A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

  • Thread starter Thread starter Interesting Ian
  • Start date Start date
Checker-board illusion etc.

Hi Ian,

Thanks for explaining the checker-board illusion to me. (I also thank Billy Joe for bringing it up.)

I see that on the other thread you've lnked you mention one of the best known idealists on the internet, Peter B. Lloyd. Do you think that there is a close relation between say Berkeley's views on the nature of perception and this topic? And if so, how do they relate?

By the way, thanks for your clarification of the type of subjective idealism you endorse.

Best wishes,

Titus
 
Re: Personal and biological evolution

Titus Rivas said:
- Then, there is no reason to limit the notion of reincarnation to human beings. It's one of the prejudices we inherited from Christian theology that human souls would be the only immortal type of souls. In other words, it is to be expected that (other) animals may become humans.

Just in case it is not very obvious, I of course agree with this. I wouldn't bother mentioning it, but in the past, a lot of people on this board have assumed that I don't believe animals have souls! :eek: That is of course ridiculous. We are just animals, and we are very similar to other mammals, so how could it possibly be justified that only human beings have souls? :confused:
 
BillyJoe said:
Mercutio, Ceptimus and Dymanic,

You all understand Ian's interpretation of the Checkerboard illusion but do you actually agree with it?
And does he understand it from your point of view?

BillyJoe.

BTW, with all this talk of god, afterlife and reincarnation, are we still in the science forum? :D

There is colorE and colorM. That is to say there is color as actually experienced and there is color as measured. I am saying that colorE is actually literally constitutive of the external world. It seems that other people are saying that colorM is literally constitutive of the external world and that colorE is simply the minds interpretation of colorM. I think on the other hand that colorM (and all other measureable things) are just tools we employ in order to discern underlying order in the patterns exhibited by our qualia.


As I've said before. It is not the task of science to explain the experiencer (the self or consciousness) which experiences, nor the ontological character of the experiences themselves, but rather the patterns exhibited by the sub-branch of experiences represented by our sensory experiences. This is acheived by building mental representational models patterning and ordering these experiences (or qualia).
 
Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

Interesting Ian said:


Just in case it is not very obvious, I of course agree with this. I wouldn't bother mentioning it, but in the past, a lot of people on this board have assumed that I don't believe animals have souls! :eek: That is of course ridiculous. We are just animals, and we are very similar to other mammals, so how could it possibly be justified that only human beings have souls? :confused:
But this leaves you wide open to the 'slippery slope' argument I used before.

Do fish have souls? Do worms? What about bacteria? Viruses? DNA? Amino Acids?

No matter where you draw the line between those creatures with souls and those without, you have a problem. There will be two almost identical creatures on either side of the line, one with a soul and one without.

To me, this is a much more damming paradox than the the one you have expounded, and it refutes your immaterialism. The only way out of the paradox I can see is to allow everything, including rocks, grains of sand, molecules of water and so on to possess souls, and that seems ridiculous.

I'll be interested in your thoughts on this. I think it deserves more than an, 'I don't know', brush off.
 
Ian,

Okay, we understand each other but disagree.

When you cover the picture depicting the checkerboard with a sheet of paper and cut out holes over the two squares in question, they are suddenly experienced as the same shade of grey. Remove the paper and they are experienced as different shades of grey. Replace the paper and they are the same again.

Does this pose a problem for your view that colorE is actually literally constitutive of the external world?

BillyJoe.
 
Re: Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

ceptimus said:
But this leaves you wide open to the 'slippery slope' argument I used before.

Do fish have souls? Do worms? What about bacteria? Viruses? DNA? Amino Acids?

No matter where you draw the line between those creatures with souls and those without, you have a problem. There will be two almost identical creatures on either side of the line, one with a soul and one without.

To me, this is a much more damming paradox than the the one you have expounded, and it refutes your immaterialism. The only way out of the paradox I can see is to allow everything, including rocks, grains of sand, molecules of water and so on to possess souls, and that seems ridiculous.

I'll be interested in your thoughts on this. I think it deserves more than an, 'I don't know', brush off.

We draw the line at the point where a creature is conscious.
 
BillyJoe said:
Ian,

Okay, we understand each other but disagree.

When you cover the picture depicting the checkerboard with a sheet of paper and cut out holes over the two squares in question, they are suddenly experienced as the same shade of grey. Remove the paper and they are experienced as different shades of grey. Replace the paper and they are the same again.

Does this pose a problem for your view that colorE is actually literally constitutive of the external world?

BillyJoe.

No :)
 
Interesting Ian said:
Originally posted by BillyJoe
Ian,

Okay, we understand each other but disagree.

When you cover the picture depicting the checkerboard with a sheet of paper and cut out holes over the two squares in question, they are suddenly experienced as the same shade of grey. Remove the paper and they are experienced as different shades of grey. Replace the paper and they are the same again.

Does this pose a problem for your view that colorE is actually literally constitutive of the external world?

BillyJoe.

II

No :) [/B]


Just to elaborate. You're still thinking in terms or a reality existing in abstraction from our perceptions of it. I don't hold there is an immutable reality which our sense perceptions reflect.

When I say that an object is a certain color I simply mean that under ideal light, and for those with unimpaired vision, people will have a similar phenomenological experience, and this is what is meant by saying an object has a certain color. This does not mean to say that we couldn't carry out certain operations so that we perceive it as a different color. But it's a question of convenience. We say an object is a certain color under certain ideal conditions. And this is what reality is. But remember reality is partially a construct of our minds.
 
Re: Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

ceptimus said:

Do fish have souls? Do worms? What about bacteria? Viruses? DNA? Amino Acids?

No matter where you draw the line between those creatures with souls and those without, you have a problem. There will be two almost identical creatures on either side of the line, one with a soul and one without.

To me, this is a much more damming paradox than the the one you have expounded, and it refutes your immaterialism. The only way out of the paradox I can see is to allow everything, including rocks, grains of sand, molecules of water and so on to possess souls, and that seems ridiculous.


Considering this question -- although I'd say "will" rather than "soul" -- the increasing complexity of life & increasing sentience (culminating in HPC), "if it effects/affects the physical, it is also physical", and my acceptance that what I characterize as "free will" is just that, Idealism is my best answer.

Does the Higgs Field -- or at least "what-is" -- not possess "will"?
I say yes.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

Interesting Ian said:


We draw the line at the point where a creature is conscious.
Exactly. So you have a paradox on your hands. A real one this time.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

ceptimus said:
We draw the line at the point where a creature is conscious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. So you have a paradox on your hands. A real one this time.

A paradox? How so?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

Interesting Ian said:


A paradox? How so?
I suppose I ought to follow your example, and tease everyone for a few days before I post it. But I won't do that. :)

When I said a 'real' one, I didn't mean to disparage your paradox, but this one doesn't need any hypothetical duplicator machine, which might be logically impossible to construct. Everything we need already exists in the world today. Of course, it probably won't seem paradoxical to you anyway, but I bet it will to some people. We'll see.

It would be helpful if you told us your opinion on which is the simplest creature that might be conscious. I don't know whether you consider that to be a mouse, or a lizard, maybe a fly. Unless and until you do tell us, I will pick a hypothetical creature called a boozum.

Now there are two possibilities:

1. All boozums are conscious.
2. Only some boozums are conscious.

Maybe the consciousness comes and goes, depending on whether the creature is asleep, less than a certain age or physically unwell? Again I don't know what you think. Why not tell us?

I'll leave it at that till I see your response.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

ceptimus said:
Now there are two possibilities:

1. All boozums are conscious.
2. Only some boozums are conscious.

Maybe the consciousness comes and goes, depending on whether the creature is asleep, less than a certain age or physically unwell? Again I don't know what you think. Why not tell us?
Hmmm...just as an aside...if I am not mistaken, the paradox does not occur here with my definition of consciousness...:p
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

Mercutio said:
Hmmm...just as an aside...if I am not mistaken, the paradox does not occur here with my definition of consciousness...:p
You are right. Your problem will be with Science's "emergent property=god-o-the-gaps" sentience/will/life or whatever you would like to call it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

hammegk said:

You are right. Your problem will be with Science's "emergent property=god-o-the-gaps" sentience/will/life or whatever you would like to call it.
I actually don't call it anything. There are more than enough labels on this thread without me adding any.
 
Titus Rivas said:
Adam,

You asked how we know that veridical memories of previous lives are really one's own memories. Well, we don't absolutely know that, but it's a matter of parsimony to prefer the reincarnation hypothesis to other possibilities such as daemoniacal possession or the Swedenborgian hypothesis of subconscious influences from discarnate souls. If we are talking about young children ESP can be ruled out, as it doesn't explain paranormal birthmarks, skills and the emotional identification with the previous lives. See this paper of mine about theory in reincarnation research.
Well, I'm glad to see your decisions are inclined by evidence as an answer :)

But I was talking more about claims made (or assumed) about what's going on in the 'other realm' between incarnations. I can see how evidence from this realm could point towards certain situations in the 'other realm' as being possible (or reasonable, or maybe you would prefer 'likely' ;))

But still there can be no real evidence unless there are people who remember this realm. As an aside, are there people who claim to have memories of 'non-incarnation'?
Then, you mention the brahman hypothesis )or noetic monism) of one (divine) soul living in all animated bodies at the same time.

My main problem with this theory is that it seems to be incoherent.
Well, it can, of course, only 'seem' to be incoherent, since you have absolutely no evidence of the 'other realm'.
If an experient is said to experience certain subjective experiences (say your subjective experiences) but not the experiences of another experient (say mine), how can the first experient really be identical to the second?
It is only within this realm that we seem to experience from different selves. All you can really say is that there is an experient. Since everything you use to distinguish yourself is evidence from this 'realm', I can't except it as evidence that during 'non-incarnation' there is more than one self. At best it is your opinion that the evidence of this realm points to that direction. I would disagree with that :)

For instance picture the physical world like a big carpet with tiny pin holes, underneath this carpet is pure 'Self' and it pokes up into the physical realm through all those little holes, experiencing from different perspectives in this world. (analogy was shamelessly and poorly stolen from Schopenhauer)

My point isn't that this is the case. Only that I don't really see how you choose to differentiate from basically countless possibilities one could imagine.

Adam
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal and biological evolution

ceptimus said:
I suppose I ought to follow your example, and tease everyone for a few days before I post it. But I won't do that. :)

When I said a 'real' one, I didn't mean to disparage your paradox, but this one doesn't need any hypothetical duplicator machine, which might be logically impossible to construct.

No not logically impossible. A very near perfect physical duplicator should even be perfectly physically possible, nevermind logically possible. I look forward to the day when they are invented. Of course it will not occur until one of my future lives.

Everything we need already exists in the world today. Of course, it probably won't seem paradoxical to you anyway, but I bet it will to some people. We'll see.

yeah

It would be helpful if you told us your opinion on which is the simplest creature that might be conscious. I don't know whether you consider that to be a mouse, or a lizard, maybe a fly.

I don't know, for a kick off I would need to be familiar with the behaviour of the possible candidates for consciousness. Do you think insects aren't conscious?

Unless and until you do tell us, I will pick a hypothetical creature called a boozum.

Now there are two possibilities:

1. All boozums are conscious.
2. Only some boozums are conscious.

Maybe the consciousness comes and goes, depending on whether the creature is asleep, less than a certain age or physically unwell? Again I don't know what you think. Why not tell us?

I'll leave it at that till I see your response. [/B]

One would suppose option one.
 
Prebirth memories

Adam said:

But still there can be no real evidence unless there are people who remember this realm. As an aside, are there people who claim to have memories of 'non-incarnation'?
Yes, there are. One of the websites that seriously deals with this issue is called Spiritual Pre-existence, an initiative of Michael and Toni Maguire. I'm a contributor to this site, as I try to collect such accounts. One of my own subjects in a reincarnation case, a boy usually called Kees (pseudonym) was about 4 when he claimed to recall having been shot as a soldier. Later on, he also told his mother about his claimed memories of a spiritual pre-existence.
He clearly felt reluctant to talk about them. He told his mother that when you die, an angel comes to take you to God, who was pure “goodness”, the “Big Light” and “humour”. It was very difficult to describe the other world. It did not fit on any slide and could not be drawn with crayons.
He added that he had had his own spot near a beautiful blue waterfall, which streamed over and under a flower-bed, and there were wonderful fruits hanging from the trees nearby, which tasted better than all the mars bars and candy of the world taken together.
Kees had not felt like reincarnating and resisted the angels who tried to convince him it would be for his own good. They practically pushed him –though they did so lovingly- back to earth, as it was time for him to get to work again. The angels told him: “You know, when you go to earth, you will be accompanied by assistants”. He would be protected after he returned. The “Big Light” told him: “To make a good life is your own responsibility.”
I've included this case in a Dutch book about reincarnation research.
A more recent Dutch case is that of Mrs. H. van Sleeuwen. She claims that as a girl of about 7 she would have told her mother that she recalled how she dwelled in another world before she was born into this one. She was shown a young woman of about eighteen with a brown coat with large bottons, glasses and long hair. Something of a guide repeatedly asked Mrs. van Sleeuwen if she really wanted to go to this woman (presumably to be born with her).

Her mother would have told her (afterwards!)that this was what she usually looked like before she got pregnant. Her mother would have been surprised by the description and thought that her daughter could not have known what she used to look like. Unfortunately, when I discovered the case, the mother had died several years before so that she could not confirm this story herself. By the way, there are no conscious memories of a previous life in this case.

In another case in the Netherlands I studied first hand, that of Christina (pseudonym), the girl in question told her mum (at age 3) that she had died in a fire. After she died she would have met a "woman dressed in white" who showed her several possible future parents. She chose a young lady with blond hair who was working as a typist. The woman or "angel" told her that in that case she would have to wait for some time before she could be reborn.

I managed to find a historical fire in Arnhem of 1973 which matched most of Christina's statements. Christina's mother told me that in the period in question she had indeed dyed her hair blond and had a job as a typist. Christina could not have known this when she told her mother about the dream, as she did not dye her hair anymore and worked as a housewife.
The strongest feature of this case is that the mother in question thought that her daughter's referred to a fire which took place in the sixties, when she herself would have been a young teenager. So in this scenario was no link between her age at the time of the fire and Christina's supposed vision of her in the afterlife. Christina would have seen her years after the fire. However, I found out that there was no fire with the features described by Christina in the sixties, and that the only fire which seemed to apply took place in 1973, which was a year in which her mother had dyed her hair and worked at the office of a wood company as a typist. This feature is important in two respects. Firstly, it lessens the probability that the story was really made up by Christina's mother (although there are also other reasons to think that she did not I won't mention here) and secondly, it suggests that Christina may really have seen her mother to be shortly or even immediately after the fire.

In his books, Ian Stevenson has included even stronger cases such as that of Veer Singh (in Ten Cases in India ) in which some of his statements about his activities during his spiritual pre-existence were independently corroborated by members of the previous family. Maybe the best example is that Veer Singh claimed to have spiritually accompanied members of that family whenever they went out. This corresponded to a dream of his claimed previous mother in which her son told her that he had accompanied a brother when the latter went out. These are not the only cases suggestive of real, more or less verifiable prebirth memories.

If we accept the evidence for reincarnation as valid and sound enough, there is no special reason to be particularly skeptical about possible memories of an intermission period.

Best wishes,

Titus
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom