Before going off the grid for a few days on the camping trip I’m on – Valley of Fire state park in Nevada, a fabulous place! – I want to add that precogition does not need to be interpreted as we have no free will. Dossey’s book gives many cases where the precognition/premonition of a future event was a disaster, but because of the premonition, it was avoided. So it’s like the future isn’t fixed in an absolute sense but more or less probable. That’s certainly what I prefer! Who wants a future you can’t do anything about? But the data does support this idea….
Blog
It seems to me that the whole concept of ‘free will’ is unsupported by the data. Thoughts are properties of the brain. The brain is made of chemicals. Chemicals obey the laws of chemistry. For us to propose an hypothesis that humans have the ability to think outside of cause and effect, we would have to demonstrate how humans consciously suspend or subvert the laws of chemistry in order to force their brain to create a thought not governed by such laws.
Well if you’re right, then what you said is a totally determined reaction of your brain chemistry. If the chemistry had been slightly different, you would have said the opposite.
Maybe this is correct, but I don’t find it very interesting to think we have no free will. It’s no fun! And how would we ever decide whether we have it or not, if we entertain the idea that anything we say about it is not really reasoning or choice, but just a predetermined, chemical reaction?
I think lots of bright minds have gone crazy on this one….
To cameron.reilly.myopenid.com:
I’d recommend you to read up on the work of the physicist Henry Stapp to get an explanation as to why these chemical laws (which are basically the laws of quantum mechanics) doesn’t kill off free will. This is a common assumption in science (that the physical world is causally closed), but it is incorrect. There is in fact a need for something to make choices that are not determined by any of our physical world. Without these choices one could argue that the world wouldn’t exist at all.
That’s the theoretical side of our mainstream science. But from the empirical evidence of psi phenomena we can directly see that our minds seem to do things seem to falsify any notion of materialistic determinism. Now, if we truly have free will (or if the concept have any real meaning deep down) is another question altogether. But thinking one don’t have any just make one go mad by all the paradoxes.
And Dr. Tart, thanks for a good book. Just finished reading it. It was a nice reminder of the real world implications of parapsychology, and that these phenomena are more than just data gathered in a lab. I also learned something about OBEs and ADEs that I didn’t know about. And I also resonate a lot with your points about the Western Creed. Scientism somehow managed to infect my mind and seriously mess up my emotional life when I was close to the end of my master of science degree (this included existential angst which also resulted in a deep depression). I was not religious and could intellectually see that scientism was a erroneous world view (based on my knowledge of physics alone), but when this stuff gets emotional it holds great power over one’s mind. And I didn’t even realize this happened to me before it was too late! In the process of this happening to me I discovered how science (as a social phenomena) actually worked. I was extremely disappointed and left academia after my degree. If you think outside of the accepted mainstream you will be stepped on. There is a kind of “Church of Materialism”, and many students unknowingly end up as it’s congregation. They never even question it! In my experience half of the students ended up in this congregation, while the other half divided their mental life in two or just didn’t think that deep about it. It’s too bad really. There should be introductory courses to the both the foundational issues of quantum mechanics and parapsychology in every university dealing with the sciences. It would be healthy for science as a whole and for students/scientist on an individual basis.
Tor
>Scientism somehow managed to infect my mind and seriously mess up my emotional life when I was close to the end of my master of science degree (this included existential angst which also resulted in a deep depression). I was not religious and could intellectually see that scientism was a erroneous world view (based on my knowledge of physics alone), but when this stuff gets emotional it holds great power over one’s mind. And I didn’t even realize this happened to me before it was too late! <
That's one of the things that's really frightening about scientism. It's not like we were offered a conscious choice, "Would you like to deeply believe this materialistic philosophy of scientism, which has such and such consequences for what you think about life?" No, it's indoctrinated in us in dozens of ways that we're hardly aware of, such as a respected teacher's superior dismissal of some comment about spirituality. Since we instinctively want to belong, we are easily swayed by things like this.
I've heard Henry Stapp explain his approach of quantum physics and Whiteheadian philosophy, and while I know he is brilliant, I just don't get it…
>That’s one of the things that’s really frightening about scientism. It’s not like we were offered a conscious choice, “Would you like to deeply believe this materialistic philosophy of scientism, which has such and such consequences for what you think about life?” No, it’s indoctrinated in us in dozens of ways that we’re hardly aware of, such as a respected teacher’s superior dismissal of some comment about spirituality. Since we instinctively want to belong, we are easily swayed by things like this.
Yes. I still find it weird that this happened to me. It’s a good example that this subtle indoctrination can overthrow any intellectual understanding one might have. And the paradoxical neurotic loops that end up going on autopilot between bodily emotions and mind afterwards can be really hard to get rid off.
>I’ve heard Henry Stapp explain his approach of quantum physics and Whiteheadian philosophy, and while I know he is brilliant, I just don’t get it…
His work can be a bit too verbose. I read his newest book and a lot of his articles before any real understanding came to me. I later had a few email discussions with him about his ideas.
I’m not a fan of his link to Whitehead. I feel it is very speculative and and hard to make sense off. But his description of basic physics is something that should be taught to all. His theory is based firmly on orthodox quantum mechanics (one can argue that his theory is what naturally follows by pushing quantum mechanics all the way to it’s limit), and is the only physical theory I know of that takes mind seriously (as something with a fundamental quality to it) and at the same time can incorporate psi phenomena. Psi has exactly the same properties as Stapp’s mind process, and this mind process is what interacts with the brain. I made a simple diagram of his theory when I read his book. I can email it to you if you want, but I give no guarantee that it will suddenly make everything clear. But I do think it can help.
Tor