"Ground of all Being"?

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#61  Postby SpeedOfSound » Oct 22, 2014 3:17 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Kafei wrote: Neuroscience has yet to truly define what consciousness is and explain how consciousness works.


Is it the job of neuroscience to define "consciousness"? If there is not yet an adequate definition of the term, then it is highly premature to start making any claims about it, such as that it cannot be produced by material processes.

This is the piece we will never get through to them on I am afraid. It makes me very sad. I am having a bit of fight with Graham over this very thing. Physicalists and scientists who should know better are rushing to explain something they have no referent for.

Look at this:
Kafei wrote:...
I'd recommend looking into the Philosophy of Mind, because right now neuroscience is in such an infantile stage that Philosophy of Mind seems like it holds more insight into how to think about consciousness. I don't think David Bohm was spirit-minded, to be honest.
....


PhilOfMind has been kicking this shit around for 6 centuries and they still can't agree a a damned thing. Yet we are supposed to consider them as the source of all knowledge on this. :roll:

No one thinks anyone is spirit-minded yet we almost all are and it is so strongly built into our thinking that we can't see it. I admittedly trip over it daily.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32086
Age: 70
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#62  Postby SpeedOfSound » Oct 22, 2014 3:23 pm

Kafei wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Is it the job of neuroscience to define "consciousness"? If there is not yet an adequate definition of the term, then it is highly premature to start making any claims about it, such as that it cannot be produced by material processes.


If that's the case, then by the same line of reasoning you could say it's also premature to make the claim that consciousness is the product of a material process. I never said it was the job of neuroscience to describe consciousness, but most rational skeptics would expect for science, particularly neuroscience to explain consciousness as accurately as possible and for the explanation to be backed by evidence. Neuroscience is currently an interdisciplinary science that collaborates with other fields such as chemistry, computer science, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, medicine, genetics, and allied disciplines including philosophy, physics, and psychology. So, it's not as though we're restricted to biology here with this term "neuroscience."

Shrunk wrote:
By that line of reasoning, physicists should be better able to predict who will win this years World Series than someone who follows baseball closely.


I never said that we should get physicists for all our issues, I just didn't understand why SpeedOfSound didn't feel a physicist should hold an opinion about consciousness. I believe a physicist, especially a physicist like David Bohm who contributed to other fields involving the topic of consciousness, would have a say on what consciousness may be that should be heard.



Here si the thing. If we all sover up just a little and admit we do not have a clue what we are referring to when we use the philOfMind word 'consiousness' then we get down to the business of finding neural correlates for the things we perceive.

If you use the model of particles in 4D space/time or even the atom-ball model you can with sufficient precision explain all of life, evolution, and mind, without resorting to the hope of finding new rules, or quantum this or that, or multidimensional other plane communication.

Now I do not believe that when it comes to particle collider sthat we can rely on this model, But for life sciences, including that of the mind, it is perfectly precise, even though just a model and an approximation, to explain.

You and I have a lot of common beliefs. But this business of appealing to weird physics to explain the mind is where we part and in fact I part from most people that share my spiritual beliefs. That makes me very sad. You do not need to go there and because all of you do, your message about spirituality will be lost on most skeptics.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32086
Age: 70
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#63  Postby Kafei » Oct 22, 2014 4:27 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
You and I have a lot of common beliefs. But this business of appealing to weird physics to explain the mind is where we part and in fact I part from most people that share my spiritual beliefs. That makes me very sad. You do not need to go there and because all of you do, your message about spirituality will be lost on most skeptics.


I admit that we don't know what consciousness is. So, I don't subscribe to any model, whether it be a physicalist model for consciousness or transcendantalist model, because there simply isn't any evidence for either. You're probably familiar with a concept like Dualism within Philosophy of Mind. I'm going to assume it's a concept you might find disgusting, but do you at least see why a physicist might posit that consciousness isn't fully explained by materialism? If reality, according to things like M-theory, is ultimately multidimensional, then why is it such a stretch to say that consciousness may be intertwined with these extra dimensions?

It's interesting, you see, that if you take the broad world of the so-called mysteries -- parapsychological, shamanic, extraterrestrial, and so forth -- and hypothesize another spatial dimension, one more spatial dimension, then suddenly all these mysteries become trivial. They are easily done. Locked boxes are opened; future events are discerned; lost objects are found. This sort of thing becomes quite the ordinary run of things if we hypothesize dimensions hidden from ordinary experience. So, if you could imagine an extraterrestrial with a technology that had access to this hyperspatial dimension, then this technology would indistinguishable from "magic," the "supernatural," the "spiritual," etc. This is described in Arthur C. Clarke's third law of prediction.

So, for all we know, the virtual particles that "pop in and out of existence" could be transversing infinite parallel universes before returning to our own only to continue that cycle once again. I'm not saying this is the explanation for that, I don't believe there is scientific explanation for why these particles behave this way, there's just fiercely defended mathematical hypothesis and theory. However, I just don't believe it's a violation of Ockham's razor to say as J. B. S. Haldane once said, "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose."
User avatar
Kafei
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 793

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#64  Postby Shrunk » Oct 22, 2014 6:17 pm

Kafei wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
You and I have a lot of common beliefs. But this business of appealing to weird physics to explain the mind is where we part and in fact I part from most people that share my spiritual beliefs. That makes me very sad. You do not need to go there and because all of you do, your message about spirituality will be lost on most skeptics.


I admit that we don't know what consciousness is. So, I don't subscribe to any model, whether it be a physicalist model for consciousness or transcendantalist model, because there simply isn't any evidence for either. You're probably familiar with a concept like Dualism within Philosophy of Mind. I'm going to assume it's a concept you might find disgusting, but do you at least see why a physicist might posit that consciousness isn't fully explained by materialism? If reality, according to things like M-theory, is ultimately multidimensional, then why is it such a stretch to say that consciousness may be intertwined with these extra dimensions?

It's interesting, you see, that if you take the broad world of the so-called mysteries -- parapsychological, shamanic, extraterrestrial, and so forth -- and hypothesize another spatial dimension, one more spatial dimension, then suddenly all these mysteries become trivial. They are easily done. Locked boxes are opened; future events are discerned; lost objects are found. This sort of thing becomes quite the ordinary run of things if we hypothesize dimensions hidden from ordinary experience. So, if you could imagine an extraterrestrial with a technology that had access to this hyperspatial dimension, then this technology would indistinguishable from "magic," the "supernatural," the "spiritual," etc. This is described in Arthur C. Clarke's third law of prediction.

So, for all we know, the virtual particles that "pop in and out of existence" could be transversing infinite parallel universes before returning to our own only to continue that cycle once again. I'm not saying this is the explanation for that, I don't believe there is scientific explanation for why these particles behave this way, there's just fiercely defended mathematical hypothesis and theory. However, I just don't believe it's a violation of Ockham's razor to say as J. B. S. Haldane once said, "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose."


That sure is a shitload of stuff to write about something when you don't even know what it is.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#65  Postby tolman » Oct 22, 2014 7:41 pm

Kafei wrote:It's interesting, you see, that if you take the broad world of the so-called mysteries -- parapsychological, shamanic, extraterrestrial, and so forth -- and hypothesize another spatial dimension, one more spatial dimension, then suddenly all these mysteries become trivial. They are easily done. Locked boxes are opened; future events are discerned; lost objects are found. This sort of thing becomes quite the ordinary run of things if we hypothesize dimensions hidden from ordinary experience.

Why would an extra spatial dimension allow future events to be discerned, if time is not a spatial dimension?

For that matter, why would it allow lost objects to be found?
To find something, one still needs to look where it is and see it.

Are there any shamen specialising as spookily accurate predictors of the future?
Or, for that matter, as locksmiths?

Kafei wrote:So, for all we know, the virtual particles that "pop in and out of existence" could be transversing infinite parallel universes before returning to our own only to continue that cycle once again.

Assuming they travel at finite speed, that suggests a lack of comprehension of what 'infinite' means.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#66  Postby Shrunk » Oct 22, 2014 8:00 pm

tolman wrote:
Kafei wrote:It's interesting, you see, that if you take the broad world of the so-called mysteries -- parapsychological, shamanic, extraterrestrial, and so forth -- and hypothesize another spatial dimension, one more spatial dimension, then suddenly all these mysteries become trivial. They are easily done. Locked boxes are opened; future events are discerned; lost objects are found. This sort of thing becomes quite the ordinary run of things if we hypothesize dimensions hidden from ordinary experience.

Why would an extra spatial dimension allow future events to be discerned, if time is not a spatial dimension?


Time and space are different aspects of the same thing in relativity.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#67  Postby SpeedOfSound » Oct 22, 2014 10:55 pm

Shrunk wrote:
tolman wrote:
Kafei wrote:It's interesting, you see, that if you take the broad world of the so-called mysteries -- parapsychological, shamanic, extraterrestrial, and so forth -- and hypothesize another spatial dimension, one more spatial dimension, then suddenly all these mysteries become trivial. They are easily done. Locked boxes are opened; future events are discerned; lost objects are found. This sort of thing becomes quite the ordinary run of things if we hypothesize dimensions hidden from ordinary experience.

Why would an extra spatial dimension allow future events to be discerned, if time is not a spatial dimension?


Time and space are different aspects of the same thing in relativity.

But! You cant' jump space or time in the way that you would need to jump it so that it had an effect on the mind. I think it's as improbably as running through a brick wall.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32086
Age: 70
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#68  Postby kennyc » Oct 22, 2014 11:04 pm

Kafei wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
You and I have a lot of common beliefs. But this business of appealing to weird physics to explain the mind is where we part and in fact I part from most people that share my spiritual beliefs. That makes me very sad. You do not need to go there and because all of you do, your message about spirituality will be lost on most skeptics.


I admit that we don't know what consciousness is. So, I don't subscribe to any model, whether it be a physicalist model for consciousness or transcendantalist model, because there simply isn't any evidence for either. You're probably familiar with a concept like Dualism within Philosophy of Mind. I'm going to assume it's a concept you might find disgusting, but do you at least see why a physicist might posit that consciousness isn't fully explained by materialism? If reality, according to things like M-theory, is ultimately multidimensional, then why is it such a stretch to say that consciousness may be intertwined with these extra dimensions?

It's interesting, you see, that if you take the broad world of the so-called mysteries -- parapsychological, shamanic, extraterrestrial, and so forth -- and hypothesize another spatial dimension, one more spatial dimension, then suddenly all these mysteries become trivial. They are easily done. Locked boxes are opened; future events are discerned; lost objects are found. This sort of thing becomes quite the ordinary run of things if we hypothesize dimensions hidden from ordinary experience. So, if you could imagine an extraterrestrial with a technology that had access to this hyperspatial dimension, then this technology would indistinguishable from "magic," the "supernatural," the "spiritual," etc. This is described in Arthur C. Clarke's third law of prediction.

So, for all we know, the virtual particles that "pop in and out of existence" could be transversing infinite parallel universes before returning to our own only to continue that cycle once again. I'm not saying this is the explanation for that, I don't believe there is scientific explanation for why these particles behave this way, there's just fiercely defended mathematical hypothesis and theory. However, I just don't believe it's a violation of Ockham's razor to say as J. B. S. Haldane once said, "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose."



Uh....no....not really. Please learn some science if you are going to spout bullshit about it.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#69  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 22, 2014 11:12 pm

Kafei wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Please be clear: not ALL physicists agree with the above - actually, only a very few are even interested in dealing with consciousness, and of those, only a minority would hold the position you ascribe to them. Perhaps you could specify which ones you are talking about.


At the very edge of science's explanatory power, you arrive at M-theory. This is basically science's best shot at describing the multiverse, and it involves including higher spatial dimensions into the equation. Some theoretical physicists feel that consciousness is no exception if we're going to describe how the mind truly works. David Bohm is considered to be one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century, and espoused such ideas as "quantum consciousness." I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, but I'd like to acknowledge the fact that neuroscience finds consciousness to be a very slippery topic. It's still somewhat of a mystery of how it truly functions. Even Wiki's page on consciousness makes the statement, "Nothing worth reading has been written about consciousness." So, I find it a very interesting topic, and I don't posit any of these concepts as true, and I'm also skeptical about a lot of these ideas. Materialism is sometimes thrown out there as though it's had the official stamp of neuroscience as the end-all, be-all explanation of consciousness. I don't think that's the case.


I am not suggesting you're appealing to authority, I am suggesting you're appealing to a non-existent majority. I can think of just 1 or 2 physicists who might share the perspective you've effectively stated is the position held by all physicists, if only by omission of specificity.

Importantly with Bohm, a quantum consciousness does not equate to him claiming that materialism is inadequate for describing consciousness - quite the contrary, if consciousness is derived from quantum effects, then it is assuredly physical.

However, even were it to be the case that you could rustle up a couple of physicists who did support your contention, they'd still be relying something other than their expertise in physics to make such a contention. By definition, any authority they have is scientific, and that is inherently an inquiry into a material universe.

You can acknowledge something, but it doesn't actually mean that what you're acknowledging is true. While consciousness may be difficult to define, that doesn't mean that willful speculation is thereby granted carte blanche. Further, neuroscientists have plenty of ideas - it's part of their field, after all. For example, Koch at the Allen Institute for Brain Science holds that consciousness arises within any sufficiently complex, information-processing system. That's far from being a total mystery beyond the realm of the physical.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#70  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 22, 2014 11:14 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Materialism is inadequate for describing consciousness Spirits.


And that is the cutting truth.

Any appeal to materialism being unable to explain a particular phenomena is simply trying to sneak mysticism in the back door. Not able to explain it to the satisfaction of whom? :thumbup:

Mystical accounts are not explanatory and not satisfactory, so by appealing to a mystical account, we're actually doing ourselves a disservice if approximating reality is the objective.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Oct 22, 2014 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#71  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 22, 2014 11:15 pm

Kafei wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
Yes. I wanted to grab that piece out and scream a little. I get so tired of hearing this shit. It's a bit analogous to '"Have you stopped beating your wife?"


The truth is that it isn't explained. Why is this is frustrating for you, I'm not sure I quite understand.


Actually, the truth is that it isn't explained in a manner you find satisfactory. These are two quite different beasts.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#72  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 22, 2014 11:17 pm

Kafei wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Is it the job of neuroscience to define "consciousness"? If there is not yet an adequate definition of the term, then it is highly premature to start making any claims about it, such as that it cannot be produced by material processes.


If that's the case, then by the same line of reasoning you could say it's also premature to make the claim that consciousness is the product of a material process.


No, it isn't.

Firstly, there is no other basis we're aware of, so we don't start simply imposing these unevidenced realms any more than we would appeal to miracles to explain phenomena. Magic and science are not compatible.

Secondly, we have very good reasons for employing a working assumption that any given observable phenomenon can be explained purely via a materialistic account because all previously observed phenomena have been explicable via purely materialistic accounts even when contemporary thinkers might have at the time argued otherwise. It's a perfectly reasonable operating directive.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#73  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 22, 2014 11:27 pm

Kafei wrote:
It's interesting, you see, that if you take the broad world of the so-called mysteries -- parapsychological, shamanic, extraterrestrial, and so forth -- and hypothesize another spatial dimension, one more spatial dimension, then suddenly all these mysteries become trivial. They are easily done. Locked boxes are opened; future events are discerned; lost objects are found. This sort of thing becomes quite the ordinary run of things if we hypothesize dimensions hidden from ordinary experience. So, if you could imagine an extraterrestrial with a technology that had access to this hyperspatial dimension, then this technology would indistinguishable from "magic," the "supernatural," the "spiritual," etc. This is described in Arthur C. Clarke's third law of prediction.


And yet to do so offers precisely zero explanatory power. You might as well just say 'goddidit'. We can hypothesize all manner of fantastical explanations to account for phenomena, but if we can't show that the claim is valid, then while it may be as meretricious as any other grammatically correct sentence, it fails to provide a single jot of use in approximating truth.

Worse, the notion that it actually 'solves' anything when it presents an entire realm we're supposedly ignorant of is self-defeating and far from trivial. It would be more rational to not hypothesize such realms when one cannot even substantiate one's reason for hypothesizing them, let alone provide evidence to support the contention.

Another very simple hypothesis would be that they're all fabrications of the over-active minds of humans, and that's the only thing that links them and provides a coherent single explanation for them.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#74  Postby tolman » Oct 22, 2014 11:34 pm

Shrunk wrote:
tolman wrote:Why would an extra spatial dimension allow future events to be discerned, if time is not a spatial dimension?
Time and space are different aspects of the same thing in relativity.

Well, even then, given a four-dimensional spacetime (where 'time' in reality doesn't act exactly like space) why would adding an extra spatial dimension allow a shaman to see the future?
Last edited by tolman on Oct 23, 2014 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#75  Postby Onyx8 » Oct 23, 2014 12:07 am

I suppose in the sense that the 3d guy in flatland would be able to predict the future when he observed a sphere moving in the third dimension through flatland: He would be able to predict that the dot would grow to a circle then contract to a dot and finally vanish. If he could see other objects about to intersect with flatland then he could predict their future observation.

Not that this helps Kafei's position much.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#76  Postby SpeedOfSound » Oct 23, 2014 12:15 am

Onyx8 wrote:I suppose in the sense that the 3d guy in flatland would be able to predict the future when he observed a sphere moving in the third dimension through flatland: He would be able to predict that the dot would grow to a circle then contract to a dot and finally vanish. If he could see other objects about to intersect with flatland then he could predict their future observation.

Not that this helps Kafei's position much.

Yes and I can predict that a pile of crap falling toward my head will be an uncomfortable situation.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32086
Age: 70
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#77  Postby tolman » Oct 23, 2014 12:22 am

Onyx8 wrote:I suppose in the sense that the 3d guy in flatland would be able to predict the future when he observed a sphere moving in the third dimension through flatland: He would be able to predict that the dot would grow to a circle then contract to a dot and finally vanish. If he could see other objects about to intersect with flatland then he could predict their future observation.

Not that this helps Kafei's position much.

It certainly doesn't seem to, unless it's being suggested that 'the future' typically involves 3D objects mysteriously appearing from nowhere, changing size and composition in completely inexplicable ways, and then vanishing.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#78  Postby Onyx8 » Oct 23, 2014 12:28 am

As I said.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#79  Postby Kafei » Oct 23, 2014 1:56 pm

Shrunk wrote:
That sure is a shitload of stuff to write about something when you don't even know what it is.


Well, just because we don't know exactly what it is doesn't mean we can't say something about it. I mean, we don't know what the universe is essentially or the multiverse, nevertheless science has plenty to say about it.

tolman wrote:
Why would an extra spatial dimension allow future events to be discerned, if time is not a spatial dimension?


As the good doc would say in Back to the Future, "You're not thinking 4th dimensionally." Well, I'll give an example of the fictional characters in Kurt Vonnegut's book "Slaughterhouse-Five." He speaks of an extraterrestrial race that perceives in the 4th dimension, and because they are fatalists, everything in their view is frozen in space-time and ultimate unalterable. And so if they were to look at you, they would see you at all points from conception to death. You'd appear as an undulating snake from the moment you are conceived, and every possible frame unto death. Every frame is discernable from their point-of-view.

Now, there's another extraterrestrial race in one episode of the Twilight Zone that could pop into any point in space-time from this higher dimension. So if you were able to do this, then one could say "locked boxes are open," because you would be able to reach into the box without having to open it, but you're not confined to the vicissitudes of ordinary three-dimensional space and time, so the box to you would be open.

I realize that some people believe that the 4th dimensional isn't spatial, but temporal, and of course there's debate on that topic as well, but these are simply examples to give you somewhat of an idea of what I was referring to. However, you asked about the shaman. I've read, and some scholars have pointed out, that there are such instances where if something goes missing in the tribe or if someone's sleeping with someone or if they're trying to predict weather, etc. shamans sometimes take these plants to find those answers. Now, I'm not sure how effective they are at doing that, but in some instances they find whatever it is they were looking for or solve whatever issue they intended. Now, I've read that, I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with all of that.

For me, the experience quite different. There is a sense of what I've come to call "panesthesia," for lack of a better word, but this word literally means "the summation of all sensations experienced by a person at one time." Or... since panexperientialism has been taken to mean quite another thing, I'd like to coin the word omni-experiential. In other words, there was an impression have having felt all experience at once, the entire spectrum of experience at one time, somehow. Sam Harris thought since these plants contain neurotransmitters that attach themselves to the peripheral and central nervous systems, that this bombardment might give one the impression that one is having all experience to be experienced simultaneously. Now, someone undergoing that experience, if they're religious, they might think they've become Christ or they're witnessing God. That's not the same thing as saying that it is "God," so please don't misinterpret that statement. I'm simply saying this this experience is so mind-boggling that people tend to gravitate towards these profound metaphors to describe their experience, so in the case of the religious person, the most profound thing they think they know is "God."

Dr. Rick Strassman recorded his clinical trials with DMT performed on volunteers in his book entitled "DMT: The Spirit Molecule." He intravenously dosed volunteers with pharmacologically pure N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and lo and behold, when people were given the threshold dose, they all come back with these overlapping metaphors. In fact, he points out in the book that many people came back describing it as "fourth dimensional" or "beyond dimensionality." It definitely can feel this way, but I don't want to give people the impression that just because it seems this way, that people can "discern the future," because it seems that you're feeling it all at once. In other words, I don't think you could be asked any question at the height of this experience and be able to answer, because it's purely intuitive. I'll try and give an example of what happened to me at the height of five dried of psilocybin-containing mushrooms. The only way I could really describe this "intuitive omniscience" is through a kind of colossal, titanic boredom. An ennui so profound that it seems to be exclusive to this state of mind. That all the mystery was sucked out of life, it felt as though you'd been everything, you've been everywhere, you've seen every movie, heard every song and experienced this over and over infinite amount of times. At that point, I wanted out, I cannot begin to describe how bizarre and at the same time profound and terrifying this experience was. If I had not come down, I would have gladly committed suicide just to relieve myself of that feeling. But thank God I did, and I assure you I was kissing the ground upon descending back into this ordinary state of consciousness. Anyway, before this is all misinterpreted or gets too weird, I'll leave you a link to Sam Harris speaking on the topic.



kennyc wrote:
Uh....no....not really. Please learn some science if you are going to spout bullshit about it.


I'm going to assume you do not consider "M-theory" science.


Spearthrower wrote:
Importantly with Bohm, a quantum consciousness does not equate to him claiming that materialism is inadequate for describing consciousness - quite the contrary, if consciousness is derived from quantum effects, then it is assuredly physical.


Yes, but at the quantum level, physics behaves quite differently than that of anything above the quantum level. Things, for the most case, can described with classical mechanics above the quantum level. However, below the quantum level, then things start to get more strange. You have Bell's theorem, quantum nonlocality, quantum entanglement, etc. It's these sort of concepts that are believed to be intertwined with consciousness.

Spearthrower wrote:You can acknowledge something, but it doesn't actually mean that what you're acknowledging is true. While consciousness may be difficult to define, that doesn't mean that willful speculation is thereby granted carte blanche. Further, neuroscientists have plenty of ideas - it's part of their field, after all. For example, Koch at the Allen Institute for Brain Science holds that consciousness arises within any sufficiently complex, information-processing system. That's far from being a total mystery beyond the realm of the physical.


There are physicists that believe that it may be the case that a concept like panexperientialism might be a basis for explanation. I'm not sure if Koch holds that idea, but it'd be interesting to hear his ideas on it.

Spearthrower wrote:
Mystical accounts are not explanatory and not satisfactory, so by appealing to a mystical account, we're actually doing ourselves a disservice if approximating reality is the objective.


It would seem to me that you haven't truly looked into this matter. I could point out things to you that would be interesting, because you see, I believe your statement is prejudice, especially because you've not experienced such yourself.


Spearthrower wrote:
Another very simple hypothesis would be that they're all fabrications of the over-active minds of humans, and that's the only thing that links them and provides a coherent single explanation for them.


So, M-theory is simply the product of an overactive imagination? I'm not sure if I agree with that.
User avatar
Kafei
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 793

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "Ground of all Being"?

#80  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 23, 2014 3:58 pm

Kafei wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Importantly with Bohm, a quantum consciousness does not equate to him claiming that materialism is inadequate for describing consciousness - quite the contrary, if consciousness is derived from quantum effects, then it is assuredly physical.


Yes, but at the quantum level, physics behaves quite differently than that of anything above the quantum level. Things, for the most case, can described with classical mechanics above the quantum level. However, below the quantum level, then things start to get more strange. You have Bell's theorem, quantum nonlocality, quantum entanglement, etc. It's these sort of concepts that are believed to be intertwined with consciousness.


Absolutely, but that provides no succor whatsoever for your claim that physicists believe that materialism is unable to account for consciousness. That's what I am contending - not how queer the universe is.


Kafei wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:You can acknowledge something, but it doesn't actually mean that what you're acknowledging is true. While consciousness may be difficult to define, that doesn't mean that willful speculation is thereby granted carte blanche. Further, neuroscientists have plenty of ideas - it's part of their field, after all. For example, Koch at the Allen Institute for Brain Science holds that consciousness arises within any sufficiently complex, information-processing system. That's far from being a total mystery beyond the realm of the physical.


There are physicists that believe that it may be the case that a concept like panexperientialism might be a basis for explanation. I'm not sure if Koch holds that idea, but it'd be interesting to hear his ideas on it.


I have no reason to doubt that a number of physicists hold quite contrary notions, but what would matter within the remit of their authority is what they can establish via evidence. There are undoubtedly Christian, Muslim, Hindu and other denominational Physicists who believe in all manner of contradictory things in their private lives - but that's terminally irrelevant with respect to what they can establish as valid within the context of physics.

What's even more irrelevant is how this connects to my point of contention. I pointed out that you have made the claim several times that 'physicists feel that materialism is inadequate for describing consciousness' and I am challenging that.


Kafei wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Mystical accounts are not explanatory and not satisfactory, so by appealing to a mystical account, we're actually doing ourselves a disservice if approximating reality is the objective.


It would seem to me that you haven't truly looked into this matter. I could point out things to you that would be interesting, because you see, I believe your statement is prejudice, especially because you've not experienced such yourself.


Well then, you've shown your hand, haven't you? You couldn't possibly know what my experiences are, and yet you lay the charge at my door that I lack sufficient experience - rather self-defeating of you, eh? Tell us again how you would know that?

Further, your argument is purely authoritarian. Even if I lack experience, am I supposed to just trust your word? Is your position more credible simply because you get to allege that you possess more experience, that I possess none, and therefore you're correct by default? That would appear to be an attempt at well-poisoning.

Methinks this provides ample reason to be skeptical of your claims in and of itself, even were I wholly lacking in relevant experience.

I do note, however, that it provided you with a way of not actually addressing the point I made. Almost as if that was the intention! :)

Kafei wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Another very simple hypothesis would be that they're all fabrications of the over-active minds of humans, and that's the only thing that links them and provides a coherent single explanation for them.


So, M-theory is simply the product of an overactive imagination? I'm not sure if I agree with that.


No, that would be an example of duplicitous discourse - a bait and switch.

My comment was replying to your post in which you talked about "the so-called mysteries -- parapsychological, shamanic, extraterrestrial, and so forth" - M-theory does not fit into any of these categories, and my comment was restricted in application to those topics.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Oct 23, 2014 4:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27982
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest