Mod+ 277. FRANK HUGUENARD, BEYOND MIND=BRAIN

#61
Great style of interview!
There was a point where Alex said (paraphrasing) "how ridiculous is it that mainstream science is happy to think that life has no point"...which I completely agree with - it's just obvious once you realise it.
Then later, Alex asks the question "do we have choice in this universe? or is it all predetermined?". I was thinking about that question today and finally it struck me: it can't be predetermined because that would also be ridiculous...what point would there be in living out a predetermined life?
So, thank you for inspiring me to come to the conclusion that there has to be at least some element of non-determinism in our lives. And for recognising a new way of understanding the world - if something seems pointless then it probably can't be true...
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.
 
#62
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.
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.
 
#63
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.
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.
 
#64
Great style of interview!
There was a point where Alex said (paraphrasing) "how ridiculous is it that mainstream science is happy to think that life has no point"...which I completely agree with - it's just obvious once you realise it.
Then later, Alex asks the question "do we have choice in this universe? or is it all predetermined?". I was thinking about that question today and finally it struck me: it can't be predetermined because that would also be ridiculous...what point would there be in living out a predetermined life?
So, thank you for inspiring me to come to the conclusion that there has to be at least some element of non-determinism in our lives. And for recognising a new way of understanding the world - if something seems pointless then it probably can't be true...
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." :)
 
#65
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." :)
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 :)
 
#66
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.
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.
 
#67
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.
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.
 
#68
I did state "depending on the topic" in my post.
Apologies - I didn't mean to suggest otherwise ;)
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.
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...
 
Top