Science could be superstitious too

[lightgigantic]

You make an unsupported claim here. I've heard many tales of people recounting a "Past life" where they were a famous person. Or maybe, the rare one, where they were an unknown. Either way, they made claims that were unverified or unverifiable- so you nor I have any way of knowing if they actually knew something that they could not have known.

plenty of people have gone to great lengths to verify it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_lives#Reincarnation_research

basically you are looking at not just one or two but literally thousands of cases where people can recall detailed information that they would have no way to access. Like for instance a housewife giving detailed information about the layout of a medieval village or a 4 year old child recalling a particularly dramatic moment of an individual during WW2

What is unverified is any scientific mechanism that could enable an individual's consciousness to survive death (but then there is not a verified scientific mechanism to explain how consciousness exists in one who is alive anyway)

 

[Neverfly]

plenty of people have gone to great lengths to verify it

Attempting to verify is not the same as having verified it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_lives#Reincarnation_research

The problem with Stevenson was that he was very liberal in how he interpreted the memory given while comparing it with the verifiable facts. In other words, he was quite forgiving of error.

What is unverified is any scientific mechanism that could enable an individual's consciousness to survive death

True.

(but then there is not a verified scientific mechanism to explain how consciousness exists in one who is alive anyway)

Not quite so true. The issue here is not one of science but of semantics. Scientific methods can explain how an active brain operates well enough, but believers tend to try to sway this issue by getting metaphysical in how they define consciousness and then declaring that metaphysical state outside of the scientific method.
Again, another liberal interpretation of force fitting the facts.

 

[lightgigantic]

Attempting to verify is not the same as having verified it.

But they did
IOW it is verified that there are individuals giving detailed information well above and beyond what is given teh normal standard

The problem with Stevenson was that he was very liberal in how he interpreted the memory given while comparing it with the verifiable facts. In other words, he was quite forgiving of error.

Not significant enough to suggest there is no evidence for people recalling what appear past lives.
Plenty of others have researched too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_research

True.

Not quite so true.

completely true.

There is not even one idea that everyone agrees on, much less one mechanism that can be evidenced to work

The issue here is not one of science but of semantics. Scientific methods can explain how an active brain operates well enough, but believers tend to try to sway this issue by getting metaphysical in how they define consciousness and then declaring that metaphysical state outside of the scientific method.
Again, another liberal interpretation of force fitting the facts.

we are not talking about the brain
we are talking about consciousness
Not even everyone (by everyone I mean professionals in the field) agrees that brain is the be all and end all of all issues of consciousness

 

[wynn]

I think the problem is that the idea of something being "common sense" is applied to way too many things. So it isn't that actual rules of thumb are bad, but rather that they are far more rare than is assumed, and most of them are not actual rules of thumb, but rather rules of dumb.

There are what I call "power words" - words like rationality, logic, evidence. Throw in a few of those into your speech, and people will tend to feel intimidated and will be more inclined to agree with you. It doesn't matter what you actually said. Those power words just have such power over people's minds, they are like a drug, or something that can easily hypnotize them.

I think "the golden rule" is a power word like that too.

I would like to say there are at least 1 and must be fewer than 5 things we can actually say are universally valuable. Maybe the golden rule, and the idea of basic human subjectivity being a reality are two of them. I am thinking that those two things go together but i am not sure how yet. I have an idea that accurate consciousness requires leaving other people's basic rights for food, air, water alone, otherwise you are must assert a non-reality, such as an OBJECTIVE knowledge of God for example, in order to justify your breaking of the golden rule... or something like that - this idea has arisen in response to your (constant, haha) mention that perhaps being compassionate may not be the advantageous path. I haven't formulated it beyond that though.

If, in an effort to be compassionate toward others, you deprive yourself and are thus not compassionate to yourself - then this isn't much of a compassion you have. Or if in efforts to help others, you actually hurt them - then this isn't compassion either.
Hence the term "idiot compassion," originating in the Tibetan Buddhism tradition.
And in Western academia, a similar term - "pathological altruism." (Both are very googleable terms.)

IOW, the problem with compassion is that people often have rather imprecise, fuzzy notions of it.

 

[Neverfly]

But they did
IOW it is verified that there are individuals giving detailed information well above and beyond what is given teh normal standard

You only repeated the same claim.

Not significant enough to suggest there is no evidence for people recalling what appear past lives.

You're excusing the fallacy.

we are not talking about the brain
we are talking about consciousness

Just as I said you would do.

 

[lightgigantic]

You only repeated the same claim.

I am claiming that there are accounts of people recalling information that is beyond the purview of their current bodily status.
These claims are verified (ie professional historians etc have actually investigated the claims and shown them to be true)
I don't know what the problem is

You're excusing the fallacy.

You haven't even established it as a fallacy yet.

All you have said is that the claims of a particular researcher are inaccurate without saying what claims in particular or which aspects of his claims ... much less how these supposed inaccuracies mean all other research in the field suffers the same end.

Just as I said you would do.

This statement has nothing to do with settling the various (scientific) ideas about the role the brain plays in consciousness

 

[wynn]

I don't know what the problem is

The problem is that they don't really know why they communicate with you or what they want out of this communication with you - and you are using this ignorance of theirs against them.

Oh wait - perhaps this isn't a problem after all.

 

[Saint]

Call it a bet, if you like. There is no "After-life." There is no reason to believe that there is nor is there any grounds to think we can think or be conscious after the brain is destroyed.

You are no better than people who believe there is after-life.
You just disbelieve it without evidence or ability to deny it "undoubtedly".

 

[Neverfly]

You are no better than people who believe there is after-life.
You just disbelieve it without evidence or ability to deny it "undoubtedly".

Yes, Saint- it is true. I just disbelieve it without evidence. What a terror I am!

 

[spidergoat]

You are no better than people who believe there is after-life.
You just disbelieve it without evidence or ability to deny it "undoubtedly".

If there is no evidence, what is the reasonable position? You have what is called the burden of proof. Look it up.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Perusing the link strengthens my case. Is there anything in particular you want to highlight?

Perchance those humans have made strides in the creation of artificial cells or at least in bio-engineering of cells. Your case is what, that humans may never be able to create artificial life? Same could have been said for mankind never being able to fly or leave our own planet.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

If humanity can artificially support and simulate a disease on living tissue outside of the human body on a electronic chip…. what’s to stop us from creating fully fledged bio-engineered organisms. "Researchers at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have mimicked pulmonary edema in a microchip lined by living human cells, as reported November 7 in the journal Science Translation Medicine. They used this "lung-on-a-chip" to study drug toxicity and identify potential new therapies to prevent this life-threatening condition."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121107141044.htm

 

[cole grey]

There are what I call "power words" - words like rationality, logic, evidence. Throw in a few of those into your speech, and people will tend to feel intimidated and will be more inclined to agree with you. It doesn't matter what you actually said. Those power words just have such power over people's minds, they are like a drug, or something that can easily hypnotize them.
I think "the golden rule" is a power word like that too.

a lot of words can be misused. That doesn't make them useless or wrong to use. When i use the phrase it is explicitly not a power word, because anyone can argue against this valuable principle if they wish to. "Gravity" and "oxygen" are power words. "Logic" is a pointer word, saying, "this is the area of discourse i wish to address."

If, in an effort to be compassionate toward others, you deprive yourself and are thus not compassionate to yourself - then this isn't much of a compassion you have. Or if in efforts to help others, you actually hurt them - then this isn't compassion either. Hence the term "idiot compassion," originating in the Tibetan Buddhism tradition.
IOW, the problem with compassion is that people often have rather imprecise, fuzzy notions of it.

Yes, as the old sailor's saying goes, you need one hand to hold to the ropes, and one to do your work. If you let go of the rope hand to do more work, and go overboard, you aren't helping anyone. Airplane oxygen mask has the same concept. I think the line is fuzzy, in the specific, because each situation has different repercussions for each party. There is also a large grey area, where it comes down to what people want to do, because there is no "should do". *EDIT* this is the problem we have in america where some people call "socialist' what other people call "moral". The line is fuzzy.

 

[lightgigantic]

Perchance those humans have made strides in the creation of artificial cells or at least in bio-engineering of cells. Your case is what, that humans may never be able to create artificial life? Same could have been said for mankind never being able to fly or leave our own planet.

post dated rain cheques and empiricism are a poor marriage - IOW its a fallacy to suggest that because some boundaries can be broken, all boundaries can be broken ..... moreso when you start talking about empiricism being the tool capable of opening the vista on such topics (since empiricism, by its very nature is limited and tacit)

 

[lightgigantic]

If humanity can artificially support and simulate a disease on living tissue outside of the human body on a electronic chip…. what’s to stop us from creating fully fledged bio-engineered organisms. "Researchers at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have mimicked pulmonary edema in a microchip lined by living human cells, as reported November 7 in the journal Science Translation Medicine. They used this "lung-on-a-chip" to study drug toxicity and identify potential new therapies to prevent this life-threatening condition."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121107141044.htm

still it remains there is a big difference between life and the chemicals life utilizes.
Essentially this is no different from urea synthesis of the 1800's.
That mircrochip is as close to consciousness as this camera is to being racist

 

[wynn]

a lot of words can be misused. That doesn't make them useless or wrong to use. When i use the phrase it is explicitly not a power word, because anyone can argue against this valuable principle if they wish to. "Gravity" and "oxygen" are power words. "Logic" is a pointer word, saying, "this is the area of discourse i wish to address."

The cultural psychological connotations of a word are not to be underestimated.
Of course, people individually differ in how strongly they are influenced by cultural trends.

Yes, as the old sailor's saying goes, you need one hand to hold to the ropes, and one to do your work. If you let go of the rope hand to do more work, and go overboard, you aren't helping anyone. Airplane oxygen mask has the same concept. I think the line is fuzzy, in the specific, because each situation has different repercussions for each party. There is also a large grey area, where it comes down to what people want to do, because there is no "should do". *EDIT* this is the problem we have in america where some people call "socialist' what other people call "moral". The line is fuzzy.

But not warm.

 

[Neverfly]

still it remains there is a big difference between life and the chemicals life utilizes.
Essentially this is no different from urea synthesis of the 1800's.
That mircrochip is as close to consciousness as this camera is to being racist
Image removed

What you say is true but it's utterly irrelevant to the point.

 

[cole grey]

But not warm.

no definitely not.

 

[lightgigantic]

What you say is true but it's utterly irrelevant to the point.

the point is that reductionist models of life simply don't work ... unless you want to start with a superstitious angle on science (ie start marrying post dated cheques to empiricism as a means to surmount the issues of racist cameras and whatnot) or dumb down the definition of life so that urea synthesis effectively becomes evidence of abiogenesis


:shrug: