A Post-Materialist Science Already Exists

[midniterider]

https://www.pressenza.com/2019/01/a-post-materialist-science-already-exists/

[LogicalFallacy]

I also came across this article: https://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science 

 

Note I'm not endorsing or saying I agree with it, in fact I think it's riddled with issues. But for the purposes of this thread it suits nicely.

 

One of the chief concerns seems to be the assumption upon which the scientific method is built - that is we only study what can be measured - i.e. the material world (Called materialism in the article).

 

However in materialism's defense it's a pretty solid assumption because we are at least starting from what we know - that is the universe is made up of matter and energy. When you try and throw things such as God, or as the linked article states

Quote

"Mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world. Mind is fundamental in the universe, i.e. it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic."

 

That's a pretty big assumption, one that currently has no evidential support. No one has produce an example of a mind absent matter. If, and only if, someone can do this can we then have as a foundational assumption that consciousness is fundamental in the universe.

 

There are also some glaring errors in the article. They state that the scientific method assumes that the mind cannot have an effect on the body. 

Quote

This belief system (scientific materialism) implies that the mind is nothing but the physical activity of the brain, and that our thoughts cannot have any effect upon our brains and bodies, our actions, and the physical world.

 

This to me is a strawman of scientific materialism. It's long been known that your state of mind has huge effects on your body. I don't know of any credible scientist who disputes this. Meditation is widely known to have positive benefits on both mental and physical health.

 

If scientists who support post materialism are going to make any headway they will have to start sharpening their arguments rather than resorting to logical fallacies. (Sorry, had to put that in there, ego and all  )

 

Anyhoo that's my thoughts for the moment.

[pantheory]

Yes, post-materialist science already exists in the humanities such as psychology and sociology. Yes, some physical science interpretations  have involved  post-materialism approaches but material science does not mix well with post-materialism in that the scientific method can be altered, then the question becomes is this really science? The strange interpretations of quantum theory come to mind, a number of which are misinterpretations of reality in my opinion.

This does not mean that looking outside the box using post-materialism should never be considered, but I think this approach is limited concerning what new insights might come about by its use.

 

 

 

[florduh]

The anti science movement is alive and well!!!!

 

Was it the shamans, witch doctors and people who claim to talk to the "other side" who stopped polio and smallpox, got us to the moon, created the Internet and discovered how to transplant organs? Well, was it?

 

What has magical thinking accomplished? 

[MOHO]

23 minutes ago, florduh said:

What has magical thinking accomplished? 

That we can open the country back up at the end of April.

[Guest freedwoman]

3 hours ago, florduh said:

The anti science movement is alive and well!!!!

 

Was it the shamans, witch doctors and people who claim to talk to the "other side" who stopped polio and smallpox, got us to the moon, created the Internet and discovered how to transplant organs? Well, was it?

 

What has magical thinking accomplished? 

Exactly. The scientific method must always be applied.

[LogicalFallacy]

If consciousness is non local how does this differ from the concept of a soul? Both are said to exist absent matter.

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, florduh said:

The anti science movement is alive and well!!!!

 

Was it the shamans, witch doctors and people who claim to talk to the "other side" who stopped polio and smallpox, got us to the moon, created the Internet and discovered how to transplant organs? Well, was it?

 

What has magical thinking accomplished? 

 

Magical thinking worked out pretty good for J.K. Rowling.

 

But I suppose since this thread is in the science vs religion subforum, I have to find some 'utility' for magical thinking. How about using magic as a form of self hypnosis? Hypnosis is legitimate therapy. 

 

Are shamans and witch doctors supposed to be astrophysicists and computer network engineers as well as healers? Did medical doctors get us to the moon and create the internet? Sounds like hyperbole to me. 

 

Science is great btw; I use it all the time. I use magic too. 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

There was an experiment where a person apparently was able, by 'wish' thinking, to alter the number of left clicks vs right clicks on a cassette tape... that was locked in a cupboard while they listened to another tape.

 

So if you can do that sort of thing, couldn't you say... alter the lotto to be your numbers? Both are using thought to alter a physical outcome in another location.

[florduh]

7 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Hypnosis is legitimate therapy.

Of course, and no magic involved! Obviously there some "spooky things" that can be demonstrated and repeated.

 

10 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Are shamans and witch doctors supposed to be astrophysicists and computer network engineers as well as healers? Did medical doctors get us to the moon and create the internet? Sounds like hyperbole to me.

Medical science actually did do a lot to get us to the moon, but the main takeaway should be that the magical folk healers, doing their thing for millennia, never eradicated a disease, transplanted a vital organ or anything more than what our current "faith healers" accomplish with psychology and placebo effect.

[midniterider]

4 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

If consciousness is non local how does this differ from the concept of a soul? Both are said to exist absent matter.

 

It looks like they could be one and the same, depending on your definition of each. Where is consciousness located, anyway? 

[LogicalFallacy]

4 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

It looks like they could be one and the same, depending on your definition of each. Where is consciousness located, anyway? 

 

Well our current understanding would be it resides in the brain, and if you alter the physical nature of the brain (say injury or surgery) you alter the consciousness. 

 

So for clarification when I say "exists absent matter" I'm referring to the concept that consciousness and or soul came first, then matter, which of course could mean our consciousness and or soul existed prior our bodies and will exist after we die.

 

I'm quite happy with the idea that consciousness is not physical in itself... we know thoughts are not physical. But currently our understanding is that it's the physical processes that give rise to these thoughts. Take away the physical medium (I.e. the brain) and thoughts cease.

 

(However it's been demonstrated that for many people thoughts seem to cease even when fully awake with a working brain... I think we call it stupidity  )  

[disillusioned]

My 2 cents:

 

Science is inherently materialistic. It specifically concerns, and is concerned with, those features of the natural world which we can measure, interact with, predict, etcetera. That is to say, those features which are material. There can be no "non-materialist" or "post-materialist" science, because science is an explicitly materialistic approach to attampting to understand the natural world. It's a simple contradiction in terms.

 

Now. That is not to say at all that we can't have non-materialist approaches to knowledge. Science is a human endeavour, and I personally don't think that it necessarily tells the whole story. But whatever else may be introduced to fill the void that science does not address is not science. It's something else. And we should probably try to get to a place where we're ok with that.

 

Not being science doesn't make something unvaluable. It just makes it not science.

[DanForsman]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

But currently our understanding is that it's the physical processes that give rise to these thoughts. Take away the physical medium (I.e. the brain) and thoughts cease.

Not only this but also it has been demonstrated that injuries to particular parts of the brain alter thinking in very particular ways giving more weight to the idea that consciousness is tied to the functioning of the physical brain.

[LogicalFallacy]

12 minutes ago, DanForsman said:

Not only this but also it has been demonstrated that injuries to particular parts of the brain alter thinking in very particular ways giving more weight to the idea that consciousness is tied to the functioning of the physical brain.

 

Yes, there was a surgery where one guy had the two sides of his brain separated. One side effect was that it gave him two distinct personalities - one was an atheist, the other was a theist. 

[midniterider]

 

1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

 

Now. That is not to say at all that we can't have non-materialist approaches to knowledge.

.

I agree. 

 

Science is a human endeavour, and I personally don't think that it necessarily tells the whole story.

.

I'm good with that. 

 

But whatever else may be introduced to fill the void that science does not address is not science. It's something else. And we should probably try to get to a place where we're ok with that.

.

I agree

 

Not being science doesn't make something unvaluable. It just makes it not science.

.

I agree.

 

[DanForsman]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, there was a surgery where one guy had the two sides of his brain separated. One side effect was that it gave him two distinct personalities - one was an atheist, the other was a theist. 

Fascinating. And thinking of a single consciousness that is entirely independent of the brain separating into two consciousnesses in response to it's temporary brain residence being halved adds a layer of complexity to this scenario that is superfluous. Similarly with Alzheimer's and dementia in general the functioning of the brain slowly shuts down in accordance to the spreading deterioration of the brain tissues. You could argue that the detached consciousness was still thinking with perfect clarity while the brain slowly became too damaged to transmit its clear thoughts but again this adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of what we are observing and is therefore totally unnecessary. Occam's razor continues to be an essential element of unbiased reasoning. Where is the instance of the consciousness being totally independent of the brain being actually necessary to explain observed brain functions? 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, florduh said:

Of course, and no magic involved! Obviously there some "spooky things" that can be demonstrated and repeated.

.

No matter what the explanation for how hypnosis works, it and magic and prayer all seem to follow a similar procedure.

 

1. Enter into an altered state of consciousness.

2. Make a request to change something in your life. 

.

If successful:

Sciencey people will say hypnosis did it, something about the brain and chemical responses, etc etc. 

Religious people will say their god did it. 

Witchy people will claim it as magic.

.

 

 

Medical science actually did do a lot to get us to the moon, but the main takeaway should be that the magical folk healers, doing their thing for millennia, never eradicated a disease, transplanted a vital organ or anything more than what our current "faith healers" accomplish with psychology and placebo effect.

.

Hypnosis, and psychotherapy never eradicated a disease nor transplanted an organ , yet we find them useful within a certain context. I dont think we should replace doctors with shamans or faith healers, but some people find them useful, maybe for their psychological or placebo effect. 

 

Well, gotta go for now. Time for my meds. My cardiologist has me taking some old Sumerian shamanic remedy from 3500 B.C. made from willow bark. Sounds like bullshit to me, but he's the doctor.

 

[florduh]

32 minutes ago, midniterider said:

My cardiologist has me taking some old Sumerian shamanic remedy from 3500 B.C. made from willow bark.

Nope, sorry. Many proven remedies come from natural sources. The difference is now we can know the dosages for the isolated active ingredient and can test for side effects. Not quite the same as shaking rattles, chanting or sacrificing a chicken, but clearly some of the old stuff has been proven to be effective. Some.

[TruthSeeker0]

12 hours ago, florduh said:

The anti science movement is alive and well!!!!

 

Was it the shamans, witch doctors and people who claim to talk to the "other side" who stopped polio and smallpox, got us to the moon, created the Internet and discovered how to transplant organs? Well, was it?

 

What has magical thinking accomplished? 

It's our entertainment, and we watch it every day. 

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, florduh said:

Nope, sorry. Many proven remedies come from natural sources. The difference is now we can know the dosages for the isolated active ingredient and can test for side effects. Not quite the same as shaking rattles, chanting or sacrificing a chicken, but clearly some of the old stuff has been proven to be effective. Some.

 

Gota agree here. While many 'natural remedies' are complete horseshit, many others are actually effective and have scientific backing. Read up on Kyolic Garlic - It's been used for a long time and shown to be great for heart health.

 

The aloe vera plant is an awesome natural resource that helps many skin ailments.

 

@midniterider If you doctor had danced a jig, muttered some words then told you its made the pills more powerful then I'd call bullshit.

 

On hypnosis - no arguments about it. While there are charlatans in the field, it is actually a well observed and explained phenomena. The practitioners knows how it works, and can even predict people it will work on and won't work on after doing a few tests.

 

Magic on the other hand is if it happens, its magic cause I made a spell, and if I didn't well my spell didn't work. Sounds a bit like prayer?

 

If someone could run some tests with magic that you can predict in advance what should happen, and you get a result that shows with high confidence that its not random occurrence, and you can explain the mechanism that's causing this then they'd be on to something. Also they'd be doing science as well. Also that would be awesome if magic was actually a thing... well maybe. If it can be used for good then it can be used for bad as well... which means curses could actually be a thing.

[midniterider]

9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

@midniterider If you doctor had danced a jig, muttered some words then told you its made the pills more powerful then I'd call bullshit.

 

I think my point with the willow bark is that the original people of medicine around 3500 BC were not board certified pharmacologists from Harvard Medical School. They WERE the rattle shaking witchdoctors and shamans that looked to the earth and found helpful stuff there. Yes some of their practice was superstition , but they also discovered herbal remedies , which over time as medicine evolved, became a more refined medicine that we still use today.

 

So yes, the religious, superstitious, witches of old provided something useful to modern medicine of the 21st century.  

 

Modern medicine has of course surpassed witchdoctoring and no, my primary care physician doesnt use a rattle. He's a licensed MD.  My gastroenterologist does read entrails, however.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

I'm trying to link a Joseph Campbell video: 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 4/22/2020 at 5:32 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

If consciousness is non local how does this differ from the concept of a soul? Both are said to exist absent matter.

 

The video explains that somewhat as a short clip going in that direction from a larger lecture series. 

 

The idea from eastern philosophy is that a transcendent energy consciousness (Brahman) operates within the immanent universe of time and space via biological life and brain function, basically. The conscious experience of time and space is channeled through a brain and central nervous system, where thought activity is present. Beyond, or transcendent of thought activity, is Brahman. And in this context a soul couldn't very well be anything more than another metaphor for this transcendent energy consciousness of eternal magnitude, 'outside' (transcendent) of time and space. 

 

Material and the material universe proceeds as a manifestation of transcendent energy consciousness. It IS the sub atomic particles coming into being, according this thinking. Particles come and go. In and out of existence. To and from this transcendent energy realm. That's one way it's been explained. 

 

So the distinction or dichotomy between material and non-material breaks down at that level of consideration. It's all just the transcendent energy consciousness, material, non-material or otherwise.

 

Of course it's up to proving with evidence somehow if this is really the case. The burden of proof. And the evidence that I've seen on the table comes in the form of the hard problem of consciousness, for one. "Psi" testing and experiments is another. It's not entirely absent of an evidence based approach. It's just that the evidence isn't certainty based. I've been looking at this content closely for the past couple of years along with midnight, because I find it interesting. Reading about the experiments. 

 

I'm obviously undecided and constantly looking for more answers. As an agnostic atheist. I don't know, and I don't believe anything with certainty that I don't completely know or understand. But there's enough going on with this issue for me to remain agnostic about it. I suppose that I could be swayed to a gnostic position on transcendent energy consciousness if the right evidence presented itself. It's more circumstantial evidence based from what I've been seeing. Nothing absolute for sure. 

 

In the event that any of this is literal and true, well, there's a glaring conclusion. 

 

Whatever that transcendent energy consciousness could be, we are 'that' by sheer default. 

 

It's written explicitly in sanskrit, "tat tvam asi!" 

 

And it's the most logical conclusion based on the eastern philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. 

[florduh]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

It's written explicitly in sanskrit, "tat tvam asi!" 

Certainly a more palatable view to most ex-Christians, and perhaps even more logical. To me it's even a better explanation of reality than we get from Abrahamic religion. Still, that ole debbil evidence.......