45. Researching Psychic Mediums (Podcast)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Now Paul, you will argue that similar ethics can merge from materialism, many yes but it is less clear. For example is adultery wrong, if the wife doesn't know and can't find out? In materialism it doesn't mentally hurt her because she doesn't know and never finds out.

Except, of course, when she finds out.

That is what I mean when I say ethics can have no solid base in materialism, it is social construct.

It's a social construct under any metaphysic. Whether my wife finds out or not has nothing to do with whether adultery is ethical. It might have something to do with whether I take the chance on doing it, but that is different.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Hang on ... how does free will work under other metaphysics?

In materialism the unconscious is the chooser, as consciousness is supposedly generated by unconscious processes.... however in idealism and dualism the consciousness is the chooser and unconscious processes are habitual responses.

The key difference is that in materialism there is no conscious free will so the person is a victim of unconscious responses and circumstances. In idealism and dualism the conscious chooser is held responsible for their actions and held somewhat responsible for creating their habitual unconscious responses.

Note this is neither determinism or unlimited free will! We cannot use our freewill to change past (an effect), we can only use our free will in present (a cause), which enters the past (an effect) which in turns again gives free choice in present (a cause) .... in other words we only have free will in how we react to what the past has brought.

In some eastern religions 'karma' doesn't mean fate as the west interpeted it, it meant the effect part of cause (freewill) -> effect (fate) ....chains of free will -> fate -> free will -> fate, etc.

Now having said that Paul, this could be wrong as classical causality - the law of cause and effect, fell somewhat apart in quantum physics

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

It's a social construct under any metaphysic. Whether my wife finds out or not has nothing to do with whether adultery is ethical.

You are correct. If a wife gave consent to have other partners, it would be hard to say it was ethically wrong action even although religion and society would say so. However, unlike religion, ethics is more based upon consent. In this example I was assuming the opinion of the vast majority of partners that would disapprove of infidelity. In this case it is indeed unethical as they would not give consent to their partner to be unfaithful to their relationship.

The point I was trying to make was in materialism, it is possible to wriggle around the issue of consent and argue the infidelity was not found out and will never be found out therefore was harmless and non hurtful to the relationship. However if survival is true, perhaps one's dead mother in law is perfectly aware of what her son in law is up to Whether that puts any male or female off or not is another matter

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

In materialism the unconscious is the chooser, as consciousness is supposedly generated by unconscious processes.... however in idealism and dualism the consciousness is the chooser and unconscious processes are habitual responses.

I know the story, but how does it actually work? How does idealism or dualism allow my decision to be something other than predetermined or random?

The point I was trying to make was in materialism, it is possible to wriggle around the issue of consent and argue the infidelity was not found out and will never be found out therefore was harmless and non hurtful to the relationship. However if survival is true, perhaps one's dead mother in law is perfectly aware of what her son in law is up to Whether that puts any male or female off or not is another matter.

Survival could be true under materialism, so materialism doesn't get away with anything. For that matter, telepathy could be true.

A belief in telepathy does not require one to believe in any particular metaphysic. It only requires one to have faith in an unknown mechanism.

~~ Paul

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

However if survival is true, perhaps one's dead mother in law is perfectly aware of what her son in law is up to Whether that puts any male or female off or not is another matter

Or if Santa Claus really exists then he will know whether you've been good or bad.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Hang on ... what are ethics based on under other metaphysics?
~~ Paul

Well, values/ethics seem pretty fundamental to us, as conscious beings, but they seem like an irrelevant add-on to conventional science. Frequently, ethical questions - such as the question of what you can and cannot do with human embryos - seem to get resolved in a pretty arbitrary and naive way, partly because science has absolutely nothing to bring these debates. I mean I don't think a tiny ball of cells should be treated as anything other than - a tiny ball of cells - I expect many of the people doing research in this area feel the same way, but they can't offer any 'scientific opinion' in such debates.

Maybe they would have a more central place in a science that contained explicit conscious entities. That is not, in itself a reason to move to that model, but it is a hint of what such a model might offer.

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Or if Santa Claus really exists then he will know whether you've been good or bad.

G. N. M. Tyrrell (1953) found in recorded literature over 150 cases of people seeing an apparition collectively or simultaneously. With around a third of all apparitions are seen by more than one person. Hornell Hart (1956) reported similar as did Mckenzie (1987).

How many reports of people simultaneously seeing apparitions of unicorns, tooth fairies, santa claus, rainbow ponies, flying teapots or all those other cynics favourite analogies ... have been documented to find similar?

And apart from collective sightings there are NDEs, reports of young children recalling information of the past before their birth, mediumship beating the odds under controlled trials, etc. .... the former has to be taken more seriously.

Edit to add sorry for the thumbs down icon ..... accidentally pressed I think ... I have no objection to someone disagreeing with my viewpoint

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Well, values/ethics seem pretty fundamental to us, as conscious beings, but they seem like an irrelevant add-on to conventional science. Frequently, ethical questions - such as the question of what you can and cannot do with human embryos - seem to get resolved in a pretty arbitrary and naive way, partly because science has absolutely nothing to bring these debates. I mean I don't think a tiny ball of cells should be treated as anything other than - a tiny ball of cells - I expect many of the people doing research in this area feel the same way, but they can't offer any 'scientific opinion' in such debates.

Yes, but how would this be different under some other metaphysic? Would ethics someone become a scientific question under dualistic science?

Maybe they would have a more central place in a science that contained explicit conscious entities. That is not, in itself a reason to move to that model, but it is a hint of what such a model might offer.

I don't see why science under any metaphysic would do anything other than study the origins of morality. I don't think anyone wants to see science as the arbiter of ethics and morals.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

How many reports of people simultaneously seeing apparitions of unicorns, tooth fairies, santa claus, rainbow ponies, flying teapots or all those other cynics favourite analogies ... have been documented to find similar?

If a group of kids reported an apparition of Santa Claus, what would happen? The adults would chuckle and dismiss it as childhood fantasy. The ones that aren't dismissed are the ones believed by adults. Yet this is no reason to think that the ones believed by adults are more likely to be real.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

If a group of kids reported an apparition of Santa Claus, what would happen? The adults would chuckle and dismiss it as childhood fantasy. The ones that aren't dismissed are the ones believed by adults. Yet this is no reason to think that the ones believed by adults are more likely to be real.

If you are implying that it is only adults who believe in 'ghosts' who see collective appariations, this is not the case.

Nor can one even dismiss children who claim to collectively see Santa Claus as beyond all possibility, if minds can share hallucinatory information via telepathy, as suggesting in dream telepathy lab studies, with odds of 22 billion to 1 against chance. If sharing an hallucination is possible, it might offer explanations of such things as alien abduction, etc. which might be shared subjective experiences but still not real to our world.

First materialists have to prove hallucination is only a brain function, I don't mean suggestive evidence, I mean decent evidence on how it works.

Regardless, objectivity is the product of agreement between subjectivities. What alternative definition works?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

If you are implying that it is only adults who believe in 'ghosts' who see collective appariations, this is not the case.

Of course not, but it takes some adults to legitimize ghosts.

Nor can one even dismiss children who claim to collectively see Santa Claus as beyond all possibility, if minds can share hallucinatory information via telepathy, as suggesting in dream telepathy lab studies, with odds of 22 billion to 1 against chance. If sharing an hallucination is possible, it might offer explanations of such things as alien abduction, etc. which might be shared subjective experiences but still not real to our world.

Of course there are shared hallucinations, but not because of some psychic thing, but rather because of cultural influences.

First materialists have to prove hallucination is only a brain function, I don't mean suggestive evidence, I mean decent evidence on how it works.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Things are assumed to have a naturalistic explanation until someone comes up with compelling evidence otherwise. If we assume the opposite default, then scientists have to spend all their time convincing you that the horse fell over because it broke its ankle, rather than because a cadre of fairies played a joke on it.

Regardless, objectivity is the product of agreement between subjectivities. What alternative definition works?

Indeed, that's what objectivity is. The funny thing is that these objectively-agreed events keep happening even while we're not paying attention.

~~ Paul