Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[Randall]

Here is David Harriman's lecture series The Philosophic Corruption of Physics.
The only place I have found it for free is inside episode 63 of the Peace Revolution Podcast.
http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/ent...5_48-07_00
Lectures begin right after Jack Blood at 1h21m. End at 7h33m. Aye Caramba!

Took me a week to finish, but was worth it.
Direct MP3 link (312 MB): http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/enc...-07_00.mp3

I've just started in on the above podcast, and it's very appropriate to the subject matter of this thread. There is also a lot to sift through, and I've only heard a few things so far that I would question. One is that the assertion was made that the universe is intelligent, another is that in physics observation changes the outcome of an experiment, and the other is that we shouldn't entertain debates on hypotheses. However I'm reserving judgement on those comments until I've listened to the whole thing. This delay brings into focus another issue that bothers me, and that is the non-interactive mass loading of information. It's easy to drone on and on and on and sneak in these little gems that due to the format automatically go unchallenged.

 

[Randall]

Please note that I moved my response to this thread because of the scientific nature of the experiment and the ramifications which can be discussed in an armchair philosophy type of manner as they relate to the unexplained, and not simply the paranormal. I hope you don't mind.

... The problem with this event as this article explores is that our intelligence can be tricked on a high order pretty quickly and allow for out bodies to accept new sensory experiences in an out of body manner. In my case i actually felt like i touched something that was not there but touched it nonetheless. Our perceptual apparatus is pretty slippery at best and confuses the intellect easily.

I wouldn't agree that our perceptual apparatus "confuses the intellect", or that it's "pretty slippery". After all, it's the intellect that informs us that what we're perceiving is an illusion, and unless the circumstances are just right, we perceive what is going on with reasonable accuracy. If anything, such experiments are exceptions to the rule, not the norm, but skeptics have a way of leveraging their shock-value to those unfamiliar with them to suggest that humans ( especially those who have had some unexplained experience ) are just a bunch of frail minded nincompoops prone to fantasy and wishful thinking. Note however, that I'm not suggesting that you are such a skeptic, and that I do find these exceptions to be interesting. Bringing them to our attention was a good idea .

 

[Burnt State]

My impression during the interviews with the doctors carrying out the experiments was not that it was the exception at all. On the contrary it seemed that people of all stripes appeared to be easily susceptible to the process of confusing our conscious perception of ourselves. The article cited gives a thorough look at what is happening in the grey matter specifically to produce these results if you're interested from your own armchair to look at it. I think there are some interesting implications about perceived reality, sensory experience and consciousness. Magicians show us and convince us of our slippery perception of reality all the time & no real amount of intellect seems to help in those situations either. The mind is easily distracted and manipulated. Think phantom limb pain - does the intellect help with that?

I'm also not sure what skepticism has to do with any of this. It's not being leveraged by any nincompoop skeptics I know of / it just appears to be a hot topic in neural science at the moment, albeit a 'showy' one at that.

 

[trainedobserver]

I think the take-away is that the human central nervous system is not a WYSIWYG interface with the real world that is outside of the skull.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I think the take-away is that the human central nervous system is not a WYSIWYG interface with the real world that is outside of the skull.

Wouldn't it be something if we discovered that the human central nervous system merely aided the experience being generated by consciousness? That which gives us the illusion of tactility.

 

[Randall]

My impression during the interviews with the doctors carrying out the experiments was not that it was the exception at all.

I wasn't suggesting that trickery applies only to those few exceptional few who are susceptible, but that the circumstances in life in general are such that the specific factors that allow for such trickery to all come together naturally is the exception. If it weren't, then we would never have survived long enough to evolve because we'd constantly be perceiving the world in error and walking off cliffs or failing to discern the predators trying to eat us from safer prey.

The last time I recall a natural perceptual illusion that made me think something other than what was happening was going on was over couple of years ago when I experienced that sensation of movement that occurs sometimes when you are sitting in a stopped vehicle and the one next to you rolls backward a bit, causing the illusion that it's your car that's moving forward. I actually pressed down on the brake a little harder. Nevertheless, I realized almost immediately what was going on. These kinds of experiences are by far the exception, not the rule. If however they are the norm for you, then you might want to consider volunteering for some kind of study.

On the contrary it seemed that people of all stripes appeared to be easily susceptible to the process of confusing our conscious perception of ourselves.

I think we've already cleared up the issue of susceptibility to deliberate deception versus the infrequent natural illusion above. However let's also note that not everyone is equally susceptible and we are also fairly quick to realize that what is happening is actually illusory.

I'm also not sure what skepticism has to do with any of this. It's not being leveraged by any nincompoop skeptics I know of / it just appears to be a hot topic in neural science at the moment, albeit a 'showy' one at that.

It's been my experience that skeptics will sometimes use such examples to justify their position that humans in general are incompetent nincompoops that are so unreliable that the descriptions of their experiences are useless for making reasonable decisions. I'm not suggesting skeptics themselves are nincompoops, or that you are among them yourself.

 

[Randall]

I think the take-away is that the human central nervous system is not a WYSIWYG interface with the real world that is outside of the skull.

That's an interesting analogy. We certainly aren't experiencing objective reality in a direct 1 to 1 fashion. Is all abstracted, but in a way that still relays information that is useful in navigating that reality.

 

[Randall]

Wouldn't it be something if we discovered that the human central nervous system merely aided the experience being generated by consciousness? That which gives us the illusion of tactility.

Depending on how we look at your idea above, I think we can safely deduce that that is exactly what the central nervous system is doing.

 

[Burnt State]

It's been my experience that skeptics will sometimes use such examples to justify their position that humans in general are incompetent nincompoops that are so unreliable that the descriptions of their experiences are useless for making reasonable decisions. I'm not suggesting skeptics themselves are nincompoops, or that you are among them yourself.

No, that's not what I'm referring to, or that we shoud discount everything that people describe when they've experienced a 'unique' event. But because sensory perception can be manipulated, is going to conspire to create an 'accurate' sensory perception during these unique moments, based on what we are familiar with & what we expect, that what is being reported may simply not be entirely accurate at all. It doesn't mean we're all going to drive off cliffs like lemmings; it means that a lot of detail, during heightened moments, or even better, in moments of pure confusion, is going to be missing entirely.

People believe what they recall seeing. If it is a strange thing, something completely new, then what they actually did see may be something else altogether. That gap is where i see a couple of things happening: 1) people see and experience culturally relative imagery and 2) when people are unable to accurately find words to describe or name what actually happened then interpretations will be faulty; because, more familiar imagery and words may be used to help explain an inexplicable experience.

I'm not implying that nothing amazing happened, just that whatever the stimulus was in these 'odd' reports that a lot of inaccuracy is bound to be involved because of how our perceptual apparatus actually works.

 

[RU_Insane]

There are many angles where you can attack Plantinga's statements.

Okay, "Belief in God is only rational if it is true". There are rational beliefs which aren't true, if only because we don't have the relevant information to process the belief. Is believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth irrational, if we had no further information about the Earth's orbit?

Secondly, it presupposes that the existence of God can be known. We can't know if God exists, so it can't be a true or false belief. We don't have enough information to make that judgement. And if we were to die, and confirm that He exists, how would we reliably communicate that information down to Earth-bound humans? We can't.

And supposing He does exist, then why is He undetectable? There's no compelling reason to suppose His existence. Occam's Razor--in the absence of further information, you accept the hypothesis with the least assumptions.

These are my default arguments on the topic. I don't see how the matter could go further. There are of course theological issues, but that's a separate topic.

 

[smcder]

Plantinga: Religious Belief as 'Properly Basic'[/url]

 

[RU_Insane]

Yeah, I know he's not offering proof. I'm arguing that the matter is inherently undecidable. We can certainly have a belief, but it wouldn't mean much.

 

[smcder]

Yeah, I know he's not offering proof. I'm arguing that the matter is inherently undecidable. We can certainly have a belief, but it wouldn't mean much.

I'm not sure what happened to my post . . . I edited it a couple of times and now can't see it - but maybe it's there or will show up . . . anyway, this is a good place to start (in addition to reading the paper it refers to):

Plantinga: Religious Belief as 'Properly Basic'

 

[RU_Insane]

I think a belief in God can be reasonable insofar as it's logically supported (the same can be said for just about any idea), but whether that belief represents reality, then I'm afraid it's undecidable. I can't wrap my head around Platinga's ideas at the moment.

 

[smcder]

I think a belief in God can be reasonable insofar as it's logically supported (the same can be said for just about any idea), but whether that belief represents reality, then I'm afraid it's undecidable. I can't wrap my head around Platinga's ideas at the moment.

Actually, he also deals with whether or not the same applies to just any idea . . .

The Great Pumpkin Objection

. . . but yes, he's pretty challenging and it takes some time to understand his arguments.

 

[RU_Insane]

It seems he's reinterpreting philosophical issues to shoehorn his belief in God. I see no distinction between God and the Great Pumpkin, even if one is "properly basic". There's no reason to attribute a religious experience to God's existence (i.e. his grounds for existing). One has been socially conditioned to suppose that a real experience (in terms of sensory perception) has some metaphysical, divine meaning.

People often over-attribute agency to inanimate objects when filtering data. Religious beliefs itself may have evolved out of small social tribes as an adaptation to foster co-operation between individuals, before humans transitioned to the agrarian stage. The author of one paper (can't remember) cites one experiment where participants were asked to observe two magnetic spheres interacting, and write down their reactions. Responses varied from "Oh, they're [the spheres] are kissing!", "They're dancing," and so forth. Of course, the spheres aren't really dancing. This is just our brain filtering data; it's organizing specific events so that we can relate to them on some level. The authors found that a similar mechanism may be responsible for the social origins of religion. This might be the paper I'm referring to: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/BIOT_a_00018.pdf

 

[Randall]

No, that's not what I'm referring to, or that we shoud discount everything that people describe when they've experienced a 'unique' event. But because sensory perception can be manipulated, is going to conspire to create an 'accurate' sensory perception during these unique moments, based on what we are familiar with & what we expect, that what is being reported may simply not be entirely accurate at all.

Maybe sometimes in certain situations, but as mentioned before, even when our perceptual filters mislead us, we still have intellectual filters and error checking that rarely leaves us under a false perception for long. For example magic tricks rely on slight of hand combined with intentional deception and misdirection.

The illusion takes place in a series of small fast sequences designed with years of care and attention. New and unfamiliar naturally occurring situations cannot be reasonably compared to that level of sophistication. In fact, humans excel at navigating new and unfamiliar situations better than anything else on the planet I can think of at the moment.

It doesn't mean we're all going to drive off cliffs like lemmings; it means that a lot of detail, during heightened moments, or even better, in moments of pure confusion, is going to be missing entirely.

Agreed. But just how much detail to we need to be reasonably sure that our experience can be classed one way or another? For example, do we really need to know the precise make and model of an automobile along with every detail about its color, brand of tires, license plate number, number of doors, the current date and time, and so on to be reasonably sure that when we see a red car drive by, you can say with confidence that it was indeed a red car, not a boat, not an airplane, not a pickup truck, and so on?

The answer to the above is : Of course we can. Similarly we can differentiate familiar objects from unfamiliar ones, and with only a little more effort determine with reasonable certainty what class of objects unfamiliar things belong to, and from there do a little research to determine whether or not whatever it was that was observed could reasonably be included in that class of objects.

People believe what they recall seeing. If it is a strange thing, something completely new, then what they actually did see may be something else altogether. That gap is where i see a couple of things happening: 1) people see and experience culturally relative imagery and 2) when people are unable to accurately find words to describe or name what actually happened then interpretations will be faulty; because, more familiar imagery and words may be used to help explain an inexplicable experience.

Sure, some people might jump to some unsupported conclusion or another, but it's been my experience in ufology that more often than not people simply describe what they saw and don't claim to know what it was.

I'm not implying that nothing amazing happened, just that whatever the stimulus was in these 'odd' reports that a lot of inaccuracy is bound to be involved because of how our perceptual apparatus actually works.

I think that we need to be aware of the limitations you are concerned about and do our best to separate the signal from the noise without making presumptions that such experiences should be simply dismissed because of the possibility of misperception and biased interpretation.

 

[smcder]

It seems he's reinterpreting philosophical issues to shoehorn his belief in God. I see no distinction between God and the Great Pumpkin, even if one is "properly basic". There's no reason to attribute a religious experience to God's existence (i.e. his grounds for existing). One has been socially conditioned to suppose that a real experience (in terms of sensory perception) has some metaphysical, divine meaning.

Social conditioning cuts both (and all) ways. If you haven't read the link above in its entirety and the paper by Plantinga that it refers to about belief being properly basic - (if you've only read the bit about the pumpkin) then it's just possible you've missed something ;-) but it's not a big deal - the thread started with Plantinga and moved on to many other issues that are just as interesting. But if you do want to go through those papers and discuss them, let me know - I'd enjoy re-reading them some time and having someone to talk about it with.

 

[RU_Insane]

I edited my last post to include extra info. I know I arrived late to the thread--I just wanted to contribute.

 

[Burnt State]

New and unfamiliar naturally occurring situations cannot be reasonably compared to that level of sophistication. In fact, humans excel at navigating new and unfamiliar situations better than anything else on the planet I can think of at the moment.
...
I think that we need to be aware of the limitations you are concerned about and do our best to separate the signal from the noise without making presumptions that such experiences should be simply dismissed because of the possibility of misperception and biased interpretation.

I'm not sure how you would measure our skills at navigating new situations vs. a dog's or a shark's. Our fight, flight or stand still like a deer caught in the headlights response is also an automatic response. Everything may feel like consciousness is running the show but i suspect that's just a small piece of our day to day processing.

Again, I never said that anything should be dismissed, simply that the accuracy of what that strange object/occupant was, is really open to debate and its actuality is translated by a complex process involving both socializing influences as well as physiological ones that interpret what is there. Some may be accurate and some may describe a floating teapot in the sky because that's the limitation of our senses and what informs their renderings. The person standing right beside them may see a lampshade instead. Some of these really bizarre stories of ufo's, for example, shake down with confused reports by mutiple witnesses of the same sightings, or others where some people see floatings discs and others see a just normal blue sky. Perhaps our physiological limits play a role in these cases?