Bruno: as long as you never try to use a reference to an experience to beg a question in metaphysics
Richard: I do that all the time. I actually attempt to find forms in the rich physics of string theory that result in a metaphysics that explains personal & second hand experience.Here is an example: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 09 Apr 2014, at 03:18, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote: >> >> I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back >> through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: >> >> "I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I >> think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out >> the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like >> the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's >> like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to >> side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must >> experience terror'". >> >> >> Nice premonitory dreams. But one case is not a statistics, so it is hard >> to infer something, even if your 1p feels the contrary understandably. >> >> > Of course. The obvious argument is that if you take enough dreams... > However, this dream had a particular intensity and feeling of importance > that made it stand out as not "just another dream". A Big Dream in other > words. This subjective impression proves nothing of course, but strengthens > my personal conviction. Different standards of evidence and different > epistemologies necessarily apply to the individual and the collective. > > > Yes, and admitting mechanism and the classical theory of knowledge, we can > undersatnd that the machine are already confronted to the different logics > between the individual, the collective, and also the difference between the > provable, the knowable, the observable. > > > > > > For a long time, science did not "believe in" lucid dreams - it took some > rigorous and repeatable laboratory studies to prove the phenomenon. > > > The first doing an experience showing their "verifiable" existence was a > parapsychologist, and he published in a review of parapsychology, which was > of course ignored, probably for that reason, by the "mainstream". > > > > But anyone who has had a lucid dream simply knows they happen, and could > know it long before scientific method could catch up. > > > Yes. And I can imagine that the ocular motor neurons would have been > inhibited too, and the lucid dream would have stayed ... in parapsychology. > > > > > Certainly one should expose one's own beliefs to critical scrutiny, > including the possibility of coincidence in this case, but my point is that > is sometimes both rational > > > OK. > > > > and correct > > > That is ambiguous. > > > > to entertain beliefs outside of the established body of scientific > evidence. > > > > The scientific evidence is always theory dependent, and all theories are > false, at different degrees, so, well, it is certainly sound to entertain > beliefs outside the "scientific evidence". > > And 1500 times so in fields where we tolerate the authoritative argument, > like theology or health to give two examples. > > > > > I think that is especially the case in the area of these boundary > experiences of human consciousness which seem inextricably bound up with > meaning, and therefore extremely difficult to replicate. For example the > well-known phenomenon of people experiencing strange phenomena at the > moment of a loved one's death at some other location. There are some > well-documented historical examples of this, but a scientific study would > be extremely hard to carry out - you could take thousands of subjects and > ask them about any experiences they had at the time of a relative's death, > but the results would always be subject to doubt as a mere collection of > anecdotes. Feynman of course tells the story of suddenly thinking of his > grandmother, and then nothing happening to her! - and notes how, if she had > died, he could have been tempted to take this experience for clairvoyance, > but instead he forgot about it - or would have if he hadn't thought about > the implications. But what he doesn't say is whether this thought of his > grandmother was particularly forceful, strange or compelling. What usually > convinces people that an experience is more than just coincidence is this > compelling quality - as in my dream, it's not experienced as just another > thought in the random, fleeting play of the mind. But how to measure such > qualia? (And this is not to say that there aren't also many cases where a > true coincidence is taken for more than that - maybe Liz's experience is an > example, we cannot know.) > > > > No, we cannot know. We can experience with mind altering substance, but we > are automatically biased by our own theories. The similarity in the reports > still provide information, but it is hard to interpretet and quite theory > dependent. > yet, such experience can be useful to debunks sub-theories (assumption, > presumption) we were not aware of. > > > > > > > It would be nice to make a pool on all people having a dream diary, but >> dreams of catastrophes are not so rare, and the possibly convincing clues >> will be in the details. >> >> >> >> That freaked me out. That's the most powerful example, but I've become >> convinced of this synchronicity between dreams and the outer world. >> Although I'm agnostic on the "comp" question, it seems to me to be not at >> all precluded by comp (though the question might be: what *would be* >> precluded by comp? It seems to permit much more than it precludes). >> >> >> I am agnostic on comp too, to be sure. (Well, comp precludes not being >> agnostic!). >> Comp (+ Theaetetus) precludes any physics not given by the S4Grz1, or >> Z1*, or X1* logics. So we have to do the math, as I try to do in the modal >> or math thread. >> >> Question: and is any physics not precluded compulsory? It seems to me it > must be. > > > > That is what I was saying. Physics is so compulsory that all universal > machine believing in enough induction principle "lives" the physical, which > instantiations will particularize through the differentiation of the > initial consciousness flux (locally determined by universal numbers, and > globally (below the subst level) determined by *all* universal numbers). > Formally we get three physical type of realities, each in the modal systems > mentioned above. > > > > > > >> >> I think Jung would see in your dream/synchronicity not the intervention >> of a deity, but an invitation to go beyond your rational self. The numinous >> is knocking! >> >> >> The numinous knocks all the time, it is just a question of being open to >> it, I think. By the gap between the x and x* logics, with x being used for >> the logics above, I could argue that the honest introspective machine can >> hardly miss it, but it is not well seen in our culture, as most people >> referring to it have been called heretics and banished or worst, for a long >> time. We are just not modern, nor rational about it, I'm afraid. >> > > I completely agree. But sometimes, at least from a Jungian perspective, it > knocks louder. And when it gets loud enough, failure to open the door can > actually make you sick. > > > I think you should open the door but only as long as you can maintain the > doubt in *all* theories, and as long as you never try to use a reference to > an experience to beg a question in metaphysics. > You can use reports and suggest interpretation/theories. If not you get > pseudo-science or pseudo-mysticism, or paranoïa (whose most typical symptom > is public certainty, ... sometimes contagious, which can lead to genocide > notably). > > Bruno > > > > > > > > >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:00:09 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the >>> door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in >>> most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying "no >>> thanks we don't indulge" or words to that effect. >>> >>> I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. >>> >>> A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 >>> and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy >>> came to the door with a copy of the "Watchtower" and a personal message >>> from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. >>> >>> Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a >>> situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked >>> him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a "worry dream". >>> >>> Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
