Telepathy

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Telepathy

Post #1

Post by Willum »

I am re-reading the Foundation Series and a thought has popped into my mind:

Assuming we could read each others minds - how would humanity change?

Would the impossibility of hiding secrets improve or malign people or the planet?

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Telepathy

Post #51

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 49 by DrNoGods]

Yes, I would agree with on consciousness, as I said in my previous post.
I don't know if you have read any of earlier posts on psychic, where I presented a rationale.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Telepathy

Post #52

Post by Kenisaw »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 39 by DrNoGods]

Yes, I can. Panpsychism is a very ancient, and well-respected philosophy. More 5than one distinguished philosopher was a panpsychist. Leibniz, the father of integral calculus, was also a panpsychist.

I am a process theologian. Alfred Noh Whitehead, (1861-1947) is one of the granddaddies of process. That is where I first encountered pansychism. Whitehead felt that the separation of mind and body or mind and matter, very characteristic of many philosophers, particularly Descartes, could not no coherent account of how the two interacted, as mind and matter were viewed as two wholly separate, independent, conflicting worlds. Now, I don't know if you have read Descartes on the mind-matter dualism, but he cannot account for how the two interact. Hence, his followers argued for psychophysical parallelism. Granted that mind cannot influence the body or any form of matter, our minds are programmed by God to go with our bodies. If you pull a gun, it may seem to you that your mind ordered your body to do so. But it did not can could not. It was just hat God had programmed you to have sensations that parallel the actions of your both.

Whitehead's solution was that mind and matter are one reality, not two separate ones. Hence, he introduced his concept of the actual entity, the basic building blocks of reality, which are momentary unities of subjective experience. Even atoms have tiny minds.

And there are additional arguments as well that I can supply. I did so in previous posts, but you may have missed them. One is that there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the organic and the inorganic, the living and the nonliving. What is the case at the top of the evolutionary scale, is generally the case at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser extent. We have been so busy extending mechanical principles up the scale, to explain things, that we have forgetter it is only fair to extend psychological ones down the scale, to explain things.

Another is that all knowing is analogous knowing. To know, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. If there is one thing we are most familiar with, it is human existence. So unless there is some analogy or genuine likeness between ourselves and the rest of reality, we haven't got an inkling what is going on. Anthropomorphism and projection are not the problem, they are the solution to knowing.

Yet another is that all can know are our own sensations. So if feeling, if subjective experience, is not present out there, then again, we can know nothing of external reality.
Since you refer to it in your reply to me in a different post, I will respond to your explanation directly.

Your explanation is a rather eclectic collection of things. For instance, I agree that there is no dividing line between the organic and the inorganic, as does science. We are made up of the same material as the rest of the universe, and in fact sometimes that material from outside is added to our physical structure. I would also agree that our mind is a product of the physical brain, and science also agrees with this. But then you also talk about gods as if they were real, despite a total lack of empirical support for such claims. I also find your claim that feeling exists outside living structures as wholly unsupported. We know about external reality due to the interaction of matter and forces between the rest of the universe and the stuff that currently makes up our structure. There is no requirement for air to have feelings in order for us to feel the force of it hitting our body...

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Telepathy

Post #53

Post by Kenisaw »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 43 by Kenisaw]

I presented my rationale, in Post 40. So you might want to check that one out.
I did, thanks.
I would add that I would add that modern science have moved way from the traditional notion of " substance," which dates back to Aristotle. In substance metaphysics, all things are essentially independent of one another. Aristotle claimed that a substance cannot be present in a subject. Also, substances are assumed to be immutable. Substances do have attributes, which change, but the reality of teh substance is largely independent of that of the attributes. Descartes, a major substance philosopher, stressed that substances require nothing to exist but God. Hence, he once argued that if you put him way out into space, he'd be exactly the same person he is now. He argued the senses are "deceivers," because if you melt a piece of wax, they tell you it has changed, whereas, as it is a substance, it definitely did not. It's still the same piece of wax. Major empiricists, such as Locke and Hume, were very critical of teh notion of substance. Hume, for example, said that the more we dig into things, especially ourselves, the more dynamic, changing, they appear to be. He scoffed at those whom he said continually say they have the same ship, no matter how many times it got damaged and repaired. Locke, felt the whole idea of a permanent, immutable substratum to all things was a confused notion.

Other major thinkers, such as Whitehead, were critical of the notion of substance, as it means we can never know anything, as all we experience are the changing attributes. Also, there is the matter of evolution and relativity. Evolution did away with the notion that the species are all substances, all independent of one another. Relativity pointed to the fact that relationships constitute the essences of things. What something is, depends on what it is related to. So Descartes and company were way wrong. If you flung poor old Descartes way out into space, no, he would not be the same person. He'd probably be dead. The piece of wax did change, is no longer the same piece.

Bottom line: Our whole basic paradigm of reality has changed, moved to understanding reality as dynamic and interrelated. Most people don't get up and worry about the planet Jupiter. What on earth does something that far away have to do with us? Yes, but science finds Jupiter may well protect us from meteors. If Jupiter weren't there, we, if we did manage to exist, would be very different. Hence, even events far away from us influence us significantly.
I agree that things don't exist wholly independently of each other, but the concept of matter is certainly still viable and useful. I don't think evolution did away with independency either. While your ancestry is connected, where a species progresses from there is not dependent on that ancestry. There was no guarantee for example that dinosaurs, which split from lizards, would go on to become birds. Birds are dependent on lizards in one direction, but lizards to birds is completely independent of that in the other direction.

It sounds from post 40 that Whitehead is almost a determinist, in that everything is related to everything, and therefore all causes and effects are predictable. The sidebar to that is that there is no free will of course. Not sure how I feel about that.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Telepathy

Post #54

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 51 by Kenisaw]

If you agree there is no-hard-and-fast dividing line, then why do you have a problem with panpsychism? The latter is a logical conclusion from the absence of any hard-and-fast dividing line. Also, what about other arguments I advanced in my post? You failed to address any of them.

I didn't present any argument for God in the post to which you are responding. That is another matter.

Regarding you comment on air, as I explained in a pervious post, causality is not a sensory event. There is no sensory experience of causality, which is why science cannot verify it. However, causality is experienced at the purely affective level. We don't see the puff of air make the eye blink, we feel it do so. Causality is not got by looking out there; it's got by looking in here. It is a purely affective event. Unless there is affect, feeling, or emotion present throughout the universe, there is no causality.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Telepathy

Post #55

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 52 by Kenisaw]

I'm not ruling out the idea of matter. I'm simply challenging the notion that mind and matter are wholly separate realities, that there is mindless matter or matterless minds, for that matter.

I agree with what you said, up to your point about Whitehead being a determinist. His process metaphysic calls for freedom. All actual entities are influenced by all others, but that isn't the whole story. Each occasion has a choice, however great or small it may be, as to how it will integrate all these influences, the feelings it empathically receives from all others. If you open up my head or anyone's head, you would see pictures of absolutely every person they met. However, we all have choices as to how we integrate and interpret all these influences, what we will become moment to moment. One of the ways such freedom is made possible is through the presentation of a new creative possibility for what the entity may become. Introducing something new, something from outside the box, something from a transcendental imagination, enables the entity to transcend the tyranny of the given, free itself from teh past. In process, this transcendent imagination is God.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Telepathy

Post #56

Post by Kenisaw »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 51 by Kenisaw]

If you agree there is no-hard-and-fast dividing line, then why do you have a problem with panpsychism? The latter is a logical conclusion from the absence of any hard-and-fast dividing line. Also, what about other arguments I advanced in my post? You failed to address any of them.
My problem with panpsychism is that there is no evidence for it. It is not a logical conclusion. For example, there are certain types of molecules that are self-replicating. One is a 32 amino acid long peptide chain that splits into two 16 amino acid segments, and both segments immediately begin trying to build back to a 32 long amino acid chain. When they do, they split again. They aren't alive in any sense of the word, but they make copies of themselves. It is a chemical property of that particular combination of those particular amino acids. There are many such replicating molecules (some also happen to be RNA ligases too by the way, which is why some people studying abiogenesis are interested in an RNA first world as opposed to a DNA first world). Do you know why gold is the color it is? It has to do with the energy levels of the electrons around the nucleus and at what level they most efficiently absorb certain wavelengths of light in relation to the Fermi level. The electrons are the same in copper and silver as they are in gold, as are the protons and neutrons. But it is that certain combination in a gold atom that makes gold look like it does to us.

My point here is that gold color is a result of the structure of a certain combination of particles, just as self-replication is a result of the structure of a certain combination of particles. That doesn't mean the electrons or protons or neutrons are gold colored anymore than they are copper colored or silver or blue. What it means is that the chemical structure is what gives rise to the properties of that structure. So there is no reason to think that hydrogen atoms have awareness or feeling anymore than we should think electrons are gold colored. But with certain structures (like our brain) the properties we associate with the mind are chemically possible. Structure matters in nature, and it allows for characteristics that don't exist otherwise.
I didn't present any argument for God in the post to which you are responding. That is another matter.
You stated "It was just that God had programmed you to have sensations". But your avoidance of the topic is duly noted.
Regarding you comment on air, as I explained in a pervious post, causality is not a sensory event. There is no sensory experience of causality, which is why science cannot verify it. However, causality is experienced at the purely affective level. We don't see the puff of air make the eye blink, we feel it do so. Causality is not got by looking out there; it's got by looking in here. It is a purely affective event. Unless there is affect, feeling, or emotion present throughout the universe, there is no causality.
If everything in the universe could feel or have emotions, perhaps you would be on to something. As there is zero evidence for that, there is no reason for me to consider your claim plausible. It is up to you to empirically show that to be true.

The scientific facts of the matter are simple. When you feel the wind, you are feeling the force in the air particles being transferred to the particles on the surface of your skin (or eye as in your example). If the molecules on your skin had fallen to the ground, those skin particles would still react to the force of the air particles. The reaction is no different. The difference is that we have structures capable of registering that force (our nervous system via touch and our hearing system via the sound the air makes pushing around your body are two of them). That system transfers date to the brain which makes it's interpretation of the input.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Telepathy

Post #57

Post by Kenisaw »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 52 by Kenisaw]

I'm not ruling out the idea of matter. I'm simply challenging the notion that mind and matter are wholly separate realities, that there is mindless matter or matterless minds, for that matter.
I agree with you. Somehow I gave you the impression that the mind is separate from the brain. That is not what I meant to do, so for the record my statement is that the mind is a result of the structure of the brain.
I agree with what you said, up to your point about Whitehead being a determinist. His process metaphysic calls for freedom. All actual entities are influenced by all others, but that isn't the whole story.
I would agree that all matter in the universe is influenced by all the other matter in the universe
Each occasion has a choice, however great or small it may be, as to how it will integrate all these influences, the feelings it empathically receives from all others.
Here is where we differ. A photon cares not whether or not its energy is absorbed by an atom of iron in a hood of a car. It has no choice in the matter, and neither does the iron atom.
If you open up my head or anyone's head, you would see pictures of absolutely every person they met.
Probably not true. Not everything is stored in the human brain that happens to the human input system. Additionally there have been plenty of studies showing how the brain changes memories over time, so that what you think is an accurate memory is not. So it is doubtful that you would see pictures of absolutely every person they ever met. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am ... hink-it-is
However, we all have choices as to how we integrate and interpret all these influences, what we will become moment to moment. One of the ways such freedom is made possible is through the presentation of a new creative possibility for what the entity may become. Introducing something new, something from outside the box, something from a transcendental imagination, enables the entity to transcend the tyranny of the given, free itself from teh past. In process, this transcendent imagination is God.
I don't think investigative psychology or neurology would agree with you here. While there are techniques that help people remember things better (and there are techniques that help people forget too), a lot of what we take in and process we have no control over. As I have already pointed out, even if we choose how to interpret or integrate something from a particular moment, the brain is likely to alter that over time anyway.

If there was any evidence at all for a "transcendental imagination" then I think I would have seen it by now. If you have some data them please share it, but otherwise the concept of gods and the supernatural has no plausible reason to be considered seriously.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Re: Telepathy

Post #58

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 55 by Kenisaw]

Yu keep saying there is no evidence of panpsychism, but have yet to address any of my specific arguments for it. For example, in a previous post, you said you agree there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the living and the nonliving. Well, that is one major argument for panpsychism. That should be obvious. Also, you have referred to causality, ignoring my point that it is an affective experience. If I asset air molecules cause this and that, then yes, I am asserting there is feeling there. Otherwise, there would be no causality.

If I look at something gold colored, that color is as definitely out there, as is the size and shape of the object. And that color has a definite feeling-tone to it. And that means there is feeling out there. Now, if you are trying to argue the gold color is just a pigment of teh imagination, then this same argument would also hold for all other features of teh object. in the end, you land in idealism, the notion that the universe exists no place else but in your imagination.

When I talked about God programming your sensations, that was in response to Berkeley and his argument as to how the universe is purely a pigment of the imagination.

I am not avoiding arguments for the existence of God. I am jus trying to stay on the OP.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Post #59

Post by Kenisaw »

hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 55 by Kenisaw]

Yu keep saying there is no evidence of panpsychism, but have yet to address any of my specific arguments for it. For example, in a previous post, you said you agree there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between the living and the nonliving. Well, that is one major argument for panpsychism.
The fact that here is no evidence for it IS an argument against it. I can't believe that even needs explaining to you. The fact that all living things are made up on non-living components does not mean all those specific components are actually alive. Do you comprehend that there is no correlation there? The fact that certain living things have a mind does not mean that each non-living component of that brain has a mind. Do you comprehend that there is no correlation there either?

The reason I explained the structural things to you in my last post was so that you could see that just because a certain structure has a particular property does NOT mean that every individual particle in that structure has that property. A gold atom doesn't mean all the protons, neutrons, and electrons are "gold". That particular combination is what creates the chemical property known as "gold".

You are fond of saying it goes in both directions, towards the larger and the smaller. Well we know that at the smallest scales going towards the largest, there are properties that arise from certain combinations and structure. It takes those specific combinations and structures for those properties to exist, and no individual component within those combinations and structures is responsible for that property.

So making the baseless claim that all matter feels, or that everything has a mind, is pure conjecture. No property of anything in the universe supports that notion. No empirical evidence in chemistry or physics supports that notion. I have been addressing your points in multiple posts for a while now...
That should be obvious. Also, you have referred to causality, ignoring my point that it is an affective experience. If I asset air molecules cause this and that, then yes, I am asserting there is feeling there. Otherwise, there would be no causality.
You've not made any point about affective (relating to moods, feelings, and attitudes) experience, you have made a baseless claim about it. My comments above relate to this as well, because there is no evidence or data showing that all particles of matter have moods or feel in the emotional sense. Emotions can happen when certain structures and systems are formed and used in tandem. This doesn't mean that each carbon atom in the nervous system and brain of an animal can experience moods or feel emotions. You have no data to support this claim, or else you would've posted it a long time ago. You are merely stating it without proper evidence.
If I look at something gold colored, that color is as definitely out there, as is the size and shape of the object.
No it's not. There are just light waves out there. What you see in your mind is the representation of the stimuli reacting with structures in your eyes and those reactions that release chemicals that are read by your occipital lobe. You can trick your brain to see different colors than the wave lengths being produced, as well as misread size and shape. If you ever get around to watching Brain Games you'd see what I am talking about...
And that color has a definite feeling-tone to it.
Baseless claim, made without supporting data or empirical evidence. You going to provide any proof, or just continue making unsubstantiated claims?
And that means there is feeling out there.
Illogical conclusion reached by accepting baseless conjecture on your part. Any data? No, I didn't think so.
Now, if you are trying to argue the gold color is just a pigment of teh imagination, then this same argument would also hold for all other features of teh object. in the end, you land in idealism, the notion that the universe exists no place else but in your imagination.
Except that others can verify what the results of my study, can collect the same data and perform their own study, and can validate the claims being made. Information about my experience can be shared, tested, and verified, and therefore considered true. Can anyone verify your claim that atoms have emotion? No. Can you provide any data that atoms have emotion? No. lack of verification of your claim means no reason to consider it true or plausible.
When I talked about God programming your sensations, that was in response to Berkeley and his argument as to how the universe is purely a pigment of the imagination.

I am not avoiding arguments for the existence of God. I am just trying to stay on the OP.
But you agree with him that there is a god being and it programmed. Let's not pretend otherwise.

hoghead1
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Post #60

Post by hoghead1 »

[Replying to post 58 by Kenisaw]

Well, as I said, it's your turn. And I can't say I was particularly impressed by your rationale. In fact, I had a hard time fining it. Instead, your post laregely wrote my off by simply saying you found no evidence. Now arguing you are right because the other guy has no evidence is not a solid argument. Plus, it is way off base. In a number of posts, I have presented you with my rationale. I didn't find one instance in your present post where you rebutted any of my position. Plus, I found a number of contradictions.

In previous posts, you said you agreed there is no hard-and-fist dividing line between the living and the nonloving. Now you appear to be arguing that there is. OK, so just where do you draw the line and why?



You said you didn't hold with Berkeley and his idealism. Now it seems you do. I find that in your claim that not only is color a pigment of the imagination but so, too, size and shape, just misperceptions of what is out there. Well, if size, shape, etc., as well as color, are just pigments of the imagination, then the universe exists no place but in our heads, which was Berkeley's point.



Your part-whole argument is way off from my original point. What I said was that what is the case at the top of teh scale is also the case at the bottom. Your yourself admitted to this in your comments on bacteria, for example. You also said that and the fact atoms are social represent purely chemical processes. Well, that is precisely my point. Chemical processes are in fact feelings. You cannot separate the two. When lovers kiss, there is a definite chemical reaction that takes place. The fact chemistry is involved simply shows that emotion is a physical process., and that ohsyical processes are also emotional.



Your part-whole argument also fails because it does not hold in all respects. Yes, in certain respects the characteristics of the wholes transcend those of the individual parts. However, that definitely does not mean the parts are a contradiction of the whole. If you add up a whole bunch of zeroes, all you get is zero. If you took deaf and blind individuals who can't play musical instruments, and tried to make an orcheertra out of them, you would fail. True, the overall sound of an orchestra, where it all blends together, is diffent from the invididual sounds players make, but you still have to have musicians playing sound. Same goes for organisms. A whole bunch of dean unfeelingmatter is not going to add up to a living, feeling organism.




You also failed to address my point on causality. it is exclusively an affective event, something we feel. So if there is no feeling out there, then there is no causality either. Your[post sadly failed to explain causality.




Your claims about color are also suspect. You seem to be claiming its just a pigment of the imagination, not out there. OK, where is your evidence? Have you or others somehow stepped out of your human experience, seen reality as it really is, and directly observed there is no color? What? Also, your argument is suspect because it largely is a reiteration of the primary-secondary-quality dichotomy, which I have already shown to be illogical.

You keep claiming that color has no feeling tone. But that overlooks my point that there is no concrete datum indifferent to feeling, no sensations without some degree of affective tone. Pale blue feels milder than faming red and just as definitely as it feels pale blue. Indeed, sensation is essentially a qualification of a more fundamental affective experience, as I explained in an earlier post. And, as I said in a previous post, all perceived qualities are qualities of feeing tone. Hence, if there is no feeling out there, then we haven't an inkling what's going on.

Post Reply