Post-materialist science manifesto (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Sunday, February 22, 2015, 00:49 (3345 days ago)
I can certainly accept this as very plausible:-http://www.opensciences.org/files/pdfs/Manifesto-for-a-Post-Materialist-Science.pdf-"15. According to the post-materialist paradigm: a) Mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world. Mind is fundamental in the universe, i.e. it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic.-b) There is a deep interconnectedness between mind and the physical world.-c) Mind (will/intention) can influence the state of the physical world, and operate in a nonlocal (or extended) fashion, i.e. it is not confined to specific points in space, such as brains and bodies, nor to specific points in time, such as the present. Since the mind may nonlocally influence the physical world, the intentions, emotions, and desires of an experimenter may not be completely isolated from experimental outcomes, even in controlled and blinded experimental designs.-d) Minds are apparently unbounded, and may unite in ways suggesting a unitary, One Mind that includes all individual, single minds. -e) NDEs in cardiac arrest suggest that the brain acts as a transceiver of mental activity, i.e. the mind can work through the brain, but is not produced by it. NDEs occurring in cardiac arrest, coupled with evidence from research mediums, further suggest the survival of consciousness, following bodily death, and the existence of other levels of reality that are non-physical.-f) Scientists should not be afraid to investigate spirituality and spiritual experiences since they represent a central aspect of human existence."
Post-materialist science manifesto
DAVID: I can certainly accept this as very plausible:-http://www.opensciences.org/files/pdfs/Manifesto-for-a-Post-Materialist-Science.pdf-Thank you for this. One needs to read the whole piece for a proper overview, and I myself can certainly accept their arguments against narrow materialism and the need for serious research into all those mental and psychic phenomena that materialistic science has so far failed to explain. I am, though, a little put off by some of the statements that you have yourself quoted: Mind “cannot be derived from matter”. Such an assertion is every bit as blinkered as the assertion that mind IS derived from matter. We do not know the source of mind, and so yes, scientists should investigate all aspects of the subject, but without prejudice.-Minds “may unite in ways suggesting a unitary One Mind that includes all individual, single minds”. The use of capitals alone suggests that they have an agenda here. I began the “brief guide” with a response to what I see as Dawkins' agenda, in which scientific observation is coloured by personal prejudice, and although I would heartily endorse most of the manifesto, I have a nasty feeling that by post-materialist science they mean “come and join our congregation”. But if they use science as you have done in your book, David, to counter the arguments of atheistic scientists, at least they may restore some kind of balance to the discussion.
Post-materialist science manifesto
by David Turell , Sunday, February 22, 2015, 18:43 (3344 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The use of capitals alone suggests that they have an agenda here. I began the “brief guide” with a response to what I see as Dawkins' agenda, in which scientific observation is coloured by personal prejudice, and although I would heartily endorse most of the manifesto, I have a nasty feeling that by post-materialist science they mean “come and join our congregation”. But if they use science as you have done in your book, David, to counter the arguments of atheistic scientists, at least they may restore some kind of balance to the discussion.-Thank you. That was the point. There are believing scientists who need to express themselves
Post-materialist science manifesto
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Sunday, February 22, 2015, 23:40 (3344 days ago) @ David Turell
I've put together a full response to the Manifesto:-1. The word "materialism" is often used pejoratively. It is taken to imply crude consumerism, and lack of artistic feeling. But in modern physics matter is interchangeable with energy. So why do we never hear complaints about "Energism"? Also matter cannot exist without the forces and fields that hold it together. It is not the whole story.-2,3. The "scientific materialism" they complain about is a straw man, a figment of their imaginations. If mind is just another word for brain activity (which few would surely deny) who has ever said that our thoughts cannot have any effect upon our brains? I would say it is the reorganisation of neuron connections that constitutes thought.-4,6. Scientific methods have indeed been highly successful, but not because they have been based on any ideology, but because on the contrary they depend on radical scepticism. In section 6 they agree with this. -5. The claim that science has neglected subjective experiences is untrue. Much work has been done. The results may not have been so productive yet, but that is the nature of the subject.-7. The claim that quantum mechanics introduces the mind or consciousness of the observer into the equations is very ambiguously stated. This is only one of numerous interpretations of QM.-8. The psychological studies they mention that show effects of mental activity on physiology, surely only go to support the contention that mind is brain and nervous system activity.-9. The claims made for "psi" phenomena are just false. Nothing so definite as they claim has ever been shown. I notice that Rupert Sheldrake is one of the signatories of the manifesto, and this is his field of research.-10,11. Likewise the claims for out of body perception during Near Death Experiences, and the abilities of those who claim to be spiritualist mediums, are overblown.-12,13. The above claims are not considered false or "anomalous" for ideological reasons, but because the results do not meet the standards of scientific proof.-14. This is another false claim. Mind as brain activity is a perfectly coherent concept.-15,16. This is the statement of their manifesto, and reveals their real agenda. They want to introduce a concept of "mind" as a separate existence apart from matter and energy. To avoid confusion it would be better to call this "spirit" or "life-force". This is said to be "interconnected" with and able to affect the physical world, but they don't say how. Further although mind is unbounded in space it can somehow form separate minds, yet these are, or may become, part of one mind, what ever that means. This is redolent of Deepak Chopra's "universal consciousness", or some form of God as Great Spirit. They retain material science, but overlay it with spirituality, but fail to put forward any coherent theory of how they interact. Perhaps by Sheldrake's morphogenesis? But they don't endorse this.-17. They claim their post-materialism gives us back our "dignity and power" but I was unaware we had lost it, or had much in the first place. Why can't materialists favour compassion respect and peace? Far from creating a "deep connection" between ourselves and nature it seems to me they are separating us from nature. Materialists can also have environmental awareness and favour the preservation of life forms, and be contemplative.-18. Their final claim that their ideas are revolutionary is hubristic. There is nothing whatsoever new in it. It is a reversion to dualism.
--
GPJ
Post-materialist science manifesto
by David Turell , Monday, February 23, 2015, 16:16 (3343 days ago) @ George Jelliss
George: I've put together a full response to the Manifesto:-I've responded to bits and pieces, politely to agree and disagree: > > 1. The word "materialism" is often used pejoratively. It is taken to imply crude consumerism, and lack of artistic feeling.-Granted, but I view the word of implying only a lack of consideration of mental or spiritual.-> > George: 2,3. If mind is just another word for brain activity (which few would surely deny) who has ever said that our thoughts cannot have any effect upon our brains? I would say it is the reorganisation of neuron connections that constitutes thought.-Yes we modify our brain with thought, but no, reorganization constitutes memory. You've not explained consciousness. > > George: 7. The claim that quantum mechanics introduces the mind or consciousness of the observer into the equations is very ambiguously stated. This is only one of numerous interpretations of QM.-Agreed > > George: 8. The psychological studies they mention that show effects of mental activity on physiology, surely only go to support the contention that mind is brain and nervous system activity.-Still this is no explanation for consciousness > > George: 9. The claims made for "psi" phenomena are just false. Nothing so definite as they claim has ever been shown. I notice that Rupert Sheldrake is one of the signatories of the manifesto, and this is his field of research.-Have you read his studies? I have. Does he use fake statistics? I think he is honest, if not main-stream. > > George:10,11. Likewise the claims for out of body perception during Near Death Experiences, are overblown.-Read Eben Alexander's book. From academic atheist neurosurgeon to fierce believer because of his experience. His and hundreds of other veridical experiences suggests strongly something is there. > > George: 12,13. The above claims are not considered false or "anomalous" for ideological reasons, but because the results do not meet the standards of scientific proof.-Accepted > > 14. This is another false claim. Mind as brain activity is a perfectly coherent concept.-Again, agreed, but your statement does not offer a full explanation, which no one has. > > George: 15,16. This is the statement of their manifesto, and reveals their real agenda. They want to introduce a concept of "mind" as a separate existence apart from matter and energy. To avoid confusion it would be better to call this "spirit" or "life-force". .. This is redolent of Deepak Chopra's "universal consciousness", or some form of God as Great Spirit. They retain material science, but overlay it with spirituality, but fail to put forward any coherent theory of how they interact. Perhaps by Sheldrake's morphogenesis? But they don't endorse this.-I have the same problem with how mind matter and energy interact, but I suspect they do.-> > George: 18. Their final claim that their ideas are revolutionary is hubristic. There is nothing whatsoever new in it. It is a reversion to dualism.-I seem to be still a dualist.
Post-materialist science manifesto
I agree with most of George's criticisms, but would welcome an open-minded approach to the problem of consciousness and to the study of psychic phenomena. I'm only chipping in here in order to add a massive HEAR HEAR to the following: GEORGE: 17. They claim their post-materialism gives us back our "dignity and power" but I was unaware we had lost it, or had much in the first place. Why can't materialists favour compassion respect and peace? Far from creating a "deep connection" between ourselves and nature it seems to me they are separating us from nature. Materialists can also have environmental awareness and favour the preservation of life forms, and be contemplative.-One of the great myths created by the religions is the idea that anyone who does not believe in God (or in their own particular God) is incapable of love, empathy, morality etc. I recall a discussion with Tony on St Paul's charming summary of it all: “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (Cor. 2, 6, 14). I would still welcome this project, but George has highlighted the problem I mentioned earlier: I fear that like some scientists on the other side of the fence,they will colour their science with their personal prejudices.
Post-materialist science manifesto
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 24, 2015, 01:02 (3343 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I agree with most of George's criticisms, but would welcome an open-minded approach to the problem of consciousness and to the study of psychic phenomena. I'm only chipping in here in order to add a massive HEAR HEAR to the following: > > GEORGE: 17. Why can't materialists favour compassion respect and peace? .... Materialists can also have environmental awareness and favour the preservation of life forms, and be contemplative. > > One of the great myths created by the religions is the idea that anyone who does not believe in God (or in their own particular God) is incapable of love, empathy, morality etc. ....I would still welcome this project, but George has highlighted the problem I mentioned earlier: I fear that like some scientists on the other side of the fence,they will colour their science with their personal prejudices.-And I would add HEAR HEAR. I had no need to comment on 17.