Michael Larkin
Member
I don't know - I listened to it twice, and I started to feel that while it made me feel good, there wasn't that much content :(
David
Maybe we all agree and can't think of anything to add!
I don't know - I listened to it twice, and I started to feel that while it made me feel good, there wasn't that much content :(
David
I'm not sure whether there is much "greater meaning" in Russell's message and that may leave some wanting more. With that in mind I'm surprised Alex didn't push him on NDEs/reincarnation etc (maybe that just didn't make the edit).I don't know - I listened to it twice, and I started to feel that while it made me feel good, there wasn't that much content :(
David
Indeed, it seems that's the case.Maybe we all agree and can't think of anything to add!
Maybe we all agree and can't think of anything to add!
Well, I'm happy about that - it reminds me that we proponents are noticeably less inclined to group-think than skeptics! Skeptical groups are infamous for their toe-the-line politics, with a "duty" to attack, ridicule and denigrate anything and everything non-mainstream. Unlike them, proponents may have a great multitude of different views. However, there is one trait which is characteristic - even if not necessary - for psi proponents: a tendency towards social and cultural libertarianism, and dislike of authoritarianism.
Well, if the podcast is about the main bunch of topics of Skeptiko - science and philosophy of consciousness, parapsychology, near-death studies, spirituality - there are often not a lot of posts indeed: we are all psi proponents here, after all (except for a few skeptics from CD forum section). We are well-informed about most facts and theories of (non-local) consciousness phenomena and have more-or-less similar view of them.
Alex's questions at the end of the podcast:
Do we need to rethink some of our basic assumptions about science, given what we now know about consciousness, which may be the elephant in the room? Can we measure anything in science if we can't measure consciousness? Do all of our measurements need to be asterisked to draw attention to the fact that consciousness hasn't been factored in?
"Why do these guys fumble so badly on the NDE research?"
Every controversy in the history of science shows us that the best explanation for the data is a matter of opinion.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-history-of-scientific-discoveries.html
Doing science makes you narrow minded:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_science
They want recognition from mainstream science but their field is controversial so they try to keep as close to materialism and naturalism as possible and still push their empirical data.
There is prejudice against afterlife research in the parapsychological community.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/near-death-experiences-and-afterlife.html#facts_alternative
I have long suspected that within the parapsychological community there is some prejudice against afterlife phenomena. Parapsycholoigst Dr. Carlos Alvarado confirmed my suspicion in an interview published at aspsi.org. The interview does not seem to be on the internet currently, but the link was: http://www.aspsi.org/feat/life_after/tymn/a076mt-a-Dr_Carlos_S_Alvarado_interview.php
Dr. Alvarado said:
For many workers in the field, survival research is not a main interest. To some extent this is academics as usual. People specialize in some areas and develop interests due to personality traits, life experiences, training, and employment opportunities, and parapsychology is no exception. Then there are concerns such as getting tenure and the belief that the area has many methodological difficulties. However, I believe that in some cases there is more than this. In some circles it is more “respectable” to conduct ESP experiments than working with survival-related phenomena such as apparitions or mediumship. I still remember how the director of a parapsychology unit within an university, wanting to keep a conservative image, discouraged students from pursuing topics such as apparitions for dissertation research.
Because consciousness is non physical but science can only measure and describe things in physical terms so scientists don't have the tools or mental inclination to conceive of anything that is non-physical.
Scientists are so habituated to thinking in reductionist terms they can't cope with something like consciousness that is irreducible and can't be explained in terms of anything simpler.
Non-physical + irreducible = scientific fumble
Alex has asked in the past if science can study consciousness. Maybe science as we know it today can't. Maybe consciousness can only be understood through experience?
It's a tricky line to walik though as proponents of a non-physical realm have to explain the impact of that realm on the physical: On physical genes in evolution, on physical brains in consciousness, etc. At that point explorers of the physical realm are justified in having some input.Consciousness is non physical but science can only measure and describe things in physical terms so scientists don't have the tools or mental inclination to conceive of anything that is non-physical.
Scientists are so habituated to thinking in reductionist terms they can't cope with something like consciousness that is irreducible and can't be explained in terms of anything simpler.
Non-physical + irreducible = scientific fumble
Maybe science as we know it today can't study consciousnss. Maybe consciousness can only be understood through experience?
Interesting to me is to ask: Why? Why does it have to be explained in materialist/physical terms as we understand things today? Isn't it possible that our current understanding of reality isn't sophisticated enough to put forth such an explanation?It's a tricky line to walik though as proponents of a non-physical realm have to explain the impact of that realm on the physical: On physical genes in evolution, on physical brains in consciousness, etc.
One would need to set aside the historical successes of scientific enquiry to conclude it has nothing to offer.Interesting to me is to ask: Why? Why does it have to be explained in materialist/physical terms as we understand things today? Isn't it possible that our current understanding of reality isn't sophisticated enough to put forth such an explanation?
I get that's dangerously close to a quasi God of the Gaps position, but isn't demanding a demonstrable correlation somewhat similarly confounding?
One would need to set aside the historical successes of scientific enquiry to conclude it has nothing to offer.
I don't know what you mean?Like science does all the time, doesn't it ?
Fair point and I didn't mean to imply it has nothing to offer. That would be a pretty nonsensical stance, right?One would need to set aside the historical successes of scientific enquiry to conclude it has nothing to offer.
Hello Vortex
It is a shame you include Thelema in the Western tradition. Whatever about the baleful legacy of Crowley; The so-called law of Thelema is:
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law".
This is essentially identical to Kants categorical imperative:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law".
Seems plusible enough on the surface...but this issuing of license to personal will carries a profound danger.
Hitler for instance would have wished that killing Jews and other undesirables were a universal law.
I agree with the general point about the importance of concentration and engagement; but not as opposed to detachment; rather as its complement; both are necessary.