• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

henris42

Skilled Investigator
This is all very curious. But, if the phenoma is caused only by conciousness - why the photo and physical evidence?

The fact that there is real evidence, I'm not that fancy on all this co-creation conciousness stuff. The answer just cannot be that simple. My take is that there are actually many, many phenomenons. Maybe some of them are real, maybe some not.

That would also mean that there is simply not one answer. We probably cannot simply conceive the intricacies of the universe.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
This is all very curious. But, if the phenomena is caused only by consciousness - why the photo and physical evidence?
I guess it depends on what phenomena exactly we're referring to. Certainly the phenomena we call qualia are a product of consciousness. I'm not so sure about "physical evidence", because there's no way to be sure it's not also something subjective. However, personally, my views tend to fall into the general category of metaphysical realism as outlined here: Challenges to Metaphysical Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The fact that there is real evidence, I'm not that fancy on all this co-creation consciousness stuff. The answer just cannot be that simple. My take is that there are actually many, many phenomenons. Maybe some of them are real, maybe some not.
I guess that depends on how we define "real". If by "real" we mean that which exists, then surely the images we see in our dreams are real images. However the objects that those images represent, may or may not correspond to objects outside our dreams. So reality can be subjective or objective or a combination of both.
That would also mean that there is simply not one answer. We probably cannot simply conceive the intricacies of the universe.
The older I get, the more I tend to share that sentiment.
 
Last edited:

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Correlation & Causation

We sometimes hear the argument that correlation doesn't imply causation. However, if we're using the primary definition of "imply", meaning to "suggest" ( as opposed to "equate to" ) then this addage is false. More correctly, correlation doesn't equal causation. However when one considers the standards by which we attribute causes and effects, correlation can certainly imply causation, especially when it is supported by a statistical model based on repeated observation.

Part of the reasoning for this is that all causes and effects are 100% correlative, and in science, when something is directly correlative in all cases where it is tested, it is not simply dismissed as sheer coincidence. It is also as much a logical fallacy to conclude that because causation hasn't been proven, that the correlation implies something else is the cause.

In fact, when correlations under controlled circumstances are the same 100% of the time, there is a very strong scientific argument for causation. With respect to brain states and mental states, the following paper covers this debate in some further detail and should be required reading for anyone wanting to take sides on this particular issue.

Cognitive Neuroscience and Causal Inference: Implications for Psychiatry
 

Jenny Chan

Skilled Investigator
Possibly related: Robert Lanza's biocentrism explains how the universe is created by life, and even that the universe is in our heads.

 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Possibly related: Robert Lanza's biocentrism explains how the universe is created by life, and even that the universe is in our heads.

The problem I see with biocentrism, or at least the kind of biocentrism that postulates that minds came before the universe, is that it is essentially the same as subjective idealism, which although impossible to disprove, seems very unlikely to me due to the vast numbers of illusions and logical inconsistencies that would require faith in order to accept.

One of the simplest of these is that the cosmological evidence suggests that biological life happened in only a tiny fraction of the timespan of the universe. If that is true, and there were no biological minds prior to this small fraction of time, are we supposed to believe that this cosmological evidence is all just a trick of our minds?

This is illustrated in the Cosmic Calendar, illustrated here by Carl Sagan.


Then again: What if we're living in a Matrix?​
 
Last edited:

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Old news now but worthy of mention:

PaulKeneddy-01b.pngVoice of IDEAS Paul Kennedy retires after 40 years with the CBC


'IDEAS gave me an education of the highest degree'

It's rare for someone to combine the roles of both host and producer, but Paul is celebrated for both. As his colleagues will attest, Paul Kennedy is down to earth and approachable, eager to understand and prioritize the thinking of everyone he speaks with.

He sees himself primarily as a storyteller, and has a rare gift for engaging listeners profoundly."
 
Last edited:

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Should We Widen Our Perspective on What Constitutes Life?

Here's a topic that came to mind when @marduk brought-up Nick Redfern's recent book The Martians for which he has some seemingly very different perspectives than Redfern. I suspect we'd be much in agreement on most points, and in the end find that seemingly contradictory perspectives on the small scale merge into a more coherent bigger picture.

Moving in this direction it occurred to me that we'd probably agree on virtually every fact about the situation up to some point. One of the first logical points of divergence could be where we advocate differing positions about this question:

QUESTION: Are the very interesting artifacts on Mars that Nick refers to:​
  1. Natural?
  2. Engineered?
  3. Alive?
Here we'd have to decide what those words mean. I think we'd probably agree on all of them up to a point. Maybe another question will materialize, like: What if the interesting artifacts on Mars that Nick refers to aren't life in the way we normally think of it, but might come very close or even qualify as life under a different point of view?

Then we'd have to look at an example, and I might pick the artifacts that look like photos of groves of trees taken from some distance above. And that's when things could get really interesting. Let's go along with the position that these artifacts are nothing more than materials native to the planet that have formed according to the rules of nature, into shapes that look surprisingly like trees.

Can we not make the same claims about ourselves? Are we not made out of materials native to our planet? Have these materials not formed themselves according to the rules of nature into shapes surprisingly like humans? Perhaps some things we might assume to be inanimate, can legitimately be considered life if we widen our perspective?
 
Last edited:

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
A Second Loophole That Allows For Afterlives ( Sort Of )

During The January 10th 2021 interview with futurist Gray Scott, we covered the idea of afterlives in the context of a Matrix-like universe, and Gray pointed out how computer game characters can re-spawn ( come back to life in a game ). This is analogous to the first loophole, where it is possible that an exact duplicate of ourselves is reborn into another universe.

During this discussion it occurred to me that a more accurate analogy would be to look at afterlives as changing game levels. In other words, if the physical universe as we experience it, including our bodies, landscape, and everything else, is a manifestation of some vastly powerful universe maker, then rather than reconstituting us from a backup after we die, it could surround our existing consciousness with another universe.

To those in the universe being replaced, it would appear to be identical to the death of the individual. This loophole, facilitates continuity of consciousness. I presently doubt that either loophole is the case, but I can't think of any reason that prevents them from being possible. This loophole also doesn't solve a number of issues with continuity of personality or identity, so it's far from a perfect solution.
 
Last edited:

Top