Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[smcder]

Can you find a way to make your pursuit relevant to the thread's title: Science, Philosophy, and the Unexplained? If not, then perhaps your pursuit would be better off on the Magical Thinking thread? Personally however I would like to see if you can make the occult relevant to science, philosophy, and the unexplained. That would be interesting, and the questions I asked are intended to point us in that direction, so perhaps you can act as kind of an interpreter between my hard line critical thinking mode and whatever you see that's you think is relevant, but I don't ( if that makes any sense )?

Ok, it's mulled and while I appreciate the offer - for my part, I think I would prefer to pursue the topic in an unfettered way - to me the subject has come out of the topic of the thread in a natural way and has a home here, but I doubt I could make a solid case for it and I don't have an interest in continuing to make a case for it post by post - so I'll wait and see if Tyger has a response and then go from there.

 

[smcder]

It's my witching hour and other obligations call.

Ufology, if after everything I've posted you still have those questions, there is very little I can add to help you out. It's a matter of being able to comprehend text at this point. Maybe a bit more reading - though I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia so much at this point. Just saying.

'Nite.

Good night, Tyger.

 

[Randall]

critic

Good night, Tyger.

As you may well imagine, I take issue with Tyger suggesting that I don't comprehend text. Comprehension is the intellectual ability to grasp the meaning of something, but when that meaning fails to be coherently conveyed by avoiding questions and making unsubstantiated proclamations, and when what is said, by its very nature, defies rational explanation, there is every reason to suggest that the person making such claims has deluded themselves into believing they have some "understanding" when it fact it's nonsense.

All too often the defense of those who make occults claims is to refuse to answer, or simply restate some position without any rational explanation or evidence, and divert the responsibility for substantiating their claims onto the person questioning them, suggesting that if they don't agree with their nonsense, then they must lack the intellectual capacity to understand it. Sorry smcder, but that won't go over well here. If it looks like mystical New Age gobbledegook, then I'll call it as I see it, and unless it can be reasonably substantiated as representing an actual state of affairs, then it will continue to be labeled as such.

At this point I contend that so-called "occult knowledge" doesn't even count as knowledge. It counts as beliefs maintained by unsubstantiated claims, rituals, religion, mythology, and misinterpreted experiences.

 

[Randall]

Ok, it's mulled and while I appreciate the offer - for my part, I think I would prefer to pursue the topic in an unfettered way - to me the subject has come out of the topic of the thread in a natural way and has a home here ...

It has a home here so long as it's relevant to the thread, and right now I'd say it's on pretty thin ice. To quote the opening post:

"This thread is for exploring how the unexplained can be approached from a philosophical and/or scientific standpoint. The idea is to manage this without resorting to New Age or Quantum Mysticism. There may be times when these modes overlap, but hopefully when they do, we can keep them from getting so tangled that they foul up the whole process."​

Please at least try to keep the discussion relevant to the thread, otherwise it's what called "derailing the thread", and I would take exception to that. I'd sooner see no participation here than have the thread become a soap box for pontificating and proliferating occult or religious beliefs. If it goes that way, you can expect to be asked to move the discussion someplace else.

 

[smcder]

It has a home here so long as it's relevant to the thread, and right now I'd say it's on pretty thin ice. To quote the opening post:

"This thread is for exploring how the unexplained can be approached from a philosophical and/or scientific standpoint. The idea is to manage this without resorting to New Age or Quantum Mysticism. There may be times when these modes overlap, but hopefully when they do, we can keep them from getting so tangled that they foul up the whole process."​

Please at least try to keep the discussion relevant to the thread, otherwise it's what called "derailing the thread", and I would take exception to that. I'd sooner see no participation here than have the thread become a soap box for pontificating and proliferating occult or religious beliefs. If it goes that way, you can expect to be asked to move the discussion someplace else.

I have no intention of derailing the thread.

 

[Randall]

By the way, I skimmed the JREF forum and that is not a pretty crowd, man - I just don't understand the rudeness that so many posters seem to indulge in.

I joined up thinking that James Randi was cool because he's a real magician and did the stage illusions for Alice Cooper. Plus I figured that people who were into science and critical thinking would make for intelligent discussion. I can't tell you how wrong that assumption was. I would encourage you to write to the JREF board and express your concerns: D.J. Grothe

 

[Constance]

Back in this post I said:

"Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors. The phenomenological method relies on the description of phenomena as they are given to consciousness, in their immediacy ( Wikipedia ), so in either instance ( physical or mystical ), phenomenology plays a role in the examination of what is taking place within our consciousness ( our waking experience ) rather than what gives rise to it in the first place."​

Then you responded here with:

"Where did you get that idea? I'm sorry, ufology, but you're going to have go deeper than wikipedia for an understanding of phenomenology. I can suggest some sources if you like."​

So your response clearly suggests that I am error, and from that it logically follows that if I'm wrong, then it's not true that phenomenology doesn't account for what gives rise to consciousness in the first place, which in turn means that phenomenology does account for what gives rise to it in the first place. Yet you have provided no reference to back up that position, and without it, you have no basis for dismissing my comment. Does that help clear things up? Perhaps you need to rephrase your response?

What I found off the mark in your characterization of phenomenology were the following statements:

Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors.

The phenomenological method relies on the description of phenomena as they are given to consciousness, in their immediacy ( Wikipedia ), so in either instance ( physical or mystical ), phenomenology plays a role in the examination of what is taking place within our consciousness . . . .

Phenomenological phenomena are not "states of mind in and of themselves." Phenomena are the appearances of things in the world as they are encountered by consciousness [as distinct from the things in themselves, which we cannot know]. As such they are not "states of mind in and of themselves" but appearances originating in the world that demonstrate to consciousness its perspectival and partial access to things in the world in their objectivity. Both the subjective and objective poles of reality are involved in phenomena and disclosed in phenomenology. Thus phenomenology does much more than "describe phenomena as they are given to consciousness in their immediacy"; it interrogates the relationship of mind and world and in revealing the temporality and existentiality of consciousness informs epistemology, ethics, and ontology

I had no argument with your final claim -- that phenomenology does not play a role in examining "what gives rise to [consciousness] in the first place."

 

[smcder]

It has a home here so long as it's relevant to the thread, and right now I'd say it's on pretty thin ice. To quote the opening post:

"This thread is for exploring how the unexplained can be approached from a philosophical and/or scientific standpoint. The idea is to manage this without resorting to New Age or Quantum Mysticism. There may be times when these modes overlap, but hopefully when they do, we can keep them from getting so tangled that they foul up the whole process."​

Please at least try to keep the discussion relevant to the thread, otherwise it's what called "derailing the thread", and I would take exception to that. I'd sooner see no participation here than have the thread become a soap box for pontificating and proliferating occult or religious beliefs. If it goes that way, you can expect to be asked to move the discussion someplace else.

From my post above:

Ok, it's mulled and while I appreciate the offer - for my part, I think I would prefer to pursue the topic in an unfettered way - to me the subject has come out of the topic of the thread in a natural way and has a home here, but I doubt I could make a solid case for it and I don't have an interest in continuing to make a case for it post by post - so I'll wait and see if Tyger has a response and then go from there.

What I meant by "pursue the topic in an unfettered way" was that was that my preference was to pursue the topic on another thread because I didn't think I could make a solid case for it remaining on this thread.

 

[Randall]

What I found off the mark in your characterization of phenomenology were the following statements:



Phenomenological phenomena are not "states of mind in and of themselves." Phenomena are the appearances of things in the world as they are encountered by consciousness [as distinct from the things in themselves, which we cannot know]. As such they are not "states of mind in and of themselves" but appearances originating in the world that demonstrate to consciousness its perspectival and partial access to things in the world in their objectivity. Both the subjective and objective poles of reality are involved in phenomena and disclosed in phenomenology. Thus phenomenology does much more than "describe phenomena as they are given to consciousness in their immediacy"; it interrogates the relationship of mind and world and in revealing the temporality and existentiality of consciousness informs epistemology, ethics, and ontology

I had no argument with your final claim -- that phenomenology does not play a role in examining "what gives rise to [consciousness] in the first place."

OK, that sounds perfectly fair. I gather you see where I was coming from now. To be clear, we had been discussing things in the context of how consciousness comes into being, and when you mentioned phenomenology, I couldn't see how it was applicable to that issue. So my point was zeroed in on that particular issue and not concerned with the other details, so naturally those details ( which weren't relevant to the issue at hand ) were left out. I think that if you had recognized the legitimacy of the comment I made within the context it was intended, and then added that phenomenology was so much more than that, and made those factors relevant to the issue at hand, then there wouldn't have been the miscommunication. Does that seem reasonable?

 

[Randall]

From my post above:

Ok, it's mulled and while I appreciate the offer - for my part, I think I would prefer to pursue the topic in an unfettered way - to me the subject has come out of the topic of the thread in a natural way and has a home here, but I doubt I could make a solid case for it and I don't have an interest in continuing to make a case for it post by post - so I'll wait and see if Tyger has a response and then go from there.

What I meant by "pursue the topic in an unfettered way" was that was that my preference was to pursue the topic on another thread because I didn't think I could make a solid case for it remaining on this thread.

Interesting. I interpreted your comment about how it had naturally evolved here as a preference for you to continue with it here unfettered. I think your comments are valuable, and you're always so reasonable, that I don't have a problem with you continuing it here as long as you want, so long as you don't mind me contributing "unfettered" as well .

 

[Constance]

As you may well imagine, I take issue with Tyger suggesting that I don't comprehend text. Comprehension is the intellectual ability to grasp the meaning of something, but when that meaning fails to be coherently conveyed by avoiding questions and making unsubstantiated proclamations, and when what is said, by its very nature, defies rational explanation, there is every reason to suggest that the person making such claims has deluded themselves into believing they have some "understanding" when it fact it's nonsense.

All too often the defense of those who make occults claims is to refuse to answer, or simply restate some position without any rational explanation or evidence, and divert the responsibility for substantiating their claims onto the person questioning them, suggesting that if they don't agree with their nonsense, then they must lack the intellectual capacity to understand it. Sorry smcder, but that won't go over well here. If it looks like mystical New Age gobbledegook, then I'll call it as I see it, and unless it can be reasonably substantiated as representing an actual state of affairs, then it will continue to be labeled as such.

At this point I contend that so-called "occult knowledge" doesn't even count as knowledge. It counts as beliefs maintained by unsubstantiated claims, rituals, religion, mythology, and misinterpreted experiences.

How about occult perception of subatomic structures arrived at in 1908? Does that squeeze through the narrow doors of what you are willing to tolerate in a thread concerned with the 'unexplained'? You don't seem to understand that occult and New Age thinking originated in the legitimate philosophies of the East. You haven't even noticed that a major school of Western 20th-century philosophy is compared by scholars in both the East and the West with core aspects of Eastern thought. It appears that you've pre-defined for yourself what you think can be considered to constitute 'rational' discourse, and thus feel entitled to minimize, ridicule, or assault every strain of thought that seems to fall outside your presuppositions. I'm not sure it's worth spending more time in this thread if you're going to dictate what can and can't be discussed peaceably-- especially considering that the main topic pursued here so far is 'consciousness', a subject that requires a variety of perspectives if it's ever to be understood. But that's right, you're already convinced that consciousness will one day be explained by neuroscience. Are you aware that there are neuroscientists who no longer think so based on what they've learned from phenomenologists and philosophers of mind in the interdisciplinary field of consciousness studies?

 

[Randall]

How about occult perception of subatomic structures arrived at in 1908?

Forgive me, but we're skipping some important facets of the critical thinking process I mentioned earlier. The objective is to explore how the unexplained can be approached from a philosophical and/or scientific standpoint in order to discover some truths about it ( the unexplained ). The recent question(s) at issue when the subject of the occult was introduced were 1.) how consciousness comes into being, and 2.) how conscious phenomena are handled in the context of phenomenology. You seem to be familiar with phenomenology, so I think you would be the best person in this discussion to analyze the information ( data, facts, observations, and experiences ) associated with the occult to determine if they apply to phenomenology in a way that reveals ( or with further discussion might reveal ) some truth about the unexplained.

NOTE: By "truth" I mean the kind of truth generally understood by correspondence theory as opposed to invoking religious truth, notions related to dasein or other non-correspondence based models.

 

[smcder]

Earlier today ufology suggested that we each identify as best we can our approach to or concept of consciousness. For me, phenomenology -- especially as developed by Merleau-Ponty -- is the soundest approach to understanding consciousness and its interdependence with the natural world and the cultural worlds we live in, layered over our primordial relationship with nature. As it happens, the wikipedia article on MP provides an adequate overview of and helpful introduction to MP's thought.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Constance - here is the lecture series on phenomenology from the University of Essex:

University of Essex :: Philosophy :: Phenomenology

I decided to look for something other than the lectures by Hubert Dreyfuss based on your comments and searched I-Tunes. I found lots of content under phenomenology and decided to try this three lecture series - it assumes no prior knowledge of phenomenology and I meet that reguirement!

The first lecture is history and key themes and vocabulary, it's also available directly on I-tunes:

If you check it out - let me know what you think.

 

[Constance]

Forgive me, but we're skipping some important facets of the critical thinking process I mentioned earlier. The objective is to explore how the unexplained can be approached from a philosophical and/or scientific standpoint in order to discover some truths about it ( the unexplained ). The recent question(s) at issue when the subject of the occult was introduced were 1.) how consciousness comes into being, and 2.) how conscious phenomena are handled in the context of phenomenology. You seem to be familiar with phenomenology, so I think you would be the best person in this discussion to analyze the information ( data, facts, observations, and experiences ) associated with the occult to determine if they apply to phenomenology in a way that reveals ( or with further discussion might reveal ) some truth about the unexplained.

No thanks. That's not a book I care to research and write under the restrictions you require, i.e.:

NOTE: By "truth" I mean the kind of truth generally understood by correspondence theory as opposed to invoking religious truth, notions related to dasein or other non-correspondence based models.

Once again you limit future inquiry here to your presuppositions about what can be considered 'truth'. You shear off half the world of human experience as irrelevant to the human pursuit of truth. And then restrict what we can permissibly say about that broad spectrum of experience to one theory of truth that you find acceptable. This is genuinely absurd.

Let me approach the problem you create in another way: You have said that you want to understand what consciousness is and where it comes from/how it comes about in the world. And then you rule out of the discussion the most interesting and challenging conscious phenomena that have been reported and tested by parapsychologists and psychic researchers for the last 120 years, the ones the rest of us want to explore.

 

[smcder]

No thanks. That's not a book I care to research and write under the restrictions you require, i.e.:


Once again you limit future inquiry here to your presuppositions about what can be considered 'truth'. You shear off half the world of human experience as irrelevant to the human pursuit of truth. And then restrict what we can permissibly say about that broad spectrum of experience to one theory of truth that you find acceptable. This is genuinely absurd.

Let me approach the problem you create in another way: You have said that you want to understand what consciousness is and where it comes from/how it comes about in the world. And then you rule out of the discussion the most interesting and challenging conscious phenomena that have been reported and tested by parapsychologists and psychic researchers for the last 120 years, the ones the rest of us want to explore.

Well said, Constance.

 

[Constance]

I should clarify that phenomenology includes a broad spectrum of thought, some practitioners of which have pursued phenomenological and existentialist approaches to spiritual and religious experience, among them Soren Kierkegaard, William James, Nikolai Berdyaev, Gabriel Marcel, and Paul Tillich, but I've read only two of those philosophers and am not knowledgeable enough about either of them to provide the analysis you've asked me to perform on occult and Eastern thought. Besides which I know almost nothing of occult and Eastern philosophy and thought.

 

[Constance]

[edited]I think we'd do better to explore the varieties of conscious experience, including psychic and paranormal experience and abilities such as remote viewing, in order to absorb the whole field of experience that is involved in conscious and mental phenomena before we attempt to define what consciousness is, much less understand how it has come about in the world..

 

[smcder]

I should clarify that phenomenology includes a broad spectrum of thought, some practitioners of which have pursued phenomenological and existentialist approaches to spiritual and religious experience, among them Soren Kierkegaard, William James, Nikolai Berdyaev, Gabriel Marcel, and Paul Tillich, but I've read only two of those philosophers and am not knowledgeable enough about either of them to provide the analysis you've asked me to perform on occult and Eastern thought. Besides which I know almost nothing of occult and Eastern philosophy and thought.

You've probably read The Varieties of Religious Experience by James:

available here: The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature by William James - Free Ebook
or in audio format here: LibriVox

The Perennial Philosophy by Huxley is as an excellent starting point on mysticism but is relevant because it includes many examples from Eastern philosophy.

 

[smcder]

I think we'd do better to explore the varieties of conscious experience, including psychic and paranormal experience and abilities such as remote viewing, in order to absorb the whole field of experience that is involved in conscious and mental phenomena.

Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe is excellent and rigorous. His blog is here: Entangled Minds

For an even more rigorous approach - I recommend Margins of Reality - The Role of Consciousness in the Physcial World by Robert G. Jahn and Brenda J. Dunne - Jahn ran the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research program and the book summarizes ten years of work.

 

[Constance]

Well said, Constance.

Thanks Steve.