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: 

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

> 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.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to