Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 10

[William Strathmann]

The Tilde Fallacy and Reincarnation: Variations on a "Skeptical" Argument.

That was a very interesting read. Thank you smcder. I'm glad you posting it.

In psychology this is called Selective Exposure Theory, and it's fairly commonplace.

I see that smcder has already asked you Randall, if you have considered the impact of Selective Exposure Theory on your own belief system.

The vid that you link to above was produced by someone self-describing herself as raised in a "fundamentalist" evangelical environment, and who, after a major life-crisis, abandoned it. From what I get out of the vid and after looking at one of her books, it seems that she has something of an axe to grind, and that means you probably should not depend solely on her analysis of things related to theology. But the experiences she describes are definitely worth reading and keeping in mind.

Ultimately, by choice I am not affiliated with any institutional religious organization. So I am not prone to depend on some sort of religious group support. In fact, I recently submitted a theological paper of 8,500 words to a fairly well-known journal, and it finally passed peer review. My argument goes against virtually all typical explanations for the question I address. So, I do not reflect the lifestyle of the woman who produced the vid, and I am not using religious group affiliation for psychological benefits.

. . . so that we could see if it makes sense to associate the two in a causal way.

Randall, with all due respect, I'm not inclined to describe my experiences more than I have already. Here's your current self-description at Ufology Society International (USI) - Explore the UFO Phenomenon under Murphy, Joseph Randall:

Current Occupation: PC Tech & Web Design
Personal Pursuits: Ufology, Music, Art, Antiaging

I don't get the impression that you have any special expertise in psychology or theology. In fact, a few pages back in these threads you complained about "walls of text" and then you posted that you thought it would be better for you to just go mow the yard. Okay, Randall. That's fine. But the modern world, especially involving very complicated questions, of necessity requires "walls of text." The radar and com/nav equipment I serviced in the USMC had literally a "wall" of books full of schematics and text for troubleshooting and repairing the systems. Thus it is with any subject requiring nuance, and that means that discussions about something as subtle as the mind will necessarily be walls of text without pi'tures. But for you, Randall, perhaps landscape activities suit your acuities better than such abstract contemplations derived from "walls of text."

By your indulgence, you describe one of your childhood experiences at your website:

One day I was wandering through an undeveloped part of the field when I came across a shallow depression in the landscape. It was about 20 meters wide and I thought it would make a cool place to play, so I went down into it and sat down. The next thing I remember I was sitting inside a dim circular room with some other kids. . .

. . . I don't remember anything else, like actually entering or exiting the craft. The next thing I knew, I was sitting back in the same place in the field where it had begun. So I walked up out of the depression, and headed home. To me the experience only seemed to last about 45 minutes, but when I got home my worried mother asked where I had been. I told her I had been playing spaceship with some other children.​

So even though you said you never actually saw a spaceship, you have been saying you were in a spaceship for 50 years? That comes across to me as illogical, of the very illogic that you so frequently apply to others here at the forum. And what about that four foot tall talking rabbit? Real? Screen memory?

[Concerning God] I really didn't see the point, and figured that any being deserving of deification wouldn't be so egotistical and self-serving to actually want to be deified in the first place.

Knock yourself out Randall. But here, too, I think your logic is seriously flawed. A father and mother are not "egotistical" by claiming to be the parents of their child. If there actually is a Creator, then it is not egotistical to self-describe as Creator to creatures. It just states facts. But that assumes that creatures can actually engage in communicative interaction with the Creator. If you have not communicated with my parents, then that does not mean that my parents never ever communicated to anyone else in the world, or that they never existed. If you have never communicated with the Creator, then that does not mean that the Creator has not communicated with anyone else in the world, or does not exist. Deciding to try to communicate with the Creator is something people have the choice to exercise according to their own will, in my view of reality.

 

[Randall]

I see that smcder has already asked you Randall, if you have considered the impact of Selective Exposure Theory on your own belief system.

Of course. That's why I chose a system of analysis that minimizes it as much as possible.

Randall, with all due respect, I'm not inclined to describe my experiences more than I have already.

I've looked at your posts and don't see any particular experiences that I can be sure relate to what you are talking about now, so declining the opportunity to share your experiences in the context of this conversation amounts to nothing more than a hand wave. See: Handwave - RationalWiki

I don't get the impression that you have any special expertise in psychology or theology ...

I'm not making any claim that my formal training gives me any special authority, and regardless, formal training has nothing to do with the validity of the questions posed or the analysis made. To say that it does is a logical fallacy and therefore not relevant to the issue itself. You're comment on my credentials is therefore pointless. See: Appeal to Authority Examples

By your indulgence, you describe one of your childhood experiences at your website:

One day I was wandering through an undeveloped part of the field when I came across a shallow depression in the landscape. It was about 20 meters wide and I thought it would make a cool place to play, so I went down into it and sat down. The next thing I remember I was sitting inside a dim circular room with some other kids. . .

. . . I don't remember anything else, like actually entering or exiting the craft. The next thing I knew, I was sitting back in the same place in the field where it had begun. So I walked up out of the depression, and headed home. To me the experience only seemed to last about 45 minutes, but when I got home my worried mother asked where I had been. I told her I had been playing spaceship with some other children.​

So even though you said you never actually saw a spaceship, you have been saying you were in a spaceship for 50 years? That comes across to me as illogical, of the very illogic that you so frequently apply to others here at the forum. And what about that four foot tall talking rabbit? Real? Screen memory?

Not sure how you calculated 50 years there? On the experiences themselves that you mentioned. I'm not sure exactly how to interpret them. They are just what I remember. I'm not making the claim that I was in an actual craft or there was an actual rabbit that said "Hello." in a voice as clear as anyone's, but they seemed real to me at the time and not simply some sort of dream. I don't know the best way to explain them other than perhaps some sort of active imagination by a child, and yet that doesn't sit comfortably with me because of how real they seemed. I used to play like other kids and imagine all sorts of things. I knew the difference, and those were different.

Now maybe something about your experiences rather than deflecting the question onto me?

Knock yourself out Randall. But here, too, I think your logic is seriously flawed. A father and mother are not "egotistical" by claiming to be the parents of their child.

I never said they were.

If there actually is a Creator, then it is not egotistical to self-describe as Creator to creatures.

I never said it was.

It just states facts. But that assumes that creatures can actually engage in communicative interaction with the Creator. If you have not communicated with my parents, then that does not mean that my parents never ever communicated to anyone else in the world, or that they never existed. If you have never communicated with the Creator, then that does not mean that the Creator has not communicated with anyone else in the world, or does not exist. Deciding to try to communicate with the Creator is something people have the choice to exercise according to their own will, in my view of reality.

My comment was not in the context you have given. If we were to do that it would be that "the parents" as your analogy goes, expect to be worshipped as Gods and have religions built around them. I submit no sane parent would want that. So there may very well be a universe creator. I don't know. However deifying it or them is the issue. As for whether or not I've been in communication with what many would interpret as God, I've had that experience too, and it was probably more intense than you can imagine or have experienced yourself ( we don't know because you haven't really shared your experiences in the context of this discussion, or if you have I don't know where they are and you have declined to provide a link after being politely asked ).

 

[William Strathmann]

I'm not making any claim that my formal training gives me any special authority, and regardless, formal training has nothing to do with the validity of the questions posed or the analysis made. To say that it does is a logical fallacy and therefore not relevant to the issue itself. You're comment on my credentials is therefore pointless.

Well, Randall, the logical fallacy is that you feel free to pose a question to me about Selective Exposure Theory because I say I'm a theist, but when I further say you are not qualified to act as a psychologist to delve into my experiences you say that point is irrelevant. Sorry Randall. That is like saying that a person with some unusual physical condition should not worry about going to a qualified physician, any old DIY expert like Randall Murphy can help, and it is a logical fallacy to "appeal to authority" like that of a trained clinical physician.

As for whether or not I've been in communication with what many would interpret as God, I've had that experience too, and it was probably more intense than you can imagine or have experienced yourself.

Well, well. Please! Be the example that you erroneously say that I am not, Randall, and tell us all about your experiences.

To reiterate my earlier comments in this thread.

I have said over and over that I am no expert, and so I try to link to experts who make comments that point in the direction of my speculations. In light of the past 150 years of scientific discovery it seems to me that there is a good possibility of structure in the quantum foam, as well as a particle zoo at that level, out of which emerges the current Standard Model particle zoo. It seems possible to me that sentient entities may exist at that level, and may directly interact with the Standard Model level of particles. I've said that such a possibility seems to support my views about the some UFO reports, the paranormal and theism. That is all I said before.

 

[smcder]

That was a very interesting read. Thank you smcder. I'm glad you posting it.
...

I found it very interesting too and I'm re-reading parts of it - it reminded me a bit of Alvin Plantinga's apologist work. While reading your exchanges with Randall I also thought of the Jewish tradition of arguing with God - which, to me, belies a simple relationship (and basis for rejection of relationship) with the creator as "deity" - the epitome of this tradition is Elie Wiesel's play: The Trial of God. I also thought of Alvin Plantinga's "warranted belief" - which we visited here (somewhere!) on these threads.

Congratulations on your publication, while I am thinking about it!

I have a very limited knowledge of QM and I haven't found the time to learn more - but @Constance and @Soupie often bring the subject to the thread and I look forward to any discussion.

 

[smcder]

The Tilde Fallacy and Reincarnation: Variations on a "Skeptical" Argument.

I will be discussing these different Tilde Fallacy arguments in increasing order of general acceptability. The first argument is, as far as I know, accepted by no one today who has seriously studied the subject. The next is accepted only by a small but vocal cult following. the third is accepted by a very large group probably including the majority of the academically employed. The last of these Tilde Fallacy arguments is acceptable to probably almost everyone except me (and perhaps you, gentle reader, if you find my arguments convincing.) The topic of this argument is survival after biological death. The so-called "materialist" position, which I will call mortalism, relies heavily on the Tilde fallacy. I will argue that once the Tilde Fallacy has been removed from the debate, the most ontologically parsimonious position is belief in reincarnation.I will also argue, at much greater length, that the mortalist position is self-contradictory, but that the contradiction is phenomenological, not logical.

 

[William Strathmann]

I have a very limited knowledge of QM and I haven't found the time to learn more - but @Constance and @Soupie often bring the subject to the thread and I look forward to any discussion.

smcder, you might find Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction, by John Polkinghorne, a helpful, clear, 132 page overview. [Polkinghorne was quite involved in QM and was a student of Paul Dirac, IIRC. After decades in QM Polkinghorne became an Anglican priest, of the CoE.] I've been reading several of these "Very Short Introductions" by Oxford University Press. They manage to get experts from all kinds of fields to condense the history and application of their various topics of expertise. At about $6 each its worth it to me. At least gives me a bit of a leg-up on topics.

The Tilde Fallacy and Reincarnation: Variations on a "Skeptical" Argument.

I will probably read the article again myself pretty soon. There are some parts of Rockwell's arguments that seem a little thin. But, at the very least, I think he makes some important remarks on the weaknesses of mortalism and reveals a solid logical position for some sort of immortalism. I personally don't find the term immortalism quite exactly what I would use, but that's a different issue. ;-)

Thanks also from reminding me of Alvin Plantinga, whom though I'd heard of, I'd not really read. I guess I'll have to take a look when I have some time.

 

[Randall]

Well, Randall, the logical fallacy is that you feel free to pose a question to me about Selective Exposure Theory because I say I'm a theist, but when I further say you are not qualified to act as a psychologist to delve into my experiences you say that point is irrelevant. Sorry Randall. That is like saying that a person with some unusual physical condition should not worry about going to a qualified physician, any old DIY expert like Randall Murphy can help, and it is a logical fallacy to "appeal to authority" like that of a trained clinical physician.

You misunderstand the concept of appealing to authority as a logical fallacy. It's not that someone with credentials in a given field doesn't generally have a higher competency than those who don't have such credentials, it's that credentials aren't relevant to whether or not the solution to a given problem is true or false. A person with no credentials can be as accurate as someone with credentials. A person with credentials can also be wrong. The only thing that really matters with respect to what is true or false is the accuracy of the analysis, and most people are in many cases smart enough to determine that for themselves without the need for credentials.

I have found my own mind to be very useful many times when so called experts attempt to bamboozle me. I've lost count of the number of times a trained mechanic has attempted to sell me on diagnostics that were not needed. I've saved literally thousands of dollars by fixing things myself, including my car, computer, TV, musical instruments, more things than I have time to list here. The only time I need an expert to tell me what I don't know is when they have facilities and equipment I don't have that would enable me to do it myself.

Last but not least, those who are trained within a certain paradigm are going to be prone to thinking only within that paradigm, which can be advantageous, but also makes them much more susceptible to confirmation bias. Someone with a Master's in theology or Religious Education may very well be more likely to interpret phenomena as something religious than someone with a more neutral perspective.

You've as much as admitted your own bias by saying: "As far as quantum woo police . . . meh, I've been on the Theism worldview trail for forty years, so it's not a matter of facing opposing opinions, but rather how much I want to invest into a discussion." Even when you have it pointed out to and you, you still hand wave it. Maybe it's not possible for you to change because you fear all the time you've invested in your belief will have been a wasted effort? Trust me. That is not the case. Every effort we make to grow helps us along our path.

Well, well. Please! Be the example that you erroneously say that I am not, Randall, and tell us all about your experiences.

That's another hand wave to deflect attention away from the issues in your post, which was quantum possibilities that might explain your experiences.

To reiterate my earlier comments in this thread.

I have said over and over that I am no expert, and so I try to link to experts who make comments that point in the direction of my speculations. In light of the past 150 years of scientific discovery it seems to me that there is a good possibility of structure in the quantum foam, as well as a particle zoo at that level, out of which emerges the current Standard Model particle zoo. It seems possible to me that sentient entities may exist at that level, and may directly interact with the Standard Model level of particles. I've said that such a possibility seems to support my views about the some UFO reports, the paranormal and theism. That is all I said before.

It's perfectly OK to contemplate possibilities. To respond, I'd simply reiterate the same point I made regarding that idea, which is posted here ( Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 10 ). If you're more interested in getting at the truth than arguing over credentials I would suggest that you reflect on the reasoning used in my post and come up with something relevant to the points made.

• You proposed an idea to explain your experiences.
• I responded with reasons why that idea is problematic and asked about your experiences.
• You attacked my credentials rather than addressing the reasoning and refused to provide a reference to your experiences.
• I pointed out the logical fallacy in your response.
• You hand waved it and went back to your original point.

Do you see how this discussion needs to improve before further progress can be made? Again I would ask you to either post or link us to the experiences you have had make you think that they are explainable by your idea, and to provide some specific counterpoint to the problem I pointed out with your idea. In the meantime, here's a fanciful look at the sort of thing you seem to be suggesting:

Horton Hears A Who

​

 

[smcder]

smcder, you might find Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction, by John Polkinghorne, a helpful, clear, 132 page overview. [Polkinghorne was quite involved in QM and was a student of Paul Dirac, IIRC. After decades in QM Polkinghorne became an Anglican priest, of the CoE.] I've been reading several of these "Very Short Introductions" by Oxford University Press. They manage to get experts from all kinds of fields to condense the history and application of their various topics of expertise. At about $6 each its worth it to me. At least gives me a bit of a leg-up on topics.

I will probably read the article again myself pretty soon. There are some parts of Rockwell's arguments that seem a little thin. But, at the very least, I think he makes some important remarks on the weaknesses of mortalism and reveals a solid logical position for some sort of immortalism. I personally don't find the term immortalism quite exactly what I would use, but that's a different issue. ;-)

Thanks also from reminding me of Alvin Plantinga, whom though I'd heard of, I'd not really read. I guess I'll have to take a look when I have some time.

Plantinga is a formidable intelligence. I've read a popular book by Polkinghorne a while back and I've read one or two of the Very Short Introductions, so I will look for this one by Polkinghorne. There is a good interview with Polkinghorne on "Speaking of Faith"/"On Being" (NPR).

I agree that some parts of Rockwell's arguments are a little thin - but the "tilde fallacy" may prove useful.

Stephen

 

[William Strathmann]

Randall, you suggested above that I suffer from some sort of mistaken view about Theism by posting the ex-fundamentalist psychologist's Selective Exposure Theory video in the post you addressed to me. Be my guest. But it is not hand-waving if I say that you do not have the training or experience to perform psychological analysis, online, on an open forum, with someone you do not know.

The only thing that really matters with respect to what is true or false is the accuracy of the analysis, and most people are in many cases smart enough to determine that for themselves without the need for credentials.

That depends on the level of complexity that the analysis addresses. It also depends upon one's familiarity with the entire scope of the field, or subject, of the question being analyzed. People with "credentials" have a baseline of knowledge and experience that can be judged. You, Randall, have a baseline knowledge of what, "anti-aging" ? Seriously Randall, you come across as someone deprived of higher education, but who claims equal authority with anyone who has actually earned their credentials. Regrettably, I don't have nearly the confidence in your capabilities Randall that you do of yourself.

On an open forum the maxim caveat lector is always advised. I have clearly stated that I am not an expert about the quantum foam. So, please, caveat lector.

 

[Randall]

Randall, you suggested above that I suffer from some sort of mistaken view about Theism by posting the ex-fundamentalist psychologist's Selective Exposure Theory video in the post you addressed to me. Be my guest. But it is not hand-waving if I say that you do not have the training or experience to perform psychological analysis, online, on an open forum, with someone you do not know.



That depends on the level of complexity that the analysis addresses. It also depends upon one's familiarity with the entire scope of the field, or subject, of the question being analyzed. People with "credentials" have a baseline of knowledge and experience that can be judged. You, Randall, have a baseline knowledge of what, "anti-aging" ? Seriously Randall, you come across as someone deprived of higher education, but who claims equal authority with anyone who has actually earned their credentials. Regrettably, I don't have nearly the confidence in your capabilities Randall that you do of yourself.

On an open forum the maxim caveat lector is always advised. I have clearly stated that I am not an expert about the quantum foam. So, please, caveat lector.

I have made no claim of having "equal authority" with anyone. I only claim that truth and ability are independent of credentials and therefore deferring to credentials rather than thinking for one's self is for bureaucrats and elitists who value authority over truth. So you're either in that group, or you've become some sort of troll, or you simply don't get it. Whatever the case, you're not dealing with the substance of the issues. Are you ever going to tell us about the experiences you've had or at least provide a link? Are you ever going to provide some counterpoint that is relevant to the point I made about your idea?

You've decided to engage in wild speculation without having the credentials to do it and now seem to think that it's perfectly valid until some Quantum Physicist or another debunks it. If you want to play that game then go get your credentials before making wild unsubstantiated claims or theories. Then after spending 12 years and a couple hundred grand or so in school, your colleagues can label you a quack or crackpot instead of me. In the meantime, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim or posits a theory, and therefore, if you value your ideas at all, you should recognize that it's your responsibility to respond to issues that question your theory.

 

[smcder]

@William Strathmann

Here's the On Being interview with John Polkinghorne - this is a good series in general and Krista Tippett is an excellent interviewer (well, you know, for a non-"expert" ... ;-)

John Polkinghorne — Quarks and Creation -

 

[Constance]

I have made no claim of having "equal authority" with anyone. I only claim that truth and ability are independent of credentials and therefore deferring to credentials rather than thinking for one's self is for bureaucrats and elitists who value authority over truth. So you're either in that group, or you've become some sort of troll, or you simply don't get it. Whatever the case, you're not dealing with the substance of the issues. Are you ever going to tell us about the experiences you've had or at least provide a link? Are you ever going to provide some counterpoint that is relevant to the point I made about your idea?

You've decided to engage in wild speculation without having the credentials to do it and now seem to think that it's perfectly valid until some Quantum Physicist or another debunks it. If you want to play that game then go get your credentials before making wild unsubstantiated claims or theories. Then after spending 12 years and a couple hundred grand or so in school, your colleagues can label you a quack or crackpot instead of me. In the meantime, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim or posits a theory, and therefore, if you value your ideas at all, you should recognize that it's your responsibility to respond to issues that question your theory.

Randall, here are links to some books available at amazon (or at any university library within striking distance for you) that might help you to recognize the limits of humanly developed 'logic' and consequent claims concerning 'reason' and 'truth' for a species such as ours having limited knowledge of the nature of both 'reality' and 'being' beyond what we can measure and comprehend.

Link aren't working, so here are the authors and titles:

Noson S. Yanofsky, The Outer Limits of Reason: What Science, Mathematics, and Logic Cannot Tell Us (MIT Press)

Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach, The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone

Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, The Enigma of Reason


I hope you will pursue the actual conditions and limitations of human thought as recognized by these authors and stop brow-beating @William Strathmann on the basis of your own presuppositions and prejudices. And also stop demanding of him that he provide you with descriptions of experiences which you will predictably subject to your usual reductivism and ridicule {e.g., 'quantum woo'}. No one in the disciplines of physics or philosophy or religious studies has yet understood the nature and extent of quantum entanglement -- the most daunting phenomenon recognized to date by human science. Claims of knowledge are useless unless they recognize the limits of human knowledge.



"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect." Oscar Wilde

 

[Randall]

I hope you will pursue the actual conditions and limitations of human thought as recognized by these authors and stop brow-beating @William Strathmann on the basis of your own presuppositions and prejudices.

A theory has been proposed that a participant feels might explain some experience they have had. However the experience is not documented or if it is the participant doesn't want to share it or help me locate it. The theory put forth also has some problems which I pointed out. Rather than addressing those issues the participant has chosen to criticize me on a personal level, yet for some unfathomable reason you think I'm "browbeating" them. Perhaps you empathize with them because you also seem to have a difficult time remaining objective when I question some of the things you've posted. Maybe this will help both of you:

 

[smcder]

Randall, here are links to some books available at amazon (or at any university library within striking distance for you) that might help you to recognize the limits of humanly developed 'logic' and consequent claims concerning 'reason' and 'truth' for a species such as ours having limited knowledge of the nature of both 'reality' and 'being' beyond what we can measure and comprehend.

Link aren't working, so here are the authors and titles:

Noson S. Yanofsky, The Outer Limits of Reason: What Science, Mathematics, and Logic Cannot Tell Us (MIT Press)

Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach, The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone

Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, The Enigma of Reason


I hope you will pursue the actual conditions and limitations of human thought as recognized by these authors and stop brow-beating @William Strathmann on the basis of your own presuppositions and prejudices. And also stop demanding of him that he provide you with descriptions of experiences which you will predictably subject to your usual reductivism and ridicule {e.g., 'quantum woo'}. No one in the disciplines of physics or philosophy or religious studies has yet understood the nature and extent of quantum entanglement -- the most daunting phenomenon recognized to date by human science. Claims of knowledge are useless unless they recognize the limits of human knowledge.



"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect." Oscar Wilde

A very interesting list ... Nicholas Rescher also has an interesting book on rationality that I think relates ... I'll try to find the title.

I would add for @William Strathmann - if you haven't read it:

The Master and His Emissary by Ian McGilchrist - his website has some interesting material including an exchange with Stephen Pinker.

The Master and his Emissary - Iain McGilchrist

The descriptions of the left-hemisphere dominant should be very relevant to the last few posts.

 

[Constance]

A theory has been proposed that a participant feels might explain some experience they have had. However the experience is not documented or if it is the participant doesn't want to share it or help me locate it. The theory put forth also has some problems which I pointed out. Rather than addressing those issues the participant has chosen to criticize me on a personal level, yet for some unfathomable reason you think I'm "browbeating" them. Perhaps you empathize with them because you also seem to have a difficult time remaining objective when I question some of the things you've posted. Maybe this will help both of you:

Don't kid yourself, Randall. You get the reactions you do because of your confrontational, demanding, and provocative verbal style. Re your 5-minute video, there's nothing there that the rest of us haven't understood since middle school or high school. It's your unaccountable arrogance that leads you to claim that the rest of us here don't know how to think logically, rationally, and critically, whereas the plain fact is that you're still stuck in outdated scientistic positivism.

​

 

[smcder]

Randall, here are links to some books available at amazon (or at any university library within striking distance for you) that might help you to recognize the limits of humanly developed 'logic' and consequent claims concerning 'reason' and 'truth' for a species such as ours having limited knowledge of the nature of both 'reality' and 'being' beyond what we can measure and comprehend.

Link aren't working, so here are the authors and titles:

Noson S. Yanofsky, The Outer Limits of Reason: What Science, Mathematics, and Logic Cannot Tell Us (MIT Press)

Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach, The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone

Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, The Enigma of Reason


I hope you will pursue the actual conditions and limitations of human thought as recognized by these authors and stop brow-beating @William Strathmann on the basis of your own presuppositions and prejudices. And also stop demanding of him that he provide you with descriptions of experiences which you will predictably subject to your usual reductivism and ridicule {e.g., 'quantum woo'}. No one in the disciplines of physics or philosophy or religious studies has yet understood the nature and extent of quantum entanglement -- the most daunting phenomenon recognized to date by human science. Claims of knowledge are useless unless they recognize the limits of human knowledge.



"I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect." Oscar Wilde

I love that quote @Constance by the divine Oscar ...

Here are some links to those books:

The Outer Limits of Reason

People Have Limited Knowledge. What’s the Remedy? Nobody Knows

This is particularly interesting:

"Over the last few decades, the ideal of the rational individual has been attacked from all sides. Postcolonial and feminist thinkers challenged it as a chauvinistic Western fantasy, glorifying the autonomy and power of white men. Behavioral economists and evolutionary psychologists have demonstrated that most human decisions are based on emotional reactions and heuristic shortcuts rather than rational analysis, and that while our emotions and heuristics were perhaps suitable for dealing with the African savanna in the Stone Age, they are woefully inadequate for dealing with the urban jungle of the silicon age.

Sloman and Fernbach take this argument further, positing that not just rationality but the very idea of individual thinking is a myth. Humans rarely think for themselves. Rather, we think in groups. Just as it takes a tribe to raise a child, it also takes a tribe to invent a tool, solve a conflict or cure a disease. No individual knows everything it takes to build a cathedral, an atom bomb or an aircraft. What gave Homo sapiens an edge over all other animals and turned us into the masters of the planet was not our individual rationality, but our unparalleled ability to think together in large groups."

The Enigma of Reason — Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber | Harvard University Press

 

[Randall]

Don't kid yourself, Randall. You get the reactions you do because of your confrontational, demanding, and provocative verbal style. Re your 5-minute video, there's nothing there that the rest of us haven't understood since middle school or high school. It's your unaccountable arrogance that leads you to claim that the rest of us here don't know how to think logically, rationally, and critically, whereas the plain fact is that you're still stuck in outdated scientistic positivism.

I'll take outmoded scientific positivism and critical thinking over unstructured irrational personal criticism and confirmation bias any day. Maybe the only thing I'm fooling myself about is the capacity of some people to actually switch gears. But let's suppose just for a moment that there's something I'm missing. I've enjoyed the music and the poetry you've posted and have no problem experiencing life in the moment. So it's not like I don't get that. It's a beautiful thing, but it doesn't automatically invalidate critical thinking, which BTW isn't strictly a scientific method. Are you actually suggesting that critical thinking is "outmoded" as well? If so, how do you substantiate that?

 

[smcder]

I'll take outmoded scientific positivism and critical thinking over unstructured irrational personal criticism and confirmation bias any day. Maybe the only thing I'm fooling myself about is the capacity of some people to actually switch gears. But let's suppose just for a moment that there's something I'm missing. I've enjoyed the music and the poetry you've posted and have no problem experiencing life in the moment. So it's not like I don't get that. It's a beautiful thing, but it doesn't automatically invalidate critical thinking, which BTW isn't strictly a scientific method. Are you actually suggesting that critical thinking is "outmoded" as well? If so, how do you substantiate that?

I've created a thread for this topic here:

Is critical thinking "outmoded"?

 

[Constance]

I also want to quote here the MIT Press's page describing Yanofsky's major book, The Outer Limits of Reason: What Science, Mathematics, and Logic Cannot Tell Us, because it summarizes the main point I wanted to make to Randall -- the by-now-obvious fact that claims of knowledge concerning the nature of 'reality' are misleading unless they recognize the limits of human knowledge and of human knowing:

"Overview: Many books explain what is known about the universe. This book investigates what cannot be known. Rather than exploring the amazing facts that science, mathematics, and reason have revealed to us, this work studies what science, mathematics, and reason tell us cannot be revealed. In The Outer Limits of Reason, Noson Yanofsky considers what cannot be predicted, described, or known, and what will never be understood. He discusses the limitations of computers, physics, logic, and our own thought processes.

Yanofsky describes simple tasks that would take computers trillions of centuries to complete and other problems that computers can never solve; perfectly formed English sentences that make no sense; different levels of infinity; the bizarre world of the quantum; the relevance of relativity theory; the causes of chaos theory; math problems that cannot be solved by normal means; and statements that are true but cannot be proven. He explains the limitations of our intuitions about the world—our ideas about space, time, and motion, and the complex relationship between the knower and the known.

Moving from the concrete to the abstract, from problems of everyday language to straightforward philosophical questions to the formalities of physics and mathematics, Yanofsky demonstrates a myriad of unsolvable problems and paradoxes. Exploring the various limitations of our knowledge, he shows that many of these limitations have a similar pattern and that by investigating these patterns, we can better understand the structure and limitations of reason itself. Yanofsky even attempts to look beyond the borders of reason to see what, if anything, is out there.


About the Author: Noson S. Yanofsky is Professor in the Department of Computer and Information Science at Brooklyn College and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He is a coauthor of Quantum Computing for Computer Scientists.

Reviews: “Yanofsky takes on this mindboggling subject with confidence and impressive clarity. He eases the reader into the subject matter, ending each chapter with further readings. His book is a fascinating resource for anyone who seeks a better understanding of the world through the strangeness of its own limitations and a must-read for anyone studying information science.”—Publishers Weekly

“Yanofsky provides an entertaining and informative whirlwind trip through limits on reason in language, formal logic, mathematics—and in science, the culmination of humankind’s attempts to reason about the world.”—The New Scientist

“In my view, Outer Limits is an extraordinary, and extraordinarily interesting, book. It is a cornucopia of mind-bending ideas.”—Raymond S. Nickerson, PsycCRITIQUES

“The scope of the material covered is so wide, and the writing so clear and intuitive, that all readers will learn something new and stimulating.”—Thomas Colin, Leonardo Reviews

Endorsements: “Yanofsky has brought together insights about quantum mechanics, logic, and mathematics under one rubric. Very few others could pull that off. This book has the potential to be a classic.” —Prakash Panangaden, School of Computer Science, McGill University

Awards: Winner, 2013 American Publishers Award for Professional and Scholarly Excellence (PROSE Award) in Popular Science & Popular Mathematics, presented by the Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers


The Outer Limits of Reason

 

[smcder]

I'll take outmoded scientific positivism and critical thinking over unstructured irrational personal criticism and confirmation bias any day. Maybe the only thing I'm fooling myself about is the capacity of some people to actually switch gears. But let's suppose just for a moment that there's something I'm missing. I've enjoyed the music and the poetry you've posted and have no problem experiencing life in the moment. So it's not like I don't get that. It's a beautiful thing, but it doesn't automatically invalidate critical thinking, which BTW isn't strictly a scientific method. Are you actually suggesting that critical thinking is "outmoded" as well? If so, how do you substantiate that?

"But let's suppose just for a moment that there's something I'm missing."

I think that's an excellent starting point and I'd like to see you pursue that. I often ask myself this ... And, in time, my mind usually comes up with something. So keep asking and be patient!