Agrippan Skepticism (Humans)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 22, 2011, 23:07 (4779 days ago)
I still have some things to say regarding NS, but as anyone who is a writer can attest, sometimes we don't get the inspiration to write what we want to write.
David has on a few occasions pointed to psychic phenomenon as some level of evidence for *something* out there that can't/doesn't have a materialistic explanation.
In my world, I hold to a form of Agrippan Skepticism, notably, "The only thing we can know is that we don't know anything."
This means that I deny, as knowledge, those things that we cannot verify or replicate. So far this agrees wholly with the materialistic position. In fact, we can say it underpins my materialistic slant.
So... where do we place knowledge in our "order of rank?" As a group?
What is it about "psychic phenomenon" that proves an Agrippan Skeptic is not on firm ground? Why shouldn't we deny unproven claims outright? Why should we even entertain them?
This comes as the core of my own philosophy of "utility." An explanation, that lacks some level of "provability," is not useful. Not if our goal is to advance knowledge.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Agrippan Skepticism
by David Turell , Saturday, October 22, 2011, 23:16 (4779 days ago) @ xeno6696
David has on a few occasions pointed to psychic phenomenon as some level of evidence for *something* out there that can't/doesn't have a materialistic explanation.
What is it about "psychic phenomenon" that proves an Agrippan Skeptic is not on firm ground? Why shouldn't we deny unproven claims outright? Why should we even entertain them?
What do we do with the third-party confirmations of NDE's and OOB's? I know OOB's can be reproduced to 'some degree' in the lab with magnets, but those observations are not really the same as the folks' stories about their experiences. I can't ignore them. Look at my chapter 6. Lots more has been published since I wrote it. Something is going on.
Agrippan Skepticism
MATT: David has on a few occasions pointed to psychic phenomenon as some level of evidence for *something* out there that can't/doesn't have a materialistic explanation. In my world, I hold to a form of Agrippan Skepticism, notably, "The only thing we can know is that we don't know anything." This means that I deny, as knowledge, those things that we cannot verify or replicate. So far this agrees wholly with the materialistic position. In fact, we can say it underpins my materialistic slant.
Back to epistemology. After much debate, we agreed to define knowledge as “information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it.†We distinguished between that and absolute truth, which is unattainable. I think Agrippan scepticism refers to what we have called truth, and your own to knowledge as we have defined it. We also agreed to define belief as: “information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth.†Clearly, then, psychic phenomena cannot be characterized as “knowledge†since there is no general consensus. They come under the category of belief.
MATT: What is it about "psychic phenomenon" that proves an Agrippan Skeptic is not on firm ground? Why shouldn't we deny unproven claims outright? Why should we even entertain them?
We need to decide what claims we’re being sceptical about, and at what stage our scepticism sets in. I suggest we confine the discussion to those instances in which people obtain information not normally available to them and verified by witnesses or by circumstances. We’ve discussed examples given to us by BBella, David’s wife and DragonsHeart, and published by Pim van Lommel. If you don’t believe the information was obtained (“unproven claimsâ€) and are convinced that they’re all liars or deluded, the discussion ends at the first stage. If you accept that they obtained the information, your scepticism applies to non-materialistic explanations – the second stage.
MATT: This comes as the core of my own philosophy of "utility." An explanation, that lacks some level of "provability," is not useful. Not if our goal is to advance knowledge.
Virtually all the major issues that we discuss on this forum are linked to phenomena that can’t be proved. We can’t prove that there is/isn’t a god, that life originated by chance/design. On a human level of everyday life we can’t explain love or imagination or aesthetic beauty in provable materialistic terms, but do we deny their existence or “utility� Interestingly, I don’t think Pim van Lommel, BBella, David’s wife or DragonsHeart have actually offered any definite "supernatural" theories. But since no-one has yet succeeded in finding a materialistic explanation for such phenomena, and since the examples can be multiplied millions of times over, why reject outright the explanation that there may be “something out there� You don’t have to accept it, but why make up your mind to reject it before you’ve been offered proof of a materialistic explanation? Agrippan scepticism – according to my sources – calls for a suspension of judgement, i.e. neither to affirm nor to deny.
Agrippan Skepticism
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 06, 2011, 16:23 (4765 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: David has on a few occasions pointed to psychic phenomenon as some level of evidence for *something* out there that can't/doesn't have a materialistic explanation. In my world, I hold to a form of Agrippan Skepticism, notably, "The only thing we can know is that we don't know anything." This means that I deny, as knowledge, those things that we cannot verify or replicate. So far this agrees wholly with the materialistic position. In fact, we can say it underpins my materialistic slant.
Back to epistemology. After much debate, we agreed to define knowledge as “information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it.†We distinguished between that and absolute truth, which is unattainable. I think Agrippan scepticism refers to what we have called truth, and your own to knowledge as we have defined it. We also agreed to define belief as: “information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth.†Clearly, then, psychic phenomena cannot be characterized as “knowledge†since there is no general consensus. They come under the category of belief.
Agrippan Skepticism is directly targeted at knowledge, not truth. It's fundamental claim is that we can know nothing, except for the fact that we know nothing. A special thanks to a wonderful book on epistemology from Michael Williams. (I've shared it here previously.)
As I had said here previously in starting the original framework thread, the fundamental difference between David, myself, and you, is "What bucket do we place certain kinds of claims?"
In the realm of general discussion, I have no problem engaging in discussions involving psychic experiences, etc.
But... if our goal is to discuss "What really happened," insofar as this entire site is devoted--then by definition our search is one concerning knowledge. And if we agree that certain paths do not or cannot lead us to knowledge, then I posit we can quite safely exclude them from consideration. In fact, I think we're obligated to do so.
I hope this phrases a majority of my difficulties in a more clear light that I have achieved in the past. (Most fail-tastically in the framework thread.)
MATT: What is it about "psychic phenomenon" that proves an Agrippan Skeptic is not on firm ground? Why shouldn't we deny unproven claims outright? Why should we even entertain them?
We need to decide what claims we’re being sceptical about, and at what stage our scepticism sets in. I suggest we confine the discussion to those instances in which people obtain information not normally available to them and verified by witnesses or by circumstances. We’ve discussed examples given to us by BBella, David’s wife and DragonsHeart, and published by Pim van Lommel. If you don’t believe the information was obtained (“unproven claimsâ€) and are convinced that they’re all liars or deluded, the discussion ends at the first stage. If you accept that they obtained the information, your scepticism applies to non-materialistic explanations – the second stage.
But see above... how do these events take us towards more knowledge? How do they truly frame the discussion in a rational and meaningful way? These are two questions that burn me every time I read about events like this. Again, because I am such a 'radical' skeptic.
MATT: This comes as the core of my own philosophy of "utility." An explanation, that lacks some level of "provability," is not useful. Not if our goal is to advance knowledge.
Virtually all the major issues that we discuss on this forum are linked to phenomena that can’t be proved. We can’t prove that there is/isn’t a god, that life originated by chance/design. On a human level of everyday life we can’t explain love or imagination or aesthetic beauty in provable materialistic terms, but do we deny their existence or “utility� Interestingly, I don’t think Pim van Lommel, BBella, David’s wife or DragonsHeart have actually offered any definite "supernatural" theories. But since no-one has yet succeeded in finding a materialistic explanation for such phenomena, and since the examples can be multiplied millions of times over, why reject outright the explanation that there may be “something out there� You don’t have to accept it, but why make up your mind to reject it before you’ve been offered proof of a materialistic explanation? Agrippan scepticism – according to my sources – calls for a suspension of judgement, i.e. neither to affirm nor to deny.
I think what I said in my second paragraph here answers more about my difficulty: the issue isn't one of 'denying' (bad word decision on my part) but about excluding due to futility... futility again at being able to gain knowledge.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Agrippan Skepticism
MATT: Agrippan Skepticism is directly targeted at knowledge, not truth. It's fundamental claim is that we can know nothing, except for the fact that we know nothing. […] In the realm of general discussion, I have no problem engaging in discussions involving psychic experiences, etc. […] But... if our goal is to discuss "What really happened," insofar as this entire site is devoted--then by definition our search is one concerning knowledge. And if we agree that certain paths do not or cannot lead us to knowledge, then I posit we can quite safely exclude them from consideration. In fact, I think we're obligated to do so.
If the only thing we can know is that we know nothing, there is no path that can lead us to knowledge, and so according to your logic we’re obligated to exclude from consideration all explanations of everything. Here endeth the discussion. That is why in the epistemology thread you and I agreed to distinguish between knowledge (relative, but I won’t repeat our definition), and truth (absolute), which is unknowable. In most of the fields we discuss, the best we can hope for as individuals is explanations that will convince us personally – on the grounds of likelihood, not certainty. That is where belief enters our vocabulary, and why we spent so long thrashing out our definitions!
MATT: ...how do these events [psychic experiences such as NDEs and OBEs] take us towards more knowledge? How do they truly frame the discussion in a rational and meaningful way? These are two questions that burn me every time I read about events like this. Again, because I am such a 'radical' skeptic.
If by knowledge you mean absolute truth (see above), they don’t. Trust Agrippa, and give up all quests. But if you accept that certain people have acquired information in a manner we can’t explain, and that phenomena such as consciousness, emotion, memory, imagination (not to mention life) have so far also defied all science’s attempts to explain them, you should recognize that no theory (e.g. it’s all a matter of brain activity) has any authority and therefore it’s possible that other theories (e.g. there are forms of energy beyond the reach of science) may be true. There are strange goings-on in the universe, and scientists theorize that they may be due to unknown and maybe unknowable forms of matter and energy which they call “darkâ€. Have you excluded these (and all theories concerning the unknowable origin of the universe and of life) from consideration? If not, why is it futile to consider consciousness, subconsciousness, and the strange psychic goings-on experienced by generations of humans, as possible signs of unknown and maybe unknowable forms of energy? Your leaning towards materialism is in defiance of Agrippa, so kindly stand straight.
MATT: ...the issue isn't one of 'denying' (bad word decision on my part) but about excluding due to futility... futility again at being able to gain knowledge.
Once again, according to your idea of scepticism, all discussions and research projects are futile and should be excluded, because all we can know is that we know nothing. Excluding is just as decisive as denying. If you are a truly “radical†Agrippan sceptic, you will suspend judgement, and that does not allow for exclusion, which is already a judgement. But don’t misunderstand me. I too have thresholds. There are some beliefs on which I do not suspend my judgement and which I do exclude from consideration: Russell’s teapot, Santa Claus, fairies at the bottom of my garden. It’s all a matter of degree, and that boils down to subjective criteria – another crucial feature of any discussion on epistemology. If you acknowledge that your exclusion of psychic phenomena is based upon your subjective preference for materialism, and if you drop your attempts to justify it through your all-exclusive, nihilistic and ultimately contradictory concept of knowledge and your insistence on denying utility, rationalism and meaning to anything non-scientific, we shall be able to shake hands and approach the subject usefully, rationally and meaningfully. Here beginneth the discussion!
Agrippan Skepticism
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, November 08, 2011, 00:44 (4763 days ago) @ dhw
If the only thing we can know is that we know nothing, there is no path that can lead us to knowledge, and so according to your logic we’re obligated to exclude from consideration all explanations of everything. Here endeth the discussion. That is why in the epistemology thread you and I agreed to distinguish between knowledge (relative, but I won’t repeat our definition), and truth (absolute), which is unknowable. In most of the fields we discuss, the best we can hope for as individuals is explanations that will convince us personally – on the grounds of likelihood, not certainty. That is where belief enters our vocabulary, and why we spent so long thrashing out our definitions!
Here's the rub however: Agrippan skepticism properly worded (as I did previously) is "The only thing we can be sure of is that we know nothing."
This COMPLETELY changes the power of the position because NOW we need to apply a series of justifications to any claim. The challenge offered by the "Agrippan Trilemma" is that we cannot claim knowledge, if the claim suffers from any one of these three challenges:
1. A brute assertion without any justification and therefore arbitrary
2. A justification that raises a further “why†question, thus resulting in an infinite regress.
3. A justification that presupposes what its supposed to establish and therefore circular.
The problem I have with the order of rank, is that psychic experiences tend to fall in all three categories, depending on the claim.
Obviously, justification is the key to the trilemma.
What means of justification should we apply to the psychic claims under question? What if the people who experienced the event are willing to consider that they suffered an illusion? Does that strengthen or weaken their claim?
I must stress that I really AM in a questioning mood about this and am not trying to argue for argument's sake.
If by knowledge you mean absolute truth (see above), they don’t. Trust Agrippa, and give up all quests. But if you accept that certain people have acquired information in a manner we can’t explain, and that phenomena such as consciousness, emotion, memory, imagination (not to mention life) have so far also defied all science’s attempts to explain them, you should recognize that no theory (e.g. it’s all a matter of brain activity) has any authority and therefore it’s possible that other theories (e.g. there are forms of energy beyond the reach of science) may be true. There are strange goings-on in the universe, and scientists theorize that they may be due to unknown and maybe unknowable forms of matter and energy which they call “darkâ€. Have you excluded these (and all theories concerning the unknowable origin of the universe and of life) from consideration? If not, why is it futile to consider consciousness, subconsciousness, and the strange psychic goings-on experienced by generations of humans, as possible signs of unknown and maybe unknowable forms of energy? Your leaning towards materialism is in defiance of Agrippa, so kindly stand straight.
Agrippan skepticism is what I consider the foundation for science, and it is NOT undermining to it. If we know what we can only be sure of--then the rest we're left to iterative experimentation to try and figure the rest out. I've said countless times that scientific explanations are ALL provisional. This Agrippan Skepticism is WHY--because however much we think we learn, we still haven't reached "the end."
Once again, according to your idea of scepticism, all discussions and research projects are futile and should be excluded, because all we can know is that we know nothing. Excluding is just as decisive as denying. If you are a truly “radical†Agrippan sceptic, you will suspend judgement, and that does not allow for exclusion, which is already a judgement. But don’t misunderstand me. I too have thresholds. There are some beliefs on which I do not suspend my judgement and which I do exclude from consideration: Russell’s teapot, Santa Claus, fairies at the bottom of my garden. It’s all a matter of degree, and that boils down to subjective criteria – another crucial feature of any discussion on epistemology. If you acknowledge that your exclusion of psychic phenomena is based upon your subjective preference for materialism, and if you drop your attempts to justify it through your all-exclusive, nihilistic and ultimately contradictory concept of knowledge and your insistence on denying utility, rationalism and meaning to anything non-scientific, we shall be able to shake hands and approach the subject usefully, rationally and meaningfully. Here beginneth the discussion!
I hope, that it is clear that I'm not driving towards a postmodern "nothing exists" kind of slant... but I am saying that Agrippa gives us a tool with which we can even frame a valid question... unless I'm totally off my rocker!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Agrippan Skepticism
MATT: Agrippan skepticism properly worded (as I did previously) is "The only thing we can be sure of is that we know nothing."
Same problem. Now apparently all scientific knowledge and every scientific theory is open to dispute. I’m not arguing with Agrippa – I don’t know enough about his ideas – but with you, since you’re using this indiscriminate form of scepticism only in order to reject serious consideration of psychic phenomena, whereas it actually rejects serious consideration of anything and everything. You’re concerned with “utilityâ€. I would suggest that our agreed distinctions between truth, knowledge and belief will provide us with a much more useful framework for our discussion.
MATT: This COMPLETELY changes the power of the position because NOW we need to apply a series of justifications to any claim. The challenge offered by the "Agrippan Trilemma" is that we cannot claim knowledge, if the claim suffers from any one of these three challenges:
Hold on. If we are sure that we know nothing, ultimately it doesn’t matter what challenges have been met, as we still can’t acquire knowledge.
MATT: 1. A brute assertion without any justification and therefore arbitrary.
2. A justification that raises a further “why†question, thus resulting in an infinite regress.
3. A justification that presupposes what its supposed to establish and therefore circular.
The problem I have with the order of rank, is that psychic experiences tend to fall in all three categories, depending on the claim.
1) As I’ve reiterated ad nauseam, the psychic experiences we should concentrate on are those “justified†by the fact that the inexplicably obtained information was corroborated by third parties.
2) Virtually every phenomenon we are aware of can be subjected to an infinite why regression. Even if the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, we can still ask why it took place. I’m not sure that “why†is always the right question anyway, since it implies teleology. Maybe “how†is better.
3) There is no presupposition here, since none of us have offered an explanation. You are continually interpreting the plea for an open-minded suspension of judgement as a “claimâ€. The information has been corroborated, and we don’t know how it was obtained. ALL explanations are speculative.
MATT: What means of justification should we apply to the psychic claims under question? What if the people who experienced the event are willing to consider that they suffered an illusion? Does that strengthen or weaken their claim?
What claim? The information was corroborated, and this opens up the possibility of a form of energy not known to us. Not a claim – just a possibility. The information was not an illusion. Are you claiming that it was? What, then, is your “justification†for such a claim? Probably your presupposition that all such phenomena have a material source, which puts your argument firmly in your (Agrippa’s) Category 3.
MATT: I must stress that I really AM in a questioning mood about this and am not trying to argue for argument's sake.
I have far too much respect for you, Matt, to imagine otherwise.
MATT: I've said countless times that scientific explanations are ALL provisional. This Agrippan Skepticism is WHY--because however much we think we learn, we still haven't reached "the end."
And in some matters we never will reach “the endâ€. That’s why we need to distinguish between truth, knowledge and belief. I’m not knocking science or scepticism. I’m only knocking your unwillingness to consider the possibility that certain psychic experiences, as well as consciousness, emotion, imagination etc., might be pointers to a form of energy inaccessible to science. Agrippan scepticism suspends judgement, but you have formed a judgement because you exclude psychic experiences from all consideration. You also continue to ignore the role played by subjective criteria in forming judgements.
MATT: I hope, that it is clear that I'm not driving towards a postmodern "nothing exists" kind of slant... but I am saying that Agrippa gives us a tool with which we can even frame a valid question... unless I'm totally off my rocker!
If you’re off your rocker then so am I, but here is what I consider to be a valid question. David has drawn our attention to an intriguing article on meditation, containing the following sentence: “Meditation can cause structural changes in the brain after as little as 11 hours of training.†What causes the meditation that causes the changes? I can only think of two answers, leading to the following: 1) the brain can cause structural changes in the brain. Or 2) an unknown form of energy can cause structural changes in the brain. The only thing we can be sure of is that we don’t know. But you exclude 2), which means that only 1) can be correct. That is not scepticism but prejudgement.
Agrippan Skepticism
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, November 08, 2011, 17:46 (4763 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: Agrippan skepticism properly worded (as I did previously) is "The only thing we can be sure of is that we know nothing."
Same problem. Now apparently all scientific knowledge and every scientific theory is open to dispute. I’m not arguing with Agrippa – I don’t know enough about his ideas – but with you, since you’re using this indiscriminate form of scepticism only in order to reject serious consideration of psychic phenomena, whereas it actually rejects serious consideration of anything and everything. You’re concerned with “utilityâ€. I would suggest that our agreed distinctions between truth, knowledge and belief will provide us with a much more useful framework for our discussion.
MATT: This COMPLETELY changes the power of the position because NOW we need to apply a series of justifications to any claim. The challenge offered by the "Agrippan Trilemma" is that we cannot claim knowledge, if the claim suffers from any one of these three challenges:
Hold on. If we are sure that we know nothing, ultimately it doesn’t matter what challenges have been met, as we still can’t acquire knowledge.
No hold here:::::>>>
You're running down the wrong rabbit hole.
You are equating truth with knowledge here.
I know this fundamental topic is probably boring to you, but I need to find a way to resolve the question "What can I do with questions dealing with the appellation 'psychic?'" My issues are clearly at the philosophical level, and these need to be dealt with satisfactorily before I will be comfortable moving on. You can consider this perhaps, a long inquiry into how YOU deal with these things, as you, apparently, can do so with ease. At this point, I cannot.
It should be clear that I do not consider knowledge an objective thing. Everything man claims he knows, he knows in relation to something else. The relationship of what we call knowledge (which I will for expedience simply refer to as knowledge) to language is something none of us here I think, can refute. I am also slowly coming to a psychological realization that everything we know is built about in relation to the self. (It makes sense... the first thing we are likely to be aware of IS ourselves.)
So lets talk about knowledge, to clear up any confusion about my thoughts about it being a post-modern and nihilistic view.
Knowledge is ultimately relative. This is imminently betrayed by the scientific method, which we are all familiar with. An hypothesis is accepted or rejected based upon some test it passes or fails. But any hypothesis might pass an experimental test and be agreed to be the answer, even though it is NOT the correct one. Newton's theory of Gravity is a good popular example. But in reality--it was not correct--and the real answer on what Gravity is has yet to be determined. Positivists like Dawkins point to this in a light that "our knowledge ever improves" but lately I'm more inclined to look at it as "relative understanding." Further, science as I have stressed--is about model building. It asks the question, "does this model fit what we have observed?" It is an activity in abstraction-building. David was amazed recently when I brought up a computer that modeled a cell with an equation several million terms long. Humans are not equipped to deal with numbers like that--and it should serve as a warning to the limits of science that we are reaching a point where it will NOT be possible to create a lay explanation for some of the things we study.
I conclude my discussion of objective knowledge by recapping: Objective knowledge is the name given for relationships man observes about those things not directly inside of himself-->science being the readily available construct.
Next we turn to "inner" knowledge. This category contains those pieces of knowledge such as answers to "How are you feeling today?"
"Are you hot or cold?"
There is no good objective measure for these things, we take a person at their word (generally). There isn't much that can be said about this category of things--they exist--but these things are personally relative.
Take David's example of the woman who had the NDE where she floated outside of her body and discovered a shoe. What's really so remarkable about this situation? If it had been seen inside of a dream instead of in a state of near death, the immediate weight of the story's power seems (at least, to me) to diminish.
The question of utility.
To what end does a psychic explanation serve the purpose of gathering knowledge? In the above example, WHAT is the floating shoe story evidence OF? What is it evidence FOR? What do we gain by including them? What do we lose by excluding them? If you can't answer those questions in a way that allows you to modify how we view the relationships of everything else (in our world of knowledge) than how can we even have a meaningful conversation about them?
I'm not saying that we forget the stories. I'm asking how we can meaningfully assimilate them.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Agrippan Skepticism
MATT (quoting Agrippa, 08.11): The only thing we can be sure of is that we know nothing.
Dhw (07.11): ...in the epistemology thread you and I agreed to distinguish between knowledge (relative, but I won’t repeat our definition), and truth (absolute)…
MATT: The challenge offered by the Agrippan trilemma is that we cannot claim knowledge, if the claim suffers from any of these three challenges [...]
Dhw: (08.11): If we are sure that we know nothing, ultimately it doesn’t matter what challenges have been met, as we still can’t acquire knowledge.
MATT (08.11): You’re running down the wrong rabbit hole. You are equating truth with knowledge here. […] Everything man claims he knows, he knows in relation to something else […] Knowledge is ultimately relative.
You spend the rest of your post proving to me what was already agreed back in January, namely that knowledge is relative (repeated on 07.11 as above). In fact it is the first Agrippan quote that equates truth with knowledge, which is why your arguments are contradictory (we know nothing...implicitly, we can only claim knowledge if we meet the three challenges). You continue to ignore the agreed definitions:
Truth is absolute and unknowable.
Knowledge is: “information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it.â€
Belief is: “information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth.â€
This definition of knowledge allows for all the flexibility you need even in science, since new discoveries can change the general consensus, and it also allows us actually to have knowledge, which your Agrippan quote does not. And so to psychic phenomena:
MATT: Take David’s example of the woman who had the NDE where she floated outside of her body and discovered a shoe. What’s really so remarkable about this situation? If it had been seen inside of a dream instead on in a state of near death, the immediate weight of the story’s power seems (at least to me) to diminish.
The shoe was on the roof. How did she know? Even if she dreamt it, why should the unconscious mind perceive material realities to which the material body has no access? How do NDE-ers learn that someone else has just died? There are countless cases in which NDE-ers, OBE-ers, people asleep, people awake have been given information to which they had no normal access. By all means dismiss some as frauds or illusions. Just concentrate on those that have been corroborated by witnesses or events. Explain them.
You ask to what end a psychic explanation serves the purpose of gathering knowledge, and “how we can meaningfully assimilate them [the stories].†Every quest for knowledge entails collecting the available information and assimilating it in a pattern that will gain general consensus as being true. This is an ongoing process. At present there is no consensus, i.e. no knowledge as to the source of consciousness. Materialists think the source is the brain cells, but millions of people think the source is some form of energy which CONTROLS the brain cells – they equate it with “mind†or “soul†or spirit†or “willâ€. At present we only have belief (see the above definitions). Knowledge will need to explain experiences (e.g. the shoe on the roof) which appear to defy the materialist theory. Until they have been explained, they can be meaningfully assimilated as POSSIBLE evidence of an unknown form of energy, and you will only exclude them if you’ve already made up your mind that the source of consciousness, emotion, memory, imagination, will etc. is the brain cells. If you can’t explain these cases, my suggestion is that you suspend judgement, and that does not allow for exclusion of ANY possible evidence for either theory.
Agrippan Skepticism
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 09, 2011, 17:58 (4762 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: Take David’s example of the woman who had the NDE where she floated outside of her body and discovered a shoe. What’s really so remarkable about this situation? If it had been seen inside of a dream instead on in a state of near death, the immediate weight of the story’s power seems (at least to me) to diminish.
The shoe was on the roof. How did she know? Even if she dreamt it, why should the unconscious mind perceive material realities to which the material body has no access? How do NDE-ers learn that someone else has just died? There are countless cases in which NDE-ers, OBE-ers, people asleep, people awake have been given information to which they had no normal access. By all means dismiss some as frauds or illusions. Just concentrate on those that have been corroborated by witnesses or events. Explain them.
I'll dip my toe: the exact position and condition of the tennis shoe was corroborated. To equate this story and others of the same positive proof with dreaming is extremely inconsistent. The skepticism belongs only in the area of skepticism of explanations of the phenomenon, which is widely accepted as actually happening.
Agrippan Skepticism
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 26, 2011, 20:34 (4715 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,
You ask to what end a psychic explanation serves the purpose of gathering knowledge, and “how we can meaningfully assimilate them [the stories].†Every quest for knowledge entails collecting the available information and assimilating it in a pattern that will gain general consensus as being true. This is an ongoing process. At present there is no consensus, i.e. no knowledge as to the source of consciousness. Materialists think the source is the brain cells, but millions of people think the source is some form of energy which CONTROLS the brain cells – they equate it with “mind†or “soul†or spirit†or “willâ€. At present we only have belief (see the above definitions). Knowledge will need to explain experiences (e.g. the shoe on the roof) which appear to defy the materialist theory. Until they have been explained, they can be meaningfully assimilated as POSSIBLE evidence of an unknown form of energy, and you will only exclude them if you’ve already made up your mind that the source of consciousness, emotion, memory, imagination, will etc. is the brain cells. If you can’t explain these cases, my suggestion is that you suspend judgement, and that does not allow for exclusion of ANY possible evidence for either theory.
You send me down an interesting rabbit hole here...
I can only comment upon my own experience, but my time spent meditating leads me to the fact that I truly feel we have very little control: Spend even 15 minutes meditating and you seek how easily your mind "gets away from you." It is this idea that leads a philosopher like Daniel Dennett to claim that free will is false: that what "will" really *is* is so minuscule as to be practically nonexistent.
Basically the "will" is a filter that allows actions to pass. It has no control over them beyond negation. Dennett's view here is because the will only acts as a gatekeeper to our unconscious, then free will effectively doesn't exist.
I'm not completely on board with him here: yes, we do not have control over what our subconscious brings to the surface, but we do have control over what we will act on... the very fact that we have that "executive function" as it were is evidence of free will to me, even if it is an extremely limited free will as opposed to the traditional western notion of the term.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Agrippan Skepticism
Matt asked me how we could “meaningfully assimilate†NDE experiences, and how a psychic explanation served the purpose of gathering knowledge. I replied (9 November at 17.19) that as no-one knows the source or nature of consciousness, these experiences MIGHT be construed as evidence of a form of energy as yet unknown to us. Until the truth is known, Agrippan scepticism demands suspension of judgement.
For some reason, Matt, your reply completely avoids the subject of psychic experiences and their relationship to consciousness, and focuses entirely on free will. This is a totally different subject, which we’ve already discussed at great length. I really don’t want to go over all the arguments again, especially as psychic experiences have always been a big stumbling block for you. You would like to dismiss these phenomena – hence the questions to which I responded – even when there is third-party corroboration of information which could not have been obtained by normal means. To me this smacks of prejudgement.
Under “Afterlife: Matt Take Notice!!!†(7 December at 22.26) I challenged you to respond to a website David had referred us to:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research11.html
I hoped you would read it and let us know if you were “now prepared at least to consider the possibility that there might be a form of psychic energy beyond the material world as we know it.†You may well have missed it, as you were obviously very busy at the time. Perhaps you could return to that thread now. It might encourage you to become a truly Agrippan sceptic by keeping an open mind!
Agrippan Skepticism
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 31, 2011, 16:32 (4710 days ago) @ dhw
Before I go there (and I will--lately I pay more attention to my inbox than the actual site)
You kinda kicked off a stream-of-consciousness writing about free will.
Sorry if that threw you off.
I will head to the relevant thread.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"