An Empirical View of Science Dogma

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-23-2014, 02:23 AM
StephL

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

To add on to that list, here are some that give more critique and criticisms on the workings with Objectivism and variants of it:

Why I'm not an objectivist

Objectivist Epistemology: Strengths and Weaknesses <-- Older entry, but still brings up some good points

And here's a melange of criticisms of Objectivism (mostly against Rand's philosophy that derived from the generalized Objectivism).

Criticisms of Objectivism

Here's one that gives criticism (but doesn't wholeheartedly reject) on Objectivism:

Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism? | The Moral Liberal*|*The Moral Liberal <-- I believe they were just referencing the original entry that I can't seem to find, and where adding their opinions on it.

A quote that the link quoted on:

Quote:

Modern Materialism holds that the universe is an unlimited material entity; that the universe, including all matter and energy (motion or force), has always existed, and will always exist; that the world is a hard, tangible, material, objective reality that man can know. It holds that matter existed before mind; that the material world is primary and that thoughts about this world are secondary. (Charles S. Seely, Modern Materialism: A Philosophy of Action.)

You can find criticisms against that same link, but that links to other forums I probably can't reference to unfortunately. Most of them talk about where Objectivism falls under (Materialism, Idealism, or other isms).

There's more links, but I think those are okay for now for furthering any discussion in the future. The axioms you mentioned was something I was trying to encroach at some point ..

Your links are fascinating me, Link!
I enjoy thinking along those lines - motivation to sort out some ideas..
Attachment 6608
02-24-2014, 11:14 AM
Voldmer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

But by this definition, gravity is not actually a cause. Gravity is not an event which "happens", so it can't precede anything. It's a fact which "is".

This is not the "physicists position". A physicist would ask the question: what is it, that makes gravity function. To state that gravity is not an event, means defining it that way. Wouldn't you agree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

And gravitation is symmetrical in time.

How are you defining time?

I believe time is an illusion, or - at best - a tool to order events by. From my perspective, time is not an dimension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xei

Once again, I must take pains to clarify that I really don't believe "there is no ultimate reality" any more than I disbelieve it, and certainly I don't use such a belief as a basis for other things I say. I wasn't actually predicting anything, I was just describing what my post illustrated. Every physical theory ever has just been a generalisation of patterns, and defines those things in terms of patterns which are atomic and unexplained. This isn't a prediction, this is just a description of what explanations are. You can't give an example of an "explanation" which doesn't simply assume some pattern, because that's not how explanations work.

Okay. I'm still struggling with understanding exactly your view, but that's probably not unreasonable, given that our views differ in their foundations rather than the implied logic.
02-24-2014, 11:52 AM
Voldmer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

Not enticing you to go about making those dichotomies, merely stating what you’ve done from post #91, and how you see a range of difference views going from extreme subjectivist to extreme objectivist.

Okay, there appears to be a real, meaningful difference of approach here. I consider these opposing views to be fundamental beliefs. And, for me, beliefs can held with varying strength. So for example, I would see it as entirely possible to attach 50% probability to either belief, and thereby occupy the middle ground. This approach comes from probability theory, and I adhere to this. I personally just happen to be perched at the one end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

If you feel that’s the case, you can present those words to other forums, but you’re just making a presumption despite of the criticisms that shows up that individuals would be going through the same questioning as I did. Using the wrong terminology as contrasting ideas, when you really meant to state subjective and objective standpoints (that are loosely followed) instead will cause confusion through other discussions beyond this forum.

I disagree, but there's hardly any point in debating it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

The view that you held that reality exists, with or without observations, is just mentioning that reality is mind-independent. If you can easily hold the view that reality exists with or without mental states from sentient beings such as us (objectivity), I’m interested on how you feel reality would affect/cause our modes of cognition to conceptualize it if you feel our observations are a consequence of it.

I agree that this is an interesting question, but it is not one that I have occupied myself with. And it would definitely take me more time to get to grips with it, than this thread deserved. So I'll leave that one hanging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

They’re just arguments for the sake of facilitating discussion, but if you want to interpret them as only rants, guess there’s no point in me knowing what you feel is considered debating or giving augmentatives.

No worries. I'll spare you. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

If you feel what you’ve stated so far isn’t considered outbursts to some extent (especially with what you felt were well-earned ad hominem), I guess that’s just an extreme bias of yours I’ll accept.

Of course there have been outbursts. I have been very frustrated by having to read your anti-terse prose held quite firmly within your preferred technical languague.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

This trend of yours is analogous to a person putting their fingers in their ears and ignoring anything that’s meant to challenge their views, and hopefully see if they can make counter arguments in their expositions.

If you had even tried to meet me half way, meaning throwing all of the philosophical language away (I certainly avoided all physics lingo), and cutting to the chase, then the debate could even have held some meaning.
02-24-2014, 12:30 PM
Voldmer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

Also, to Voldmer:

I haven't been engaging in pit-pattering rage in what you deemed as philosophical rants. I was not angry, mad, pissed, or irritated to levels so extreme that would inspire me to type those responses. All of my responses are intended to be casual and hopefully be a bit more thought-provoking based on circumstances of threads like these.

Just because someone may give a more extended discussion on something doesn't necessarily mean their modes of cognition in producing them requires them to be filled with a ranty-bitchy-piss-poor demeanor, that's a really naive mindset to attribute to anyone in discussions like this. I guess if people have predispositions on something where they question how another person could cognitively formulate something like that so abnormal to their own modes of cognition should expand their horizon a bit.

I never thought you were enraged or bitchy. I attributed quite differenct psychological states to you. This misunderstanding may be due to the word 'rant'. I now know, that sometimes anger is implied in writing a rant, but I did not think you were driven by anger at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

Maybe what you deem as intellectual is whatever fits your spectrum of cognition, and anything beyond what you're capable of fixating is deemed as rants.

However, that's not the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

I guess everyone's cognitive grasp of that is subjective, but if there's any more declarations from you of them being rants in the future, rest assured that isn't the intention on my end. If you still continue to believe something else contrary to that, then fine.
In short: I'm not even mad

As indicated above, I fully believe that.
02-24-2014, 12:41 PM
Voldmer

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephL

But the opposite view - mind independent of brain - does simply lack any positive evidence, and requires a completely new model of understanding of physical reality to be compatible.
The latter is not a counterargument - but lack of evidence is.
I disbelieve data, which seem to provide such evidence, since none of the research done, has survived scrutiny from the scientific community ever.
But to get rid of accusations on bias in this - luckily we have Mr. Randi and his over 1000 self-declared psychics, who failed to make a quick one million bucks with psi under controlled conditions.
No evidence - no need to expand and revolutionize current physics and neuroscientist theory. At all.

How do you see it, Voldmer?

Before I can completely believe something, I must have proof that it is correct. In these matters there will probably never be proof on one side or the other, so my position will never reach certainty.

As for the mind/brain-issue, I believe that the mind is firmly lodged in the brain, but I also believe that the brain has a higher dimensionality than three (because I believe the physical universe has a larger dimensionality than three), and that the brain, as modern science considers it, is only a three-dimensional slice through the totality of the brain. Therefore, from my perspective, there is likely enormously much more to the brain, than modern science acknowledges.

I believe that there may well be an "astral plane", but that this astral plane is a normal part of the universe - just not present in our three-dimensional slice of it.
02-24-2014, 04:09 PM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This is not the "physicists position". A physicist would ask the question: what is it, that makes gravity function. To state that gravity is not an event, means defining it that way. Wouldn't you agree?

No... physicists already have a precise definition of event, which is something with a single location in space and time. Gravity is a description of motion which applies throughout space and time. It doesn't just "happen" "somewhere" and then stop. When a particle is moving under gravity, the gravitational force does not precede the particle's acceleration. They are concurrent. So by your own definition of cause, gravity is actually not a cause of motion. This is made even more clear by the fact that gravity is just as valid a description if we reverse time - a fact you haven't really responded to yet.

Regarding physicists asking "what makes gravity function", one need only look at my past exposition of Newton and Kepler. For the purposes of further illustration, this exposition extends to one further case before we hit contemporary boundaries; namely, Einstein's general relativity. Once more, this was markedly not an explanation of "how gravity functions" in the sense of some kind of causal explanation. It was just an even more general description of observations, which encompassed gravity, and rested on yet more assertions. Interestingly and importantly, Einstein's description was not dynamic. Rather, it treated all of space and time as an existing entity, and then he made it his job to simply describe the geometry of that entity, and describe the shape of paths in the 4-dimensional space-time. It was also symmetrical in time, again. So a general description of reality? Yes. A cause of reality? No. It's impossible to regard it as such, nor was it Einstein's intention.

Quote:

I believe time is an illusion, or - at best - a tool to order events by. From my perspective, time is not an dimension.

Well, "an illusion" isn't a definition. "A tool to order events by"... seems to be approaching a definition. But then what do you mean by "time does not exist"? That events can't be meaningfully ordered? Clearly that's untrue, an order to events is a vital element to many scientific descriptions of reality, such as Newtonian kinematics.

I don't know what the meaningful content of "time is not a dimension" is, either. The meaning of "time is a dimension" in physics is just that we require a time coordinate, along with three spacial coordinates, to specify an event. That seems trivially true. It was admittedly a rather uninteresting dimension in Newtonian physics as it doesn't interact with spacial coordinates, but it's an essential feature of special relativity, as the symmetries of space-time cause it to interact in non-trivial ways with spacial dimensions (analogous to how the three spacial dimensions can be rotated).

Something I forgot to mention earlier; it seems incongruous to me that you maintain that there is an ultimate reality which "causes" observations (something you also maintain must motivate all physicists), and you define a cause to be a prior event which entails another... and yet you are also quite emphatic that time does not exist. How can there be prior events if there is no time?

Quote:

Okay. I'm still struggling with understanding exactly your view, but that's probably not unreasonable, given that our views differ in their foundations rather than the implied logic.

Once again, I don't really have a "view". That part of my post in particular was just a description of what explanations are... if the description is so alien to you, then just give me an example of a physical explanation which does not rely on any assumptions?
02-25-2014, 08:07 PM
StephL

I listened to Sheldrake's talk - almost directly after I announced, I would.
For a self-declared "consciousness-scientist" – he brings along remarkably little actual content in that direction.
So I will ask you Original Poster - and everybody else as well, what is “consciousness” for you?
What does the word mean, what is it?
How do you explain subjectivity and the first person perspective?
That our minds – you opened a thread on it – are equipped with filters, which stand between the self and the world?

I am a fan of neuroscience, to put it so, and usually don't philosophize, as in dispute with proponents of differing world-views - at least not before signing up here. And I don't have a clue concerning classifications.

But after throwing about with Mrs. Rand – I need a philosophical counterweight – better two.
That’s not off-topicing - this is a thread with Sheldrake giving a talk, in order to discredit "conventional science" and the knowledge it has gathered - and no, not just any knowledge - only what stands in the way of his metaphysical ideas.

He wants to sway us to believe (best dogmatically) in the exact opposite of these supposed dogmas.
But he does not care about the physics part of it – he himself says, his real concern would be consciousness.
What he really is on about, is instilling a metaphysical world-view of his own devising under the pretense of applying fearless and unbiased, true science in supposedly intellectually taboo fields of inquiry.
It is always the same pattern.
That's clearly philosophy, if not exactly sophisticated, even while it dwells over here in science and mathematics.
The consciousness thread over there motivated me to look up Thomas Metzinger (Representationalism - never heard before..) and Wolf Singer (the latter maybe later/over there) once more.

I want to put something truly interesting up against Sheldrake's ideas, of which I am a huge fan.
They are fine lecturers, too, besides making perfect sense - even outside their native German (well, more and less funny accent – okay).
But it's more than unfortunate, that you'll listen to them/read them not in German.
Check out neither video or wall of text - or test the video and leave the text - or ignore me - but I won't apologize for tl;dr..;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mthDxnFXs9k

Just found this book review on Metzinger—naturalism.org.
I find it's a good read, if you go slowly. Besides agreeing whole heartedly with the direct Metzinger quotes!

And lo and behold – they even mention lucid dreaming!!
A great philosopher, who recommends LDing in his book (even instructions)!
Weell - do I like that?? ..:D

Spoiler for The beginning of that review:

For those in the business of advancing naturalism this is of course good news, since atheism and humanism are significant milestones on the way to a fully naturalistic view of reality. But after God is gone there’s still a ways to go. Even after giving up belief in the supernatural “up there,” many atheists and humanists continue to harbor quasi-supernatural intuitions about the self and free will “in here.” The little god of the soul, the categorically mental agent or homunculus in charge of the brain, is still alive and well in the thinking of many secularists. As a result, some of the most profound developments in the ongoing project of scientific enlightenment are still ahead of us.
I am pleased to report that Thomas Metzinger’s The Ego Tunnel is a major contribution to this project, written for the curious and fearless lay person wanting to know who, precisely, we are. I strongly recommend this book. Here is the self fully naturalized, a radical revision of the conventional wisdom about our essential nature – are you ready? It’s also a must read for anyone interested in consciousness and the mind-body problem, since Metzinger has a well-developed, empirically supported representational theory that explains many of the puzzles about conscious subjectivity.
His two main themes, self and consciousness, are closely linked, and they culminate in two rather unsettling conclusions. First, selves don’t exist in the way most folks suppose. Second, the solid, three dimensional public reality that is so palpably there in our waking lives turns out to be a private model of reality. On Metzinger’s view, the self – the feeling of being a mental me in charge of the physical body – is a module within consciousness activated by your brain’s neural processing. The self is categorically not some substantial, essential invariant entity, like a soul, spirit or homunculus. As he emphasizes, there are no such things as substantial selves. Instead, the self is a phenomenal (that is, experiential) construct that disintegrates entirely when you fall into a dreamless sleep, to be reactivated (usually in attenuated form) when you dream, and that reappears nearly instantaneously when you awake in the morning. The self is put online only when needed, part of a larger phenomenal reality generated by the brain as it represents the world and you in it. This reality seems perfectly concrete, but the startling fact of the matter, a challenge to naïve realists (that is, just about everybody), is that it’s an appearance, a virtual reality. You, the subject conjured up by the brain, do not directly encounter the world. Rather, you participate in a larger brain-based representational construction – consciousness – that maps theactual world closely enough for you-the-organism to stay out of trouble. This global simulation carried out in each of our heads, what we can’t help but take as real, is what Metzinger calls the Ego Tunnel. Welcome to the Matrix.

Explaining consciousness: the appearance of a world
The obvious difficulty Metzinger faces is to make all this plausible, given the many competing explanations of consciousness and their conceptual complexity. Indeed, he quotes philosopher Daniel Dennett at the very start: “Any theory that makes progress is bound to be initiallycounterintuitive” (original emphasis). He acknowledges we’re just beginning to understand the mind-brain, but he’s confident that his representational approach, one of the major contenders in consciousness studies, is very likely correct in its essentials. The full exposition of his theory, daunting in its intricacy but ultimately very rewarding, can be found in his 2003 tour de forceBeing No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. So if you find The Ego Tunnel philosophically or empirically sketchy, look there. As I advised a philosophy grad student recently: “Try Being No One, you might like it.”
The Ego Tunnel is reasonably demanding in its own right, given the breadth of material and its undeniable strangeness for those encountering the self-model theory for the first time. Even for veterans of consciousness studies it offers much that’s worthwhile and likely new: some mind-stretching thought experiments; interviews with researchers on the binding problem (the unity of consciousness), dreams, and empathy; and an imagined conversation with a post-biotic philosopher who pities us merely human thinkers, stuck in our crude reality models (this is just one of several well-timed dessert moments in the book). Metzinger is a first rate, albeit human,neurophilosopher, fully cognizant of mind science as well as philosophy, and a very good writer in his second language (German the first). You might occasionally get boggled and baffled as you negotiate The Ego Tunnel, but never bored. The main thing is that you’re getting a glimpse behind (what you might not yet realize is) the veil of consciousness, in a sense escaping the tunnel into non-subjective reality, if only conceptually. You’re also getting a preview of what our lives might be like under a radically revised notion of self, should the “consciousness revolution” Metzinger contemplates come to pass. There might be, he suggests, some profound personal and social consequences that follow from fully naturalizing ourselves.
The first third of the book covers the basic theoretical model: that consciousness is for a world to appear, both in its basic phenomenal (experiential) particulars – what are often called qualia, e.g., the redness of red, the painfulness of pain – and in its global unity: we never find pain, red, or any other quality on its own, but always within a larger coherent conscious context of self-in-the-world. In contrast to anti-representationalist philosophers such as Alva Noe and Kevin O’Regan, Metzinger holds that consciousness is an internal matter, in that the brain’s neural properties completely determine the subjective qualities and content of experience. As philosophers sometimes put it, experience supervenes locally on brain states. Although we ordinarily have experience in the context of getting around in the world, the world itself isn’t necessary for consciousness: were your brain in the same state it is now, absent the world, you’d be having the exact same experience. Dreams, especially lucid dreams, are evidence for this. When dreaming, the brain is conjuring up a 3-D world, with you in it, while you’re lying paralyzed in bed. In a lucid dream, in which you know you’re dreaming, you actually experience the fact that experience is being constructed by your brain – quite an astonishing gut-level revelation I recommend to everyone interested in consciousness. (Metzinger discusses how to induce lucid dreams, about which more below.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalism.org

...The first third of the book covers the basic theoretical model: that consciousness is for a world to appear, both in its basic phenomenal (experiential) particulars – what are often called qualia, e.g., the redness of red, the painfulness of pain – and in its global unity: we never find pain, red, or any other quality on its own, but always within a larger coherent conscious context of self-in-the-world.

In contrast to anti-representationalist philosophers such as Alva Noe and Kevin O’Regan, Metzinger holds that consciousness is an internal matter, in that the brain’s neural properties completely determine the subjective qualities and content of experience. As philosophers sometimes put it, experience supervenes locally on brain states.

Although we ordinarily have experience in the context of getting around in the world, the world itself isn’t necessary for consciousness: were your brain in the same state it is now, absent the world, you’d be having the exact same experience. Dreams, especially lucid dreams, are evidence for this. When dreaming, the brain is conjuring up a 3-D world, with you in it, while you’re lying paralysed in bed. In a lucid dream, in which you know you’re dreaming, you actually experience the fact that experience is being constructed by your brain – quite an astonishing gut-level revelation I recommend to everyone interested in consciousness. (Metzinger discusses how to induce lucid dreams, about which more below.)

Metzinger likens consciousness to a tunnel since it’s a very selective, narrow representation of the world:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metzinger

What we see and hear, or what we feel and smell and taste, is only a small fraction of what actually exists out there. Our conscious model of reality is a low-dimensional projection of the inconceivably richer physical reality surrounding us and sustaining us. Our sensory organs are limited: They evolved for reasons of survival, not for depicting the enormous wealth and richness of reality in all its unfathomable depth. Therefore, the ongoing process of conscious experience is not so much an image of reality as a tunnel through reality.” (p. 6, original emphasis)

Consciousness is an ego tunnel since it nearly always includes the experience of being a self or subject – the entity to whom the world of experience appears (exceptions are more or less self-less states induced by brain disorders, meditation, drugs, or other means).
Not only does the brain construct a phenomenal model of the world, it constructs a phenomenal model of someone in the world who interacts with it and knows it – that is, you. The basic trick of consciousness is to hide the fact that this phenomenal self-model, and the larger reality-model it’s embedded in, is indeed a model: it’s transparent in the sense that you can’t experience it as a model. Rather, you look right through it and simply find yourself present in a world. For the conscious subject, reality is just that which can’t be experienced as a construction.

For Metzinger, subjectivity – the “who problem” of being a self – is the most difficult and profound aspect of consciousness in need of explanation, but there are other general features of consciousness which he explores in a “tour” of the Ego Tunnel. Consciousness is always an experienced unity; it’s always now, that is, temporally present; it convinces us that it’s real, not a representation; it transcends our ability to describe its basic elements, so is ineffable in some respects; and it has come about via evolution, thus is natural and adaptive. In laying out these parameters, Metzinger is taking care to specify the explanatory target of his theory, something too many consciousness researchers gloss over. It’s only by getting a clear fix on the phenomenal properties of consciousness that we can make progress in explaining it. Although his explanations are cursory compared to what’s offered in Being No One, the basic strategy is to connect the phenomenology (e.g., experiential unity) with neuro-computational functions (making information globally available to different control systems) and their neural instantiation (the “global workspace” of the thalamo-cortical network). Conscious experience is, he suggests, a biological data format that, by generating a subjective reality for the organism, supports adaptive behavior that would otherwise be impossible:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metzinger

It is easy to overlook the causal relevance of this first evolutionary step, the fundamental computational goal of conscious experience. It is the one necessary functional property on which everything else rests. We can simply call it “reality generation”: It allowed animals to represent explicitly the fact that something is actually the case. A transparent world-model lets you discover that something is really out there, and by integrating your portrait of the world with the subjective Now, it lets you grasp the fact that the world is present. This step opened up a new level of complexity. Thus, having a global world-model is a new way of processing information about the world in a highly integrated manner. Every conscious thought, every bodily sensation, every sound and every sight, every experience of empathy or of sharing the goals of another human being makes a different class of facts available for the adaptive, flexible, and selective form of processing that only conscious experience can provide. (p. 59)

One such fact, of critical importance, is that we come to see ourselves as thinkers and knowers who can distinguish between appearance and reality:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metzinger

By consciously experiencing some elements of our tunnel as mere images or thoughts about the world, we became aware of the possibility of misrepresentation. We understood that sometimes we can be wrong, since reality is only a specific type of appearance. As evolved representational systems, we could now represent one of the most important facts about ourselves – namely, that we are representational systems. We were able to grasp the notions of truth and falsity, of knowledge and illusion. As soon as we had grasped this distinction, cultural evolution exploded, because we became ever more intelligent by systematically increasing knowledge and minimizing illusion. (p. 61)

Despite Metzinger’s confidence that the phenomenal level of representation constituted by consciousness was a major adaptive breakthrough, and is thus explicable by an evolutionary account, doubts can be raised...

Got to link this up as well - maybe also under LD: Dreaming
03-01-2014, 09:01 PM
StephL

1 Attachment(s)

Uuups - conversation-killer-post - sorry - just keep going and ignore me?
Only wanted to say, that we are never in direct contact with reality, only over representational simulations do we experience the world.
And we can even do exactly that without any reality - experiencing a complete world with us in it - in lucid dreams.
Staying aware of that when claiming knowledge most certainly won't hurt.

I don't want to help myself - another in my eyes quite lucid quote nobody will care to read..Attachment 6650

Quote:

Our conscious subjective realities are very selective takes on what exists outside the head, versions of reality that have been shaped by evolution.
We get closer to the way the world really is by engaging in the scientific project, which does its best to transcend the distorting effects of subjective realities, which are often colored by motivational biases and perceptual limitations.

Science models the world not via a selective phenomenology, but via testable hypotheses that end up amalgamated into our best theories. From a scientific perspective, conscious experience is epistemically adequate for personal and social purposes, but not a particularly perspicacious rendering of reality. Both science and consciousness, however, are essentially representational projects, one collective, the other personal.
03-01-2014, 11:17 PM
Original Poster

Essentially our worldview is not accurate, and science is our sincerest means to grasp at accurate understanding. Alan Watts used the atom to describe the receding mystery. Atom means indivisible and originally denoted the theoretical, indivisible thing. When it was discovered, shortly after it was discovered to be divisible, and those parts also divisible, and so on the mystery recedes. And theoretically there is no wall to reach and claim to have found it. There is no truth one can hold in their hand, even if we have a process to gain collective agreement beyond our individual perspective, this is still merely a democratic perspective and logic merely the language to explain it.

This thread remains purposed to bring light to the receding mystery in the face of a dominant worldview which has gazed the grandfathered model of materialism, hit their eureka and rationalized everything else to fit, whether it does or doesn't. I haven't kept up with this thread and it's seemed to have fallen a long way from there with people breaking up posts into quotes and delivering redundant verbosity between them (my pet peeve when following a thread which is why I keep my responses cohesive).

Essentially the grandfathered worldview takes into account Descartes' Duality of Physical and Spiritual or Matter and Mind, and removed the latter from existence thinking it made itself a nice, elegant and (worst of all) complete model of reality.

There is Science and this is what Sheldrake and others call Scientism. Science is a process through which we can gather dependable data and make predictions, while this is a worldview that claims sole propriety over rational thought, religiously clinging to its materialism and ignoring all evidence and study that invokes the presence of the other side of that coin. Dissidents are labeled advocates of pseudo-science, ridiculed and censored. Phenomenon not yet understood is considered delusion and hoax. Attempt to challenge this worldview and your arguments are rigged up as straw men rebelling against the Scientific Method itself. The only thing Scientific about Materialism is its claim of sole allegiance to Science and decree that anyone who doesn't think like they do is not being Scientific, a claim made as falsely as the Wesboro Baptist Church's allegiance to Jesus.

You can agree or disagree that you fall into this category or that the people who organized scientific publications, universities and conferences do or do not and you can probably make strong arguments for there is a fine line between skepticism and willful ignorance and our view of who crosses the line and does not remains ultimately subjective.

Which video did you watch, StephL? I've posted 3 from him so far, in the longest one he mentions like 3 theories of consciousness that differ from the materialist anti-consciousness worldview.
03-02-2014, 01:51 AM
Xei

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I haven't kept up with this thread and it's seemed to have fallen a long way from there with people breaking up posts into quotes and delivering redundant verbosity between them (my pet peeve when following a thread which is why I keep my responses cohesive).

After your first post, all you did was ignore questions asked of you, and repeat your original statements ad nauseam with zero regard for the responses that people had already given them. Calling your responses cohesive and everyone else's "redundant" is a joke. Once you'd left this actually turned into an interesting discussion, and one which actually resembled a cogent conversation rather than an attempted conversation with a brick wall.
03-02-2014, 07:45 PM
StephL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Which video did you watch, StephL? I've posted 3 from him so far, in the longest one he mentions like 3 theories of consciousness that differ from the materialist anti-consciousness worldview.

The one in the opening post - I will be back after watching the other two.
03-02-2014, 07:59 PM
Dthoughts

You have to keep perspective though. Rupert Sheldrake is a long-time luciddreamer and AP-practioneer. His theories come from another place that REALLY IS outside of the domain of science. And to be quite honest with you. I think Morphogenetic field theory is quite an interesting perspective.
03-03-2014, 02:08 AM
Original Poster

He started in the domain of Science and got into that jazz after a trip to India. He's still rooted in Cambridge and began his career clutching scientism's ethos, much like I did (albeit arts oriented) before exposure to non-western ways of thinking made him realize (much like I did) that most of our beliefs about reality are based upon western ideology and not upon empirical investigation. Rather, our model of reality is grandfathered in from old, religious dogma lacking the exposure to imagine models of reality outside this dogma.
03-06-2014, 05:27 AM
Linkzelda
Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Essentially our worldview is not accurate, and science is our sincerest means to grasp at accurate understanding

Science is a methodology, a method of inquiry. It’s one thing to see patterns, and make predictive theories from them through that methodology, but it’s another thing to presume that people take that epistemological approach into an ontological standard to live up and abide to.

For example:

A materialist taking predictive theories (that couldn’t possibly have irrefutable proof of how reality works, and how it’s supposed to work), and then goes on a militant hunt force feeding their dogma, which is basically an ontological plea that this IS how reality works, and then back to you stating their ontological clinging of reality makes them forget the bearing of further thought and empirical investigation.

Now, in that aspect, I can completely agree to you that would be some form of Scientism dogma, and those that may fall under that camp (e.g. materialist, physicalist).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I haven't kept up with this thread and it's seemed to have fallen a long way from there with people breaking up posts into quotes

If someone is giving several opinions, arguments, questions, and such, it would be practical to break things up a bit to respond to individually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

(my pet peeve when following a thread which is why I keep my responses cohesive).

And yet they still require more detailed expositions, or adding more cement to a brick wall in your case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Essentially the grandfathered worldview takes into account Descartes' Duality of Physical and Spiritual or Matter and Mind, and removed the latter from existence thinking it made itself a nice, elegant and (worst of all) complete model of reality.
- Didn’t Descartes’ Third Meditation take into account of the dichotomy of Formal and Objective Reality (e.g. substances and modes)? If you don’t know what I mean by this, this link could give you a quick overview on the Third Medtiation:
  https://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/moder...s-Reality.html
- If this is the case, how come you attributed Spirituality when Descartes seemed to have little to no interest on the metaphysical matter of spirituality (at least modern interpretations of it compared to the completely different perspectives before)?
- Do you have any sources (videos, articles, readings, etc.) that may have more explanations on how Descartes’ Dualism is suddenly a plausible reason for individuals to attribute into dichotomies?
- Your attributing of Descartes’ dualism seems as if Descartes actually had a specific audience in mind (that would be similar to the materialist, or people who fall under the camp of Scienticism). But it seems it’s more of you making hypothetical targeting of those individuals that subscribe to Descartes dualism as their premise for the presumed grandfathered dogma shifted into Scientism, and various groups related to the worldview. Do you actually believe those individuals of this modern epoch that you’re bringing awareness to of their presumed dogmas would garner a favoritism for Descartes (who already had a gargantuan amount of criticism), and then split it for their own benefit for the subsistence of dogma?
- What particular worldview are you talking about? If you’re talking about Scientism and Materialism, can you provide some sociological sources, demographics, or even statistics really, of how it’s become an influential force encroaching a methodology (Science) to the point where even the methodology is dogmatic?
- How come Spiritual and Mind are suddenly conflated with each other in that dichotomy you mentioned above? (Not trying to reject metaphysical implications, it’s just seems to be such a rigid dichotomy on your end based on the conditions of this thread that raises questions on how each side views consciousness, existence, which precedes the other, and such).
Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Phenomenon not yet understood is considered delusion and hoax

Maybe in the media of sensationalism, but for something that actually goes on in the laboratory, probably a different matter. Of course, it would be kind of difficult demonstrating phenomenon that could be beyond our cognitive grasp that may be considered metaphysical (and supernatural pending as well).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Attempt to challenge this worldview and your arguments are rigged up as straw men rebelling against the Scientific Method itself

You’re conflating a methodology (Science) with a worldview. You’re presuming that there’s a direct correlation that the moment someone seems to be fulminating straw men, that the methodology (Science- which would be antithetical from the presumed dogma of Scientism and its variants like Materialism) is attached to that as well. It was already mentioned like an echo chamber that it would be the individuals that may be dogmatic, and not the method of inquiry itself.

Something that may have prevented this series of ad infinitum arguments was to reformat the title of something like “An Empirical View of Scientism Dogma” or even “An Empirical View of Materialistic Dogma” if you really wanted to target a particular worldview that seemed dogmatic (especially in how you probably may correlate materialistic views to that).

If you’re really aiming for cohesiveness, maybe you can consider doing that next time instead of having to be irritated over people that are just discussing the distinction between a method of inquiry (that would be the antithesis of dogma) vs. dogmatic worldviews of Scientism and its variants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original

The only thing Scientific about Materialism is its claim of sole allegiance to Science and decree that anyone who doesn't think like they do is not being Scientific, a claim made as falsely as the Wesboro Baptist Church's allegiance to Jesus.

For someone that’s making analogous statements of religion dogma and scientism dogma, you are kind of dogmatic in making a generalization that all materialists militantly follow that view to the point where they feel it’s the “perfect” ontological claim of reality that is irrefutable. Of course, I’m not so positive on the demographics, or even the statistics of materialists, physicalists, and other variants that would fit your conceptual framework of Scientism dogma, but it seems you’re just creating an imaginary, or hypothetical populace.

I’m not advocating Scientism at all, mind you, it’s just that if it gets to the point where you have high certainty that all materialists absolve the method of inquiry, and cling only to their ontological claims of reality (and deny any further thinking and empirical investigation), it becomes problematic on your end. Are there any videos, documentaries, or things of that nature (other than the videos of Sheldrake posted so far) that may substantiate your claims that materialists and other presumed dogmatic worldviews follow them like a doctrine?

Another question that comes to mind:
- If you feel that there could be dogma in Science that’s a method of inquiry (i.e. Scientists being biased while going through the procedural experimentation), do you have any circumstantial cases where a Scientist could have influence of bias in certain experiments?
Note: This is also taking into account of the common application of blind experiment to reduce the influence of bias and dogma as well.

The last time someone tried to set up a scenario in this thread of a scientist being dogmatic through pranking the test subject, they seemed to have forgotten that blind experiments would be a common solution to prevent such events from occurring in the first place, which would only validate of how the method of inquiry is antithetical towards dogma that those presumed individuals of science may try to influence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Rather, our model of reality is grandfathered in from old, religious dogma lacking the exposure to imagine models of reality outside this dogma.

Uh oh, I better not question this, it’s basically an invitation to a curb stomp festival on religion now. We wouldn’t want that now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

He's still rooted in Cambridge and began his career clutching scientism's ethos, much like I did (albeit arts oriented) before exposure to non-western ways of thinking made him realize (much like I did) that most of our beliefs about reality are based upon western ideology and not upon empirical investigation.

What was your specific perspective (that you stated was more arts oriented)? I’m just curious, because there’s a clear split here on your end of how western and eastern sides of the world would have upbringings, conceptual frameworks, social conditioning, and such that would be as different as night and day. Though I’m curious as to how those conditions could change a person’s view of the method of inquiry.

Especially if one could make a generalized dichotomy of western vs. eastern philosophies/reasoning:

Western – Believing in yourself, destined for greatness, self-fulfilling prophecies, more fixation on internal locus of control, rags to riches, overcoming doing menial and repetitive tasks in the workforce to obtain wealth, subjective interpretations of happiness and wellness, etc.

Eastern – Cosmological standpoints, karma (or just seeing relevance between good vs. evil, or whatever subjective attribution you want to utilize), temporarily absolving oneself from quotidian lifestyles for more introspection and enlightenment, etc.

Not that I’m trying to make a rigid dichotomy here, but it seems that your posts so far could lead to an interesting discussion of how social conditioning, upbringing, and such affects how the individual takes the method of inquiry for further thought and empirical investigation (instead of them diluting it, and clinging onto ontological claims as the absolute way of conceptualizing reality that you seemed to attribute to the materialist for applying like a militant doctrine or something)

Just some questions in hopes to see how you formulate Scientism and its variants may be so dogmatic to that the method of inquiry would naturally being a conduit in advocating their views (even though it would be antithetical towards bias and dogma, especially with a major constituent in the procedural process like blind experiments).
03-06-2014, 10:07 PM
Original Poster

Can I get a TL;DR?
03-06-2014, 10:57 PM
Linkzelda

On an extended discussion thread you've made of raising awareness of dogma in Science, you're actually wanting cliff notes even though all that post was mostly asking questions to you for further discussion?

Hahahahahahahahaha, I love this forum. So much for the inquiring mind.
03-07-2014, 05:36 PM
Original Poster

Those questions don't appear to be remotely responding to what I said, and we're not on the same page, so I can't make heads or tails of what you're asking. I've given you a pass so far but I'm getting sick of your redundancy and verbosity. This time the fault is yours, make yourself understood clearly and concisely so I don't feel forced to defend a view I don't believe I've actually made. You've done it a lot so far, going on for pages attacking Voldmer's view of objectivism even though he was using objectivism for an entirely different intended definition, and here again you seem to be misunderstanding what I said and asking me to answer for what you perceive my point to be. Remove the verbosity and let's have an honest discussion.
03-07-2014, 07:04 PM
Linkzelda
Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Remove the verbosity and let's have an honest discussion.

I am being sincere in trying to have an honest discussion with you. I’m merely asking you questions as to why you would think Materialists (and whoever else on your list) would take into account of Descartes’ dualism, especially for his third meditation in particular that focuses on it, and suddenly shoot themselves in the foot by splitting it. Especially when Descartes’ dualism mostly focused on reality, substances, and things that had little to no leaning towards metaphysical implications of “spirit,” “spirituality,” etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You've done it a lot so far, going on for pages attacking Voldmer's view of objectivism even though he was using objectivism for an entirely different intended definition,

This “entirely different intended definition” was merely a fabrication on his end that I have yet to see be an actual terminology in other forums, sites, critiques, and such. Allowing a person to naively create their own meaning is absurd to advocate, and it would be counter-intuitive for them to use that as a means to understand the foundations, or at least see where the person is trying to get at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

and here again you seem to be misunderstanding what I said and asking me to answer for what you perceive my point to be.

I’m asking you what your particular perspective(s) is for this thread, especially if you correlated Sheldrake’s shifts in ideologies with your own. Which is why I asked you questions on how you feel those views, and any others that may be related to it, can contribute to being more pragmatic than what you’re trying to bring awareness to (materialist, and variants of scientism dogma).

This is why if you feel there’s a misunderstanding, it’s inevitable that you will also have to make a more detailed exposition, whether it’s filled with verbosity, or not (but I won’t be demanding you to eradicate any wordiness). Of course, since you’re not allowing anyone to be made privy to that you’re trying to get at, maybe it could be the case that you’re piling gripes about materialistic and Scientism dogma, and have yet to have ways to address and tackle them.

If you don’t want to answer what your point(s) may be, then don’t make a mini-narrative of your shifts in paradigms, only to dodge anyone asking questions on those views of yours. If there’s misunderstandings, explain your points more, and clarify to that person what it is precisely you’re planning to use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I've given you a pass so far but I'm getting sick of your redundancy and verbosity.

That was not a pass you gave, that was an impasse you gave me and others so far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

This time the fault is yours, make yourself understood clearly and concisely so I don't feel forced to defend a view I don't believe I've actually made.

The fault is yours, instead of you asking where the person is trying to get at, you just expect them to predict what you’re saying. Just state what you plan to be using so you don’t have to worry that you have to defend a view you didn’t make, it’s simple as that.

Bottom line, I already understand that you’re not trying to attack the Scientific method in itself as being dogmatic, you’re merely raising awareness of how individuals apply the method to the point where they feel it’s the absolute way of conceptualizing reality, and knowing (with absolute certainty) how people should handle their day-to-day lifestyles (in other words, Scientism dogma). The questions I’ve asked are merely to see more detailed expositions on your end of how things like (but not limited to):
- Religious dogma
- Materialistic paradigms
- Unorthodox applications of the Scientific method to quotidian lifestyles, and those who feel it’s the absolute way to conceptualize reality while being intolerant of other challenging theories and premises (Scientism dogma)
- Eastern vs. Western philosophies/religion/reasoning/etc
Would affect:
- The philosophies of Science in general (just like how your OP is addressing the materialistic philosophy in their application of Science)
- How peer-reviewed publications are handled (e.g. whether or not a universal materialistic paradigm dominates it, and whether or not they would eradicate any work in progress that doesn’t fit their paradigm)
- How one applies the method of inquiry for their own personal agenda
- Sensationalism in the media (e.g. someone like Shermer attacking Sheldrake’s works, an example can be found here: Michael Shermer's Attacks
- Funding for certain research (e.g. how frequently Sheldrake’s premises can be introduced to the method of inquiry, like his other publications have been through in the past)
- How one would try to have influence, or not, during a procedural experimentation (and not the sham scenario a user made in this thread that completely forgot about blind experiments in reducing bias and potentially dogma from skewing results)
Bring up other individuals that may have attacked Sheldrake, talk about how they may have been potentially dogmatic, do whatever it takes on your end as long as you don’t end up creating an imaginary populace that would just be fulminating straw man arguments. Sheldrake has made critiques on those who attacked him (instead of making a hypothetical audience), and it shouldn’t really be too difficult for you to do the same. But since you stripped having to explain more, and preventing others to be made privy of your posts, it's just a finger-pointing game at this point.
03-08-2014, 12:52 PM
Original Poster

Take a hint. Simplify. Less is more. I'm afraid to make posts longer than a sentence because you respond to each individual sentence with redundancy rather than putting forward one comprehensive response, which would make readers capable of following our train of thought.

The argument Sheldrake put forward is that Descartes' dualism separated the mind and the material. He hypothetically linked the transcendental world of mind to the material brain through the pineal gland. This theory was largely validated during its time, and in fact materialists still hold a largely Cartesian model of reality, only they eliminated the transcendental aspect without explaining where any of it went. This is not a hypothetical populace, it's a description of the evolution of thought in our society as interpreted by Sheldrake which I happen to find true in my experience. It is the worldview that is inherent in the way we are taught to think.
03-08-2014, 08:52 PM
StephL

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The argument Sheldrake put forward is that Descartes' dualism separated the mind and the material. He hypothetically linked the transcendental world of mind to the material brain through the pineal gland.

This is not an argument, just a definition of Cartesian dualism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

This theory was largely validated during its time, and in fact materialists still hold a largely Cartesian model of reality, only they eliminated the transcendental aspect without explaining where any of it went.

This theory was never validated - just because a large amount of people believe something, it was not validated.
To validate a theory is something not being done "largely" as well - it's either/or.

And if something is conjured up out of the blue sky - like the transcendental - there is no need to explain, where it has gone, once the notion is being left.

If I postulate the roaring spaghetti-monster - you don't have to justify yourself for doing away with that thought again, once I leave you be, or do you think you do? Attachment 6667

Spoiler for tl/dr material:

Dualism has been doing it's duty by freeing people from censure and inhibition of science by the church - separating realms, so people can at least make their own minds up on the physical world.
But materialists like myself of course don't hold a up a Cartesian Dualism - that's the very thing, we are not agreeing about.

We just come to see the fact, that our brains are wired such, as to bring forth a representational self-model. One that we necessarily perceive as a non reducible unity - continuous over time.
"Eastern thinking" does indeed doubt these notions - which looks strikingly modern.Attachment 6667
Metzinger by the way, does concern himself intensively not only with LD, but also with eastern meditation practice.

This contingent model is brought forth by neuronal computational activities - in order to deal with the world in an evolutionary more useful way.
The self as a construct - but in order for it to work - it may not be perceived as a construct - needs to be "transparent".
We are animals, who have the added feature of self-reflective meta-consciousness - not just a consciousness like (most?) animals have it.
I believe, they also have a basic concept of self or self-model, but more as in a point of view, a subject, which perceives and has more or less subtle workings, which determine behaviour.
Experiencing pain, pleasure, innate drives for example - and emotions - leading to ever more useful behaviour, when that phenomenon emerged on the stage of planet earth.

Except you consider bacteria as the ultimate beings - and give spiders credit for having been along for so damn long.

The emotional part of higher animals is an evolutionary invention predating the more arcane neo-cortex features.
I believe though, that they are much more of a force to reckon with, than one might superficially be aware of.

How western thinking has evolved over the last several hundred years has been vastly dominated by the phenomenon of the desert religions - who tend to be perfectly fine with being called dogmatic.
That is where in my eyes the problem lies - not with "Scientism" - a dogmatic and irrational and not self-thought-through cliché world-view of simplistic nature - and thankfully a rare occurrence.
We don't have one on board here actually in my opinion.

There lies the root of western fixation on the soul-concept with the promise of eternal bliss in afterlife or eternal suffering.
This has kept us from arriving at such lucid consciousness concepts as for example Buddhism has brought forth.
We are sort of lagging behind - and maybe "Scientism" - as has been defined here zig times now - did it's due to that.
Giving you this.

This is not a problem so much as Sheldrake wants us to believe, though.

What are your personal experiences with science dogma or right out bit loony Scientism apostles?

Mind seems to be a unity - not reducible and coherent over time - this is what intuition tells us, before we inquire further and take a stance of intellectual honesty - not shying away from the basic hindrance - having to face mortality and the utter lack of a higher purpose of even divine beings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

This is not a hypothetical populace, it's a description of the evolution of thought in our society as interpreted by Sheldrake which I happen to find true in my experience.
It is the worldview that is inherent in the way we are taught to think.

Well yes - modern western thought evolves, and we rid ourselves of crippling superstitions in this process - still being on the enlightenment track.
And thank goodness for that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Here's a follow up interview with Sheldrake about his Ted talk for anyone interested:

The premise of this thread is to draw awareness to the dogmatic thinking that has taken hold of the materialist paradigm. It's not that I think experiments are not being conducted which contradict the assumptions of the paradigm, it's that if specific experiments fail the peer review process, I don't think it's reasonable to fall back on assumptions which fail to answer the observations made.

For example, the way I see it, it's sort of like observing that stars are moving farther apart and hypothesizing a big bang, then performing an experiment which confirms your hypothesis but fails when repeated, and receiving the response that because the experiment failed to be repeated, it means the stars aren't really moving farther apart, it's just a psychological illusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Here's another video I've just started watching where I presume Sheldrake goes into deeper detail on his book, The Science Delusion.

Okay Original Poster - you told me, there is content in these two videos, pertaining to Sheldrakes' views on consciousness.
I would ask you to tell me, where in etwa to look for it, please.
Do I go right in assuming, that the first above video is not going into the subject in a more substantial way - it's about this TED talk?
I would feel obliged, if you could direct me to the salient parts of that one and a half hour lecture marathon, since I find this man impertinent, and his views actually indiscussable, as far as I have been exposed to them.
That includes the stuff from the 90s, where he was already on about his morphic resonance and miserably failed to make sense.
But I'll give it a shot, if it's consumable within half an hour.

My facit by now:

Sheldrake has been subject to devastating critique of his hypotheses by the scientific community over more than the last decade.
So he accuses them of collective delusion.
Ah - riight - sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it?

Who is more likely to be deluded here - thousands of earnestly working scientists - or him?
It is actually an insult to scientists to accuse them - the majority of them even - of such simplistic thinking as he implies esp. in his first video. That is ridiculous.
03-08-2014, 11:38 PM
Original Poster

Our ethos is an accumulation of all our understanding thus far acquired and our previous understanding of reality remains present. Our worldview, as westerners, is influenced by the paradigms that have passed previously, whether Descartes or the Catholic Church. Our ethos evolved from this and remains connected to it.

If you think I'm making this population of scientific dogmatists up, read anything written by Richard Dawkins. Sheldrake is not trying to defend his (and others') theory from critique by calling his critics dogmatists, he is pinpointing dogmatism in the way Dawkins thinks, the way we are raised to think, which is that our view of reality has been scientifically proven and rests upon evidence when in fact, intrinsically, it carries echoes of all the beliefs Westerners have accumulated. This worldview often prohibits ideas from being presented, whether through conference, press or classroom, because ideas which contradict philosophical beliefs are deemed unscientific when in reality they do not contradictory scientific evidence, they contradict western ethos and materialism. And even if these ideas are given space, they are ridiculed rather than analyzed because people observe them from the standpoint that their materialist philosophy is true and proven, rather than posited philosophically by their forebears.

There is a perception that people who don't agree with scientism are wrong, including people who ascribe to eastern philosophies. They are equated with believing in ridiculous falsehoods as that the sun revolves around the Earth. This is not a hypothetical population, this is militant atheism. They believe simply because they have acquired a methodology for understanding a democratically emergent version of reality, that they have a cornerstone on truth which is superior to the truth of other cultures outside the west. They grow disrespectful and prejudiced of other ways of thinking. If they study other beliefs, it is in a patronizing manner.

For example, look at Western Medicine, all other versions of medicine are considered mediocre superstition, western medicine is the only type considered modern and appropriate because it's based on the scientific method, but it carries with it the accumulation of western ethos' rampant compartmentalization, the same that causes someone participating in an online discussion to think it accurate, respectful or somehow helpful to tear a post apart and respond to each sentence out of context. The gestalt is ignored, hence why its competitor in western society is labeled holistic medicine (which is considered unscientific no matter how many studies pop up on its virtues).

My point is do not ignore the fact that we still believe in a model of reality based on where we came from. Our methodology may be a means of finding objective truth but our worldview of what is possible within this methodology is still taken for granted and based upon our roots, not on science.
03-09-2014, 01:09 AM
Linkzelda

Beautiful post, StephL

OP, if you can’t even read bullet points, then it’s really indolence on your end. And your recent post for suggesting others to read up on books is even more hilarious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I'm afraid to make posts longer than a sentence because you respond to each individual sentence with redundancy rather than putting forward one comprehensive response, which would make readers capable of following our train of thought.

Don’t be afraid, courage is the magic that turns dreams into reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

This is not a hypothetical populace, it's a description of the evolution of thought in our society as interpreted by Sheldrake which I happen to find true in my experience. It is the worldview that is inherent in the way we are taught to think.

Sheldrake has a pretty false generalization that you’re clinging on to. Whatever side(s) an individual favors (e.g. dualism, materialism, idealism, or even modern realism that accepts a myriad based on circumstances), they all divert from the challenge of actually explaining what consciousness is beyond “functional level” (and also having scientific reasoning passing through repeatability and being compatible with other theorems).

Materialistic paradigms are not inherent worldviews imposed to the majority, it would be the opposite. Dualism is more enticing during an initial upbringing, simply because the individual can avoid having to deal with hard/soft problems of consciousness. The same goes for materialists, they can only be more confident in explaining the functional level of consciousness, but anything beyond that, dualism is usually encroached, and they tend to avoid that (and they know it as well). Both sides are at an impasse.

Sheldrake’s challenge however, is bridging the gap between those dichotomies (and other variants as well), and it’s not something easy to do. Especially if he aims to reduce the attachment of using dualism that vaguely explains consciousness. At an aggregate level, a general statement can be made that dualism may be something inherent (e.g. those who’ve had a religious upbringing), not the opposing view you’re bringing awareness to that’s “dogmatic.”

If there was actually a militant materialistic upbringing, we may have more nihilists, atheists, and other non-religious philosophies and beliefs, and stating that religious dogma would be grandfathered to that is an overstatement and contradicting. That would be an interesting turn of events, but you making general statements that it is the case calls for some demographics, statistics, polls, and such to be referenced in this thread. Even if the “universal” paradigm shifts to dualism specifically in Science, and is strongly supported, it’s not going to serve as a cop out from using the method of inquiry to see if theorems (which would be mostly spiritual and metaphysical theorems in your case) can be supported or not.

One man’s dogma is another man’s common sense of skepticism. Whatever set of philosophies an individual has, they will all have to line up for the standard of finding a way to make their theorems reproducible and consistent. Flailing your arms, screaming dogmatism at one side, is easier than Sheldrake having to work diligently despite of the criticisms and insults he’s received (e.g. woo-meister, charlatan).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

If you think I'm making this population of scientific dogmatists up, read anything written by Richard Dawkins.

>Gets tired and annoyed of verbosity and redundancy
>Screams suggestions and to take hints for condensing everything to fit his cognitive grasp of words and philosophy
>Suggests to read books from Richard Dawkins that are literally hundreds of pages long of verbosity

I can already imagine you actually reading a book if posts longer than 5 sentences scares you.

You’re making one reference, but how does this halt anyone from their quotidian lifestyles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Sheldrake is not trying to defend his (and others') theory from critique by calling his critics dogmatists

reactions

Uh huh sure. With most skeptics either forgetting about him, or just saying “I’ll read it later,” him asking for discussion suddenly shouldn’t be considered an attempt of defending his views, theorems, etc.?

Right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

he is pinpointing dogmatism in the way Dawkins thinks, the way we are raised to think, which is that our view of reality has been scientifically proven and rests upon evidence when in fact, intrinsically, it carries echoes of all the beliefs Westerners have accumulated.

If he stated that an ontological claim of reality has been scientifically proven, it doesn’t mean that he’s imposing that it is the ultimate and superior worldview for others to abide to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

This worldview often prohibits ideas from being presented, whether through conference, press or classroom, because ideas which contradict philosophical beliefs are deemed unscientific when in reality they do not contradictory scientific evidence, they contradict western ethos and materialism

And suddenly, academia, school districts, and other educational institutions will be militant supporters of these “constraints” when it’s common for school districts to aim for being generic to avoid “hurting/harassing/insulting” other people’s philosophy(ies) of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

And even if these ideas are given space, they are ridiculed rather than analyzed because people observe them from the standpoint that their materialist philosophy is true and proven, rather than posited philosophically by their forebears.

You have a one-track mind here. Whatever disposition, or belief a person has, they all would be subject for the method of inquiry. This isn’t materialism’s method of inquiry, it’s just a method of inquiry used by scientists. They can’t have an influence in bias that’s so great that it would stifle chances for metaphysical theorems to be tested out (e.g. blind experiments used to reduce bias and influence that could skew results). And I'm talking about ones that clearly have a sound framework to hammer on repeated experimentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

This is not a hypothetical population, this is militant atheism.

It is a hypothetical population since you feel what would really be considered a minority (e.g. militant atheism) can suddenly override the majority of individuals that may have religious upbringings and/or metaphysical beliefs as well. This doesn’t seem to connect with your concern of religious dogma being grandfathered if you also feel irreligious dogma is a concern as well. Either you’re a confused nihilist, or –insert whatever impasse worldview (e.g. fatalism, anti-natalism)- here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

They believe simply because they have acquired a methodology for understanding a democratically emergent version of reality, that they have a cornerstone on truth which is superior to the truth of other cultures outside the west. They grow disrespectful and prejudiced of other ways of thinking

No one can make an absolute ontological claim of reality that must be force fed by society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

For example, look at Western Medicine, all other versions of medicine are considered mediocre superstition, western medicine is the only type considered modern and appropriate because it's based on the scientific method, but it carries with it the accumulation of western ethos' rampant compartmentalization, the same that causes someone participating in an online discussion to think it accurate, respectful or somehow helpful to tear a post apart and respond to each sentence out of context. The gestalt is ignored, hence why its competitor in western society is labeled holistic medicine (which is considered unscientific no matter how many studies pop up on its virtues).

An Immunologist would be worried about you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

My point is do not ignore the fact that we still believe in a model of reality based on where we came from. Our methodology may be a means of finding objective truth but our worldview of what is possible within this methodology is still taken for granted and based upon our roots, not on science.

Opinions aren’t facts.
03-09-2014, 06:20 AM
Original Poster

Another verbose failure to understand my argument. You can go on for paragraph after paragraph to address what you think I'm saying and ramble on a response to that, but you haven't even acknowledged the existence of inherent cultural ethos' accumulation in the modern worldview. You haven't even mentioned a hint that you actually understand what I'm driving at. You don't even seem interested in what I'm driving at. You seem interested in winning a debate. Is it really so impossible to have an honest discussion with you? Pay attention, please, this part's important:

Quote:

For example, look at Western Medicine, all other versions of medicine are considered mediocre superstition, western medicine is the only type considered modern and appropriate because it's based on the scientific method, but it carries with it the accumulation of western ethos' rampant compartmentalization, the same that causes someone participating in an online discussion to think it accurate, respectful or somehow helpful to tear a post apart and respond to each sentence out of context. The gestalt is ignored, hence why its competitor in western society is labeled holistic medicine (which is considered unscientific no matter how many studies pop up on its virtues).

Quote:

An Immunologist would be worried about you.

I want you to read your response and take into account where it's coming from. Can you begin to recognize the cognitive dissonance it bleeds? The way you've just acted condescending and matter-of-factly in the face of something that contradicts your worldview as if your beliefs are evidently proven and anything contrary is simply worrying? The way you can't even conceive of reality outside of this mode of thinking? You have defined dogmatism.
03-09-2014, 07:30 PM
Linkzelda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Another verbose failure to understand my argument. You can go on for paragraph after paragraph to address what you think I'm saying and ramble on a response to that, but you haven't even acknowledged the existence of inherent cultural ethos' accumulation in the modern worldview.

I’ve already acknowledged these terminologies of yours, and have been making responses to them. Though I guess my questions for you to expound more on these matters seems non-existent for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You haven't even mentioned a hint that you actually understand what I'm driving at. You don't even seem interested in what I'm driving at.

Probably because actually stating that I understand you would allow you to set up a post that I really don’t. Why would I need to participate in straw man questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You seem interested in winning a debate

And I’m not here to win at all, merely to argue and discuss. Instead of stating things that make you feel good (e.g. Sheldrake’s declarations), argue why they’re good declarations on his end. If your flagrant series of reductio ad absurdum isn’t making it seem that you’re aiming to win/close a debate, then I guess I can’t help bring awareness for you there. You can win the Internet any day if you want to, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Is it really so impossible to have an honest discussion with you? Pay attention, please, this part's important:

Me answering your self-referential question? Now you want me to do your thinking for you? No thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The way you've just acted condescending and matter-of-factly in the face of something that contradicts your worldview as if your beliefs are evidently proven and anything contrary is simply worrying?

You’re a hypocrite if what you’ve been spewing about Sheldrake isn’t considered (to you) a matter-of-factly tonality, and condescending as well. You’re twisting things up here. You (in previous posts) were mentioning Richard Dawkins (e.g. someone you feel is a militant dogmatist atheist), and how he apparently makes ontological claims with absolute certainty to the point where he demands others to provide evidence to anyone that aims to challenging his claims. Pretty sure he would claim he would be almost certain on his view of reality (sustained by atheism no doubt) instead of being “absolutely” certain, especially in his book, “The God Delusion.”

It should be apparent that someone wanting to disprove of a God, or another deity, is doomed to fail, and vice versa for anyone that aims to find absolute certainties that there is a God/deity. Keywords: almost vs. absolute

I’m not equivalent to ol’ Richie boy, please don’t do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I want you to read your response and take into account where it's coming from. Can you begin to recognize the cognitive dissonance it bleeds?

It was a flagrant straw man on your end, ad hominem pending. If attributing cognitive dissonance just because an individual didn’t bother to type that they read your post is a habit for you, it’s no wonder you’re reaching a breaking point. I would state instead that you’re wanting me to analyze the cognitive dissonance on your end for making analogous statements (e.g. Western medicine and a straw man) that clearly is addressing the person you're attacking rather than the topics at hand, but there’s no need for me to do that since it wouldn’t register to you, and it would be futile.

Which is why I’ll state again: An immunologist would be worried about you for doing something like that (e.g. horrible analogous statements). Actually, anyone that knows what a non-sequitur is would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You don't even seem interested in what I'm driving at.

But I have been interested, I even gave you cliff notes with bullet points on how the apparent Materialistic paradigm may affect the philosophy of science, the method of inquiry, politics behind Science (e.g. how funding is distributed towards certain theorems and experiments), and such. I even made arguments as to why some of your claims still cater to a hypothetical audience. I would be concerned on the impasse (e.g. brick wall analogy others have been directing to you), and lack of interest you've portrayed to others who seem to respond to you (e.g. those you selectively feel are using ad hominem and attacks on you, which is pretty much everyone).

It’s your impetuous spirit that does it to me, it’s part of what makes this discussion very interesting to me. If I truly had apathy for what you’ve contributed, I wouldn’t have bothered to respond to you, but here I am. And if this is a common behavioral trend of yours, rest assured that I’ll do my best to invest in some time to respond if needed.
03-09-2014, 11:55 PM
StephL

1 Attachment(s)

Something unexpected happened - I listened to the video with an interview of Sheldrake on the supposed censorship by the TED board - and actually amused myself, sort of.
It's hilarious in how he inadvertently - and probably not discernibly for his defenders - discredits himself there.
I have also read up on this controversy and can give you the links to trace back the lack of proposed evidence on the points.

So it's like this - TED has gotten reactions on having the video up on their main page and without critical commentary.
TED then gave the case for consideration to an anonymous scientific committee and it was deemed pseudo-science.
But it was not deleted or taken off-line, but presented in an other area of their page and with disclaimer and statement and links to discussion facilities.

How you can seriously call this censure is beyond me.
Such a review committee has to be anonymous to protect it from corruptive attempts and aggressive attacks - that's classical procedure of peer review in science - and the editor then stands up for it after approval - like the TED editorial staff did.
Sheldrake gives lip service to there being the need for a quality check for TED in general, but just in his case - it would have been used inappropriately. Sure.

He claims, it was his conclusion, that there is dogma in science, which was the argument for moving it. It was not.
What was the point, was that he presented supposed evidence for his claims, which is not valid.
As a positive result of this controversy for "us" consumers of popular scientific hobby-education - TED have now installed a system of review and criteria, as to what is considered pseudoscience.
Oh by the way - if you wonder, why it seems rather bizarre to mention kids wandering off to South America, because they are told on TED, that the only way to connect to the consciousness of mother earth would be by taking ayahuasca - it is taken out of context.
There was another video taken off the main page and framed, which was about this topic - that's what it refers to.

But the other part of TED's arguments - that they don't want to promote with their prestige the spreading of stuff like - stones and stars have self-consciousness - telepathy is perfectly feasible - it is not genes, which encode our morphological features, like body-shape and so forth. Supposedly our shape comes from habits forming in the morphic field, because other animals have been shaped like that for a long time, and this gestalt is transmitted over the outreach of consciousness beyond the brain - should this really be supported??
Think not.
You certainly don't want to spread that nonsense, if you are, and want to keep being considered, a serious source of information - which is indeed regularly used in schools.

So - but he states several supposed cases of evidence for his morphic resonance - and they are all de-bunked and clearly.
That would be the being stared at, the rats, the dogs - he has meanwhile learned, that the fact, that the 100th monkey is debunked is publicly known and ceased to use it - or maybe he does in the book.
The stuff with crystals forming faster after first instance of doing this somewhere - written in the 1920s by somebody, who mused about this - not by empirical evidence or even experiments.

With the natural constants like speed of light - what he referes to, are two years with deviant measures - 1920-something and 40-something - and if you look at the confidence intervals - you see, that there is absolutely nothing anybody without an agenda would deem worth a second look. In addition to that - methods and tools are extremely much better now - and it is constantly measured.
What people like Sheldrake don't understand, is that scientists would love to discover, that they change - or any such revolutionary things - it would rain Nobel-prizes, if something like this could be shown - I mean this as in positive evidence.
As a scientist it is your job to search for positive evidence for your ideas and construct models of interpreting the patterns, we observe in nature - and then to try and shoot them down as best as you can - or shoot at them, until you see, how to modify them.
Like with gravity - something had been observed, for which's explanation Newton's model was not sufficient - so there.
What is not science, is claiming something, which is not falsifiable - and Sheldrake does that a jolly lot.

Then they go on about how he has a PhD and held various posts - even mention, that he excelled at university - as a token of his professionalism.
Saying that somebody with such an expose can not be deemed pseudo-scientific.
Completely ignoring the fact, that Sheldrake has stopped his scientific career and went to India for years - after which his professionalism was gone, he did no scientific research any more, neither publish peer-reviewed.
What he did for example was putting up a protocol in the net, for you to test at home, if your dog knows, when you will come home. He wrote polemic books and articles and held respective talks.
And of course there is no contemporary further recognition of his - but it is brought forth as argument?
He says, how probably nobody would even listen to Einstein or Darwin in today's establishment of institutional academia - them having been private researchers. He has the cheek to compare what he does today, and it being outside of academia, with geniuses like these. Man, Sheldrake, even you get reviewed by science committees, without being overly happy about it in actual fact. How ironic.
What a bull, to bring these pseudo-arguments.
Just like, that it would have been because of the dogma thing, why they took it off.
The TEDx platform, where this talk was on, is often sporting controversial theories and fresh thinking - it was because he was sprouting his private ideas as being underfooted by evidence and naming stuff, which is not valid, and voicing non-falsifiable claims under the pretence of being more in the spirit of science than Science.
Oohriight..Attachment 6674

What is quite interesting and unexpected - he was not consorting with Hindus or Buddhists after he left science behind and went to India - no.
He was a monk in a Catholic order there - Benedictine - so eastern philosophy - I think not.
He has some sort of collaboration with a Catholic bishop going - or at least he did so a year ago.
Striking, isn't it just?!

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page