Dr. Philip Goff, Will Academia Get Beyond Materialism? |409|

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/suppressed_parapsychology
Dean Radin, in his book "The Conscious Universe" in the chapter "Seeing Psi" proposes that some scientists may have too much self interest in preserving the materialist status quo to be objective about psychic phenomena. He writes that if this is true, belief in psychic phenomena should depend how committed a person is to the materialist world view. He then presents evidence to support this contention showing that 68% of the general public believe in the possibility of psychic phenomena, 55% of college professors also believe, 30% of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) division heads believe, but only 6% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) believe in psychic phenomena.​

I understand what you are saying about equality of status. I'm posting the quotes below because it might be of interest, not disagreeing with you.

People who have more education are more likely to believe in the afterlife.

Contrary to researchers' expectations, a poll of 439 college students found seniors and grad students were more likely than freshmen to believe in haunted houses, psychics, telepathy, channeling and a host of other questionable ideas.​

Most doctors believe in the afterlife.

In the survey of 1,044 doctors nationwide, 76 percent said they believe in God, 59 percent said they believe in some sort of afterlife, and 55 percent said their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine.​
Thanks for the links Jim and I fully agree with you, (intelligent) persuasion is much better than (frustrated) force. Altho I didn't think Alex was that rough on Philip, and so many interviews are not penetrating enough. Philip also pointed out that they actually agreed, but he wouldn't be 'nudged' on the lack of attention to the overwhelming evidence and public interest and belief in consciousness survival.

Yes, (a full) education, not the limited information of what is actually minority opinion.

Alice
 
Quantum physics provides strong, apparently loophole-free evidence that everything exists in superposition (potential) until observed, when it becomes actualised
Perhaps it's an inevitable consequence of 3dimensional beings to perceive on a materialist plane. We become entrenched and defend discrete positions, having made them 'exist' by our preferred perception. For e.g. I don't think I'm a 'physicalist' but I do think the tree falls regardless of our conscious attention. Trees exist at such a different pace to humans, how is our observation even relevant? Both views could exist as equal potentials, making sense from within it's/our own conscious state.

Yes, so many examples of consciousness existing without need for the physical structure of a brain. The evidence is overwhelming and yet so much time is spent trying to make materialists even consider this.

Brilliant, thanks!
Alice
 
Gordon White asked Rupert Sheldrake the question, “are we winning” and Sheldrake said “yes” during this interview on Rune Soup. And he
Made several great and interesting points to support his position.

More and more materialists are moving to a “pansychist” view of the universe. There is all kinds of research coming out showing the benefits of meditation and spiritual practices. Of course the materialist hold is still strong, but there ranks are decreasing according to Sheldrake.

I personally think it’s only a matter of time. Maybe it’s 20 years, maybe it’s 100 years, maybe it’s 200. But I do think it’s a phase. And phases end.

IDK... this was great interview, but I had some friendly pushback on Gordon and Rupert re this.
 
Last edited:
great point. I wonder why it is so easy for many people?

I know for me, I slid into atheism/nihilism probably junior or senior year in high school. Prior to that, and especially in my childhood years, I was a devout Christian. I come from a long line of devout Christians and have several ministers in my family. My father is the most faithful Christian I know. His faith has an almost child-like quality, at least partially because he cheated death a couple of times (in military combat and on account of a major health issue that kills a lot of people).

The tipping point for me came when I read The Stranger by Albert Camus for English class. The second half of the book consists of a lot of philosophical/religious dialog between a prisoner and a chaplain. It was the first time that it dawned on me that my religious faith was a choice I was making. I never realized I had a choice until then, which seems odd to say in retrospect, but is the truth.

Why did I switch to atheism at that time?
Obviously broad socio-cultural issues were at play -- atheism was and is a visible option and, at the time, perhaps I felt that the people I aspired to be like in my life were atheists. (I think I started smoking cannabis later for a similar reason -- I wanted to be an artist and I thought that's what artists did.) I think there was also some typical teenage rebellion at play.

Chapman makes the point that "stances" tend to be unstable. At some point, my religious faith reached a crisis point. Looking back now, I believe the crisis may have started earlier, when I discovered sex, and that really didn't square with the conservative denomination my family adhered to. Also, the denomination of my childhood is a literalist denomination, and that became intellectually difficult to square with what I was learning in public school.

I think it's pretty common to throw the baby out with the bath water in one's first personal religious rebellion, so I went full atheism instead of "shopping around" for a different spiritual approach.

I also think it's common for folks to fall away from religion and bounce around a bit. I have toggled back and forth between atheism and spiritual belief for years at a time in my adult life.

It was hard for me to go back to religion after being an atheist. I think I felt somewhat duped by the religion of my childhood. Possibly I felt humiliated. How could I have been so foolish to be taken in by those beliefs for so long? -- that sort of thing. Possibly I felt resentment at my father for making his belief a priority above other concerns.

According to Chapman, our stances or postures about questions of meaning, purpose, values, ethics, etc often times come into crisis when the stance we are holding dear (fixated on) faces some big challenge, either emotionally, intellectually, ethically, etc--we learn new information that makes it impossible to keep holding the stance, or there is some ethical issue that arises that we need to work around, or, if we're in a nihilistic stance, we feel emotionally bankrupt and we need more nourishment, or some combination of those factors. When those types of things happen, people change their posture.

I know from my own personal experience that I have changed postures over the course of years a few times, but I also change postures in little micro-bursts when I cycle through and consider different models of the universe, consciousness, mystical experience, etc.

Chapman postulates that there's a complete stance that is at the center of all the other stances, and the key to the complete stance is that it accepts a degree of "nebulosity" (mystery) along with any sense of "pattern" (meaning). But it is hard to stay in that stance for long, because it too is unstable, and so even folks who are interested in his model will find themselves bouncing around the different stances from time to time.

BTW, the stances are more about "soft" topics like meaning, purpose, values, ethics, etc. I'm not quite sure what he makes of questions about "scientific" knowledge. That's where the Skeptiko questions about consciousness and the NDE research get interesting -- I'm not sure how he'd answer those types of questions. He maybe would just punt and say that consciousness and life after death seem to be intractable questions, and he prefers to focus more on the postures toward the answers and how those postures work within us rather than focusing on the "provisional" answers themselves.
 
Last edited:
Let's not forget that "our modern sophisticated scientific lens" is increasingly recognising the power of the placebo response, which the erstwhile "magnetisers" may have unwittingly been taking advantage of:


Yes they were, but much more...it seems the best ones thought they were drawing in a power from outside themselves (where have we heard this before, I wonder?) and were tuning themselves in to the patient by mimicking their breathing patterns, mannerisms etc while going into a trance themselves. Mostly this is done subconsciously by the magnetiser so I wonder who is actually in control.
When Bernardo K talks about consciousness of the observer do you think he includes consciousness of collective "bodies" as entities ie the collective body of your family, tribe, country or even this collective body of the skeptiko forum?
 
I know for me, I slid into atheism/nihilism probably junior or senior year in high school. Prior to that, and especially in my childhood years, I was a devout Christian. I come from a long line of devout Christians and have several ministers in my family. My father is the most faithful Christian I know. His faith has an almost child-like quality, at least partially because he cheated death a couple of times (in military combat and on account of a major health issue that kills a lot of people).

The tipping point for me came when I read The Stranger by Albert Camus for English class. The second half of the book consists of a lot of philosophical/religious dialog between a prisoner and a chaplain. It was the first time that it dawned on me that my religious faith was a choice I was making. I never realized I had a choice until then, which seems odd to say in retrospect, but is the truth.

Why did I switch to atheism at that time?
Obviously broad socio-cultural issues were at play -- atheism was and is a visible option and, at the time, perhaps I felt that the people I aspired to be like in my life were atheists. (I think I started smoking cannabis at that time for that reason -- I wanted to be an artist and I thought that's what artists did.) I think there was also some typical teenage rebellion at play.

Chapman makes the point that "stances" tend to be unstable. At some point, my religious faith reached a crisis point. Looking back now, I believe the crisis may have started earlier, when I discovered sex, and that really didn't square with the conservative denomination my family adhered to. Also, the denomination of my childhood is a literalist denomination, and that became intellectually difficult to square with what I was learning in public school.

I think it's pretty common to throw the baby out with the bath water in one's first personal religious rebellion, so I went full atheism instead of "shopping around" for a different spiritual approach.

I also think it's common for folks to fall away from religion and bounce around a bit. I have toggled back and forth between atheism and spiritual belief for years at a time in my adult life.

It was hard for me to go back to religion after being an atheist. I think I felt somewhat duped by the religion of my childhood. Possibly I felt humiliated. How could I have been so foolish to be taken in by those beliefs for so long? -- that sort of thing. Possibly I felt resentment at my father for making his belief a priority above other concerns.

According to Chapman, our stances or postures about questions of meaning, purpose, values, ethics, etc often times come into crisis when the stance we are holding dear (fixated on) faces some big challenge, either emotionally, intellectually, ethically, etc--we learn new information that makes it impossible to keep holding the stance, or there is some ethical issue that arises that we need to work around, or, if we're in a nihilistic stance, we feel emotionally bankrupt and we need more nourishment, or some combination of those factors. When those types of things happen, people change their posture.

I know from my own personal experience that I have changed postures over the course of years a few times, but I also change postures in little micro-bursts when I cycle through and consider different models of the universe, consciousness, mystical experience, etc.

Chapman postulates that there's a complete stance that is at the center of all the other stances, and the key to the complete stance is that it accepts a degree of "nebulosity" (mystery) along with any sense of "pattern" (meaning). But it is hard to stay in that stance for long, because it too is unstable, and so even folks who are interested in his model will find themselves bouncing around the different stances from time to time.

BTW, the stances are more about "soft" topics like meaning, purpose, values, ethics, etc. I'm not quite sure what he makes of questions about "scientific" knowledge. That's where the Skeptiko questions about consciousness and the NDE research get interesting -- I'm not sure how he'd answer those types of questions. He maybe would just punt and say that consciousness and life after death seem to be intractable questions, and he prefers to focus more on the postures toward the answers and how those postures work within us rather than focusing on the "provisional" answers them

I think you are right, its so much easier to scrape away at the paint at the edges than go right into the centre
 
great point. I wonder why it is so easy for many people?

People don't use reason to decide what to believe, they use reason to justify what they believe.

People subscribe to philosophies that justify their beliefs.

If you want to know why someone might accept a certain philosophy, consider what it can be used to justify or rationalize.

Some people will believe in nihilism because it can be used to justify or rationalize failure, selfishness, atheism, and materialism.

And ...

I don't think in terms of "meaning" I think in terms of purpose. Meaning is also subjective. "Meaning" is a feeling. A machine does not wonder if its existence has meaning. Meaning is a feeling that a machine cannot have. Only a conscious being can feel that life might or might not have meaning. Since meaning is subjective, a person who believes in materialism might feel there is meaning in life and a person who believes in the afterlife might feel that existence is meaningless. In my opinion feelings of meaninglessness have more to do with the brain chemistry of depression rather than lack of spiritual understanding.
 
In my opinion feelings of meaninglessness have more to do with the brain chemistry of depression rather than lack of spiritual understanding.

What is the case you make for this? Since you claim to think in terms of purpose instead of meaning, does this in some ways answer the 'Biological robot in a meaningless universe' problem or is that problem still existent?
 
What is the case you make for this? Since you claim to think in terms of purpose instead of meaning, does this in some ways answer the 'Biological robot in a meaningless universe' problem or is that problem still existent?

Above I wrote that we might be spiritual robots but I don't know. I don't really have an opinion on the robot question. I don't think people understand what they mean when they use the term - and it is not really a logical proposition that is true or false. We are not simply biological robots because there is a ton of evidence that consciousness is not physical (not produced by matter, not produced by the brain).

To me "the meaning of life" does not really make sense. I don't know what that phrase means. Symbols, words, numbers have meaning. How can life have meaning? Life is not a symbol it is an experience. I assume what the phrase refers to is purpose. Life can have a purpose, chosen by the individual or a higher spiritual being. I do think/feel that life has purpose.

I think feelings of meaninglessness (pointlessness of life) are due to brain chemistry rather than any logical assessment. This is based on my own experience of consciousness. Sometimes I feel happy, sometimes sad. My mood changes. When my mood changes my "logic" changes. When you are angry you might say or do things you otherwise wouldn't. When you are in love you might say or do things you otherwise wouldn't. Logic, truth, right and wrong, are dependent on a person's emotional state (brain chemistry).
 
Last edited:
"The question I’d have to tee up from this interview is the question of acceptance. We all get that 'biological robot in a meaningless universe' is an absurd idea, but how much do we need to pound that over the head of stuck in the mud academics and other ordained holders of power and influence?"

I was just listening to an interview with Case Sunstein on his recent book How Change Happens (Alex I can't switch off these stupid italics! - still) Go to https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...ve/cass-sunsteins-how-change-happens/11084362

There is an answer (now they are off?) to your question from a source that I hadn't thought about - there are tipping points for change as a result of behaviours. Well, duh! But what are those behaviours? Apparently we can know, or at least form a decent notion that might informs how to be more effective and bring the folly to a swifter end. Here's an idea for a future show.

I have heard Goff before on CBC's Ideas. This time I particularly like his evocation of Galileo and the misdirection of materialist science as a purist way of knowing, liberated from philosophy (but actually theology in my view) - that's a bit like figuring the best form sex is by yourself - with the same results.

Kripal's 'The Flip' (no italics - too scared) neatly meshes with Goff's notion that its time to restore the notion of science to a balanced perspective. Kripal argues that the Humanities are the way humans study consciousness - and yet they have been pushed off the stage in favour of STEM studies. That's a massive risk with dire peril on offer. We see governments induced to favour STEM solutions, so universities push the humanities off to one side (not proper science) and favour the brainless 'science can solve all' boosters. That is, after all, where the money is - and where the money is you find the grifters and con men - whether in suits or academic clobber.

I have been chatting with Jeff Kripal and I am sure he won't mind me sharing his thoughts - "I do think there is a greater willingness among intellectuals. They have been nervous because so much of the conversation has been, frankly, stupid, and they don’t want to look or sound stupid. But we are gradually fashioning a new way of talking about these things."

Now this is what I would love him to expand on - what is this new way of talking? (this is a hint Alex :-)) (why doesn't that turn into a smiley face?)

Goff certainly demonstrates what happens when philosophers stop fiddling with fatuous questions and turn around, look up and begin to have conversations with regular people about interesting stuff.

Sunstein tells an interesting story about how people have private thoughts they do not share because they believe other people do not have the same thoughts - but they do. What happens when they discover other people have the same private thoughts? Stuff happens. Its worth listening to then interview just for this anecdote.

Kripal adds a step on from Goff in the line of argument - and affirmation that we are actually studying 'consciousness' in a complex and sophisticated way - psychology, sociology, anthropology, religious studies - and all their permutations.

So I think there is a good purpose to ridiculing materialism at every opportunity. That's not the same thing as arguing with materialists - unless its an argument about why you won't argue with them. Maybe its our duty to, as Australians are apt to say, "take the piss" out of materialists inflated with their own sense of importance and power. Its a slowly losing side, but there's nothing like hastening its demise.
 
The tipping point for me came when I read The Stranger by Albert Camus for English class. The second half of the book consists of a lot of philosophical/religious dialog between a prisoner and a chaplain. It was the first time that it dawned on me that my religious faith was a choice I was making. I never realized I had a choice until then, which seems odd to say in retrospect, but is the truth.

Such a great post! We guess and we choose because that's really all we can do. The question is whether we do it with integrity and courage, or in a neurotic fashion.

I abandoned religion in my early teens because it made no sense, besides making me 'bad' because it could not accommodate my paranormal experiences. Those experiences put materialism off the table for me. I was a walking violation of everything they said.

I chose to be 'religious' because I redefined religion so that my understanding came from an animistic perspective, instead of seeing from a materialistic POV. Most modern Christianity in Western cultures is little more than materialism 'with benefits'. Its not a 'proper' religion.

We do have a choice, and we need to make that choice understanding that nothing is really known. The thing we do not understand about 'consensual reality' is that 'reality' accommodates, and it bends to, what we agree it is. The shamans do not agree. Experiencers do not agree either, but they can consent to agree - or beaten into submission.

Choice is powerful and transformative - or a shackle.
 
Yes they were, but much more...it seems the best ones thought they were drawing in a power from outside themselves (where have we heard this before, I wonder?) and were tuning themselves in to the patient by mimicking their breathing patterns, mannerisms etc while going into a trance themselves. Mostly this is done subconsciously by the magnetiser so I wonder who is actually in control.
When Bernardo K talks about consciousness of the observer do you think he includes consciousness of collective "bodies" as entities ie the collective body of your family, tribe, country or even this collective body of the skeptiko forum?

You may be right -- maybe they were drawing on some kind of power from outside their own mentation; OTOH, maybe the mimicry was adding to the placebo effect for the patient. I'm not suggesting any deceit: they might have sincerely believed in what they were doing.

Bernardo doesn't seem to talk much about the "collective consciousness" of groups. I hazard a guess that, as alters, we tend to turn our attention to other alters, who either appear to agree with us or to differ from us, perceiving the former as potential "allies" and the latter as potential "enemies". The similar outlook of allies helps provide us with justification and reassurance. The disparate outlook of enemies provides us with a threat to be feared and counteracted. Both can add to our sense of belonging to a group, either for or against others or their ideas.

I'd say that much of this is happening superficially -- from a second-person perspective, which will inform our interactions accordingly. It has much less to do with interior connection from a first-person perspective, where one has genuine empathy with others. In that case, maybe it's not so much about "friends" and "enemies", as a simple, non-judgemental awareness of, or at least openness to, the inner state of others. I think we all have this kind of sixth sense in varying degrees, and that it can be cultivated. Very occasionally, one may find oneself in such a state of awareness without trying, and I can testify that when it happens, it's a delightful and rewarding experience, because then one no longer belongs to groups, but just the one group, the same group as everyone, possibly including, to some extent, even TWE.

The appearance of groups, our belief in them, is a second-person perspective, caused by over-identification with that perspective. IMO, it is the source of most if not all human antipathy, and such human compassion as it may also engender is bogus insofar as it is conditional: I will only show you compassion if I think you and I belong to the same group.

It's easy to be intellectually aware of this dynamic; much harder to base one's every action upon such awareness. One of the consequences of perceiving the world as being literally physical (and we all do, to greater or lesser extents) is the literal perception of groups; it's why we may stigmatise, marginalise, stereotype or dismiss certain people: those we don't identify with. OTOH, we may fawn on people we do identify with.

I opine that both reactions are mistaken and damaging to inner development. Nonetheless, we can't help ourselves; we're all at the mercy of the literal way we perceive reality, which is in part natural enough, and in part a consequence of conditioning by family in particular, and society in general. Both nature and nurture lead to an almost irresistible urge to always take the world literally as we perceive it with the five senses. This can be very useful in terms of survival, but as technology progresses, there's more and more time for introspection, for interior connection with ourselves, and consequently, others.

IOW, to lessen our perception of ourselves as members of particular groups, we must first become aware of our own first-person experience of ourselves; not the second-person perception of ourselves inculcated by society, which we can easily fool ourselves into thinking arises from within, from our true first-person perspective. IMO, we should strive first for true compassion for self before we can nurture compassion for others, and thereby, with a little bit of luck, dispel the idea of the literal existence of groups.
 
You may be right -- maybe they were drawing on some kind of power from outside their own mentation; OTOH, maybe the mimicry was adding to the placebo effect for the patient. I'm not suggesting any deceit: they might have sincerely believed in what they were doing.

Bernardo doesn't seem to talk much about the "collective consciousness" of groups. I hazard a guess that, as alters, we tend to turn our attention to other alters, who either appear to agree with us or to differ from us, perceiving the former as potential "allies" and the latter as potential "enemies". The similar outlook of allies helps provide us with justification and reassurance. The disparate outlook of enemies provides us with a threat to be feared and counteracted. Both can add to our sense of belonging to a group, either for or against others or their ideas.

I'd say that much of this is happening superficially -- from a second-person perspective, which will inform our interactions accordingly. It has much less to do with interior connection from a first-person perspective, where one has genuine empathy with others. In that case, maybe it's not so much about "friends" and "enemies", as a simple, non-judgemental awareness of, or at least openness to, the inner state of others. I think we all have this kind of sixth sense in varying degrees, and that it can be cultivated. Very occasionally, one may find oneself in such a state of awareness without trying, and I can testify that when it happens, it's a delightful and rewarding experience, because then one no longer belongs to groups, but just the one group, the same group as everyone, possibly including, to some extent, even TWE.

The appearance of groups, our belief in them, is a second-person perspective, caused by over-identification with that perspective. IMO, it is the source of most if not all human antipathy, and such human compassion as it may also engender is bogus insofar as it is conditional: I will only show you compassion if I think you and I belong to the same group.

It's easy to be intellectually aware of this dynamic; much harder to base one's every action upon such awareness. One of the consequences of perceiving the world as being literally physical (and we all do, to greater or lesser extents) is the literal perception of groups; it's why we may stigmatise, marginalise, stereotype or dismiss certain people: those we don't identify with. OTOH, we may fawn on people we do identify with.

I opine that both reactions are mistaken and damaging to inner development. Nonetheless, we can't help ourselves; we're all at the mercy of the literal way we perceive reality, which is in part natural enough, and in part a consequence of conditioning by family in particular, and society in general. Both nature and nurture lead to an almost irresistible urge to always take the world literally as we perceive it with the five senses. This can be very useful in terms of survival, but as technology progresses, there's more and more time for introspection, for interior connection with ourselves, and consequently, others.

IOW, to lessen our perception of ourselves as members of particular groups, we must first become aware of our own first-person experience of ourselves; not the second-person perception of ourselves inculcated by society, which we can easily fool ourselves into thinking arises from within, from our true first-person perspective. IMO, we should strive first for true compassion for self before we can nurture compassion for others, and thereby, with a little bit of luck, dispel the idea of the literal existence of groups.

Very deep Michael.
I still cant shake the feeling that there are bodies outside bodies (cell,body,family,tribe, nation etc) like images on clear glass overlapping and forming a complete body but individual in themselves.In some way this explains the infatuation with the feeling of control by secret groups,
whereas a lot is just us in the different group body manifestations watching ourselves. Pretty vague I know but its an incomplete idea.
All I can take from it is that we need to feed the "Right" side with good thoughts to change the overall result
in themselves
 
I am beginning to realise that when scientists and philosophers start to talk about panpsychism, they are in all probability, not carefully distinguishing between panpsychism as opposed to Idealism or Dualism - they are just dipping their toes into a subject as pure novices! Perhaps we should just welcome them in, and encourage them to explore further! Perhaps the main thing to stress to them, is just how big a step they have just taken.

David
 
(no italics - too scared)
I think this glitchiness apples also to bold or underline. The thing to realise is that sometimes it concludes (pause for a joke!) that the highlighted area is a mixture of plain and italic, so it forces it to be all italic on the first click, then all plain on the second.

There is also the problem with italic running on as you continue typing. Here my answer is to never highlight up to the cursor and apply italic - say - but to type some more that you don't want to be italic, then make the part you want italic, and click back at the end. I generally use boldface, but I am pretty sure it is the same.

David
 
I think academics find it incredibly hard to recognise that other areas of academic life may not be scrupulously honest or logical on their own terms
nice one... like the story he tells of his philosophy friend who thinks consciousness is an illusion. why doesn't this register at the same level of ridiculousnessl as flat earth or noah's ark?
 
Having just finished a Masters of Research in Cognitive Science, I must say that the academic study in the science of the human mind is highly depressing.
I hear you... the only way I can wrap my head around it is by factoring in the social engineering component (i.e. someone or some group wants things to go this way). there's no other way to explain the collective insanity.
 
that's a bit like figuring the best form sex is by yourself - with the same results.
nice one :)


Kripal's 'The Flip' (no italics - too scared) neatly meshes with Goff's notion that its time to restore the notion of science to a balanced perspective. Kripal argues that the Humanities are the way humans study consciousness - and yet they have been pushed off the stage in favour of STEM studies.
Dr. Jeff Kripal is a genius and his place in the history of our times is secure. the problem with the humanities is they never climbed back into the saddle off of being knocked off of the scientific horse. nothing worse than talking to a philosopher or religious studies professor who can't effectively debunk Scientific American bullshit head-on.
 
Back
Top