David Bailey
Member
His book seemed to deteriorate as it went on, I felt.I don't find Lanza as convincing as BK, but he's in the right ballpark.
David
His book seemed to deteriorate as it went on, I felt.I don't find Lanza as convincing as BK, but he's in the right ballpark.
Please point me to where I should start reading so I can explain myself so well. When I engage in dialouge my emotions interfere and I lose concentration. In my astrology I have gemini in chiron which means wounded speech. I get the big picture of things I just can't explain it to other peopleThey are not equal and opposite propositions. One is deductive and accountable in its inference and the other is only mildly inductive and unaccountable in its inference.
We have to be careful of Pseudo-Theory here. And as well, understand the difference between hypothesis which propositions a modus absens (something is non-extant), versus one which propositions a modus praesens (something is). Just expressing a modus absens denial in the form of a congruent counter-positive to a proposition is not automatically a correct framing. Such may not even constitute a hypothesis at all.
If the counter-positive bears no real structure of hypothesis and accountability - then it is actually a denial, simply posed in the form of a counter-positive. Such is the nature of pseudo-theory. The proposition that the mind is only the sum of its neural capacity and feedback dynamics, is pseudo-theory. It wallows in the luxury of unaccountability. It is the Kim Jong Un of mind theory. A tyrant, never having to produce anything nor be held to real scientific account. It can answer all four questions you posed, effortlessly so - and right now. It was able to answer these (and all) questions from the very first day the idea was proposed - but only from an ad hoc fallacious standpoint. This is not the same notion as an idea's possessing explanatory power.
The contention that NDE's are extra-physical is a testable, incremental, hypothesis = modus praesens. It places its set of incremental contentions at risk. By prosecuting that theory, we become more informed, deductively. By insisting on a non-testable modus absens pseudo-theory which does not bear any incremental accountability, we do not get any smarter - only inductively confirm what we already 'knew'. The idea that NDE's are 'not extra-physical' - given what little we know of the domain, is NOT a hypothesis - rather the null - and if 'believed' is only an opinion. In other words, the less we know, the stronger its gets as an idea. That is why you do not find its proponents too eager to test anything.
This does not mean that it is wrong, just that it is not really a hypothesis; and as an idea, is less scientific than we spin it to be. We can dress it up in fMRI color scans and neuro-speak, but it still remains only shallow inductive posturing with sciencey accoutrements.
Pseudo-Theory
1. Can be developed in full essence before any investigation even begins.2. Never improves in its depth, description nor falsifiable or inductive strength despite ongoing research and increases in observational data.3. Possesses no real method of falsification nor distinguishing predictive measure which is placed at risk, nor does it offer any other means of being held to account or measure..4. Employs non-Wittgenstein equivocal/colloquial terminology or underlying premises (possibly pseudo-theory itself) where the risk of conjecture is not acknowledged.5. Is employed primarily as a symbolic or fiat excuse to dismiss disliked or competing explanations. Is adorned with sciencey-like accoutrements.6. Filters out by method during the hypothesis formulation stages, high probative value testing, in favor of perceived high reliability confirmation or authorized information only (cherry sorting).7. Can quickly (but not elegantly) explain a multiplicity of observations or even every non-resolved question (Explanitude).8. Is artificially installed as the null hypothesis from the very start. Falsification is completed and then forgotten, and the theory self-revives - the Theory from the Black Lagoon. It never goes away, even after being falsified, just crawls back out of the mud and is suddenly back in the discussion forefront.9. Attains its strength through becoming a Verdrängung Mechanism. Is promoted through pluralistic ignorance and Lindy Effect or social intimidation.10. Considers the absence of observation or a data collection/detection failure as suitable to stand in as ‘evidence’ (argument from ignorance).11. Pseudo-theory can be identified in that, as less information is held or information is screened out (cherry sorted), pseudo-theory tends to appear to grow more plausible and more pervasively explanatory, and is able to be produced with less effort (armchair debunking for instance). Whereas valid theory and hypothesis tend to strengthen with research effort and an increase in information.12. Is panductive – an invalid form of inference which is spun in the form of pseudo-deductive study. Inference which seeks to falsify in one felled swoop ‘everything but what my club believes’ as constituting one group of bad people, who all believe the same wrong and correlated things – this is the warning flag of panductive pseudo-theory. No follow up series studies nor replication methodology can be derived from this type of ‘study’, which in essence serves to make it pseudo-science. This is a common ‘study’ format which is conducted by social skeptics masquerading as scientists, to pan people and subjects they dislike.
I watched The Shack this weekend. it's a good movie, a little churchy, but pretty deep in parts. one of the main takeaways for me (and forgive me if this is incredibly obvious) is that any attempt at a deep understanding extended consciousness / god is going to be way, way beyond but we can understand. what is this little scene in the movie points out is what many atheists like to cry about, "how can god be so cruel?" from my human perspective all answers seem glib... but we've heard otherwise over and over again from those who have gained a deeper understanding:
Having read the Scientific American article, here is a further quote:
I kinda agree. I think Lanza has become an industry in his own right, and while that is unpalatable at a purist level at least he is pumping out staff that is accessible at a popular level. That was my point in posting the link - Ideas is a great show and, in terms of public broadcasting, dares to challenge comfortable middle class (usually respectably materialistic) assumptions about what we know. I'd like to see them do a show on BK, but I think he might be still, more of a special diet for then moment.I don't find Lanza as convincing as BK, but he's in the right ballpark.
His book seemed to deteriorate as it went on, I felt.
Would you kindly include a link to the article. Maybe you have done and I missed it.
I think David was referring to the link I gave in my post, which I referred to there. Here it is again:
Please point me to where I should start reading so I can explain myself so well. When I engage in dialouge my emotions interfere and I lose concentration. In my astrology I have gemini in chiron which means wounded speech. I get the big picture of things I just can't explain it to other people
This is hardly proof of evolution, since the moths do not 'evolve' or even adapt. They remain static while the environment changes.That's not quite the same thing as the Galapagos finches. And, besides, we neglect the other side of Darwin's interests - intentional breeding for preferred attributes and characteristics (the bedrock of modern farming). Darwin had an atheistic bent, which denied him the opportunity to imagine a different way 'evolution' might work. Now that non-atheists are looking closely at evolution very closely, the mechanisms Darwin proposed are no longer seeming to be as definitive as he proposed - but you'd expect that to be the case after 160 years of the evolution of the means of scientific examination.
This would be fun to contrast with lesswrong.com, primarily yudkowsky's post on bayesian rationality. Thanks!Thanks Baccarat, I come from a long line of preachers and lawyers. :)
Gosh, it is a bunch of posts. If the below alone were a book, this would constitute about about 120 pages of material, and 350-400 hours of research/writing. As I am constructing my book, I am trying to strike a balance between exhaustive adequacy, and publish-ability. Right now the book would be over 1500 pages long, with over 1200 references in the bibliography above and beyond that - and still not service the subject in the way it needs. So triaging that set into a series will be necessary.
But I will select the top ones (shown below). The blog posts I have placed, which pertain to 'skeptics' believing the null, and pretending that it constitutes an actual scientific hypothesis or represents consensus or the prevailing opinion of scientists, when it is really nothing but an oppressive opinion (denial), are:
I rather think Superqualia was aware of that :)
David
we'll put. I've never really done a full show on the humanist perspective. do you (or does anyone else) have a guest suggestion for this? I think it's worth exploring since so many people still find comfort in something that, at its core, is just warmed over "biological robot meaningless universe" stuff.This highlights the humanist error - that human intellect can interpret reality in a manner that is sufficient to address the scope of the questions proposed.
Well I think if you read Behe, he leaves little doubt that evolution does not happen by RM+NS - so whatever does happen uses a mind of some sort!
The question for me is this: how did the information appear in the right context? That is truly strange because its not a fluke of chance. Perhaps the mechanism suggested is right. But how does one explain the correct information going into the correct location in the genome at the right time? Conscious intention of the moths? Or some other overseer? Random mutation, non random selection. Ok. Maybe.
omg...guess I am a believer in 'evolution plus' where something magical happens. Its attribution bias 101, yet here it is staring at me. I remember arguing with my sister that the non-coding regions were doing something. That they were not junk DNA. It was assumed 20 years ago it was accumulated error. Once a path has been stumbled down by evolution there is no going back.
Accept the moths did go back. Twice! And of course its part of a general ability across environments. We don't understand the mind or genetics.
I have been really interested in David Chapman's material on his meaningness.com website. I don't think he considers himself a humanist, per se. He's into a few very specific ideas that can be found in specific Buddhist traditions as well as in some Western thinkers. PhD from MIT, I believe, and a former AI researcher who realized at some point a few decades ago that hard AI wasn't going to pan out. He is not sympathetic to folks who pursue "eternalist" perspectives, which would include most spiritual folks. He has done podcasts. I would love for him to have a venue where he could really lay out his position that attempts to situate itself between nihilism and eternalism. He has yet to do a great job of really laying it out on his site.we'll put. I've never really done a full show on the humanist perspective. do you (or does anyone else) have a guest suggestion for this? I think it's worth exploring since so many people still find comfort in something that, at its core, is just warmed over "biological robot meaningless universe" stuff.
- who would be a good skeptiko guest to talk about humanism?
we'll put. I've never really done a full show on the humanist perspective. do you (or does anyone else) have a guest suggestion for this? I think it's worth exploring since so many people still find comfort in something that, at its core, is just warmed over "biological robot meaningless universe" stuff.
- who would be a good skeptiko guest to talk about humanism?
Well I think if you read Behe, he leaves little doubt that evolution does not happen by RM+NS - so whatever does happen uses a mind of some sort!
excellent radio lab. thx for posting.
The question for me is this: how did the information appear in the right context? That is truly strange because its not a fluke of chance. Perhaps the mechanism suggested is right. But how does one explain the correct information going into the correct location in the genome at the right time? Conscious intention of the moths? Or some other overseer? Random mutation, non random selection. Ok. Maybe.
omg...guess I am a believer in 'evolution plus' where something magical happens. Its attribution bias 101, yet here it is staring at me. I remember arguing with my sister that the non-coding regions were doing something. That they were not junk DNA. It was assumed 20 years ago it was accumulated error. Once a path has been stumbled down by evolution there is no going back.
Accept the moths did go back. Twice! And of course its part of a general ability across environments. We don't understand the mind or genetics.