Alex
Administrator
nice, but I wondering if you're giving him too much credit. I'm always amazed when I encounter people who are truly closed minded in this way... but they do exist :)
This prominent scientist says life is meaningless… and he’s serious |314|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
I'm currently working with another Skeptiko user on a website that contains some good meta analyses/reviews of psi research, when it's finished maybe it could be useful for this? Currently don't plan on including afterlife research, though this could be subject to change.
Typoz
Member
I think this is at the heart of the problem. Perhaps these things play out a little differently on each side of the Atlantic. But it is still the case that science is looking backwards over its shoulder towards what it has left behind, rather than looking forwards towards what are fresh possibilities.
One reason is it helps keep the show balanced, and people like Carroll are respected and well known - so it brings a good audience. There are pragmatic reasons to include Skeptics as well as ideological ones!
Alex
Administrator
right... and it's also because things have changed... I mean, 5 years ago they could feign ignorance of NDE science... this isn't really possible any more. so, I just go off of what they have written/said.
Also, and this seems critical to me, all debates have to start with "biological robots in a meaningless universe." Carroll seems quite proud of his performance when facing off with Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody. I think this debate would have sounded very different if Carroll's silly worldview was fully exposed. As I said during the show, I think most ordinary people would laugh in this guys face if he really had to explain his "meaningless universe" beliefs.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Pragmatically I think we need to stop giving these professional (pseudo)skeptics pride of place? I talk with a variety of academics and the certainty of materialism in the Ivory Towers isn't as strong as even Skeptiko suggests.
I think the question for me is where do you get a dialogue? If a materialist accepts Psi (and there are a variety of materialist explanations), or an immaterialist rejects it, I can see some possibility of moving their dials.
For example take someone like the physicist Chris Fuchs, who while rejecting supernatural ideas (AFAIK) suggests the appearance of human beings who express their love to each other changes something fundamental about the Universe.
Or Stuart Kauffman, who is sorta on the materialist side but thinks we should hold Nature as sacred and quantum biology points the way to free will.
McFadden who wrote Life on the Edge, who thinks there are field effects involved with consciousness - he thinks these field effects don't show possibility of Psi yet thinks they open the possibility for some kind of post-mortem survival.
These - along with those following their work - are people who I think would have interesting things to say and might be open to examining the evidence for themselves.
gabriel
New
High profile materialists will never agree on our definition of meaning, because they derive all the meaning they need from peer reinforcement, invitations to public platforms, a salaried position and highly promoted book deals based on extravagant claims. They can side step the type of meaning we're interested in indefinitely with a smirk, a raised eyebrow and thoughts of their bank balance. They simply don't need to go there when staying on message provides them with all psychological and material rewards they could desire. What they think in the wee small hours alone in their bed, we shall never know, and they certainly ain't telling.
Carroll said something along the lines of - of course my love is real, but not the kind of real you're suggesting. When someone can play fast and loose with reality and evidence in the way Carroll does, language takes on a Teflon coating and it becomes a game of "heads I win, tails you lose". It's always good to be reminded what proponents have to deal with in getting their ideas across, but has a guest skeptic given an inch of anything except lip service to the idea of meaning on the podcasts?
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
There is supposed to be a Psi Encyclopedia....someday....somewhere....might want to see if you can get some info from Robert McLuhan though he hasn't posted in a long time...
Arouet
Member
How is this any better than the mainstream guys who make the same argument about proponent and argue they should be shut out?
So what you're saying is: "I will only talk to you if I think you are likely to change your views towards my own". Do you also suggest that they should only talk to you if they consider you likely to move your views toward theirs? And how exactly is everyone making these evaluations, other than gut instinct?
It's simply not true that people don't change their minds - it happens all the time. We don't get to pick when it happens. It just does! How many proponents have said "I used to be a die-hard materialist until..." How many on the other side have said "I used to be a die-hard believer in such and such until..."?
What do these evaluations accomplish other than to foster division and reinforce close mindedness from all sides? What do these accusations do other than emotionally invest people in their positions?
How does these discussions change focus if instead of approaching a discussion with a view that "I will change your mind but you won't change mine!", while glaring at each other, reciprocally chastising the other for ignoring the evidence - how might the dynamics of a discussion change if the parties instead stop worrying about whether or not they are going to convince the other to their view, but just focus on presenting their view to the best of their abilities, paying attention to the response, and engaging in mutual back and forth dialogue?
How well is the us vs. them dynamic working for us, as a species? What are its advantages? What are its drawbacks? How does it affect us?
Why are you only talking about "their" duty to examine the evidence? Haven't you been implying pretty strongly over the last few months that we've got to go back and take a second look at all the evidence and re-evaluate it all in light of the findings of researchers like John Iaonnidis and others who have helped mature the relatively young field of meta-research? So if we all have to do it, why not take this opportunity to wipe the slate clean! Each agree to take these findings as a catalyst to re-examine our opinions of the evidence to date. Use what we've been learning to both assess the past but more importantly, plan for the future!
I've long suggested that both sides have their strengths and weaknesses but rarely do people admit it. This new research gives us all an out! We're not giving in to the other side, we're following the data from meta-research advances! We're not going to focus on blame - we don't fault anyone for not having anticipated what this research will show. We look forward. Not back.
Man its a nice thought! To me, its crucial to try, because I don't think the current dynamics are serving anyone any good. And switching up paradigms isn't likely, in my opinion, to change the dynamics, it'll likely just shift them around.
I know these kinds of posts of mine make some people's eyes roll; but maybe those people should stop and ask themselves why that is? Is it because I'm so completely naive, unrealistic or out to lunch (or an under cover psiops disinfo agent I guess for some! :)) Or is there something else going on? Does anyone have a principled reason not to try what I'm suggesting? Does anyone think it would make us all worse off? And if not, even if it ends up being a failure, then isn't it worth a try?
Ok, /rant. (stop rolling your eyes now folk, you'll get headaches!)
malf
Member
But this was the point I made before I listened to the show. Alex can use the interviewee's ignorance of the studies to over egg their conclusions. Someone who knew the AWARE paper would know that Parnia does not conclude that, "... It appears that consciousness survives death from which ever way that we've measured it".
This is a tactic that is as slippery as anything that Carroll does. Ask a guest if they know the studies, then present off-paper quotes from the studies' authors as if they are part of the paper. It has happened previously, notably with the Merkawah study, which is relatively guarded in it's conclusions. Alex is happy to cherry pick Van Lommel's quotes about his certainty of consciousness' survival (whilst largely dismissing his Christian convictions).
Incidentally, I understand Parnia sees death as more of a process rather than an event, but has he ever, anywhere, said anything like, "it appears that consciousness survives death from which ever way that we've measured it"?
I'm not particularly supporting Carroll here. It's a tricky interview for a skeptic and I think at the end it was even points and he emerged with some credit and I suspect Alex thought the margins were close enough to record the dissection at the end! :D Carroll may have used a slippery tactic or two, but he may not have been the only one.
gabriel
New
I recall Parnia saying consciousness survives the initial stages of death from the best evidence available. He didn't say near death, or death-lite, but the best clinical definitions of being dead currently available. The definitions cardiac clinicians have to deal in on a daily basis.
From a scientific standpoint it doesn't matter whether consciousness survives remotely and the individual has access to anomalous information for five seconds or infinity, if the person is dead the prevailing model cannot account for it.
Who knows when that will come?
My website is more research focused I think, anyone it never hurts to have more then one proponent source of information!
Typoz
Member
Well, Alex also suggested that the AWARE study included some 25 years of data ... before correcting himself. I don't think what one says in a spoken discussion will necessarily be as precisely-worded as a written paper.
What Parnia has said, repeatedly is that consciousness appears to persist for some time after bodily death. He hasn't said (yet) that it persists indefinitely, but what he says is only that which can be backed by data.
If we are to complain about such conversational usages, what about Carroll's speculation on the views of 99.9% of working physicists? There has to be some leeway on each side.
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Ah yeah, not saying you shouldn't do it but maybe combining efforts or even just cross referencing?
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
What you're talking about is what academia should do.
I'm talking about a podcast on the internet.
Two very different things.
Arouet
Member
They are two different things, but I'm not sure why what I'm suggesting wouldn't apply to both. In fact, I apply it far more broadly - across the board in fact, to almost any instance where ideas are exchanged. Certainly anywhere that US/Them dynamics impede discussion, foster division and cause harm. And most definitely to the discussions that go on within this forum, or any like it.
Is my reasoning off? It's idealistic, true, and in practice I wouldn't ever expect it to work all the time, or help resolve every dispute - but I can't help but feel strongly that it would make things better for us all. But it needs to be tested. We need to try it to find out!
Just to clarify, does your reply also suggest that academia include the field of parapsychology in its much needed re-examination of past studies? And how do you think that should affect how we relate to these studies?
Alex, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on what I've suggested above? (and please others let me know what you think as well!).
S
Sciborg_S_Patel
I've already said in prior posts different fields should be compared to see how badly the replication crisis - among other issues - extends into them.
David Bailey
Member
I seem to remember that Alan Wallace pointed out that decomposing something into its parts would often give insight unless you went too far. Taken to extreme reductionism generates confusion.
I feel this just has to be true of high energy physics. I mean All the work involved in understanding matter down to the molecular/atomic level (including the sub-atomic electrons, protons and neutrons) has generated a cornucopia of gadgets - usable electric power,TV's, computers, better materials, etc etc. Yet despite all the resources spent on generating supposedly more fundamental particles using particle accelerators, and despite incredible mathematical subtlety, very little tangible results have emerged. Looking at gadgets may sound trivial, but it is a pretty good guide as to what is real/worthwhile in science.
The strange thing is, how can this process ever stop - whatever layer of matter is discovered, there will be a need for a deeper layer to explain the properties of the layer above!
I think a more philosophical approach might help here. Physics really needs to embrace metaphysics, and I think some of them realise that, but they can't see the wood for the trees any more.
David
Bucky
Member
I was expecting this one to be a disappointment. Not the interview itself, but Carrol doesn't come out as a very deep thinker. He simply pretends a higher stance, because he's "looked everywhere".
Oh man... still the old "we've looked everywhere" argument!
Right... :D
How can anybody use this as an argument while we have no idea about what life is or what consciousness is. :D
Besides the usual vague allusions to "evolutionary processes" or "epiphenomena of the brain" ... there is no decent explanation that makes any flippin' scientific sense, and yet this sort of sloppy reasoning gets a free pass almost everywhere.
I would have expected a shred of intellectual honesty and an admission that, in the grand scheme of things, we know squat about the cosmos. We already struggle with an alleged 4% of the stuff that composes our reality, and even in that small (and likely underestimated) confines we're scratching our heads trying to join all pieces of the puzzle.
More to the point we don't have a single decent theory of consciousness that has a realistic chance of getting to the bottom of it. Materialism in particular is hopeless even in principle as a tool for this enterprise. And that's the very reason why the experts Dr Carrol cites in his book (Koch / Tononi etc...) have already jumped on a different train, and are looking elsewhere.
So, dear Dr. Carrol, your beloved motto ("we have looked everywhere") should really be put in perspective... once this is done it becomes apparent that your metaphysical assumptions are just as good as anyone else's. More importantly they don't whitstand the rigorous thinking that should come from the scientific process, which you seem to apply in a remarkably selective way.
The "naturalistic universe" ruse is getting old.
The "we have looked everywhere" proposition is untenable.
And the "life is short" excuse is just sad. It really is.
over and out
Oh man... still the old "we've looked everywhere" argument!
Right... :D
How can anybody use this as an argument while we have no idea about what life is or what consciousness is. :D
Besides the usual vague allusions to "evolutionary processes" or "epiphenomena of the brain" ... there is no decent explanation that makes any flippin' scientific sense, and yet this sort of sloppy reasoning gets a free pass almost everywhere.
I would have expected a shred of intellectual honesty and an admission that, in the grand scheme of things, we know squat about the cosmos. We already struggle with an alleged 4% of the stuff that composes our reality, and even in that small (and likely underestimated) confines we're scratching our heads trying to join all pieces of the puzzle.
More to the point we don't have a single decent theory of consciousness that has a realistic chance of getting to the bottom of it. Materialism in particular is hopeless even in principle as a tool for this enterprise. And that's the very reason why the experts Dr Carrol cites in his book (Koch / Tononi etc...) have already jumped on a different train, and are looking elsewhere.
So, dear Dr. Carrol, your beloved motto ("we have looked everywhere") should really be put in perspective... once this is done it becomes apparent that your metaphysical assumptions are just as good as anyone else's. More importantly they don't whitstand the rigorous thinking that should come from the scientific process, which you seem to apply in a remarkably selective way.
The "naturalistic universe" ruse is getting old.
The "we have looked everywhere" proposition is untenable.
And the "life is short" excuse is just sad. It really is.
over and out
politicaljunkie
New
Indeed, no longer is matter really 'matter'. It isn't billiard balls at the fundamental level, but 99.9% empty space. At the deepest level, this smidgen of something in an ocean of nothing can be in multiple places at once, can effect the actions of another on the other side of the universe, that's quite incredible.