Originally Posted by Original Poster
Then, because I say telepathy is a possibility, you jump to say that I think it's the ONLY answer
I never stated this was your only answer, so this is probably a reading comprehension issue you’re having. I stated that based on your posts so far, telepathy, and the other terminology you’re using are your current ways of conceptualizing those experiential cases. I never stated anything is wrong with that, since you’re trying to create presumptive models, and are merely trying to be resourceful with what’s plausible for the time being for you. No one is jumping on you presuming that you think that telepathy is the only feasible way to get your point across. No one is stating that you’re being completely intolerable to other options.
Originally Posted by Original Poster
I believe the scientific method is capable of this. It's a matter of time
That’s always an easy trump card to utilize, and having deep faith in the inevitability that the scientific method can solve, or make a valid set of theories and explanations for this. Anyone can say it’s a matter of time for what would be generally unobservable and untested reaches fruition.
Originally Posted by Original Poster
In the meantime, it's fun to remind people that a lot of the default views of the paradigm were not ever validated scientifically to begin with, and yet still somehow manage to slow down progress.
You’re basically stating that with the progressive learning curve behind the scientific method to hopefully figure these things currently beyond our understanding when it comes to applying objective standpoints (and not subjective ones that have been apparent through spirituality, metaphysics, and other paranormal aspects of course), it’s only a matter of time. Well, until that becomes a reality, it’s obvious that things not validated through the scientific method may be true to others (e.g. experiential cases, anecdotal evidence, argumentum ad populums, self-fulfilling prophecies, and much more).
The reason you feel there’s stagnant progress in this is because you’re not taking into consideration that it will take some time to filter out what could be frauds, apophenia, and other ways of inconsistent data. It’s easier to say that there’s stagnant progress, but it’s definitely harder to come up with a workable theory that can challenge current models with little to no room for error.
Originally Posted by Juroara
But it must have been so frustrating for lucid dreamers in the age of science when science decided that lucid dreaming wasn't real - even though people were clearly experiencing it. The science of that day would make silly claims like "you just imagined you were lucid when you woke and created false memories".
It’s completely understandable that during that time, lucid dreaming seemed to be implausible (to those scientists) despite of overwhelming anecdotal cases and experiential truths from lucid dreamers. Again, this is focusing on the individuals that had their own dispositions and potentially dogmatic views against lucid dreaming being a natural experience. The same would apply when Darwin’s theories were considered a mockery to most (seeing how science wasn’t as advanced back then when religion would be the dominant feature in people’s quotidian lifestyles).
Originally Posted by Juroara
The science of that day would make silly claims like "you just imagined you were lucid when you woke and created false memories
I want you to read that statement of yours for a bit, and see how this doesn’t really set up much defense in your overall post. You’re stating that the “science” (when you really mean scientists, and not the framework of science as an entity), would set up arguments on how virtual experiential realities were simply just that when one was lucid.
It’s not a silly claim for anyone to deem lucid dreaming as an individual having a virtual experiential reality, especially if one subscribes that it’s occurring within the confines of their minds. It’s only when those same paranormal experiential cases that I’m sure any person in this forum had when attempting lucid dreaming is where they (lucid dreamers) can speculate that there may be something grander than just being in an altered state of consciousness.
That’s when people would step into metaphysics, or a better word, ontological standpoints of the human experience. And when lucid dreaming was finally deemed as a scientifically proven phenomenon, the dispositions of others that were against it doesn’t even matter anymore. People move on because there’s finally a way to explain that experience. People can easily make the argument that consciousness exploration (subjective and experiential truths developed) over the existence of mankind has evolved, and the scientific method is merely picking up on the trail.
That may very well be the case, but the framework is merely there to find patterns, uniformity, consistency, and a valid set of explanations to conceptualize those subjective experiences. Is there anything wrong for a framework built for accuracy and consistency of a knowable world? Just like any lucid dreamer dives into consciousness exploration in their natural sleep, they will have their own personal experiential truth of the matter without waiting for empirical evidence to show up. But other than gaining assurance of that, this doesn’t really make the framework of science dogmatic. It’s merely the individuals that are susceptible to error like anyone else. Either people are ignoring that despite of there being dogmatic views here and there in Science (and even in standpoints of metaphysics, spirituality, and paranormal), there’s an overwhelming gregarious hub that would generally follow the framework of science.
If mistakes are made, if errors are made, if dogmatic views are apparent, in time, the progressive learning curve implied behind the Scientific method is always there. Those individuals realize they made a mistake, move on, and maybe formulate other theories in the future. If they’re still stuck in the past, and are trying to salvage their theories against lucid dreaming for instance, then they’re stuck at that impasse when evidence clearly refutes their opposition.
Originally Posted by Juroara
Point is, we never needed empirical evidence to prove lucid dreaming. It really is self-evident! Its one thing for a scientist to say "we should study the true nature of lucid dreaming" and another to say "lucid dreaming isn't real until its empirically proven". That's just a denial of the human experience.
And it’s another thing when applying ontology (nature of lucid dreaming)/epistemology to lucid dreaming, but wanting to find a way to go about explaining things in an objective standpoint after sound and solid presumptive frameworks in the past can be tested. This is why at this point, having opposition in matters like this (lucid dreaming) would be futile.
Originally Posted by Juroara
You're arguing that there are no dogmas in science. I disagree.
I guess you weren’t following the trend of the post, but I didn’t see anywhere where Xei stated there is absolutely no dogmas (when it comes to the gregarious scientific groups, and not the framework) in Science.
Originally Posted by Juroara
But here is the dogma. The dogma says "because these areas of the brain were active during this experience, then these experiences themselves originate from those areas of the brain" in other words, hallucination.
Why is this dogmatic? Because this assumption is based off of fluff.
How is that dogmatic? It’s dogmatic for individuals to presume that it could be a hallucination? It’s dogmatic for individuals like that to acknowledge the lucid dreaming allows for each individual to have their own virtual experiential realities when they dive into consciousness exploration like that? It’s dogmatic for individuals to use “hallucination,” or even “psychosomatic experience” to conceptualize what was occurring?
Originally Posted by Juroara
Naturally, when you see the apple the visual cortex is engaged. The scientists are in the room with you, they can see the apple too. When looking at your brain activity are the scientists going to say you 'hallucinated' an apple? Not likely. Because they can see the apple too, confirmation bias and all that.
Firstly, that’s not confirmation bias (in this scenario in that quote), you’re using the term wrong. It would only be deemed as confirmation bias if the scientist finds new evidence that can confirm with their beliefs, but this is a matter or perception, not dispositions. If they’re incompetent to even have decent cognition operating to have reliability in memory that it was an apple, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be a representative, or being part of the experiment.
What you’re really stating is in relation to abilities of sentient beings such as us to experience subjectivity, and having cognition capable of rationalizing, and finding patterns from that subjectivity. It also talks about things such as qualia (i.e. how you mentioned how both the scientist and the individual can see a red apple, and how they may have slight differences in their perception, but not too much to where it's inconsistent with the reality they're in).
Originally Posted by Juroara
Now what do the scientists conclude? You hallucinated an apple.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say
That’s a pretty incompetent scientist you’re using in this hypothetical situation. You’re just stating that a magician, who would be proficient in distractions, would make others feel that scenario was magic. And then presuming the scientist wouldn’t be cognizant of that, and them saying it was a hallucination, and then sequentially trying to sew it together on how that’s dogmatic. What?
If anything, how you’re setting up the hypothetical situation would be dogmatic since it’s catering to a scenario that fits your conceptual framework on how there are dogmatic individuals in Science. I understand that human beings are going to have opinions and personal dispositions for anything obviously, but even when it happens all the time, that’s why there’s contingencies to filter out something like that when approaching things scientifically.
Originally Posted by Juroara
Do these regions in the brain and compounds CREATE the experience (hallucination)? Or do they function just like the visual cortex, do they allow us to EXPERIENCE these aspects of reality?
You’re talking about two extremes:
Near-death experiences.
Those that subscribe to the NDE as spiritual/supernatural/metaphysical vs. those who reject that and have their own dispositions.
Infrequent near death experiences in ... [Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
Impact of near-death experiences on dialysis... [Am J Kidney Dis. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
Especially this one: Infrequent near death experiences in severe brain injury survivors - A quantitative and qualitative study that talks about several concepts you’ve addressed on experiencing supernatural, and having rationality intact as well. The same for said NDE that may confirm to others on their own individual dispositions of death, and what may come after that.
If you can offer a set of articles that come to the conclusion that these are spiritual cases (as in making objective standpoints supporting that instead of subjective standpoints), I’m very interested to read those. But most of those cases with NDE just ends up with having to put in more research into those matters, but it doesn’t mean there’s more assurance/credibility of spirituality or the supernatural, merely more curiosity to explore such matters.
Originally Posted by Juroara
How does the researcher KNOW that a REAL apple is in the room? Because they have a visual cortex and are actively engaging that region of their brain. If the visual cortex isn't enough they have hands *hopefully* and can pick it up. If picking it up isn't enough they have the sense of smell, the sense of taste.
One could argue with factors such as (but not limited to):
- Qualia or quale (e.g. the “redness” of an apple for instance, or how individuals may have slight differences in perception)
- Sentience being the ability to experience subjectivity, and sapience being the ability to rationalize in said subjectivity
- The questions of time, memory, and consciousness (i.e. soft/hard problems of consciousness)
- The lack of counterfactuals in having a working model for mental events (i.e. qualia and how “red” someone sees red, the smell of an object, and other sensory applications)
- Using Phenomenological standpoints that can actually have controlled environments/conditions/scenarios to test those NDE
And other factors to talk about experience, subjectivity, and conceptualizing things in relation to spatiotemporal continuity (i.e. both the individual and scientist seeing the apple, and having little to no skips/mental ailments in perception).
Originally Posted by Juroara
If you can not EXPERIENCE apple in any way then apple does not exist to you. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. Experiencing is how you determine reality, even in science we experience data via graphs or lines or numbers or etc. Or it didn't happen!
If you pay attention, this quote can actually be a double-edged sword. Because if the individual cannot experience the apple even when other modes of cognition that would allow them to conceptualize reality, and also have reliability in memory in general, it raises the question on matters such as NDE that may be the individual seeing the totality of their conceptual frameworks to validate and confirm their opinions on death, and what may be after that.
When it comes to NDE and death in general, everyone is going to have their own opinions/dogma on that. Trying to parse spirituality, different interpretations of consciousness exploration, and other supernatural and paranormal events into that is somewhat dogmatic. Surprise, surprise.
You’ve basically went through a dogmatic approach in those examples, especially on controversial topics like NDE (even though I agree some parts were valid like the futility of those who still oppose lucid dreaming being a scientifically proven phenomenon).
You’ve set up sham scenarios of incompetent scientists (the magician example) to justify there’s dogma in Science (even though no one implied Science, and the individuals that utilize the framework are flawless in their approach). Maybe you should know the meaning of dogma before justifying it.
If the scientific method was flawless, there wouldn’t be any need to see it as a progressive learning curve in finding uniformity, patterns, and such to conceptualize a knowable world, universe, and beyond. That’s why the progressive learning curve and contingencies exist, to filter out any errors over time, and move on to progressively improving on theories, models, and such).
Can we agree that human beings can have natural predispositions for opinionated/dogmatic views, and stop implying that others think that Science and the constituents in its epistemological approach are completely absolved from fallacies and errors? If people are stripping away the contingencies of the scientific method (that can counter those errors in time due to objectivity, peer-review, and repeated experimentation), that’s just them being dogmatic (or intolerant to see them actually), and not even acknowledging those contingencies.
|
|
Bookmarks