Thread: "Science" vs Metaphysics: The Definitive Debate

Originally posted by Peregrinus
If not, this discussion is over.

I highly doubt it's over, either way... lol
Btw, you guys are quite fired up about this. Try to continue in keeping it civil please

well, i'm just going to jump in here with my opinion. i'll try to make this brief.

First off, i loved the debate, as metaphysics is something i find quite fascinating. To me its not the sense of some "mystic" quality that draws me, as it does many others. Its the fact that we can acknowledge that something is obviously happening beyound our own pool of knowledge. One mistake i'd like to point out about Wolpert was that he began to question as to why no one tried to figure out 'why' telepathy was occuring. The point of their debate was not on how it works, but to prove that it existed. He didn't want to view Sheldrake as an actual scientist simply because he explored an area that was looked down apon my mainstream scientists...

Throughout the years, if one area of supernatural occurance was to be flamed by a very well known scientist, MOST other scientists as well would not challenge their claims, simply because they wouldn't want to be discredited from the scientific community. Its that kind of closed minded thinking that halts us from moving forward at all, only to reach the limits of what we're already familiar with. Wolpert BELIEVED that telepathy was impossible, but he did not know it. Another important observation i made was that Wolpert mentioned the very 'small' results that telepathic testing provided. No one should think that just because big effect does not result from a test that the ideas should be tossed out the window, as Wolpert had plainly done.

With that said, i'm siding with Metaphysics because there are effects (regardless of magnitude) that occur much more frequently than chance levels presented. Coincidence can only go so far, and as any true scientist should note, the REAL nonsense is that a coincidence would happen on every success of a test in this field. Once again, something out of normal explanation IS happening, and should therefore be subject to the scientific method (as Sheldrake had so rightly done as a scientist).

For a scientist to stick to any one claim 100% is dangerous as well. Just look at the law that once existed: "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Well, with the discovery of matter counterparts to our 'familiar kind' (antimatter), that law was disproven, and I think that's a very big deal. CERN sent rifts through the physics community when they made that claim (if in in fact was complete truth). The duality that exists so fully in our universe showed up again. matter and its oppsite.......

Well, i didn't mean to be this long, but i hope i didnt diverge from the subject too much. Im interested in what anyone else has to say, and constructive criticism is always welcome.

I'm glad to see this thread is getting the attention I'd hoped for in starting it. 8)
Great points from everyone. And I hope I'm getting the gist of everything that's been said, as I've had limited time to go through every single thing said, so if I step on anyone's toes, or don't make relative sense to whats been said, let me know.

I do agree, as stated, with Invader Tech's claim of the closed-minded thinking that seems rampant in mainstream science being a major hinderance to explorative progress. On the other hand, I do understand and give support to Peregrinus' respect in the scientific process, though I think her reference as Science as the "Box" is a little misleading. All occurances, both scientifically explainable and Not, are part of the box, as they are Both part of physical reality. Science is simply one way of looking at the box. If science Was "the box," there would be no such thing as differring (sp) scientific theories. Reality, as elusive as it is, is the box, and science has yet to explain everything that makes up this box. All it can do is offer its hypotheses and give us more insight as to what the box might consist of. But even this can prove insufficient, when one takes into account the many many things, a number of which are part of our everyday lives, that science is not yet able to explain.
The box itself can be (and more than likely is) more complex than we have the present knowledge/materials/science to accurately assess it to be. This is evident whenever we have something happen that goes Against the scientific way of looking at 'the box.' Anomolies (sp) are still a part of 'the box,' simply a part that we do not yet know how to explain, though they are perceived every day, and raise many, as of now, unanswerable questions. (Not saying that you disagree, Peregrinus It was simply that that metaphor was a little misleading. Or at least, to me.)
You seem to put a lot of stock into the realm of science, which I can understand and respect whole-heartedly, but consciousness of its flaws is as essential as its application.

Science is valid regardless of any outside, unperceivable reality which may or may not exist (since, as I have repeatedly explained, science seeks to describe perceivable, physical reality, not that which may or may not exist outside of perception and is therefore unavailable to human knowledge). [/b]

Does this mean that innovative science does not exist? Does this mean that the scientific process cannot be furthered to explain what is 'outside of present perception?' This is what science and discovery have been doing for eons, and is evident in every new scientific breakthrough that was once thought to be "imperceivable." (word?) In 1492, The World as Being Round was imperceivable. But through the science applied in the form of geographic exploration and technology it was proven fact, because we had the materials to perceive what was thought to be imperceivable before that time. Way back when, waveforms were "imperceivable" and were later rendered a part of everyday reality through advances in theory, risk, and technology. No science is truely Valid unless the validity of the experiment can be proven without the shadow of a doubt. True, it is the closest thing to validity we have, until a given experiment reaches the realm of undeniable truth, but through the discovery of other materials and variables, over time, many "undeniably true" scientific theories are rendered invalid, simply the best guess made with the materials we had, which could easily prove insufficient. "Validity" in terms of scientific process, can simply be described as "A placeholder for truth until we are able to gauge actual truth," and should always be looked at as such, because "validity" is almost certain to morph itself over time.
The evidence that you're asking Belisarius to provide is given everytime something happens that is outside of the realm of scientific explaination. Such events happen day in and day out, and are usually the ones most hastily disposed of as nonsense. (A few of which were mentioned in the debate posted) It is simply that we have no way to gauge what these events stem from, that they are so easily passed off as insufficient evidence, however the fact remains that they defy the guidelines that science has provided for us.
Strange occurances like "telepathy" between twins, between loved ones, between those who share a heartfelt and deeply conscious "bond" with another is Evidence of Belesarius' point, though far from Proof, which is exactly what you were asking for. Anything that falls outside the realm of scientific explaination is Evidence of its fallibility (sp) though, I repeat, far from proof.
My best friend of 12 years once told me about a girl he'd met over the internet. They talked on and off for years, though had never met personally. Over some time, this girl began to slowly admit to him that she had an ability of remote viewing from people she'd felt a very strong bond with. (I find it interesting that she took so long to tell him, and that this conincides with the "why dont' people just come up and tell people they can do these amazing things." I for one can think of quite a few reasons, but that is besides the point.) Now, again, I am a speculator, and am going off of what my friend told me, but this guy is like the brother I never had, and would not be so sincere about something like this that was not true. He told her, after she told him about her 'ability,' that he was having a hard time believing her, which was understandable. So he decided to test her, he turned around from the computer and asked her what he was seeing. She described colors, furniture, posters, even the color of his shoes after he looked down at his feet. Now, I admit, even I, being interested in the metaphysical, had a hard time believing him, as anyone would when faced with this sort of in-your-face evidence, but I know my friend, and I could tell in his voice and demeanor that he was 100% sincere. He said he would test her almost every time they talked, and she would give astounding accuracy. After about 2 1/2 years, she simply stopped coming around, and they'd lost touch, but he says it still makes him uncomfortable to think about it. That, in itself, is evidence that you're seeking. Proof? Of course not, as it is coming from one man's mouth, and I have nothing to go on other than the unshakeable trust I have in him.
But this is not an original idea. Things like this "supposedly" happen all the time, and are dismissed, which was also displayed when you asked for "evidence" of such a thing, when I'm sure you, yourself, have heard such claims before, and didn't have a tangible reason for denying them, other than you thought they were impossible because they went against your scientific principles. If these links in consciousness Are possible, even to a species that is manufactured from childhood to grow Out of these beliefs, it is quite possible, and arguementably (word?) evident, that the 'world is an illusion' claim could be a possibility that is just out of reach, as of now.
It has long been scientific fact that the 5 senses of reality are simply electrical signals interpreted by our brain. Nothing more. This in itself is evidence of a 'curtain' between the definite (outside the box) Reality, and the 5 sense reality that we have the tools to explore. It is true you cannot prove that the metaphysical reality does not exist. Just like you cannot Prove physical reality does exist. Our senses are not perfect, however the thought of "reality being nothing but an illusion that is so perfect as to give no perception of being an illusion at all" could be backed up every time you close your eyes to dream. If you only dreamed of things you thought of as "normal" and were constantly dreaming, how would you know it was an illusion? If you 'grew up' in your dream, learning that everything you were dreaming was 'real,' would you even know what to look for as evidence of illusion? Would you even question it for a moment? Then, over time, would inventing dream tools to explore your dream world, right down to the subatomic dream particles make anything you discover any more of a Reality than the last? No, because they would all be a part of the dream itself. That, again, is evidence of its Possibility, and the fact that science is based on 5 sense reality is evidence of an unlikely (as far as we can presently perceive) but very defined possibility.
However, though I agree with Belesarius' consciousness in the possible loopholes in scientific theory (namely my own view that it is subject to not only human opinion, but also with the tools available to perceive the given experiment) I think Belesarius may be misunderstanding the intention of the scientific process in its most fundamental essence, because he's comparing it to his own view of 'reality beyond five-sense' reality, which, while it may or may not be proven true 89238429 years from now, is no reason to discredit the scientific process as a whole.

(Let me know if I went off course with my understanding of anyone's opinion. I haven't had a lot of time to read, lately, so I can't say that I've gotten through every word on the thread, but hey, I'm tryin to keep up here!!)

That was very nicely said Oneironaut. Even if it went off course with the topic (which it didn't), it still expressed a good point of view.

I must say what got to me the most was your mentioning of remote viewing. I've heard of it on quite a few occassions, but i found it interesting that someone could remotely view through another's eyes! I thought it went a bit differently, but it makes perfect sence if it is indeed possible. I would have tried to stay in contact with someone who claimed that had such a handle on the ability, but i guess its beside the point, heh.

If i myself were a scientist and wanted to figure out HOW telepathy worked, i'd simply look at what we already know as a starting point. Just about every kind of energy in our universe is expressed as a wave (am i right?). For ages before the human species even existed, our sun was giving off an intense amount of radio waves (as an example), but when we finally stepped onto the world, we were oblivious to it. How could anyone have known that radio waves were emitted from the sun, had they even known what radio waves were? Now, this is just a gut feeling, but i think its a good one: im assuming that any sort of telepathic message or contact is created through the use of a wavelength we havent been able to detect with any instrument we currently posses, which would make sense.

Next i'd want to know how it could be possible. Simply put, transmition of data through empty space takes place with an energetic source, and we know the brain has plenty of energy. Its always producing electrical signals (assuming your not dead), just as the sun itself would have plenty of energy for its super radio transmitions. Has anyone notticed that in the presence of a powerful elecromagnet, or powerlines, you dont get knocked out? (for lack of a better word)... This could also be because the brain wasn't designed to operate with electromagnetic waves, unlike walkie talkies, TV antennae, etc. However, look at a much finer wavelength, like light. Science has proven that the brain has sensors for light detection (besides our eyes) just within the cerebrum. It could be very possible that the brain has a means of decting other, much finer wavelengths that we havnt yet produced artificially. I hope that makes sense, and i hope i didnt't make myself sound like an idiot with that....

The only difficult thing to do now is try to amplify that wave. Scientists have been trying to figure out how to amplify gravity recently as well, because we cannot produce that wavelength artificially either (based on the theory that gravity is a wave, once more). We may very well be a long way away from ever getting anywhere with this, but hey, its a start.

Remember, this is just a theory, and its based on the belief that telepathy operates on an unknown wavelength produced by the mind.


Edit: oh yea, and i know that was a bit off from everyones' conversation, but at least it has to do with metaphysics =]

Originally posted by Oneironaut
Does this mean that the scientific process cannot be furthered to explain what is 'outside of present perception?' This is what science and discovery have been doing for eons, and is evident in every new scientific breakthrough that was once thought to be \"imperceivable.\" (word?) In 1492, The World as Being Round was imperceivable. But through the science applied in the form of geographic exploration and technology it was proven fact, because we had the materials to perceive what was thought to be imperceivable before that time.

With respect, you are misunderstanding the distinction between what is currently perceived and what is perceivable. The three dimensionality of the earth was certainly perceivable before 1492; it simply was not yet perceived. Any person with a robust ship and some navigational know-how (and a good bit of luck) could have sailed around the globe and discovered it to be a sphere. The fact that it hadn’t happened before Magellan in 1520 was a limitation of technology, not one of human perception. (Well, actually, thoughtful observes had noted that the masts of ships appear to gradually rise from the horizon even back then, causing some doubt as to the veracity of the flat-earth theory even before the first recorded circumnavigation of the globe, but that's a bit of a digression).

When I say that the limits of science are “the box,” I am defining the box as what is physically perceivable, not the body of current scientific knowledge. Undiscovered phenomena, if they are perceivable, are included in the box. The box is not science; it is the realm accessible to physical, human perception and therefore to scientific study. The effects of telepathy, telekinesis, and many other proposed psychic phenomena have perceivable effects and can, therefore, conceivably be studied by science. The reasons why serious consideration have yet to be given to the investigation of these phenomena is complex and the matter of some debate.

The distinction I am drawing here is the difference between standing alone at the entrance to an art gallery and not yet having explored the rooms and standing alone at the entrance to an art gallery while blind. In the first instance, the gallery is simply yet to be discovered, its paintings as yet unobserved and unstudied. In this case, the gallery represents the unexplored regions inside the box. In the second instance, knowledge of the paintings is unattainable due to limits on our perceptive ability; the paintings are then outside of our perception and therefore outside of the box. The limits of our human perception, and not the current state of our scientific knowledge, define the limits of the box.

Point taken. That was a bad analogy on my part. But let me try this again, because I think my basis is still sound.
Lets compare a blind man standing outside of an art museum, longing to see what is outside his perceptual ability (namely the art itself) with a man who'd lost his legs in battle, longing to feel what is outside of his perceptual ability. (More specifically, the joy of walking down the beach with a lover who already loves him deeply, despite his handicap.)
Long ago, loss of your legs was pretty cut-and-dry: You were doomed to never walk upright again. The sensual experience of walking yourself anywhere was outside of your perceptual ability, as it still is to many people around the world today. However, through advances in scientific knowledge, we have done wonders through the use of prosthetics and other aids, to somewhat substitute this sensation of walking on your own accord. But, still, something was missing. Through further advance, more recently, scientists at Duke U have wired a chimp's brain to a robotic arm. Securing the monkey's real arm to its body, this monkey was then able to control the robotic arm as if it were his own, thinking the commands as if he were sending the signals to his own arm, instead of the mechanical fixture. With thought, this monkey was able to do relatively complex motions, such as feeding itself with the robotic arm. I'm not drawing conclusions by saying this is the next step in medical science for humans, but the technology is definitely there. What was once out of the perceptual ability of a handicapped soldier, is now, and only now, quite possible through advances in scientific knowledge and technology. You cannot truely render something impossible, until you have exhausted all of the materials you could possibly use to test its possibility. And you cannot use all of the materials possible to test and experiment, until you have progressed enough to know Every Possible Material that could be sufficient in helping you break through this progressive barrier.
Modern science, as impressive as it is, is argueably not at an impassible plateau (sp?). It is simply all we have at the Moment, and is, as its always been, projected to know more than it truely does by many of its advocates. At one time the amount of UV rays that come from the sun to the earth, differing with the time of day and the sun's angle (if I'm correct) were Imperceivable, because no one had the materials to measure them. Over time, through experimentation and failure, theory and triumph, the materials are either discovered and/or invented, that makes most things once thought imaginary, fantastic, or downright bullshit, a part of what makes modern technology so realistically impressive.
The experience of driving a car at 200+ mph was at one time imperceivable, because we hadn't yet discovered the materials that could make this possible. Viewing the earth from space was, at one time, imperceivable. Subatomic particles were, at one time, imperceivable. Matter disappearing altogether was once imperceivable, but is now one of the biggest mysteries of the scientific community, whose possibility is the foundation of quantum physics. (or at least what I understand from it, as I've only recently gotten interested in quantum physics.) Honestly, the list can go on and on of things that were once, without the materials necessary to perceive them, imperceivable. Many times it is only a matter of time, experimentation and progress that make most things we thought imperceivable a part of our everyday lives.

And to Invader Tech: I've been interested in the way brainwaves could possibily offer some sort of truth to things like telekinesis, and especially telepathy as well. My question to those who faithfully believe it to be an impossibility is this: When two waves from different sources clash, they can cause interference. (Granted again, I'm no scientist, I'm just going off of my limited knowledge of the area.) So who is to say that brainwaves, being waves themselves could not possibly interfere with the brainwaves of another? If a thought is simply a wave pattern, isn't it a little less "fictional" to think of one wave pattern having an influence on another, than "Hey, I'm projecting my thoughts into your mind." Sure they may mean the same thing, but one seems much harder to believe, and is usually the way things like telepathy are described. If scientists today can admit that they still do not know the full physiology of every part of the human brain, which they Do admit, how is it rational to dismiss something like telepathy as a possibility other than the bottom line of: "Well..we just haven't seen any evidence of it yet." When in fact, evidence is presented all the time, as mentioned before, but dismissed because it simply "Can't Be." This seems a little hypocritical of the scientific process, to me, because its like saying "Well, we see this amazing occurances, and so far, through scientific study, we cannot explain how they happen, but we rule out even a single shred of support to telepathy, simply because we have not been able to prove telepathy exists." (Which leaves me to ask how you prove something exists that you don't take seriously in the first place.)

To answer your question about brainwave interference: Waves can and do interfere, and its called constructive and destructive interference. That is, two waves can amplify eachother, silence eachother out, or create a completely new kind of wave (learned from a physics class). The interesting thing is that peoples' brainwave patterns are completely unique, meaning that there are no two brainwave patterns in the world that are the same, just like fingerprints and the retina of your eye.

This is the funny thing. I remember learning in Another science class that when two women live together, the times of their PMSs will match up over time. Now, couldn't this relate to two family members who tend to have telepathic occurances? Or even two best friends who spend alot of time together? I strongly believe that this is the case, and is why telepathy mainly occurs between close friends and family members.

I'll be glad to know what everyone thinks about that.

Oneironaut,

During my discussion with Belisarius, he defined the "outside reality" to be beyond perception. It wasn't a matter of discovery, either fundamental or technological. The fact that the supposed source of the illusion was outside of human perception was a set as a fundamental limit. (That's the "even though everything seems continuous, it's really not - you just can't tell - but it might not be continuous and you can't prove otherwise because by definition you can't tell that it's an illusion" part.) It’s not a matter of scientific progress or even the biological evolution of homo sapiens; it was defined as something which is not detectable. Not now, not ever.

What is perceivable is not constrained by the bare human senses, either. For instance, we cannot with the naked human eye observe UV rays. However, incorporating physical principles, we are able to detect and perceive the (physical) rays and translate them into a form which is observable by the human senses (e.g. oscilloscope displays, binoculars, etc). “Perceivable, physical reality” is not a description of what we now know or even what we might know at some time in the future. It is more fundamental than that. Perceivable, physical reality defines a set a attributes and phenomena within, for lack of a better phrase, "full reality" (which may or may not be equivalent to perceivable, physical reality). "Perceivable, physical reality" really has nothing to do with the current state of science. All of those discoveries you describe have always been available to perception – they are based on physical, perceivable phenomena. Prior to discovery, the lack was both theoretical and technological, but not perceptual. Those things would have been there all along if only the scientists of the times had known where and how to look.

Will we in the future discover new places to look and find there wondrous, exciting, unprecendented things? Yes, of course. It's like moving to a new room of the art gallery - or better yet, discovering a hidden door behind a painting. What we think are the limits of perceivable, physical reality can change, just like one's estimate of the interior dimensions of a building can change upon discovering a new room; however, the limits themselves do not change. We as a species will continue through new discoveries to refine and correct when needed our current scientific description of physical reality. As I’ve said numerous times before, sciences describes perceivable, physical reality; it does not define it.