Extra-Human Conciousness

Tao_Equus said:
I describe the possible truths I visit in my writing here. I support no school of philosophy and certainly no school of theology but cherry pick according to my current thinking. Yet it relies more heavily on science. I do not know what is real but there are some beliefs you have that I am pretty sure are not real, or are misunderstood by you. The reason I think so is because I used to think that way too. Been convinced by the same evidence you present. But I am done trying to explain what I mean by having no beliefs to you. It is not that difficult to get.
Click to expand...
I knew you'd resist making a clear statement of your beliefs, Tao. Gives you more deniability and the opportunity to imply I'm merely misunderstanding you. Perhaps, whenever I choose to debate one of your vehement posts, I'll first as a prelude to it ask you to confirm what inference you are drawing about "reality" from it from now on. earl
 
earl said:
I knew you'd resist making a clear statement of your beliefs, Tao. Gives you more deniability and the opportunity to imply I'm merely misunderstanding you. Perhaps, whenever I choose to debate one of your vehement posts, I'll first as a prelude to it ask you to confirm what inference you are drawing about "reality" from it from now on. earl
Click to expand...

Resist making a clear statement?! He just made a clear statement! What more do you want?

Perhaps you are misunderstanding Tao. Is that by nature, accident, or intent?
 
Tao_Equus said:
It is not that difficult to get.
Click to expand...

earl said:
I knew you'd resist making a clear statement of your beliefs, Tao. Gives you more deniability and the opportunity to imply I'm merely misunderstanding you. Perhaps, whenever I choose to debate one of your vehement posts, I'll first as a prelude to it ask you to confirm what inference you are drawing about "reality" from it from now on. earl
Click to expand...

citizenzen said:
Resist making a clear statement?! He just made a clear statement! What more do you want?

Perhaps you are misunderstanding Tao. Is that by nature, accident, or intent?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is difficult to get :confused: Seems so simple to me tho....
 
earl said:
I knew you'd resist making a clear statement of your beliefs, Tao. Gives you more deniability and the opportunity to imply I'm merely misunderstanding you. Perhaps, whenever I choose to debate one of your vehement posts, I'll first as a prelude to it ask you to confirm what inference you are drawing about "reality" from it from now on. earl
Click to expand...

Its like you are waiting for me to be someone else..... why is that so important to you? I come here and generally I make propositions which I go on to defend or that get hijacked, (or for whatever reason - hijacks here are usually a genuine, welcome exploration to me-),the thread runs its course and dies. That's it. Do you think I am really Billy Graham?....or the Archbishop of Homostan?..... Or String theorist Steven Shocking? Sorry to disappoint, I'm just a kind of old hippy/punk from Edinburgh.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Its like you are waiting for me to be someone else..... why is that so important to you? I come here and generally I make propositions which I go on to defend or that get hijacked, (or for whatever reason - hijacks here are usually a genuine, welcome exploration to me-),the thread runs its course and dies. That's it. Do you think I am really Billy Graham?....or the Archbishop of Homostan?..... Or String theorist Steven Shocking? Sorry to disappoint, I'm just a kind of old hippy/punk from Edinburgh.
Click to expand...

Well, as to the Billy Graham allusion, yeah, I kinda think you've often acted like a bigger proselytizer/puplit thumper for your world view than perhaps old Billy was for his.:p But, no problems. In order to avoid you believing I misrepresent your position, at times I shall scrupulously inquire into what you seem to be implying. In that manner you can choose to correct any misperceptions I have of your theoretical stance as most certainly you have one or you wouldn't be such a pulpit thumper. What I do not appreciate Tao, is simply claiming I am misrepresenting your position and then avoid pointing out where you think I got it wrong. Gee, CZ, you seem to clearly know what Tao's theoretical positions are and where I got it wrong. Perhaps, you can enlighten me.:) earl
 
earl said:
Gee, CZ, you seem to clearly know what Tao's theoretical positions are and where I got it wrong. Perhaps, you can enlighten me.:) earl
Click to expand...

I merely trusted what he wrote down in his post.

You should try it. It works wonders.
 
earl said:
Well, as to the Billy Graham allusion, yeah, I kinda think you've often acted like a bigger proselytizer/puplit thumper for your world view than perhaps old Billy was for his.:p But, no problems. In order to avoid you believing I misrepresent your position, at times I shall scrupulously inquire into what you seem to be implying. In that manner you can choose to correct any misperceptions I have of your theoretical stance as most certainly you have one or you wouldn't be such a pulpit thumper. What I do not appreciate Tao, is simply claiming I am misrepresenting your position and then avoid pointing out where you think I got it wrong. Gee, CZ, you seem to clearly know what Tao's theoretical positions are and where I got it wrong. Perhaps, you can enlighten me.:) earl
Click to expand...

Well it is a debate forum and the debates would fizzle out pretty fast if I just agreed with every objection now wouldn't they. I do not object to you calling me anything, if you only did that it might be funny. What you do is create a label and try to nail me to it so that you can burn it. I have now made it abundantly clear that I have no preference to any group or school. That my take is my take and my take alone. Why is that difficult for you to accept? You expect I answer your questions but you notably fail to address mine.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Well it is a debate forum and the debates would fizzle out pretty fast if I just agreed with every objection now wouldn't they. I do not object to you calling me anything, if you only did that it might be funny. What you do is create a label and try to nail me to it so that you can burn it. I have now made it abundantly clear that I have no preference to any group or school. That my take is my take and my take alone. Why is that difficult for you to accept? You expect I answer your questions but you notably fail to address mine.
Click to expand...
You haven't me one yet. I'm not one to dissemble or play mental hide and seek games with others. But Tao, again this notion that you "believe nothing" is so patently false that I believe you're the only one here buying that. The reason I think the materialist label fits is that in nearly every post I've seen you make here for years you have argued against any notion of any explanation for phenomena that fell outside of the physical properties of the universe. That by definition is the materialist stance on reality, whether as applied to matters of brain-mind or other phenomena. If and only if you ever take another philosophical stance different from that will it be logical to infer you have other beliefs. earl
 
I would just add, Tao, that what I do is in part no different than what you do: occasionally I like to remind you of anomalous experiences that do not fit within the materialist explanatory system you employ just as you are continually posting about how that explanatory system "explains everything" even when it doesn't. If you truly had no belief system, such alternative explanatory possibilites wouldn't rile you so much.;) But, ask me any question you want and I'll tell it to you straight; no beating around the bush. earl
 
earl said:
If you [Tao] truly had no belief system, such alternative explanatory possibilites wouldn't rile you so much.
Click to expand...

Or it could be that he's just naturally surly.

Earl, I'd like to go back to the post made earlier where I wrote about the known and theorized kinds of energy and matter that make up the universe. Take gravity for instance. We are well aware of its effects, but no one has yet detected it directly. Science really doesn't know what it is yet. But one thing I wouldn't bet on is that it is a miracle of God, or magic. It's a force that's too small for our current technology to detect. But once we detect it, measure it and examined it gravity will be as natural as any other material phenomenon.

What about empty space, where no material is supposed to exist? It turns out space has quantum particles that pop in and out of existence. Even empty space has matter and energy.

You make Materialism sound as if it involves wood and mud. But we know that matter and energy are incredibly diverse and still largely undiscovered or quantified. The fact that something remains unquantified does not make it supernatural, no more than the spectrum of light was supernatural before someone (Newton?) studied it with prisms.

So I'd like to ask you Earl, what do you think exists beyond the scope of energy and matter? Maybe you're more of a materialist than you realized.
 
citizenzen said:
Or it could be that he's just naturally surly.

Earl, I'd like to go back to the post made earlier where I wrote about the known and theorized kinds of energy and matter that make up the universe. Take gravity for instance. We are well aware of its effects, but no one has yet detected it directly. Science really doesn't know what it is yet. But one thing I wouldn't bet on is that it is a miracle of God, or magic. It's a force that's too small for our current technology to detect. But once we detect it, measure it and examined it gravity will be as natural as any other material phenomenon.

What about empty space, where no material is supposed to exist? It turns out space has quantum particles that pop in and out of existence. Even empty space has matter and energy.

You make Materialism sound as if it involves wood and mud. But we know that matter and energy are incredibly diverse and still largely undiscovered or quantified. The fact that something remains unquantified does not make it supernatural, no more than the spectrum of light was supernatural before someone (Newton?) studied it with prisms.

So I'd like to ask you Earl, what do you think exists beyond the scope of energy and matter? Maybe you're more of a materialist than you realized.
Click to expand...
Basically, I think most of the phenomena lumped into the study of parapsychology comprise the anomalous experiences that may not fit a materialist explanantion. Though when you get into the speculations of quantum physics, which could be seen as within a "materialist" framework, those have sometimes been put forth as explanatory models for the phenomena such as that essay I posted in a thread re implications for models of consciousness stemming from NDE research. But that sort of research does indicate that mental phenomena are not necessarily attributed solely to physical phenomena, i.e. the brain. So, perhaps my main contention is with explanatory systems which want to attribute all phenomena to physical substrates. And yes, I do think Tao can be surly.:) earl
 
earl said:
So, perhaps my main contention is with explanatory systems which want to attribute all phenomena to physical substrates. And yes, I do think Tao can be surly.:) earl
Click to expand...

But so much of the matter and energy that makes up the universe (by observation or theory) exists outside this "normal" physical realm. If that's true of materialism, then it's another reason not to assign that label.

I checked the definition on merriam-webster.com and found the word originated in 1733. I think science has made a few strides beyond the understanding they had back then.
 
citizenzen said:
But so much of the matter and energy that makes up the universe (by observation or theory) exists outside this "normal" physical realm. If that's true of materialism, then it's another reason not to assign that label.

I checked the definition on merriam-webster.com and found the word originated in 1733. I think science has made a few strides beyond the understanding they had back then.
Click to expand...
Path of one has often said she doesn't believe any phenomena are "supernatural," which by that I think she means that the "laws of reality" are natural and we humans simply do not comprehend them well. But, interestingly, to me when you scamper down the rabbit holes of quantum physics speculations, you really begin to blur the line between "material" and "spiritual." That's what leads some folks to (over-reach IMO) and contend QP will be a "spiritual" science which will prove various non-materialist claims. But what seems certain is that notions of matter and its interactions as explaining all is untrue. earl
 
earl said:
But what seems certain is that notions of matter and its interactions as explaining all is untrue. earl
Click to expand...

Untrue in what way? It seems difficult to say something is true or untrue when we don't even understand what we're talking about.
 
Netscape Search

This is a recent example of a quantum physicist attempting to link his field with spirituality and what he refers to as the "veiled reality." earl
 
citizenzen said:
Untrue in what way? It seems difficult to say something is true or untrue when we don't even understand what we're talking about.
Click to expand...
probably the clearest example of what I'm talking about falls within the realm of NDE research as in that physician's essay outlining his research and speculations in that thread I started on NDE research and consciousness-his medical findings pretty well demonstrated that consciousness seemed independent of brain function-an at least temporary divorce from matter. Of course, the total unwillingness of die-hard materialists to consider such evidence as possibly not fitting a material explanation demonstrates the subtle power a person's worldview holds over their interpretation of evidence. One could make the case, that the very paltry financial support received for doing any parapsychological research is in itself an indication of how much "consensus" notions of reality-the predominant worldview-holds sway. earl
 
earl said:
Of course, the total unwillingness of die-hard materialists to consider such evidence as possibly not fitting a material explanation demonstrates the subtle power a person's worldview holds over their interpretation of evidence.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a good thing that none of those post in this forum.

earl said:
One could make the case, that the very paltry financial support received for doing any parapsychological research is in itself an indication of how much "consensus" notions of reality-the predominant worldview-holds sway. earl
Click to expand...

One could make the case that financial support will increase as the science gets stronger in the support of NDEs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top