Science and philosophy gave him something he never thought he’d find… respect for religion |312|

#61
When you say "you can't ditch known science", I think this is linguistically and factually misleading.
good point... totally get what you're saying, but I think Kieth makes a good point as well. I mean, as long as we're playing the consensus reality game (i.e. science) should play it well.... and that's the problem. take neuroscience, they've deveoloped some awesome tools and techniques, but are crippled by reductionistic materialism. imagine the advances that might come if the paradigm changed.
 
#62
Sorry Keith, I don't really think I understand what you mean.

Theories are nothing more than an explanation of the facts.
But you can have very simple observations and assumptions behind them, like for relativity (never been disproved) that the speed of light is the same measured for any observer and that the laws of physics must look the same for all observers. The whole edifice of special relativity and Einstein gravity comes out of this. Gravitational waves were recently discovered (I'm sure you know) which even matched the beautiful "bell-like" ringing of the newly formed black hole - a prediction from Einstein gravity. Simplicity at the very beginning of the theory, you see, is the guide.

"quantum theory is not a fixed thing, it is evolving, there are many quantum theories" - many interpretations. Many not proved wrong yet - implications unknown for each I guess. But TBH I don't think quantum physics can touch "mind".

To replace special relativity you'd have to show c changes for different observers but, saying that, physicists at the top end know it's not the final word.

"I don't understand your statement about Schrodinger"

The Schrodinger equation is a wave equation but the waves don't seem (emphasis) to be in a real space like water waves and the way they are represented by their own water wave equation. Recently it's been shown, though, that these waves could actually be real and I think physically measured. It's to do with what's known as the reality of the wave function.
I guess I'm saying if one wants to replace quantum physics one would have to say, even when we see these waves, then they're not real. This is on a par with saying, well, those water waves aren't real either and no one would say that! I mean, you can surf on them on the beach in California!
 
#63
good point... totally get what you're saying, but I think Kieth makes a good point as well. I mean, as long as we're playing the consensus reality game (i.e. science) should play it well.... and that's the problem. take neuroscience, they've deveoloped some awesome tools and techniques, but are crippled by reductionistic materialism. imagine the advances that might come if the paradigm changed.
Like the way people can cure themselves using their mind? I mean, what's the linkage. It must link somehow. Jeffrey Schwartz and colleagues ...
 
#65
The Schrodinger equation is a wave equation but the waves don't seem (emphasis) to be in a real space like water waves and the way they are represented by their own water wave equation. Recently it's been shown, though, that these waves could actually be real and I think physically measured. It's to do with what's known as the reality of the wave function.
I guess I'm saying if one wants to replace quantum physics one would have to say, even when we see these waves, then they're not real. This is on a par with saying, well, those water waves aren't real either and no one would say that! I mean, you can surf on them on the beach in California!
You mean this one?: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n3/full/nphys3233.html

I'm sorry, but they are arguing for an objective reality that the loophole-free experiment published just a few months later placed on pretty shaky ground. Relativistic causality is on the way out, as is locality. Ironic that the authors of that paper cite Larsson's 2014 paper...
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#66
I just find it interesting to explore the similarities between the two forms of monism so often discussed on this forum
materialism and idealism
Neither can be lived coherently in the sense I pointed out; they can only be believed intellectually
As you seem to admit yourself, you do live as if your loved ones and your neighbours are real and independent of your mind
ie not just perceptions in your mind
We all do; we all live as if other people are objectively real and independent of our own personal mental perceptions
and we also live as if other people are meaningful conscious agents
But in Idealism your loved ones are not perceptions in your mind, at least not for any Idealism that doesn't advocate solipsism.

As noted in this thread there are different variations to idealism. Not saying any of them are necessarily correct but just showing Idealism isn't the idea that everyone is inside your personal dream.

edit: Perhaps this is a good place to start ->

Paul Marshall: Transforming the World Into Experience: An Idealist Experiment

Abstract: Idealism tackles the mind–body problem by giving precedence to mind and relegating matter to a dependent status. Contrary to popular opinion, idealism need not deny the existence of matter nor dispute the realist contention that objects exist independently of perceptual experience. However, idealism requires that matter and external objects are experiential or mind-dependent in a fundamental way.

I develop a form of idealism that affirms the existence of an external world, but makes it experiential. The characteristics of the external experience are taken to be akin to those of perceptual experience, but attention is given to some likely differences. An attempt to accommodate modern physics in the experiential account yields an idealism with panpsychic features.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#67
You mean this one?: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n3/full/nphys3233.html

I'm sorry, but they are arguing for an objective reality that the loophole-free experiment published just a few months later placed on pretty shaky ground. Relativistic causality is on the way out, as is locality. Ironic that the authors of that paper cite Larsson's 2014 paper...
I don't think this result and the PBR Theorem of 2012 (which set a lot of this going) contradicts Zeilinger's and team's work on nonlocality being real (I agree with you) together with the refutation of realism (physical properties exist before meas.). And I believe causality is still a cornerstone with no FTL influences.

Re mind I just think it can't be modelled using quantum theory as extraordinary experiences people have suggest breaking causality and FTL influences (and so breaking QT). So it's outside of the best theory we know.
There's a beautiful commentary on the link you gave by Ed Frenkel (leading mathematician) ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/the-reality-of-quantum-weirdness.html?_r=2

Is there a true story, or is our belief in a definite, objective, observer-independent reality an illusion?

This very question, brought into sharper, scientific focus, has long been the subject of debate in quantum physics. Is there a fixed reality apart from our various observations of it? Or is reality nothing more than a kaleidoscope of infinite possibilities?

This month, a paper published online in the journal Nature Physics presents experimental research that supports the latter scenario — that there is a "Rashomon effect" not just in our descriptions of nature, but in nature itself.
 
#68
Frenkel - Or is reality nothing more than a kaleidoscope of infinite possibilities?
I mean if quantum physics is saying this what about anything that's outside of this? Like mind. Maybe the so called infinite possibilities that we are able to personally enact in the physical (sticking with what physicists are happy with in the sense of Frenkel's comments) respond to the free will possibilities of the mind.
 
#69
I don't think this result and the PBR Theorem of 2012 (which set a lot of this going) contradicts Zeilinger's and team's work on nonlocality being real (I agree with you) together with the refutation of realism (physical properties exist before meas.). And I believe causality is still a cornerstone with no FTL influences.
The absense of either of those, nevermind both, is still an enormous headache for any form of relativity. There is a reason that an entire class of strawman-like arguments (the local hidden variable theories) was created in response just for the sake of being "proven wrong" (and keeping everything else safe until that happens).

Re mind I just think it can't be modelled using quantum theory as extraordinary experiences people have suggest breaking causality and FTL influences (and so breaking QT). So it's outside of the best theory we know.
I can agree with that, but also think that by gauging interactions between both we can learn a lot. I would not place a model of mind
 
#71
I agreed with much in the interview in principle, especially Bernardo’s take on NDE and his opinion that much of it might be an ego survival impulse; however, I struggled with the reference to an ‘authentic’ religious myth. What makes a religious myth authentic and who makes that determination? How has he determined what the essence of any given religion is and can be summarized in a couple of pages? I would love to get my hands on such a summary.

I am also not quite getting the take away message. Does Bernardo advocate a different way of practicing a given religion or does he encourage us to study the various scriptures to find those authentic myths for ourselves? In my understanding religion is a daily practice, we chose to engage in for some reason or another, either by studying the source material directly or practicing it through an organization such as a church.

I am a bit puzzled how Bernardo came to the conclusion what the essence of various religions is, when there so much controversy around the correct interpretation of the scriptures by scholars. And again, what makes a religious myth authentic?
 
#72
Scientific theories of the big bang are now based on known particle physics from particle accelerators and relativity (after a very short time after the BB) so they fit very, very well.

I had a chat with a neuroscientist recently (I've talked to him before) who commented on physicist Edward Witten's view on consciousness (look on youtube). Now Witten said consciousness will probably remain a mystery and not become part of physics. He said it will remain undefined. My friend said many colleagues think in general this way which I thought was very revealing, though TBH he didn't mention deep specifics. I just thought I'd share this.
Now he also said though the focus is on brain science, the so called "easy problem", the massive work brain scientists do is independent of a "consciousness theory". In short, neuroscientists worry as much as you do about "mind" but don't, cannot, and will not ditch known physics/chemistry about the brain's function.

My point is you can't ditch known science, even though you can still be right about mind remaining mysterious, the observer being real, larger observers and so on ... eventually leading up to some ultimate Being even. Hence religion? Maybe we can only use metaphor in these regions.

(As to Arp, no disrespect, that was from 1988, a lot has changed since then)
Arp didn't die until 2013, by which time he had accumulated more evidence. I only chose that video rather than a more recent one because it was short and aimed at a popular audience on Patrick Moore's Sky at night. Search on YouTube and you'll find more recent/technical videos into the present century.
OK, by example, can you replace quantum physics which needs special relativity to be joined with for physical appls. and is used to build your PC you use?
Also if you think the Schrodinger equation is just a representation, you can actually see wave-like interference patterns.
As regards QM and General Relativity, it is widely recognised that the two theories are incompatible, and Special Relativity is a subset of GR.

I never said that science isn't useful and that it doesn't work, albeit over restricted ranges. It has some useful explanatory power, which is why computers and GPS's work. All that says is that mathematics is a useful way of trying to describe reality, but when it comes to a theory of everything, we're still struggling. It's my contention that where important theories are mutually exclusive, that's pointing to serious defects in our understanding; classic examples are found in cosmology and the study of consciousness.

I have little doubt that over time, theories will change, but we'll still be left with inconsistencies as long as we stick with materialistic science. However, if we expand the definition of science to include consciousness as an axiom, maybe we'll make progress on that front.

You and I are having the same difference of opinion that Bernardo and I had, but I was more surprised in Bernardo's case because he's an idealist. At bottom, I think it boils down to one's understanding of what science, as currently understood, is. For me, it's a sterling attempt to describe phenomena e.g. in mathematical terms, leading to many demonstrably useful results. However, I don't think that it truly reflects what really is; science is a second-order descriptive tool, and we tend to reify the entities it postulates.

Yes, we can see what appears to be interference patterns that can be explained by inferred "wave-like" phenomena: but can we see actual waves, or are waves just a useful way of thinking about what's going on? One that originates in waves that we can see, e.g. in water? And why in double-slit experiments do waves apparently disappear and "become" particles when we can determine which slit they went through? Evidently, "particleness" and "waveness" are different aspects of the same thing, and which we see seems to depend on consciousness in some weird way.

If anything, QM seems in my book to support the Idealist case that what is most fundamental in the universe is consciousness. "Waveness" represents potential, whereas "particleness" represents actualised potential, which comes about when consciousness comes into play.

Which has precedence? potential, or actualised potential? Cosmology focuses in large degree on the latter and tends to downplay QM because it doesn't credit the idea of Mind-At-Large, an ever-present and ubiquitous consciousness that can affect everything. However, if that's the way things actually are--if there truly is a MAL-- then our present understanding of science will never be able to fully elucidate what's going on.

If, OTOH, there is no MAL, it's that much harder to explain consciousness at any level. We're left trying to explain it in terms of the actualised potentials we call elementary particles: IOW, materialistic science.
 
Last edited:
#73
Like the way people can cure themselves using their mind? I mean, what's the linkage. It must link somehow. Jeffrey Schwartz and colleagues ...
right. RV is another one. how about a man-on-the-moon effort to perfect it. Michael Persinger is another example... and he's someone who still has links to the materialist camp... his technology is 2-3 generations away from being a potential game changer.
 
#74
Hi everyone: this is just to remind you that Bernardo's book is now available. I've downloaded and am about to read it. I don't know yet if I will agree with it--so Nicole, if you could download it yourself, Bernardo might have some answers for you. Or not. I guess I'll have a better idea when I've read it.

By the way, Alex: you mentioned that there'd be a link to a video version of the interview in the show notes. I can't seem to find that, though. Can you direct me to it? TIA.
 
#75
Idealism doesn't mean the world is in his mind, rather consciousness is the ontological primitive. This could involve a Mind in which we exist, or reality could be the interaction of minds.

I agree with you about materialism though, it renders every aspect of humanity worthless.
I guess there are different kinds of idealism.
I was referring to the form which regards the world as a personal perception.
There are some who seem to argue for this form of idealism.

The form you suggest seems something like what I think Bernardo argues for.
Or am I mistaken?

That each personal mind is a subsystem or locus of attention in a greater mind.

I presume that in this theory matter as well as appearing as a perception in a personal mind is also some form of structure or vortex in the greater mind.
So matter is both perceptually internal, and also objectively external to our personal mind, in the greater mind.

If this is approximately what you and/or Bernardo mean (?); then I wonder...
What is the essential difference between this form of idealism and a dualism which claims matter is objectively external?

I mean, beneath the different terminologies, what is the essential metaphysical difference?

One theory refers to ideational vortexes or structures in an external matrix called a greater mind…

And the other refers to energetic vortexes or structures in an external matrix called space…

Just wondering about that
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#76
I guess there are different kinds of idealism.
I was referring to the form which regards the world as a personal perception.
There are some who seem to argue for this form of idealism.

The form you suggest seems something like what I think Bernardo argues for.
Or am I mistaken?

That each personal mind is a subsystem or locus of attention in a greater mind.

I presume that in this theory matter as well as appearing as a perception in a personal mind is also some form of structure or vortex in the greater mind.
So matter is both perceptually internal, and also objectively external to our personal mind, in the greater mind.

If this is approximately what you and/or Bernardo mean (?); then I wonder...
What is the essential difference between this form of idealism and a dualism which claims matter is objectively external?

I mean, beneath the different terminologies, what is the essential metaphysical difference?

One theory refers to ideational vortexes or structures in an external matrix called a greater mind…

And the other refers to energetic vortexes or structures in an external matrix called space…

Just wondering about that
Well I'm not an Idealist. My only point was that Idealism doesn't necessitate that everyone else is an illusory construct of one's mind.

As to the difference between Idealism and Dualism I don't think Dualism refers to vortexes/structures but rather a separate substance that interacts with non-mental matter.

Does it matter? In an academic context I'd say so, outside of that I don't know if it does.
 
#77
Hi everyone: this is just to remind you that Bernardo's book is now available. I've downloaded and am about to read it. I don't know yet if I will agree with it--so Nicole, if you could download it yourself, Bernardo might have some answers for you. Or not. I guess I'll have a better idea when I've read it.

By the way, Alex: you mentioned that there'd be a link to a video version of the interview in the show notes. I can't seem to find that, though. Can you direct me to it? TIA.
sure:
 
#78
I think you have a negative attitude towards science generally, perhaps on account of the current dogmas of reductionist materialism
and I can understand how many have that type of reaction

When I talk about science and the scientific method I am not referring to modern dogmatic materialist ideology
I am referring to the scientific method properly applied
There are people attempting to do that today
They are a minority - today
But that will change in time
I was very keen on science, going as far as PhD level in chemistry. I still am keen on science when it is applied honestly, but so often I think it has gone astray - particularly in recent years - because of money, power, and sheer arrogance. I also think there are too many people doing science nowadays, so that many of them are far less motivated by the urge to get at the truth.

David
 
#79
I'll give an example: If you've 20 minutes to spare, please watch this video
That is a great find - Halton Arp and Patrick Moore in their prime (both died recently). Patrick Moore specialised in TV broadcasts that explained astronomy in a serious way.

@David Eire This is one of the big issues that makes me wary of modern science! Astronomy never really tried to deal with this issue, except in the sense that they tried to stop Halton Arp getting telescope time to pursue his work! Halton Arp got telescope time in other countries, continuing to improve his statistical evidence. The issue is statistical because you need to compare the number of high red shift galaxies adjacent to large closer galaxies, and compare them with the numbers at other points in the sky. There should be no correlation because of the huge distance (space and time) between such objects (based on conventional theory). Halton Arp's statistical evidence continued to improve.

It goes without saying that this would trash an enormous amount of research on cosmology, but science built on sand is worth nothing.

David
 
Last edited:
#80
How come some of our physics seems to model reality--in at least some degree--successfully? How can it do this if it's so misguided? My working hypothesis is that what we perceive is the consequence of our apparent dissociation from MAL, and that this leads to the seemingly compelling impression that the world is physical rather than ideational.
I tend to favour Idealism too, but one puzzle for me is that matter contains so many fundamental particles - 6 x 10^23 molecules per gram mole! (Supposedly there are about 10^80 protons in the universe (with an equal number of electrons) - but in view of the above discussion of Halton Arp, I guess that should be taken with a pinch of salt!) Does some conscious entity control all that, or is there illusion involved even at that level. I really do wonder if when someone does a quantum experiment, MAL (or whatever) simulates that to match Schroedinger's equation, but the rest of matter is simulated in a broad brush way! After all, we can never see 10^23 of anything - basically we count a few and scale up!

David
 
Top