Dr. Diana Walsh Pasulka, American Cosmic’s Breakaway Civilization |417|

Don't forget that before modern medicine NDEs were probably much rarer.

Do all religions even have a transcendental source - think of Mormonism?

David
intrview @59:45 Paraphrasing, "The stories we write become the reality we live."

Maybe that's the escape clause explaining a lot of awful stuff that happens here. Our stories get mixed up by looking cross cultrually and historically. Gotta put those horse blinders on to see clearly (the bible, the koran, book of mormon, etc). I know mormons have genuine experiences too and defend their ethics fiercely.

Finally if this a breakaway civilization, I think we can infer that's already happened and that explains our transcendentally complex environment and bodies but the mind is still the last mystery no religion or science has explained.

I really do think a plausible solution to this reality is god is letting unfold the answer to the question, 'What is morality?' and we have become the figurative AI in the box that cannot be left out, lest we escape and tame our master(s)!

http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox/
 
I still haven’t heard anyone else comment on the notion that the cherubim guarding the way to the Tree of Life in Genesis is a mythical encapsulation of a possibly very tangible fact: that “the gods” (the universal hierarchy) have locked us out of the Tree of Life “tech” because the power to live forever is also the power to destroy everything, and the universe therefore requires a hierarchy to maintain stability and avoid being blown up from within and we need to be forced to labor and die in order to evolve to a place where we can take back the “Tree of Life.”
That's something I've pondered but never is there a definitive answer. I hope Gary Schwartz has some luck with his soul phone.
 
Finally if this a breakaway civilization, I think we can infer that's already happened and that explains our transcendentally complex environment and bodies but the mind is still the last mystery no religion or science has explained.
I think you should read a bit more of Sheldrake. That makes you realise that there is a probably a lot that science doesn't understand. I think the intellectual world is also filling up with 'science' that is phoney, botched, or over-interpreted.

The mind is certainly still mysterious (particularly from a materialist perspective) but there is plenty more!

David
 
I think you should read a bit more of Sheldrake. That makes you realise that there is a probably a lot that science doesn't understand. I think the intellectual world is also filling up with 'science' that is phoney, botched, or over-interpreted.

The mind is certainly still mysterious (particularly from a materialist perspective) but there is plenty more!

David
I like sheldrake. And I like idealism. But there is no 'there' there yet. I think about unknown unknowns. I get it. Sorta.

It's funny. Back when I was an atheist I remember reading a blog post by the skeptic Richard Carrier, the jesus mythicist. I remember him saying, based on his intuitive understanding of bayes theorem, a trusted friend who sees ufo's land is all you need to believe in ufos (if you are the rationalist named Richard carrier or someone appropriately similar!) Someone should alert tyson to this idea of social proof.
 
Last edited:
I like sheldrake. And I like idealism. But there is no 'there' there yet. I think about unknown unknowns. I get it. Sorta.
I think my point is that the materialist view of reality is obviously defficient when it comes to consciousness, but when you look in a bit more detail, there are far more serious holes. My favourite right now, is evolution. There seem to be three groups of evolutionary theorists right now.

1) The majority, lead by the likes of Jerry Coyne, who simply scoff at the arguments coming out of the DI - carefully skirting round the scary bits.

2) A lot of biologists who realise there is something desperately wrong with the theory, but don't know quite what to do about it.

3) The DI crowd, who point out that Darwin's theory, or anything like it, can't explain life on earth. Most of their books do not push Christianity, and some DI members are atheists! The most recent discussion about this on this forum is here:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/
It's funny. Back when I was an atheist I remember reading a blog post by the skeptic Richard Carrier, the jesus mythicist. I remember him saying, based on his intuitive understanding of bayes theorem, a trusted friend who sees ufo's land is all you need to believe in ufos (if you are the rationalist named Richard carrier or someone appropriately similar!) Someone should alert tyson to this idea of social proof.
I have gone off the whole idea of positive proof, except in specialised domains. Negative proof - such as proofs that materialism doesn't cut it - is more valuable, but notice even there, people cut and weave to keep arguing for materialism.

Generally I think wrong headed scientific ideas just slowly wither.

David
 
hi David... not exactly what you mean by missing, but in general there's no telling what's going on with a thread that old... probably not worth messing with.
 
Sorry Alex - I guess I just had a rather large senior moment!

A new member, Martin Brock, revived that old thread to comment on it. Since it was coming up to the time for another podcast, I assumed this was it, and added a comment. Then several others added their comments!

My confusion was compounded by the fact that Martin was the first to comment - 4 years later!

David
 
I think my point is that the materialist view of reality is obviously defficient when it comes to consciousness, but when you look in a bit more detail, there are far more serious holes. My favourite right now, is evolution. There seem to be three groups of evolutionary theorists right now.

1) The majority, lead by the likes of Jerry Coyne, who simply scoff at the arguments coming out of the DI - carefully skirting round the scary bits.

2) A lot of biologists who realise there is something desperately wrong with the theory, but don't know quite what to do about it.

3) The DI crowd, who point out that Darwin's theory, or anything like it, can't explain life on earth. Most of their books do not push Christianity, and some DI members are atheists! The most recent discussion about this on this forum is here:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/

I have gone off the whole idea of positive proof, except in specialised domains. Negative proof - such as proofs that materialism doesn't cut it - is more valuable, but notice even there, people cut and weave to keep arguing for materialism.

Generally I think wrong headed scientific ideas just slowly wither.

David

Right, but skepticism doesn't automatically mean you should jump to the idea that I am a materialist -- not that you did, and then discount basic facts like comparing levels of evidence!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html

We should be writing letters to our senators asking for the research funded by bigelow to be released. Harry Reid himself has said the public is ready and he seemed to be supporting a kind of 'state's rights' view. Perhaps some titles of the research is out there, with names etc.

As for social proof, that was said in jest, seriously! It was a clever allusion to what alex was doing. Different tribes, different conclusions, same data.

Alex says that the guest says that a scientist says 'x' whereas science says that tyson says 'not x'. But if the tribes could all just be one! And I do mean 'science says' because we know who tyson represents. The pinnacle of science!

A-S-T-R-O-N-O-M-Y! Which rarely tests anything empirically (go ahead and try to visit a black hole or recreate the big bang). How else did they get the number of planets beyond our solar system estimate off by many orders of magnitude? It wasn't bad data, it was no data. And tyson says we have no data.

All i gotta say is: inferential distance! I'm not a believer or a skeptic.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Alex - I guess I just had a rather large senior moment!

A new member, Martin Brock, revived that old thread to comment on it. Since it was coming up to the time for another podcast, I assumed this was it, and added a comment. Then several others added their comments!

My confusion was compounded by the fact that Martin was the first to comment - 4 years later!

David
I was confused by this as well. Was thinking, 'man Alex is productive as hell!!' Two new shows, back to back... and deep subject ones too....'
 
A-S-T-R-O-N-O-M-Y! Which rarely tests anything empirically (go ahead and try to visit a black hole or recreate the big bang). How else did they get the number of planets beyond our solar system estimate off by many orders of magnitude? It wasn't bad data, it was no data. And tyson says we have no data.
There may be a horrible blunder at the heart of modern astronomy - one so grievous that few atronomers are willing to contemplate it. Look up Halton Arp (a student of Hubble) if you want more details!

David
 
I have gone off the whole idea of positive proof, except in specialised domains. Negative proof - such as proofs that materialism doesn't cut it - is more valuable, but notice even there, people cut and weave to keep arguing for materialism.

Generally I think wrong headed scientific ideas just slowly wither
Jeff Kripal makes a compelling point in 'Changed in a Flash' that there are other forms of evidence, other than science, that are just as valid, if not more so - when dealing with complex messy things that 'science' can't measure. You are going to keep on getting the pro materialism argument so long as science is reckoned to be the arbiter of the real. It is easy to argue for materialism if the only lens you have is a narrowly focused 'scientific' one that ignores the wider spectrum of scientific thought and sticks doggedly to a fragmented and tired morsel that comforts those who desire no other.

While I agree with the notion that "wrong headed scientific ideas just slowly wither" there are complicating factors that draw out the life of zombie notions . What we increasing regard as bad science carries an adverse moral dimension that supports and sustains enterprises that are toxic (on many levels) because they are profitable. If is profitable to espouse materialism.

The triumphalist notion that science must be objective gives reason to dismiss morality as 'subjective'. Contra that, 'new' science acknowledges holism more and more, and that has implications for human conduct - moral ones. By restoring 'science' to its non-materialistic foundation in reality, we are also restoring human conduct to being more steward and less rapist. We can only hope that the rapine notions embedded in materialism wither more swiftly.
 
3) The DI crowd, who point out that Darwin's theory, or anything like it, can't explain life on earth. Most of their books do not push Christianity, and some DI members are atheists!
Do you mean ID? Right at the end of 'Darwin Devolves' Behe makes a case that Darwinism can't explain consciousness - and that's an interesting idea, because there is no point in thinking you can explain biology if you dance around the one thing that makes that possible. Its a fair point. How can you have a theory of evolution if you miss out most of what that is about. No point in just wiping out the 'consciousness problem' by saying that its an epiphenomenon of biology. You may as well cut a horse's head off and develop a theory about how that evolved while leaving the rest of the body off to one side and saying there's a 'body problem'.

Behe knits science back into philosophy, after demolishing Darwinism pretty comprehensively. We are reminded that 'science' effectively cut itself adrift from the body of human knowledge by setting rules that rendered it exempt from what it either didn't want to look at, or elected not to look at (because doing so was too complex/difficult/inconvenient).

The ID argument makes sense precisely because it restores thinking to a holistic dimension. ID is not a Christian notion at all. In fact Christians are way late coming to the party. It is thinking embodied in the Earth's animistic traditions and we see it in the Hindu tradition, the Ancient Eqyptian, the Hermetic. It is pre the Abrahamic tradition by a long way.

But I do acknowledge that Christians have tried to represent the idea in recent times in public - but in ways that have attracted bile and scorn from materialists who quickly link in to Biblical literalism - something not aided by religious fundamentalists chiming in support. There is a simple problem we have to consider. If we reject materialism ID must be treated seriously, even if because it is the first blush of thinking seriously about causation or 'creation' from the perspective of actual active 'divine' agents. Its early days - and I don't mind at all that ID is kicking off the discussions we need to have.
 
Discovery Institute - but in this case the D and the I pretty much commute!
Right at the end of 'Darwin Devolves' Behe makes a case that Darwinism can't explain consciousness - and that's an interesting idea, because there is no point in thinking you can explain biology if you dance around the one thing that makes that possible. Its a fair point. How can you have a theory of evolution if you miss out most of what that is about. No point in just wiping out the 'consciousness problem' by saying that its an epiphenomenon of biology. You may as well cut a horse's head off and develop a theory about how that evolved while leaving the rest of the body off to one side and saying there's a 'body problem'.
I am sure that is true, but the real power of that book is that it makes an unassailable (IMHO) case that Natural Selection only works by destroying - you want to be able to resist malaria - here is a damaged haemoglobin gene, but at least you can stay alive. Endlessly repeated, that process progressively destroys all the genetic information that you don't actually need at any moment in time, and damages some that you do need, like the gene for haemoglobin. As far as I know, nobody has actually attempted to counter that argument.

My hunch is that life and consciousness are deeply intertwined:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM
Behe knits science back into philosophy, after demolishing Darwinism pretty comprehensively. We are reminded that 'science' effectively cut itself adrift from the body of human knowledge by setting rules that rendered it exempt from what it either didn't want to look at, or elected not to look at (because doing so was too complex/difficult/inconvenient).

The ID argument makes sense precisely because it restores thinking to a holistic dimension. ID is not a Christian notion at all. In fact Christians are way late coming to the party. It is thinking embodied in the Earth's animistic traditions and we see it in the Hindu tradition, the Ancient Eqyptian, the Hermetic. It is pre the Abrahamic tradition by a long way.

But I do acknowledge that Christians have tried to represent the idea in recent times in public - but in ways that have attracted bile and scorn from materialists who quickly link in to Biblical literalism - something not aided by religious fundamentalists chiming in support. There is a simple problem we have to consider. If we reject materialism ID must be treated seriously, even if because it is the first blush of thinking seriously about causation or 'creation' from the perspective of actual active 'divine' agents. Its early days - and I don't mind at all that ID is kicking off the discussions we need to have.
One of my core beliefs (perhaps that is the wrong term to use) is that modern science has radically lost its way. It worked best when its theories were much more closely tied to lab experiments and to stuff that could be made and had to actually work (for good or bad). By now one area after another has become locked into a blinkered view of reality because towering masses of theory are based on flawed ideas.

One fascinating example is to be found in the work of the astronomer, Halton Arp. This guy, was well thought of and a student of Hubble, until he amassed a lot of evidence that the red shifts of stars (and therefore of galaxies) are not only the result of their speed of motion relative to us - the observers. The problem with this for astronomers, is that red shifts are routinely translated into speed of recession, and then used to measure distance. Thus whenever astronomers tell you that a galaxy is so many light years away, or that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old, they use that same assumption that the red shift of stars is entirely or almost entirely caused by their speed relative to us. If Halton Arp (RIP - he died fairly recently) was right, the whole of cosmology is trashed - both the theory and the data!

The astronomy community responded by trying to block his telescope time, which he needed to collect more data! Fortunately he was able to move to a telescope abroad and continue with his work.

Stories like this abound in science.

David
 
While I agree with the notion that "wrong headed scientific ideas just slowly wither" there are complicating factors that draw out the life of zombie notions . What we increasing regard as bad science carries an adverse moral dimension that supports and sustains enterprises that are toxic (on many levels) because they are profitable. If is profitable to espouse materialism.
Sort of, but the profitability may only be to the research establishment. Think of 'climate change' - it is very profitable to parts of the research community, but may end up seriously damaging our power supplies. If you turn off the power to many communities, particularly cities, you would kill most of the people living there - stuck in lifts or a hundred floors up in a high-rise - starving from lack of food, or the way to transport it - from cold, because when the electricity goes off, so too do our 'efficient' gas boilers.

David
 
intrview @59:45 Paraphrasing, "The stories we write become the reality we live."
Yes the clues are all there. Even the name ‘Tyler’ would’ve been chosen very playfully. Anyone who knows ‘Fight Club’ and the ‘reality’ of that character should be asking themselves how much of this book is ‘story reality’, in other words, fictional.

An enjoyable romp though, like the movie.
 
Yes the clues are all there. Even the name ‘Tyler’ would’ve been chosen very playfully. Anyone who knows ‘Fight Club’ and the ‘reality’ of that character should be asking themselves how much of this book is ‘story reality’, in other words, fictional.

An enjoyable romp though, like the movie.
Real name is Timothy E Taylor.
 
Top