Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[Randall]

No thanks. That's not a book I care to research and write under the restrictions you require, i.e.:

It's just common courtesy in netiquette to stay within the bounds of a discussion thread's topic. So it's not that I'm "requiring any restrictions". You however have just evaded the substance of my post and attempted to justify it by exaggeration ( nobody asked you to research and write a book ) and by deflection ( falsely suggesting that I have imposed some unreasonable set of expectations ).

Once again you limit future inquiry here to your presuppositions about what can be considered 'truth'.

Again you've deflected the substance of my post with irrelevant commentary. The correspondence theory of truth as interpreted in a general sense is not simply a "presumption" of what I consider to be truth. It is a common philosophical model and I simply felt that making it clear which model I was referring to would help keep things clear.I wasn't insisting that every detail of the model be adhered to, but for your convenience, here is a link to a more detailed look at the model: The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You shear off half the world of human experience as irrelevant to the human pursuit of truth. And then restrict what we can permissibly say about that broad spectrum of experience to one theory of truth that you find acceptable. This is genuinely absurd.

Again you're deflecting. I've already explained my position on the value of human experience complete with links, so you're just plain wrong about my position on that and refuse to acknowledge it. There's also nothing absurd about keeping discussion threads on topic or expecting a response that addresses the content of a post rather than the poster.

Would it have really been so hard for you to provide a paragraph on how the occult relates to phenomenology in a way that reveals some truth about the unexplained? What is so terribly unreasonable about that suggestion? It's in harmony with the thread's topic and your seemingly self-proclaimed understanding of phenomenology. Plus you appeared to be interested in exploring Tyger's perspective. So really, can you explain what the problem with that is without once again deflecting undeserved blame or focus onto me? Is it so hard to address the issue rather than finding some way to be critical of the poster?

Let me approach the problem you create in another way: You have said that you want to understand what consciousness is and where it comes from/how it comes about in the world. And then you rule out of the discussion the most interesting and challenging conscious phenomena that have been reported and tested by parapsychologists and psychic researchers for the last 120 years, the ones the rest of us want to explore.

Again, you're deflecting. I'll refer you to this post: Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 42 | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[smcder]

It's just common courtesy in netiquette to stay within the bounds of a discussion thread's topic. So it's not that I'm "requiring any restrictions". You however have just evaded the substance of my post and attempted to justify it by exaggeration ( nobody asked you to research and write a book ) and by deflection ( falsely suggesting that I have imposed some unreasonable set of expectations ).

Again you've deflected the substance of my post with irrelevant commentary. The correspondence theory of truth as interpreted in a general sense is not simply a "presumption" of what I consider to be truth. It is a common philosophical model and I simply felt that making it clear which model I was referring to would help keep things clear.I wasn't insisting that every detail of the model be adhered to, but for your convenience, here is a link to a more detailed look at the model: The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Again you're deflecting. I've already explained my position on the value of human experience complete with links, so you're just plain wrong about my position on that and refuse to acknowledge it. There's also nothing absurd about keeping threads on topic and expecting a response to the content of the post. Would have really been so hard for you to provide a paragraph on how the occult relates to phenomenology in a way that reveals some truth about the unexplained? What is so terribly unreasonable about that suggestion? It's in harmony with the thread's topic and your seemingly self-proclaimed understanding of phenomenology. Plus you appeared to be interested in exploring Tyger's perspective. So really, can you explain what the problem with that is without once again deflecting undeserved blame or focus onto me? Is it so hard to address the issue rather than finding some way to be critical of the poster?

Again, you're deflecting. I'll refer you to this post: Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 42 | The Paracast Community Forums

I feel Constance also expresses my frustration and I am now finished with my participation in this thread. Perhaps we will encounter one another on other threads.

As you said: I think your comments are valuable, and you're always so reasonable,

So I hope you will find the following to be both reasonable and of some value on the order of what I will call constructive observations:

We have had at least three and maybe four major topics on this thread to date:

* belief in God is properly warranted - Plantinga
* mysticism/apophatic language (some of this may have been on the previous thread before you created this one - but mysticism has also appeared through Tyger's posts)
* the hard problem of consciousness
* phenomenology

so we have covered a wide range of topics - there are two observations here:

first, this thread (like most of the Paracast Forum threads I've read) covers topics that aren't narrowly tied to their stated title, some do wander more than others - but there is a "community precedent" for threads to meander somewhat. However it seems to have been particularly important for you to assert control over content in the thread. I think I can safely say this has been a source of frustration to other participants.

secondly, I feel none of these topics has been allowed to develop in a natural and enjoyable way. This is why I came to the forums, to find a relaxed and fun place for discussion and to learn something along the way. You have an unusually keen focus on minutiae, on very specific meanings of words, that seems to me very literal. I also feel you may have jumped to conclusions as to my intention to "derail the thread" - I clarified my position for the record, so that is perhaps simply a case of misunderstanding - but it is one of many.

I think it is only fair to point out that you also have used exaggeration in your posts, for example:

Simply telling me I'm wrong or don't understand and to go sift through volumes of information until it comes to me isn't reasonable.
I believe this was in response to the suggestion to read two relatively short articles. This is another strange thing I will mention: I posted an article and link to a site (David Chalmers) more than once in this thread but when it was posted in an unrelated thread, I believe by Mike, you seemed to have encountered it for the first time - before that happened, I really wondered if you had read any of the material pertinent to the conversation, read - not skimmed. You also seemed to be unfamiliar with the full content of Nagel's What Is It Like To Be a Bat, even though it was a short article and referred to numerous times in the discussion. I make no assumptions here - I just find it strange.

I will also point out that you make various statements like:

your seemingly self-proclaimed understanding of phenomenology

and consistently referred to the hard problem of consciousness as the so-called hard problem of consciousness - I'm not sure if that's an attempt to be cute or provocative, I know "self-proclaimed" often carries a negative connotation. However, again to be fair - your posts do show a very unusual sense of connotation and denotation - so perhaps you are using these phrases in an idiosyncratic way.

Again, these are in the order of observations, with no specific overall critique - draw your own conclusions or draw none. I chalk it up to no ill-will or particular intention on your part, so I will let it go as a "personality" difference and perhaps very different motivations for coming to the threads - that I have found it very frustrating to deal with you in this particular format. All I know about you are your posts so I make no further assumptions about you personally and wish you well as you pursue this topic further.

 

[Randall]

I feel Constance also expresses my frustration and I am now finished with my participation in this thread. Perhaps we will encounter one another on other threads.

As you said: I think your comments are valuable, and you're always so reasonable,

So I hope you will find the following to be both reasonable and of some value on the order of what I will call constructive observations:

We have had at least three and maybe four major topics on this thread to date:

* belief in God is properly warranted - Plantinga
* mysticism/apophatic language (some of this may have been on the previous thread before you created this one - but mysticism has also appeared through Tyger's posts)
* the hard problem of consciousness
* phenomenology

so we have covered a wide range of topics - there are two observations here:

first, this thread (like most of the Paracast Forum threads I've read) covers topics that aren't narrowly tied to their stated title, some do wander more than others - but there is a "community precedent" for threads to meander somewhat. However it seems to have been particularly important for you to assert control over content in the thread. I think I can safely say this has been a source of frustration to other participants.

I don't see how it's unreasonable to expect that people respond to the contents of a post rather than criticizing the poster or for someone to try to keep the thread from straying too far off topic. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest it's more your problem than mine.

secondly, I feel none of these topics has been allowed to develop in a natural and enjoyable way. This is why I came to the forums, to find a relaxed and fun place for discussion and to learn something along the way. You have an unusually keen focus on minutiae, on very specific meanings of words, that seems to me very literal. I also feel you may have jumped to conclusions as to my intention to "derail the thread" - I clarified my position for the record, so that is perhaps simply a case of misunderstanding - but it is one of many.

What did you expect from a thread titled "Science, Philosophy, and the Unexplained?" These aren't simple topics with easy answers. If you take them seriously, you're going to run into challenges, yet you have a problem with me applying critical thinking to these challenges, and wanting to stay on track and on topic? That's a bit misplaced don't you think? When I need a break, I go post something in the Official Funny Stuff or something else non-serious.

I think it is only fair to point out that you also have used exaggeration in your posts, for example:
Simply telling me I'm wrong or don't understand and to go sift through volumes of information until it comes to me isn't reasonable.

Not exactly, and what constitutes a "volume" varies from a simple volume ( amount ) to thick bound books that are par of a set. And in either case, you're defending another deflection to my post. It's not up to you to go sift through any amount of information to defend another person's position for them. It's up to them to provide a relevant response and a citation. Why should I even have to defend myself on this? What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Nothing.

I believe this was in response to the suggestion to read two relatively short articles. This is another strange thing I will mention: I posted an article and link to a site (David Chalmers) more than once in this thread but when it was posted in an unrelated thread, I believe by Mike, you seemed to have encountered it for the first time - before that happened, I really wondered if you had read any of the material pertinent to the conversation, read - not skimmed. You also seemed to be unfamiliar with the full content of Nagel's What Is It Like To Be a Bat, even though it was a short article and referred to numerous times in the discussion. I make no assumptions here - I just find it strange.

I used relevant quotes and examples and discussed your examples at some length with you, and since then I've been to Chalmers' own website as well. So if you have some specific problem with the content I posted, then you're as entitled as anyone else to bring it up and discuss it. In the meantime, you and the articles you cited have helped bring the idea of consciousness itself as a separate entity from its causal factors into sharper focus, and I thank you for that.

I will also point out that you make various statements like: your seemingly self-proclaimed understanding of phenomenology and consistently referred to the hard problem of consciousness as the so-called hard problem of consciousness - I'm not sure if that's an attempt to be cute or provocative, I know "self-proclaimed" often carries a negative connotation. However, again to be fair - your posts do show a very unusual sense of connotation and denotation - so perhaps you are using these phrases in an idiosyncratic way.

I said "seemingly self-proclaimed" because Constance's posts indicated that she seemed to have read through a fair amount of phenomenology and has a fairly good grip on it, but she didn't mention any academic credentials ( not that I care ), but without stating them, her knowledge is seemingly self-proclaimed, and what's more, my respect for this was such that I suggested she would be the best person to look at the issue of phenomenology as it applies to the occult to see if some truth about the unexplained can be revealed there. To me this all seems perfectly reasonable, but instead I got a deflection and a dodge combined with personal criticism.

On the issue of the so-called hard problem of consciousness, I'll readily admit that the "so-called" preface is mildly provocative. I'll also point out that I'm not the only one that has a problem with the way it's formulated and presented. I've stated my reasons and I've seen no counterpoint that addresses those reasons directly and in a manner that gives me sufficient reason to doubt my analysis. You are invited to provide such reasons ( not simple disagreement or proclamations to the contrary ) at any time.

Again, these are in the order of observations, with no specific overall critique - draw your own conclusions or draw none. I chalk it up to no ill-will or particular intention on your part, so I will let it go as a "personality" difference and perhaps very different motivations for coming to the threads - that I have found it very frustrating to deal with you in this particular format. All I know about you are your posts so I make no further assumptions about you personally and wish you well as you pursue this topic further.

Absolutely no Ill will on my part here smcder. However I'll agree there has been frustration, and that is to be expected in this topic. It's not easy. It's not always fun. In fact it's damn hard for someone like me who is no genius and has to break everything down into small bits to make sure I'm not making some unfounded assumption. But at least I try, so when I see an issue with someone else's interpretation, it's not because I haven't made an effort, and I don't expect for questions to be deflected with personal comebacks. Perhaps standing my ground on that makes it even more frustrating for others, but again, if they can't stay focused on the topic and provide relevant counterpoint, I see that less as my problem and more as theirs, and I make no apology for that.

 

[Constance]

I had written: "Once again you limit future inquiry here to your presuppositions about what can be considered 'truth'. You shear off half the world of human experience as irrelevant to the human pursuit of truth. And then restrict what we can permissibly say about that broad spectrum of experience to one theory of truth that you find acceptable. This is genuinely absurd."

There's ... nothing absurd about keeping discussion threads on topic or expecting a response that addresses the content of a post rather than the poster.

It's not about you, ufology; it's about your controlling style and methods in this thread. These are not what is 'absurd', though they are stifling and even suffocating and often offensive. What was 'absurd' was expecting that a few message board posts {you suggested merely a 'paragraph'} could provide a phenomenological analysis of thousands of years of occult experience and writing grounded in Eastern philosophy, spirituality, and mysticism.

Would it have really been so hard for you to provide a paragraph on how the occult relates to phenomenology in a way that reveals some truth about the unexplained? What is so terribly unreasonable about that suggestion? It's in harmony with the thread's topic and your seemingly self-proclaimed understanding of phenomenology. Plus you appeared to be interested in exploring Tyger's perspective. So really, can you explain what the problem with that is without once again deflecting undeserved blame or focus onto me? Is it so hard to address the issue rather than finding some way to be critical of the poster?

My impression is that you attempt to control not only the subject matter to be discussed here but the ways in which it is permissible to discuss it. Like Steve and Tyger, I can't work under these conditions. Like Steve and Tyger, I also wish you well and expect that there will be other opportunities to interact with you more comfortably and productively in other Paracast threads.

 

[Randall]

It's not about you, ufology; it's about your controlling style and methods in this thread ...

Constance, in case you haven't noticed, you're the one who's making this all about me, and I'm the one trying to keep the thread on topic and non-personal.

 

[Constance]

Whatever you prefer to think is fine with me.

 

[Randall]

David Chalmers On Emergence
Weak and Strong Emergence Explained

 

[Randall]

Regarding Chalmers on Emergence VIDEO ABOVE :

Chalmers seems fairly cool, like some kind of 70s Rock God of Philosophy, though Chalmers seems to have more substance ( than most rock gods ). However I still see some problems with the content of this particular video:

1:00 | Chalmers starts out saying that emergence covers a "multitude of sins", but doesn't give us a multitude of examples. He uses the single example of consciousness, and fails to demonstrate how it's a "sin" to say that consciousness is an emergent property. What he does instead is divide the issue up into the classes of "weak emergence" and "strong emergence" and drops consciousness onto the "strong" side. This is remarkably similar to what we see done with the so-called "easy problem" and "hard problem" of consciousness, and once we start to get used to this strategy, we also start to see the problems with it. In a nutshell, the so called easy problems were once hard problems until science and critical thinking came along and solved them. Prior to that, the claims were consistently made along the way that science and critical thinking cannot explain these things because they belong to some sort of occult knowledge. On that note, perhaps it's fitting that Chalmers then invokes a special kind of demon ...

2:40 | Chalmers uses Laplace's Demon to illustrate his position on strong emergence, however imaginary demons are not evidence in support of a theory. At best this is a sort of "weak version" of a thought experiment.

3:20 | He goes on to say that the demon would have no reason to predict that consciousness should emerge at all. However there are problems with this assertion. The first is that Laplace's demon is nothing more than a red herring. It is interesting to contemplate, but in that moment of contemplation our focus is deflected from the fact that we have every reason to believe that consciousness will emerge from the precise organization of materials, and what's more, we and our children are the living proof. We've tracked the material development of human life from prior to conception, through the entire life cycle and the evidence from billions of people is that after about 9 months enough material has formed to give birth to a new human life that grows into an adult with it's own consciousness. We don't need a hypothetical demon to distract us from that fact.

3:25 | When asked if there is anything else in the category of strong emergence other than consciousness, Chalmers maintains that, "the only case of strong emergence that we know about is consciousness.". So much for the multitude of sins. Chalmers seems to have no problem with weak emergence, and consciousness is the only example of strong emergence that he can think of. So I'd say that we've now clearly established that "multitude" is an exaggeration designed to marginalize the idea of emergence from the get-go. In fact, it seems that the intent of this video may have been to do just that from the very start.

Nevertheless I will do Chalmers the favor of pointing out that according to the criteria he gives in the video for identifying strong emergence, the phenomenon of magnetism also fits perfectly well. Assuming we had no prior knowledge of electromagnetism, there would be no reason to suspect that if we wrap a wire around a nail and hook it up to a battery that this thing called magnetism should emerge. I've covered this particular example of emergence at some length in previous posts and correlated it to EM fields in the brain, and it turns out I'm not alone in thinking that this may be a clue for further inquiry.

There is a rebuttal in the video to at least one of the points I've made above, but I'll leave that open for further discussion for anyone else who may be interested ( everyone else seems to have run off ) .

 

[Randall]

TASTE - The Archive of Scientist's Transcendent Experiences

The TASTE website is analogous to the NARCAP website, except that instead of UFOs, the subject matter is transcendent experience. It is sponsored by the Institute for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, which appears to be a website dedicated to "spiritual science". This pinged my skeptometer into the yellow, but the idea that scientists should have a place to anonymously share their transcendent experiences is still interesting and it is directly related to the topic of this thread ( Philosophy, Science, and The Unexplained ). Unfortunately the site isn't well maintained, but there are a few experiences recorded in the archive, and below is an excerpt from one such experience by a scientist with a Ph.D. neurophysiology who worked as a Senior Research Fellow in various research institutions:

"... I reached the top and sat down to recover. My mind was totally blank. After a while I realized that I had expanded. I was no longer a small discrete consciousness located in my head - I encompassed the whole valley. I was HUGE. I was part of everything - or rather everything was part of me. I was ancient and unbelievably powerful. It was wonderful ..."
​

Comments?

 

[Randall]

ALL from Vallee are worth reading.Van Lommel is a cardiologist who heard these stories from his patients.In his book he investigates this phenomenon on a scientific basis.He did this in Holland and so i saw him in several radio and tv programs talking about his study. It's allways the same with his opponents/doctors :'This can't be true , so it is not true' is all they can say : pathetic.

I was introduced to Van Lommel's works earlier this year and subsequently did some digging through it, and there are problems with the assumptions made in support of the conclusions suggested. For example, the assumption is that people are experiencing consciousness during cardiac arrest, but that isn't substantiated. The evidence is only that upon being revived, the patient claims to possess a memory of having been conscious during cardiac arrest, the key here being that a memory isn't the same as a real time experience. There is to date, no substantial evidence that these memories represent a real-time experience.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

My philosophy regarding UFO's and consciousness these days...K.I.S.S. If reality is beyond perception of my five senses, who cares? Reality is as simple as I perceive it, but I'm not so arrogant as to assume that my consciousness or awareness create the universe around me. That belief by some modern physicists is utterly ridiculous.

Just my humble 2 cents.

J.

 

[Randall]

My philosophy regarding UFO's and consciousness these days...K.I.S.S. If reality is beyond perception of my five senses, who cares? Reality is as simple as I perceive it, but I'm not so arrogant as to assume that my consciousness or awareness create the universe around me. That belief by some modern physicists is utterly ridiculous.

Just my humble 2 cents.

J.

Certainly not our consciousness alone, which is what a certain segment of the New Agey mystic occultists would have us believe. Even if our consciousness were connected to some larger system that could do our bidding and manifest things out of thin air, our consciousness alone wouldn't be the sole causal mechanism. In fact, it would be a minor part in the overall workings of such a system.

 

[Randall]

Philosophy & Mortality​

​

 

[Randall]

There's an interesting bit in the video above related to something @smcder brought up a while back about the status of a person who is downloaded to a chip. I like Ian's response, and I disagree with the view of the guest who says, "That's definitely me." The segment starts in at about: 0:14:35

 

[Randall]

John Searle - Philosophy of Language

 

[Randall]

This is a good blog and podcast on philosophy:
The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog
I'm listening to this episode on Karl Popper (falisifiability and epistemology) now:
Topic for #82: Karl Popper on Scientific Method | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog
Popper was writing in response to the Logical Positivists and argued that "epistemological optimism" (that there is something that we can know and that there is this iron clad, concrete way of getting at it) and “epistemological pessimism” (we can't know anything) are extremes along on a continuum, both of which ultimately justify political stances.
In The Open Society and Its Enemies, part of Popper’s agenda is to talk about how science progresses and the value of philosophy in a way that encourages us not to think in absolutes about knowledge and its foundations, about absolutist systems of epistemology because these can contribute to a point of view that can lead to totalitarianism.
Popper recognizes the anti-authoritarianism in Descartes and Bacon – as they were reacting to a totalitarian regime in their time - so that by pointing to science, they were pointing to a way to show that the conclusions of this regime are deeply flawed and that that knowledge is accessible to everybody . . . epistemological optimism was a foundation of liberalism, but it ultimately takes you to a new kind of authoritarianism. Descartes' and Bacon's version of induction substituted one kind of divine criteria for another.

Question: If Rawls' statement, "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions as truth is of systems of thought." then by extension, if we base justice on systems of thought that cannot be substantiated as true ( e.g. religion, mysticism, the supernatural etc. ), are we not discarding the "first virtue" of our social institutions? Is it truly justice to replace truth with unsubstantiated belief as a model for society? I would submit that the answer is, "No." However would it not be equally as unjust to create laws banning the exploration of such topics? I would submit that the answer depends on the conditions. For example it might be justifiable to ban religious indoctrination in schools, but not justifiable to ban the sale of bibles for private use. So how does this idea of justice distill down from a seemingly good model of justice for all, to justice for some in some cases, but not others? Is there something "unjust" about exposing children to the unexplained before they have developed proper critical thinking skills?

 

[Randall]

Ufology & The Occult

 

[Randall]

Consciousness Influencing Probability?

 

[Randall]

Skepticism & Critical Thinking Regarding the Supernatural

 

[Randall]

More On The Benefits of Critical Thinking