Originally Posted by JonLaw

I suspect that there is some sort of "life field" present in life forms that is not present in dead matter.

Could you design a scientific experiment to determine this?

Some sort of "morphic field" or "qi field"?

I have give exactly zero thought on how to test this (as opposed to my soul experimentation).

In the early nineteenth century there was still the notion of "Vital Force" floating around, which said that any biochemical had to come about via "Vital Force." A chemist Wohler began the process of refuting this concept when he prepared urea from inorganic chemicals and not through a biochemical path.

Your "life field" concept might be elucidated if one were to begin a taxonomic process of simply listing many characteristics of life forms and comparing and contrasting with characteristics of non-life forms. I suspect that a pretty robust definition might be drawn up. Your use of the word "field" might have some real use, as in electric and/or magnetic fields. I can't think of any life forms that don't use chemical reactions and thereby generate changes in electronic configurations. Some kind of measurable electric field is almost certainly present in any life form. Of course there are also lots of chemical reactions going on in non-life forms too, so that would have to be sorted out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

True, but again, I would switch that around. Non-life is something from which life can emerge. Or more-accurately, non-life can become more alive, relatively speaking; enough so that we call it alive instead of dead, under certain rare conditions.

Yes, that's implied. It's the concept of "dead matter" that's in error. If life has no properties that don't emerge from non-life, then non-life contains, at least potentially, all properties of life.

But in order for physicists to study it, physics might have become different than what we now know, since life can't be objectified.

Life can be objectified, but nonetheless physicists don't study life; they study the laws of nature at a very basic level. Life is an emergent form of the processes physicists and chemists study, but it is studied as such by biologists, not physicists.

But if anything, as a form of spirit, life is what is basic and rudimentary. Life is rudimentary and basic, not "non-life." That's taking a spiritualist rather than a materialist approach to non-dualism, which I do.

I think we're running once more not into an idealist/realist or spiritualist/materialist dichotomy but simply into linguistic confusion. As Odin noted above, you seem to mean something non-standard by the word "life," which means that you are not talking about the same thing when you use that word as he is or I am. To say that "life" as I used the word is basic and rudimentary is nonsense. Please define your terms.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Life can be objectified, but nonetheless physicists don't study life; they study the laws of nature at a very basic level. Life is an emergent form of the processes physicists and chemists study, but it is studied as such by biologists, not physicists.



I think we're running once more not into an idealist/realist or spiritualist/materialist dichotomy but simply into linguistic confusion. As Odin noted above, you seem to mean something non-standard by the word "life," which means that you are not talking about the same thing when you use that word as he is or I am. To say that "life" as I used the word is basic and rudimentary is nonsense. Please define your terms.

The processes physicists and chemists study, is life objectified, and biology studies the same thing, although how alive something is, is a matter of degree. If you are defining "life" as what biology can study, that is not what "life" is, but rather "life" within the operational terms of what today's form of biology can study. Again, the limits of empirical science when it comes to studying anything are rather severe. Life can't be defined by biology.

Can life even be defined at all? Synonyms can be given for the "life force" that are known and recognized by many cultures and traditions. Some of these are chi, manna, prajna, grace, the astral light. You may define this as a quasi-force that alters probability called magic; I don't agree because such a definition seems too reductive to me. Anything can be defined, but any such definition will be a paltry attempt by human language to capture in words and symbols what can't be so captured. But since this form of spirit we call "life" is what there is, I don't use the definition a biologist would use, because that is an operational definition to be used within the narrow limits and purposes of biological science. As a philosopher there is no reason for me to use "life" in that sense, or to consider a non-biological definition as "non-standard." The standards of definition are not given by biology. We're talking philosophy here, so there is every reason NOT to be confined within the definitions used by science. Again, when we study what is basic and foundational to anything, we are doing metaphysics, not physics. I agree if we mix linguistic definitions used in science with those used in philosophy, we can get confused.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Can life even be defined at all?

If not, then we can't talk about it, because the word has no meaning.

Synonyms can be given for the "life force" that are known and recognized by many cultures and traditions. Some of these are chi, manna, prajna, grace, the astral light. You may define this as a quasi-force that alters probability called magic; I don't agree because such a definition seems too reductive to me.

All of these terms refer to magic/psi. How exactly magic/psi works is irrelevant to the immediate discussion; the point to be raised is that it is not a "life force," because it is a part of the non-living every bit as much as the living. Any conceptions of it that refer to it as a life force are wrong.

Magic/psi/manna/chi/etc. flows from the planets and stars, which are not living things. It flows from large crystals, which are not living things. It flows from unusual rock formations, which are not living things. It is not a life force. It is something more universal than that.

But since this form of spirit we call "life" is what there is, I don't use the definition a biologist would use, because that is an operational definition to be used within the narrow limits and purposes of biological science.

Then, as I said, you are talking about something else. It's pointless to argue about how to define words; words are just tags; they mean what we agree that they mean. And all you have said so far is that you don't use the word "life" the way biologists do, which tells us very little about how you DO use it. Please clarify.

Originally Posted by TnT

Your use of the word "field" might have some real use, as in electric and/or magnetic fields. I can't think of any life forms that don't use chemical reactions and thereby generate changes in electronic configurations. Some kind of measurable electric field is almost certainly present in any life form. Of course there are also lots of chemical reactions going on in non-life forms too, so that would have to be sorted out.

It would be interesting to see whether life produces a specific signature that non-life doesn't.

I'm definitely not talking about crystals or magic or whatever Brian's talking about. I actually filed that stuff under "wackoism" some time ago. It's outside of the range of things I can discuss because it's outside the range of things I know anything about.

My own pet theory is that human personalities can be described by multi-dimensional geometries.

Everything I talk about I've pulled from either my own experiences or second-hand reports (which may or may not be wackoism). Along with my (limited) knowledge of (Christian) hermeticism.

I think that the problem with the AI is that mind (or personhood) exists here with "dead" matter and life as substrates. The AI would just be using matter, not life. First life has to emerge from matter. I don't think you can go straight from matter to mind. I agree that life is an emergent property of matter. However, I think that mind is an emergent property of life.

In an event, the problem with the AI concept is that the problem is "personality", not "intelligence".

JonLaw, two points.

1) Many of the things you are somewhat vaguely referring to (experiences and second-hand reports, hermeticism, multi-dimensional geometries) are exactly the same things as those you are dismissing as "wackoism," the only difference being that they are dressed up in different language that doesn't trigger your wacko-meter.

2) The concept of "dead" matter is indirectly a product of Newtonian physics, which is out of date. Matter as described by Newton seemed "dead" because it was deterministic in its behavior and rigidly mechanical, whereas we subjectively experience life, or at least our own life and that of any other creatures our empathy interacts with, as engaging in free behavior. Many other unexamined ideas about matter arose from this initial error, including the sense of matter as unfeeling, without consciousness, stark and bare, hostile.

There is good reason to question that view of matter today. We know that natural processes are non-deterministic, indeterminate, and therefore (within limits) free -- and what freedom of living things has no limits? All of those other aspects to the Newtonian-derived concept of "dead" matter are also open to question. It is only against the backdrop of an idea of "dead" matter that anyone feels any need for something setting life off from non-life, such as a life force or a non-material soul. My own view, and I think this is in accord with modern physics, more so than the "dead matter" view, is that all of the elements we subjectively associate with life -- consciousness, the ability to feel, choice -- are present in embryonic form in non-living matter.

Thus, to say that "the AI would just be using matter, not life" doesn't make a lot of sense. Matter IS life, when organized into a way that allows its embryonic consciousness, feeling, and choice to manifest. The key to life is purely in its organization, and something could show a similar organization without being composed of similar chemicals. In short, while it is true that the AI would have to be life at least simultaneously with being mind, if not necessarily before, I don't see any problem with the idea that machines can be alive.

As for personality -- yes, given that computers are digital and our own brains are neural-net, assuming we're not talking about a neural-net AI there is no way that a machine personality could avoid being radically different from a human being's. But it would nonetheless HAVE a personality.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

JThere is good reason to question that view of matter today. We know that natural processes are non-deterministic, indeterminate, and therefore (within limits) free -- and what freedom of living things has no limits? All of those other aspects to the Newtonian-derived concept of "dead" matter are also open to question. It is only against the backdrop of an idea of "dead" matter that anyone feels any need for something setting life off from non-life, such as a life force or a non-material soul. My own view, and I think this is in accord with modern physics, more so than the "dead matter" view, is that all of the elements we subjectively associate with life -- consciousness, the ability to feel, choice -- are present in embryonic form in non-living matter.

Thus, to say that "the AI would just be using matter, not life" doesn't make a lot of sense. Matter IS life, when organized into a way that allows its embryonic consciousness, feeling, and choice to manifest. The key to life is purely in its organization, and something could show a similar organization without being composed of similar chemicals. In short, while it is true that the AI would have to be life at least simultaneously with being mind, if not necessarily before, I don't see any problem with the idea that machines can be alive.

By wackoism, I just mean that I have no tools at my disposal to differentiate what is True from what is False. Ergo, I cannot determine whether some of these subject correspond to what is Real.

I'm a living machine, so it's not the "machine" that I have an issue with.

I don't think that rather than the discovery of "dead" matter was an error, rather the previous ideal that matter is somehow imbued with "soul", so to speak, was in error. The problem with materialism is that it sought to explain *everything* without being recognizing that it was only explaining a small subset of the cosmos, namely the "dead" matter part. To the extent that matter exercises will, that will is specifically limited by the geometry of space-time. It, quite literally, randomly fills the geometry. This indeterminancy is seen at our level in chaotic processes. But it's still random choice by the matter. There is a decision made, but the decisions (when grouped together) change nothing except. Life, on the other hand, makes decision that directly changes matter. Mind makes decision that directly changes life. There's a causal chain here. Mind----->Life----->Matter

Yes, you can have different configurations for "life". But, just like if you want to get to steam from ice at 1 atmosphere of pressure you have to go through water first, so you have to get from matter to life before you get to mind. Ergo, the question we need to first ask is whether we can create mechanical *life*. We have not yet accomplished. We are trying to run before we have learned how to stand.

Originally Posted by JonLaw

Yes, you can have different configurations for "life". But, just like if you want to get to steam from ice at 1 atmosphere of pressure you have to go through water first, so you have to get from matter to life before you get to mind. Ergo, the question we need to first ask is whether we can create mechanical *life*. We have not yet accomplished. We are trying to run before we have learned how to stand.

Check this out. We may be closer than you think.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759422/

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If not, then we can't talk about it, because the word has no meaning.



All of these terms refer to magic/psi. How exactly magic/psi works is irrelevant to the immediate discussion; the point to be raised is that it is not a "life force," because it is a part of the non-living every bit as much as the living. Any conceptions of it that refer to it as a life force are wrong.

Magic/psi/manna/chi/etc. flows from the planets and stars, which are not living things. It flows from large crystals, which are not living things. It flows from unusual rock formations, which are not living things. It is not a life force. It is something more universal than that.




Then, as I said, you are talking about something else. It's pointless to argue about how to define words; words are just tags; they mean what we agree that they mean. And all you have said so far is that you don't use the word "life" the way biologists do, which tells us very little about how you DO use it. Please clarify.

I think I did the best I could; if I think of another definition or synonym I will let you know. As I said, you equate chi with magic as you define it, and I don't.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

As I said, you equate chi with magic as you define it, and I don't.

But is that because you disagree that chi is a magical phenomenon, of the same type as psychic powers, or because you disagree with my model?

My model is irrelevant here. Whether it's correct or not is irrelevant. As long as chi and magic/psi are the same type of power regardless of how they work, chi is not a life force.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But is that because you disagree that chi is a magical phenomenon, of the same type as psychic powers, or because you disagree with my model?

My model is irrelevant here. Whether it's correct or not is irrelevant. As long as chi and magic/psi are the same type of power regardless of how they work, chi is not a life force.

It's how it's defined in many cultures and by such people as yogis and martial artists who work with it. That's good enough for me. It is considered to be the life force. I don't know if it's the same as psychic powers; that's in the more developed realm of consciousness. Animals may have it unconsciously, but it's mainly a human and above ability. Chi/prajna is probably not the same thing as what is exhibited by crystals, planets, etc. which may be a force more akin to your model. I don't agree with the idea that psychic powers are magic, as defined by your model; psychic powers are of the soul/consciousness, like a communication between souls (psyches); a higher degree of consciousness IOW. Although if a psychic predicts an earthquake, that seems to me more like the magic you define.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's how it's defined in many cultures and by such people as yogis and martial artists who work with it. That's good enough for me.

It shouldn't be. Nothing is more common in ancient society than hands-on knowledge that works well enough for the purposes it is used for but that is, in the larger picture, dead wrong. That used to be the way it was with all areas of knowledge that today have been taken over by science. Magic is an exception because science has neglected it -- it didn't fit in well with Newtonian physics, even though Newton himself practiced some forms of it, and so the tendency was to deny its existence. Thus, magic still has the same pre-scientific flaws in the thinking of ancient peoples, which survive to the present and still dominate it, as all other arts once did.

I don't know if it's the same as psychic powers

How could you not know this? Eric, do you actually develop and use these abilities yourself, or are you just trying to understand them from the outside through ordinary mundane scholarship? That's another reason why magic hasn't been taken over by science; it's not visible to the ordinary senses, and so most scientists aren't in a position to study it. To really study magic, you have to be a mage.

I have experience with chi, through martial-arts practice and tai chi. I have experience with magic in other forms as well. They are the same thing.

Animals may have it unconsciously, but it's mainly a human and above ability.

Completely untrue. Animals have these abilities as much or more than most humans do; we tend to forget them and displace them with other forms of knowing and acting mediated by language.

Chi/prajna is probably not the same thing as what is exhibited by crystals, planets, etc. which may be a force more akin to your model.

Completely incorrect. It feels the same, as I can tell that the heat from a fire and from a light bulb are the same type of energy.

I don't agree with the idea that psychic powers are magic, as defined by your model; psychic powers are of the soul/consciousness

Again, for purposes of the present discussion this is irrelevant. Forget my model. Concentrate on the actual experience of the power involved. Is A the same as B? Never mind whether A and B can be described by model C.

The question about magic and psychic powers is, for the moment, are they the same thing? And never mind exactly WHAT same thing. When a mage performs a ritual and obtains a vision of some distant event, is he using what parapsychologists call clairvoyance? When he lays hands on someone and effects healing, is he using psychokinesis? Is magic a way of employing psychic powers? Or are the two, as in some role-playing games, completely distinct and separate sets of forces?

I say the former, that they are the same.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It shouldn't be. Nothing is more common in ancient society than hands-on knowledge that works well enough for the purposes it is used for but that is, in the larger picture, dead wrong. That used to be the way it was with all areas of knowledge that today have been taken over by science. Magic is an exception because science has neglected it -- it didn't fit in well with Newtonian physics, even though Newton himself practiced some forms of it, and so the tendency was to deny its existence. Thus, magic still has the same pre-scientific flaws in the thinking of ancient peoples, which survive to the present and still dominate it, as all other arts once did.

I don't see that people who study yoga and such are primitive, or that their definition of life force is wrong. What I think is wrong is the Western reductive model. Tossing out the life force from our study of life is what is "dead" wrong, even if an objective science has trouble detecting it. I wouldn't say positively that it can't detect it, but then it would be detecting soul or spirit. But science, as I've said, is not the sole model for studying what you call the subjective world viewed from without. It is best for certain purposes of studying the "without," but not all.

How could you not know this? Eric, do you actually develop and use these abilities yourself, or are you just trying to understand them from the outside through ordinary mundane scholarship? That's another reason why magic hasn't been taken over by science; it's not visible to the ordinary senses, and so most scientists aren't in a position to study it. To really study magic, you have to be a mage.

I have experience with chi, through martial-arts practice and tai chi. I have experience with magic in other forms as well. They are the same thing.

Chi is life energy. Psychic abilities are more mental: telepathy, clairvoyance. Of course though, they intersect. But it's like, I wouldn't say that running a marathon is the same ability as doing a science experiment, even though the same person might be expending energy to do both.

Completely untrue. Animals have these abilities as much or more than most humans do; we tend to forget them and displace them with other forms of knowing and acting mediated by language.

True, but humans (those who develop them) are more consciously aware of their abilities and can cultivate them.

Completely incorrect. It feels the same, as I can tell that the heat from a fire and from a light bulb are the same type of energy.

It doesn't feel the same to me at all. Just as I can tell on contact the difference between a living being and a dead one, I can tell and feel the energy emitted from a living being is different from heat. The experience of a living being is different.

The question about magic and psychic powers is, for the moment, are they the same thing? And never mind exactly WHAT same thing. When a mage performs a ritual and obtains a vision of some distant event, is he using what parapsychologists call clairvoyance? When he lays hands on someone and effects healing, is he using psychokinesis? Is magic a way of employing psychic powers? Or are the two, as in some role-playing games, completely distinct and separate sets of forces?

I say the former, that they are the same.

Magic and psychic are the same. I don't agree with reducing them to a physical force of altering probability. They are abilities of the soul.

I guess if you wanted, and you read this Sunday, you could come visit some folks who think sorta like me (plus me). I am producing the Holistic Arts Fair this weekend. Just a coincidence, I thought I'd mention it just for the hellavit. btw we're a non-profit organization, but it's my fair. I'm speaking on astrology and 2012 at Noon. As far as practicing is concerned, as I've said here, I doubt there are many people who have made more correct predictions about world events than I have. But you probably don't want to come; that's great too.
http://philosopherswheel.com/haf.htm
Lots of "holistic" stuff!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't see that people who study yoga and such are primitive, or that their definition of life force is wrong. What I think is wrong is the Western reductive model.

"Primitive" is a relative term. Let's say that their understanding of what they do is not unlike the Ptolemaic cosmology. The main thing that knowledge of the planets and stars was used for in ancient times was making calendars, and Ptolemy's system was perfectly adequate for that. But it could not lead ancient scholars to an understanding that the stars are distant suns, that the planets are fundamentally similar to the Earth, that there are moons orbiting some of them, that we might someday be able to travel to them, or that other planets might have life on them. More in a moment.

But science, as I've said, is not the sole model for studying what you call the subjective world viewed from without. It is best for certain purposes of studying the "without," but not all.

I disagree. And by the way, I have never used the phrase "the subjective world viewed from without." There is not a subjective world and an objective world. There is a single world, which may be viewed from without by observation, objectively, or experienced from within, subjectively. Each viewpoint gives us a different perspective on it. The territory of science is not a set of subjects -- it is a set of questions. There are no subjects from which science can properly be excluded, but there are questions for which it is not appropriate.

Regarding life, experiencing it from within does not reveal to us any new things, such as a "life force." It does give us a new perspective and allows us to approach questions that science cannot answer. But the question, "Is there a force of nature which is found associated only with living organisms?" is not one of those questions; it is a question for which science is perfectly suited and to which it has provided a solid answer: no. The only possible candidate would be magic/psi, which science does not yet understand. But I know from my own studies of it that that is not unique to living organisms, either. There is no such thing as a life force.

But it's like, I wouldn't say that running a marathon is the same ability as doing a science experiment, even though the same person might be expending energy to do both.

More importantly, he is expending the same type of energy: chemical energy released by metabolism. There is no fundamental difference between "brain energy" and "muscle energy."

True, but humans (those who develop them) are more consciously aware of their abilities and can cultivate them.

Now there we agree. Humans have more potential in regard to magic/psi than animals. But in order to develop that potential, we need to move out of the ancient mindset about these abilities.

Here's what I mean. You may recall that in an earlier post I identified the innovation of the scientific method as taking things beyond having an adequate, plausible explanation for what we observe. The first steps in scientific method are the same as people have always used to explain things: 1) see something happening; 2) invent a plausible hypothesis that explains it. That's as far in the process as the yogis and martial artists have gotten who developed the idea of chi. They do body work, exercises and meditations, and a type of force arises as they're doing it. They thought up a plausible explanation: "Oh, that's the force of life. It's found in all living things, and in our spiritual work we can arouse it." And then they stopped. The explanation was adequate for what they wanted to use it for, and if it didn't go anywhere in particular, they didn't care.

The next step after this in scientific method is to make a logical derivative of that hypothesis called a prediction. For example, we might say, "If this is a force of life, then we will not find anything comparable and of the same general nature generated by anything that isn't living; also, we won't find anything living that doesn't generate it." Some diligent exploration would then reveal that, indeed, we don't find anything living that doesn't generate it, but hey -- there's something quite similar generated by quite a lot of nonliving things. Prediction fails, hypothesis is incorrect, find another. That's how it works.

Chi is real, but it is not a life force. It is associated with all of reality, not merely with all of life. Life is not different from the rest of the universe in its forces or its elements, only in how they are organized.

It doesn't feel the same to me at all. Just as I can tell on contact the difference between a living being and a dead one, I can tell and feel the energy emitted from a living being is different from heat.

Well, of course it's different from heat. It isn't heat! Heat is one thing, magic/psi is another. But the magic/psi generated by a living organism and the magic/psi generated by a planet or a big crystal are the same type of power. Not perfectly identical, because the source colors the force, but of the same general category.

Magic and psychic are the same. I don't agree with reducing them to a physical force of altering probability. They are abilities of the soul.

If all the world is spirit, then there is no difference between the two and every physical force is a spiritual force. Explaining something as a physical force is therefore not diminishing its spiritual quality. The only reason to object is if you don't really think that the world is spiritual, but think of the spiritual and the physical as distinct entities. Reflect on that, if you will.

Thanks for the invitation. I'm not going to be able to make it, as I have to work today. (But that also means I will get paid for it. ) Hopefully some others will be able to.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If all the world is spirit, then there is no difference between the two and every physical force is a spiritual force. Explaining something as a physical force is therefore not diminishing its spiritual quality. The only reason to object is if you don't really think that the world is spiritual, but think of the spiritual and the physical as distinct entities. Reflect on that, if you will.

I mentioned to Eric a while back that his worldview was actually the plain old Dualistic worldview he claims to reject in a New Age disguise, a worldview that divides the world into a degenerate "material world" and a perfect "spiritual world" with all the connotations that go with that (such as "matter" being evil, limiting, and something to cast off from the immaterial soul).

I found this paper fascinating:

Religious Belief Systems of Persons with High Functioning Autism

Abstract

The cognitive science of religion is a new field which
explains religious belief as emerging from normal cognitive
processes such as inferring others' mental states, agency
detection and imposing patterns on noise. This paper
investigates the proposal that individual differences in belief
will reflect cognitive processing styles, with high functioning
autism being an extreme style that will predispose towards
nonbelief (atheism and agnosticism). This view was
supported by content analysis of discussion forums about
religion on an autism website (covering 192 unique posters),
and by a survey that included 61 persons with HFA. Persons
with autistic spectrum disorder were much more likely than
those in our neurotypical comparison group to identify as
atheist or agnostic, and, if religious, were more likely to
construct their own religious belief system. Nonbelief was
also higher in those who were attracted to systemizing
activities, as measured by the Systemizing Quotient.

Originally Posted by Odin

I mentioned to Eric a while back that his worldview was actually the plain old Dualistic worldview he claims to reject in a New Age disguise, a worldview that divides the world into a degenerate "material world" and a perfect "spiritual world" with all the connotations that go with that (such as "matter" being evil, limiting, and something to cast off from the immaterial soul).

Right. A truly monistic, idealist view of reality would accept all of the scientific models of mental processing but put a different slant or interpretation on them. Eric cannot accept the the brain is that which thinks, which says to me that, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, he does not believe that the brain is spiritual.

That's an interesting article, and provides some good ideas as far as it goes.

Originally Posted by Odin

I found this paper fascinating:

Religious Belief Systems of Persons with High Functioning Autism

I think that is ironic, given that among my family (parents and siblings), I'm the only one who is religiously affiliated and active in a congregation, and I'm the one with aspie tendencies. However, in my cause, its more the ritual, community, and above all, the music (and choir) rather than any dogma.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I think that is ironic, given that among my family (parents and siblings), I'm the only one who is religiously affiliated and active in a congregation, and I'm the one with aspie tendencies. However, in my cause, its more the ritual, community, and above all, the music (and choir) rather than any dogma.

"if religious, were more likely to
construct their own religious belief system. Nonbelief was
also higher in those who were attracted to systemizing
activities, as measured by the Systemizing Quotient."

That fits me. I am not aspie, but high on the aspie scale, maybe borderline aspie.
Whatever religious views I have are based on "non-belief."

Originally Posted by Odin

I mentioned to Eric a while back that his worldview was actually the plain old Dualistic worldview he claims to reject in a New Age disguise, a worldview that divides the world into a degenerate "material world" and a perfect "spiritual world" with all the connotations that go with that (such as "matter" being evil, limiting, and something to cast off from the immaterial soul).

You guys can think what you want about me; I have no control over that.

I think it is you guys that have the dualism, disguised as materialism.

I have discussed my views plainly; they are similar to Teilhard de Chardin's, who wrote a book praising matter. But he also said the world, if it holds together at all, does so from above. If anything, it is the attractor that is the prime mover of everything, from the big bang up to what Jon called "theosis." Matter is not evil, but spirit is prior to matter. Matter is just the raw material, the limits, which God needs for a good game. But without it, there's no manifestation in the world. It is spirit that is the source for manifesting, matter that provides the conditions. But what's hard for an intellectual materialist to understand, is that words like "matter" are just metaphors. The difference is one of degree. In fact, paradoxically, spirit is everywhere. You can't put it in a box and say "it's here." So spirit is in the "matter" too. But such a paradox may not compute for intellectual materialists or scientific researchers. These two words are metaphors for a process of evolution, which is the process of life. The kaballah describes it much more accurately as a whole than our Western biology and physics do. Western biology and physics provide much more detail, but lose the vision of the whole process that the kaballah or the chakra system provide.

It is not the "matter" as it actually exists which is a "problem" that we try to reject as "degenerate." The problem is the philosophy of materialism, which has nothing to do with matter as it actually exists. The concept of matter is the problem, not the world we see and touch. "Matter" is a concept that derives from measurement (and so does the word matter derive from the word for measurement), and also from the view that the senses alone can tell us what exists.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"Primitive" is a relative term. Let's say that their understanding of what they do is not unlike the Ptolemaic cosmology. The main thing that knowledge of the planets and stars was used for in ancient times was making calendars, and Ptolemy's system was perfectly adequate for that. But it could not lead ancient scholars to an understanding that the stars are distant suns, that the planets are fundamentally similar to the Earth, that there are moons orbiting some of them, that we might someday be able to travel to them, or that other planets might have life on them. More in a moment.

That is all true but has nothing to do with the Western reductive model that takes out the life force.

I disagree. And by the way, I have never used the phrase "the subjective world viewed from without." There is not a subjective world and an objective world. There is a single world, which may be viewed from without by observation, objectively, or experienced from within, subjectively. Each viewpoint gives us a different perspective on it. The territory of science is not a set of subjects -- it is a set of questions. There are no subjects from which science can properly be excluded, but there are questions for which it is not appropriate.

Regarding life, experiencing it from within does not reveal to us any new things, such as a "life force." It does give us a new perspective and allows us to approach questions that science cannot answer. But the question, "Is there a force of nature which is found associated only with living organisms?" is not one of those questions; it is a question for which science is perfectly suited and to which it has provided a solid answer: no. The only possible candidate would be magic/psi, which science does not yet understand. But I know from my own studies of it that that is not unique to living organisms, either. There is no such thing as a life force.

You have restated your views fine; it does not refute my views. Science's "answer" is one that is provided through its methods; this answer is limited by the scientific method. If science says there is no life force, that proves that this is not a question science can answer, because it's answer is wrong. Many other fields of inquiry such as yoga and martial arts are quite clear that there is such a thing. These are not primitive methods but quite respectable.

More importantly, he is expending the same type of energy: chemical energy released by metabolism. There is no fundamental difference between "brain energy" and "muscle energy."

No such energy can happen without the life force and the soul. Metabolism is just a way of looking at life force energy in a way that fits the methods of inquiry of modern science. It is those methods that are limited such that it can't detect a life force, not the world we study.

Now there we agree. Humans have more potential in regard to magic/psi than animals. But in order to develop that potential, we need to move out of the ancient mindset about these abilities.

Here's what I mean. You may recall that in an earlier post I identified the innovation of the scientific method as taking things beyond having an adequate, plausible explanation for what we observe. The first steps in scientific method are the same as people have always used to explain things: 1) see something happening; 2) invent a plausible hypothesis that explains it. That's as far in the process as the yogis and martial artists have gotten who developed the idea of chi. They do body work, exercises and meditations, and a type of force arises as they're doing it. They thought up a plausible explanation: "Oh, that's the force of life. It's found in all living things, and in our spiritual work we can arouse it." And then they stopped. The explanation was adequate for what they wanted to use it for, and if it didn't go anywhere in particular, they didn't care.

The next step after this in scientific method is to make a logical derivative of that hypothesis called a prediction. For example, we might say, "If this is a force of life, then we will not find anything comparable and of the same general nature generated by anything that isn't living; also, we won't find anything living that doesn't generate it." Some diligent exploration would then reveal that, indeed, we don't find anything living that doesn't generate it, but hey -- there's something quite similar generated by quite a lot of nonliving things. Prediction fails, hypothesis is incorrect, find another. That's how it works.

Chi is real, but it is not a life force. It is associated with all of reality, not merely with all of life. Life is not different from the rest of the universe in its forces or its elements, only in how they are organized.

Western science is not capable of knowing the difference between living and dead. Although it is a relative difference, it is obvious to ANY observer. Science is not needed here, and provides no information on this subject at all.

Most psychic and spiritual-intuitive practitioners AND leading researchers in the psi field (some of whom I have interviewed) agree: moving out of the modern Western scientific materialist mindset AND toward a spiritualist one IS what is necessary in order to develop psychic abilities. I know you have a different view on that. Blessings and good luck with that.

Well, of course it's different from heat. It isn't heat! Heat is one thing, magic/psi is another. But the magic/psi generated by a living organism and the magic/psi generated by a planet or a big crystal are the same type of power. Not perfectly identical, because the source colors the force, but of the same general category.

Different enough so you can't look at it and reduce it to a mechanical or random/probability process.

If all the world is spirit, then there is no difference between the two and every physical force is a spiritual force. Explaining something as a physical force is therefore not diminishing its spiritual quality. The only reason to object is if you don't really think that the world is spiritual, but think of the spiritual and the physical as distinct entities. Reflect on that, if you will.

As if I haven't! There is a difference. "Explaining something as a physical force" DOES diminish its spiritual quality; I don't see how you can claim otherwise. Seeing physical forces as some kind of chaotic probability doesn't change that. Nor does seeing the world as the same but viewed from either an objective and subjective perspective, if the "objective" perspective is identified solely with Western empirical science. That's why there is a continuum among philosophers from materialist to spiritualist, which is reflected in many philosophical and psychological models of our experience that humans have made. In fact I doubt there is any such model where this continuum does not appear, except of course in Western reductive models such as yours and Odin's. But it is a continuum and not a chasm. That is a distinction that eludes you and Odin.

The problem with your approach and similar reductive ones, as I have said many times, is that "spirit" needs to be mentioned as a counterweight to "matter" ONLY because the reduction of spirit to matter has been made by materialists. Of course, materialists are monists and reduce the world to matter. Spiritualists are also monists who reduce the world to spirit. You need to first see the difference before you can resolve it. This is also true along the east-west or left-right axis, the conflict we were discussing earlier between the Platonic rationalists and the experiential empiricists. There too, the disagreement must be stated clearly before the resolution can appear. The poet you liked had a comment relevant to this: "the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom."

So you can't reduce the living, spiritual world to a dead one, and then claim there is no difference. You just aren't seeing the world in its full extent. So if you are going to reduce intelligence to brain chemistry, then we spiritualists need to counterweigh that assertion with a claim that it is the soul that thinks. Beyond the conflict however, there is some kind of resolution.

Thanks for the invitation. I'm not going to be able to make it, as I have to work today. (But that also means I will get paid for it. ) Hopefully some others will be able to.

We had a good time as usual, though it's a lot of work for me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That is all true but has nothing to do with the Western reductive model that takes out the life force.

What takes out the life force is not the "western reductive model" but the fact that we have no evidence that any such thing exists. And so far, you haven't been able to present any, Eric. Please feel free to do so.

Science's "answer" is one that is provided through its methods; this answer is limited by the scientific method. If science says there is no life force, that proves that this is not a question science can answer, because it's answer is wrong. Many other fields of inquiry such as yoga and martial arts are quite clear that there is such a thing. These are not primitive methods but quite respectable.

No, it's the conclusions about the ultimate nature of chi in yoga and martial arts that are wrong. I know this, because I have experience of the same force or power in a different context which proves that categorically. Note that among people such as ceremonial magicians who have experience of non-organic sources of magic but DON'T have experience of yoga or martial arts, a completely different description obtains, or more than one. I have known mages who believed magic was some sort of electrical phenomenon (also demonstrably wrong), or that it comes from the gods (ditto, if that is conceived as the only source), or whatever.

The thing is, a martial artist who says, "Do these exercises for X amount of time while also performing your meditations and breathing and you will begin to notice certain sensations along with your movements, and your body will seem to move itself; continue with this and you may experience extraordinary effects A, B, C" is making one kind of statement. But a martial artist who says, "What is causing this is the life force," is making a different kind of statement. The first is a description based on experience, something that is fully supported by evidence. The second is something that he made up (or that his teachers made up, or their teachers) and slapped on without ever bothering to examine whether it was true or not.

It's not. And no matter how much you try to rope off this subject matter as being outside proper scientific purview (which is totally unwarranted by the way), it will remain true that the existence of sources of the same power that are not alive completely proves that the concept of chi as a life force is wrong.

It is those methods that are limited such that it can't detect a life force, not the world we study.

It's true that most scientists are unable to detect the phenomena that martial artists mean when they speak of chi. It is not, however, true that I cannot. And so, while most scientists are in no position to say that chi is not a life force, I am. And it is not.

Western science is not capable of knowing the difference between living and dead.

Nonsense. This would mean that no physician has ever issued a death certificate.

Different enough so you can't look at it and reduce it to a mechanical or random/probability process.

No, not that different. I can do that, and I have done that. I don't consider it a "reduction," though.

"Explaining something as a physical force" DOES diminish its spiritual quality; I don't see how you can claim otherwise.

I can claim otherwise because, unlike you, I actually believe there is only one world and one substance, and this one world is as readily described as spiritual as material. Unlike you, I don't see matter as dead, or spirit as non-material. Unlike you, I don't retain a dualistic conception of reality and paste a label of monism on top of it which anyone can see it does not merit.

Of course, materialists are monists and reduce the world to matter. Spiritualists are also monists who reduce the world to spirit. You need to first see the difference before you can resolve it.

If there is a difference, then monism is false and we have two worlds, not one. If monism is true and we have one world, not true, then there is no difference. But in your thinking, I believe there is a difference, and that is because you are in reality a dualist. You think of matter and the material world as dead and spirit-deprived; you think of spirit as something immaterial that inserts itself into material reality. There is no way that you could react as you do to models of thought based on the brain if this were not the case.

So you can't reduce the living, spiritual world to a dead one, and then claim there is no difference.

But I am not doing that. I am not "reducing" anything to anything, and the conception of the material world as "dead" is yours, not mine -- and further testimony to the fact that you are a dualist.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What takes out the life force is not the "western reductive model" but the fact that we have no evidence that any such thing exists. And so far, you haven't been able to present any, Eric. Please feel free to do so.

I don't offhand have any evidence of the kind that might satisfy you, but I probably have access to lots of evidence. Whether you would buy it seems doubtful.

But a martial artist who says, "What is causing this is the life force," is making a different kind of statement. The first is a description based on experience, something that is fully supported by evidence. The second is something that he made up (or that his teachers made up, or their teachers) and slapped on without ever bothering to examine whether it was true or not.

No, it is their observation based on the science in which their practices have been developed.

It's not. And no matter how much you try to rope off this subject matter as being outside proper scientific purview (which is totally unwarranted by the way), it will remain true that the existence of sources of the same power that are not alive completely proves that the concept of chi as a life force is wrong.

It proves no such thing. It merely shows the continuum that runs from non-living to living.

It's true that most scientists are unable to detect the phenomena that martial artists mean when they speak of chi. It is not, however, true that I cannot. And so, while most scientists are in no position to say that chi is not a life force, I am.

But I don't agree with your "proof."

Nonsense. This would mean that no physician has ever issued a death certificate.

Such physicians are not scientists; they are doctors. They don't explain the reason why a brain is functioning or not.

No, not that different. I can do that, and I have done that. I don't consider it a "reduction," though.

Again, I don't adopt your ideas on that.

I can claim otherwise because, unlike you, I actually believe there is only one world and one substance, and this one world is as readily described as spiritual as material. Unlike you, I don't see matter as dead, or spirit as non-material. Unlike you, I don't retain a dualistic conception of reality and paste a label of monism on top of it which anyone can see it does not merit.

"Anyone" is far from true. There are many intelligent folks who "retain" the conception of the continuity. Everyone whose views are similar to Teilhard's for example. They are legion; he is very influential. Anyone who finds the views of the kaballah or the chakras useful. The list is endless. Your view of the one substance is a materialist view, as is any such view that says that Western empirical science can adequately describe the world "as readily described as material." That's why you yourself have described yourself as a "materialist." I am not such.

If there is a difference, then monism is false and we have two worlds, not one. If monism is true and we have one world, not true, then there is no difference. But in your thinking, I believe there is a difference, and that is because you are in reality a dualist. You think of matter and the material world as dead and spirit-deprived; you think of spirit as something immaterial that inserts itself into material reality. There is no way that you could react as you do to models of thought based on the brain if this were not the case.

There is no need for spirit to insert itself into what is a continuum to being with. My views on "models of thought based on the brain" are such, because such models are false on their face. There is no way at all that such a model does not reduce the world to death. Your concept of the material world IS that it is dead; I claim that about your view, just as you claim I am a dualist. However, your notions to the effect that we can't know the subjective in the world "out there" leads to your own type of dualism. Your claim that science studies the world "out there" and the arts and mysticism study the world "in here" is as dualistic as Descartes' view, and virtually identical to his.

So back atcha again, you dualist!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't offhand have any evidence of the kind that might satisfy you, but I probably have access to lots of evidence. Whether you would buy it seems doubtful.

Why don't you let me be the judge of whether it would be acceptable or not, rather than second-guessing me.

No, it is their observation based on the science in which their practices have been developed.

Nah. It's something they pasted on 'cause it sounded cool. The descriptions of what chi can DO, now, THAT is an observation based on their practices (and there, I would be reluctant to say otherwise without a lot more experience of the phenomenon than I have.

It proves no such thing. It merely shows the continuum that runs from non-living to living.

No, Eric. Follow me here, because this is dependent on nothing except the rules of logic. If chi is a "life force," then it is generated by all living things and by no non-living things. True or false?

(If you say "false," then you mean by "life force" something radically different from what others have used the word to mean.)

But I and other mages have experience of the same force or energy coming from non-living sources, as well as from living ones. True or false?

And since the same force or energy can come from both living and nonliving sources, it cannot be a life force. True or false?

Such physicians are not scientists; they are doctors. They don't explain the reason why a brain is functioning or not.

What does that have to do with anything? You said they couldn't tell the difference between alive and dead; obviously, yes, they can.

Again, I don't adopt your ideas on that.

What you said is that it couldn't be done. Clearly, you are wrong; whether you accept the model that I've developed is irrelevant -- I most certainly did develop it.

"Anyone" is far from true. There are many intelligent folks who "retain" the conception of the continuity. Everyone whose views are similar to Teilhard's for example. They are legion; he is very influential. Anyone who finds the views of the kaballah or the chakras useful.

As I find the Qaballah and the ideas of the chakras useful, and I don't agree with you, clearly that last is not the case.

Your view of the one substance is a materialist view

Wrong. It's a genuinely monistic view. That's what one looks like. Now, if I were to insist that all spiritual experiences are invalid, if I were to start referring to subjective experience as "epiphenomena," if I were to deny the existence of cosmic consciousness or deny that there was any way that the cosmos could have an emerging mind of its own, THAT would be materialistic. Note, however, that everything I'm talking about is a characteristic of the whole universe, not of a distinct spiritual world. I don't believe there is any such thing; what I do believe, though, is that the material world has spiritual properties, and that is why mind can emerge from it.

There is no need for spirit to insert itself into what is a continuum to being with.

If it's a "continuum," then it's not one world.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Why don't you let me be the judge of whether it would be acceptable or not, rather than second-guessing me.

Probably because I'm too tired now after the Fair to go on a search for scientific evidence of the "life force." It is true that most mainstream science rejects it. That does not concern me. Mainstream science is way off base about that.

No, Eric. Follow me here, because this is dependent on nothing except the rules of logic. If chi is a "life force," then it is generated by all living things and by no non-living things. True or false?

The actual world does not conform to the rules of logic. The life force is not something "generated" either. It is that which does the generating.

But I and other mages have experience of the same force or energy coming from non-living sources, as well as from living ones. True or false?

I think we went over this before. That from non-living sources may be like what you are describing as a quasi magical force; that which living beings have is higher on the evolutionary scale; more conscious. I agree with what Jon said on that. We have a similar though not identical outlook.

And since the same force or energy can come from both living and nonliving sources, it cannot be a life force. True or false?

That is false. A living force can generate an energy that a non-living force does not, even though they also may generate an energy that is the same. Speaking logically now as you proposed.

What does that have to do with anything? You said they couldn't tell the difference between alive and dead; obviously, yes, they can.

Doctors are not scientists.

What you said is that it couldn't be done. Clearly, you are wrong; whether you accept the model that I've developed is irrelevant -- I most certainly did develop it.

Congratulations, but I disagree, just as you disagree with my models.

As I find the Qaballah and the ideas of the chakras useful, and I don't agree with you, clearly that last is not the case.

The point is they contain the idea that you say "anyone" can easily tell is false. (Q)Kaballah and chakras are both incomprehensible and meaningless without the idea of emanation or degrees of difference between the spiritual and the material.

Wrong. It's a genuinely monistic view. That's what one looks like. Now, if I were to insist that all spiritual experiences are invalid, if I were to start referring to subjective experience as "epiphenomena," if I were to deny the existence of cosmic consciousness or deny that there was any way that the cosmos could have an emerging mind of its own, THAT would be materialistic. Note, however, that everything I'm talking about is a characteristic of the whole universe, not of a distinct spiritual world. I don't believe there is any such thing; what I do believe, though, is that the material world has spiritual properties, and that is why mind can emerge from it.

So you have need for both words as well as I do. You dualist!
If mind emerges from the material world, then mind is different by degree from matter, to the extent that something has emerged.
I don't believe in a distinct spiritual world, because it's all one. But there are "spiritual worlds" in the sense of what is beyond normal consciousness to experience, but which in some altered states or sensitive states of mind can be experienced.

You said "Take the world as modeled in modern (not Newtonian) physics, add a quasi-force that can alter probability, and that is my world in all its objective aspects. I need no external God, no other planes of existence, no spirits literally understood as such, no Heaven or Hell or astral plane or Other Side, and if I will sometimes employ all of these as poetic metaphors, that is all they are for me." I am not closed off from these possibilities, though I might call some of them by different names; so my worldview cannot fit into yours. That does not mean I have to entitle these possibilities as existing in a distinct world. I don't believe in such a thing either. If you say I do, you are telling me what it is that I believe. You can say that my ideas are contradictory, in your opinion, but it is up to me to say what it is I hold to be true to the best of my current knowledge.

Our discussion here is about whether the nature of "life" is a scientific question. Although science can study any subject, the interpretation of its findings is the issue. Your idea that the "material" world has "spiritual" properties or has an emerging mind, is no more a scientific question than my idea that life is a force called the life force. But with these ideas we do seem to be closer to agreement.

I also think you are far more optimistic than I am that "scientists" today have rejected the Newtonian model, and that they don't consider the world of "matter" to be "dead." Most scientists don't care whether what they study is dead or not, and most of them are not informed about modern physics and what it says; they are only experts in their own field. I think that many of those who are aware of modern physics, don't accept interpretations of it that agree with yours. A dead and determined world is just fine with them. Nor am I so sure that the scientists I have have read, talked to, and seen on Charlie Rose etc. are not actual scientists.

If it's a "continuum," then it's not one world.

A continuum is continuous, hence one world.