Can we have a science of the non-material

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

True, but that is also not quite a denial!

Christianity is very much against any exploration of psychic matters, so perhaps that explains your point of view.

David

I didn't deny it because the mere idea is ludicrous. You can't be a materialist and a catholic...
I note that you didn't answer the question.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I guess a science of consciousness, might have to start as a purely observational science - like 19th century botany.

How would that be different from psychology?

Originally Posted by David Bailey

However, I suspect that we might get a head start by going to some of the few remaining primitive tribes - rather as Daniel Pinchbeck did - and asking for some help!

How do you know which bit of tribal knowledge is valid and which is not?
How do you know that native european lore such as catholicism is invalid?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Miguel

How would that be different from psychology?


How do you know which bit of tribal knowledge is valid and which is not?
How do you know that native european lore such as catholicism is invalid?

OK - Glad to know you are not a Catholic

There is no certain way to test traditional knowledge of this sort - you need to experiment with it. However, the Church took the various supposed teachings of Jesus - hundreds of years after the event - and held a series of conferences to decide what teachings were in, and what were to be excluded. Other bits of lore got added even later. I would not think such a system would be likely to give insight.

On the other hand, some of the tribal shamans seem to know a lot about medicinal plants - so much so that they are used by people prospecting for new pharmaceutical drugs. They claim to know about these plants from dreams - not by some form of trial and error (which would probably wipe out most of the tribe!). I think they might be a better source of knowledge.

Yes, I think psychology may be the closest thing we have to a science of the non-material. It has remarkably few points of contact with the material world.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Yes, I think psychology may be the closest thing we have to a science of the non-material. It has remarkably few points of contact with the material world.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

I'm beginning to think that we all don't have the same definitions of material vs. immaterial.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I have no idea what you mean by this.

I'm beginning to think that we all don't have the same definitions of material vs. immaterial.

~~ Paul

Well psychology deals with the interactions between people - conscious entities. Whether those conscious entities are created by the brain in some as yet mysterious way, or whether the brain just hooks up an abstract entity to the body, plays almost no role in psychiatry - other than the fact that a psychiatrist may prescribe a fairly crude drug to try to tweak the brain in some way.

If consciousness really is distinct from the brain - just modulated by the brain - then psychiatrists (and also anyone involved in the arts) are dealing most directly with that layer of reality.

David

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

There is no certain way to test traditional knowledge of this sort - you need to experiment with it.

How to experiment with it?
That's the one single question that needs answering.

Originally Posted by David Bailey

However, the Church took the various supposed teachings of Jesus - hundreds of years after the event - and held a series of conferences to decide what teachings were in, and what were to be excluded. Other bits of lore got added even later. I would not think such a system would be likely to give insight.

I don't think I understand the logic here. Why is Jesus important to a science of the immaterial? Why are dreams an acceptable source of knowledge for shamans but not for catholic theologians?
Ian favorably mentioned Aquinas. Aquinas was hugely influential catholic theologian. He impressed the clergy to such a degree that he was sainted.

Originally Posted by David Bailey

On the other hand, some of the tribal shamans seem to know a lot about medicinal plants - so much so that they are used by people prospecting for new pharmaceutical drugs. They claim to know about these plants from dreams - not by some form of trial and error (which would probably wipe out most of the tribe!). I think they might be a better source of knowledge.

We're not talking about medicine, though, but about a science of the non-material. How do you get there?

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Yes, I think psychology may be the closest thing we have to a science of the non-material. It has remarkably few points of contact with the material world.

But what's the difference between psychology and the envisioned science?

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Miguel

How to experiment with it?
That's the one single question that needs answering.


I don't think I understand the logic here. Why is Jesus important to a science of the immaterial? Why are dreams an acceptable source of knowledge for shamans but not for catholic theologians?
Ian favorably mentioned Aquinas. Aquinas was hugely influential catholic theologian. He impressed the clergy to such a degree that he was sainted.


We're not talking about medicine, though, but about a science of the non-material. How do you get there?


But what's the difference between psychology and the envisioned science?

Well, if you think the Catholic church could have something to offer here, lets include them as well, but I would say that organised religions - particularly Catholicism - are religions created by committee for essentially political reasons - that is why I dismiss them.

If a shaman car really identify medicinal plants by dreaming about them, well I think that should be investigated. Native peoples are often reported as having senses and intuitions that we lack - I think we might be able to learn from them.

How is it that I still sense you have a soft spot for Catholicism?

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

If a shaman car really identify medicinal plants by dreaming about them, well I think that should be investigated. Native peoples are often reported as having senses and intuitions that we lack - I think we might be able to learn from them.

Let's make sure the shaman didn't receive the knowledge from his forebears, forget about it, and then dream it.

~~ Paul

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well, if you think the Catholic church could have something to offer here, lets include them as well, but I would say that organised religions - particularly Catholicism - are religions created by committee for essentially political reasons - that is why I dismiss them.

Let's just say that I think that catholicism has as much to offer as shamanism.

If a shaman car really identify medicinal plants by dreaming about them, well I think that should be investigated. Native peoples are often reported as having senses and intuitions that we lack - I think we might be able to learn from them.

Assuming for a moment they have that ability, how would that help with a science of the non-material?

The secret of science is that one devises experiments that allow one to tell which of two (or more) competing ideas is right. If one can't, in principle, design such an experiment one is either not dealing with a real difference or with science.
For now at least, it seems that there can be no science of the non-material.

How is it that I still sense you have a soft spot for Catholicism?

People who know me in real life would be astonished by the idea. At least those who know how I think about religion. Still in a way I have one. More for occultism, paganism and the lot but it bleeds over. Besides it is so wonderfully quaint and traditional. It is only that actually living in a quaintly catholic country forces one to deal with the practical consequences which seriously spoils one's abstract appreciation.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Music's physical representation is sound. The musical score is a recipe for producing the sound.

Paul McCartney dreamt the whole of the melody of hit song Yesterday (although he wrote words later) , he merely wrote the song down upon waking. Not that rare, I have also experienced this, I've written down melodies I first heard during sleep, these are real sounds as if played by an orchestra or group of many musicians. Similarly Mozart claimed he often heard music even when awake as if it already existed and he just wrote it down.

The point being .... where is this orchestra or synthesizer in the brain that creates real experienced sounds, to be heard so clearly mentally but is physically silent