For Titus and others: the science of the future

[Mike D.]

Titus,

In the Pam Reynolds Incident.. Redux thread you wrote: "I'm looking forward to a future wherein cases like that of Pam Reynolds are fully integrated into a new science which accepts that life is not the end of the person."

You strike me as confident that the advent of such a "new science" is inevitable, and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to speculate on how soon you see such a science appearing on the scene, and also the manner in which it will appear. Will it come as soon as in the next decade, or could it be a century or more? Do you see the evidence on which the new science will be based as coming primarily from experimental parapsychology, or studies of mediums, or studies of NDEs, etc.? Or do you see it coming more from advances and breakthroughs in such sciences as physics and biology? Or a combination of the two? Do you think that the evidence underlying the new science will give rise to a coherent body of theory that integrates past knowledge with the new evidence in novel ways? Will the new evidence and theories precipitate a relatively sudden wholesale conversion of the scientific community, or will there be resistance, followed at some point in the end by general acceptance?

Mike

Would enjoy hearing anyone's thoughts or speculations about this.

[Ratman_tf]

The big revelation always seems to be just around the corner, but never materializes.

It's just misdirection.

[Skeptical Greg]

I hope we can get Gerald in on this, he(?) already knows what it is all about..

He joins us in " Pam Reynolds Revisited " (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870080452#post1870080452)

As I have wrote before, even a ten year old child can comprehend the cause behind all things for it is based on tremendous simplicity that has only been overlooked. If such knowledge is actually possible, could it be taught? Yes. I have never been the “sharpest knife in the door” and once the foundation of this knowledge is learned, I am sure people would surpass anything that I have since learned.

[Titus Rivas]

Hi Mike,

I hadn't discovered this thread before. Sorry for the delay!

You strike me as confident that the advent of such a "new science" is inevitable, and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to speculate on how soon you see such a science appearing on the scene, and also the manner in which it will appear. Will it come as soon as in the next decade, or could it be a century or more? Of course that will depend on external as well as internal factors. For example, in times of war, there will probably less progress than in times of peace (although, if you think of espionage projects which include ESP ;), but that obviously isn't what we should hope for).
However, I do think that the changes will take place within the next few decades.

Do you see the evidence on which the new science will be based as coming primarily from experimental parapsychology, or studies of mediums, or studies of NDEs, etc.? From both actually. Experimental parapsychology will finally convince many scientists and psychical research will profit from the changing climate so that it can do its work. It's already a lot more acceptable for a Western scientist to rationally believe in ESP or 'even' reincarnation (through the works of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his associates) than it was 50 years ago.

Or do you see it coming more from advances and breakthroughs in such sciences as physics and biology? Perhaps that will play a major role too, though I expect this kind of breakthrough will be primarily theoretical. For example, physicalism is a self-defeating, incoherent theory and it will certainly have some impact if theoretical physicists and biologists finally realize this. Apart from this, I also expect a rebellious biologist like Rupert Sheldrake to be important for the 'revolution'.

Or a combination of the two? A combination of convergent argumentation and several types of empirical evidence.

Do you think that the evidence underlying the new science will give rise to a coherent body of theory that integrates past knowledge with the new evidence in novel ways? It should, as any good new theory should basically cover what we already knew before it was formulated.

Will the new evidence and theories precipitate a relatively sudden wholesale conversion of the scientific community, or will there be resistance, followed at some point in the end by general acceptance? The latter scenario is what we're living today I guess.

Best wishes,

Titus

[Mike D.]

Titus,

Thanks for your thoughts about this.

Regarding resistance to the integration of certain alleged paranormal phenomena into science, my impression is that one can find at least two different attitudes expressed here on this message board. One is that the scientific investigation of alleged paranormal phenomena is a waste of time and money and that those academics who show an interest in investigating such claims have marked tendencies toward woo-wooism, at least in some compartments of their thinking. Then on the other hand, I seem to remember reading posts here that essentially say that many scientists are eager to be in on paradigm-shattering discoveries and win Nobel prizes, etc. And if presented with mediums, psychics, etc. eager to submit to scientific testing, such scientists would jump at the chance to test them and to attempt to replicate any previous tests that suggested positive results.

If I have correctly described two attitudes that have appeared on this message board, then it seems to me that the first attitude, given human nature, would tend to foster a climate in which even academics and scientists who might otherwise be inclined to investigate claims of the paranormal would be reluctant to do so for fear of ridicule or even the thwarting of their careers by their scientific and academic colleagues. Stephen Braude, Chairman of the Philosophy Department of one of the University of Maryland campuses, has stated that he did not start writing about claims of the paranormal until after he had tenure, apparently for this very reason.

Mike

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Titus said:Perhaps that will play a major role too, though I expect this kind of breakthrough will be primarily theoretical. For example, physicalism is a self-defeating, incoherent theory and it will certainly have some impact if theoretical physicists and biologists finally realize this. Apart from this, I also expect a rebellious biologist like Rupert Sheldrake to be important for the 'revolution'.
Ouch. In the new science, will it be okay to just assume the reasonableness of nonfalsifiable theories like morphogenetic fields?

~~ Paul

[Titus Rivas]

Paul, please explain why the theory of morphogenetic fields is by definition unfalsifiable.

Titus

[Titus Rivas]

Hi Mike,

woo-wooism Could you give a definition of what is commonly understood by this curious term ;)?

If I have correctly described two attitudes that have appeared on this message board, then it seems to me that the first attitude, given human nature, would tend to foster a climate in which even academics and scientists who might otherwise be inclined to investigate claims of the paranormal would be reluctant to do so for fear of ridicule or even the thwarting of their careers by their scientific and academic colleagues. Stephen Braude, Chairman of the Philosophy Department of one of the University of Maryland campuses, has stated that he did not start writing about claims of the paranormal until after he had tenure, apparently for this very reason. Actually, I've been quite viciously attacked myself by several debunkers here in the Netherlands, so I know what Braude means. The kind of scientific revolution I'm predicting may well be the greatest since Galileo, so some resistance is to be expected. It takes a lot of inner strength not to be discouraged by it too much.

Best wishes,

Titus

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Paul, please explain why the theory of morphogenetic fields is by definition unfalsifiable. Titus
While Paul is out of the room, allow me to take a stab.
A falsifiable threory makes sufficiently precise predictions rhat the theory could potentially be disproven.
Can anyone measure "morphogenic fields"?

[Titus Rivas]

Jeff,
A falsifiable threory makes sufficiently precise predictions rhat the theory could potentially be disproven. As I understand it, Sheldrake has made quite specific predictions. Take a look for yourself at his website (http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/) . Apart from an original thinker, he also is an experimental scientist you know. I'm not saying he's right in all of his claims, but he deserves to be taken seriously. Any non-debunker would have to agree, don't you think?

Titus

[thaiboxerken]

It's evident that Titus is another loon. I have to wonder why this "new science" of the future has no credible evidence associated with it.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Jeff,
As I understand it, Sheldrake has made quite specific predictions. Take a look for yourself at his website (http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/) . Apart from an original thinker, he also is an experimental scientist you know. I'm not saying he's right in all of his claims, but he deserves to be taken seriously. Any non-debunker would have to agree, don't you think?

Titus
Not until he can explain how to measure those fields so other scientists can do so.
Remember N-rays?

[Titus Rivas]

Jeff said:

Not until he can explain how to measure those fields so other scientists can do so. Remember N-rays?
Yes, I do. Let me first say I'm not an expert on Sheldrake's theories. More generally though, theories can also be tested indirectly. It's not necessary to measure his hypothetical fields directly, as long as they have some predicted effects.

Titus

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have had some perfectly pleasant email conversation with Sheldrake. When I pointed out a possible information leak in the telephone telepathy experiments, he took it seriously enough to look at the data to see if it supported my idea.

He claims that the morphic field is an information field, not an energy field. I think the transmitting particle is called a holon. It enables organisms to repeat tasks performed previously with greater ease, as long as they are tuned in to the field. I am not sure how one would falsify this idea, although I suppose if we discover enough about evolution, genetics, and instinct so that we can account for everything we observe about it, then we won't need his "formative causation." In the meantime, he'll make the usual god of the gaps assertions.

As Jeff said, we need a way to detect and measure the morphic field. The math has supposedly been done by Rene Thom.

http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Banerji.html

http://www.ralph-abraham.org/articles/MS%2386.Vibrations/vibrations.html

~~ Paul

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Hi Mike,

Could you give a definition of what is commonly understood by this curious term [woo-wooism]?


Titus,

Mike's definition of woo-wooism:

"Woo-wooism is the practice of thinking and acting characterized by extreme credulity, with a strong tendency to uncritically accept as true claims of the existence of alleged phenomena that violate what we already know to be possible or impossible in our universe, based on empirical facts well-established as true by the scientific method, or at least by millenia of incontrovertible experience. The practitioner of woo-wooism is either incapable of critical thinking and reasoning, or, if capable, consciously or unconsciously chooses not to exercise such thinking and reasoning because of an emotional attachment to what he or she *wishes* to be true. The practitioner of woo-wooism also tends to far too trusing in his or her beliefs in the basic honesty or trustworthiness of people, and thus all too often becomes the hapless mark for various con-artists that peddle the above-mentioned claims."

Mike

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I have had some perfectly pleasant email conversation with Sheldrake. When I pointed out a possible information leak in the telephone telepathy experiments, he took it seriously enough to look at the data to see if it supported my idea.

He claims that the morphic field is an information field, not an energy field. I think the transmitting particle is called a holon. It enables organisms to repeat tasks performed previously with greater ease, as long as they are tuned in to the field. I am not sure how one would falsify this idea, although I suppose if we discover enough about evolution, genetics, and instinct so that we can account for everything we observe about it, then we won't need his "formative causation." In the meantime, he'll make the usual god of the gaps assertions.

As Jeff said, we need a way to detect and measure the morphic field. The math has supposedly been done by Rene Thom.

http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Banerji.html

http://www.ralph-abraham.org/articles/MS%2386.Vibrations/vibrations.html

~~ Paul

Paul,

Have you read any of Sheldrake's books? He has some books in print wherein he goes into detail regarding his hypothesis of formative causation and morphogenic fields. I've looked at these books but have not had a chance yet to read them thoroughly. But it might be interesting to go beyond summaries of his ideas to examination of book-length arguments in favor of those ideas, looking for flaws or strengths in his arguments.

Mike

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, that would be interesting, but it will require a more patient person than I.

~~ Paul

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas

It's already a lot more acceptable for a Western scientist to rationally believe in ESP or 'even' reincarnation (through the works of Dr. Ian Stevenson and his associates) than it was 50 years ago.


Titus,

Your statement here seems to me to imply that the numbers of scientists who believe in ESP and reincarnation have increased significantly over the last 50 years. I wonder if there have been any surveys that have documented this and what statistics have been derived from such surveys.

Mike

[Mike D.]

Titus,

Two things, in my opinion, that your anticipated new science of the future will have to have adequate evidence-based theories about: the nature of consciousness and the nature of memory. You seem to feel that the new science will be characterized in part by knowledge that persons consciously survive in some way the deaths of their physical bodies and brains. The theories of the new science will need to explain how this is possible while somehow integrating some current things that are known about consciousness and memory. For instance, the fact that consciousness can apparently be altered by various chemicals introduced into the brain, and even abolished entirely for a time by general anesthesia. And that memories can seem to be destroyed by degenerative brain diseases or even kept from forming by damage to certain parts of the brain. I realize that there are some alternative models to try to explain how consciousness and memory can seemingly be both subordinate to the state of brain matter on the one hand, and transcendent on the other. (E.g., the television set and the program signal model.) But these models seem to me to be crude and to be credible to scientists in general, would need to both be solidly underpinned by empirical evidence and "fleshed out" a great deal in some manner. In their present state, these theoretical models would most likely not even begin to cause a scientist like Stimpson J. Cat, for example, to give serious attention to them.

But for persons to survive death in any meaningful way, there must be, in my opinion, persistence of consciousness, and not only a carry over of at least some memories formed during the individual's life on earth, but the ability of the individualized consciousness to form new memories in the after death state as well.

Do you know of anyone currently doing serious work along these lines? Or any in-depth papers on these topics?

Mike

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Actually, I've been quite viciously attacked myself by several debunkers here in the Netherlands, so I know what Braude means. The kind of scientific revolution I'm predicting may well be the greatest since Galileo, so some resistance is to be expected. It takes a lot of inner strength not to be discouraged by it too much.


Titus,

How do you feel you've fared here on the JREF forum in comparison with your experiences at the hands of the Netherlands debunkers?

Mike

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Mike D.


Paul,

Have you read any of Sheldrake's books? He has some books in print wherein he goes into detail regarding his hypothesis of formative causation and morphogenic fields. I've looked at these books but have not had a chance yet to read them thoroughly. But it might be interesting to go beyond summaries of his ideas to examination of book-length arguments in favor of those ideas, looking for flaws or strengths in his arguments.

Mike I have started "The sense of being stared at." Halfway through the first chapter, I experienced a strong urge to bang my head against a wall until one or the other should give way. Thus far, nothing he has written has done anything to lessen that urge.

Whether an information field or an energy field, Sheldrake seems to think it is detectable (through the back of the head or neck, apparantly) even if you are stared at through a videocamera. Yes, I do remember N-rays, and yes, I think we are seeing them again.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I have started "The sense of being stared at." Halfway through the first chapter, I experienced a strong urge to bang my head against a wall until one or the other should give way. Thus far, nothing he has written has done anything to lessen that urge.

Whether an information field or an energy field, Sheldrake seems to think it is detectable (through the back of the head or neck, apparantly) even if you are stared at through a videocamera. Yes, I do remember N-rays, and yes, I think we are seeing them again.

Mercutio,

The books I was thinking of in my post are some of Sheldrake's earlier books such as A New Science of Life, and The Presence of the Past.

Mike

[Titus Rivas]

Your statement here seems to me to imply that the numbers of scientists who believe in ESP and reincarnation have increased significantly over the last 50 years. I wonder if there have been any surveys that have documented this and what statistics have been derived from such surveys. There will have been surveys about this, but I don't possess them myself. What I meant to say however is not that the numbers of scientists who believe in ESP and reincarnation have increased, but that it has become more respectable for scientists, or more generally scholars to openly admit that they do.

Titus

[Titus Rivas]

Mercutio said:
How do you feel you've fared here on the JREF forum in comparison with your experiences at the hands of the Netherlands debunkers? I've been given considerably more respect here than at their hands. I don't claim to have convinced any of you, but at least you really seem to listen.

Titus

[Titus Rivas]

Mike said:
Two things, in my opinion, that your anticipated new science of the future will have to have adequate evidence-based theories about: the nature of consciousness and the nature of memory. You seem to feel that the new science will be characterized in part by knowledge that persons consciously survive in some way the deaths of their physical bodies and brains. The theories of the new science will need to explain how this is possible while somehow integrating some current things that are known about consciousness and memory. For instance, the fact that consciousness can apparently be altered by various chemicals introduced into the brain, and even abolished entirely for a time by general anesthesia. And that memories can seem to be destroyed by degenerative brain diseases or even kept from forming by damage to certain parts of the brain. I realize that there are some alternative models to try to explain how consciousness and memory can seemingly be both subordinate to the state of brain matter on the one hand, and transcendent on the other. (E.g., the television set and the program signal model.) But these models seem to me to be crude and to be credible to scientists in general, would need to both be solidly underpinned by empirical evidence and "fleshed out" a great deal in some manner. Well as I've just been saying on another thread on this forum, I hold that my theories on the nature of consciousness and memory aren't empirical theories but ontological theories. They can only be established or dismissed by analytical argumentation, not by empirical evidence. Unlike reductive materialism, dualist interactionism is a coherent system that acknowledges both what we know through introspection about the nature of consciousness and what we know about the impact of the brain on consciousness (and vice versa).

In their present state, these theoretical models would most likely not even begin to cause a scientist like Stimpson J. Cat, for example, to give serious attention to them. As I have said time an again, on the thread started by Ian just mentioned (about primary and secondary qualities) the discussion about the nature of consciousness and memory is first and foremost a philosophical, ontological discussion. That's what I meant by analytical argumentation.

But for persons to survive death in any meaningful way, there must be, in my opinion, persistence of consciousness, and not only a carry over of at least some memories formed during the individual's life on earth, but the ability of the individualized consciousness to form new memories in the after death state as well. Do you know of anyone currently doing serious work along these lines? Or any in-depth papers on these topics? Well, such research is first of all part of naturalistic reincarnation research carried out by Ian Stevenson and his associates. He's found out that some children who recall previous lives also seem to recall physical events that happened when they claim to have been discarnate spirits. Apart from this, there is increasing attention for so called prebirth memories of physical events, meaning memories of young children who claim to have perceived events that happened before their bodies had been conceived.
An example is a Dutch case I studied myself which involved a girl of three who claimed to have seen her mother with blond hair and typing at an office. She would have picked this woman as her new mother and an angelic being would have told here she had to wait a bit before she could reincarnate. It turns out that her mother had typically used a blond dye to colour her hair as she was having a job as a typist, several years before her daughter was born. She claims she'd never told her three-year-old about either detail.
I expect there will be more and more reports about prebirth memories as soon as the taboo disappears.

Titus

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Mike said:
Well as I've just been saying on another thread on this forum, I hold that my theories on the nature of consciousness and memory aren't empirical theories but ontological theories. They can only be established or dismissed by analytical argumentation, not by empirical evidence.


It's worth pointing out that science has nothing to say about claims that cannot be evaluated in terms of empirical evidence.

It's also worth pointing out that abstract philosophy has never proved the existence or non-existence of anything.


Unlike reductive materialism, dualist interactionism is a coherent system that acknowledges both what we know through introspection about the nature of consciousness and what we know about the impact of the brain on consciousness (and vice versa).


Another poster here, "Interesting Ian", is fond of claiming that scientific materialism is incoherent. He's short on any coherent story as to why we should believe this is the case, however.

Do you think you could give us a brief summary of your reason for finding a materialist worldview incoherent?

[Titus Rivas]

Kevin said:
Do you think you could give us a brief summary of your reason for finding a materialist worldview incoherent? Well, Kevin, I'd rather refer to another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25726&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) started by the very same Interesting Ian you mention, on which I explain my reasons for doing so.

In short, reductive materialism denies the existence of any irreducible and unquantifiable (i.e. non-physical), subjective qualia. But if you really want to go into this topic, please join the discussion on the other thread.

Titus