At a recent talk at BU about Consciousness,
Steven Horst, a professor of philosophy at Wesleyan
advanced an apparently
well-known argument by Frank JacksonThe argument uses the thought experiment of a woman named Mary
( Read more... )
I think there is a confusion as to the meaning of "mystic", confusion that is indeed actively maintain by a great number of "mystics".
I don't think anyone denies that meditation, introspection, asceticism, mental and physical discipline, can have a lot of practical, observable, effects. What is being dismissed, for good reasons, are the explanations of those effects as supernatural phenomena involving forces that transfer energy or information outside the body of the meditating person. What is being laughed at, for just as good reasons, are claims that these experiences reveal anything about the universe, great cosmic principles even, when they only reveal delusions of the human mind.
Your ESP explanations will be much more credible once one of your gurus claims and wins one of the many million-dollar prizes offered to whoever can provide evidence of such phenomena.
As for a representation -- the representation is not the thing. The idea of red is not red. The idea of an invisible pink unicorn is not an invisible pink unicorn. The idea of a flawless diamond in my pocket is not a flawless diamond in my pocket. And my use of the word "pocket" does not imply that such a pocket actually exists. "Knowing" "everything" about a representation is indeed not the same as experiencing the thing. And doctors may know about disease and death without experiencing either (yet) - which may help avert them (for a time). The fuss that Jackson makes is ultimately based on insanity, the inability to distinguish between a thing and its representation (or the willful fallacy of slipping from one to the other).
"I don't think anyone denies that meditation, introspection, asceticism, mental and physical discipline, can have a lot of practical, observable, effects."
Perhaps, but those are secondary.
"What is being dismissed, for good reasons, are the explanations of those effects as supernatural phenomena involving forces that transfer energy or information outside the body of the meditating person. What is being laughed at, for just as good reasons, are claims that these experiences reveal anything about the universe, great cosmic principles even, when they only reveal delusions of the human mind."
On this I'm afraid we must disagree. I believe that the already accumulated scientific data as described by Radin, Puthoff et al *do* describe exactly such a transfer of information.
"Your ESP explanations will be much more credible once one of your gurus claims and wins one of the many million-dollar prizes offered to whoever can provide evidence of such phenomena."
Why? James Randi is not a scientist - and it's already been well documented that he does not present a level playing field. In any case, winning such a prize would have no scientific value. Those who have rigorously scientifically investigated ESP phenomena - such as J B Rhine, who coined the word - have already accumulated 150 years worth of solid data.
I believe ESP is a case where those who wish to see, see; those who do not wish to see, choose to exclude the evidence from their set of data. It's actually a reverse of the 'file drawer problem'.
"As for a representation -- the representation is not the thing. The idea of red is not red. The idea of an invisible pink unicorn is not an invisible pink unicorn."
With this I agree wholeheartedly, having spent a fair bit of time poking at knowledge representation and database theory (hence my interest in TUNES).
I don't think anyone denies that meditation, introspection, asceticism, mental and physical discipline, can have a lot of practical, observable, effects. What is being dismissed, for good reasons, are the explanations of those effects as supernatural phenomena involving forces that transfer energy or information outside the body of the meditating person. What is being laughed at, for just as good reasons, are claims that these experiences reveal anything about the universe, great cosmic principles even, when they only reveal delusions of the human mind.
Your ESP explanations will be much more credible once one of your gurus claims and wins one of the many million-dollar prizes offered to whoever can provide evidence of such phenomena.
As for a representation -- the representation is not the thing. The idea of red is not red. The idea of an invisible pink unicorn is not an invisible pink unicorn. The idea of a flawless diamond in my pocket is not a flawless diamond in my pocket. And my use of the word "pocket" does not imply that such a pocket actually exists. "Knowing" "everything" about a representation is indeed not the same as experiencing the thing. And doctors may know about disease and death without experiencing either (yet) - which may help avert them (for a time). The fuss that Jackson makes is ultimately based on insanity, the inability to distinguish between a thing and its representation (or the willful fallacy of slipping from one to the other).
Reply
Perhaps, but those are secondary.
"What is being dismissed, for good reasons, are the explanations of those effects as supernatural phenomena involving forces that transfer energy or information outside the body of the meditating person. What is being laughed at, for just as good reasons, are claims that these experiences reveal anything about the universe, great cosmic principles even, when they only reveal delusions of the human mind."
On this I'm afraid we must disagree. I believe that the already accumulated scientific data as described by Radin, Puthoff et al *do* describe exactly such a transfer of information.
"Your ESP explanations will be much more credible once one of your gurus claims and wins one of the many million-dollar prizes offered to whoever can provide evidence of such phenomena."
Why? James Randi is not a scientist - and it's already been well documented that he does not present a level playing field. In any case, winning such a prize would have no scientific value. Those who have rigorously scientifically investigated ESP phenomena - such as J B Rhine, who coined the word - have already accumulated 150 years worth of solid data.
I believe ESP is a case where those who wish to see, see; those who do not wish to see, choose to exclude the evidence from their set of data. It's actually a reverse of the 'file drawer problem'.
"As for a representation -- the representation is not the thing. The idea of red is not red. The idea of an invisible pink unicorn is not an invisible pink unicorn."
With this I agree wholeheartedly, having spent a fair bit of time poking at knowledge representation and database theory (hence my interest in TUNES).
Best regards.
Reply
Leave a comment