Magical thinking

If so, then we need some sore of error correction method. This method should be appropriate to the subject matter. I can't be more specific than that unless we talk about a specific example. Can you provide one? Then I might be better able to address your comment.

First, I'm not asking you to address anything. I posted some info and you responded. Since then we've been doing a dance. I have asked you a question that you have yet to answer but given that you are not seeing how the very way you perceive exploring is derived from materialist concepts, I don't see that you will answer that question.

I have no interest in going through the drudgery of showing you what is to me a basic observation. I am as I keep stating willing to discuss why you think concepts appropriate to , and derived from, investigating the physical extend beyond it.

Other than that, I'm done with the dance. Perhaps any discourse between us would be more suited to things that deal with exploring "extended physical abilities"rather than exploring non-physical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
So what? Everything we know is an effect. But sure, consider electromagnetism if it feels like more of a thing to you.

You got some kind of beef with me, Paul? Quit breakin' my back.

I only mentioned electromagnetism because I thought the idea put forth by the Electric Universe theory was that the effect of gravity was caused by electromagnetism or something. I don't even know if that's correct, but I thought LoneShaman might be impressed with me after reading it.

In reality there are only verbs and no nouns, right?
 
First, I'm not asking you to address anything. I posted some info and you responded. Since then we've been doing a dance. I have asked you a question that you have yet to answer but given that you are not seeing how the very way you perceive exploring is derived from materialist concepts, I don't see that you will answer that question.

I have no interest in going through the drudgery of showing you what is to me a basic observation. I am as I keep stating willing to discuss why you think concepts appropriate to , and derived from, investigating the physical extend beyond it.

Other than that, I'm done with the dance. Perhaps any discourse between us would be more suited to things that deal with exploring "extended physical abilities"rather than exploring non-physical.

I'm not trying to dance around anything or refusing to answer. I am doing my best to understand your position.

You have no obligation to do this, but if you give me an example of what you mean, this would help me understand what you're getting at. Once I understand I can reflect and let you know what I think.
 
Hi All,

Interesting discussion, even if only for demonstrating how limited & conditioned our cognitive biases are, and our human propensity for imagining those biases to be “reality”. ;)

I like the term “magical thinking”, I used to use it as a pejorative myself many years ago, but now see it as something aspirational. :)

The fact, brilliantly hidden like those sneaky trees in a forest, is that all thinking is “magical”. The fact that we think conceptually at all, for eg. internally represent our sensory impressions with semantic signifiers, and be aware of it, is the greatest act of magic the universe could ever produce. An act without which there would not even be a universe in any meaningful sense of the word (“universe” is a human word to describe a human perception of “something”.....humans tend to be conscious, to some degree or another, and without that consciousness there would be no such “universe”).


But if you are going to say that the truth status of gravity is the same as the truth status of fairies or angels, then I would have to disagree. How does a believer in angels know they exist

I believe this gets to the crux of the matter. The internal significance of words such as “truth” and “exist” are so deeply embedded within our cognitive structures, that we seldom see that they are in fact inherently meaningless labels to describe contingent experiential realities.

How does a “believer” know angels or fairies exist? I would suggest in the same way humans “know” they are “conscious”, or that they are in “love”. These are phenomena which appear within the stream of consciousness, and hence they are quite “real” regardless of the labels we assign them.


I think the above question is actually making more of a statement than asking a question. It is saying, “can you put an angel or a fairy into a testube”, and if you cannot, then it cannot be “real”. This is a question of what one defines “real” as.

Consciousness is, imo, the most fundamental aspect of reality and the universe (and all arguments to the contrary, or appeals for scientific proof, are all, of course, conducting entirely within the sphere of consciousness as we simply cannot escape it). But is it “real”? Those of us who have closely researched & followed all the neuro-scientific, biological & physics disciplines over the years, will know just how absurd the arguments for emergent or epi-phenomenal consciousness which is “generated” by random interaction of matter are. Essentially, the argument is like the child who covers it’s eyes and thinks nobody can see them. This is most highlighted by following these arguments to their logical conclusion, ie. consciousness doesn’t even exist (or, we would have been able to observe it in the laboratory, or create our own little conscious entities by manipulating the very same matter that supposedly created our own conscious reality). Absurd!

The scientific world-view is a narrow one, and “reality” surely isn’t so limited and narrow?

We tend to forget that “real” is actually whatever appears within our stream of consciousness, not just what can be fit into a testube or under a microscope. Thankfully this is the case, or we would all be mindless, dull automatons living a dull, meaningless life.

The type of (materialist, reductionist, rationalist) mentality that dismisses or ridicules the “reality” of fairies and angels is an archetypal mode of magical thinking where the old Gods have been replaced by new ones; us.

We somehow imagine our-selves, our consciousness, as separate from "objective reality", as if we are outside of "it" looking in, objectively. That what we see, and then conceptually represent within our linguistic & mathematical models, is really "real", and remains so outside of our subjective conscious awareness & conceptual representation of it. We have become Gods separated from the rest of mundane creation!

But this is a small arena full of tiny gods. Every possible avenue of science suggests the above world-view is inherently false, from quantum physics to biology....our human reality, that we model with such pride, is a tiny sliver of "reality". It is a delicious irony that despite this scientific data, that it is scientism (reductionism & materialism etc) and it's followers which somehow believe we are observing the whole of reality, as it is regardless of the limits of our body-mind organism. Well, I suppose if consciousness doesn't even exist like their logic ultimately tells them, what's the problem with this belief!.....

The problem is, this arena is too small for reality. It is not that most of the things which are important to us humans cannot be "proven" to be "real" within this tiny arena (love, loyalty, friendship, compassion, pleasure etc), it is the fact the most fundamental thing cannot even be proven with the same required standards of proof; our very consciousness itself. Yet we all know it is there, and real...to the extent most people who call for proof of "angels and fairies" cannot even begin to comprehend the absurdity of this demand of "proof" (within a lab, no doubt), when it cannot even prove the existence of the most fundamental aspect of our entire reality that it is taken for granted without any form of such "proof".

These are extremely complicated ideas with numerous divergent avenues of supporting data & experience, and those cannot be covered in forum posts.

So I will try a couple of metaphors:

1) Show me that gravity "exists" and is "real" within my dream state (lucidity is not a problem :) ? I demand it is proven to be real & true within my dream state, or it simply cannot be? Or, I can show you fairies and angels there, and you can show me examples of gravity in action in the laboratory (of course, we have no real idea what the hell gravity is, but we can predict with extreme accuracy it's effects, kinda like a rat in a cage being able to predict what happens when he presses this or that lever, without even beginning to comprehend the human intelligence & motivation behind his predicament).

2) I'm actually quite proud of this metaphor, though I posted it on another forum a few times several years ago, and nobody bothered commenting so I guess nobody else is! :)

Reality is like the football world cup (yes, FOOTball, not the throwing by hand variety you heathens). It is a phenomena composed of many different realities operating at many different levels simultaneously. At a most basic level, it is newtonian mechanics, pure physics, as foot hits ball, it travels in a certain direction. Then we have the biological, where running about & getting excercise, feeling adrenaline etc motivates one to play. This can move into the socio-biological aspects of tribal emotions, belonging to a club of fans, camaraderie, having something to talk about to people whom you may not have something else in common with etc. Then we have national pride in our home teams. Then we have the social media aspects, with star footballers and their devoted fans, online chat forums, 24hr radio talk shows etc. Then we have the economic aspects, the tv rights, the shirt sales, the ticket prices etc. Then we have the organisational & corporate aspects, the logistics of organising & promoting a world cup etc. Of course, all these realities are populated by individual beings with their individual & unique narratives of what connects them to football, and the world cup, usually a mix of all the various influencing realities above.

And that's what reality ultimately is, our own unique narrative.

The question is, which "reality" really "explains" the football world cup? Of all these realities, I think it is obvious that the newtonian mechanics of physics, although fundamental to the reality of football, "explains" nothing at all about the world cup and how it came to be. I believe the same applies, only much more so, to the nature of our consciousness & the appearance of physical reality within it. We just see a slice. But it explains nothing. If it weren't for human consciousness, and it's completely unprovable contents or narratives, the world cup wouldn't exist. Random interaction of matter simply wouldn't cause such an event to arise spontaneously (I know, I know, that actually IS what materialists believe, ultimately, but it is so bizarre and magical a belief, we can put it aside for a moment here...). Likewise, we are trying to find meaning, truth and reality in physics, matter and laboratories, whereas it may simply not reside there.

Everything that occurs before, during and after a world cup can be described in physicalist terms. Obviously, because that (the physical) is where it occurred. But it won't be explained in physicalist terms. Again, obviously.

Okay, enough rambling, please carry on :)
 
The push to exclude the magical has more to do with societal trends to things like equality and democracy than it has to do with genuine science.
I tend to agree with you if I understand you correctly. But I'd still be curious to hear you expand on the tie, as you see it, between materialism and equality/democracy if you don't mind.
 
Back
Top