Tag Archives: Consciousness

Extrovert tyranny

See:

http://chronicle.com/article/Screening-Out-the-Introverts/131520/

Article reads: We now live under a kind of extrovert tyranny, Cain writes, and that has led to a culture of shallow thinking, compulsory optimism, and escalating risk-taking in pursuit of success, narrowly defined. In other words, extroverts—amplifying each other’s groundless enthusiasms—could be responsible for the economic crisis because they do not listen to introverts, even when there are some around (and they are not trying to pass as extroverts).

Advertisements

Rupert Sheldrake promotes new book

See:

Click Here

Article reads: His new book, The Science Delusion, is a summation of this thinking, an attempt to address what he sees as the limitations and hubris of contemporary scientific thought. In particular, he takes aim at the “scientific dogmatism” that sets itself up as gospel. The chapters take some of the stonier commandments of contemporary science and make them into questions: “Are the laws of nature fixed?”; “Is matter unconscious?”; “Is nature purposeless?” “Are minds confined to brains?”

Homer Smith on direct and indirect perception

See:

http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com/2012/01/indirect-perception-ii.html?spref=fb

Homer says: Self symbolizingness is so big, that to date, no one knows about it.

Quantum mechanics linked to precognition, emotion

See:

Click Here

Article reads: The effect of emotions would be falling right out of these speculations. Belief is emotional and emotional belief is strong. Belief is what we hold against all reason, based on emotions.

Review of Chalmers’s new book

See:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-consciousness-is-not

Review says: From the outset, there has been another strange consequence of Chalmers’s extension of the “easy” problems of consciousness to encompass activity that would seem to be inseparable from experience: the idea that consciousness extends in some sense to the entire universe, or that all matter is conscious. Known as panpsychism, it was this idea that earned Chalmers the scorn of John Searle.

A letter to David Haury

Hi David,
 
Interesting article you have in:
 
 
When reflecting on the origin of truth, one discovers that this particular issue does not really belong to science. The topic is closer to philosophy, i.e., epistemology where Kant made his mark, but even this does not do the topic justice. According to intuitionist understanding, apparent truth springs from something more innate: a trust worthy awareness, of which knowing thy self becomes more fundamental. Or in other words, to win a trust that grounds us to broad reality, there must be a vetting process to puts our most tightly held beliefs to the test. Unfortunately, this vetting process is not traditional science, rather it is closer to a transcendental science as Edmund Husserl noted.
 
Putting the “scientific theory of evolution” to the test does NOT return Darwin`s theory of evolution, it returns something different as I explain in my paper:
 

The placebo effect goes deep

See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577128873886471982.html

Article reads: A particular mind-set or belief about one’s body or health may lead to improvements in disease symptoms as well as changes in appetite, brain chemicals and even vision, several recent studies have found, highlighting how fundamentally the mind and body are connected.

A take on the Higgs boson, and what is science

See:

Click Here

Article reads: One impulse of those who apply the scientific method to human activity is to reduce action, intellection and belief to instrumental functions. Religion and ethics, for instance, are viewed as serving evolutionary aims, the mind is seen as essentially a biological system, and ideas become neurological emanations.

Two-sided emotion and universal grammar

I wrote before about the two-sidedness of emotionality. This should not be surprising, sense emotionality relates to motivation, desire, action and intention. Because action and intention come to bear on the question of determinism and freewill, we see that emotion relates directly to Kant`s third antinomy that is found two-sided: i.e., it is just as easy to interpret emotion from the vantage point offered by liberation and self-determination, as it is to argue that emotion is the by-product of circumstance beyond our control.

This explains why traditional science can`t explain emotion, and why emotion can only be studied with a transcendental science. This explains why the unscrupulous libertine can interpret emotions one way, and act in a different way; that is, the libertine will equivocate his two interpretations of emotionality depending on what is most expedient.

I offer two definitions that may find relevance, assuming my intuition is pristine enough:

1. Prejudice: a premature articulation and judgment of what emotion that is found sense-certain.

2. Intolerance: a call to respect the two-sidedness of one`s own emotionality, while enforcing a one-sided interpretation of the emotionality coming from others.

Question: Assuming God`s plan is to avoid prejudice and intolerance, and noting that Kant`s third antinomy offers a doorway into Trinitarian philosophy where emotionality is found sourcing the middle-term that holds the sides of the antinomy together, then how might we arrive at the universal grammar that is now underwritten by the emotionality that is found transcendent?

When faced with emotion we may slow down, to give emotion enough time for its articulation and thoughtful action. Feeling may be treated by reflex action where we give ourselves over to subconscious control, which is fine. However, to avoid being a libertine we seek a pathway beyond prejudice, defined above, and this implies that enough time must pass to bring deliberation to a proper conclusion. Then we may act, noting that deliberation is followed by liberation. Note, however, to avoid intolerance there must also be a call to respect the two-sided emotionality that is found transcendent. So not just any conclusion will do, and more work may be noted.

Awareness finds itself with the articulation of the emotion that is found sense-certain. But note, this is as much the emotion returning to its transcendent source by liberation, and so awareness finds its self in its provisionality that is less than an absolute understanding. Therefore, this provisionality should open itself up to its own two-sidedness again, lest more unresolved tension remain for further rounds of articulation. The less aware, or the libertine, will fall short in these demands. Nevertheless, I believe the universality of this pattern remains, and hence we find the universal grammar.

The Errors of Statistical Hypotheses and Scientific Theories

My latest paper:

http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0034

Abstract reads: The process of error recognition is explored first in statistics, and then in science. The Type II error found in statistical hypothesis testing is found analogous to Karl Popper’s “logical probability” that is intended to measure the likelihood that a scientific theory can avoid its refutation. Nevertheless, Popper’s reliance on deductive thinking is found detracting from his demarcation that separates science and metaphysics. An improved critical logic for science is presented that permits error recognition more broadly: for induction by Popper’s falsification principle; but also for deduction and emotionality. The reality of induction creates a limitation for a science that has not accommodated a fuller menu of error recognition. The reality of induction places limits of what can be known from empiricism, and this has philosophical implications.