Boy all of this from a simple intro link to a video?
Did anyone even bother to hear what the guy had to say? and if they did,
would they even have the awareness, experience and wisdom to judge it worthy
or not?
Hi Brian. ;-)
gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f14c4ca7-6e17-4858-9494-f18b01e09a6b@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 20, 10:40 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 19, 10:52 am, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Dean Radin, PhD, is Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic
>>> Sciences.
>
>> 'Nuff said.
>
> I don't know if this is one of those kinds of appeals to dogma/force
> but by first appearance they claim they are open to many ideas but
> actually they will deny any that claims to have figured it out. They
> probably turn mystery into a religious dogma that cannot be questioned
> which of course allows them to push through weak ideas. This under the
> pretense of scientific research.
I you really look deep, you have just described the whole realm of
scientific research. If you dare question,let alone answer you are
written off as an 'inferior'.
What has science ever discovered that is not just another ling in the
chain of greater unknowns. Beyong blackholes, dark matter...theory
after theory.
>
> [Appeal to Mysterianism fallacy; it is so complex that you are
> necessarily wrong sufficiently and soundly following from how complex
> it is without begging the question.]
>
> People dogmatically assert that they know things. One person asserts
> that she knows something, another denies this. It occurs to a
> philosophical eavesdropper to wonder what knowledge is and whether
> anyone really knows.
Such is the limitation of philosophy. You can never know if somebody
else knows, unless you know yourself, and of course that also
describes beliefs. A belief cannot exist without mutual support.
Sceintists believe they know. Sure they discover some detail, but
detail of what?
> Are we not often wrong when we claim to know
> something?
Absolutely. It is fundemental, to learning to know the difference.
Using my preferred language "am I often wrong when I claim to know
something"? We all go through that stage. How do I know? Because I
have been through such stages. The 'truth' that I now recognise, hasnt
changed over twenty five years or so. I just get greater and greater
levels of confirmation, unlike the 'belief that I knew".
>At one time people claimed that they knew the earth was
> flat. But now? At one time, not so long ago, people claimed they knew
> that the idea of a person walking on the moon was a mere fiction. But
> now? At the present time, people claim to know that no one can travel
> backward in time. But later? Who knows?.
Once 'Socratean' style awareness is discovered, what you just listed
becomes abundanty clear. His relationship with Plato is perhaps one of
the greatest examles of this.
>
> ...A dogma, as we are using the term, is an assumption one makes
> uncritically, with no attempt at reflective justification, and which
> one feels is perfectly evident, something which, stands in no need of
> serious examination.
Those who constantly refer to the 'group consciousness' (will 'we'
ever know etc), cannot see individual realization 'because' their
search via is group referencing.This is why even the greatest
scientificly oriented minds, discover , exponentially, greater
mysteries.
>The unquestioned assumption that we gain
> knowledge of the existence and characteristics of ordinary objects by
> means of perception is a dogma.
A scientist makes a discovery, which can only enhance his perception.
>
> ...Our objection to the dogmatic contention that people know certain
> of their beliefs to be true is the roadblock to inquiry indigenous to
> such claims.
Thats simply not the case. Scientific 'knowledge' that has since been
superceded was still a stepping stone to the current level of
theories.The wisdom ladder has an infinite number of rungs.
>If a person says he knows that something is true, then he
> intends his listener to take what he says as true on his authority. It
> is not a matter to be questioned.
Totaly false. Dictaters exist in every field. A sign of their own
uncertainty.
Consider the 'knowing person', knows how to demonstrate to another,
how to find out for themselves.
BOfL
>
> Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
> by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros
>
Pappashttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
>
> New Mysterianism
>
> New Mysterianism is a philosophy proposing that certain problems (in
> particular, consciousness) will never be explained.
>
> Owen Flanagan noted in his 1991 book "Science of the Mind" that some
> modern thinkers have suggested that consciousness might never be
> completely explained. Flanagan called them "the new mysterians" after
> the rock group ? and the Mysterians. The term originated with the
> Japanese alien-invasion film The Mysterians. The "old mysterians" are
> thinkers throughout history who have put forward a similar position.
> They include Leibniz, Dr Johnson, and Thomas Huxley. The latter said,
> "How is it that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness
> comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as
> unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin, when Aladdin rubbed his
> lamp." p. 229, quote
>
> Noam Chomsky distinguishes between problems, which seem solvable, at
> least in principle, through scientific methods, and mysteries which do
> not, even in principle. He notes that the cognitive capabilities of
> all organisms are limited by biology, e.g. a mouse will never speak.
> In the same way, certain problems may be beyond our understanding.
>
> The term New Mysterianism has been extended by some writers to
> encompass the wider philosophical position that humans don't have the
> intellectual ability to understand many hard problems, not just the
> problem of consciousness, at a scientific level. This position is also
> known as Anti-Constructive Naturalism.
>
> For example, in the mind-body problem, emergent materialism claims
> that humans aren't smart enough to determine "the relationship between
> mind and matter." 4 Strong agnosticism is a religious application of
> this position.
>
> Colin McGinn is the leading proponent of the New Mysterian position.
>
> Critics argue this philosophy isn't useful and encourages
> capitulation. One critic noted:
>
> the extreme "Mysterian" position, that there are vital issues forever
> beyond our reach, is in many ways deeply unsatisfying.
>
>
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/New_Mysterianism
>
>
http://pedia.newsfilter.co.uk/wikipedia/n/ne/new_mysterianism.html
