Do You Believe In the paranormal and Did you ever experience supernatural Phenomena?

[Pompey Bum]

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).

[ladderandbucket]

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.

[YesNo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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 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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't know what you mean by "gnostic" experience.

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.

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.

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.

It was an experience of my mind. Just like looking at this computer is an experience of my mind.

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.

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.

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.

The event happened decades ago. Thank you for your condolences, but I was not close to her. I don't know why she appeared.

[Pompey Bum]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

[YesNo]

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.

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.

[Pompey Bum]

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.

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.

I would use Thomas Nagel's panpsychism as an example of a non-theistic approach to expanding consciousness beyond ourselves.

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. )

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.

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.

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.

I don't know what you mean by "gnostic" experience.

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.

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.

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.

It was an experience of my mind. Just like looking at this computer is an experience of my mind.

Maybe Lanza can convince me.

Perhaps the distinction is like this. Seeing a ghost may be an "illusion" if the experience were false.

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.

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".

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.

Their ideas of what are real block them from seeing reality.

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! )

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.

The event happened decades ago. Thank you for your condolences, but I was not close to her. I don't know why she appeared.

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.

[Carousel]

I once had similar convictions until an encounter changed my mind, then my self taught explanations seemed to fit no explanation at all.

[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.

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 claim seems, or what their reputation may be. 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 Cottingly 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, and 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.

People can be mistaken or deceitful and skepticism has its place.

Oh sorry. When I use that term, at least in this context, I mean a profound experience of knowledge unmediated by normal rational thought 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.

I don't think I've ever had a gnostic experience.

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.

You sound more like a Cartesian dualist. I would be an idealist like George Berkeley.

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.

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! )

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.

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.

[Pompey Bum]

You sound more like a Cartesian dualist.

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"?

Same church, different pew?

I would be an idealist like George Berkeley.

Berkeley's views are immaterial!

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?

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.

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.

One thing to note is that if materialism is gone so is dualism since it accepts materialism as part of the explanation.

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.

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.

I would be a generic panentheist.

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.

Examples of panentheism would be traditional judeo-christo-islamic-hindu religions.

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?)

Probably more ancient religions were panentheistic as well. I don't have a favorite one. They all work for me.

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?

I think one can show that such a theism is correct using Berkeley's arguments which received scientific confirmation by relativity and quantum physics.

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.

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:

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?

...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?

[YesNo]

Same church, different pew?

Yeah, that's one way of putting it.

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?

The spirits are what manifest the world around us when we aren't doing it ourselves.

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.

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.

Perhaps, but I don't think we're quite there yet. As religious radicals go, I guess that makes 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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?

I heard that about Eastern Orthodoxy as well. I wasn't thinking of any ancient religion in particular.

How would you make an argument for theism using Berkeley/Quantum?

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.

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.

[YesNo]

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.

[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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds Hindu. But who dreams the dreamer? Is that our job? Or is it turtles right on down.

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.

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).

If zoe is imprisioned in unconscious matter, then we would have a difference of opinion.

And that's because the matter is produced by subject consciousnesses or by an all-pervasive Universal Mind when the subject consciousnesses are busy?

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:

The spirits are what manifest the world around us when we aren't doing it ourselves.

For the sake of clarification:

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.

I heard that about Eastern Orthodoxy as well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

[YesNo]

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).

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.

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 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.

I have some copies of these works also, but most of them are freely downloadable to a Kindle app.

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.

You probably know more about this than I do.

Sounds Hindu. But who dreams the dreamer? Is that our job? Or is it turtles right on down.

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.

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).

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.

And that's because the matter is produced by subject consciousnesses or by an all-pervasive Universal Mind when the subject consciousnesses are busy?

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.

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:

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.

I don't accept pantheism either. It seems like you have a better understanding of the consequences of these positions.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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!

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.

[Pompey Bum]

I saw the reference to dreaming in Berkeley and so used the idea.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Right, which is pretty consistent with my last paragraph--whatever the mythopoetic trappings. Maybe you're more of a gnostic dualist than you know.

My assumptions are (a) some freedom exists, (b) the universe is good and (c) the Universal Mind is good and personal.

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.

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.

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.

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.