anecdotal. But sorry, pointing out that there are limits ot our understanding of conciousess is not evidence.

Death and life are not limited to the finalities with which we create, as a beginning or an end. They take place in our own perspectives all the time.

Slumberjack

Spectrum wrote:
How would you deny the experience of an NDEr in another when this experience resides in yourself as well? Or as the factor with regard to the subject of the Economy?

Denying the reality upon which an experience is based around seems as unproblematic as denying the reality upon which an evangelical congregation for instance, collectively experiences the phenomenon of speaking in tongues.

I'd like to suggest instead that the intangible; the western notion of human consciousness detached from the physical world for example, since we've been discussing this as well; has been a patriarchal construct and pursuit throughout history; which incidentally, may help to explain the unsubstantiated persistence of the subject of extra-physical consciousness; despite what evidence the modern capacity for reason and science has been able to counter with up to and including the present.

When patriarchy as expressed through the early Christian church considered as an incontrovertible truth that a saviour would return to judge humanity, the idea of a spiritual presence, both in the afterlife of a human being or spiritual as it was always said to have existed, was already a well founded notion based upon previous religious and philosophical writings on the topic.  It was of no particular novelty to propose, in order for both the dead and the living to be judged according to plan, that a soul would have to exist in order for the disposition of judgement to have effect.  Following the logic, purgatory was contrived as a way to demonstrate the wisdom and supreme capacity for justice as embodied in the almighty, by creating a special level of consciousness, limited in scope by an inability to perceive God until such time as they were lifted out from that separate existence, in order to account for those souls who die after being born, who were never provided with an opportunity to repent of their sins.

Much of what philosophy and thought has since provided us, from the early church, the middle ages, the enlightenment, etc, was taken up with the task of attempting to explain, through various methodologies associated with otherworldly experience; being, essence, spirituality, transcendence, out of body sensory projection, etc; what 'man' had created as mechanisms justifying and ensuring the existing power relations.  It seems to me that since modern thought and science has completely done away with all previous non-rational arguments supporting non-physical consciousness as relayed to us for many centuries via the Old and New Testaments, today we're severely limited to a form of conjecture shorn of its philosophical and textual underpinnings, and we're now reduced to scientific sounding means of inquiry to propose questions without a single experiment, let alone a single non-subjective experience, upon which to call for support.

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But it doesn't give much credit to learned experience. Clarke's laws don't, after all, have much to do with the body of scientific knowledge; they are about our ways of thinking. Whatever we believe, the fact remains that some things are impossible.

Yes, in the same what that we would expect macaques to understand general relativity to be highly improbable. But I think most of us here believe in evolution and that technological advances of the future are a given. That is if you understand what I'm saying. I think you probably subscribe to the philosophy or presentism, which is also incompatible with quantum theory.

They expect to discover new laws of nature. The standard model is incomplete. Larry Strauss is a self-described atheist and critic of string theory. And one of the last things he wrote after visiting Europe was that it seems metaphysics is on the verge of becoming science.

6079_Smith_W

@ Fidel

No. What I mean is that technoligical advances and evolution do not lead to the conclusion that sooner or later everything will be true

For that matter, neither does eternalism.

By saying that there will be new laws discovered that will presumably make everything possible what you are really saying is that sooner or later there will be no laws at all.

Sorry, but I don't see it. We can advance our understanding for another thousand years, but it won't change the properties of a carbon atom, or anything else in nature, for that matter. When we are long gone it will still bond and behave in the same way it did before we existed. The laws of nature don't change based on our understanding. They never have, and they never will.

It is asbsurd as the irrational notion many have that science will sooner or later save us from our own wasteful nature and refusal to live within our means because... well because we're so special that science just has to save us.

 

 

 

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

Spectrum wrote:
How would you deny the experience of an NDEr in another when this experience resides in yourself as well? Or as the factor with regard to the subject of the Economy?

Denying the reality upon which an experience is based around seems as unproblematic as denying the reality upon which an evangelical congregation for instance, collectively experiences the phenomenon of speaking in tongues.

I guess your right, that if you had this notion to believe that the three brain notion was based on religion then what ever you construct from that belief everything else would arise from it.

Slumberjack wrote:
I'd like to suggest instead that the intangible; the western notion of human consciousness detached from the physical world for example, since we've been discussing this as well; has been a patriarchal construct and pursuit throughout history; which incidentally, may help to explain the unsubstantiated persistence of the subject of extra-physical consciousness; despite what evidence the modern capacity for reason and science has been able to counter with up to and including the present.

I just can't see it that way logically,  while I could understand one being raised in such a patriarchal way. Then it would be based on that religion. That has been the bias seen and understood ad expressed by others as to this notion that Eben's religion plays a pivotal role here on the relation to his experience. He does point out that the construct of our brain and the materialistic notion somehow limits us to this reality. It was always his belief as a neurosurgeon that this materialistic stance adopted in science was the predominate way in which he used to see. In that sense he fit well to the status quo of science in its endeavors.

Slumberjack wrote:
When patriarchy as expressed through the early Christian church considered as an incontrovertible truth that a saviour would return to judge humanity, the idea of a spiritual presence, both in the afterlife of a human being or spiritual as it was always said to have existed, was already a well founded notion based upon previous religious and philosophical writings on the topic.  It was of no particular novelty to propose, in order for both the dead and the living to be judged according to plan, that a soul would have to exist in order for the disposition of judgement to have effect.  Following the logic, purgatory was contrived as a way to demonstrate the wisdom and supreme capacity for justice as embodied in the almighty, by creating a special level of consciousness, limited in scope by an inability to perceive God until such time as they were lifted out from that separate existence, in order to account for those souls who die after being born, who were never provided with an opportunity to repent of their sins.

It s a belief structure that you are constructing to fit the data you believe to be possible.

Slumberjack wrote:
Much of what philosophy and thought has since provided us, from the early church, the middle ages, the enlightenment, etc, was taken up with the task of attempting to explain, through various methodologies associated with otherworldly experience; being, essence, spirituality, transcendence, out of body sensory projection, etc; what 'man' had created as mechanisms justifying and ensuring the existing power relations.  It seems to me that since modern thought and science has completely done away with all previous non-rational arguments supporting non-physical consciousness as relayed to us for many centuries via the Old and New Testaments, today we're severely limited to a form of conjecture shorn of its philosophical and textual underpinnings, and we're now reduced to scientific sounding means of inquiry to propose questions without a single experiment, let alone a single non-subjective experience, upon which to call for support.

In bold I know what you are saying....yet how could you believe other wise as there has been nothing to  convince or change your position from your construct. Fidel does raise the issue of what is a theoretical qualitatively demonstrated as string theory is a construct that does not hold its weight either in relation too, what has to be phenomenological demonstrated. So why accept it at all?

I am not saying that this supports string theory hand waving,  just that a patriarchal suggestion here as to the notion of the after life just doesn't fly. It would have to be free of anything that we attach to it materialistically which is why I say the intangible.

I did try and find some correlation in the photons ability, as to relay what Arthur Young had to say as to its potential to demonstrate. Its spectrum identification as some corollary mass distinction? Its a spectrum align description of an element in it's most materialistic sense, but ultimately photons has many potential pathways. Also,  the idea of lensing as some indication as to the photons being affected by its travel through gravitational fields.

Slumberjack

Excavation, re-discovery, and re-evaluation with respect to historical and contemporary efforts to align the non-scientific approach with scientific interrogation and discovery, so that both are set along a parallel track to where it becomes a simple and convenient matter of choosing one methodology or the other, or perhaps an inexplicable combination of both (Francis Collins, etc), can assist in clearing away false notions seeking to make something fit where it doesn't belong.

String and M theory are too far out there for the moment, which is why it becomes tempting for some of the usual suspects to begin their speculations and alchemy once again via an assortment of antiquated and discredited means of understanding, well before the theories in question have had a chance in their own right to emerge as proven, verifiable, peer reviewed disciplines.  I don't see that there's an issue with being vigilant when it comes to millennia of soothsayer type work, mind reading, theology, spoon benders, telekinetics, etc, who are not adverse to arriving on the scene to tell us that the new theories are really what they've been striving to explain all along using their own peculiar trial and error methods.

If science has a shot at explaining anything relating to multiple universes made from string and/or parallel membranes, and collisions between parallel membranes causing the formation of big bangs and new universes, etc; it would do well to take into account the past two millennia and more of patriarchal nonsense in order to improve the odds of effectively functioning as science in any reality.  The belief structures of the past are still present, requiring no construction on my part.  When some of us refer to them with caution it’s similar to being a museum tour guide interpreting the ruins and broken down altars of past civilizations as we go along.

6079_Smith_W

@ SJ #65

I'd say you are right there, though it's not just a construct of oppressive religion.

Of course those organizations, like many power systems, exploit belief structures. But I think it is also part of how our minds naturally work - the fact that we want to see order in things where there may in fact be no order, or that for many people, the notion that at one time I did not exist, and at some time in the future I will no longer exist  is terrifying and impossible to accept.

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Bang on, SJ and Smith. 

We are pattern monkeys and we hold to the patterns that are familiar to us.  We go to great lengths to bend new information or extrapolate from it to support the patterns we hold the most affection for.

What's interesting to me is how much like older religions New Age thinking is while claiming it isn't.  They take the new information we have, wildly extrapolate it into what-if-land when there's no evidence to support their extrapolations.  Just as the saints and visionaries in the Christian church did.  Better to be honest and call it speculative fiction, because until you have something that really does support it, that's all it is.

PS - Arthur Young was a brilliant engineer.  He was not a physicist - so in terms of his later-life diversion, he was as much a layman as any of the rest of us.  He played around in what-if territory.  I get that he speculated a lot of stuff that you find compelling.  So what?  Is it any different than me making up a fiction that resonates for you?  Does it make it real if it does?

We pattern monkeys love the confirmation bias...

6079_Smith_W

We might also question the wisdom of spending the time we have focusing on time we do not have.

The majority of mortals, Paulinus, complain bitterly of the spitefulness of Nature, because we are born for a brief span of life, because even this space that has been granted to us rushes by so speedily and so swiftly that all save a very few find life at an end just when they are getting ready to live. Nor is it merely the common herd and the unthinking crowd that bemoan what is, as men deem it, an universal ill; the same feeling has called forth complaint also from men who were famous. It was this that made the greatest of physicians exclaim that "life is short, art is long;" it was this that led Aristotle, while expostulating with Nature, to enter an indictment most unbecoming to a wise man—that, in point of age, she has shown such favour to animals that they drag out five or ten lifetimes, but that a much shorter limit is fixed for man, though he is born for so many and such great achievements. It is not that we have a short space of time, but that we waste much of it. Life is long enough, and it has been given in sufficiently generous measure to allow the accomplishment of the very greatest things if the whole of it is well invested. But when it is squandered in luxury and carelessness, when it is devoted to no good end, forced at last by the ultimate necessity we perceive that it has passed away before we were aware that it was passing. So it is—the life we receive is not short, but we make it so, nor do we have any lack of it, but are wasteful of it. Just as great and princely wealth is scattered in a moment when it comes into the hands of a bad owner, while wealth however limited, if it is entrusted to a good guardian, increases by use, so our life is amply long for him who orders it properly.

Lucius Seneca On the Shortness of Life

http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/seneca_younger/brev_e.html

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Fidel

No. What I mean is that technoligical advances and evolution do not lead to the conclusion that sooner or later everything will be true.

Oh? Are you suggesting that no matter how much time passes eventually random bits of information floating around the universe would not magically assemble into the complete works of Shakespeare, or all of Beethoven`s symphonies?  Because according to statistics and probability this would eventually be true. Eventually what you get is a wonderful collocation of atoms and even this, what we see all around us everywhere, for example. Evolution is a strange and wonderful thing for sure. Imagine that a writer named Jules Verne wrote about a ship that travels beneath the waves. And one day in the future it becomes reality. The human mind is a powerful thing, Smith. We have willed certain fictional technologies into existence before. We will do it again. Remember Clarke`s third law.

 

jas

Speaking of the supernatural, I find myself watching the "Miracle Channel", which I didn't know existed, a show called "It's Supernatural", hosted by Sid Roth, a self-desccribed Jew (on a Christian station) who has a guest on who he calls a "prophet" who says that the stock market crash of 1987 was God visiting his "wrath upon the land" after a gay pride parade was televised, and that God blesses those who support and endorse the relationship between Isreal and America, and that Roosevelt and Bush Sr. and many other American presidents have suffered injury (in Roosevelt's case, death) for going against God's covenant regarding Jews and the Israel state. And much, much more.

I mean, I admit I haven't had much recent exposure to American religious television, and I'm a little shocked that this is being broadcast n Canada. It's not only bizarre in its confusion of Christian evangelism and Zionism, but it's so patently dated as to be comical. Acccording to Sid Roth, the three fatal errors of America in "God's" eyes are:

1) supporting homosexuality

2) speaking or plotting against Israel, and

3) endorsing abortion.

How new and refreshing.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Quote:

 

We are pattern monkeys and we hold to the patterns that are familiar to us.  We go to great lengths to bend new information or extrapolate from it to support the patterns we hold the most affection for.

Yep Game theory sucks.

Quote:
What's interesting to me is how much like older religions New Age thinking is while claiming it isn't.  They take the new information we have, wildly extrapolate it into what-if-land when there's no evidence to support their extrapolations.  Just as the saints and visionaries in the Christian church did.  Better to be honest and call it speculative fiction, because until you have something that really does support it, that's all it is.

Your wildly extrapolating yourself:)

Quote:
PS - Arthur Young was a brilliant engineer.  He was not a physicist - so in terms of his later-life diversion, he was as much a layman as any of the rest of us.  He played around in what-if territory.  I get that he speculated a lot of stuff that you find compelling.  So what?  Is it any different than me making up a fiction that resonates for you?  Does it make it real if it does?

We pattern monkeys love the confirmation bias...

What a crock of shit:)

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

jas wrote:

Speaking of the supernatural, I find myself watching the "Miracle Channel", which I didn't know existed, a show called "It's Supernatural", hosted by Sid Roth, a self-desccribed Jew (on a Christian station) who has a guest on who he calls a "prophet" who says that the stock market crash of 1987 was God visiting his "wrath upon the land" after a gay pride parade was televised, and that God blesses those who support and endorse the relationship between Isreal and America, and that Roosevelt and Bush Sr. and many other American presidents have suffered injury (in Roosevelt's case, death) for going against God's covenant regarding Jews and the Israel state. And much, much more.

I mean, I admit I haven't had much recent exposure to American religious television, and I'm a little shocked that this is being broadcast n Canada. It's not only bizarre in its confusion of Christian evangelism and Zionism, but it's so patently dated as to be comical. Acccording to Sid Roth, the three fatal errors of America in "God's" eyes are:

1) supporting homosexuality

2) speaking or plotting against Israel, and

3) endorsing abortion.

How new and refreshing.

Jas,

I am not saying not to be unguarded about the religious context as has been expressed as a construct in relation too a patriarchal metaphorical association with Eben Alexanders experience.. I am saying,  not in this case. It is easy to construct hand-waving arguments and to go further to say that such a experience is not based in reality as shown by going one step further with string theory.

I mean we are all engaged right now with the issue and supplying different perspective. It's all subjective, so what ever argument that is offered is held in relevance of perspective and is in my view no different then the assumption of any experience offered by Eben Alexander. Now that that is understood I am wanting relevance and perspective aside from what you have always known only to be true and how one would be knocked out of the routine/loop.

So Eben Alexander was experiencing neurological aspect of the meningitis and was not really dead? The cause of hallucinations?

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

I suppose you are two fathoms deep in mathematics,
and if you are, then God help you, for so am I,
only with this difference,
I stick fast in the mud at the bottom and there I shall remain.
-Charles Darwin

 

Quote:

Excavation, re-discovery, and re-evaluation with respect to historical and contemporary efforts to align the non-scientific approach with scientific interrogation and discovery, so that both are set along a parallel track to where it becomes a simple and convenient matter of choosing one methodology or the other, or perhaps an inexplicable combination of both (Francis Collins, etc), can assist in clearing away false notions seeking to make something fit where it doesn't belong.

It's not that easy. You engage the subject and offer perspective. Its subjective,  yet you use the medium?

Quote:
String and M theory are too far out there for the moment, which is why it becomes tempting for some of the usual suspects to begin their speculations and alchemy once again via an assortment of antiquated and discredited means of understanding, well before the theories in question have had a chance in their own right to emerge as proven, verifiable, peer reviewed disciplines.

As far as you understand string theory, or the difficulties that could inhibit a mind like Newtons to be a decent human being, while suffering from anyone of the maladies hidden in a physiological aspect of what made him to pursue relevance with regard to the introspection of self.

Chomsky signals Newton's contribution to what science is today. Of course we may accept his development of Calculus but not his alchemical roots eh? So there is trouble in what Chomsky offers as his logic about the mind body relation and what is of relevance in the usurpation of science? What science demands, and the population becomes? So you have a societal view have you?:)

 

 

Quote:
I don't see that there's an issue with being vigilant when it comes to millennia of soothsayer type work, mind reading, theology, spoon benders, telekinetics, etc, who are not adverse to arriving on the scene to tell us that the new theories are really what they've been striving to explain all along using their own peculiar trial and error methods.

I do not see being skeptical as a problem just that you accept the notion that how ever you expalin Eben Alexanders experience you admit you are operating from the very same plateau. So we stand then not as an opposition to investigation but as perspective looking at it from varous angles aware of how this aproach is being done.

Quote:
If science has a shot at explaining anything relating to multiple universes made from string and/or parallel membranes, and collisions between parallel membranes causing the formation of big bangs and new universes, etc; it would do well to take into account the past two millennia and more of patriarchal nonsense in order to improve the odds of effectively functioning as science in any reality.  The belief structures of the past are still present, requiring no construction on my part.  When some of us refer to them with caution it’s similar to being a museum tour guide interpreting the ruins and broken down altars of past civilizations as we go along.

Your view is locked in what you say mine is assumed to be? On the contrary I can give Newton as an example while showing such views on alchemy to be part of Newton's inquisitive nature as  to understanding why he was the way he was. That part of history is of relevance today as it was then.

The corollary function of bits and things as a measure of reality correspondence is what science is representing today?  Yet we would not say it is a foolish science,  but that is what one should assumed it  to be according to the example you say of alchemical nonsense. Eben accepted this notion too of a computation digital physics(Frankenstein?:) before his experience as a neurological surgeon.....but he does not believe that way anymore.

Stroke of insight:Jill Bolte Taylor

So who are we? We are the life force power of the universe, with manual dexterity and two cognitive minds. And we have the power to choose, moment by moment, who and how we want to be in the world. Right here right now, I can step into the consciousness of my right hemisphere where we are -- I am -- the life force power of the universe, and the life force power of the 50 trillion beautiful molecular geniuses that make up my form. At one with all that is. Or I can choose to step into the consciousness of my left hemisphere. where I become a single individual, a solid, separate from the flow, separate from you. I am Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, intellectual, neuroanatomist. These are the "we" inside of me.

Which would you choose? Which do you choose? And when? I believe that the more time we spend choosing to run the deep inner peace circuitry of our right hemispheres, the more peace we will project into the world and the more peaceful our planet will be. And I thought that was an idea worth spreading.

The reality parameter is limited by the brain matter perspective. Eben's notion of right/left brain was a limit of perspective about what he was experiencing. What it was like to go from a worm in the mud perspective,  always assumed as a neurological surgeon as a basis of reality forming. As a scientist he did not disregard his obligation to science. He offers a new perspective by sharing that experience that knocked him out of his loop.

There was no notion of self in regard of the experience so from my perspective,  experiencing a range of  matter defined associations from the mud,  all the way toward freedom of the environs which held him to matter. "A melody" that would inspire a freedom. Successive visitation to repeatable experience offers a way with which to embed experience. So he wouldn't forget.  Offers up the notion of the stance Eben had assumed in science as an example of what is present in science today. Repeatability.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

 

So I got up and I jumped onto my cardio glider, which is a full-body exercise machine. And I'm jamming away on this thing, and I'm realizing that my hands looked like primitive claws grasping onto the bar. I thought "that's very peculiar" and I looked down at my body and I thought, "whoa, I'm a weird-looking thing." And it was as though my consciousness had shifted away from my normal perception of reality, where I'm the person on the machine having the experience, to some esoteric space where I'm witnessing myself having this experience.Stroke of insight: Jill Bolte Taylor

 

If one bases their historical view of Aristotle by using Lucius Seneca one has to take into account what Aristotle was reacting too.

One can see an image and not really understand it. From a historical standpoint Raphael was trying to capture this distinction to imply a inductive\deductive relationship with reality by offering perspectives of what physically one is pointing up too,  as to what one is implying, by what is being demonstrated as "all around."

How is one to talk about emergent properties if one cannot see at it's basis some attempt to discribe some reality forming apparatus? This is just as relevant today as it was back then. In terms of the logic it is about what becomes self evident and what is arrived at as a consensus of that engagment.

sknguy II

Spectrum wrote:

So I got up and I jumped onto my cardio glider, which is a full-body exercise machine. And I'm jamming away on this thing, and I'm realizing that my hands looked like primitive claws grasping onto the bar. I thought "that's very peculiar" and I looked down at my body and I thought, "whoa, I'm a weird-looking thing." And it was as though my consciousness had shifted away from my normal perception of reality, where I'm the person on the machine having the experience, to some esoteric space where I'm witnessing myself having this experience.Stroke of insight: Jill Bolte Taylor

Didn't watch the video, but this quote sounds a lot like a jamais vu experience.

6079_Smith_W

Spectrum wrote:

It's all subjective, so what ever argument that is offered is held in relevance of perspective and is in my view no different then the assumption of any experience offered by Eben Alexander. Now that that is understood I am wanting relevance and perspective aside from what you have always known only to be true and how one would be knocked out of the routine/loop.

So we just choose whatever experience we want to believe in? Sounds good, except that if I believe that I can heal people with the power of my mind, or by appealing to some deity (and there are people who believe that to be the absolute truth) you might want a little demonstration.

I might imagine that I can stay alive without any food or water. I am sure most of us have heard stories of people who can. If I were to try it I might become even more convinced of it as my body got more and more stressed. But that conviction would not change reality and allow me to survive. What would happen is that I'd be dead in days.

A family member of mine had wicked hallucinations several years ago, brought on by drugs and buildup of toxins in his blood. He believed there were clockwork people in the hospital room wall talking to him and controlling everything that was happening. Several days later, after he was back in his right mind, I spoke with him about it, and he still believed there were people behind the wall, even though there was no longer any hallucination. The fact that he believed it did not make it so.

Spectrum wrote:

If one bases their historical view of Aristotle by using Lucius Seneca one has to take into account what Aristotle was reacting too.

One can see an image and not really understand it. From a historical standpoint Raphael was trying to capture this distinction to imply a inductive\deductive relationship with reality by offering perspectives of what physically one is pointing up too,  as to what one is implying, by what is being demonstrated as "all around."

How is one to talk about emergent properties if one cannot see at it's basis some attempt to discribe some reality forming apparatus?

Aristotle was just bemoaning the fact that our lives have a beginning and an end.

And whatever imagined reality might exist in your mind, the fact remains that that mind is dependent on a body which is part of the physical world and follows physical laws. Is there anecdotal evidence that might seem to challenge that? Sure. But nothing concrete or verifiable, certainly none of the arguments around perception and consciousness that you are presenting.

There is no "reality forming apparatus". Whether there is one dimension or these rumoured multiple ones, the world we inhabit IS the same reality for you as it is for me. We did not create it with our minds, and for your sake, you'd better hope it doesn't disappear when I check out of here.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ SJ

Yes, I'm not sure why Newton's alchemy was brought up either. Alchemy and chemistry used to be one and the same, just like astronomy and astrology, religion and psychology. We still use Charles Messier's catalogue, even though his real work was trying to find comets for divination. And the notion of earth-centred universe wasn't started by the bible - it was, after all the Greek Ptolomaeic System, not the Jesus System.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

sknguy II wrote:

Spectrum wrote:

So I got up and I jumped onto my cardio glider, which is a full-body exercise machine. And I'm jamming away on this thing, and I'm realizing that my hands looked like primitive claws grasping onto the bar. I thought "that's very peculiar" and I looked down at my body and I thought, "whoa, I'm a weird-looking thing." And it was as though my consciousness had shifted away from my normal perception of reality, where I'm the person on the machine having the experience, to some esoteric space where I'm witnessing myself having this experience.Stroke of insight: Jill Bolte Taylor

Didn't watch the video, but this quote sounds a lot like a jamais vu experience.

I have to think more about that relation.

I wanted to draw attention to her work in Neuroanatomy and the perspective and frame of reference with which she said she is operating from.....in particular to the right brain( I looked down at my body and I thought, "whoa, I'm a weird-looking thing.). I also wanted to draw attention to the notion of correlated symbolism is a reality forming perspective as long as one accepts that model. If you lose the identification of self....you would not see the nature of self as being expressed through the views of the right mind, but Jill Bolte Taylor describes it that way. Eben relates the idea that the three brain is a description of a mater forming perspective of reality and that all things arise from that......but if you move away from such categorization.....then how did Eben loose sight of himself?

It is important as well to see their trades as scientists to see and experience life in this way as to challenge their belief structures and experiences. Cross pollination of the trades help to bring to light how moving into different areas help bring other views to what you had always understood but now see it in a new light by a different trade.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

  I think we could classify the issue as a personal, unresolved mind-body question.

Yes most definitely Chomsky draws attention to Newton and the position with which from that time things changed. In the Chomsky video he speaks to that and what has come forward to today. How the nature of science as is expected of our now generations is a materialist notion.

Slumberjack wrote:
A related personal experience with no witnesses or evidence should be treated as an unverified assumption.  We're being invited up to the plateau where people trade in assumptions, by hailing one down that will float us there.  Unfortunately, the sheer lack of assumptions keeps us grounded on an entirely different plane than the one Alexander road back on.

Lets not forget his training and how he is looking at his experience. Who better qualified?

Slumberjack wrote:
It's relevant, because revealing historically inquisitive minds is one thing, and pointing out historical examples of folly is another.  Sometimes people are compelled to voice a precautionary in terms of seeing it brought forward into the present, not that they want to discourage people entirely from folly if its harmless.

I feel some of you have a more structural integrity that are not easily swayed by the wind?:) So I do not worry about such folly in the den of skeptics:)

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

SlumberJack wrote:
String and M theory are too far out there for the moment, which is why it becomes tempting for some of the usual suspects to begin their speculations and alchemy once again via an assortment of antiquated and discredited means of understanding

I offer perspective and information to indicate that while we learned lots from Newton, recognizing these contribution in no way can discredit this aspect of Newtons engagement as a sign of failure on Newtons part. I do supply another perspective that indicates this failure by Newton(Sheldon Glasgow), but I think he lacked that deeper understanding of the subject and its relation to what was trying to be discoverable in Newtons nature, by Newtons introspection as a scientist.

One is quick to dislodge the subject of alchemy as a reach for that which, "to begin their speculations." That part of the conversation can be wipe very easy from the totality of this conversation. The symbolism is a deep truth correspondence and realization for those who have drawn their lines. It was so for Eben Alexander. Why the repeated experience of the worm.

Fidel

Good show, Spectrum. I think some of us have looked high and low on the internet for what we hoped would be very scientific explanations for the mind-body paradox.  And what we have discovered, and much to their surprise, is that there isn't one. They suggest to us that science will eventually figure it out, and then all the mystery of the thing will deflate to so much scientific jargon. But while that seems possible for them, technological advances will never occur. "It is impossible", they say. As to what is impossible they do not say. On the other hand, the mind-body paradox will surely be solved. Some day. Why do they believe this? It's because they have faith. There is no other way to describe certain babblers' support for a relatively small group of professionals on this earth who, themselves, tell us that they are at least ten-thousand leagues away from knowing and probably further if the god Kronos has anything to say about it.

Smith_W_6079 wrote:
But I think it is also part of how our minds naturally work - the fact that we want to see order in things where there may in fact be no order, or that for many people, the notion that at one time I did not exist, and at some time in the future I will no longer exist  is terrifying and impossible to accept.

I think there is no real basis for this, though.  Similar things have been said throughout history - that religion was created in order to control the masses. Or perhaps the poorest people have nothing good in this life to look forward to, and so they simply created the idea of heaven and the afterlife to comfort themselves. Surely there will be a time when the rich receive their come uppance and the poor rewarded for a lifetime of deprivation with everlasting life. But this kind of reasoning, whenever it originated, is flawed thinking. Why would superrich and powerful people not fear an afterlife and judgement similarly? In fact, this is where nihilism eventually leads to - thoughts that suggest there can be no wrong doing. Hitler and the Nazis, for example. At the Nuremberg trials, the war criminals basically said that they didn't do anything terribly more wrong than was done in the past by so-called civlized society. If that's the case, then the superrich should want to destroy the Church and six other world religions for all time and teach billions of us that the rich and powerful can do no wrong.

Who actually started this diabolical plot to deceive all of humanity with seven world religions basically all claiming to know the same thing, that life continues after death as if a natural cycle in nature? How could seven world religions all be wrong and science on the matter, whatever it happens to be, be correct?

Similarly, why should we believe scientists still feeling their way around in the dark wrt human consciousness when some of them suggest, and as Thomas Huxley and Bertrand Russell once said in a bygone era when Newtonian atomic theory was considered valid science, that the human mind is probably so much electro-chemical activity in the physical brain? Where does this relentless faith in a materialist explanation for consciousness come from? Will the as yet unproven materialist mind-body theory eventually go the way of flat earth theory?

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Fidel wrote:
Similarly, why should we believe scientists still feeling their way around in the dark wrt human consciousness when some of them suggest, and as Thomas Huxley and Bertrand Russell once said in a bygone era when Newtonian atomic theory was considered valid science, that the human mind is probably so much electro-chemical activity in the physical brain? Where does this relentless faith in a materialist explanation for consciousness come from? Will the as yet unproven materialist mind-body theory eventually go the way of flat earth theory?

Chomsky helped to point as you have surmised in essence of Newton. This would have been missed had I let it go without responding as to why one would invoke Newton.

So lets move this up a notch then.

Eben Alexander had some response to the idea of neural oscillation as to explaining away his reason for the NDE and what happened to his brain when attacked by the E coli. It was his son who suggested to him that he write of his experience without doing any research on the NDE until he had finished detailing the experience all in written form. Then he went out and did his research.

From his new perspective as he looked at the information he found many things as fluffy and questionable in terms of what happens with the brain. He had a critical analyses of this. Death by heart attack was brought up and how the shift to brain wave activity was the decisive factor as he went through his research.

Sleep is a naturally recurring state characterized by reduced or absent consciousness and proceeds in cycles of rapid eye movement (REM) and non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep. The normal order of sleep stages is N1 → N2 → N3 → N2 → REM. Sleep stages are characterized by spectral content of EEG, for instance stage N1 refers to the transition of the brain from alpha waves (common in the awake state) to theta waves, whereas stage N3 (deep or slow-wave sleep) is characterized by the presence of delta waves.

My question of consciousness based on this neural oscillation was a method in determination and function of brain waves in individual and youths. How one may see the relation of the Near death as a function of the brain in neural oscillation mode, but as mentioned Eben dismissed this because his brain was basically dead.

Other Brain Waves

Theta wave – (4–7 Hz)
Alpha wave – (8–12 Hz)
Mu wave – (8–13 Hz)
Beta wave – (12–30 Hz)
Gamma wave – (25–100 Hz)

Now as to focus levels and the idea of these gradation of consciousness induced into synchronization established by resonance,  is of interest to me as to how the brain/consciousness may be characterize by such rhythms. Hence,  featured and attributes expressed in the idea of those Brain Waves.

The idea of Biofeedback is a useful subject in terms of a measured response to teach the mind to relax, while recording body temperature, heart rate and skin conductance.

Slumberjack

Spectrum wrote:
It's not that easy. You engage the subject and offer perspective. Its subjective,

Yes, coming up with well founded explanations for the intangible is complicated business.  I'll give you that.

Quote:
Chomsky signals Newton's contribution to what science is today. Of course we may accept his development of Calculus but not his alchemical roots eh?

Of course, because he made significant contributions to science.  We still have to observe the time period where his findings were revealed, the power and belief structures that where in place, and how they affected his thought.  By his writing he seemed to be more of a deist who believed in universal immanence.  Alchemy was what people dabbled in before Chemistry.  With this particular futility at least, they were trying to overturn apparently unsettled with unknowns.

Quote:
So there is trouble in what Chomsky offers as his logic about the mind body relation and what is of relevance in the usurpation of science? What science demands, and the population becomes? So you have a societal view have you?:)

In his idea for anarcho-syndicalism, Chomsky draws upon an undefined, innate aspect to human nature toward a loosely affiliated, federated, industrial society.  For him the question of human nature being a biological or a non-physical relation is not so important.  By extension, the question of what will drive this new federalism is unimportant as well - and just as well - we all have our own ideas in that regard.  I think it would have been an easier task if he discarded one proposition or the other concerning the origin of human nature, and folded what remained into the cauldron with anarcho-syndicalism so we can better observe what we're being asked to sample.  Its a narrow concern within the overall body of his work, but at the same time much depends on it.  I think we could classify the issue as a personal, unresolved mind-body question.

Quote:
I do not see being skeptical as a problem just that you accept the notion that how ever you expalin Eben Alexanders experience you admit you are operating from the very same plateau. So we stand then not as an opposition to investigation but as perspective looking at it from varous angles aware of how this aproach is being done.

A related personal experience with no witnesses or evidence should be treated as an unverified assumption.  We're being invited up to the plateau where people trade in assumptions, by hailing one down that will float us there.  Unfortunately, the sheer lack of assumptions keeps us grounded on an entirely different plane than the one Alexander road back on.

Quote:
Your view is locked in what you say mine is assumed to be? On the contrary I can give Newton as an example while showing such views on alchemy to be part of Newton's inquisitive nature as  to understanding why he was the way he was. That part of history is of relevance today as it was then.

It's relevant, because revealing historically inquisitive minds is one thing, and pointing out historical examples of folly is another.  Sometimes people are compelled to voice a precautionary in terms of seeing it brought forward into the present, not that they want to discourage people entirely from folly if its harmless.

6079_Smith_W

Fidel wrote:

Smith_W_6079 wrote:

But I think it is also part of how our minds naturally work - the fact that we want to see order in things where there may in fact be no order, or that for many people, the notion that at one time I did not exist, and at some time in the future I will no longer exist  is terrifying and impossible to accept.

I think there is no real basis for this, though.  Similar things have been said throughout history - that religion was created in order to control the masses.

What...

You don't think there are people who believe in luck, or who are terrified of death, or can't fathom their own eventual non-existence? I am saying that it wasn't originally created by religion - that our minds naturally try to put things into a certain order.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture
Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Clearly many people who have had near-death experiences have described them in vivid detail, but I'm not sure the question of life after death is a subject that can be studied scientifically. For one, we'd need to find a way to die and then come back and talk about it.

Ok, time for some disclosure. Sadly, I died sometime in February, 2003 (wasn't able to note down the exact date), and came back at 12:17 eastern time on September 9, 2005. During that period of more than 2 1/2 years, I was dead. I was not alive. I even recall thinking: "You call this living!?" This really happened, as sure as my name is Unionist.

I trust that settles this contentious issue once and for all.

Slumberjack

So that odor I've been detecting the past few years is not just about your views on activism?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

U, if I wasn't already married, I'd propose.  :)

 

Slumberjack

Spectrum wrote:
Lets not forget his training and how he is looking at his experience. Who better qualified?

His particular area of expertise was already fleshed out in the Sam Harris rebuttal, and so in that sense he's just as qualified as anyone else on the topic of Monadology.

MegB

I'm the first to agree that there is a lot out there that science has not yet been able to address, but when a blogger says they are looking for "objective opinions on personal experience", that's when I cue the circus music.

Shakespeare had it down. It's "the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns".

Slumberjack

And there's quite a difference between saying that science has a better shot at eventually come to terms with the various intangibles out there, and maintaining faith in what science might ultimately lend itself toward, as it unravels the intangibles in the age of corporate progress and ingenuity.

MegB

The way I see it, faith is mordant - it isn't malleable. Science, good science, bases its understanding on what can be proven with the provision that what has been proven can be disproven with nrew information and better means of observing (technology).

6079_Smith_W

Not to mention that what science is intended to understand - the physical world - isn't malleable either.

The only unravelling that is to be done happens between our ears. The stuff outside will remain the same whether we are here or not.

 

MegB

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not to mention that what science is intended to understand - the physical world - isn't malleable either.

The only unravelling that is to be done happens between our ears. The stuff outside will remain the same whether we are here or not.

 

Being that I'm not a fan of any objective reality, I'm not so sure that the physical world, ie, the principals of physics as we do and don't know them, are static either.  

Remember the 2nd law of thermodynamics - it leaves room for change within a non-closed system, so the universe, or multiverse, may be subject to some offshoot of that, something that quantum mechanics and/or string theory may allow for.

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

U, if I wasn't already married, I'd propose.  :)

Already being discussed [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/should-polygamy-be-legalized-canad....

6079_Smith_W

@ Rebecca

Yes, true.

And on a subatomic level matter and energy is always popping in and out of existence, and there is that article I posted upthread which suggests different rules may apply in different parts of the universe. And I'm not ruling out the possible existence of different dimensions, space time transfer through black holes, or reverse time.

My point is aimed at the false notion that these rules will change as our understanding increases, and that we can somehow imagine everything into reality.That is simply not true.

Or to drag it back to the OP, the notion that any of this means that we have to accept the theory of  life after death without evidence is nonsense.

 

 

Pages