Mod+ 277. FRANK HUGUENARD, BEYOND MIND=BRAIN

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Jun 2, 2015.

  1. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    I think that is a good general principle of judgement - an absurdity principle - if a theory or hypothesis leads to absurd conclusions it is probably false.
    Deterministic materialism leads to absurd conclusions in my opinion and therefore is probably false.
    Therefore I live as if it is false.
     
  2. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    I think that, depending on the topic, it's one of the most erroneous things one could set up as arbitrator. It presupposes that one's intellect and rationality/logic are the definitive measures of actuality. The list of things now accepted that were initially viewed by many as "absurd" isn't short.
     
  3. David Eire

    David Eire New

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    338
    Yes, I agree, it does depend on the issue involved; and as I hope I made clear in the language I chose, it does not constitute certainty.
    It is a working principle that allows one to personally navigate issues which are not settled matters of definitive knowledge; either rational or empirical.
    For example metaphysical and ethical issues.
     
  4. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
    thx glad you enjoyed.

    re predetermined thing... seems like it has to be something of a mixture. my oldest son gave me the best answer I ever heard (he got it from one of his lucid dreams when he was 12) -- "it's kinda like a rubik's cube, you can turn it lot of different ways, but at the end it's supposed to come out a certain way." :)
     
    Ian Gordon likes this.
  5. india7

    india7 New

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    Messages:
    21
    I agree it's a mixture (which fits in with Michael Newton's work).
    What a wonderful quote! Perfectly put, I don't think I'll ever forget it :)
     
  6. india7

    india7 New

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    Messages:
    21
    I think it depends on the topic.
    In the hard sciences like physics I would make a distinction between absurd and "hard to believe".
    For example, relativity was not absurd before it was accepted - just hard to believe. Same goes for entanglement. But using the absurdity argument has also proved very useful in physics, for example in proving the equivalence of gravitational mass and energy.
     
  7. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    I did state "depending on the topic" in my post. But you're incorrect about entanglement (and much of QM) not being considered absurd. It was by many. I'll also expand and state that to me "topic" means just that. It doesn't equate to "field of study." Many in the "hard" sciences are convinced that intellect and rationality/logic are the definitive measures of actuality. They are not. They are, of course, very useful processes.
     
  8. india7

    india7 New

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    Messages:
    21
    Apologies - I didn't mean to suggest otherwise ;)
    I think there are levels of absurdity...I don't consider QM absurd, because although it suggests physical processes happen in a very strange way, it doesn't collapse everything we knew before, because the correspondence principle ensures classical physics is still valid in some sense. QM was built to be consistent with what we already knew. Whereas if radiation didn't have gravitational mass, everything starts to crumble. At least, that's my understanding...
     

Share This Page