Others ~ Selected Correspondence

Science

There is absolutely nothing that would preclude scientific inquiry once one is actually free.

Imagination is used in some current scientific inquiry, but isn’t necessary in all scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry would likely carry on just fine once actually free – it is only the kinds of inquiry that depend upon the use of the imagination that would not continue in the same way.

Beyond that – generally people think that imagination is necessary in all sorts of things where it isn’t required. Just because people tend to assume that it is necessary (because that is what they are accustomed to) – doesn’t mean that it actually is necessary.

I also find it interesting how people tend to praise the imagination as a wonderful thing – because it is so linked with creativity. Actually, creativity can go right along just fine without imagination. In the same way that creativity does just fine (only differently) without imagination – science – I’m sure – will do just fine (only differently) without the imaginative faculty. No 37 to No 94(R), 13.9.2005

It might help (me at least) to clarify your following statement in your correspondence with No 59:

Richard: ‘...facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’

It is clear and plain to see that the second part of what you are saying is correct. Specifically, that many of scientists ‘facts’ ‘later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ I don’t see any room for disagreement on that point. Anyone who has studied or read about science and the history of science would be able to agree with that statement. But, you are additionally saying that ‘facts are few and far between for most scientists,’ which is by no means obvious. Would you mind stating more clearly what you mean?

For example, a literal reading:

1) Most (more than 50%) of scientists (people who work or consider themselves ‘scientists’) are few and far between on their facts (there are many more or significantly more errors in their scientific studies than facts).

If that is what you mean, can you demonstrate that to be the case? In other words, can you demonstrate that more than 50% of people who consider themselves scientists are in error significantly more often than they are correct regarding their ‘scientific’ study?

Or maybe you mean:

2) Scientists ‘facts’ often turn out to be errors due to flawed methodology arising out of their expectations.

Or possibly:

3) Scientists are victims of the human condition like everyone else, so in as much as they are living an illusion, they must also be significantly in error about much of what they do and say inside and out of their ‘scientific’ study.

It might also be useful to demarcate between various kinds of ‘science’ – as you seem to have more disagreement with theoretical physics and such than say, biological sciences – like work done in genetics or evolutionary theory – though these are also not exempt from error.

*

Richard: I will repeat what I said earlier for emphasis: in any area of research I have ever looked into I have, more often than not, found that not only are facts rather thin on the ground but that it is mainly the hypothesis/theory which gets most of the attention.

I suppose this is what it boils down to? I can readily agree with your conclusion regarding ‘any area of research’ that I have looked into as well being thin on facts – especially regarding major theses.

This is quite different though from saying that science itself is thin on facts – which of course, you did not say.

Open a college physics I textbook or Chemistry I textbook or a textbook on anatomy or cell biology and quite interesting facts abound. It is easy to infer from your statement of most scientists being thin on facts that science itself is thin on facts – but it appears that you are mostly referring to ‘scientific’ research, though not necessarily exclusively. Is that a correct assessment?

Possibly the distinction I’m looking for is between ‘descriptive’ science and ‘theoretical science.’ What I’m thinking of as ‘descriptive’ science are things like anatomy, biology, geology, palaeontology, basic physics and chemistry and electromagnetism – possibly these could all be called ‘physical’ sciences. I am also aware that these cannot completely do without theory. I just don’t see that your statement that ‘most scientists’ are thin on facts could possibly apply to the ‘physical’ sciences. It seems that it would be more accurate to apply that sort of statement to the instances when theory outruns observation.

An illustration on this point might be your example of the ‘smoker’s lung’ and ‘non-smoker’s lung’ versus the ‘unhealthy lung’ and ‘healthy lung.’ In other words, facts regarding the structure, composition, and function of a lung are not hard to come by, but research into the causation of lung cancer and it’s connection to smoking tends to be mired with confusion, emotion, and error. No 37 to Richard

No 38: No 45 quoted David Bohm recently:

‘The only thing I know is that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses'

You may argue David’s ‘spiritual’ bent, but I maintain his statement is valid. We can’t see UV for instance, so how do we know that there is not important information being presented to us at those wavelengths?

Peter: I find it telling that those who propose such statements as ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ most often resort to the example of electromagnetic radiation, as though this specific case provides proof of the existence of invisible and unperceivable phenomena.

Whilst it is a fact that we cannot see electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet spectrum with our eyes – the spectrum of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation thus far detected ranges from 103 HZ to 1022 HZ and the unaided human eye is only capable of detecting the visible light portion within the 1014 HZ to 1015 HZ range – we are nevertheless able to sensately perceive UV as warmth on our skin and we are able to detect it and measure it with instruments that are mechanical extensions of our senses. In short, we know by sensory observation that UV exists as a fact, that it is a thing in itself, that it is physical in nature.

Similarly, anyone who has stood near an infrared lamp can sense infrared electromagnetic radiation, anyone who has eaten food cooked in a microwave oven can see and taste the effects of microwave electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has listened to radio or watched television can sensately experience the results of encoded information being sent via the longer wave frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has had an X-ray in a hospital can not only see and touch the machine that produces the electromagnetic radiation but they can also see and touch the resultant picture produced by the X ray electromagnetic waves.

Perhaps you could offer another example other than the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in support your stance that David Bohm’s statement is valid. In doing so, you may well find that Mr. Bohm is using the word phenomena in the philosophical sense –

Phenomena – Philos. An immediate object of perception (as distinguished from substance, or a thing in itself). Oxford Dictionary

– in which case he is talking of objects of perception that have neither substance nor physical existence – in other words, he is talking of phenomena that are meta-physical, as in –

Metaphysical – Not empirically verifiable. Immaterial, incorporeal, supersensible; supernatural. Oxford Dictionary

And while you say ‘you may argue David’s ‘spiritual’ bent’, there is no need for me to do so because his spiritual bent is a matter of fact – well-publicized, well-known and readily verifiable.

Regarding the current Bohm discussion:

It is a fact that Bohm was postulating unobservables. (As an aside, I wonder whether Bohm would have said that ‘unobservables’ are merely ‘not yet observed’ or ‘unobservable’ in principle – I suspect some of both.)

The 95% figure seems arbitrary to me – if one doesn’t know what’s unobservable, then how can you give a percentage? Actually, it seems that Bohm wanted to say that there is a HUGE amount going on ‘behind the curtain’ – so to speak. Whether or not Bohm intended his ‘behind the curtain’ to be the same or similar to Kant’s noumenon would be an interesting topic that I’m not competent to answer. I do see that Bohm’s motivations for postulating unobservables are probably to some degree quite different than Kant’s – but there is also a similarity which I think Peter is correct to point out. The similarity lies in the fact that it is much easier to find a place for God or Spirit of some kind if you insist that what we observe can’t be all that exists. Who’s pulling the strings? For Kant, spiritualists, and Bohm as well there must be a ‘gap’ – a ‘mysterious place’ – a ‘behind the curtain’ – a ‘noumenon’ where God does his magic.

I don’t think anyone here has a problem giving a place to ‘phenomena’ (i.e. facts) that haven’t yet been observed – that’s not the question.

The real problem enters if you are going to state that there is an unfillable gap which must then be filled by God, Spirit, Cosmic Consciousness, Noumenon, or whatever. No 37

It can be very, very daunting trying to make sense of what is going on when experts argue! Let’s wait 300 years and see what happens :-)

I understand that you are stating just how difficult it can be for a layperson to make an informed judgement on controversial matters, but then I’m not quite sure why you are opting to argue that the majority of scientists are correct about the big-bang – you are apparently not content to wait at all. Rather, you have taken an proactive stance – attempting to prove Richard either wrong or gullible.

The best I can tell is that you are making an educated guess or estimation on who is correct based upon what is normally well-placed confidence in the ‘majority’ of scientists.

I opt for the majority because of the sheer number of intelligent and inquiring minds working in tandem. The diversity of outlook and individual cognitive styles creates a good environment for a theory to be thoroughly tested and critiqued. I was being a bit loose when talking about waiting. Since all theories are provisional you would have to wait forever for a question to be settled with certainty. Certainty can never be guaranteed. The best we can do is create good theory that explains and predicts observational evidence.

If certainty can never be guaranteed – then why are you so confidently arguing that Richard is wrong about the big-bang? As I understand it, you are not just arguing that there are mountains of evidence against an infinite/eternal universe (collected by intelligent and inquiring minds working in tandem) – but that they prove that Richard is wrong.

By the way, why do you place scare quotes around ‘majority’?

The reason I put the scare quotes around ‘majority’ is because I was alluding to the fallacy of using the ‘majority’ opinion as evidence for it being the ‘right’ one. Being the ‘majority’ may give you cause to take a claim seriously, but it cannot be counted as evidence for the claim.

Richard takes on the task of being scientific critic but proceeds from positions based on misunderstanding. In addition to that he will not allow himself to be corrected. If he were able to he may be able to come from a stronger position later on. I have no problem with scientific criticism (one of the best is ‘The End of Science’ by John Horgan) but I do have a problem when it’s done badly and/or in bad faith.

Would you mind ‘for the record’ stating exactly (clearly and precisely) what positions Richard has taken based upon misunderstanding? Also pointing out where ‘he will not allow himself to be corrected?’ There are only two issues I recall right now:

  1. Your disagreement with Richard over whether there is such a thing as ‘objectively falling’ or whether Relativity’s take on this is correct.
  2. Your claims that Richard is wrong about the infinite and eternal nature of the universe because the majority of scientists think otherwise.

Add to that your statement that certainty is unreachable, and I wonder just why you continue to argue against someone who says they are certain about the nature of the universe from a PCE?

I certainly don’t see where you have actually demonstrated your claims – which means that your additional claim that Richard will not allow himself to be corrected is without warrant. To add to this, I have personally seen a few instances where Richard has allowed himself to be corrected – as he readily admits to being capable of making errors.

You have also issued your ‘3K challenge’ – but to issue a challenge that has yet to be answered is far from demonstrating your own case. To come back with (paraphrased) ‘You won’t address the 3K challenge because you cannot’ – is simply posturing and taunting – no substance.

*

Ok – to boil it down ... I can only guess that for Richard – the immediate experience of the infinitude of the universe is so convincing that counter-proposals like Prof Wright’s for the early formation of super clusters (when space was supposedly more condensed) don’t even merit a second look – since he starts with the evidence of the PCE. So, that extra datum of experience gives the confidence to endorse the statement that ‘the existence of super clusters make the big-bang look silly.’ [my paraphrase] From where you and I sit (not in a PCE) his confidence in going against the ‘majority of scientists’ can look silly – but it is entirely possible that we merely lack the data the PCE gives for the infinity / eternity of the universe.

Yes I can accept that the PCE may indeed give us some extra-scientific mode of knowledge, however, I would expect the various modes of knowledge to converge. It appears that PCE evidence diverges (according to Richard but, very interestingly, NOT according to No 60). Basically it all really boils down to where you place your faith because certainty will elude us until ‘all is revealed’.

How about the possibility of not ‘placing faith’ at all?

*

Anyway, my point is basically this – there is no point in trying to argue one way or the other (on this list) based upon evidence that doesn’t take the PCE into account – since what is actually in question is what the PCE supposedly reveals.

There is no point in arguing one way or the other. The universe will be what it is and we will always have questions about it. Maybe a PCE will put all questions aside but I think it’s important to know that Richard comes to conclusions that are very different to mainstream science and that Richard’s scientific expertise is lacking.

Yes, his statements are very different from mainstream science. He is a layperson, but he is not ignorant of science at all and how it works. He never claimed to be a scientist – and doesn’t need to so far as I can tell – to state his case.

*

So, I suppose it boils down to whether one wants to experience whatever the evidence of the PCE is for oneself. As I see it, your only viable moves at this point are:

  1. Dismiss the PCE and agree with the majority of scientists, but know that you won’t convince Richard or those willing to take into account the PCE.
  2. Suspend judgement and pursue the PCE yourself.
  3. Suspend judgement and forget about actualism.

For now anyway, I’ll take #2.

I take note of No 60’s option (4): Experience one or more PCEs and still be unconvinced that experiencing the absence of conceptual/emotional/psychic boundaries is equivalent to directly experiencing the infinite extent and duration of the actual universe.

As far as the PCE evidence goes all I have to go on at the moment are first person reports. I will accept No 60’s over Richard’s any day given Richard’s misunderstandings and disingenuous debating conduct.

In light of the fact that Jack has only had a few run-ins with what may turn out later to not have been PCEs at all, and that Richard says has lived the PCE for the past some 12 years or so – it’s surprising to me that in this case anyway, you are taking the neophyte’s word for it over the expert. I’m not suggesting you take Richard’s word for it – only pointing out that you may be missing something by ‘accepting’ someone’s judgment which may be fallible. If you were to go with the ‘majority’ in this case – Richard, Peter, and Vineeto would win hands down 3 to 1 – or if you want to count up their years of experience with PCEs 20 to 1 or so. Only answer to this I can see personally is to throw out trust and faith – period. No 37 to No 59, 30.1.2004

Good to see you are still hanging around the list. We went through a dry spell there for a while huh?

After looking at the site http://www.theabsolute.net and seeing Otto Weininger extolled as a ‘genius’ – I am beginning to see more clearly the parallels between what it is to be a ‘guru’ and a ‘genius’.

I had to think of other ‘geniuses’, like Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, Einstein, Freud, Wittgenstein, Sartre, etc. Being a ‘genius’ is a kind of cult.

The guru uses their spiritual insight to discern Truth intuitively as revealed by the Divine, whereas the genius uses their heroic mind to intuitively/rationally discern the truth as revealed by Reason. Both are taking a very similar approach ...

I’m not sure I understand this. In what sense are they taking a ‘very similar’ approach?

What I mean is that they are both using an intuitive/revelatory method only their purported ‘source’ that they ‘tap in to’ is different. The guru tunes him/herself into the Divine Source, whereas the genius tunes (normally himself instead of herself) to Reason, such as the laws of the universe, laws of morality, platonic forms, karma, psychological insight, etc.

Briefly, it could be said that both the guru and genius are ‘seers’ or ‘prophetic voices’ that tap into an ‘extraordinary’ source of wisdom.

*

... except that generally the guru uses Divine Inspiration, and the genius uses Reason with capital ‘R’ to tune into the Truth.

You mention this ‘except’ as if it were a superficial detail that distinguishes two very similar things. If that’s the case, could you spell out the underlying similarity? (I could take a few guesses, but I’m more interested in hearing it directly from you).

Is the above explanation sufficient?

Possibly even more clearly...

They both tune into a higher authority that is above and beyond what the normal person is supposed to be able to know, in order discern the secrets of the universe – ‘except’ for the fact that one source of authority is the ‘Divine’ and the other ‘Reason.’ Of course, there is often an overlap.

Keep in mind that I am using the word ‘genius’ in the sense it is often used in the real world – namely, to describe men of history that occupy exalted regions of the mind and who are supposed to be heroes of sorts.

There is another usage of the word ‘genius’ that just means a really intelligent person – that’s not what I’m referring to. When I referred to the ‘cult of the genius’ – I’m talking about the hero worship that often goes along with ‘the classics,’ ‘great philosophers’ and the general tendency to idolize ‘great thinkers’. No 37 to No 60

Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust