On Jan 31, 7:28 am, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's amazing the difference in the standard of evidence expected of a > study that purports to refute a phenomenon outside the conventional > paradigm compared to that expected of a study that claims to provide > evidence for it.
Yes, there's the Dutch Study too: http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm 1 Awareness of being dead 31 (50%) 2 Positive emotions 35 (56%) 3 Out of body experience 15 (24%) 4 Moving through a tunnel 19 (31%) 5 Communication with light 14 (23%) 6 Observation of colours 14 (23%) 7 Observation of a celestial landscape 18 (29%) 8 Meeting with deceased persons 20 (32%) 9 Life review 8 (13%) 10 Presence of border 5 (8%) > Ridicule is cheap, and does not constitute an argument. An important point (and one made well in that great old movie 'Ridicule') > They thought that they > almost had the whole answer, and only a tiny explanatory gap remained > to be closed. Only the gap happened to contain all of quantum theory > and relativity, all of modern physics in fact. Yes. Smug certainty is the cholesterol of the heart of science. > Scientific method is rightly conservative, > because it must use repeatability etc to establish a body of knowledge > that is as reliable as possible. It is rational however for the > individual to be accept a lower standard of evidence in formulating > his or her beliefs in some cases. In the above example, a single > experience of a lucid dream is sufficient to disprove the science for > the individual experiencing it. Working out a way to translate that > into scientific evidence is another thing. Right. When you get into studying the thing that makes studying itself possible, you run into problems if you hold that subjective phenomena to the same standards that you hold objectively measurable phenomena. If you start out denying subjectivity from the start, then you have no chance at understanding anything meaningful about subjectivity. > > I'll tell you a campfire story of my own. Yes, I have had a few incontestably precognitive dreams as well. Time is not uniform because it's not external to our experience. An event with high significance can warp the fabric of our perception so that it begins to happen for us figuratively before the literal event. Big events have a larger, heavier 'now'. Significance is a concrete part of reality in the cosmos - it is cumulative negentropy. > I don't tell you this to persuade, but to make the point that *if* I > was telling the truth, it would be rational in my view for me to > believe that something was at play beyond your "mundane explanation". > I actually don't see anything "supernatural" though. I see something > natural that we don't understand, something that challenges the > material view of mind. It's not scientific evidence, sure, but that > doesn't make it irrational to be persuaded by it. It's as natural and real as gravity, only through time and perception rather than local to space and objects. > Do you think I wouldn't have? When I was a teenager I used to think on > it all the time, and I formed my own kind of theory of panpsychism. I > concluded that rudiments of consciousness must exist in atoms. I don't > know what I think about that any more. I think that's right, but it's also just as correct to say that atoms must exist in consciousness. They are opposite ends of a single (involuted or figuratively twisted) continuum. > It's not in any case an > "explanation", but maybe that's not what we will have in the end. > Whatever ontology we adopt there is always a mystery at the root, some > "it just is". Either that or another turtle stack. Why does the > mathematical platonia exist? It just does. Why does the quantum field > exist? It just does. Or there's something more fundamental that "just > is". So an ontology that accepts consciousness as fundamental is not > *intrinsically* weirder than anything else. It's just unfamiliar and > contrary to a deeply ingrained intellectual habit of the western mind. Right. I go further though to say that sense is actually fundamental because it cannot be anything else. It is the method by which all orientation and coherence is anchored because it is the only thing that can be defined by definition itself. All logic, arithmetic, experience, matter, phenomena supervenes explicitly and unconditionally upon the possibility of detection or coherence. > Anyway I doubt that it will be an explanation that "explains away". > Deutsch believes there will be an explanation for qualia one day, and > it will help us to build the first truly intelligent, conscious > machines. I don't know about that. He also thinks we could run such an > intelligent program on a PC with today's resources. I'm pretty sure > he's dead wrong on that. Qualia is the explanation. That's the problem is our approach is backwards. You don't explain qualia, qualia explains the universe. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.