The Competition of Memes (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 11:09 (5049 days ago) @ xeno6696

In relation to the "paranormal", Matt points out that we have to "trust" the people who recount their experiences. Very often there are no other witnesses, and even when there are, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. "So armed with this evidence in the background, what say you to my lack of trust in paranormal claims? Do you see a way around this that I do not have?"-To your lack of trust in general, I would say good for you. But if your lack of trust turns into automatic dismissal, I would ask you simply to consider each case on its merits. Just who are you expected to trust? An account written 1900 years ago concerning miraculous events purported to have taken place 100 years beforehand, with no (even unreliable) eyewitness reports and no evidence beyond hearsay passed on from generation to generation does not earn my trust either. But I would not put that on a par with unexplained experiences of my own, of my wife's, of close friends, or of other people who I think should be taken seriously. That does not mean belief ... it means open-mindedness to the possibility. If a professor of biophysics publishes evidence that, for instance, a particular bug can withstand the rigours of space travel, I certainly won't dismiss his claim just because I don't know him personally. Similarly, if a cardiologist publishes accounts of interviews with patients who have survived clinical death and have shared similar strange experiences (in some cases entailing the unexplained acquisition of knowledge that has been confirmed by third parties), I will not dismiss either his or their claims either, even though I don't know him/them personally. Maybe the bug man will one day prove to have been incompetent or fraudulent (scientists have been known to fake or distort evidence); ditto the NDE doctor, and ditto his patients. Maybe in a hundred years, people will laugh at 50% of the theories accepted as scientific facts today. Maybe in a hundred years scientists will have come up with physical explanations of so-called psychic phenomena. But we can only judge according to the evidence we have now, no matter how subjective that evidence and our judgement may be. And my judgement is that there are SOME cases I cannot dismiss. Indeed it would be insulting if I were even to question the integrity or the intelligence of the people who have reported them. -I have to take this argument one step further. We agree that one of the biggest obstacles to our acceptance of materialism is the absolute mystery of consciousness. Neither you nor I nor anybody on this planet can understand how cells and nerves and electrical impulses can produce consciousness, thought, memory, imagination ... you know the list already. I am not prepared to accept the materialist interpretation of these processes without convincing evidence. Build me a brain that can function in the same way as our own, and I will reconsider my position, but until you can do so, I will remain open to the possibility of a dimension beyond that of the known physical world ... a form of identity which uses the brain cells and is not produced by them. As you wrote in relation to spontaneous generation: "We're just not close enough for anyone to be satisfied. It is more truthful to the actual state to say "I don't know" than to assert (and it is only assertion) atheism or theism."