Mod+ Why David Bentley Hart thinks choosing a tie reveals more about consciousness than near death experi

#21
If that is the case, it might be that consciousness can directly bias the outcome of wave function collapses! I read an account by Stapp recently with acknowledges that alternative.

Then I guess that refers to Dr. Radin and his group's experiments in his quantum laser set-up? He has data over distance wrt this. I wonder about interpretations of quantum mechanics, though, in that other formalisms should work too. Fascinating is that observations can happen, both ways say, when an electron really hits a detector and when consciousness interacts over distance ... both "collapsing the wave function". Surely says something like, that even when an electron hits a plate there must be something "consciousness-like" about that too.

Re electrons ... maybe one can say "consciousness-like" if John Conway doesn't want to go the whole way and say they are actually conscious. But then that must apply to every type of elementary particle, perhaps justifying saying the universe/Reality is "consciousness-like". I mean, if him and Kochen have kind of proved it ...

I agree electrons are QM-identical as you say but won't they be not behaving this way over the whole universe? So free-will for each?
 
#22
at 28:30 into the interview David Hart says what sounds like; "probably more like a toria experience." Does anyone know what he was referring to?
I think you've misheard him: he's probably saying Turiya:

In Hindu philosophy, turiya (Sanskrit: तुरीय, meaning "the fourth") or caturiya, chaturtha, is pure consciousness. It is the background that underlies and transcends the three common states of consciousness of waking consciousness, dreaming, and dreamless sleep

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya.
 
#23
Why David Bentley Hart thinks choosing a tie reveals more about consciousness than near death experiences |298|
by Alex Tsakiris | Dec 23 | Consciousness Science, Spirituality

David Bentley Hart: If you examine the act of consciousness in which you are engaged when you’re choosing a tie you already find dynamisms that exceed the possibilities of the naturalist picture of reality.

———————–
I didn't get much out of this one.

The interview talked generally ABOUT his philosophy and it's implications, but failed to really delve into it and describe the details in any meaningful way. So unless you were already familiar with his positions you were left to do the research on your own. Essentially the interview seems to be an hour of Alex sucking up to the esteemed (and apparently amazingly intelligent) Dr, and chuckling about the intellectual inferiority of most of those with whom they disagree. To me it all pretty much lacked any real substance. e.g. Would it have been so hard to take a few examples of atheistic talking points and walk the listener through the logical fallacies?

Personally, I didn't hear enough for me to care to take the time to do the necessary research to actually understand the underlying principals. This may have to do with the fact that the Dr generally sounded rather dismissive, dry, and unapproachable to me, so I found myself saying, "who cares"?

That aside- I wanted to follow on with an earlier post regarding why participation on this forum may be waning.

I for one, continue to be annoyed by Alex's on-going assertion (listen to 21:30) that it is obvious to any thoughtful person that we are not "biological robots in a meaningless universe". I couldn't disagree more with his opinion that this is obvious on its face. I find it completely believable that a reasonable and thoughtful person could imagine that some facility of the brain could cause the experience of: love, hate, awareness, and personal life "meaning". The fact that one might feel these things as being beyond material existence has no bearing on the matter, after all- I don't "feel" like the earth is round, but it IS. And the fact that I feel it is flat has little bearing on things.

I just can't stand the blithe and dismissive manner in which Alex continues to state what he considers to be the obvious fact that these feelings of "life's meaning" are some level of initial proof. He seems to be saying that those who would dare to believe otherwise are essentially unthinking nitwits who should pull their head out of their collective backsides.

In making these statements, he does a disservice to his whole argument, and potentially drives away many of those who might otherwise be available to listen to his deeper arguments, which I feel ARE quite valid.

I offer myself as example #1.
I am one who agrees with the overall premise of a non-physical primary core to existence, but am pushed away from this forum by this kind of orthodoxy. Imagine what others, who come from a much more materialistic POV, must think? If I were one of them, as soon as I heard such dogmatic and unsubstantiated crap, such silly illogical fluff, I would "turn the channel".

Sorry, but that's how I see it.
 
Last edited:
#24
I didn't get much out of this one.

The interview talked generally ABOUT his philosophy and it's implications, but failed to really delve into it and describe the details in any meaningful way. So unless you were already familiar with his positions you were left to do the research on your own. Essentially the interview seems to be an hour of Alex sucking up to the esteemed (and apparently amazingly intelligent) Dr, and chuckling about the intellectual inferiority of most of those which whom they disagree. To me it all pretty much lacked any real substance. e.g. Would it have been so hard to take a few examples of atheistic talking points and walk the listener through the logical fallacies?

Personally, I didn't hear enough for me to care to take the time to do the necessary research to actually understand the underlying principals. This may have to do with the fact that the Dr generally sounded rather dismissive, dry, and unapproachable to me, so I found myself saying, "who cares"?

That aside- I wanted to follow on with an earlier post regarding why participation on this forum may be waning.

I for one, continue to be annoyed by Alex's on-going assertion (listen to 21:30) that it is obvious to any thoughtful person that we are not "biological robots in a meaningless universe". I couldn't disagree more with his opinion that this is obvious on its face. I find it completely believable that a reasonable and thoughtful person could imagine that some facility of the brain could cause the experience of: love, hate, awareness, and personal life "meaning". The fact that one might feel these things as being beyond material existence has no bearing on the matter, after all- I don't "feel" like the earth is round, but it IS. And the fact that I feel it is round has little bearing on things.

I just can't stand the blithe and dismissive manner in which Alex continues to state what he considers to be the obvious fact that these feelings of "life's meaning" are some level of initial proof. He seems to be saying that those who would dare to believe otherwise are essentially unthinking nitwits who should pull their head out of their collective backsides.

In making these statements, he does a disservice to his whole argument, and potentially drives away many of those who might otherwise be available to listen to his deeper arguments, which I feel ARE quite valid.

I offer myself as example #1.
I am one who agrees with the overall premise of a non-physical primary core to existence, but am pushed away from this forum by this kind of orthodoxy. Imagine what others, who come from a much more materialistic POV, must think? If I were one of them, as soon as I heard such dogmatic and unsubstantiated crap, such silly illogical fluff, I would "turn the channel".

Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Pretty much agree with this. Alex is beyond those who are "stuck on stupid". End of story. Unfortunately there is a lot more nuance to gaining an understanding of the true nature of reality. Anyone who knows anything for sure is kidding themselves.
 
#25
Pretty much agree with this. Alex is beyond those who are "stuck on stupid". End of story. Unfortunately there is a lot more nuance to gaining an understanding of the true nature of reality. Anyone who knows anything for sure is kidding themselves.
There is no true nature of reality. There is nothing to understand. This is because what is attempting to be understood is the understanding itself.
 
#27
Anyone who knows anything for sure is kidding themselves.
And you know this how? All you can accurately state is that (if so) you don't know anything for sure and that you haven't fully accepted any info you've come across. But shifting that accuracy to make a blanket assumption is of course not uncommon.
 
#28
And you know this how? All you can accurately state is that (if so) you don't know anything for sure and that you haven't fully accepted any info you've come across. But shifting that accuracy to make a blanket assumption is of course not uncommon.
Tell us what you know to be absolutely true about the nature of reality.
 
#30
The interview talked generally ABOUT his philosophy and it's implications, but failed to really delve into it and describe the details in any meaningful way. So unless you were already familiar with his positions you were left to do the research on your own. Essentially the interview seems to be an hour of Alex sucking up to the esteemed (and apparently amazingly intelligent) Dr, and chuckling about the intellectual inferiority of most of those with whom they disagree. To me it all pretty much lacked any real substance. e.g. Would it have been so hard to take a few examples of atheistic talking points and walk the listener through the logical fallacies?
Agree it would have been nice to get some inkling of what DBH believes and why. Scanning the titles of his books tells us he is probably Christian. I might have asked "Spirit yes, but why Christian, why not Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Zoroastrian, ... is it just personal background/preference or do you find something more true about Christianity?"
 
#31
Word strip so much body out of our conversation I am amazed we can communicate anything other than simple thoughts. Having experienced the transcendence of the ordinary I wonder if it is so common our culture has discounted it into invisibility in our conversations and thoughts.
interesting idea... particularly with all the new ways we have of communicating e.g. text, email, chat, etc.
 
#32
Tell us what you know to be absolutely true about the nature of reality.
A - why would I bother doing that? No, but thanks for the offer.

B - more importantly you've done a common false argument. You made an assertion that "no one" knows and when I pointed out that "All you can accurately state is that (if so) you don't know anything for sure and that you haven't fully accepted any info you've come across. But shifting that accuracy to make a blanket assumption is of course not uncommon." you attempted to elude that actuality with a half-snarky ad hominen quip. That just emphasizes that your position is nay-saying rather than genuine skepticism.
 
#33
A - why would I bother doing that? No, but thanks for the offer.

B - more importantly you've done a common false argument. You made an assertion that "no one" knows and when I pointed out that "All you can accurately state is that (if so) you don't know anything for sure and that you haven't fully accepted any info you've come across. But shifting that accuracy to make a blanket assumption is of course not uncommon." you attempted to elude that actuality with a half-snarky ad hominen quip. That just emphasizes that your position is nay-saying rather than genuine skepticism.
I wasn't really being snarky. I think a lot of the ideas that people believe to be "truths" are as relative as the "fact" that water boils at a certain temperature. I doubt there is anything that you can express in language using conceptual constructs that is absolutely true. It appears to me that all knowledge is relative. Glad to hear your thoughts on that.
 
#34
I wasn't really being snarky. I think a lot of the ideas that people believe to be "truths" are as relative as the "fact" that water boils at a certain temperature.
Yes. And I support everyone thinking as they will. However that you thinks something doesn't make it so. For all you know what someone told you when you were seven is the actuality but your intellect/thinking influenced you to conclude otherwise. Thinking is not a measure of truth or actuality, nor is it a path to knowing. And yes I see the irony of my participating in a forum where most believe thinking is all those things.

Best to you for your 2016
 
#35
Oh Alex, your Greek Orthodox Church at least had pews, even if quite hard and uncomfortable ones. In the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), visitors are not met with such a corrupting Western lenience - there are no pews (or chairs, benches, or any other kind of sitting stuff) at all: ones who are faithful should have enough resilience and fortitude to stand for the whole prayer-and-ritual sequence (and a devastatingly long sequence it is!). I still remember from my short and painfully disappointing adolescent love affair with the ROC the fatigue and irritation of this exhausting and murderously boring standings.

(The branches of the ROC which reside in the West did purchased a few sitting furniture for the ones who are bodily weak, yet they were quite reluctant, if not openly unwilling, to do it.)

I'm so happy today that this period of my spiritual search has passed rather quickly - not only because of the discomfort and boredom, and plain absence of any noticeable "feeling of divine grace" that was promised, but also because of openly reactionary and authoritarian nature of the ROC - the nature which was quite evident even in its milder previous years, and become quite blatantly obvious nowadays, when the ROC is a de facto branch of Russian Government, praising and promoting its xenophobic and sex-negative intitiatives. Free, Western-style spirituality definitely suits me much better.
I think that what you mention is valid for all religions. I don´t feel specially spiritual when I sit on the bench of the Jewish temple if I have to swallow the dogmas. I try to choose the wisdom and the rest stays away as a background noise.
 
#36
I liked this interview. I know it was not the "meat and potatoes" kind of podcast some of us like to see, but it was a great alternate perspective even if just scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg in Bentley's insights.

Hey, BTW I like the diverse bumper music you have in the shows now.

As always, thank you for this podcast. It's like a holiday feast or fine bottle of wine or light desert depending on the episode.
 
#37
I liked this interview. I know it was not the "meat and potatoes" kind of podcast some of us like to see, but it was a great alternate perspective even if just scratching the surface of the tip of the iceberg in Bentley's insights.

Hey, BTW I like the diverse bumper music you have in the shows now.

As always, thank you for this podcast. It's like a holiday feast or fine bottle of wine or light desert depending on the episode.
thx Skepter... glad you enjoyed it. It was great talking to Hart... very smart. don't totally get the Christian thing... then again, maybe all paths lead to the same place, so why not :)
 
#38
I enjoyed this interview Alex.
Thank you Alex & David

In response to your question, extraordinary, or ordinary, I would answer - both!

Dr Bentley Hart, whom I had not heard of before, seems to me to be a high level academic intellectual, and is not going to appeal to a lot of folk who just do not have the academic background to keep up with his arguments and references. In other words he addresses a specific audience; and no doubt does that very well. I think we need as many people tackling this subject at as many levels as possible.
 
#39
at 28:30 into the interview David Hart says what sounds like; "probably more like a toria experience." Does anyone know what he was referring to?
I think he said - turiya
Which is a Sanskrit term for what is sometimes called the fourth state of consciousness
It is an underlying abiding state of consciousness below or behind the normal states of waking, dream and sleep
 
Top