Those would be your words, not mine. I've never claimed to be qualified to explain anything scientific apart from what one would understand from a standard High School curriculum. Granted, that is more science than you understand, but that isn't really saying much.Originally Posted by Eric the Green
Which is easier than growing a brain and not doing stupid shit any more.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
- Ludwig von Mises
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
- Lazarus Long
Yes, Sunflower!
Now, just keep in Mind, you always have "Armenia City in the Sky"(if you need it!)
Prince
PS: ...and you don't even need to "Sell-Out"(compromise your principles),
but it sure helps if you do!(hold nothing back).
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
A fool and his money are easily parted, Eric, and you are sounding like the fool.More likely because the conventional wisdom of the state shares the views of folks like yourself, Kinser. Anything to avoid some controversy. Occam's razor can hurt, when cut too close to the "bone" of contention, it seems.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
The communication is individual. The memory is individual. Is the experience itself individual? We have no way to know directly, and the fact that consciousness cannot arise from a normal material source (e.g. a brain function) says some things about it inevitably. That means it is not part of the material world; yet neither is it a particular thing outside the material world -- that's a nonsensical idea from the beginning, since any such entity that can interact with normal reality ipso facto is part of normal reality.
The only thing that consciousness can be, then, is: not a part of the material world, nor yet a discrete non-material whatizit, but ALL of the material world. And that's also what spiritual experience tells us.
Phenomena. They are amenable to scientific method and to natural modeling. This is where Eric and I part company on the subject.This of course begs the question on whether or not psychic-dynamic-thingies are phenomena or non-phenomena.
Umm, not quite. I wasn't referring to the science itself, that is, the mathematical models and concepts regarding the behavior of natural forces, so much as to their philosophical implications. It's possible to accept these scientific ideas while still clinging to a mechanistic, deterministic view of reality, if one has not connected all the philosophical dots (which is not necessary in order to understand the science itself).If the definition of a non-classical materialist is: materialist, but has a view of material reality that encompasses relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory. Then most materialists would be of the non-classical type. Given the science behind chaos theory, quantum mechanics and relativity it would be foolish to hold onto an obsolete viewpoint.
The main implications of the new-physics triad (relativity, QM, and chaos) as they relate to philosophy are indeterminacy, the impact of observer perspective on measured reality (more important in relativity than QM despite popular misconceptions), and the interconnection of events in ways that bypass the normal mechanical functions of energy.
It includes but is not limited to hocus-pocus. Classical materialism has a hard time dealing with aesthetic appreciation, emotional sensitivity, spirituality, love, compassion; to the extent a classical materialist thinks about these things and does not simply change hats in doing so, they become epiphenomena or illusions. This is Eric's objection to materialism in a nutshell and it is entirely feeling-based.That said define what "soulful qualities" are and encompass. That combination of words sounds like hocus pocus to me but if you mean something else perhaps that should be clarified.
As for hocus-pocus: When scientists have studied psi effects in the past and presented statistical evidence in favor of their existence, it was impossible (literally impossible) for the scientific community -- particularly the community of psychologists -- to evaluate the evidence objectively. (It conceivably might have been possible for physicists to do so, but it emerged as part of psychology and they definitely couldn't.) Reason: psi is incompatible with a universe that is both deterministic and non-supernatural. The experiments showed effects without an observable cause, transmission of information without energy, effects that preceded the causes in some cases, and in terms of classical physics this is just nonsensical. It can't be. Resistance was huge, and any excuse was seized to dismiss the evidence. (If you would like to look at some of the strongest evidence yourself, google "ganzfeld remote viewing" and see what comes up.)
And this was proper scientific procedure. If the evidence had been accepted, it would have meant abandoning the entire structure of scientific theory, or, even worse, abandoning the scientific endeavor itself (because accepting the existence of the supernatural would amount to throwing in the towel).
As we now know that the universe is non-deterministic and that information is routinely transmitted in energy-free ways and the temporal relationship between cause and effect is not as simple as we once thought, these concerns no longer obtain. I suspect that the reality of psi will be generally accepted by the scientific community within the next 20 years, the time required being partly because we have more important and urgent things to focus on (like survival), and partly because sometimes fossilized brains simply have to be replaced rather than educated.
We also have space for a less dismissive attitude towards the non-psychic warm and fuzzy stuff, too.
LOL you would pick out exactly the examples I consider most dubious. It's like you read my mind or something.So then would you classify reading tarot, horoscopes, crystal ball gazing and channeling as phenomena or non-phenomena?
Phenomena, of course. Which is not to say I believe all of them to be legitimate. I'm still thinking about tarot and astrology and go back and forth on them; currently I don't use either one of them. Scrying and channeling are both techniques for focusing the ability to obtain information by psi. One must however understand how that works and thus the limitations of it -- claims are sometimes made, especially by those who want money, that must be taken with a grain of salt.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
Sloganeering and anger on Brian's part. The objections to "classical" materialism are philosophical. The claim that these things can be objectified and measured, defies the very nature of measurement and objectivity. Scientific methods can tell us some, but not all, about these things, because reality and especially states of life and consciousness like this are fluid and changing, and can't be fit into a static frame or concept, can't exist apart from mind, and can't correctly be looked upon as dead objects or machines.
If they are no longer "epiphenomena or illusions," then Eric might not object.We also have space for a less dismissive attitude towards the non-psychic warm and fuzzy stuff, too.
The difference between Brian and myself is that I am interested in reports and experiences of genuine (not metaphorical) spirit communication and life after death, and he is not. Although Brian says so (and our materialists here agree), there is no reason to think of such experiences as based on "religion" and "supernatural;" they are just part of our experience and are perfectly natural; just not as amenable to methods of investigation based on the senses and its tools. However, I would not say that's impossible; there may be some people doing it. And evidence for this phenomena certainly exists.
On the word "supernatural."
If a set of phenomena is exempt from the laws of nature -- if it obeys a completely different set of principles -- if it cannot be described in terms of principles that have any meaning to science (note that this goes beyond saying it can't be described in terms of current theory) -- then it is supernatural.
One may object to the term with reason if the above is untrue: that is, if the phenomena can be operationally defined and described in terms that are scientifically meaningful, whether or not they are part of current theory.
If that is not the case, and especially if any attempt to provide such operational definitions and theoretical descriptions are resisted, then one is insisting on the existence of the supernatural, and objection to the term is without reason and amounts to no more than a dislike of the term's flavor.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
For me, I wonder where to draw the line. If the new science is indeterminist, quantum, chaos theory, holographic, etc. then future theory could well account for what we call soul, spirit, spirit realms, etc. in a non-mechanistic or reductionist way, without implying something from outside nature ruling over nature (which would be my definition of supernatural).
Our current methods of scientific investigation have their inherent limits, whether phenomena or numena, and these limits do not mean that nature itself is confined within those limits. In other words, science as we currently understand it, as well as its current theories, is not an adequate basis for defining "the supernatural." Anything can be investigated or described by science, but not fully so, because of the inherent limitations of human knowledge. Hubris it is, to think that our current human knowledge can understand all things in its terms.
One other clarification. As already stated, scientific method is the sovereign way to answer all questions of fact about observable phenomena. As we are dealing with observable phenomena when we concern ourselves with life, human or animal behavior, and psi phenomena, scientific method is the way to deal with all questions of fact regarding these phenomena. It is not appropriate for addressing questions that aren't questions of fact.
Questions of fact include:
How does it work?
What is it made of?
What is it capable of doing?
Under what circumstances will it do it?
What gives rise to it?
What destroys it?
If we do a particular thing to it, what will happen?
Questions that are not of fact include the following:
What does it mean for us?
What should we do about it?
Is it beautiful or ugly (and how can it become one or the other)?
Is it right or wrong to make use of it in a certain way?
Should we leave it completely alone?
Note the pattern: all of these non-factual questions are either questions of value or questions of aesthetics or questions of personal relationship and meaning. These are not scientific questions, while all of the questions presented above are scientific questions and to pursue any of them by any method other than those of science would be inappropriate.
The answers to factual questions may sometimes inform us regarding non-factual questions but cannot finally answer them. For example, the question, "Is it right or wrong to make use of the phenomenon in this particular way?" depends on the answers to "What will happen if we do?" Just the same, the judgment of whether that is a good or bad outcome, and hence of whether it would be right or wrong to do it, is not a factual question.
If the assertion is made that a question of fact about a phenomenon should be answered by non-scientific methods, that is essentially an assertion that the phenomenon is supernatural. If the assertion is made that non-factual questions about the phenomenon should be answered using non-scientific methods, that's unremarkable because it is obvious.
If the assertion is made that non-factual questions about the phenomenon should be answered non-scientifically, and that therefore scientific understanding is "incomplete," and the implication that this means something special about these particular phenomena, that is confused.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
Obviously we agree on the communication and memory. The experience is part of the Cosmos in so much as it is a non-material thing which which can, and does interact with the Cosmos. Up to this point we are in agreement except on one point.
That is to say that we do have a way to know the experience directly yet it is entirely subjective rather than objective. That being said, I would also posit that since consciousness seems to be limited to significantly complex organisms (I hope I don't need to list them) it very well could be a construction of brain function—eg a software to run the hard ware. However, to this date psychology and biology either lack the tools to detect that or cannot detect it since it is a non-phenomena.
Personally I view consciousness itself to be a non-phenomena and thus not subject to science, and yet I also do not begrudge scientists attempting to find a source for it. Why? Because they are doing their jobs as scientists. That is to say they are attempting to use scientific methods to understand something they view as a phenomenon.
The only thing that consciousness can be, then, is: not a part of the material world, nor yet a discrete non-material whatizit, but ALL of the material world.
Such a statement is illogical. If consciousness is not part of the material world, but it is a discrete non-material non-phenomenon that arises in conscious beings. That is to say beings sufficiently complex to be conscious. As such it is at most an internal reflection of the material world—it is not ALL of the material world.
But such a view is incomplete and inaccurate. Amongst humans as we clearly have the means to communicate our subjective views amongst each other, and suspect other conscious beings to also be capable of the same--though we may not be able to communicate with them to the same degree we can with humans, one must conclude that portions of the consciousness which can be so communicated do indeed shape parts of the consciousness of other beings. As such products of consciousness—culture, spirituality (or superstition as I prefer), and so fourth can be objectively studied. However there is no evidence that this consciousness, in humans, is in fact all of the Cosmos. As such a reason dictates that it must simply be part of the Cosmos. Perhaps that part that makes a human a human, and by extension a conscious being whatever that conscious being is.
And that's also what spiritual experience tells us.
No that is what spiritual experience tells you. Now I know already know that Eric is going to run off at the mouth about me being spiritually crippled or some other such nonsense. I expect it because all his past behavior indicated that he is incapable of civilized disagreement.
That said having sought out spiritual enlightenment from many different sources over a number of years and finding each entirely empty and devoid of anything of substance (material or subjective) I have had to conclude that there is no such spiritual experience. In short all spirituality can be boiled down to pretty much either self-deception, or wishful thinking.
Phenomena. They are amenable to scientific method and to natural modeling.
Good we agree on that point. I would love to see an experiments on such phenomena which do not end up in either having to violate all known laws of science or end up turning into a pile of idealistic goo upon closer inspection.
That said, I'm not holding my breath.
Umm, not quite. I wasn't referring to the science itself, that is, the mathematical models and concepts regarding the behavior of natural forces, so much as to their philosophical implications. It's possible to accept these scientific ideas while still clinging to a mechanistic, deterministic view of reality, if one has not connected all the philosophical dots (which is not necessary in order to understand the science itself).
The main implications of the new-physics triad (relativity, QM, and chaos) as they relate to philosophy are indeterminacy, the impact of observer perspective on measured reality (more important in relativity than QM despite popular misconceptions), and the interconnection of events in ways that bypass the normal mechanical functions of energy.
I would posit that there are no such philosophical dots to connect. If one understands the science behind the “new physics triad”, and also understands that they have nothing to do with philosophy—because they don't, philosophy is an entirely different discipline altogether, then one who is a “classical materialist” as you have defined it would be holding onto an obsolete viewpoint.
It includes but is not limited to hocus-pocus. Classical materialism has a hard time dealing with aesthetic appreciation, emotional sensitivity, spirituality, love, compassion; to the extent a classical materialist thinks about these things and does not simply change hats in doing so, they become epiphenomena or illusions. This is Eric's objection to materialism in a nutshell and it is entirely feeling-based.
I think that would be a workable common definition of “soulful qualities”. That said I do have some disagreements on the list presented.
1. Hocus pocus: Superstitious views about things which can be understood materially and objectively. In short junk that needs to be ignored.
2. Aesthetic appreciation: A function of the consciousness—run by a program, for lack of a better term, called the “aesthetic sense”.
3. Emotional sensitivity: A function of the consciousness. Also I would include love in with emotional sensitivity as love (and its non-opposite opposite hate) are indeed very powerful emotions.
4. Compassion: The ability to “suffer with” other conscious beings, the ability to understand the suffering of others on a subjective level. That is a function of the consciousness as well. It may even be a sub-routine of the over arching emotional sensitivity program in the consciousness.
5. Spirituality: see hocus pocus.
Now before I move on...I think you can understand what I mean by a non-opposite opposite with love and hate. But for those who don't let me use this illustration.
Lets say we take out a coin. On one side is the “heads” and the other the “tails. But they are the same coin with different sides. It is my proposition that hate and love are merely opposite sites of the same coin (IOW strong emotions), yet not actually opposites. The opposite of both hate and love is indifference.
Does “Classical Materialism” have problems with these soulful qualities? Yes and no. “Classical Materialism” very easily can dismiss superstition. Where it runs into problems is the aesthetic sense, and emotional sensitivity. It runs into the problem because if consciousness is viewed as a phenomenon then it must have a material cause. At most “classical materialists” can side-step the issue by stating that consciousness is either a non-phenomenon or a phenomenon of unknown cause.
Now I'm sure you will have noticed that I have consistently put “classical materialism(ists)” in quotation marks. It is my contention that there is no such thing as “classical materialism”. Rather there is just materialism and individual materialists who either accept new scientific information and adapt or those who hold on to obsolete views. Materialism is unique amongst other philosophies in being able to do this.
As to Eric's rejection of materialism—yes I realized that his rejection of it was entirely emotional from having to debate him. As such there is no point in debating him on his views. He is impervious to my rational arguments just as I am impervious to his emotional (IE Irrational) arguments.
And this was proper scientific procedure. If the evidence had been accepted, it would have meant abandoning the entire structure of scientific theory, or, even worse, abandoning the scientific endeavor itself (because accepting the existence of the supernatural would amount to throwing in the towel).
Pretty much why I don't.
As we now know that the universe is non-deterministic and that information is routinely transmitted in energy-free ways and the temporal relationship between cause and effect is not as simple as we once thought, these concerns no longer obtain. I suspect that the reality of psi will be generally accepted by the scientific community within the next 20 years, the time required being partly because we have more important and urgent things to focus on (like survival), and partly because sometimes fossilized brains simply have to be replaced rather than educated.
Well I'm glad that you have that confidence. I personally do not. The reasoning for this is that psi-phenomena would STILL need a explanation in a material setting. I am not confident that psychology is the appropriate tool here and I'm sure that we'll have our physicists working on more important issues, such as how to deal with energy constraint.
Of course this boils down to a mega-saeculum argument. My view being that there are three types of saeculum observable. The Saeculum (discovered by S&H) and micro-turnings and mega-saecula. Each seem to consist of 4 parts. A saeculum has 4 turnings, a turning has 4 micro-turnings and a mega-saeculum has 4 saecula.
Granted there is a bit of overlap and gray areas in the saecula—they operate like a pocket watch and yet not like it on an individual level. The saecula themselves and their turnings are not deterministic at all but I'm sure that is a thread for the theory section of the forum.
In any event I ascribe to the Millennial Saeculum the designation of being an Unraveling Saeculum within the current Mega-Saeculum which began with the Civil War Saeculum. Of course I use that as the start of what we might call the Modern Modern Era as that is the first saeculum to occur after the Enlightenment Awakening which is the basis of the current Western world-view. As such the next saeculum will be a crisis saeculum.
LOL you would pick out exactly the examples I consider most dubious. It's like you read my mind or something.
Read your mind? Probably not. Rather I would say that I listed the examples I did as they are the most popular “psychic phenomena” around. I could have listed extra-sensory perception but I'm not sure if that is a phenomenon apart from conscious intuition or not.
Phenomena, of course. Which is not to say I believe all of them to be legitimate.
You shouldn't. That said I would say that those things attributed to ESP is really the sub-conscious processing of information. That is to say intuition arises from the brain processing information but we are not consciously aware of the brain doing it—much like we are not aware of the brain regulating body temperature, heart beat or breathing though it objectively does.
I'm still thinking about tarot and astrology and go back and forth on them;
Well as one who did several psychic hustles in the past I can answer for tarot—I'm particularly skilled at tarot reading. In fact I still have my cards—several sets of them in fact. Generally speaking—and this will be explained if you ever work for the larger tarot type hustles (like psychic friends or whatever) it is in fact part of your training—tarot is making up stories based upon associations with various cards. I personally used a tarot deck—but it is my understanding that a great many of the call type hustles actually use a script one simply reads and adapts to the responses given by the caller.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mythic-Tar.../dp/0743219198
Is the tarot deck I personally favor because I happen to like the pictures and am somewhat familiar with Greco-Roman mythology. I can use more medieval based illustrated cards but I have more difficulty with them.
With astrology, there may indeed be some influence of the stars and planets on human behavior. They do indeed have a gravitational influence on the Earth and people are on the Earth so that it is reasonable that astronomical objects may have a weak influence on people. That said, astrology as a predictive instrument is incredibly flawed seeing as most star charts are based upon formulas devised in the 3rd century C.E. and the planet has wobbled a bit since then, and that the charts themselves are based on pre-Copernican understandings of astronomy.
Scrying and channeling are both techniques for focusing the ability to obtain information by psi. One must however understand how that works and thus the limitations of it -- claims are sometimes made, especially by those who want money, that must be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm extremely skeptical about both since no one seems to know how exactly either work nor seems to be investigating how either work. My work in the psychic hustle sector of the economy however may prejudice me against both.
Ah, such you guys fondly wish. Rather than have to face up to the truth of my "arguments."
assumes "it" must be "made" of something, as if something like "matter" exists.
Not questions that can be fully answered, without assuming determinism. Some questions can be answered, for sure.How does it work?
What destroys it?
If we do a particular thing to it, what will happen?
What is it capable of doing?
Under what circumstances will it do it?
What gives rise to it?
Hmmmmmm...... questions of fact about observable phenomena.???.....
I don't believe in material "things" either. There are no "things."I don't believe in "non-material things"
"A thing is a think" -- Alan Watts
Last edited by Eric the Green; 09-19-2012 at 07:48 PM.
Wait a minute. I don't believe that consciousness is a "non-material thing." I don't believe in "non-material things." I didn't think you did, either.
I don't think we can say that. Once again, there's a distinction to be drawn between consciousness and self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is a cognitive capacity, the ability to recognize one's own existence as an organism. That requires a certain cognitive capacity and is limited to certain organisms. However, consciousness is merely the ability to experience events subjectively. We can't verify that it exists in any organisms other than ourselves -- and I mean by that, I can't verify that it exists in any organism except MYself, not excepting other human beings, and you can't either -- but we certainly have no reason to believe that it requires a highly-developed intellect.That is to say that we do have a way to know the experience directly yet it is entirely subjective rather than objective. That being said, I would also posit that since consciousness seems to be limited to significantly complex organisms (I hope I don't need to list them)
I would suggest that any animal with a nervous system is conscious in roughly the same way you and I are, and that a less differentiated consciousness might even be present absent such a nervous system. I would further suggest that an artificial construct functionally similar to a nervous system would also be conscious.
I don't have any problems with the work that's being done by neuroscientists studying what they call consciousness. I just insist that what they're studying is actually certain brain functions that may have a connection to consciousness, not consciousness itself. It's still worthy of study.Personally I view consciousness itself to be a non-phenomena and thus not subject to science, and yet I also do not begrudge scientists attempting to find a source for it. Why? Because they are doing their jobs as scientists. That is to say they are attempting to use scientific methods to understand something they view as a phenomenon.
Let me try again. There are three possibilities that can be stated about consciousness:Such a statement is illogical.
1) It's a material thing.
2) It's a non-material thing.
3) It's not a thing.
But #1 can't be true or we'd be able to create a test to determine whether or not it was present, at least in thought-experiment form. And #2 can't be true, either, because there are no non-material things (if there are, we're stuck in supernatural-land). So that leaves #3: it's not a thing at all.
But what isn't a thing? Well, what IS a thing? A thing is another (and less formal) word for a phenomenon: something that can, in potential, be observed. And that means it's a part of the universe -- not the whole of the universe, but a part of it. So consciousness can't be a part of the universe, because it isn't a thing.
If something isn't part of the universe, there are only two possibilities: it's the whole universe, or it doesn't exist. But consciousness does exist; as you say, we can verify that subjectively. So consciousness must be the whole universe.
Here's another way to approach it. Assume, arguendo, that you and I are both conscious and that my consciousness is separate from yours. Since we agree there are no non-material things, it must therefore be a material thing, maybe a function of the brain. But if that's the case, then I should be able to see, or otherwise verify objectively, your consciousness (although it makes sense that I couldn't verify my own for the same reason as an eye can't see itself). But I can't. Therefore the premise must be untrue.
Me, the Buddha, the Sufi, various Christian mystics, the Gnostics, the Hindu visionaries, etc., etc. I am hardly alone here, or a ground-breaker in this respect.No that is what spiritual experience tells you.
Oedipus at Colonus: "Behold, there is no sun. I, even I, have looked and seen it not!"That said having sought out spiritual enlightenment from many different sources over a number of years and finding each entirely empty and devoid of anything of substance (material or subjective) I have had to conclude that there is no such spiritual experience. In short all spirituality can be boiled down to pretty much either self-deception, or wishful thinking.
No, that's incorrect. Philosophy goes beyond what can be objectively verified into speculation about matters beyond the reach of science, but it is not immune to objective knowledge gained through scientific method. Classical materialism arose in response to Newtonian physics. It was not fully, logically, and inevitably justified by Newtonian physics, but it was not a hard leap from what was established and understood scientifically to the philosophical position.I would posit that there are no such philosophical dots to connect. If one understands the science behind the “new physics triad”, and also understands that they have nothing to do with philosophy—because they don't, philosophy is an entirely different discipline altogether
The classic claim of classical materialism was that if we knew the position and momentum of every particle -- if we could measure starting conditions perfectly -- then we could predict the future down to the last event. There is of course no way to measure starting conditions perfectly; that isn't dependent on the uncertainty principle but follows from technical limitations alone. So this was not a scientific claim -- it wasn't falsifiable. But it was a philosophical claim that made both intuitive and logical sense in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
This claim can no longer be made philosophically, or rather, it can, but it's become meaningless, because there is no way we could measure starting conditions perfectly even with perfect instruments. So it isn't a claim that the scientifically literate and philosophically inclined will be moved to make.
Just as classical materialism arose from Newtonian physics, a new form of materialism is logically and intuitively suggested by relativity, QM, and chaos. It's a view of material reality not as a mechanism but as a cross between an organism and a hologram, and as distinctly wondrous and weird.
I believe that's true. However, it's an obsolete philosophical viewpoint that they hold, not an obsolete scientific one.one who is a “classical materialist” as you have defined it would be holding onto an obsolete viewpoint.
I agree that psychology is not the correct discipline and that something growing out of physics makes more sense, and also that we need an explanation of a material nature, and also that physicists will have more urgent things to do. That said, I don't believe that in an indeterminate universe such as we now know we have, it's impossible to arrive at a materialistic model for psi. I have even created one myself, based on the hypothesis that an organizing principle exists in nature which is capable of altering (or perhaps setting in the first place) the probabilities of indeterminate events.Well I'm glad that you have that confidence. I personally do not. The reasoning for this is that psi-phenomena would STILL need a explanation in a material setting. I am not confident that psychology is the appropriate tool here and I'm sure that we'll have our physicists working on more important issues, such as how to deal with energy constraint.
There have been experiments that specifically ruled this out, although I have no doubt it occurs. Something more is occurring, too.You shouldn't. That said I would say that those things attributed to ESP is really the sub-conscious processing of information.
Once again, accepting the reality of so-called paranormal phenomena does not imply accepting without question popular ideas about it. I view all such ideas, and also those arising from occult traditions, with a certain skepticism.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
Brian, I've been reading David Brin's "Uplift" novels, and I realized that your own thinking on "psi" phenomena is very similar to how it works in Brin's books.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Wait a minute. I don't believe that consciousness is a "non-material thing." I don't believe in "non-material things." I didn't think you did, either.
Perhaps non-material is a poor word choice. English has limitations for the expression on non-phenomena. To clarify, my view is that consciousness is part of the Cosmos, which is either a non-phenomenon; however, I am open to consciousness being a phenomenon of unknown causation.
I don't think we can say that. Once again, there's a distinction to be drawn between consciousness and self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is a cognitive capacity, the ability to recognize one's own existence as an organism. That requires a certain cognitive capacity and is limited to certain organisms.
We obviously agree as to self-consciousness or more appropriately self-awareness.
However, consciousness is merely the ability to experience events subjectively. We can't verify that it exists in any organisms other than ourselves -- and I mean by that, I can't verify that it exists in any organism except MYself, not excepting other human beings, and you can't either -- but we certainly have no reason to believe that it requires a highly-developed intellect.
Consciousness itself cannot be verified. However, behavior associated with consciousness can be verified. Not only in other humans, but also in more complex organisms. I'll use for example my cat. She is conscious because she displays feline behavior that I as a human associate with consciousness. A packet of yeast does not display any behavior in which consciousness is necessary. Rather the yeast reacts to the presence of sugar, and water and simply does its thing (eating and reproducing) in a very mechanical manner.
As such I would think that consciousness would require a complex nervous system in order to be housed.
I would suggest that any animal with a nervous system is conscious in roughly the same way you and I are, and that a less differentiated consciousness might even be present absent such a nervous system. I would further suggest that an artificial construct functionally similar to a nervous system would also be conscious.
I would not. An earth worm (and I have quite a bit of experience with those creatures as I practice vermicomposting) does have a nervous system. However it does not seem to display behavior one would associate with consciousness. Rather it reacts to objective stimuli—the presence of food, water, light and predators. It does this in a mechanical way. In the presence of an abundance of food they rapidly reproduce and eat that food, in the absence of food they stop and seek out new sources of food. In the presence of light or predators they flee.
All of these things can be explained in a mechanical cause and effect manner.
On the other hand a human also has a nervous system and has consciousness which we know from subjective experience. Also going back to my cat, she likes some people and doesn't like others—sometimes without even having been around a person to have anything to base a cause and effect relationship with. As such she must have something subjective going on in her complex nervous system.
Those organisms which lack a nervous system, fungi, bacteria, and plants, etc, merely react to external stimuli. No consciousness is needed for their reactions. I would contend that consciousness is perhaps an evolutionary response to requiring a relatively complex nervous system. Less complex organisms do not require a software for hardware that either is not present, or is insufficiently developed to require it.
For example a pocket calculator does not run windows, but a computer does. There are great degrees of difference in the electronic complexity between both.
I don't have any problems with the work that's being done by neuroscientists studying what they call consciousness. I just insist that what they're studying is actually certain brain functions that may have a connection to consciousness, not consciousness itself. It's still worthy of study.
Good we're agreed then but on different grounds. I can live with that.
However, I would posit that what they are actually studying is the hardware consciousness uses rather than consciousness itself. For example one can pick apart a computer and roughly determine how it works. However, doing such a thing in no way explains Linux, Windows or Mac OX.
Let me try again. There are three possibilities that can be stated about consciousness:
1) It's a material thing.
2) It's a non-material thing.
3) It's not a thing.
But #1 can't be true or we'd be able to create a test to determine whether or not it was present, at least in thought-experiment form. And #2 can't be true, either, because there are no non-material things (if there are, we're stuck in supernatural-land). So that leaves #3: it's not a thing at all.
But what isn't a thing? Well, what IS a thing? A thing is another (and less formal) word for a phenomenon: something that can, in potential, be observed. And that means it's a part of the universe -- not the whole of the universe, but a part of it. So consciousness can't be a part of the universe, because it isn't a thing.
If something isn't part of the universe, there are only two possibilities: it's the whole universe, or it doesn't exist. But consciousness does exist; as you say, we can verify that subjectively. So consciousness must be the whole universe.
Here's another way to approach it. Assume, arguendo, that you and I are both conscious and that my consciousness is separate from yours. Since we agree there are no non-material things, it must therefore be a material thing, maybe a function of the brain. But if that's the case, then I should be able to see, or otherwise verify objectively, your consciousness (although it makes sense that I couldn't verify my own for the same reason as an eye can't see itself). But I can't. Therefore the premise must be untrue.
No I get your argument. However, I can't agree with it it. It short circuits my logic processors if you will. There is no logical reason to assume that consciousness is the entirety of the universe if not everything is conscious.
Which it isn't. Inanimate objects are not conscious. Less complex life is not conscious, and that includes less complex animals. Indeed it is much more reasonable to assume that the non-phenomenon that is consciousness is individual and subjective. It is a process of how one uses their brain to experience the world subjectively. In organisms that do not demonstrate behavior associated with subjectivity (aesthetics, emotions, and the like) we have no reason to believe that they are in fact conscious.
In short consciousness is part of being a human, or a cat, or a dog, or a bird or some other complex animal, and is as such a part of the Cosmos.
Me, the Buddha, the Sufi, various Christian mystics, the Gnostics, the Hindu visionaries, etc., etc. I am hardly alone here, or a ground-breaker in this respect.
Didn't say you were a ground breaker or alone in this respect. Nor do you have to be. People have been wrong in large groups before, and will be again long after I'm dead.
I merely stated that I have no knowledge of anything spiritual that doesn't boil down into pure superstition.
Oedipus at Colonus: "Behold, there is no sun. I, even I, have looked and seen it not!"
Cute, but not necessarily applicable. The sun is obviously a thing and not a non-thing like spirituality—which if I understand your position correctly you posit as a function of consciousness.
No, that's incorrect. Philosophy goes beyond what can be objectively verified into speculation about matters beyond the reach of science, but it is not immune to objective knowledge gained through scientific method. Classical materialism arose in response to Newtonian physics. It was not fully, logically, and inevitably justified by Newtonian physics, but it was not a hard leap from what was established and understood scientifically to the philosophical position.
The classic claim of classical materialism was that if we knew the position and momentum of every particle -- if we could measure starting conditions perfectly -- then we could predict the future down to the last event. There is of course no way to measure starting conditions perfectly; that isn't dependent on the uncertainty principle but follows from technical limitations alone. So this was not a scientific claim -- it wasn't falsifiable. But it was a philosophical claim that made both intuitive and logical sense in terms of Newtonian mechanics.
This claim can no longer be made philosophically, or rather, it can, but it's become meaningless, because there is no way we could measure starting conditions perfectly even with perfect instruments. So it isn't a claim that the scientifically literate and philosophically inclined will be moved to make.
Just as classical materialism arose from Newtonian physics, a new form of materialism is logically and intuitively suggested by relativity, QM, and chaos. It's a view of material reality not as a mechanism but as a cross between an organism and a hologram, and as distinctly wondrous and weird.
Hence why I said that “classical materialism” is an obsolete viewpoint. You do know what the words “obsolete” and “viewpoint” mean right? I hope you do.
If the “classical materialist” model is that if we can examine every particle perfectly then we can predict the outcome to the last millisecond, then such a view is obsolete given what we know about quantum mechanics of sub-atomic particles. As I said such is an obsolete viewpoint, however, I would not therefore contend that a new materialism is necessary. Rather materialism would simply assimilate the new knowledge and thereby have a qualitative change without becoming something else entirely.
I agree that psychology is not the correct discipline and that something growing out of physics makes more sense, and also that we need an explanation of a material nature, and also that physicists will have more urgent things to do. That said, I don't believe that in an indeterminate universe such as we now know we have, it's impossible to arrive at a materialistic model for psi. I have even created one myself, based on the hypothesis that an organizing principle exists in nature which is capable of altering (or perhaps setting in the first place) the probabilities of indeterminate events.
That hypothesis may be interesting to those qualified to construct experiments on that hypothesis to test it, if the goal of this hypothesis is indeed to find a scientific explanation for “psi-phenomena”. If it is a philosophical hypothesis, I may be interested in it—though I warn you it will be met with skepticism just like every other hypothesis.
That being said, I think our physicists will be preoccupied with physical matters that need immediate answers rather than whether or not “psi-phenomena” has an explanation or not. Ultimately constructing a post fossil fuel infrastructure will have to come before questions—perhaps that is something that must wait for the next awakening, or the one after.
There have been experiments that specifically ruled this out, although I have no doubt it occurs. Something more is occurring, too.
Do you have links to back up this statement? I would be interested in looking at the data arrived at and analyzing it for myself.
Once again, accepting the reality of so-called paranormal phenomena does not imply accepting without question popular ideas about it. I view all such ideas, and also those arising from occult traditions, with a certain skepticism.
I would contend that so-called paranormal phenomena is really normal phenomena for which an explanation or causation has yet to be found. Being that it is after all phenomena, and thus subject to science.
As to ideas and views arising from religious or occult or superstitious traditions I am very skeptical.
Last edited by Kinser79; 09-19-2012 at 09:20 PM. Reason: inserting a negitive for clarity
But the planet is warming up and human activity is the primary reason why. A person's core belief will not change those facts. What we as a species or as nations or as individuals choose to do about it will rely on core beliefs as you noted. But, those core beliefs are irrelevant when determining if and how the planet's climates are changing.
I would never tell anyone that science can be us to find answers to moral or ethical questions. Science may be capable of informing us of the ramification's of our choices but it can never tell us what the "right" choice is.And this is not uncommon. Throughout these forums one sees discussion on politics, economics and many another subject where the evidence of science is insufficient to answer a question. Science is generally less useful and less used than the fine art of hurling insults.
Going to have to ask to see your work on that one!
It's not reasonable at all! Every single object in the universe has a gravitational influence on the Earth! A nearby mountain exerts more gravitational pull on individual humans than does the entire planet Mars. The desk chair you are sitting in is exerting more "pull" on you than Neptune!
Gravitational "influence" as a support for the possibility of astrology is patently absurd.
That's just scratching the surface of all the ridiculousness behind astrology.That said, astrology as a predictive instrument is incredibly flawed seeing as most star charts are based upon formulas devised in the 3rd century C.E. and the planet has wobbled a bit since then, and that the charts themselves are based on pre-Copernican understandings of astronomy.
Of course no one knows "how they work" because they simply don't.I'm extremely skeptical about both since no one seems to know how exactly either work nor seems to be investigating how either work. My work in the psychic hustle sector of the economy however may prejudice me against both.
Vandal, do not confuse my assertion that astronomical objects have a gravitational influence on humans with actually believing that astrology works. It doesn't. That said gravity is exerted on me and on you by the moon, the sun, Mars and all of those objects.
Obviously these forces are much weaker gravitationally speaking than the chair I'm currently sitting in, let alone the Earth itself. If there are any astronomical objects which do indeed impact humans with their radiation and/or gravity overtly and directly they would be in the following order Earth, Sun and Moon.
Having been raised by an ER nurse I have second hand knowledge that accidents and crimes seem to peak around the full moon. How much of this is psychological and how much of it is gravitational has yet to be tested though. And even if there is a correlation that does not imply in any way causation.
I've noticed that, too. He also connects it with something he called "reality physics" which is also interesting. Psi as probability alteration is an easy conclusion to draw from the research results. It just doesn't work to explain it as a normal energy-related process.Brian, I've been reading David Brin's "Uplift" novels, and I realized that your own thinking on "psi" phenomena is very similar to how it works in Brin's books.
Brin is famous for aggravated agnosticism about almost everything and Uplift is fiction, so this probably doesn't mean he actually believes psi is real, but if he's true to form he doesn't believe it isn't, either. The point is that, being able to construct a plausible (if bizarre) model and accept it without tossing all of science out the window, it becomes possible to approach it with an open mind, which it didn't used to be.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
Kinser, I'm going to take the liberty of paring down your post to a few important points. I hope you don't mind. I'm trying to avoid post-length-creep.
Consciousness similar to what we experience does require a nervous system. I don't think it needs to be all that complex, but of course yeast doesn't have a nervous system at all.
What I'm suggesting here is that our own form of consciousness is not necessarily the only one. It's occurred to me that the universe may have a consciousness of its own, not merely in potential (manifesting wherever there is a nervous system or equivalent), but in being, in which feedback mechanisms inherent in the laws of physics substitute for the feedback mechanisms provided by a nervous system. In that case there would be a type of consciousness associated with the yeast, but it would be diffuse and not specifically OF the yeast.
Rather more important, though, for practical purposes is the idea that the nervous system doesn't produce or generate consciousness but instead provides a feedback mechanism for reflective awareness. This is important because it means that any device providing a similar feedback mechanism would also activate the potential consciousness that's inherent in everything. Thus, if we build an artificial intelligence with genuinely indeterminate behavior and the ability to perceive reality, we have created a conscious entity -- a person. (Assuming it's sufficiently intelligent to warrant that title.)
That's on a scientific level. On a spiritual level, it's important because it makes metaphorical sense of ideas of post-mortem survival, which can be seen for crude approaches to the awareness that I -- the real I, my consciousness, that-which-feels -- am not this body. Nor am I this brain, which means I am not this personality or this memory-chain (this is where most religious conceptions fail as literal description, though they still work as metaphor). I am the cosmos; I am all-that-is, and this brain is merely a reflective mechanism allowing partial awareness on the part of the cosmos. When this brain dies, I will go on and continue experiencing through all other vehicles, each of which represents a separate memory-chain. That isn't survival of the individual self, of course, either in heaven/hell/purgatory/whatever or in a new body via reincarnation, but is closer to, if not identical to, the Buddhist conception in which the individual self is an illusion. Still, it does mean that death is not the end of self.
Let me offer you an admittedly non-falsifiable hypothesis (we're stuck with a lot of those when we're considering a non-phenomenon). The behavior we associate with consciousness is not properly associated with it. Actually, I believe that one may be falsifiable provided we start with the unverifiable assumption that consciousness exists. My father died of a brain-stem stroke and was completely paralyzed for several months, but suffered no cerebral damage or damage to the optic nerve or auditory nerves. He exhibited no behavior associated with consciousness, but there was every reason to believe that he was conscious -- able to receive, but not able to act.I would not. An earth worm (and I have quite a bit of experience with those creatures as I practice vermicomposting) does have a nervous system. However it does not seem to display behavior one would associate with consciousness.
An earthworm lacks the nervous mechanism to take conscious control over its own behavior. Does that mean, however, that it is unable to experience sensation? The ability to experience sensation being the bottom-line touchstone for consciousness. Even if all of its responses to stimuli are automatic (one could actually say the same thing about ours, we simply have a much more complex mechanism to respond with), it could still be experiencing those stimuli and responses as they happen.
So can our own behavior, given a much more sophisticated mechanism.All of these things can be explained in a mechanical cause and effect manner.
That's what I think as well.However, I would posit that what they are actually studying is the hardware consciousness uses rather than consciousness itself.
Inanimate objects, strictly speaking, don't exist. These distinctions between one thing and another thing are drawn by our minds. For example, my computer that I'm writing this on is part of a continuous system: the table it's sitting on, the electricity running through it, the planet, etc. I can draw a distinction between one thing and another on valid grounds, it isn't completely arbitrary, but it isn't absolute, either.Inanimate objects are not conscious.
What I'm suggesting is not that objects are conscious but that the universe is. Individual objects within it (including us) would not be, but might if they have certain abilities reflect the consciousness of the cosmos back on itself and create, as it were, mirror images of cosmic awareness.
I realize that's a weird idea, but it does follow logically from our inability to actually observe consciousness and also comports with mystical perception.
Perhaps you should define the word "superstition." As far as I can see, you use that word reflexively to describe anything spiritual, which means your sentence above could be restated as "I have no knowledge of anything spiritual that doesn't boil down into pure spirituality," which is a tautology.I merely stated that I have no knowledge of anything spiritual that doesn't boil down into pure superstition.
No, strictly speaking, it's still true, because it's stated as an if-then. We happen to know that the "if" is impossible, but then, as a practical matter it always was. We just didn't know before that it was impossible in principle as well as in practice. If we could do A (which we can't), then indeed we could do B.If the “classical materialist” model is that if we can examine every particle perfectly then we can predict the outcome to the last millisecond, then such a view is obsolete given what we know about quantum mechanics of sub-atomic particles.
That's the thing about metaphysics. (I'm using the actual philosophical definition of that word, not the popular definition which means woo-woo stuff. In philosophy it refers to ideas about the ultimate nature of reality; materialism is metaphysics.) It doesn't have any impact on physics or on science in general. Science remains unchanged whether we approach it with a realistic or idealistic metaphysics; if we do the latter, we are studying regularities in the illusion of reality. The regularities remain what they are observed to be regardless.
Similarly, there is no required dependence the other direction, either. There is nothing in modern physics that says classical materialism must be wrong. It's just that it becomes weird to think about reality as a mechanism when physics no longer suggests that metaphor. Someone philosophically inclined, but raised on modern physics from middle school or whenever people start studying physics instead of on Newton, would come to non-classical conclusions intuitively, rather than to classical ones. (Philosophers like to think they're being perfectly rational. They're not.)
Here's probably the best type of remote viewing experiment, a general overview and a link to a meta-analysis of experiments conducted over a period of 11 years (1997-2008). The full article in the latter case costs money unfortunately, but the abstract lays out the general idea and the overall results.Do you have links to back up this statement? I would be interested in looking at the data arrived at and analyzing it for myself.
http://www.parapsych.org/articles/36...e_viewing.aspx
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/136/4/471/
Contamination by ordinary sensory information is of course one of the obvious things to screen out in a good experimental design.
Absolutely. I really dislike that term "paranormal." I do NOT believe that these are supernatural phenomena.I would contend that so-called paranormal phenomena is really normal phenomena for which an explanation or causation has yet to be found.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
If there is validity to astrology, then it has nothing to do with any physical properties except time. The solar system is huge clock. If history shows that there is a strong corollation between the solar clock and historical cycles, then it is usefull. Otherwise, no.
I look for the most logical reason: moonlight. It's easier to do the crime at night, and easier to see at full moon.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Well considering that the solar system itself is not a clock, but rather a collection of rocks and gas balls connected by gravitational pull to a very large plasma ball then there would be no use to astrology at all. Historical cycles seem to happen regardless of planetary orbital ones.
That is a possible reason but hardly the most logical. If crime is more easily done at night during the full moon because of light--then would well lit cities at night which are independent of this lunar cycle not have a consistent rate of crime? If they do not then that hypothesis would be blown straight out of the water.I look for the most logical reason: moonlight. It's easier to do the crime at night, and easier to see at full moon.
Naturally of course this would require the crime statistics to be broken down by city neighborhoods/districts to filter out those neighborhoods which are not universally well lit at night.
It's occurred to me that the universe may have a consciousness of its own, not merely in potential (manifesting wherever there is a nervous system or equivalent), but in being, in which feedback mechanisms inherent in the laws of physics substitute for the feedback mechanisms provided by a nervous system. In that case there would be a type of consciousness associated with the yeast, but it would be diffuse and not specifically OF the yeast.
If mechanical processes can be substituted for consciousness then what is to say that human consciousness even exists? Would it not be that if mechanical processes “are” consciousness then there is no consciousness at all?
Rather more important, though, for practical purposes is the idea that the nervous system doesn't produce or generate consciousness but instead provides a feedback mechanism for reflective awareness. This is important because it means that any device providing a similar feedback mechanism would also activate the potential consciousness that's inherent in everything. Thus, if we build an artificial intelligence with genuinely indeterminate behavior and the ability to perceive reality, we have created a conscious entity -- a person. (Assuming it's sufficiently intelligent to warrant that title.)
So essentially a feedback mechanism being mechanical or nervous would create consciousness? This of course would reduce humans to the level of automatons.
On a spiritual level, it's important because it makes metaphorical sense of ideas of post-mortem survival, which can be seen for crude approaches to the awareness that I -- the real I, my consciousness, that-which-feels -- am not this body. Nor am I this brain, which means I am not this personality or this memory-chain (this is where most religious conceptions fail as literal description, though they still work as metaphor). I am the cosmos; I am all-that-is, and this brain is merely a reflective mechanism allowing partial awareness on the part of the cosmos. When this brain dies, I will go on and continue experiencing through all other vehicles, each of which represents a separate memory-chain. That isn't survival of the individual self, of course, either in heaven/hell/purgatory/whatever or in a new body via reincarnation, but is closer to, if not identical to, the Buddhist conception in which the individual self is an illusion. Still, it does mean that death is not the end of self.
You do realize that all of this is pure nonsense. When you die you are gone. Period. There is no heaven, no hell, no purgatory, no reincarnation as anything. Your consciousness does not return to the Cosmos—indeed the cosmos itself does not even require conscious beings to exist to exist on its own accord. For all we know it had such a state for about 10 billion years.
He exhibited no behavior associated with consciousness, but there was every reason to believe that he was conscious -- able to receive, but not able to act.
You know, I really hate to be that guy but well hell it has to be said. The only reason it was reasonable to assume your father was conscious after his brain stem stroke was because prior to that he demonstrated behavior associated with consciousness and as such with the “higher” brain functions intact he was indeed capable of using those functions to receive but not act.
Less complex organisms never display conscious behavior regardless of whether they have brain damage (in animals with brains) or not.
An earthworm lacks the nervous mechanism to take conscious control over its own behavior. Does that mean, however, that it is unable to experience sensation? The ability to experience sensation being the bottom-line touchstone for consciousness. Even if all of its responses to stimuli are automatic (one could actually say the same thing about ours, we simply have a much more complex mechanism to respond with), it could still be experiencing those stimuli and responses as they happen.
Earthworms do indeed experience sensation. They need to in order to have their automatic responses to situations. That said I cannot agree that sensation itself is the bottom-line touchstone of consciousness.
Indeed were that the bottom-line touchstone then again all organisms would be reduced to mere automatons. Some automatons would have complex reactions other ones simple reactions.
Inanimate objects, strictly speaking, don't exist.
Brian, this is something I'd expect Eric to say not you.
What I'm suggesting is not that objects are conscious but that the universe is. Individual objects within it (including us) would not be, but might if they have certain abilities reflect the consciousness of the cosmos back on itself and create, as it were, mirror images of cosmic awareness
There is no evidence for the Cosmos itself being conscious. And even if it were for what purpose would it need to have parts of it which were conscious to reflect the consciousness of the Cosmos itself to itself?
Let us say I bought for a millisecond the woo woo that you're spouting—I don't mind you—if all things in the universe are conscious because the universe itself is conscious then what is to say that the universe even cares about our consciousness.
Would it not be a rational extrapolation that if this were the case that the universe requires our consciousness no more than I require a liver cell that is self-aware.
I realize that's a weird idea, but it does follow logically from our inability to actually observe consciousness and also comports with mystical perception.
It is certainly weird, but it is in no way logical. It left logic land when you inserted “mystical perception”.
Perhaps you should define the word "superstition." As far as I can see, you use that word reflexively to describe anything spiritual, which means your sentence above could be restated as "I have no knowledge of anything spiritual that doesn't boil down into pure spirituality," which is a tautology.
Superstition--noun--1
a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or god(s) resulting from superstition
2
: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
As you can see superstition is a tautology for spirituality and vice versa.
That's the thing about metaphysics. (I'm using the actual philosophical definition of that word, not the popular definition which means woo-woo stuff. In philosophy it refers to ideas about the ultimate nature of reality; materialism is metaphysics.)
I know that definition. I know it well. I've debated with idealists my entire life.
It doesn't have any impact on physics or on science in general. Science remains unchanged whether we approach it with a realistic or idealistic metaphysics; if we do the latter, we are studying regularities in the illusion of reality.
Did you choose the words “illusion of reality” to force me to respond to this paragraph segment? I'm sorry but reality is real, it is not an illusion. So even if we can look at science from an idealistic or materialistic viewpoint on an individual basis that does not change the fact that idealism itself is a collection of worthless concepts.
Similarly, there is no required dependence the other direction, either. There is nothing in modern physics that says classical materialism must be wrong. It's just that it becomes weird to think about reality as a mechanism when physics no longer suggests that metaphor. Someone philosophically inclined, but raised on modern physics from middle school or whenever people start studying physics instead of on Newton, would come to non-classical conclusions intuitively, rather than to classical ones
Substitute the word weird for irrational and you'll get my point about “classical materialism” being obsolete.
Also, the study of physics starts usually around grade 7-9 these days and also includes Newton's laws of motion and thermodynamics. The inclusion of quantum mechanics (which honestly I don't think anyone really understands—I certainly don't), relativity (special relativity and general relativity) and Chaos Theory into physics has not reduced the Newtonian Laws to irrelevance.
They are still applicable but less so philosophically today than say a couple centuries ago.
That said, materialism must over the course of time adapt to the increase of scientific understanding if it is not to become totally obsolete. Idealism cannot do this—which of course explains why there are thousands of idealist philosophical schools but ultimately only a couple dozen materialist ones. Materialists tend to debate over method rather than substance—the substance is agreed upon, the material world.
<links and etc>
I looked at those links and saw no data to analyze. I saw some rather bland statements of para-psychologists about things they did but no recorded data to actually review.
These sources are insufficient. I might at some point dig around on the internet for some actual data—but if and only if I don't have something better to do.
Astrology is a perfect example of why science is based on falsification, not verification. People see what they want to see and tend to rationalize away data that conflicts with their ideas. Scientists ideally constantly try to FALSIFY their theories, and if they don't do that their colleges will. Cranks, on the other hand, credulously see "verifications" of their ideas that are nothing but verification bias.
Karl Popper gives a good example in Conjectures and Refutations, and uses Psychoanalysis as an example:
[I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behaviour: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and in Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child). I could not think of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact — that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed — which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
