Bravo. I once saw a science book for children called The Big Book of Why. Wrong!--I remember thinking--Science is The Big Book of How. Why can be quite another matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Bravo. I once saw a science book for children called The Big Book of Why. Wrong!--I remember thinking--Science is The Big Book of How. Why can be quite another matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I take your point and its true that the Marsh can be misty but not on that night. It was a crystal clear night with a three quarter moon and any mist would have been reflected back because the car headlights were at full beam.
I spoke to my wife who said that if her side window had been open she could have put her hand out and touched the figure, she was that close to it, so there was no way it could have been a mist.
About 15 miles from where I live is Dover Castle which stands high on the white cliffs above the port and town of Dover. The largest castle in Britain; it was originally built a thousand years ago and was added to over the centuries to defend the shortest gateway to the realm.
If you are looking for Walt Disney palaces and pretty turrets from where Rapunzel dangled down her golden locks, walk on by, Dover castle wasn’t built for fairy tales, it was built for business.
Underneath this fortress are maze of tunnels the latest of which where dug just before WW2. Deep down remains a command post, a hospital, canteens sleeping quarters and a telephone switchboard all now open to the public on guided tours. From time to time visitors experience strange events in these tunnels. The most disturbing to date was a Dutch lady in a group of tourists who later said she moved to one side to let a man in uniform walk round her when he walked straight through her. She was taken to hospital in a traumatic fit.
Thanks Paul. Not believing in ghosts doesn't make one closed-minded any more than it does credulous. And apparently (based on my experience), it doesn't even stop them from messing with you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
That is something you often hear religious apologists say about miracles: that they are one-time events or that they are inherently outside of natural science. I know what they mean, I suppose, but as an argument, I don't find it very convincing. In fact, it's a tautology: it's just saying that the supernatural is supernatural or the miraculous is miraculous. It doesn't advance the argument that either the supernatural or the miraculous actually exist. So science can comment inasmuch as it can say No, I'm sorry, that won't quite cut the mustard. But of course science remains open to new data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Well let me put it this way: I'm glad that Pendragon and Carousel are thinking of their ghosts (a Confederate soldier and a mysterious robed figure, respectively) as time anomalies, because otherwise we would need to address the troubling issue of whether they were wearing the ghosts of their respective uniform and robe. At a certain point, it's time for string theory. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
No I am not talking of ghosts in the literal sense of the word those who experience a time slip are witnessing a real event of the past much like a replayed scene for an old movie as an intruder. Doing a bit of research in the subject I’ve found that the time slip for the majority is very short no more than a few minutes while a few are longer.
The one who is in a time slip can see and some can hear but is in the roll of an invisible observer. What they see is nearly always mundane, people and traffic pass by, workers in fields, just folks going about their normal lives.
A more interesting account concerned a young apprentice plumber by the name of Harry Martindale. I haven’t the time to spend in writing the account myself but here is one I downloaded.
It was 1953, and the Treasurer’s House was having modern central heating installed. Harry was tasked with checking over the joints of pipes installed by his more experienced colleagues, which was why he went down into the cellar - alone.
Harry was intent on his work when the incident began. He was up a short ladder so that he could check piping that was running along just below the cellar ceiling. He heard a muffled trumpet blast, but took no notice. He thought perhaps a band was nearby practising. The trumpet came again, nearer this time. Again Harry ignored it. Then a horse stepped out of the solid wall right in front of Harry’s eyes. Thunderstruck and terrified in equal measure, Harry fell off his ladder and tumbled to the floor. As he scrambled to get away from the figure of the horse, Harry could not tear his eyes from the apparition.
The horse continued to emerge from the wall into the cellar. On its back was a man in a long cloak and a helmet with a feather crest on it. Behind the horseman came a dozen or more men on foot. As Harry gradually recovered from his shock, he was deeply relieved to see that the ghosts paid him not the slightest bit of attention but marched on as if he were not there. The men on foot carried large, round shields with long spears slung over their shoulders and short swords hanging from their belts. They had what looked like kilts, dyed a dark green colour, and mail shirts. One of them carried a trumpet that was long, straight and battered as if from long years of hard use.
As the men marched across the cellar, Harry realised that he could not see them from the knees downward. Then the horsemen came to a spot where a hole had been dug into the floor. Harry could now see the horse’s legs almost down to the hooves. They carried shaggy hair around the fetlocks, similar to those on a modern shire horse. As the men on foot passed the hole, Harry could see their legs down to the ankles. They were wearing leather sandals attached by straps that ran criss-cross fashion up to the knees. The men marched on, giving out an aura of dejection and despondency, until they vanished into the wall opposite.
Excavations have shown that a Roman road runs underneath the Treasurer’s House leading from what had been a gate in the fortress walls to the east toward the headquarters building that stood where the Minster nave is now. The ghosts follow the route of this former road precisely. Even more interestingly, the surface of the road is about 18 inches below the cellar floor, and some three inches lower than the bottom of the hole that was there in Harry’s day. The ghosts are, of course, seen only from the knees up so it would seem that they are marching along the surface of the old road that existed when they were alive.
My point exactly. You're going to do better with that sort of thing than trying to explain how dead souls are wearing the ghosts of their clothes (especially if Grannie's nighty is still in the closet). Time slips get mixed reviews these days--apparently the original claim of two 20th century English academics that at least one of them had chanced upon Marie Antoinette near Versailles during a trip to France turns out to have been considerably embellished after their own research into "things they couldn't possibly have known at the time."
From the Museum of Hoaxes website:
The most damaging analysis of their claims appeared in 1950, written by W.H. Salter. Salter concluded, based upon a close review of Jourdain and Moberly's correspondence with the Society for Psychical Research, that many details included in the accounts they had (supposedly) written in 1901 had actually been added at a much later date, in 1906, after the women had conducted extensive historical research. This discovery cast serious doubt upon their claims, because their entire case had rested upon the impossibility of the two of them, in 1901, being able to give an accurate description of 1789 Versailles.
And as far as Harry Martindale goes, anecdotal evidence about seeing ancient Romans--not even reported until 20 years after the alleged event--only gets you so far. But time travel, parallel universes, the multiverse--there may not be a shred non-theoretical evidence for any of them, but they're all way better than ghosts. And the multiverse may even be real. :)
It depends on what you want to believe. I am pretty sure there is a "multiverse" because our universe had a beginning and I assume that beginning was not a unique event. I don't see why those other universes would be much different from our own. That means I want to believe that events aren't too unique. I like the metaphor of the cosmic egg that hatched into our universe. It is organic rather than mechanical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
However, I think that a "many worlds" multiverse depends on wanting to believe in complete determinism in spite of quantum mechanics insisting that is false. It is too mechanistic for me, so I don't want to believe in mechanistic metaphors. Also time travel depends on time being real and not just changes in position. It implies there is a sort of "block universe" which also implies determinism which doesn't seem organic enough for my taste. So I don't want to believe in it.
I don't mind believing in ghosts. I want to believe that consciousness is primary and even more important than matter, if matter has any substance at all to it after quantum physics got through with it.
I agree with you to the extent that making meaning of our lives is a matter of choosing the things we believe. Personally I don't make those choices based on what I want to believe, but on a number of criteria, including reason, common sense, experience, and various types of knowledge; nor do I imagine that my belief in something in itself makes it so. Like everyone else, I can only do up to my best to understand--and I seldom do that! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I have to confess to being well out of my depth with theoretical physics. After I wrote my response to Carousel, I remembered that according to the mathematical theory of the multiverse (at least as it was spoon fed to me on public television), there can be no intercourse between universes--so that wouldn't account for the sort of time anomaly he is proposing. But you probably know more about it than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Metaphors on the other hand are free. :) But cosmic eggs suggest cosmic chickens, and that puts me in fear of cosmic chicken sh*t. I choose the handsome monkey king's war with Heaven as a metaphor for the human condition, although I don't really get that story's cosmology (stone monkey eggs are just weird).Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
As I said before, I have no faith in the silly things. But your mention of the primacy of consciousness over matter is interesting. There's a book I've been meaning to read called Biocentricity (by the physician who pioneered stem cell science) that sounds remotely similar. I know very little about the subject. Are you familiar with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I guess I fall under the "not in the usual sense" category in that I think there are some phenomena that science cannot (yet) explain.
A few things have happned to me that were unusual, but one stands out far in front of the rest. I lived in Nepal for about two years and among the many friends I made was a man named Musafi. He was a big strong guy, with a prominent mustache, probably in his mid-thirties, and sold meat in a local market. He wasn't among my closest friends, but he was a friend nevertheless. Although I don't remember, at some point I must have given him my home mailing address in the United States.
Some six or seven months after returning to my home in the United States, I had an extremely vivid dream about Musafi. It was like I was looking down at him from the ceiling. He was sitting on a wooden chair in a small jail cell lit by sunlight streaming in from a single barred window near to where I was looking down from. He was writing a letter, and I could read the letter. Although I don't remember every word now (this happened many years ago), the gist was that he was writing a letter to me telling me that he had been arrested for murder and that he was innocent and asking if I could do anything to help him. One of the mnost vivid parts of the dream was the sensation I had that he was writing out of desperation and terror. Then I woke up.
This was in the early 1980s before e-mail and cellphones. It would normally take 10 days to two weeks to send or receive a letter between Nepal and the United States. About two weeks after my dream, I received a letter from Musafi. In it, he told me he had been arrested and was in jail (it said nothing about a murder) and asking if there was anything I could do to help. And there was a definite sense of desperation in the tone of the letter (written in somewhat broken English). Of course, I couldn't do anything to help, and I never answered the letter. But to this day, I am convinced that (given the 12 hour time difference and the fact that I received the letter two weeks later) I actually saw Musafi writing the letter from his jail cell.
I'll relate one more incident, not experienced by me, but by a neighbor of my late aunt. This elderly aunt of mine, who had been sick for many months and who had not been outside of her house in weeks, died in the afternoon in her home. At the funeral home a couple of days later, her neighbor told me that he saw her the evening that she died walking down the road past his house (he didn't know at the time that she had died a couple of hours earlier). He saw her from the window and he remarked to his wife that he was surprised to see Marie walking outside since she had been sick so long. His wife corroborated the story, but it was clear she didn't want him to be talking about it at the funeral home.
I'm actually writing a short story based on this incident and hope to post it on the Forum soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
The whole time slip thing is as speculative as claiming a traditional ghostly prescence don't you think? I feel that given the dominance of the scientific worldview, the idea of a time slip seems to be a more acceptable explanation, whereas there is no more actual evidence for it being the explanation than for a dead person. I put that down to a kind of conditioning - it is deeply - unfashionable is the wrong word- unfashionable to refer to hauntings and ghosts whereas reference to physics, time and scientific sounding theories is ok.
Culturally, that is interesting - I'm not trying to be critical of you here by the way. How could I be - there's no evidence either way for the truth of the matter? I do feel that science - with good reason - has become the default setting. Email's comment about the fog forming shapes is a clear attempt to rationalise a situation for which he couldn't possibly know anything about - especially given that the clearness of the night had already been stated.
The problem it throws up is not that it contradicts earlier beliefs in ghosts for example, but that it might blind or obscure the actual facts of the matter which could be something equally radical and new.
It is a fascinating topic as much for the reactions to it as the possibilities it might present.
My niece's young daughter, about 7 or 8 years old, saw my father, her great-grandfather, walk across the backyard of the house they lived in together shortly after he died. She thought her daughter was delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by 108 fountains
I told her about how I saw my aunt and had a brief mental conversation with her around the time she died. Her boyfriend said he experienced something similar with a grandparent of his.
My niece was at least consistent in receiving all this evidence. She had no problem thinking all three of us were delusional.
Almost everything I might think I know about physics (big bang, many worlds, quantum physics, astronomy) or religion or even literature comes from Lit Net. Someone writes something and I look it up either in the library or on the internet. I'm no expert on any of this, but I figure it doesn't hurt to give my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
So, taking what I have to say with a grain of salt, I think you're right that those many worlds are not able to communicate with each other except when it is convenient for them to do so such as account for the indeterminacy in our world. It is also convenient that you can't see Santa go down the furnace flue to deliver the presents.
After I wrote that about the cosmic egg, I thought that metaphor is probably not good either. It does account for a beginning. One can get a male/female role in place. The female (Shakti, yin) lays the egg that the male (Shiva, yang) fertilizes. But how does the universe continue the process? Does the egg hatch into a Shiva or Shakti?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I probably need a better metaphor.
I'll see if I can find Biocentricity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I've been reading George Berkeley, the 17th century idealistic empiricist. I see him anticipating quantum physics. Consciousness seems so fleeting, like sound, that it doesn't seem as substantial as this computer I'm using right now, but if I understand quantum physics (and I probably don't) there is nothing substantial underlying matter. To assume there is leads to a contradiction. That idea came from Rosenblum and Kuttner's "Quantum Enigma".
Yes, I do. Personally I'm as skeptical of one as the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I agree that there is about as much evidence for time slips as there is for ghosts. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the evidence is of the same inconclusive and unconvincing type: anecdotal. Time slips may also be an example of reification, which means creating or seeming to create the existence of a phenomenon by naming it and treating it as real. But again, I don't know enough about theoretical physics to be sure of that. On the surface, however, it seems less absurd at least than ghosts. Whether that's because of cultural conditioning, as you say, or just because the quantum universe is a zany place, I don't know. But I imagine that's the reason for the prevalence of such stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I'm not so sure about that. The night was clear, but it was night, and night on a marshland at that. There is an interesting psychological phenomenon--more of an optical illusion--called pareidolia, which is the mind's construction of human or human-like forms from random background material (The Virgin Mary on a taco shell, that sort of thing). Some pareidolic images are cartoonish, but others appear virtually photographic. There are scientists who think that pareidolia is an evolutionary vestige of the millions of years that our hominid ancestors needed to be able to detect the faces and forms of predators at night against a topography that aided camouflage (natural selection favoring those who erred on the side of caution over those who erred on the side of "Meh--it's probably just a rock!") Emil can speak for himself about whether he was talking about something like that, but in the meantime, I wouldn't be too dismissive. It's a more likely explanation than a time slips (or ghosts).Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I have an amazing photograph, by the way, that I took in the early 90s at a Taoist/animist (spirit worship) temple in the hills near Taipei. I was in a decrepit and nearly abandoned upper floor of this Temple (I had jumped a chain with a sign telling me not to go up there) and was photographing shrines to various animistic deities, typically with grotesque-looking effigies. One of them featured two small and not terribly scary looking figures; but when I got the pictures back (this was before digital cameras), there was a near-photographic image of a face that resembled pictures of Pan or Satan, over the alter. Its head was tilted back and its eyes seemed to be open in rage. it definitely looked like it didn't like having its picture taken. This was (and is--I still have the picture) a perfect example of a pareidolic face because, even though it looks like a photograph of the devil, you can see the things on the alter that compose it (the eyes, for example, are the heads of the two small effigies). It is also remarkable (from a psycho-neurological perspective) in that the photographic aspect of the image is much more pronounced in the lower to middle part of the face. The horns at the top of the head are obviously from a design on a painted board behind the alter. It's a creepy picture in a way (especially considering the circumstances in which it was taken); but in another way, it's easy to see that the whole thing is an optical illusion.
I have no interest or desire in ‘wanting’ to believe in anything, UFOs, Parallel Universes etc. but when an incident happens to you when there’s no adequate explanation its only natural that you look to make sense of it.
Time Slips are not common in relation to other reported paranormal experiences and differ from the accounts of ghostly witnesses i.e. encounters with the dead, fuzzy images etc, and time Slips are not confined to the past, the can also be glimpses of the future.
So what are the possible explanations, hoaxers, attention seekers, well possible but not probable. If I was going to the trouble to invent a hoax I think I would do a bit better than a two second glimpse of a figure standing on a road and apart from the initial shock many of these slips in time are witnesses to the mundane as I mention before. You don’t get to have a chat with Napoleon or have a front row seat to the battle of Agincourt.
So that leaves hallucinations which are a more probable explanation but then you have to account for two or three individuals that are having the same vision at the same time; which is most improbable.
Of course the existence of slips in time is just speculation and I would have agreed but for my own experience but I suggest they are a more feasible understanding than dead spirits retuning to scare the living daylights out of you.
Well perhaps. Or perhaps Paul's right--maybe time slips only sound less silly than ghosts because they appear to have the trappings of science about them. Do we even know, for example, that time slips are theoretically possible (by which I mean, have they been suggested by the mathematics of theoretical physics)? If not, then count me out. It's bad logic (classic circular thinking) to say that time slips exist because people who have seen revenants (or claim to have seen them) have experienced time slips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carousel
Oh I take it on faith that you're not lying. But I don't agree that many others wouldn't do so--to gain fame, or to feel important, or to believe that they were clever enough to pull one over on the supposedly smart people. And to take the Thomas Ockham approach, lying is the simplest explanation for the presence of ancient Romans in the cellar of the York treasury building ("We've tried sprays, we've tried powders, we just can't get those Romans out!"). It is the most likely explanation by (by far).Quote:
Originally Posted by Carousel
Well to be fair, the original "time slip" allegation (the so-called "Versailles time slip") included a sighting of Marie Antoinette, who may have been worldly but was hardly mundane. But it's not clear to me what mundane features of a story have to do with its veracity. An allegation of ancient Romans walking through walls in 20th century York is about as far-fetched as a 20th century celebrity sighting of Marie Antoinette, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Carousel
Well it doesn't "leave hallucinations" in the sense of hallucinations being the only possible solution besides time slips. But in your case, let's dismiss the idea that you and your wife were hallucinating. I will tell you exactly what I think happened that night, but I want you to understand that no part of it is a criticism of you. As you said, you are merely making meaning from an experience, and of course, you must make that meaning yourself. But here's what I think happened:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carousel
You were driving along Romney Marsh at night when, very suddenly and unexpectedly, in what you have described as "a two second glimpse," you and your wife simultaneously perceived a pareidolic image against the background of moonlight on the marsh. (Paradolia is a scientifically recognized phenomenon while time slips are not; and it was not a "shared hallucination" since any number of people may perceive such images). You pulled your car to a halt, but because it had moved, the the momentary illusion was lost. You saw no one on the marsh because there was no one to be seen. Almost immediately your memory played this dramatic but lightning fast event back for you, as it has many times since. Each time, you have retained not only the memory of the event but your memory of the memory--somewhat embellished by reduplicative error (this is the classic problem with the reliability of eye-witness testimony). At this point, you remember the experience and the image much more distinctly than the sudden two-second illusion that it was, and for which you were completely unprepared.
If we eliminate the possibility of dishonest testimony (which, as I said, I am more than willing to do in this case), then my explanation is far more likely than a time slip. If it is discredited, though, I fear we must fall back on one of two of my alternate hypotheses, both more likely than time slips (or ghosts):
1. The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (who turned out to be a local clergyman, I think)
2. Well, I didn't want to say this before, but it was Christmas Eve... :)
How do we justify that one explanation is "more likely" than another?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
My guess: any ONE SPECIFIC explanation for such an event is exceedingly UNLIKELY. There are thousands of possible explanations -- picking any one of them is merely making a wild guess. Obviously, the more general the explanation (there's a "natural" explanation, for example, as Pompey suggests, but without the specific details he suggests), the more likely it is to be at least somewhat correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
If you dig through all my blither, yes/no, you will find that my criteria for the likelihood of pareidolia over time slips were that time slips have not been demonstrated, nor are they indicated by the mathematics of theoretical physics (but again, if they are, please let me know); whereas pareidolia is a commonly accepted neuro-psychological phenomenon that has been frequently demonstrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
As for the part of my post you quote, my principle was taken from the great John Le Carre, who once wrote: I believe an eleven bus will take me to Hammersmith. I don't believe it's driven by Father Christmas. :)
Pareidolia images relate to seeing faces, objects etc in cloud formations, ink blots, if you look long enough its possible to see The Man in the Moon. The figure we saw that night was standing half in the road, lit by full beam headlights, which makes your explanation seem even less likely than mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Bold Street in Liverpool where bookshops of 1996 change to 1950 clothes shops, both inside and out. That’s one of a hell of a Pareidolia image.
Oh on the contrary, headlights at night create an even more likely scenario for a pareidolic figure. But I have no desire to convince you. As I said before, you're the one who needs to make meaning of your own experience. Once again I wish you all the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carousel
There’s only one way to reach any kind of a definitive conclusion and that is to experience the phenomena yourself, then only to know what it isn’t’ not what it is.
I wonder what a "natural" explanation is. I think it involves explaining the experience (evidence) of ghosts as illusions. The goal of that explanation is to remove the evidence from consideration in determining what reality is about. The key point being to convince oneself that there was nothing conscious out there that generated the experience, because the underlying "natural" belief system assumes that nothing conscious can be out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
So, according to the "natural" explanation, when I saw and talked to my aunt around the time she died, there was no consciousness out there talking to me, but it was all in my mind. No doubt my mind (and I don't mean neurons) was involved in my experience, but how do I know that "natural" explanation is "more likely"? Maybe she was there. She seemed real to me.
The problem is this. Who is more delusional, the one who saw the ghost or the one who refused to believe that the ghost the other person saw was real?
Well, ONE natural explanation to Carousel's experience was "Pareidolia". There are, doubtless, dozens of others. I'm not sure what constitutes a "natural explanation" to talking to one's dying aunt-- but if you knew she was dying, you might have been more likely to think about her, or dream about her, or day dream about her.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
It's a well known fact (or at least a well-established rumor) that no space ships were sighted before the possibility of space travel was established. It's likely that people saw the same things they see today, but interpret them within a conceptual framework with which they feel comfortable.
In general, the "evidence" is something you saw and heard -- to think of it as "evidence of ghosts" involves a conceptual framework that includes ghost stories. Without this framework, you might think of it as evidence of a hallucination, or evidence of something else. "Evidence" is always interpreted. My friend the sasquatch hunter claims he has seen a sasquatch (which is different, because nobody claims sasquatches are supernatural)). He saw it at night, peeking out from behind a tree, from about 50 yards away. Everyone knows that the woods at night are strange places, and we see dozens of things that disquiet us. If we are looking for sasquatches, we might see them.
Of course you don't know if the "natural explanation" is more likely than (what we now see as) a supernatural explanation. However, there are dozens of possible supernatural explanations, just as there are dozens of more natural explanations.
By way of clarification: dreams used to be considered "supernatural". Today, most people accept a more naturalistic explanation of dreams. The dreams are probably much the same as they were in the past; we just think about them in a different way.
My understanding is that a natural explanation is one consistent with naturalism, which is the materialist philosophical view that everything that exists arises from nature phenomena that can be (or could be, given adequate technology) demonstrated to exist using strictly empirical criteria. (That is why Darwin is often referred to as a naturalist, as opposed to a botanist, which is what he actually did for a living).Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Not every naturalistic hypothesis, however, implies acceptance of a strictly naturalist or materialist viewpoint. I am not a materialist, for example, but choose to exhaust naturalistic explanations for phenomena that are perceived by the physical senses (as opposed, say, to a vision, or dream, or experience of gnosis). I also believe in God, something for which that I have no empirical evidence whatsoever.
I suppose it could--or lies or heartfelt delusions. But again, not every naturalistic explanation arises from an exclusively naturalistic viewpoint. It would be wrong to tar all of those who don't believe in ghosts with the brush of exclusive materialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
At this point, I'm afraid you have lurched into a straw man argument. (It's really dicey to try to impute the motives of others). I certainly am not interested in "remov[ing] the evidence from consideration in determining what reality is about"--far from it! It does not follow that I do simply because I draw a distinction between sensory experience and gnostic experience. And it is frankly somewhat prejudiced to assume that all who may employ naturalistic hypotheses seek to do so. If I have misunderstood what you meant to say, then I apologize for that comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
A strict naturalist would surely say something of the sort. Philosophical naturalism excludes the spiritual. You can take that up Carousel, our resident materialist, but leave me out of it. I am not going to defend a philosophy that I do not share.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Now you're talking. What makes you think that the physical apparition of a ghostly revenant to your physical senses is more significant than an experience of the mind? True, that experience would not demonstrable to others, but did your auntie come to talk to you so that you could bear witness to others? Or was something more personal going on? If it was the latter, then who cares what the materialists think? And if it was the former, then welcome to religion. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Well I never said either one was delusional, did I? An optical illusion is not a mental delusion, and if my reconstruction of the Romney Marsh incident is correct, there was nothing delusional about what Carousel experienced.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I'm awfully sorry to hear about your auntie, by the way. I meant to say that in an earlier post, but I forgot. It sounds like she was important to you. (My mom, who died when I was 29, puts her arms around me all the time, by the way :) ). I'm also glad that Carousel and his wife were spared a serious accident. If it were me and my wife, I would consider that to have been the pertinent aspect of the experience. But we all must make our own meaning of our lives.
After my mother read "Treasure Island" to me as a young boy, I kept hearing Blind Pew's staff tap... tap... tapping down the street in front of my house. Does that count?
No, no. That was psychosis. :) (Even if I did sleep with garlic around my neck after reading Dracula at 12).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I've had a few dreams which seem to have contained premonitions of places which I would later visit, and of which I couldn't possibly have had any prior knowledge.
The first time I had this experience I was convinced something awful was going to happen. In fact all these 'premonitions' have been quite mundane.
I suppose it is possible that my mind is playing tricks on me, but my memory of the dreams has been very clear - I can remember dwelling on them before my real life experience - and the premonitory parts of the dream were often integral to the overall narrative. If my brain had fabricated these memories then it would mean that I can't trust anything that's going on in my head.
I guess in a contest between the laws of physics and my mental experience, physics holds the stronger position. But still, there's a lot of stuff we don't know yet. I think almost anything is possible.
In the case of my aunt, I didn't know she was dying. She moved to Phoenix many years previously from Indiana and I was a grad student in Maine. My brother and I lived with her for some months when we were under 10 years old and I did not want to see her again. She treated us OK. I just didn't feel welcome. I was not thinking of her at all and she was not someone I would have expected to appear to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Some people see "orbs" which are similar and are not related to space ships. I don't know much about them, but they make me think that space travel is not the cause of people seeing these bright, round things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I think I agree. Evidence is evidence "for" something. If one sees a ghost, then that is evidence "for the existence of ghosts". To say the evidence is an hallucination is to try to discredit the evidence for the existence of ghosts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
But that brings up the point I was trying to make. Who is delusional, the one who saw the ghost or the one who refuses to accept the evidence for their existence because it does not agree with their framework of what reality should look like?
In the case of ghosts, too many people have seen them. Some people see them more often than others and so much so that they can market their skills as mediums.
My main point was that a "natural" explanation is one that does not involve consciousness. Natural explanations do not want to expand consciousness beyond what it has to accept because of our existences. A ghost is a form of consciousness. That is why it is rejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I am not trying to make a theistic argument. One could accept other forms of consciousness without involving theism which would imply some transcendent (outside space and time) consciousness. I would use Thomas Nagel's panpsychism as an example of a non-theistic approach to expanding consciousness beyond ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
It is more of a challenge than a tarring. Many people have claimed to see ghosts. Some even claim to communicate in various ways with those who have died. After hearing these accounts, if one does not accept them, why not? The same would go for UFOs. Or Sasquatch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I don't know what you mean by "gnostic" experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I think most of us are materialists, even those who are theists. Even myself. That is why I like these discussions. I want to become conscious of what I am assuming is true about reality in order to question it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
It was an experience of my mind. Just like looking at this computer is an experience of my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Perhaps the distinction is like this. Seeing a ghost may be an "illusion" if the experience were false. If the experience were true, then those denying that experience because their view of reality insists such forms of consciousness are impossible would be suffering from a "delusion". Their ideas of what are real block them from seeing reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
The event happened decades ago. Thank you for your condolences, but I was not close to her. I don't know why she appeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Yes, I've had dreams that foretold future events. The most remarkable of those required some interpretation, but the interpretation proved accurate in a very short time (unfortunately).Quote:
Originally Posted by ladderandbucket
Perhaps. I have a tendency to keep the physical and the mental/spiritual in separate drawers. So if someone had a dream that produced the over-powering conviction that one's mother was terminally ill (as I did), and she was diagnosed with terminal-stage cancer within the month (as she was), I would prioritize a gnostic interpretation over a naturalistic one (although coincidence. which which I suppose would be the naturalistic explanation, would remain a possibility). On the other hand, If I perceived physical lights with my physical eyes in my physical back yard, (as I also did), then I would prioritize a naturalistic explanation for them, even if I did not know what caused them, and despite a dream on the same night in which a ghost crawled in bed with me. That's how I make meaning--at least so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by ladderandbucket
But as I mentioned to yes/no, I am open minded to learning more about biocentrism, a theory proposed by Robert Lanza, the physician who pioneered stem cell science, that could change things. And just to clarify, I am open minded enough read Dr. Lanza's book, called Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, which I haven't read or even purchased yet. So I'm not advocating biocentrism. I may hate it as a theory--who knows?
At present, my understanding is that when Lanza's scientific reputation was at its height (he had gone from being a working class kid from Stoughton, Massachusetts to being called one of the three most important scientific thinkers alive by the New York Times), he proposed a radical paradigm shift in which physics would be removed from its now ascendant position and replaced with biology, correcting physics current "belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence." Rather, he claimed, the physical universe is a product of consciousness, and not, as current physics contends, the other way around.
On the surface, this sounds like mystical religion, but Lanza offers evidence for his claim, much apparently pertaining to paradoxes of physics. Some respected scientists got behind Lanza when he published--one even said something like, Yes, we've all sort of thought that, but no one's had the nerve to say it before. But the reaction of the entrenched physics community was, as you might imagine, explosively negative, and Lanza went from being a hero of science to--at least in the eyes of some--a traitor and a quack. Apparently no one likes to be told that his or her religion turns out to be full of sh*t.
This is a synopsis of Biocentrism, from an NBC WEBSITE:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31393080/n...ates-universe/
Let me emphasize that I do not fully understand Lanza's argument because I have not read his book yet (I have not even read the synopsis above, since I just found it). Also, as I told yes/no earlier, theoretical physics is not really my thing. Usually I stand back and let the Tyrannosaurus rexes (Tyrannosauri reges?) of science duke it out for themselves. But in this case, I may make an exception. I love a rebel, especially one from Massachusetts. :)
I love rebels as well, even if I don't completely agree with them. I like Thomas Nagel, for example, and Rupert Sheldrake. Thanks for bringing Robert Lanza to my attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Overall, I agree with what he has to say. Here would be one question that I have: If we create the universe by our individual observations, why do we see a similar universe as others do? Or, to phrase this differently, if the universe is our private dream, why does it sync so well with the private dreams of others around us?
George Berkeley uses this to justify the existence of a transcendent consciousness who keeps the universe consistent. I think Berkeley is right, but I don't know how Lanza deals with the problem of solipsism.
No, I didn't mean to suggest that you were. I was just using the case of my faith in God as a example of how a non-materialist can still employ naturalistic arguments. It doesn't make you an exclusive materialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Okay, sure. Dr. Nagel himself might look out across his little faculty front yard at NYU one day, throw his hands up and cry out, "Oh the trash is all over the driveway! That damned corgi from next door must have been at it again!"--a perfectly naturalistic explanation that doesn't compromise his panpsychism in the least. (Personally I'd compliment him for not going straight for a poltergeist. :) )Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Because people can be mistaken about what they see, as the man who reported the first "flying saucer" later insisted he was. And people also lie, as the man responsible for the famous Loch Ness monster photograph later confessed to be doing; as the man responsible for the famous bigfoot video of my youth later confessed to be doing; and as the little girls who snookered Sir Arthur Conan Doyle into thinking that they hung out with fairies also later confessed to be doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
If making a claim in itself constituted an established fact, then we could all go back to the days of King John's England where human rights are concerned. Jews would have horns and blacks would have tails just because someone said so. If a student claimed that a teacher had raped him or her in a satanic ritual with local parents, then that would just settle the matter. If white supremacist claimed that he had seen a black neighbor molesting his daughter, that would settle it, too. And if a rapist claimed that a victim had begged her to play along with a secret rape fantasy, that claim would be sufficient to exonerate him.
You get the picture. A claim in itself does not establish a fact, especially when it is not otherwise substantiated (and sometimes when it is--there was photographic evidence for all the frauds I mentioned in the previous paragraph). And it doesn't matter how many people make the claim, how heartfelt their claims seem to be, or what their reputations are. Lots of people claimed that Jews had horns and blacks had tails (photographic evidence based on birth defects was even circulated for the latter claim). The Loch Ness photo hoax was perpetuated by a doctor, the man who actually took the Bigfoot (big?-)footage was innocent of the hoax and spent the rest of his life earnestly claiming that he was telling the truth (which he was--but the guy in the monkey suit wasn't). And the Cottingley fairies hoax was fronted by a beloved (and deluded) British author, and two innocent looking girls who just couldn't be lying.
As I wrote the above paragraph, I kept thinking about the Salem/Danvers (Massachusetts) witch accusations of 1692-1693, in which 20 people, mostly women, some elderly or handicapped, were executed; while many more were imprisoned under inhuman conditions, because of the uncorroborated claims of a handful of teenage girls. The girls uttered strange sounds and contorted their bodies, claiming that the specters of those they were accusing of witchcraft were pinching them and pricking them with pins (even though the individuals were elsewhere). At first the girls went for local weirdos no one liked, then family enemies, and finally anyone they felt like destroying. Later, as adults, they confessed that they had concocted the entire humbug from the beginning. Then there is the blood libel against Jews, endless harmful stereotypes of various ethnic groups (and women), and the terrors of political denunciations. Not every claim is harmless, and a degree of skepticism, it seems to me, is a healthy thing.
Oh sorry. When I use that term, at least in this context, I mean a profound experience of knowledge unmediated by normal rational thought or language. It's hard to describe if you haven't experienced it yourself, but it's what rational thought or language makes an attempt to articulate. Gnostic experience a direct connection--that's the best way I can describe it. It's only happened to me three (or maybe four) times: when I was 29, when I was around 7, when I was probably around 5, and possibly during my baptism, although it is very difficult to be sure about the last one. The part of the brain that stores memory isn't very well developed in infancy (Freud turns out to have been a total wanker), although I was not actually baptized until I was 3. I retain the experience, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Thanks. I like these discussions, too. But when I said materialist, I meant an exclusive materialist--a naturalist. You are not one of those and neither am I.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Maybe Lanza can convince me.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
It would be an illusion if it was false because it was an illusion; it would be a delusion (or at least a mistake) if the illusion were taken for real; and it would be a lie if the illusion were seen through but nevertheless inspired a false claim, or if there was no illusion at all, just a fabrication.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Or at least a mistake--if it were true about the ghost. But in that case it would also be a mistake for those who denied the experience for reasons other than an insistence that "such forms of consciousness are impossible"--those, for example, did not credit the testimony, but might have been convinced by more compelling evidence. They would not be deluded--just skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
But that only works, of course, where "reality" is consistent with their actually being a ghost. How would you know that the claim was true? (You sure sound like a theist to me! :) )Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
And again, this is a tautology and gets us nowhere. It just means that those who insist that such forms of consciousness are impossible have ideas that preclude such ideas. A is A. We already knew that.
You're welcome. And yes, I remember now that you said something of the sort earlier. Still it must have been meaningful for you as a kind of--apology? You would think they'd be lined up and down the streets to talk to me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I once had similar convictions until an encounter changed my mind, then my self taught explanations seemed to fit no explanation at all.
People can be mistaken or deceitful and skepticism has its place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I don't think I've ever had a gnostic experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
You sound more like a Cartesian dualist. I would be an idealist like George Berkeley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
After quantum physics and relativity sunk in, other philosophies of mind tried to save what they could of materialism by questioning reductionism or adding mind to matter in some way. I see Nagel's attempt as one of these. I don't think it works, but I may not understand it.
One thing to note is that if materialism is gone so is dualism since it accepts materialism as part of the explanation.
I would be a generic panentheist. Examples of panentheism would be traditional judeo-christo-islamic-hindu religions. Probably more ancient religions were panentheistic as well. I don't have a favorite one. They all work for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I think one can show that such a theism is correct using Berkeley's arguments which received scientific confirmation by relativity and quantum physics.
EDIT: I found a copy of Lanza's "Biocentrcism". I like this line from page 4: "The universe is like a watch that somehow wound itself and that, allowing for a degree of quantum randomness, will unwind in a semi-predictable way." I agree with him that that watch metaphor is getting tiring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Same church, different pew? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Berkeley's views are immaterial! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Just kidding. Yes, I am a gnostic dualist and you are a subjective idealist. But didn't Berkeley believe that spirits cannot be perceived by us except through their effect, upon inward reflection, on our subject consciousness (our ideas)? And wasn't that more or less what I was saying about your auntie?
All I know about Nagel is that he teaches at NYU. So I told you about Lanza and you told me about Nagel. Thank you. Even my nieces aren't going to do that well for Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Perhaps, but I don't think we're quite there yet. As religious radicals go, I guess that makes me a moderate. Faith is a fine invention for gentlemen who see/But microscopes are prudent in an emergency. I don't know how Lanza handles it, but I don't think Berkeley denied the existence of physical objects, just their significance to metaphysics. That is not necessarily inconsistent with my sort of dualism (the gnostic Christian variety). They can throw you to the lions, break you on the wheel, torture you for years. That is all real, and it matters terribly for now, but in the much larger picture it shrinks to insignificance.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
That is an non-Orthodox but still faith-oriented position; but the truth is that the secular/materialist view isn't very different. With the certain obliteration of each human being and the ultimate extinction of humankind, human suffering and death also shrink to insignificance in the 5 billion years until the sun expands. And think of the human suffering and death (and hopes and joys) that are lost in the millions of years of prehistory that constitute more than 90% of human experience on this planet.
That's an aside, I suppose. Destroy materialism ("no one will miss it," to take Berkeley a little out of context), and we can talk about abandoning dualism. :)
Interesting. So you would look for theos pervading the matter of the universe where I would look for zoe (psyche?) imprisoned in the matter--or perhaps just at school for a term. How do you reconcile that position with subjective idealism? If matter doesn't exist in a really significant way, then would divinity really pervade it? Perhaps we'll both need a new religion if materialism goes the way of lava lamps and the bustle. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Well, traditional Christianity is a problematic concept (to say the least); so is traditional Judaism. I don't really know enough about Islam or Hindu religions to offer much of an opinion. (In the case of Hinduism, I assume you are referring to Brahman--but is that a case of panentheism or pantheism?)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I suppose it depends what you consider ancient. Christian traditions that emphasized a sharp distinction between the Creator and the created (as in some aspects Eastern Orthodoxy) were panentheistic. It was supposed to be part of the whole Nicene package, but Christian theologians were always trying to fudge the difference, especially in the West where the Church (Catholic or Reformed) became hyper-involved in secular affairs. Some of the pre-Nicene Christian traditions had panentheistic elements, too, but our knowledge of them is limited because the Nicene Christians torched most of their writings. Bahai is pretty panentheistic, but then again it's pretty modern. Were you thinking of any ancient religions in particular?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I'd be interested to hear that argument. My understanding is that Berkeley attempted to solve the problem you asked about Lanza's ideas, namely:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
...and suggested that because the other minds/spirits that we perceive through their effects on us show such a commonality of purpose that we are drawn to recognize what you have called a "transcendent consciousness," which is in some way their source. But I don't know Berkeley nearly as well as I should (many universes have imploded since I studied him), so I probably have it wrong. How would you make an argument for theism using Berkeley/Quantum?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Yeah, that's one way of putting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
The spirits are what manifest the world around us when we aren't doing it ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I've read over half of Lanza's book and I think Rupert Sheldrake may be more relevant, not that Lanza's book isn't refreshing in its own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
The only dualism that would be undermined if materialism were discredited is Cartesian dualism: we have minds; everything else is a materialistic machine--at least that is how I see that form of dualism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
For Berkeley, the world is out there. It's real. It's just not there because of some unconscious material substance that gives it existence, but it exists as the dream of a divinity who keeps it going. If there were no mind making it up, it would not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
If zoe is imprisioned in unconscious matter, then we would have a difference of opinion. My idealism is not subjective. The world is out there for everyone to enjoy or run experiments on, if that suits them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I don't know that much about all of these religions, but I don't want to exclude anyone. I think of those Hindu deities like I think of Catholic saints or angels. Reciting a mantra to Saraswati would be like reciting a prayer to Saint Francis, or paying homage to a Greek muse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I heard that about Eastern Orthodoxy as well. I wasn't thinking of any ancient religion in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I would use Berkeley's observation that everything we perceive is an "idea" or perception that we have. It requires a mind to perceive. There is nothing unconscious underlying what we perceive since only a mind can experience something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
Locke would have said that there is something out there that is unconscious that gives it properties such as extension or length that are independent of any observer. Einstein later said that such extension depends on our frame of reference, so even that is part of a mind's experience. Furthermore with quantum physics, there is no underlying material substance since we can choose to observe quantum stuff and get two contradictory conclusions about what it was prior to the observation: was it a particle or a wave?
Berkeley insists the world is out there. That is what drives his conclusion that there must be some mind that manifests the world like we would manifest a dream state. We don't manifest the universe so that it stays consistent even when we are not paying attention to it. Since the universe is there, there must be a Mind manifesting it.
That's the argument as I understand it. Berkeley had the whole thing in place hundreds of years ago. Einstein confirmed that things like extension are really relative and not part of the unobserved object. Quantum physics confirmed that there is no unconscious material substance. The only question that remains is whether the world is really out there. If it is, then Berkeley's conclusion of the existence of a deity that dreams that world follows. If it is not, it probably doesn't matter.
I finished Lanza's "Biocentricism". Although I liked the way he presented the double slit experiments, his position appears to be a form of solipsism. I will have to keep it in mind as an example of how some people might interpret the quantum enigmas.
I would be looking for something more substantial. The universe is real. It is just not made out of some unconscious material substance.
I've looked over the NBC synopsis, but I probably won't buy the book until my next big Amazon haul in January (after my brothers' mechanical but appreciated forking over of their Christmas gift cards). One of the reasons I haven't bought Biocentrism until now is that it's only 200 pages. I budget my book money (or else I'd spend everything), and I sometimes feel--rationally or not--that I'm wasting my money on a book that short. (Okay, I'm a miser).Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I have dug out good ol' volume 37 of The Harvard Classics series, though (well, the cyber version), which gives a representative sampling of Berkeley, Locke, and Hume. It's been a lot of fun to thumb through it and remember some of this stuff.
Thanks. I had a classical education, so I tend to see everything through the lens of the ancient world. The distinction between Cartesian dualism and some parts of Stoicism sometimes gets a little hazy to me. (I figured Descartes just got fed up with religious baggage during the Thirty Years War and tried to produce a "cleaner" version of what Augustine had Christianized). But your explanation helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Sounds Hindu. But who dreams the dreamer? Is that our job? Or is it turtles right on down. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I suppose one could do that to some extent, although a more in-depth look would reveal some limits. Duty, for example, is a major ethical component of Hinduism, including rather strict attention to ritual as a matter of piety. So a Hindu prayer to Saraswati (depending obviously on the context) might be somewhat similar to an Ave Maria or Pater Noster being liturgically recited, but it probably wouldn't have much in common with the spontaneous prayers favored by many Protestant denominations; and it would be a world away from Homer or Hesiod inviting the Muse to possess their bodies. (They definitely told us not to do that sort of thing in confirmation class). :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
And that's because the matter is produced by subject consciousnesses or by an all-pervasive Universal Mind when the subject consciousnesses are busy?Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I don't know if I buy that completely, but I do feel I understand it better now. For one thing, I will insist that Divinity pervading matter and matter itself are not the same thing (in other words, I can accept panentheism but not pantheism). You seem to agree by your use of the term "panentheism," but I'm unclear whether you cross the line in asserting:
For the sake of clarification:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
1) Are you suggesting that subject consciousnesses ("the spirits") and the Universal Mind share a nature (physis)? (In other words, is the soul a spark of the Divine?)
2) Are you suggesting that the subject consciousnesses and the Universal Mind (or just the Universal Mind) and physical matter share a nature (physis)? In other words, is the Divine not only everywhere and beyond (panentheism) but everything and beyond as well?
I may not object if the answer to the first question is yes. That's Valentinian gnosticism, more or less, and I am at least open to it. I do suspect that you (and Berkeley) are venturing a bit into the realm of speculative theology (I'm one to talk), but I don't reject the notion per se (as Orthodox Christians certainly would do).
But I get off the boat if the answer to the second question is yes. That is not because of religious doctrine (which I make up as I go along), nor from any intolerance of pantheists, but because pantheism ignores the problem of evil. Soldiers rape women because (in the view of Scottish historian and Harvard professor Niall Ferguson) of a procreative instinct produced by the particular evolution of the Homo genus. Cells reproduce incorrectly and children get cancer of their blood and kidneys. American Cowbirds prey on the maternal instinct of other birds by laying eggs in their nests, then flying off. Their offspring kill the birds real chicks, then remain, parasite-like, through their early adulthoods, while the deluded mothers instinctively bring them food. One day, they just fly off, too. A species of wasp lays it's eggs in the bodies of caterpillars. When the larva hatch, they devour their foster mothers from the inside out. Infectious diseases prey on children and the elderly first, clearing the way for the physically fit. Homo antecessor, the first known human beings in Europe, cannibalized the children and young teenagers of rival bands, despite an abundance of food that they were also accessing. Chimps do the same thing today. All life must kill (or have someone else kill) or starve. As Darwin famously reflected: "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature." And as Hitler commented to Eva Braun, "Nature is cruel so I must be cruel."
That is not my God, Yes/No. The God of Love and Justice is not identifiable with the physics and chemistry that produce the biology of natural selection, and the trophic pyramid. That god may or may not be the ruling power of the material cosmos (I am inclined to think the former), but it is not Divinity. God's presence may be limitless (at least in potentia) but that does not mean that all things are God.
Well even in the West making the "error" of worshipping the created rather than the Creator would have got you burned at the stake at various times in history. As a heretic Christian myself (to talk the Orthodox talk), it's not important to me as a point of dogma, but as a point of religious scruple, the distinction is the reason I am able to share some aspects of my wife's Buddhism with her, but almost none of my brother-in-law's animistic Taoism with him (despite my fondness for the pre-Buddhist Sun Wukong as a literary metaphor; and Sun Wukong in general--he's a hoot!) The same goes for all nature religions: sometimes cool, sometimes enchanting, but not for real, not for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Okay. I'll spare you objections about the unconscious mind since we've already established that Freud was a total wanker. :) But your religious metaphor of Divinity dreaming does seem a little strange in this context. (Can't even God get some shy eye? :) ) But okay, I'm following you so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
An unconscious mind, right? A dreaming mind. God is asleep at the wheel. You know, theologically that would explain a lot. :) I kind of like it, actually. God's not dead, he's just nodded off. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Thank you. I still have concerns about the problem of evil, and I am still a gnostic dualist, but I am (seriously) delighted to hear that the lonely redoubt of my faith may receive reinforcements from some of those who lately besieged it. You have convinced me that God exists. Congratulations! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
It is probably not worth buying the book. I think the point is his claim that biology needs to be primary in any theory of everything and physics is not able to incorporate consciousness into its unconscious particle and waves. I agree with that, but I would like to know how biocentricism works any better rather than just an account that physics doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
The biologist's reduction of everything to genes and neurons doesn't work either. There are too many things genes and neurons can't account for such as the paranormal phenomena we are discussing in this thread. Specifically, when we look at someone, there is clearly stuff happening in our brain, but does it stop there? Some people get a sense that they are being watched. What causes that? To explain that there must exist not only the waves coming into our brains, but a wave going back out from our minds associated with our intentionality (consciousness).
This wave going back out would likely be rejected by someone like Lanza, but if he insists that physics must accept consciousness, whatever replaces physics must accept telepathic phenomena associated with consciousness.
I found a copy in one of the local libraries I can borrow from. This site may be adequate to understanding biocentricism, but I haven't looked at all the videos: http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/
I have some copies of these works also, but most of them are freely downloadable to a Kindle app.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
You probably know more about this than I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I saw the reference to dreaming in Berkeley and so used the idea. Once one has an eternal dreamer there is no need to go further. If the universe were eternal there would be no need to question what happened before it or to bring up a deity. However, the universe does not appear to be eternal so the whole question of what started it comes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
There probably are many differences between these religions. I don't understand most of them. If one is in a particular religion, one should follow the practices of that religion, however, I think people in various different religions may be just as well off. They have a different cultural perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
That's how I see it. Now if the stuff we see is not really out there, then one could have solipsism because only my mind matters and you and I and everyone else would be "one" creating the world. I think that is what Lanza tries to argue, but it gets too mystical for me although I agree with a lot that he has to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I don't accept pantheism either. It seems like you have a better understanding of the consequences of these positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
For (2), I see there being forms of consciousness that have enough freedom to mess things up. That is where the evil comes from. Ultimately, the universe and the Universal Mind are good. My assumptions are (a) some freedom exists, (b) the universe is good and (c) the Universal Mind is good and personal.
I read a good part of Journey to the West. My favorite chapter is the one telling of Sun Wukong standing in God's palm claiming he can escape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I don't think Mind can be unconscious. Our minds, limited by our bodies' abilities to make us aware, just lack full awareness of what we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
I don't see any way around the existence of God. I don't know much about the various religious positions people have. I assume too quickly they are all the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
As I said before, I am no expert on Hinduism, but the dreaming deity sounds like Lord Vishnu, who dreams the universe while sleeping on the Cosmic Sea. Actually, I think he is lying on a snake on the Cosmic Sea, although where the snake, or the Cosmic Sea, or Lord Vishnu came from, I couldn't say.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
There arises the question of we know that the Universal Mind is eternal and uncreated. As far as I can see that is a first principle, and a matter of faith. Another question is whether this Mind actually created the material universe in the process of starting things up, or whether that was secondary (and inferior) to the creation of life/consciousness. My point about the problem of evil is that the material universe seems like an awfully flawed and nasty thing to expect from an all-good God. If it's really that bad, then maybe it is the product of a lesser agency, which set things in motion, warts and all. Perhaps it was created by a blind, selfish demiurge (as the Sethian gnostics believed), or by a big, dumb screw-up (as the Valentinian gnostics thought). Orthodox Christians (at least the ones who know their own theology), will tell you that o Christos made the material world. But when you consider what sort of a world that really is, it would make a lot more sense for them to say that o satan was the creator of matter and the God of Love and Justice was the author of life/consciousness--the existential predicament of our experience being that matter has imprisoned life, and the Sotorological significance being that life can be liberated. Or maybe there's another answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Right, which is pretty consistent with my last paragraph--whatever the mythopoetic trappings. Maybe you're more of a gnostic dualist than you know. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I agree with you about freedom; I believe that the Universal Mind is good (but the jury is still out for me on the material aspect of the Universe); and I have faith in the personal quality of God. 2.5 out of three. Maybe we are in the same pew after all. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Yes, and peeing on his fingers and writing graffiti. Only it's not God. It's the Buddha of the Western Heaven, depicted as wiser, holier, and more powerful than the Taoist/Animist "God," the Jade Emperor--whose ally he is. That strange arrangement comes from the Doctrine of the Three Ways, a traditional attempt to harmonize the materialism of Taoism/animism, the immaterialism of Buddhism, and ethics of Confucianism. It's an important aspect of later Chinese culture (including Chinese-American culture), but in terms of our discussion, it is a marriage of things that really don't belong together, at least for Taoism and Buddhism, at least for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
But that doesn't effect my enjoyment of Journey to the West at all. The scene you mentioned comes at the end of Sun Wukong's war with Heaven, which I see as a metaphor for the human experience of growing up. Mao tried to use it as a symbol of his murderous Cultural Revolution. And others have pointed out similarities with the story of the revolt of Satan. But the author, in my opinion, was talking about something called "monkey mind," (in effect, immaturity, but it's so much better than that when Sun Wukong does it). Monkey mind is one of the phases or stumbling blocks that a Buddhist strives to overcome in the course of a lifetime. Ironically, that is why the character is funnier before his conversion to Buddhism than afterwards, at least in my opinion.
Oh well, I'm blithering again. I wrote you a piece of doggerel about freedom and evil in Paul's poetry thread. Monkey mind is still a problem for some of us. :)