A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

[Titus Rivas]

Obstacles

Paul said:

But why would beingness form such restricted creatures as us? Why not let us fly, see everywhere, hear everything, move mountains? Is it some sort of test of frustration and annoyance?

Here you touch on the issue of the purpose of being "incarnated" into a physical body and being limited by the laws of interaction. If we believe that being incarnated may have some purpose (in the sense of the personal evolution I just mentioned in my previous message), we have two main ways of interpreting our limitations:

- Either the limitations aren't as such part of the package needed for personal evolution, but just a natural consequence of being incarnated. In this case, science might (for example through parapsychological research) do quite a lot to overcome certain limitations by mapping the processes involved. Pretty much like what geneticists are doing in trying to overcome the genetical limits of aging. That would be the optimistic perspective.

- Or the limitations are themselves part of a learning process and it really makes sense to be limited in some respects or even to suffer physical pain, etc.

My own view is somewhere in between, in that the point in being 'here' is partially that we learn to focus on a concrete reality and develop self-consciousness and awareness of other beings that way. I do believe some obstacles (such as physical pain) are unnecessary and even counter-productive and if we don't destroy our civilization(s), we will one day learn how to leave them behind.

Titus

 

[Loki]

Titus Rivas,

As taught by many spiritual and philosophical traditions ... physical, mental and cultural evolution would primarily be tools for the gradual personal evolution of individual experients over numerous lives.

By "lives" you mean "human lives"? If we accept the evidence of physical evolution, there was a time when "humans" didn't exist. Were our consciousnesses linked to dinosaurs at some stage in the distant past? Was the "consciousness currently known as Titus" at one stage inhabiting a a slug?

Or did our consciousnesses just hang around for a few billion years waiting for physical evolution to generate suitable bodies (with suitable eyes) that would enable us to begin our "personal mental evolution"?

 

[Loki]

Titus Rivas,

My own view in somewhere in between, in that the point in being 'here' is partially that we learn to focus on a concrete reality and develop self-consciousness and awareness of other beings that way. I do believe some obstacles (such as physical pain) are unnecessary and even counter-productive and if we don't destroy our civilization(s), we will one day learn how to leave them behind.

Unless, of course, the whole point of being 'here' *is* to destroy civilisation. Do you have any reason to ignore the possibility that the "point" of this reality is to bred a better strain of "combat-consciousness", and that you are in fact nothing more than a suitable "target consciousness" for the trainees to aim at?

 

[Titus Rivas]

Seeing and clairvoyance

Loki said:

But why would it be even remotely similar? Why would it be "vision" at all, since "vision" (in humans) is entirely determined by eye limitations?

It can be termed vision if we focus on the qualia-side instead of the physiology. My view is based on the idea of irreducible, qualitative perceptual modalities which may show up under different physical circumstances and even in a non-physical world.

The visual spectrum of wavelengths is determined by the physical mechanism of the eye. Freed of the limitations of the eye, why wouldn't you "see" all wavelengths when looking around the operating theatre?

A plausible answer may be that we subconsciously adapt our vision somewhat to what we are used to perceive in an incarnated condition. However, people with NDEs (and even certain psychics) do in fact report some differences as well.

As Ian says, why would you even have a "direction" of vision? We see whichever way our eyes are facing - we can't see behind us without turning around. Freed from the limitations of a physical eye, why aren't NDEs "360 degree" vision? Why aren't they "fisheye lens" like? Panaramic vision?

A matter of habit I suppose.

We use two eyes to create 3D "depth" in our vision. Freed from the limitations of eyes, why aren't NDEs "distanceless" 2D views?

Idem. We may assume that at first non-sensory seeing adapts to what a person is used to during his physical life, only widening its scope after the person is ready for it. So it might be some subconscious adjustment to at least part of the usual limitations.

If our consciousnesses can perceive reality in this way without this mechanism, then why have it in the first place? Why aren't all humans eyeless?

As you know, there are some people who claim they can 'see' without using their eyes, particurally in 'remote viewing' experiments. However, I think that we learn to use our physical eyes as part of our incarnated state with its concrete three-dimensional environment. In many of us this leads to a (subconsciously created) disability with regard to our original clairvoyant powers. It may be part of parapsychology's future applications that we can overcome part of these limitations.

Just like some of his colleagues abroad, the Dutch parapsychologist Paul Dietz saw normal vision as a limited type of clairvoyance.

Best wishes,

Titus



__________________

 

[Titus Rivas]

Animal consciousness

Loki asked:

By "lives" you mean "human lives"?

No, I meant physical lives suitable for personal evolution. Which means any animal life in which there is an experient.

If we accept the evidence of physical evolution, there was a time when "humans" didn't exist.

Indeed, and I accept that evidence.

Were our consciousnesses linked to dinosaurs at some stage in the distant past?

Who knows, I certainly don't exclude that possibility.

Was the "consciousness currently known as Titus" at one stage inhabiting a a slug?

As long as we accept that a slug is a subjective being, the idea is not at all absurd.

Titus

 

[Titus Rivas]

Independence Day

Unless, of course, the whole point of being 'here' *is* to destroy civilisation. Do you have any reason to ignore the possibility that the "point" of this reality is to bred a better strain of "combat-consciousness", and that you are in fact nothing more than a suitable "target consciousness" for the trainees to aim at?

That's a funny scenario , Loki though hardly attractive if I may be so blunt. I think there's no evidence for this possibility. Not even if we accept the seemingly improbable accounts of so called abductees (in ufology), as these talk about (ab)using our civilization for alien purposes, not destroying it altogether. Have you seen "Independence Day" by the way?

Or were you thinking of a satanic scenario in which we would be the puppits of an Evil God (something like the Rex Mundi of Catharism) who simply loves to see us suffer?

Titus

 

[Loki]

Titus Rivas,

That's a funny scenario...

I hope it's nothing more than funny!

... though hardly attractive if I may be so blunt.

Truth doesn't have to attractive to you personally, does it?

I think there's no evidence for this possibility

Why not? Perhaps the September 11 hijackers are currently the latest graduates of the training ground. Given a history of warfare and general distruction that seems pretty much widespread through the ages and across cultural boundaries, why assume "the purpose" of being incarnated in this physical reality is to be "peaceful"? I suppose you'll offer the NDE descriptions of "being welcomed into the light by loving relatives" as evidence for the peaceful nature of the mental realm?

 

[Titus Rivas]

Loki said:

Truth doesn't have to attractive to you personally, does it?

Of course not. Otherwise the Holocaust revisionists would be right
On the other hand, truth does not have to be unattractive all the time either. Or else paranoid schizophrenics would be right

Perhaps the September 11 hijackers are currently the latest graduates of the training ground. Given a history of warfare and general distruction that seems pretty much widespread through the ages and across cultural boundaries, why assume "the purpose" of being incarnated in this physical reality is to be "peaceful"? I suppose you'll offer the NDE descriptions of "being welcomed into the light by loving relatives" as evidence for the peaceful nature of the mental realm

I agree that mankind isn't very peaceful yet.
NDEs are usually peaceful, that's correct. Another reason is that many different individuals from very diverse cultures have concluded that peace and understanding are keys to happiness.
Such persons may well save the earth before it's too late. I admit it also partially depends on one's propensity for optimism.

Titus

 

[Loki]

Titus Rivas,

Another reason is that many different individuals from very diverse cultures have concluded that peace and understanding are keys to happiness.

And even the occasional materialist amongst them!

Such persons may well save the earth before it's too late.

If we're lucky!

I admit it also partially depends on one's propensity for optimism.

And hence the beauty of materialism - you have to *hope* that "peace=truth". I get to make it so!

 

[Titus Rivas]

No privilege of materialists

Loki:

And hence the beauty of materialism - you have to *hope* that "peace=truth". I get to make it so!

Well, I agree there probably are many (ontological, not axiological) materialists working for these goals. However, it's simply not true that it takes materialism to have an actively prosocial, engaged lifestyle. As a libertarian socialist and a non-materialist I see no inherent link. My point wasn't that we should only hope for change, but that it still depends on fate (= the course of events) if we will prevail or not. Optimism and societal involvement are excellent partners. And there is at least some reason for optimism as I said before.

Titus

 

[The One called Neo]

Titus Rivas,


By "lives" you mean "human lives"? If we accept the evidence of physical evolution, there was a time when "humans" didn't exist. Were our consciousnesses linked to dinosaurs at some stage in the distant past? Was the "consciousness currently known as Titus" at one stage inhabiting a a slug?

Or did our consciousnesses just hang around for a few billion years waiting for physical evolution to generate suitable bodies (with suitable eyes) that would enable us to begin our "personal mental evolution"?

I find it amazing that materialists expect the non-materialists to be able to supply comprehensive detailed answers to all things regarding life, the Universe and everything (witness the utterly absurd questions about ghosts for example), yet when people ask them about their materialism nothing whatsoever is forthcoming! Now I wonder why that could be.

 

[Mercutio]

I find it amazing that materialists expect the non-materialists to be able to supply comprehensive detailed answers to all things regarding life, the Universe and everything (witness the utterly absurd questions about ghosts for example), yet when people ask them about their materialism nothing whatsoever is forthcoming! Now I wonder why that could be.

Um...maybe the two views differ in terms of how much they like to make sh!t up.


just a thought...

 

[Loki]

Ian,

Now I wonder why that could be.

Mercutio summed it up quite well, but basically it's because the Universe *is* "life and everything" - there's nothing more requiring explanation.

Why would I ask you to explain more? Because *you* believe there is more.

Why do I say nothing if you ask me to explain "everything beyond the Universe"? Because there's nothing requiring further comment.

Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Loki]

Titus Rivas,

However, it's simply not true that it takes materialism to have an actively prosocial, engaged lifestyle.

Apologies if my wording caused confusion - I didn't mean to imply that materialism is a prerequisite for "an actively prosocial, engaged lifestyle". I'm sure you can be just as 'engaged' in life as I can, and even more so!

What I meant was that if I'm right about the validity of materialism, then the meaning I give my life *is* true - no "external validation" by a meta-mind required. If you're right about materialism, then you can live your life anyway you choose, but then you still have to then hope that you're right about the nature of what comes next. Perhaps the Catholics are right, and you're lack of baptism is going to count heavily against you. Perhaps the Muslims are right, and your infidel soul is doomed. Perhaps the reincarnationists are right, and you've only 23,573 more times through this life before you get a door prize. Perhaps the Satanists are right, and you're just target practise for the gun lobby.

 

[The One called Neo]

Ian,


Mercutio summed it up quite well, but basically it's because the Universe *is* "life and everything" - there's nothing more requiring explanation.

Ah! I was under the impression you subscribed to the existence of a material reality. But even if you do reject the existence of such a reality, you haven't explained why consciousness exists rather than us all being p-zombies? And given that we are conscious, why can I not literally partake in your consciousness? Why do physical laws exist? Why are they written in the language of mathematics? Why does the Universe exist rather than nothing at all? Out of the whole of eternity why do I happen to have been born at this particular time and particular place? Why do I have the personality that I have? Why isn't a rolling boulder conscious? Or a thermostat? That will be enough for now. I'll think of some more questions later.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Neo said:

Ah! I was under the impression you subscribed to the existence of a material reality. But even if you do reject the existence of such a reality, you haven't explained why consciousness exists rather than us all being p-zombies?

Same reason the wind exists: It emerges from the underlying activities.

And given that we are conscious, why can I not literally partake in your consciousness?

Because it is a property of my brain. You cannot partake in the wind, either.

Why do physical laws exist?

Don't know.

Why are they written in the language of mathematics?

Not sure. Perhaps because math can describe anything. Remember, though, not everything is well-described by math, at least not yet. That's why Wolfram is so excited.

Why does the Universe exist rather than nothing at all?

I very much doubt this is answerable by anybody. Anyway, first you have to answer "Is there a reason why something exists rather than nothing?"

Out of the whole of eternity why do I happen to have been born at this particular time and particular place?

Sheer dumb luck. Actually, the question is probably nonsensical.

Why do I have the personality that I have?

More sheer dumb luck.

Why isn't a rolling boulder conscious? Or a thermostat?

They do not possess the mechanism that gives rise to consciousness. They are not windy, either.

~~ Paul

 

[Titus Rivas]

Validation

Loki:

What I meant was that if I'm right about the validity of materialism, then the meaning I give my life *is* true - no "external validation" by a meta-mind required. If you're right about materialism, then you can live your life anyway you choose, but then you still have to then hope that you're right about the nature of what comes next.

But if reductionist materialism is right, there can be no real validation whatever. For validation in the qualitative sense you need real qualia, which are absent from the kind of reductionist materialism endorsed by some on this forum. Materialism rationally leads to nihilism (there can be no intrinsic values, all supposed values reduce to physical patterns devoid of any real value). You seem to think dualism leads to religion in the dogmatic sense of that word. Whereas I hold that dualism is a rational position which should form the basis of science and which can only lead to a rational type of spiritual world view. Reincarnation is part of that world view in my case, as there is a huge amount of evidence for it.

Titus

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by The One called Neo

I find it amazing that materialists expect the non-materialists to be able to supply comprehensive detailed answers to all things regarding life, the Universe and everything (witness the utterly absurd questions about ghosts for example)...

A latecomer to the thread might be forgiven for not slogging through every post.

The questions about ghosts were introduced as a metaphor to address a fundamental theoretical difficulty with interactive dualism, which claims that consciousness, existing independent of physical reality, is nonetheless able to interact with that reality (which is practically a definition of 'physical' itself). In Consciousness Explained, Dennett used a few frames out of a Casper The Friendly Ghost comic book to illustrate this. In one scene, Casper is able to manipulate physical objects, while in another, he passes right though them. This double standard is essentially what dualism requires; but whisking consciousness away to some wispy realm where it is safe from examination by scientists also renders it incapable of acting on matter (like a brain, for example).

Before moving on to "all things regarding life, the Universe and everything", it doesn't seem like so much to ask that non-materialists provide some answer to this one question:

How can non-physical consciousness interact with physical brain?

 

[The One called Neo]

A latecomer to the thread might be forgiven for not slogging through every post.

Ha Ha Ha! It's me Interesting Ian Just using a sock puppet.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Titus

But if reductionist materialism is right, there can be no real validation whatever.

Can't say I agree with that.

Once you reject the actor/actions dichotomy, you realize that you are what you do; you realize that consequences are immediate, irreversible, and non-negotiable. Everything you do sticks to you like glue, and you don't even have to wait till you die to see the effects; you get to live with them from that instant on -- no redos, no extra innings, nobody to appeal to.

Materialism rationally leads to nihilism (there can be no intrinsic values, all supposed values reduce to physical patterns devoid of any real value).

Physical pain might also be reduced to neural patterns, but that doesn't mean neurologists can use hotter water than anybody else to wash their dishes.