I figured a thread change would be appropriate here. >> First of all Chad, I consider myself an aspiring writer and >> student . . . I >> am not a scientist; thus I am essentially one of those >> "common folk"... > >Gord, when I refer to the "Common Folk", I intended those persons that >believe in magic and mysticism. I don't think you fall in that group. Common >folk, as you refer to, do not write the things you do. I'm sorry, I didn't understand your distinction. I'm curious as to why you use the term "common", therefore, is this a buzzword I've not heard of? In my circles it's usually "New Ager" or "oldtimer" depending on the persuasion of the "believer". I ask because I read "common" as you wrote it as a kind of pejorative, the kind of thing I imagine you suspected I think towards "believers", such as being simple or gullible because they are laypersons. But obviously you mean something else, so I'm curious in what sense you mean "common". I don't think belief in faeries is all that common as in widespread anymore, is it? Jinn, maybe -- I've met lots of people who would swear to the existence of jinn, and ghosts, but not the fae folk. >> That said, what I was dismissing regarding "faeries" was >> simply the notion >> of their *literal* existence. This says nothing to the fact that the >> experience has been widely reported. I just don't think there >> *literally* >> are fairies and elves in the world. But this doesn't dismiss peoples' >> EXPERIENCES of faeries. > >I do suggest that they do literally exist. That they are created and >destroyed from person's belief. Just as some true believers suffer from >Stigmata, the possiblity is that they are products of the mind, but they do >manifest literally. The Fairies of Pre-industrial revolution are today's >Ghosts and UFO's. Okay, but if this proposition is correct, then it should be demonstrable shouldn't it? Should you not be able to produce a fairy or a grey in a Pleiadian ship for me? Or, more to the point, if they actually did take on physical form, would they not have been caught by someone with a camera at least once? There are photographs of people exhibiting stigmatic phenomena, and it very definitely is a physical phenomenon, regardless of a majority of frauds. But stigmata at least offers the potential for being explained because it can be observed and more importantly has been observed in progress by people who could do tests and look for plausible explanations. They may not have perfect ones yet, but they have at least seen it. I don't think I've yet met a biologist who claimed to have studied faeries as physical beings; or aliens for that matter. I'm curious what you suspect the mechanics of this process would be. After all, many people believe in conflicting things. If our beliefs make reality manifest as you suggest, wouldn't we be living in a far more confused world where the boundaries between reality and imagination were more fluid? Or, wait, does my disbelief in your theory weaken it? I'm not making fun, I'm wondering how thoroughly you've explored the implications of this metaphysics that you are proposing -- that imagination and belief in some way can affect and constitute aspects of reality. [by the way if you haven't read it, the role-playing game _Mage: The Ascension_ is based on just such a premise, and one in which mundanes and "the Technocracy" (scientists and pragmatists being the prime ones) are the people who are destroying/enslaving the magical force of imagination. It's a difficult game to run, but an entertaining exploration of this kind of metaphysics...] >>But the pattern of >> experience raises >> interesting questions about the nature of the psyche, about >> imagination, >> about the way social myths are sustained (I don't believe >> that everyone who >> claims they've seen an alien has had an experience of it, by >> the way), and >> probably it tells us a lot about the ways in which our >> imaginations are >> shaped by our cultures, and about how we can "literalize" and >> "narrativize" >> even the most befuddling experience. > >I agree, with the caviat that it is possible that they do exist literally. Anything is possible, though. It's possible that we are all faeries trapped in exile from the Land Beneath the Hills and living in a part of Purgatory called The Universe. It's possible I am a dream in the mind of some Elder God. The human imagination is wonderful because it can manufacture endless possibilities . . . but I see no reason to accept any of them without at least some kind of empirical evidence. With faeries or UFO, all I can say is there is lots of evidence of stories, and perhaps some evidence of a certain class of deeply similar subjective experiences. >I'm not saying that there is a hidden civilization of Fairies in certain >forests throughout the world. I believe that the come in and out of >existence, as we belive them. Okay, I'm going to ask then if this is based on theoretical or empirical knowledge. You don't need to answer the next question, but I think it's a central one to testing the plausibility of your theory: Have you ever seen a fairy or a UFO or a ghost or any other thing that you would use this theory to explain? Or are you seeking to explain others' stories in the absence of first hand experience? I know that is a bit prying, but it's because when I was younger, I had extremely elaborate theories about the way the universe worked that were designed in such a way that vast chains of speculation were set up simply to safeguard the possibility of this or that paranormal thing being actually true. Now I think there's no point in making room in a theory of the world for things like that until one experiences them firsthand and in ways that demand one to look beyond psychological explanations (which, from experience, I suspect should be the first place to turn when examining "mystical" or otherwise "weird" experiences). >Heinlein expressed this in there being other >realms where our art and beliefs manifest themselves. I can only refer, as >evidence of this, in events like stigmata, faith healing, remote viewing. Heinlein was just a fiction writer, however; you could just as easily offer Stephen King as evidence, and I'd be no more inclined to accept it. I think the idea might be fun in a novel (not my kind of novel, but for some people) but it sounds like sketchy metaphysics. I'll offer as a real world counterpoint my parents, who believe that the treatment of "healing touch" saved my dad from lymphoma. He was also on chemotherapy, and yet they are convinced it was the healing touch. I am not convinced of healing touch working the way they think. Waving your hands near someone every day is not likely to help them beat cancer. However, maybe that daily ritual affected him in other ways, such as emotionally and psychologically, and kept him going or even improved his overall health. He did respond unusually well to the chemotherapy, and is generally in good health now. They are convinced, though, that the healing touch did it. When you hear stories about things like that, though, you generally hear a version of the story centered on what the person believes: my mom says, "The healing touch treatment saved his life and he knows it too." People tend to forget other things like, oh, mainstream treatments they were taking at the time, and focus on beliefs. >I think that we can agree that there is no magic, only explanations. Right, except I can't begin to imagine an explanation of your "spontaneous temporary instantiation of imagined entities" theory [If you have already titled it something else, please do forgive me] without relying on something like magic. When one sees something weird, one can assume it's something weird going on in the mind, which (a) requires little to explain why everyone isn't seeing it (b) requires little in the area of unknowns or unknowables in the structure of the universe, or one can assume it's really something seen and the visual/processing apparatus is functioning exactly as per usual, which (a) requires a fair bit to explain why everyone isn't seeing it (b) requires a fair bit in the area of unknowns or unknowables in the structure of the universe. Occam's razor can't help us to do ethics, but in theorizing about the universe, the more speculative unknowables we need to manufacture to explain something, the more tenuous our theory. That doesn't mean the theory with the fewest unknowables is always right . . . classical mechanics was only part of the big picture. But it seems easier to work one's way out from the fewest unknowables to the correct theory, than to work one's way back in from a whole worldview predicated upon unknowables or unknowns, in which nothing is provable or proven at this point. This is why I prefer psychological explanations and think that they are the most fruitful -- not because they are necessarily exclusively correct, but because they're probably the best starting point. ie. until you show me a fairy, I can't imagine why I would go to the bother of explaining the possibilty of their existence when it seems so likely they're some kind of weird subjective experience or the product of an interplay between specific cultural-beliefs and some imaginative experience. >> I think Uplift by fairies and elves is even more unlikely >> than Uplift by >> Martians. ;p > >Oh! Now you're freaking me out! ;-) Ah, mission accomplished. *tucks in tentacles and catches 5pm shuttleflight back to Mar via Avalon loophop* >>... I suppose >> Mother Nature >> might be imagined to be make such an urge widespread. But >> really I think >> the playing field is a lot closer to the conscious side of >> us, our culture >> and our values and our imaginations and our commerce and all >> of that -- >> the stuff that's all Nth order effects of the way our genes >> interact, and >> environment, and all sorts of things. Does that make sense? > >I would agree with there being many interactions involved. I view us getting >to Mars, as an unexpected result of some other product (man, I know there is >a term for that...can anyone help me out here?). As in a emergent property? Sort of like how our genes designed us to want to procreate, and in the deal even nonprocreative sex happens to be quite enjoyable? >Take the computer industry >as an example. To quote the tired phrase "Who knew!". Huh? >Nature has a way of >"getting there", even if it is not the most direct route. > >Nature is a multi-processing Mother. Ha, I suppose. But I don't see Nature as a guiding force to us . . . nature is, after all, everything. All is Nature,and Nature is all. So if humanity fails to get to Mars, which is a real possibility, it's also a natural outcome. Cement cities are natureal because we are natural and we build them, just like birds build nests and beavers build dams. What's neat about nature is that there's lots of possibilities available, and we have some chance to make meanings, to forcefully choose our fate. That to me is why politics, economics, ethics, science,arts, compassion, and the rest of it are so important -- because I believe humanity does not have a preordained fate, and aren't really being guided to any goal, though we seem to think we are . . . we make our fate as we go along. And it'd be nice to think we are thinking about it as we do so, because nature isn't compassionate as we think of compassion. For all we know (and from what we've seen so far it seems sensible to conclude) that we could extinct ourselves or destroy some ecosystem completely and that'd be it, no rewind button, no cure from Mother Nature. This applies all the way down to the individual level of injustices and lonelinesses and all of it; all of that stuff is up to US to address, in my belief system, regardless of whatever underlying determinism there might be in our genes or in the structure of consicousness or whatever else you could throw at us. But that's just my understanding, offered as part of the dialogue. :) Gord
