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?
Telepathy
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Telepathy
Post #41[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.
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.
Re: Telepathy
Post #42[Replying to post 40 by hoghead1]
P.S. Atoms are composite structures and therefore represent societies of actual entities. And neither these entities nor the atom are conscious. Consciousness is only one form of experience, attained only by highly complex organisms. Unconscious, purely non-sensory, affective experience is at the root of all reality. Hence, "atoms" may feel but do not feel their feelings. They are not self-aware. Indeed, the vast bulk of our experience is purely subconscious or unconscious.
P.S. Atoms are composite structures and therefore represent societies of actual entities. And neither these entities nor the atom are conscious. Consciousness is only one form of experience, attained only by highly complex organisms. Unconscious, purely non-sensory, affective experience is at the root of all reality. Hence, "atoms" may feel but do not feel their feelings. They are not self-aware. Indeed, the vast bulk of our experience is purely subconscious or unconscious.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Telepathy
Post #43[Replying to hoghead1]
Then I think my definition of "affective experience" would be the cummulative effects of the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravitational forces which are at the root of all physical reality. And I suppose atoms "feeling" would be their particpation in chemical bonds that they blindly do because of the aforementioned forces and the physics of their interactions. So I'm with you I think, with just a different set of definitions for experience and feeling(s).
Unconscious, purely non-sensory, affective experience is at the root of all reality. Hence, "atoms" may feel but do not feel their feelings.
Then I think my definition of "affective experience" would be the cummulative effects of the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravitational forces which are at the root of all physical reality. And I suppose atoms "feeling" would be their particpation in chemical bonds that they blindly do because of the aforementioned forces and the physics of their interactions. So I'm with you I think, with just a different set of definitions for experience and feeling(s).
-
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 #44Great, prove it. This is the science and religion forum, so I look forward to your empirical evidence and data.hoghead1 wrote: [Replying to post 37 by Kenisaw]
just wanted to point out there is considerable evidence that emotions are transmitted and shared. Reality is relational, like a spider web. you wiggle it here and it moves over there.
Let's get specific on this one too before we get rolling. While we can sometimes tell what others might be feeling because of their words/actions, we cannot actually feel their emotions, because such things cannot actually be transmitted outside the brain and shared with other living things.
Thanks in advance for posting your scientific proof.
Great, prove that too scientifically, here in the science and religion forum....Also, just wanted to point out that feeling is the fundamental construct in the universe. The building blocks, the atoms, are momentary unities of subjective experience. Sorry, but there is no passive, inert, dead matter.
Re: Telepathy
Post #45[Replying to post 42 by DrNoGods]
If you are considering chemical actions and reactions are essentially feeling, then yes, we are in agreement. If you acknowledge that "atoms" have a subjective dimension, then yes, we are in agreement.
If you are considering chemical actions and reactions are essentially feeling, then yes, we are in agreement. If you acknowledge that "atoms" have a subjective dimension, then yes, we are in agreement.
Re: Telepathy
Post #46[Replying to post 43 by Kenisaw]
I presented my rationale, in Post 40. So you might want to check that one out.
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 presented my rationale, in Post 40. So you might want to check that one out.
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.
Re: Telepathy
Post #47[Replying to post 36 by Joe1950]
"Regarding the man under the car . Another way to look at the situation is to ask why it took so long to give this guy help? If telepathy existed wouldn't some of his relatives or other people in the area have sensed his problem? Wouldn't he have been able to telepathically communicate with others who were in the area? He was abandoned for 4 days, that is a long time if telepathy was real. "
This particular story happened on a Canadian rather isolated coast. The nearest neighbor could not hear cries for help.
The isolated man fought to the end to stay awake and keep hopeful. His family had no idea where he was. No-one knew where he was.
"Wouldn't he have been able to telephaticaly communicate"... At the time when he was found his body was shutting down, he was asleep. It is the neighbor who unknowingly followed the promtings to change direction of walk. What, who led him to do that?
"Regarding the man under the car . Another way to look at the situation is to ask why it took so long to give this guy help? If telepathy existed wouldn't some of his relatives or other people in the area have sensed his problem? Wouldn't he have been able to telepathically communicate with others who were in the area? He was abandoned for 4 days, that is a long time if telepathy was real. "
This particular story happened on a Canadian rather isolated coast. The nearest neighbor could not hear cries for help.
The isolated man fought to the end to stay awake and keep hopeful. His family had no idea where he was. No-one knew where he was.
"Wouldn't he have been able to telephaticaly communicate"... At the time when he was found his body was shutting down, he was asleep. It is the neighbor who unknowingly followed the promtings to change direction of walk. What, who led him to do that?
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Telepathy
Post #48[Replying to hoghead1]
Sorry ... I thought it was obvious I was being a bit facetious. I believe atoms are completely devoid of any kinds of "feelings" or subjective dimension, and are simply subatomic particles (namely protons, neutrons and electrons) held together by nuclear and electromagnetic forces. These can combine to make molecules, which further combine to make macro physical structures of all types (living and nonliving), and some of those living things have achieved a very large and complex brain that is capable of symbolic thought and many other things (eg. humans). But I don't believe that consciousness is anything special or supernatural, or shared across beings, or anything of that sort. It is simply the manisfestation of neuronal activity in an individual brain and is restricted to that brain.
If you are considering chemical actions and reactions are essentially feeling, then yes, we are in agreement. If you acknowledge that "atoms" have a subjective dimension, then yes, we are in agreement.
Sorry ... I thought it was obvious I was being a bit facetious. I believe atoms are completely devoid of any kinds of "feelings" or subjective dimension, and are simply subatomic particles (namely protons, neutrons and electrons) held together by nuclear and electromagnetic forces. These can combine to make molecules, which further combine to make macro physical structures of all types (living and nonliving), and some of those living things have achieved a very large and complex brain that is capable of symbolic thought and many other things (eg. humans). But I don't believe that consciousness is anything special or supernatural, or shared across beings, or anything of that sort. It is simply the manisfestation of neuronal activity in an individual brain and is restricted to that brain.
Re: Telepathy
Post #49[Replying to post 47 by DrNoGods]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Then we are in complete disagreement. Also, note that my position requests the notion that all experience is conscious experience. Only highly complex organisms are conscious. Simple ones, atoms, are unconscious, have feelings, but do not feel their feelings.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Then we are in complete disagreement. Also, note that my position requests the notion that all experience is conscious experience. Only highly complex organisms are conscious. Simple ones, atoms, are unconscious, have feelings, but do not feel their feelings.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Telepathy
Post #50[Replying to post 48 by hoghead1]
Yes ... I think we completely disagree. I could never get my head around the idea that atoms have feelings (whether or not they can feel them) any more than that my lawn mower (which is made of atoms) has feelings.
On the consciousness issue, I assume you would agree that a reasonably advanced brain is a prerequisite for consciousness, correct? You said "complex organisms", but there are complex organisms (eg. bacteria, plants, etc.) that do not have brains. And there are "lower" animals like lobsters and snails that don't have what could be called a developed brain, but more like a bundle of nerves called a ganglion. Where would they fall on the "experience" scale?
My view is that consciousness is nothing more than a manisfestation of normal neuronal activity in a brain that is developed enough to contain the necessary interacting functional regions for doing things like processing sensory inputs (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell), forming memories, processing language, and piecing together all of this information to create awareness, carry out symbolic thought, and in general produce a thinking and conscious being. Since consciousness has only been observed to exist in organisms with sufficiently complex brains, I would conclude that it is purely a manisfestation of brain activity in such a being and nothing more, not anything special or magical, and certainly not anything supernatural like some shared force in the universe as has been suggested on this forum many times. I just can't understand that point of view.
Simple ones, atoms, are unconscious, have feelings, but do not feel their feelings.
Yes ... I think we completely disagree. I could never get my head around the idea that atoms have feelings (whether or not they can feel them) any more than that my lawn mower (which is made of atoms) has feelings.
On the consciousness issue, I assume you would agree that a reasonably advanced brain is a prerequisite for consciousness, correct? You said "complex organisms", but there are complex organisms (eg. bacteria, plants, etc.) that do not have brains. And there are "lower" animals like lobsters and snails that don't have what could be called a developed brain, but more like a bundle of nerves called a ganglion. Where would they fall on the "experience" scale?
My view is that consciousness is nothing more than a manisfestation of normal neuronal activity in a brain that is developed enough to contain the necessary interacting functional regions for doing things like processing sensory inputs (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell), forming memories, processing language, and piecing together all of this information to create awareness, carry out symbolic thought, and in general produce a thinking and conscious being. Since consciousness has only been observed to exist in organisms with sufficiently complex brains, I would conclude that it is purely a manisfestation of brain activity in such a being and nothing more, not anything special or magical, and certainly not anything supernatural like some shared force in the universe as has been suggested on this forum many times. I just can't understand that point of view.
