Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

OBE's, NDE's, lucid dreams, and the like...

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby Yutso » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:08 pm

A non-physical entity cannot be defined.
Yutso
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby Webwanderer » Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:00 pm

Yutso wrote:A non-physical entity cannot be defined.

Sure it can, just not completely accurately. Here's one type:

Non-physical entity:
'A self-aware conscious being, unreliant on physical qualities' seems to work reasonably well.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby Webwanderer » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:51 pm

ashley72 wrote:
Webwanderer wrote:Ashley's post had nothing to do with evidence of non-physical reality. It was yet another materialist attempt to discredit beliefs in non-physical possibilities. There have been endless discussions and debates on the matter in numerous threads and we all know it.


I was pointing out that a non-physical realm is an erroneous category. Because the true-believer fails to see that non-physical entities (ghosts or Angels) are merely symbolic representations, which manifest from symbolic thought - mapping our physical space & physical behaviours. Angels & Ghosts have no more reality than a child who believes in Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny. They both are a result of believing symbolic mappings have a physical or non-physical existence. Neither is true, these symbols may appear 'real', but in reality are merely an artefact of symbolic thought. End of story!

Interesting post. How did you become the authority on what is or is not an erroneous category? You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you may imagine to be real, but to be so condescending of anothers' perspective in a thread created to discuss a subject matter that you obviously know so little about, even after your ideology is well known and stated on other threads, is not a contribution to the subject, it's intrusion.

End of story? You might be on to something. But who's story might that be that you declare an end to? It could only be yours. Materialism is a blindly limiting philosophy and is clearly circular in its reasoning, so the end of the story is also the beginning. 'Life is a physical reality. It can't be non-physical - because life is a physical reality. Consciousness is a physical expression - because life is physical reality.' A nice tight little box. No need to explore outside the box of materialism. Nothing else exists to consider. End of story - and end of access to some revealing professional studies on non-physical conscious awareness.

I don't expect you would actually investigate the research available. Why should you? You have invested a lot in the circle of reason. But I do expect you to respect the integrity of others, that they have no interest in believing in Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or the flying spaghetti monster. These are just trite insults that make those who employ them feel superior.

Until you do actual research into the evidence available, and consider it on its own terms, you will be unable to interact in a meaningful manner with those who have done some study, nor those who have actual experience that at present you cannot comprehend. Dr Alexander was once a materialist. Now, after direct experience was forced upon him by circumstances of life, he clearly understands what before he believed, like you, to be fantasy. Talk about waking up from delusion. It is not an uncommon occurrence for direct experience to trump biased intellectualism.

There are many, very intelligent doctors and scientists, who work in the field of consciousness and uncover credible evidence of non-physical conscious reality. Silly references trying to link real research to childhood imaginings is beneath the dignity of anyone who is honest about the search for truth.

As you can see by the number of posts already in your topic, it gains lots of attention to make your case on your own terms. I could have just trashed it for violation of rules, but I respect that you and others have the right to your opinion no matter how self-blinding I may consider it. The other thread is for discussion of non-physical evidence, research and accounts, not just more materialistic ideology. Please respect the difference.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby rideforever » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:58 pm

ashley72 wrote:I was pointing out that a non-physical realm is an erroneous category. Because the true-believer fails to see that non-physical entities (ghosts or Angels) are merely symbolic representations, which manifest from symbolic thought - mapping our physical space & physical behaviours. Angels & Ghosts have no more reality than a child who believes in Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny. They both are a result of believing symbolic mappings have a physical or non-physical existence. Neither is true, these symbols may appear 'real', but in reality are merely an artefact of symbolic thought. End of story!

"Let me put it this way, have you ever head of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates ?"

... yes

"Morons !!!"
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small
User avatar
rideforever
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby smiileyjen101 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:58 pm

Ash said: True-believers who erroneously & "symbolically think" that a mythology (afterlife, Heaven, Hell) as having a physical or non-physical reality are delusional. Because they mistaken symbolic thought (target domain) as evidence of a non-physical realm (source domain).


Far East said: All is 'physical'.
Some stuff just isn't measurable easily (imagine trying to convince someone about 'brain waves' in times gone by, let alone microbes or radiation, would have been burnt at the stake by the religiously devout).


Are these two saying the same thing?

.....

Would it be fair to say that some perceive or describe 'the essence of who you are' ...the non-destructible - eternal as in timeless.... that some perceive and describe it as physical even outside of the physical body and what we call physical life,

and others perceive and describe it as non-physical

The semantics may be in the 'labeling' - I'm not sure.

Is the essence of who you really are - physical or non-physical?

ET describes it thus -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FCNGxto-8c

What nde'ers and others in communication with the essence outside of physical bodies notice, is the difference in vibrationary rate - without the blood, bones and guts there is no time and space or tunnel-visioned (individual) perspective that 'holds' or 'defines' or confines the energy in motion.

Is this still 'physical'?
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby Yutso » Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:13 am

A non-physical reality can be defined, just not completely accurately.
Yutso
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby ashley72 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:39 am

Webby,

Firstly, I'm not being disrespectful to any other member because I have chosen to use Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny as two prime examples of symbolic representations in the target domain. These two symbolic representation are well-known examples in Western culture, where adults actually delibrately fool children in to mistakenly believing symbolic representations in the target domain actually haves physical basis in the source domain.

Heaven & Hell are two other prime examples of symbolic representations in the target domain, taught to Christian's, which also have no basis either in a physical or a non-physical source domain.

Symbolic thought is nothing more than a mapping from source domain (physical space & physical behaviours).... and has no reality in itself in a physical or non-physical sense. Symbolic thought can be used to manipulate the physical domain, make a man-made symbolic object, Cave Art & primitive tools are prime examples of the early symbolic objects based on symbolic thought produced by the human species.

Human Consciousness is not explained by the term non-physical. Rather, Human Consciousness is explained by complex biological systems & strong emergent properties... in particular symbolic thought and its ability for self-reference (twisting back onto source domain)....because of integrated levels (tangled hierarchy) of physical and symbolic create the emergent property of subjectivity.

Reductionist versus Strong Emergence to Explain Human Consciousness

Robert Hofstadter was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist...."he won the Physics Nobel Prize in 1962 for his pioneering studies of electron scattering in atomic nuclei and for his consequent discoveries concerning the structure of nucleons". Robert Hofstadter was a pioneering "Reductionist" who was pivotal in unlocking the "mysterious structure" at the centre of the Atom.

His son Douglas Hofstadter grew up on the campus where his father Robert was a professor at Stanford University.

Douglas Hofstadter graduated with Distinction in Mathematics from Stanford University in 1965. He continued his education and received his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Oregon in 1975, where his study of the energy levels of Bloch electrons in a magnetic field led to his discovery of the fractal known as the Hofstadter butterfly.

Douglas Hofstadter would later become interested in cognition processes and psychology. He's stated, "I'm someone who has one foot in the world of humanities and arts, and the other foot in the world of science."

Douglas unlike his father went in the opposite direction to his father, rather than trying to unravel all the mysterious of life by using merely reductionist methods...he realised quite early in life (around 14 years of age) that certain properties seem to manifest & emerge with increasing complexity in systems. One such complex system which interested him was the biological complexity of the human species.

Hofstadter's thesis about consciousness, first expressed in Gödel, Escher, Bach (GEB) but also present in several of his later books, is that it is an emergent consequence of seething lower-level activity in the brain. In GEB he draws an analogy between the social organization of a colony of ants and the mind seen as a coherent "colony" of neurons. In particular, Hofstadter claims that our sense of having (or being) an "I" comes from the abstract pattern he terms a "strange loop", which is an abstract cousin of such concrete phenomena as audio and video feedback, and which Hofstadter has defined as "a level-crossing feedback loop". The prototypical example of this abstract notion is the self-referential structure at the core of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Hofstadter's 2007 book I Am a Strange Loop carries his vision of consciousness considerably further, including the idea that each human "I" is distributed over numerous brains, rather than being limited to precisely one brain.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby ashley72 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:04 am

A fair percentage of contributing forum members go on about Science's inability to explain Human Consciousness using reductionist methods. My advice to them is "open your mind".... don't follow the "herd-mentality". Read a few more books than the ones you've currently got on your bookshelf... As there is alot more to science than mere reduction. Go in the other direction and study something about complex systems....guess what, the human species is a prime example of a complex system. Therefore, emptying your mind and staring off into physical space (mistaken for the non-physical) won't help you understand the human predicament I'm pleased to say. You might have to get off your backside and do what Douglas Hofstadter did and methodically examine the complex system in question, to unravel the enigma of Human Consciousness. :wink:
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby ashley72 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:36 am

Webwanderer wrote:Sure it can, just not completely accurately. Here's one type:

Non-physical entity:
'A self-aware conscious being, unreliant on physical qualities' seems to work reasonably well.


If you're defining yourself, which I'm assuming you are....I'm afraid to state the obvious.... But if you can be seen and grappled with by others your planted in the physical domain. If you're merely a chalked up "cartoon" character on the blackboard your symbolic qualities are merely meta-physical. :lol:
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:13 pm

ashley72 wrote:Firstly, I'm not being disrespectful to any other member because I have chosen to use Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny as two prime examples of symbolic representations in the target domain. These two symbolic representation are well-known examples in Western culture, where adults actually delibrately fool children in to mistakenly believing symbolic representations in the target domain actually haves physical basis in the source domain.

Nice try, but Santa and the Easter Bunny, along with the Tooth Fairy, have always been used by materialists as metaphors for gross stupidity when it comes to any discussions of non-physical consciousness. You can't put lipstick on that pig in trying to pretty it up. It, like the Spaghetti Monster, just won't fly.

Every adult knows there is no Santa. That is not the case with matters of consciousness surviving death.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby SandyJoy » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:17 pm

What!! Yikes! No Santa Clause or Easter Bunny! You have got to be kidding.


May I digress :D

A note to the materialists:

A festival of magic and mystery you miss out on--a living mystery. The Light shines because the Child Lives as your Heart and Spirit which is ever untouched by time and matter. Twinkling Light of my Heart.

To the materialist this is all sugar plumb fairies of mental illusions---To the Child we know what they really are and we can Live the celebration of what Christmas is really about.

Good tidings of comfort and joy and jewels of Light and optimism:

Dear Editor,

I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say that there is no Santa Claus. Papa says "If you see it in the Sun, it is so." Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?


Virginia,

Your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds.

All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to our life its highest beauty and joy.

Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus? You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your Papa to hire men to watch all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove?

Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see.

Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders that are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, or even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernatural beauty and glory beyond.

Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else as real and abiding.

No Santa Claus? Thank God he lives and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, maybe 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the hearts of children.

Written by Francis P. Church in 1897
You are not finished, until you play in that meadow and live there. You can, you know. But only you can take yourself there.
User avatar
SandyJoy
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:42 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:43 pm

SandyJoy wrote:What!! Yikes! No Santa Clause or Easter Bunny! You have got to be kidding.

There's more bad news. Atoms don't coalesce and generate consciousness. It's consciousness that causes energy to come into focus and form what appears as matter. As the coalescence increases through the design of conscious intent, matter forms into a platform capable of, and through which, consciousness can experience more directly the universe of material form it has created. And just to make it more fun and unique it made the seat of consciousness in the material world, the brain, generally incapable of fully remembering its origin. How cool is that? A unique world that can be explored and developed on its own merit. Nothing like a good challenge to keep eternal life interesting. I wonder how many others there may be similar to it?

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby SandyJoy » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:28 pm

Oh, right, now I get it--- My brain is this fleshy thing that developes enough to be really cleaver and brillinant that it figures out how to create awareness and then -- I cannot remember creating my awareness because my brain is not smart enough to remember what it created, because my brain went from being a piece of meat to creating a whole world of infinity and stars and planets and flowers and trees and birds that sing and sky and oxygen to keep the brain alive so it can create some more of these awareness'es and conciousness'es by its great powers ---hey we could sell those conciousness'es if we could dry and package them for others who are not so good at creating their own consciousnness'es and awaeness'es -- or or hmmm ---oh, yeah, yeah-- sure, I see--- :shock:
You are not finished, until you play in that meadow and live there. You can, you know. But only you can take yourself there.
User avatar
SandyJoy
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:42 am

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby rideforever » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:38 pm

Webwanderer wrote:..

If I might say so, it seems to me Ashley is not listening. He likes being in the middle of the room dancing around with his theories. In order to listen or reflect on what is being said he would have to stop dancing - and that's not going to happen - that's the entire point of the debate from his perspective. Dancing.

And he's pretty good too, nobody can follow him.

From your point of view, I think the more confidence you have in your insight, the less you need to tussle with people about it. If you can examine the doors that you have opened, and gain confidence in what you have found, you can be more willing to let it go, seeing that you already have what you came for.
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small
User avatar
rideforever
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: Criticisms of Non-Physical Perspectives

Postby ashley72 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:53 pm

Webwanderer wrote:
SandyJoy wrote:What!! Yikes! No Santa Clause or Easter Bunny! You have got to be kidding.

There's more bad news. Atoms don't coalesce and generate consciousness. It's consciousness that causes energy to come into focus and form what appears as matter. As the coalescence increases through the design of conscious intent, matter forms into a platform capable of, and through which, consciousness can experience more directly the universe of material form it has created. And just to make it more fun and unique it made the seat of consciousness in the material world, the brain, generally incapable of fully remembering its origin. How cool is that? A unique world that can be explored and developed on its own merit. Nothing like a good challenge to keep eternal life interesting. I wonder how many others there may be similar to it?

WW


Hmmm.... Consciousness causes energy to come into focus and form what appears as matter.

Wow, now tell me how you arrived at this conceptual metaphor of so-called consciousness?.... using symbolic thought?

Webby, you're physical hardware is a complex biological system which has the ability to 'map' symbolic representations of the source domain (physical) into abstract ideas, like consciousness & even your own complex symbolic thought making (self-reflective) system. These are mere symbolic mappings from the source domain (physical) to the target domain (symbolic representations).

Symbolic thought can either accurately or inaccurately represent the source domain (physical). When it inaccurately represents the source domain... and true-believers still believe it's an accurate symbolic representation its delusional.

Some people symbolically thought the "World was going to End" yesterday. Guess what? It didn't.... and all those true-believers where erroneously symbolically mapping a falsehood in the target domain when the source domain (physical) went on as expected (as rational symbolic thinkers always predicted).
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Beyond the Physical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest