This prominent scientist says life is meaningless… and he’s serious |314|

Gnostics are the universal rebels.
Their myths express a recoil from and rejection of life on Earth.
They regard human incarnation as unjust bondage and imprisonment; and life in the physical universe as contemptible.

I can empathise with their point of view, but I cannot sympathise with it.

I empathise because I know the immense suffering and injustice of the human world.
I cannot sympathise because I know the vast majority of human suffering is entirely human caused.

In my world view human bondage and suffering in this world are predominantly caused by human ignorance and evil.
Half the planet lives on a few dollars a day; while 65 super rich individuals possess the same amount of wealth as that poorer half of the population.

And people still ignorantly cling to the absurd myths of the unregulated free market pursuit of private profit as being the best distributor of resources!

There is absolutely no rational or moral reason for most human suffering in this world.
There are only irrational and immoral reasons.

The enemy of humanity is not any demiurge; it is human ignorance and evil.

For instance the nemesis in the Snowpiercer movie is a human being – an oligarch; not a god
The loco-slavery system they live in is a human construction
And the world they are in is a human destroyed world; destroyed by the free market pursuit of private profit

(Our real world is currently free marketeering its way towards a biospheric crisis which may destroy our civilisation)

The people in that bizarre fictional world (as in our real world) are each other's tormentors.

Gnosticism is also elitist. If you read up on it a bit you will come across many casual references to how certain souls or individuals are of some higher origin and nature that makes them inherently gnostic and superior to the rabble in the prison yard….or at the back of the train?
 
That article has already been posted and discussed on Skeptiko, in the thread, New Book Says NDEs Are All Physical. If you have further questions to ask, you'd be best off asking them in that thread. (Spoiler alert: it's just a bunch of bull)

Though I'm not into Eben's NDE I do think Connor Habib's critique of the idea of objectivity in scientific study of immaterialist phenomenon fits nicely into this podcast and Jack Ward's comment above:

When Proof Is Not Enough: Eben Alexander's Proof of Heaven and the Problem of Objectivity in Science

We’re bound to bang our heads against the wall if we follow the path that Alexander or his critics have laid out for us. The lines are drawn and no one is going to switch sides, not only because Alexander hasn’t proved anything, but because the whole enterprise of foregrounding “proof” is misguided. Not only when exploring NDEs, but also in use of homeopathic remedies and other deeply individualized medicines, parapsychological phenomenon, and more. When it comes to non-materialistic phenomena, seeking proof above all else blinds us to the extraordinary and profound nature of subjectivity.

Of course, it’s impossible to be objective. First, there’s a long and rich history of the very concept of objectivity and its evolution. This is constantly ignored by skeptics like Harris in favor of pretending objectivity has a fixed definition without history or context. Second, in the course of its conceptual development, we were warned against the dangers of our current form of objectivity (one that was supposed to be divorced from experience).

Gordon White also notes this telling passage from Shusan's Conceptions of the Afterlife in Early Civilizations: Universalism, Constructivism and Near-Death Experience on how the anti-NDE crowd's biased worldview can lead to distortions in what's reported:

[T]he issue of universality is controversial in NDE studies, with some researchers promoting cross-cultural difference at the expense of similarity. For example, in his assessment of perhaps the earliest western NDE account which explicitly claims to be factual (related by the Greek philosopher Clearchus of Soli, c.310 BC e), Bremmer… states that the only similarity between the account and the modern NDE is a ‘feeling of drifting away. ’ This, despite clear references to typical NDE elements such as OBE, meeting deceased relatives, moral evaluation assisted by mystical/divine
beings, and clairvoyance. In a study of Chinese NDEs, the researchers (Zhi-ying and Jian-xun 1992) seem to have interpreted cultural/individual expressions of typical NDE elements as dissimilarities. Sensations of weightlessness and ‘feeling estranged from the body, ’ for example, must surely be equated with the OBE. ‘Unusually vivid thoughts, ’ a feeling that thought has sped up, a sense of peace and euphoria, and a life review are all standard NDE elements reported by their subjects. Murphy (2001) states that there is no being of light in Thai NDEs – despite reports of the Buddha appearing as a star, and an encounter with ‘spiritual lights.’ (ibid.) He also states that Thai NDErs do not report feelings of bliss, ecstasy, peace and the like, but rather ‘pleasantness, comfort, a sense of beauty and happiness.’ Rather than seeing these as analogous emotional states, he sees discontinuity. Encounters with deceased friends and relatives are similarly classified as dissimilarities because they do not specifically greet the NDEr, but rather instruct him/her. Murphy’s conclusion that ‘accounts of Western NDEs would seem to be useless in helping Thais know what to expect at their deaths’ is not supported by Thai references to OBE, travelling in spiritual form to another realm, life review with moral evaluation, encounters
with divine/mystical presences, positive emotions, transcendent feelings and an impression of knowing ‘all the truths of the universe, ’ visions of the future, deceased relatives, and being instructed to return.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel like the whole debate over universal elements of NDEs versus variations depending on culture is kind of a dead end. No matter which one turns out to be true, materialists will believe it supports their worldview. If NDEs are different depending on the individual, they'll say "Of course. That makes sense, because we would expect an individual's brain to create hallucinations based on what it knows." If NDE elements are universal, they'll say "Of course. That makes sense. We all have the same basic brain, so it makes perfect sense that every human brain would create the same illusion as it dies, because it's the same physical process creating the same physical effects."

On the other side, universality and variation are also both consistent with the idea that an NDE really is an experience of a non-material realm of consciousness. Everyone seeing the same things makes sense because there's only one afterlife we all go to, while variations could be explained as an attempt by those on the other side to ease our transition.
 
I feel like the whole debate over universal elements of NDEs versus variations depending on culture is kind of a dead end. No matter which one turns out to be true, materialists will believe it supports their worldview.
agreed... that's why I always bring the discussion back to the original metaphysical assumption materialists make -- i.e. we're all biological robots in a meaningless universe. NDE science is up to the task of dispelling this silliness.
 
The book doesn't seem to have been published yet (Amazon says June 1). Probably a good idea to wait to assess it until people have had a chance to read it!

Did you read any of Henry Stapp's books?

IIRC you seemed pretty confident you could refute his arguments without reading his books or knowing any of the prerequisite mathematics for physics?
 
Did you read any of Henry Stapp's bookIn ths?

IIRC you seemed pretty confident you could refute his arguments without reading his books or knowing any of the prerequisite mathematics for physics?

I don't think I commented substantively on anything of his that I hadn't read, or expressed an opinion about anything he'd written that I hadn't read. If I did please point it out to me and I'll correct it.

If you recall in that thread I was reading a whole range of material, taking notes and posting my lay person analysis as I went along. I had actually started to make some headway in learning what the math expressions meant generally. What a great thread that was!

Too great! That thread and the associated reading consumed me for several weeks! Honestly, I was spending more time than I should have on it, reading quantum physics books and articles while I should have been working. I needed to take a break from it. That said, I still would like to come back to it. Especially if you or others express interest in continuing the discussion.
 
Though I'm not into Eben's NDE I do think Connor Habib's critique of the idea of objectivity in scientific study of immaterialist phenomenon fits nicely into this podcast and Jack Ward's comment above:

When Proof Is Not Enough: Eben Alexander's Proof of Heaven and the Problem of Objectivity in Science

Doesn't it depend on exactly what we are trying to prove about these immaterial phenomena? I think Alex hits the nail on the head with this:

I always bring the discussion back to the original metaphysical assumption materialists make -- i.e. we're all biological robots in a meaningless universe. NDE science is up to the task of dispelling this silliness.

This objective conclusion is, I think, objectively justified by (at least) the objective evidence of:

  1. Veridical perceptions of non-proximal events during the OBE component of NDEs.
  2. The existence of shared NDEs (and OBEs) whose details are later confirmed by those who shared them.
  3. The blind experiencing vision during the veridical OBE component of NDEs.

Now, if we want to talk about "objective" proof of "heaven" due to the remainder of the NDE experience, then, I agree, we are going to find this... challenging... since all we have are subjective, and non-verifiable, experiences. But we can study the reports of these subjective experiences objectively to identify commonalities and differences, which gives us a lot to go on.

As for parapsychology in general, I am not quite sure how Connor could make the claim that he does. Objective statistical proof of psi has already been well-established.
 
Now, if we want to talk about "objective" proof of "heaven" due to the remainder of the NDE experience, then, I agree, we are going to find this... challenging... since all we have are subjective, and non-verifiable, experiences. But we can study the reports of these subjective experiences objectively to identify commonalities and differences, which gives us a lot to go on.
The real problem with 'proof of heaven', whether or not one is alluding to Alexander's book, is that it sounds suspiciously like 'proof of established religion'. If one looks into a wide range of NDEs they tend to be neutral on that matter. One could debate that of course, but my real point is that it plays into the them-and-us of science versus fundamentalism, in a way which is in my opinion not useful.
 
The real problem with 'proof of heaven', whether or not one is alluding to Alexander's book, is that it sounds suspiciously like 'proof of established religion'. If one looks into a wide range of NDEs they tend to be neutral on that matter. One could debate that of course, but my real point is that it plays into the them-and-us of science versus fundamentalism, in a way which is in my opinion not useful.

I think I understand your concern with not wanting to validate fundamentalism, and I don't want to understate my sympathy with that cause... but. But, do you think perhaps that on a generous view which allows that "established religions" are often founded on some sort of mystical experience (of their founder/s), "heaven" as a general concept might, too, be more "mystically-inspired" than "fundamentalist"? Don't get me wrong, I totally get that fundamentalists can corrupt (and have corrupted) the idea of heaven into a meritorious post-mortal reward for towing the doctrinal line, but... but, outside of the fundamentalist context, could there be more to it than that? Could the mystical heart of established religions be alluding through this notion to a somehow both real and ideal place/realm/state-of-mind/experience of which the founders had some intuition or even knowledge? Does "heaven" have to validate fundamentalism or might it be a mystical reality?
 
Thanks Laird for the reply, broadly I tend to agree with you. In my previous post I may have fallen into an easy acceptance of how some sceptics would like to characterise these ideas. In fact I would revise it as being in terms of "scientific fundamentalism versus all comers" which which perhaps more accurately describes my concern. The problem as I see it is that the presence of religious fundamentalism of various flavours has given rise to a mirroring behaviour. Science, rather than rising above the fray, has become just like those on whom it would pour disdain.

So yes,
Does "heaven" have to validate fundamentalism or might it be a mystical reality?
I strongly sympathise here, a mystical outlook tends to be how I see this current existence, so I have no problem with extending that view into the beyond.
 
Though I'm not into Eben's NDE I do think Connor Habib's critique of the idea of objectivity in scientific study of immaterialist phenomenon fits nicely into this podcast and Jack Ward's comment above:

When Proof Is Not Enough: Eben Alexander's Proof of Heaven and the Problem of Objectivity in Science

From the link
Alexander is trying to explain, using sense-bound detail, things he experienced without the aid of his senses. When someone says he/she “saw” something while unconscious, with what eyes? And heard with what ears? These experiences are not conjured up by sense organs and so elude the entire enterprise of empiricism, which is based on sensory input. And it isn’t just empiricism but most of our descriptive language that’s based on sense metaphors. So trying to describe non-sensual experiences with that language must be extremely frustrating.

Exactly. Eyes "see" reflected light. The "understanding's" functional capability within mind actually sees what we experience as vision. Vision is packed with a lot more information than reflected photon arrangements, such as object recognition and detection of meaningful circumstances.. Vision is communion with the affordances contained in the environments of an agent.. Vision implies meaning-ready sensation. Before vision - the understanding has contributed context to the signals from the optic nerve.
 
Last edited:
From the link

Exactly. Eyes "see" reflected light. The "understanding's" functional capability within mind actually sees what we experience as vision. Vision is packed with a lot more information than reflected photon arrangements, such as object recognition and detection of meaningful circumstances.. Vision is communion with the affordances contained in the environments of an agent.. Vision implies meaning-ready sensation. Before vision - the understanding has contributed context to the signals from the optic nerve.

This is part of what I have often said on these forums about near death accounts; but no one seems to get what I'm saying or agree
We cannot take people's descriptions (interpretations?) of their experiences entirely literally - if we want to study them scientifically
(I am not suggesting we dont believe them; or they were only hallucinating or some such nonsense; I am not a sceptic)

The difficulty of translating a non-physical experience of a different realm into the terms of this world must be taken into account
This includes the physiological considerations Habib mentions, and also meaning - ie cultural conditioning, including religion etc
Even in this world perception is interpretation
 
I am an Informational Realist. (Kenneth Sayre, Luciano Floridi, Terrance Ward Bynum) In my simplistic worldview, neither Materialists or Idealists can define Matter or Ideas in a coherent way.

Information as (1) "bits" that structure communication and (2) as logical meaning: are much better understood at a formal level. The most successful exposition of Quantum concepts have been addressed by Structuralism in recent decades. (Redhead, French and Ladyman). Floridi's Informational Structural Realism is a breakthrough paper and has generated a lot of response in the Philosophical community. Terrell Ward Bynum adddresses informational Realism in a Quantum context.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-007-9163-z#/page-1
http://philpapers.org/rec/BYNOTP

I have been trying to understand informational structural realism and reflecting on what I understand
or perhaps misunderstand

It seems to me information must be defined epistemologically
That is to say, as observer or knower dependent
A knower generates information by knowing

If we presume that the material universe is not conscious, is not a knower, then it seems unreasonable to say it is ontologically informational
That would be a case of mistaking a map for the territory

But perhaps that is not what you are saying?
 
It seems to me information must be defined epistemologically
That is to say, as observer or knower dependent
A knower generates information by knowing

If we presume that the material universe is not conscious, is not a knower, then it seems unreasonable to say it is ontologically informational
That would be a case of mistaking a map for the territory
Information, as a common term, has many meanings. Information, as a science term; refers to the Mathematical Theory of Communication (MTC) and to the structural account of information in signals, measured in bits and bytes. The subject at hand is structured information and not to a general term referring to "information". The Philosophy of Information, as a modern category of thinking, has reference to numerous published papers on ESR (Epistemological Structural Realism) and on OSR (Ontological Structural Realism). Your feeling free to throw-out and exclude the work of the OSR viewpoint, on a metaphysical claim, is rash. OSR is a strong tool for the probing of nature and has been found to be compatible with QM measurement protocols . Pretending that there are no patterns of (and in) nature, different from those of force and particles, is not logical, scientific or thoughtful in terms of a pragmatic viewpoint. While there is zero evidence for multiple universes, there is a world of extant information processing to be measured and understood.

Please forgive me for being direct, as your comments are helpful for me to understand, as I am someone who long ago, left behind the context of materialism in day-to-day thinking. In physics it would be ridiculous to presume that new objects were generated, not just in form, but in their entirety. Physics and chemistry outcomes - pound home the idea that it is a transformational environment. Physical activity can be described as a process, whereby prior structures and forces are transformed to new outcomes of form and energy consisting of former forms and energies. To think that a "knower" spontaneously generates information - by knowing - is to me, as provincial and unsophisticated as the claim for micro-organisms being spontaneously-generated without DNA.

"Knowing" can be defined in terms away from the contexts and ideas of "magic" matter and according to those of the MTC.. There are two levels for knowing, in Bioinfomatics. "Knowing" can be measured in terms of one of Shannon's series of equations as mutual information. One level of knowing is not aware of inbound signal and the process is described as teleonomic. This is the majority event where the information is sub-conscious and therefore not open to the organism's aware senses and the potential for teleological behavior. Most of biological information processed is sub-conscious and is measurable in practical terms of mutual information with important structures and functional circuits in the environments of a natural agent.

The universe has been processing information about its physical events and about its biological events into the billions of years. How you think that information is not a primitive to our current model of activity or that it goes away without being "known" by special pieces of meat - makes no sense to me? There are processes and variables for physical activity and their are processes and variables for informational activity, both transforming their environments in snych, but at separate levels of reality.

What is it (structured information) -- that is being measured by bits (MTC) -- that is so useful that modern reality is changing into the information age? Information is not nothing but left-over brain fluff - like dryer lint - after all the life and mind are driven out of the equations?
 
Last edited:
Information, as a common term, has many meanings. Information, as a science term; refers to the Mathematical Theory of Communication (MTC) and to the structural account of information in signals, measured in bits and bytes. The subject at hand is structured information and not to a general term referring to "information". The Philosophy of Information, as a modern category of thinking, has reference to numerous published papers on ESR (Epistemological Structural Realism) and on OSR (Ontological Structural Realism). Your feeling free to throw-out and exclude the work of the OSR viewpoint, on a metaphysical claim, is rash. OSR is a strong tool for the probing of nature and has been found to be compatible with QM measurement protocols . Pretending that there are no patterns of (and in) nature, different from those of force and particles, is not logical, scientific or thoughtful in terms of a pragmatic viewpoint. While there is zero evidence for multiple universes, there is a world of extant information processing to be measured and understood.

Please forgive me for being direct, as your comments are helpful for me to understand, as I am someone who long ago, left behind the context of materialism in day-to-day thinking. In physics it would be ridiculous to presume that new objects were generated, not just in form, but in their entirety. Physics and chemistry outcomes - pound home the idea that it is a transformational environment. Physical activity can be described as a process, whereby prior structures and forces are transformed to new outcomes of form and energy consisting of former forms and energies. To think that a "knower" spontaneously generates information - by knowing - is to me, as provincial and unsophisticated as the claim for micro-organisms being spontaneously-generated without DNA.

"Knowing" can be defined in terms away from the contexts and ideas of "magic" matter and according to those of the MTC.. There are two levels for knowing, in Bioinfomatics. "Knowing" can be measured in terms of one of Shannon's series of equations as mutual information. One level of knowing is not aware of inbound signal and the process is described as teleonomic. This is the majority event where the information is sub-conscious and therefore not open to the organism's aware senses and the potential for teleological behavior. Most of biological information processed is sub-conscious and is measurable in practical terms of mutual information with important structures and functional circuits in the environments of a natural agent.

The universe has been processing information about its physical events and about its biological events into the billions of years. How you think that information is not a primitive to our current model of activity or that it goes away without being "known" by special pieces of meat - makes no sense to me? There are processes and variables for physical activity and their are processes and variables for informational activity, both transforming their environments in snych, but at separate levels of reality.

What is it (structured information) -- that is being measured by bits (MTC) -- that is so useful that modern reality is changing into the information age? Information is not nothing but left-over brain fluff - like dryer lint - after all the life and mind are driven out of the equations?

Thank you for your informative reply Stephen
Unfortunately there is much to dismay in your tone and content

This is just a quick response to say that I do not take your favoured theories on these matters as being fact or Reality
So referring me to your favourite theories does not settle the matter - not at all

The nature and structure of human knowing and Reality is far from settled
except in the minds of believers - who universally believe that reality is identical with their beliefs

But if you are willing to discuss the matter, and not merely "assert the truth" of your beliefs...
then I will reply to some of your points, if you like

But there is one thing I would like to ask you first...

When you write "special pieces of meat", are you referring to yourself?
Or as Alex would put it, are you claiming to be a biological robot?
 
Thank you for your informative reply Stephen
The nature and structure of human knowing and Reality is far from settled
except in the minds of believers

When you write "special pieces of meat", are you referring to yourself?
Or as Alex would put it, are you claiming to be a biological robot?

I am a believer in the effectiveness of math models and take the view that the natural patterns that present, must be taken as empirical evidence. I think the natural processes related to the communication/transfer of formal information are being uncovered and delineated by modern science in rapid order, as Bioinformatics is starting to hit its stride. (Check out the explosion in Bioinformatic hiring)

The kicker in your comments is the idea that "human knowledge" is some extra-juicy state with special emergent properties and is not pragmatically modeled by the math that explains how many bits are signaled to and received by all agents linked together (integrated) by their inner bio-information processing. There is a hard problem because we fight the obvious answers, because they require contradiction of the "magic matter" paradigm.

Again, when the real and objective worldview that information is natural and objective in realty is addressed - creating a context outside of Materialism - that a simple model of reality returns to mainstream thinking. Besides the overarching facts that are in-evidence for information processing models in nature, is the slowly increasing database where we are mapping how living things communicate with their environments, without magic but within the rules of information processing constraints. Human knowledge, is at essence, just natural information constructed from a sea of possible naturally inspired meanings!
 
I am a believer in the effectiveness of math models and take the view that the natural patterns that present, must be taken as empirical evidence. I think the natural processes related to the communication/transfer of formal information are being uncovered and delineated by modern science in rapid order, as Bioinformatics is starting to hit its stride. (Check out the explosion in Bioinformatic hiring)

The kicker in your comments is the idea that "human knowledge" is some extra-juicy state with special emergent properties and is not pragmatically modeled by the math that explains how many bits are signaled to and received by all agents linked together (integrated) by their inner bio-information processing. There is a hard problem because we fight the obvious answers, because they require contradiction of the "magic matter" paradigm.

Again, when the real and objective worldview that information is natural and objective in realty is addressed - creating a context outside of Materialism - that a simple model of reality returns to mainstream thinking. Besides the overarching facts that are in-evidence for information processing models in nature, is the slowly increasing database where we are mapping how living things communicate with their environments, without magic but within the rules of information processing constraints. Human knowledge, is at essence, just natural information constructed from a sea of possible naturally inspired meanings!

So you dont answer my question directly...
But you do imply by means of the "extra-juicy" comment that you do believe you are a biological robot
or a meat robot, to use your own choice of term

Unfortunately if that is your belief, then we wont be able to have a coherent discussion
because we would be speaking from entirely different and irreconcilable points of view
from which very different epistemologies and ontologies emerge

From my perspective what I hear is the belief that your favourite model of Reality is Reality
or rather your map is the territory

And the manner in which you assert it as fact and Reality has the ring of fundamentalism about it

But as I said before, like it or not, the nature and structure of human knowing and Reality is not a settled matter
 
Unfortunately if that is your belief, then we wont be able to have a coherent discussion
because we would be speaking from entirely different and irreconcilable points of view
from which very different epistemologies and ontologies emerge

Why should the fact that you might come from very different and irreconcilable views render impossible coherent discussion? I'm not saying you won't have to work at it a bit, but aren't those among the most important conversations to have, if one wants to avoid the drift towards fundamentalism?

Also, isn't that a lot of baggage to be loading onto one metaphor?
 
Back
Top