On 09 Apr 2014, at 20:12, Richard Ruquist wrote:
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.
Where? I am not sure you ever did this. I am not talking on the
personal 1p reference which influences our choice of axioms for
example, but on the use of the personal reference in an argument, like
when people say "it is obvious that ...", or "God told me...", etc.
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:
?
Looks like the thunderous silence of Vimalakirti :)
Bruno
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 everything-
[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.
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.
