Dr. Philip Goff, Will Academia Get Beyond Materialism? |409|

When it comes to dualism, I'm intrigued why you think it is testable.
Well one way to test it would be to try to store information in there and then retrieve it. Obviously this is something that mediums such as Julie Beischel do regularly when they give a reading, but if science wanted, it could test the whole process to destruction.

If science could just be unleashed to study some of these phenomena, I think there would be rapid progress.

David
 
Well one way to test it would be to try to store information in there and then retrieve it. Obviously this is something that mediums such as Julie Beischel do regularly when they give a reading, but if science wanted, it could test the whole process to destruction.

If science could just be unleashed to study some of these phenomena, I think there would be rapid progress.

David
Agree David,

We have to approach dualism by avoiding the does/is fallacy. We must dethrone those who pretend that one must understand what something is before attempting to understand what it does.

And that 'does', might include some prejudice coming from the object being studied. Science has to develop a method wherein it can handle a study object which bears its own prejudice towards them.

It is hard to study gravity if rocks have a mind of their own. But we must still do it.
 
I don't know quite what you mean, but I don't have enough information to GOOGLE my memory, so it is probably not worth discussing it! I'd really hoped someone would have known the answer.

David
Yes sorry, that was impulsive throwaway hearsay!..my shock-response to a 'suicide drug', how very efficient! The great unknown of designer drugs and what minute amounts can do. I'm not technically-adept enough to link my information and I saw it in a newspaper article. It was tragic but not worth a discussion. Although, it was said to be a side-effect of Parkinson medication, I presume administered with helpful intentions, but casinos do enjoy a big revenue..
 
We have to approach dualism by avoiding the does/is fallacy. We must dethrone those who pretend that one must understand what something is before attempting to understand what it does.
Well of course,science has done this repeatedly. People conceived of magnetic fields (say) without knowing what they are - I'm not sure we really know even now - something mediated by longitudinal photons I believe.

David
 
I was trying to show you that you and Popper are in agreement.
Strictly speaking, I suppose you're right (though I'm quite cynical about his motivation); and if falsifiability were universally applied, I'd have much less of an argument.

All I'm saying is that it isn't universally applied, is it? How can it be when scientists get funded for freely noodling about with all sorts of dubious and in some cases unfalsifiable ideas? Good grief - Neo-Darwinism, CAGW, the Big Bang, black holes, dark matter and energy, inflation, multiple universes, string theory and all the rest -- science has gone completely nuts, every bit as whacky as phrenology.

The irony is that in some cases, although some ideas entertained in science might look equally whacky -- such as QM -- there's extremely robust empirical evidence to support them. The real decider of whackiness or non-whackiness is how empirical testing bears on prediction.

In general, whacky theories make predictions that are consistently wrong when tested empirically. So what should happen? They've been repeatedly falsified, and at some point scientists should stop tweaking them, accept they're nonsense and move on, and sooner or later they probably will -- are probably in the process of doing that with the swing to panspyschism.

But still, they're hanging on to materalism in a different guise. And ultimately, as I've said, materialism is unfalsifiable because it's an axiom, the irreducible thing on which they hope to base all their future theories, which in turn risk unfalsifiability. And the same could be said if they ever make the transition to idealism, but my opinion is that idealism will lead to more consistency with empirically discoverable facts along the way.
 
Alice,

I think we are for the most part in agreement.


I agree.

I have read that there are a lot of problems with using drugs to treat depression. Some drugs don't work as well as the drug companies say they do and patients become adapted to drugs and require larger and larger doses until the dose becomes dangerous when the patient has to stop using the drug and has to give up something they are adapted to. Now the patient is worse off than before and more likely to commit suicide. I am pretty sure that nutrition has been neglected by doctors/scientists as a possible treatment for depression. Personally, I find that diet has a greater effect on my mood than meditation.

I am not a materialist but I also think of the brain as a machine. I think where the materialists go wrong is that they think the mind is the brain. But even as a non-materialist I think it is important to recognize how the brain influences consciousness including thoughts, emotions, and impulses.


I agree. I don't think it is invalid. That is what I was trying to say when I wrote that behavior and environment and beliefs could alter brain chemistry too. I am just saying in healthy people the effects will be different than in people with a biological disorder. In your hypothetical tribe, the trance-drumming might not work as well on members who have a biological disorder.

Regarding dancing it might interest you to know I wrote this:





Yes.

But also placebos are used in most drug trials as a control so the effectiveness of the drug being tested is compared to a placebo. Any drug approved by the FDA works better than a placebo (assuming the data is not faked).
Hi Jim
I think so too. I blatantly side-stepped your point that biological brain conditions are different to psychological/environmental. You're right, stress-disorder is different to chemical imbalances in the brain. And I see, it was not the placebo that was being tested.

I have no experience of medication dispensation though once met someone very unhappy about taking lithium for Bi-polar. I wouldn't suggest he dance, but he does run, a lot. He was not open to diet as treatment but neither are most doctors and 'the public'. And yet, we are what we eat, it's simple. 'I have heard' doctors get equivalent of only 5 hours on nutrition in the whole of their lengthy training. Diet puts recovery in our own hands but it takes effort and research.

It wasn't a hypothetical tribe exactly (something seen on social media, very hearsay) the treatment, provided by well-meant western personnel, actually was, quote "we had to sit in a room one at a time and talk about things that made us unhappy, there was no dancing or drumming". I don't know if they were also offered medication.

It is very interesting thank you
 
Well one way to test it would be to try to store information in there and then retrieve it. Obviously this is something that mediums such as Julie Beischel do regularly when they give a reading, but if science wanted, it could test the whole process to destruction.

If science could just be unleashed to study some of these phenomena, I think there would be rapid progress.

David
Could you unpack this more? What is this "there" in your sentence: Well one way to test it would be to try to store information in there and then retrieve it? Does it refer to the mental or the physical? I really can't understand what you're saying -- may be my fault, but I'd appreciate your elaboration.
 
"The question I’d have to tee up from this interview is the question of acceptance. We all get that 'biological robot in a meaningless universe' is an absurd idea, but how much do we need to pound that over the head of stuck in the mud academics and other ordained holders of power and influence?"

I was just listening to an interview with Case Sunstein on his recent book How Change Happens (Alex I can't switch off these stupid italics! - still) Go to https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...ve/cass-sunsteins-how-change-happens/11084362

There is an answer (now they are off?) to your question from a source that I hadn't thought about - there are tipping points for change as a result of behaviours. Well, duh! But what are those behaviours? Apparently we can know, or at least form a decent notion that might informs how to be more effective and bring the folly to a swifter end. Here's an idea for a future show.

I have heard Goff before on CBC's Ideas. This time I particularly like his evocation of Galileo and the misdirection of materialist science as a purist way of knowing, liberated from philosophy (but actually theology in my view) - that's a bit like figuring the best form sex is by yourself - with the same results.

Kripal's 'The Flip' (no italics - too scared) neatly meshes with Goff's notion that its time to restore the notion of science to a balanced perspective. Kripal argues that the Humanities are the way humans study consciousness - and yet they have been pushed off the stage in favour of STEM studies. That's a massive risk with dire peril on offer. We see governments induced to favour STEM solutions, so universities push the humanities off to one side (not proper science) and favour the brainless 'science can solve all' boosters. That is, after all, where the money is - and where the money is you find the grifters and con men - whether in suits or academic clobber.

I have been chatting with Jeff Kripal and I am sure he won't mind me sharing his thoughts - "I do think there is a greater willingness among intellectuals. They have been nervous because so much of the conversation has been, frankly, stupid, and they don’t want to look or sound stupid. But we are gradually fashioning a new way of talking about these things."

Now this is what I would love him to expand on - what is this new way of talking? (this is a hint Alex :)) (why doesn't that turn into a smiley face?)

Goff certainly demonstrates what happens when philosophers stop fiddling with fatuous questions and turn around, look up and begin to have conversations with regular people about interesting stuff.

Sunstein tells an interesting story about how people have private thoughts they do not share because they believe other people do not have the same thoughts - but they do. What happens when they discover other people have the same private thoughts? Stuff happens. Its worth listening to then interview just for this anecdote.

Kripal adds a step on from Goff in the line of argument - and affirmation that we are actually studying 'consciousness' in a complex and sophisticated way - psychology, sociology, anthropology, religious studies - and all their permutations.

So I think there is a good purpose to ridiculing materialism at every opportunity. That's not the same thing as arguing with materialists - unless its an argument about why you won't argue with them. Maybe its our duty to, as Australians are apt to say, "take the piss" out of materialists inflated with their own sense of importance and power. Its a slowly losing side, but there's nothing like hastening its demise.
Michael, I've been struggling to get what your problem might be with editing. I don't seem to have any difficulties. I'm wondering if your problem with italics etc. has anything to do with how you make something italic (or bold, or underlined).

Suppose I've written something and decide I want to make some of it italic. What I tend to do is highlight it, then either click the italics icon on the editing bar at the top, or press ctrl+i. I find actually, that using ctrl+i is quicker and easier because I never have to leave the editing box.

When the text has changed to italic, one can move the cursor past the italicized text using the right arrow key, and either click the italics icon again, or press ctrl+i again, to switch the italics off.

If I want to type something in italic as I write, I click the italics button or press ctrl+i and start typing until I want to go back to normal text, when I can switch the italics off either using the italics icon, or, again, ctrl+i.

It's very similar whether making something italic, bold, or underlined, or any combination of the three. One can either click the appropriate icons or press ctrl+i, ctrl+b or ctrl+u as desired.

I don't know whether that will help. I hope it does.
 
Well of course,science has done this repeatedly. People conceived of magnetic fields (say) without knowing what they are - I'm not sure we really know even now - something mediated by longitudinal photons I believe.
Yes, but they conceived of the context of a 'field' as real (= IS), before conducting the EMF experimentation. This is an inductive Is/Does fallacy. However being an informal fallacy, this is not a flaw of critical logic, so they happened to discover some descriptives of the phenomenon which were useful.

In a true Does/Is = one does not conceive of the context of the cause as real in advance of study. This frees up scientists to study our phenomena without having to declare it to be real first.

Is/Does is the problem - as it forces us to to a highly constrained form of science called sciebam

Sciebam
/philosophy : science : method : sciebam/ : (Latin: I knew) An alternative form of knowledge development, which mandates that science begins with the orphan/non-informed step of ‘ask a question’ or ‘state a hypothesis’.​
 
Where does all this jargon come from?
From a number of philosophy of science resources
Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Science
Taleb Incerto
Wittgenstein and Popper's writings. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in particular
Hume on a posteriori arguments
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
on and on....

And then my work as a researcher, what worked and where I saw others fail and had to step in...

And then I digest key principles and express it in a way that we can use to counter the errant philosophy of 'science enthusiasts' who seek to enforce their religion as science.

But I would, instead of fixating on words unfamiliar... rather understand their IDEAS.......
 
Last edited:
My opinions about the relationship between feelings (emotions) and brain chemistry come from my own experiences observing the effects of meditation, diet, and exercise on my own mood.
One of the reasons I think it is important to understand that some emotions like depression or anxiety can have biochemical causes is that sometimes they are caused by one's diet or can be alleviated by changing one's diet.

In those cases it would be better to develop a better diet rather than try to treat the underlying condition with meditation.

By diet I also mean to include caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and other intoxicants. And in addition to diet, exercise, sleep and other environmental factors can influence mood.

It would be unfortunate if someone used meditation as a crutch rather than take better care of their body.

One subject relating to meditation that I think needs more investigation is the effect of diet on mood. I find that what I eat actually has a greater impact on my mood than meditation. I suspect there are people on medication for anxiety and depression who are curious about whether meditation could help them who would be helped more and get off medication by changing their diet.

Eating red meat reduces the risk of depression by 50%.
http://www.foodiejunky.com/eating-red-meat-reduces-risk-of-depression-by-50/

Eating the right amounts of carbohydrates and protein at the right times can increase serotonin levels.
http://www.serotoninpowerdiet.com/index.php

Too much sugar can cause anxiety
https://www.calmclinic.com/anxiety/causes/sugar


There are biochemical effects on consciousness that I believe cannot be changed by mental techniques such as meditation or cognitive therapy. And I think this fact is ignored in some systems to the detriment of those who are suffering. I believe this is also why some practices seem to have inconsistent results.

In my own experience diet and meditation are like the coarse adjustment and fine adjustment knobs on a microscope or a telescope. You use the coarse adjustment knob to get close to the right focus and the fine adjustment knob to get perfect focus.

Another factor that can affect the biochemical influences on your mood is exercise.

If my mood is affected by biochemical influences, I will try to use appropriate food and exercise to bring the biochemistry into balance before I meditate.
 
One of the reasons I think it is important to understand that some emotions like depression or anxiety can have biochemical causes is that sometimes they are caused by one's diet or can be alleviated by changing one's diet.

In those cases it would be better to develop a better diet rather than try to treat the underlying condition with meditation.

By diet I also mean to include caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and other intoxicants. And in addition to diet, exercise, sleep and other environmental factors can influence mood.

It would be unfortunate if someone used meditation as a crutch rather than take better care of their body.
I think it is important to separate practical considerations about health from theoretical speculation. At a practical level, I'd say whatever works.

At a theoretical level, assuming you have a mind that is distinct from the brain, then it is interesting to think about how that works. I like an analogy with driving a car, where the car is your brain. If the car starts to go wrong - say the engine isn't firing properly, or you have a slow puncture and it doesn't steer too well, I find that for a few seconds I'm not sure if the problem is in my head, or the car. The mind controls the brain which controls the car. You know the car isn't responding right, but you don't know where the fault lies.

Once you understand the problem, you may be able to control the car enough to get to a garage - not because you have fixed the car, but because you are putting more effort into controlling it.

On the other hand, if the problem is really in your mind, that isn't going to work.

David
 
Yes, but they conceived of the context of a 'field' as real (= IS), before conducting the EMF experimentation. This is an inductive Is/Does fallacy. However being an informal fallacy, this is not a flaw of critical logic, so they happened to discover some descriptives of the phenomenon which were useful.

In a true Does/Is = one does not conceive of the context of the cause as real in advance of study. This frees up scientists to study our phenomena without having to declare it to be real first.

Is/Does is the problem - as it forces us to to a highly constrained form of science called sciebam

Sciebam
/philosophy : science : method : sciebam/ : (Latin: I knew) An alternative form of knowledge development, which mandates that science begins with the orphan/non-informed step of ‘ask a question’ or ‘state a hypothesis’.​
Well my point (some way back) was that science started using the concept of a field (with some dissenters) because it was the only way to think about electromagnetism (and gravitation for that matter) - not because they 'understood' it. In the same way, I think if science took on Dualism, either as a postulate or more tentatively, it would have a way to organise certain ideas - such as NDE's. This could lead to enormous progress, because at the moment science - even psychologists or neuroscientists (Eban Alexander's has commented on this) either push the idea to the edge of their thinking, or try to come up with ill-thought out excuses for why these phenomena 'seem' to occur. They can't take them seriously because they don't have a conceptual framework to place them in.

David
 
Well my point (some way back) was that science started using the concept of a field (with some dissenters) because it was the only way to think about electromagnetism (and gravitation for that matter) - not because they 'understood' it. In the same way, I think if science took on Dualism, either as a postulate or more tentatively, it would have a way to organise certain ideas - such as NDE's. This could lead to enormous progress, because at the moment science - even psychologists or neuroscientists (Eban Alexander's has commented on this) either push the idea to the edge of their thinking, or try to come up with ill-thought out excuses for why these phenomena 'seem' to occur. They can't take them seriously because they don't have a conceptual framework to place them in.

David
But is that dualism? IMO, ontologies are matters for belief and not for proof or disproof. If I understand you correctly, you're proposing "dualism" as a convenient system for organising perceived information rather than as a matter of belief.

You wouldn't have to actually believe that there were two separate realms (physical and mental), just have a methodological model which treats certain classes of data as valid items for investigation even though they might not (yet, at any rate) fit in with materialism. If you like, you could firmly believe that there is a materialistic explanation that hasn't yet been discovered, but still take phenomena such as NDEs seriously. Quite possibly, some researchers already do this; but it doesn't make them dualists: they might be writers of promissory notes to themselves, or agnostics who can examine phenomena in a dispassionate and detached way, or, the new wave of bottom-up panpsychists.

I'm reminded of people sympathetic to ID who may be agnostic and not have a formal allegiance to it -- see here, for example. Bottom-up panpsychism (a.k.a. micropsychism), as I see it, is a way of retaining materialism whilst being prepared to acknowledge that consciousness has an influence in phenomena. IOW, the "dualism" you're proposing is actually already gaining momentum, but its name is panpsychism; I don't personally agree with it, but it is perhaps somewhat better than materialistic monism in that it might allow people to take certain phenomena more seriously.
 
Well my point (some way back) was that science started using the concept of a field (with some dissenters) because it was the only way to think about electromagnetism (and gravitation for that matter) - not because they 'understood' it.
Yes... my mistake. My blog material uses the word 'context' to avoid this semantic red herring land mine. But really that misses the point... to wit:

...neuroscientists (Eban Alexander's has commented on this) either push the idea to the edge of their thinking, or try to come up with ill-thought out excuses for why these phenomena 'seem' to occur. They can't take them seriously because they don't have a conceptual framework to place them in.
A conceptual framework (the 'is') is understanding and context. This was the whole crux of Is-Does/Sciebam fallacy set and why I mentioned it. By trying to establish a conceptual framework, first, we play into a scientific Catch 22. We presuppose elements of framework, which then are used in establishing its researchers as non-science researchers (mistakenly deemed by pseudo-skeptics as pseudo scientists).

If we start with the pretend scientific questions "Does an afterlife exist?" or "Is the mind dualized between non-material and material?", then we have shot ourselves in the foot by means of an orphan question. This is sciebam (I know). The issue is that we do not know and cannot therefore establish a conceptual framework with a sciencey theory-name.

Its erstwhile researchers then become afraid of the name categorization and are restricted from legitimately conducting observation (observing the 'does'), which is the first step of the scientific method.

This is very similar to 'Was the Khufu Pyramid built by aliens?' From that point of posing onward, not one researcher can ever research anything other than the Khufu/Herodotus/2540 bce construct... ever again. We have polarized the playing field through the posing of a non-science question.

One does not have to develop a conceptual framework in advance of observation and research. So by starting with assumption-loaded theory-concepts (panpyschism, dualism, micropsychism, etc.) we prejudice science against us at its most vulnerable point.

Fake skeptics know this, and exploit it. Hence why I contend that this community's focus need be on the philosophy underlying how they think and how they proceed, as a first priority, to strengthen its approach against fake skepticism. It uses the community's philosophical ineptness against it.
 
Last edited:
You wouldn't have to actually believe that there were two separate realms (physical and mental), just have a methodological model which treats certain classes of data as valid items for investigation even though they might not (yet, at any rate) fit in with materialism. If you like, you could firmly believe that there is a materialistic explanation that hasn't yet been discovered, but still take phenomena such as NDEs seriously.
Well my suggested test involved the use of a medium, so that surely pins my position down a fair bit.
If we start with the pretend scientific questions "Does an afterlife exist?" or "Is the mind dualized between non-material and material?", then we have shot ourselves in the foot by means of an orphan question. This is sciebam (I know). The issue is that we do not know and cannot therefore establish a conceptual framework with a sciencey name.

Such researchers then are afraid of the name categorization and are restricted from legitimately conducting observation (observing the 'does'), which is the first step of the scientific method.
What I was trying to point out, was that science wasn't always like that. The field concept was/is used in exactly that way.
One does not have to develop a conceptual framework in advance of observation and research. So by starting with assumption-loaded theory-concepts (panpyschism, dualism, micropsychism, etc.) we prejudice science against us at its most vulnerable point.
Except that researchers ignore or excuse all the evidence! The real problem with panpsychism, is that they just announce with a fanfare that they finally believe in it, and then ..... nothing.
Fake skeptics know this, and exploit it.
I wonder how many of them see through it all - are they faking being fake skeptics? I don't know, I don't understand them.

Is there a short internet text that explains the logic behind your terminology? I'll try ploughing through this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus
If you think it will get me up to speed. My brain is finite and a can't stand the thought of reading a huge book on the subject!

David
 
I wonder how many of them see through it all - are they faking being fake skeptics? I don't know, I don't understand them.
Yeah, Alex and I are deliberating this very point now - the three categories of obfuscator: The pretend asleep, the apparatchik and the methodical genius who knows that the community is onto something valid, but fears it greatly. Still working on that one. :)

Is there a short internet text that explains the logic behind your terminology? I'll try ploughing through this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus
If you think it will get me up to speed. My brain is finite and a can't stand the thought of reading a huge book on the subject!
Agreed. It took me 14 years of deep working in one early profession (markets and trade), in order to develop its first quantum shift in thinking. And understanding only came after being exposed to myriad sources and immersion in trial-by-fire projects attempting to apply their wisdom.

Philosophy is similar - this has taken me 40 years to develop. But here are at lest excerpts from my blog site - where I catalog my thoughts. If you find a philosopher who has already thought all this through and expressed its tenets under another name - let me know and I will discipline my jargon accordingly. It can be found at The Elements of Hypothesis.

Orphan Question
/philosophy : pseudoscience : sciebam/ : a question, purported to be the beginning of the scientific method, which is asked in the blind, without sufficient intelligence gathering or preparation research, and is as a result highly vulnerable to being manipulated or posed by means of agency. The likelihood of a scientifically valid answer being developed from this question process, is very low. However, an answer of some kind can almost always be developed – and is often spun by its agency as ‘science’. This form of question, while not always pseudoscience, is a part of a modified process of science called sciebam. It should only be asked when there truly is no base of intelligence or body of information regarding a subject. A condition which is rare.​
Example: 'Are ghosts real?' 'Is there an afterlife?' (Although somewhat extreme examples, the point is, by asking these questions, in this manner, one has already lost the battle of skepticism, and fake skeptics exploit this)​
Sciebam
/philosophy : science : method : sciebam/ : (Latin: I knew) An alternative form of knowledge development, which mandates that science begins with the orphan/non-informed step of ‘ask a question’ or ‘state a hypothesis’. A non-scientific process which bypasses the first steps of the scientific method: observation, intelligence development and formulation of necessity. This form of pseudoscience/non-science presents three vulnerabilities:​
First it presumes that the researcher possesses substantially all the knowledge or framework they need, lacking only to fill in final minor gaps in understanding. This creates an illusion of knowledge effect on the part of the extended domain of researchers. As each bit of provisional knowledge is then codified as certain knowledge based upon prior confidence. Science can only progress thereafter through a series of shattering paradigm shifts.​
Second, it renders science vulnerable to the possibility that, if the hypothesis, framework or context itself is unacceptable at the very start, then its researcher therefore is necessarily conducting pseudoscience. This no matter the results, nor how skillfully and expertly they may apply the methods of science. And since the hypothesis is now a pseudoscience, no observation, intelligence development or formulation of necessity are therefore warranted. The subject is now closed/embargoed by means of circular appeal to authority.​
Finally, the question asked at the beginning of a process of inquiry can often prejudice the direction and efficacy of that inquiry. A premature or poorly developed question, and especially one asked under the influence of agency (not simply bias) – and in absence of sufficient observation and intelligence – can most often result quickly in a premature or poorly induced answer.​
Science conducted under this truncated method - can only be changed through Kuhn-Planck paradigm shift. When the dualism community emulates this, they play into the game of fake skepticism, and thereafter continue the status as an Embargo Hypothesis.​
Our goal is to establish necessity of study - not to provide answers to questions nor (the carrot on a stick) 'proof of'.​
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons I think it is important to understand that some emotions like depression or anxiety can have biochemical causes is that sometimes they are caused by one's diet or can be alleviated by changing one's diet.

In those cases it would be better to develop a better diet rather than try to treat the underlying condition with meditation.

By diet I also mean to include caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and other intoxicants. And in addition to diet, exercise, sleep and other environmental factors can influence mood.

It would be unfortunate if someone used meditation as a crutch rather than take better care of their body.
I agree diet is primary. The same blood that courses around our body also (in a figure of 8 via our heart) passes through our brain. Food finally finds its way into our bloodstream on the molecular level(?) and I think intolerance to a food for whatever reason: excess, allergy etc, manifests as physical outcome in the body but as states of mind or mood in the brain. This is very disturbing as the origin is unidentifiable in physical terms. In which case meditation is really wrestling with an existing chaotic system and diet-control should be first.

On the other hand, after a session of t'ai chi or even just 20minutes of the preliminary stretches, I walk away actually feeling taller (also calm&content) I'm only 5ft and obviously my head is up and back straight, but this does not account for my visual perception temporarily seeming more like I'm 6-7ft tall. It was this that convinced me of the mind and body connection. The actions of my body could change my mental state. Dualism and the law of paradox means the reverse must also be true.

Also I once met someone who meditated, a lot. Yet his diet consisted of highly processed and sugar foods. There is a macrobiotic adage on the scale of foods, that high intake of yin, i.e. sugar makes chi-energy rise and leads to excitable 'air-headedness' while a lot of yang i.e. salt, tends to cause chi to sink and make one overly 'heavy' and hardened. The conventional modern diet contains both these foods in excess, as salt is often added to counteract 'inappropriate' sweetness, so the body vacillates wildly in an effort to achieve equilibrium. It could explain conditions of emotional extreme evident in modern culture. A third example is that too much artificial food makes artificial people. And the guy that meditated a lot did have something disturbingly fake about his overlong, vacuous form of (new-age) hug.
 
Yeah, Alex and I are deliberating this very point now - the three categories of obfuscator: The pretend asleep, the apparatchik and the methodical genius who knows that the community is onto something valid, but fears it greatly. Still working on that one. :)



Agreed. It took me 14 years of deep working in one early profession (markets and trade), in order to develop its first quantum shift in thinking. And understanding only came after being exposed to myriad sources and immersion in trial-by-fire projects attempting to apply their wisdom.

Philosophy is similar - this has taken me 40 years to develop. But here are at lest excerpts from my blog site - where I catalog my thoughts. If you find a philosopher who has already thought all this through and expressed its tenets under another name - let me know and I will discipline my jargon accordingly. It can be found at The Elements of Hypothesis.

Orphan Question
/philosophy : pseudoscience : sciebam/ : a question, purported to be the beginning of the scientific method, which is asked in the blind, without sufficient intelligence gathering or preparation research, and is as a result highly vulnerable to being manipulated or posed by means of agency. The likelihood of a scientifically valid answer being developed from this question process, is very low. However, an answer of some kind can almost always be developed – and is often spun by its agency as ‘science’. This form of question, while not always pseudoscience, is a part of a modified process of science called sciebam. It should only be asked when there truly is no base of intelligence or body of information regarding a subject. A condition which is rare.​
Example: 'Are ghosts real?' 'Is there an afterlife?' (Although somewhat extreme examples, the point is, by asking these questions, in this manner, one has already lost the battle of skepticism, and fake skeptics exploit this)​
Sciebam
/philosophy : science : method : sciebam/ : (Latin: I knew) An alternative form of knowledge development, which mandates that science begins with the orphan/non-informed step of ‘ask a question’ or ‘state a hypothesis’. A non-scientific process which bypasses the first steps of the scientific method: observation, intelligence development and formulation of necessity. This form of pseudoscience/non-science presents three vulnerabilities:​
First it presumes that the researcher possesses substantially all the knowledge or framework they need, lacking only to fill in final minor gaps in understanding. This creates an illusion of knowledge effect on the part of the extended domain of researchers. As each bit of provisional knowledge is then codified as certain knowledge based upon prior confidence. Science can only progress thereafter through a series of shattering paradigm shifts.​
Second, it renders science vulnerable to the possibility that, if the hypothesis, framework or context itself is unacceptable at the very start, then its researcher therefore is necessarily conducting pseudoscience. This no matter the results, nor how skillfully and expertly they may apply the methods of science. And since the hypothesis is now a pseudoscience, no observation, intelligence development or formulation of necessity are therefore warranted. The subject is now closed/embargoed by means of circular appeal to authority.​
Finally, the question asked at the beginning of a process of inquiry can often prejudice the direction and efficacy of that inquiry. A premature or poorly developed question, and especially one asked under the influence of agency (not simply bias) – and in absence of sufficient observation and intelligence – can most often result quickly in a premature or poorly induced answer.​
Science conducted under this truncated method - can only be changed through Kuhn-Planck paradigm shift. When the dualism community emulates this, they play into the game of fake skepticism, and thereafter continue the status as an Embargo Hypothesis.​
Does/Is and Is/Does
Ritual is the Does, that helps to read the Is?
Materialist science requires/will only observe the Is, which it refutes, and construes the Does by sciebam?
And the orphan question and sciebam reinforce each other in an endless loop!
 
Top