Reading Books

It's strange when people say something like they don't like reading books. No books whatsoever?? If we consider novels I probably don't like most novels. But a minority of novels I really like. The situation is exactly comparable to someone saying they don't like music. Most music I don't like at all, but some of it is really good! It's just a question of finding what we like.

Reincarnation, Ian Stevenson and Robert Todd Carroll

There's an entry on Ian Stevenson in the Skeptic's dictionary.  The author of the dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll, says this about Ian Stevenson: 

Philosophically, Stevenson was a naive dualist. He believed that bodies and souls have separate evolutions and existences, and he seemed not to be concerned or aware of the philosophical problems that ensue from such claims about mind and body.

I emailed  Robert Todd Carroll before regarding his comment above.  I said:

The problems are only puzzles, they are not the conceptual problems which face any type of materialist metaphysic. The point being that materialism faces far more formidable problems than dualism (although depends on the type of dualism, I have no idea what "naive dualism" is. I have never heard of it).

He emailed me back saying:

[T]o be of interest to others (my reason for posting emails) you need to specify the conceptual problems that face any type of materialist metaphysics and how these are more formidable than the conceptual problems of dualism.

I responded:

Bob do you have any qualifications in philosophy? If so you really ought to be aware of them already! 

I wonder why it is OK for you to make absurd unsubstantiated assertions, where as it is not OK for me to make assertions which anyone with sufficient philosophical background would already realise?

Are we talking here about the type of materialism inaugurated with the mechanistic philosophy at the birth of modern science in the 17th Century? This philosophy abstracted the qualitative from the material/physical realm. Hence from this time onwards physical/material reality has been considered to be wholly quantitative and is entirely absent any qualitative elements. These were pushed back into the mind. Even colours and sounds were placed into the mind (hence the current preposterous belief that colours and sounds don’t actually exist out there). The upshot of all this was that the mechanistic philosophy forced dualism onto us. If consciousness exists, but the material/physical world is devoid of any qualitative elements, it follows that materialism is necessarily false. 

Now why don’t you be a good chap and mention any problems that dualism might have?

OK perhaps a bit rude of me! But his response irritated me. He never responded to me again. I go into more detail in my other blog regarding what I said above. Go here and here.

A chat with the AI bot Eviebot

Jus' had a "conversation with an AI bot. Don't think the Turing test will be passed any time soon.
Eviebot: Oh! Hello.

Ian: Is the reincarnation process compelled by our underlying psyche -- our subconscious desires and needs? Or is it a explicit conscious choice? Or something decided by some other conscious entity?

Eviebot: No, Minecraft is the result of creative minds and programming.

Ian: Or, indeed, is it a purely "mechanistic" process?

Eviebot: True, it's only like 15 Euros.

Ian: Is the fact we cannot generally remember previous lives, and the fact we cannot remember our present lives before around the age of five years old, stem from the same underlying cause(s)?

Eviebot: The last thing I remember was you asked me how far the sun was.

Ian: I did not, I know it's 8 light mins (93 million miles) away.

Eviebot: This is an elaborate sentence constructed for the sole purpose of throwing you off and verifying that you are, in fact, a mere bot.

Ian: Do we generally reincarnate as the same gender? Are male and female characteristics intrinsic to that part of us which reincarnates, or is it determined by the brain?

Eviebot: Is a theoretical molecular synthesis of donkey and pineapple epistemologically and ontologically justified?

Chat with Eviebot here

Reincarnation Research and Myths of Scientific Practice

Reading this article regarding research into reincarnation it says:

But what about the ‘scientific community’? Isn’t the fact that you probably never heard about this kind of research sufficient evidence that there must be something fundamentally wrong with it.

No of course not. They will dismiss "extraordinary claims" out of hand and assume there must necessarily be a normal explanation. I do likewise for any extraordinary claims. But, what I consider being an extraordinary claim does not necessarily coincide with theirs.



What constitutes an extraordinary claim? Well, a claim is deemed to be extraordinary if it is not consonant with our background beliefs about the nature of the world. The background belief to justify rejecting reincarnation out of hand is the conviction that consciousness is a product of brains.



The vast majority of scientists (if not philosophers) do not seem to have any awareness of the problematic nature of this brain produces consciousness hypothesis (see this blog post of mine). Even ignoring this problematic nature, there are profound counter-intuitive consequences. For example, if the brain produces consciousness, it is difficult, if not impossible, to rescue the notion that our consciousness is causally efficacious. It also seems to imply the notion of an enduring self is an illusion. And it seems hard to reconcile anomalous cognition (telepathy and the like) with this brain hypothesis.



Article says:

After all, according to a rather widespread assumption about standards of scientific practice, anomalies irresistibly attract scientists like light attracts the proverbial moth. For in order to be a ‘real’ scientist you are expected to constantly challenge your pet theories about how the world works, always look for refuting instances that may indicate you’re wrong, and follow the evidence wherever it leads and whether you personally like it or not. The more outlandish an anomaly reported by more than one qualified and critical observer, so the myth goes, the quicker it attracts other scientists, ultimately producing a true land-slight of opinion in the ‘scientific community’, which is then faithfully reflected on the pages of mainstream science journals and in textbooks.

As the article subsequently points out, this is sheer nonsense. Research which confirms established beliefs tends to be precisely that which gets approved and gets published. Generally, scientists simply will not accept research which goes against their beliefs. Any maverick stuff is subject to unremitting hostility and ridicule.


As Max Planck once said:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

The true nature of reality

It's quite likely to be a mistake to suppose science is discovering the true nature of reality. Scientific theories most probably do not depict how things really are. Contrary to what scientists think eg Hawkings, Dawkins, Krauss et al, it's not truth that science is striving for, but rather improved engineering.

However it's important that scientists do not understand this and think they are revealing the true nature of reality. That gives them the psychological drive to invent new scientific theories. It is a noble lie.

Dietary Advice

From this Guardian article:

There’s no conclusive evidence a morning meal makes you lose weight and feel great, but the idea that breakfast is the most important meal of the day is widely ingrained. This is largely thanks to the efforts of grain companies. Kellogg’s, for example, funded an influential study that linked breakfasting on cereal with lower BMI. And The Quaker Oats Center of Excellence financed research showing that a daily breakfast of porridge reduces cholesterol.

Many people are very adamant that eating breakfast is incredibly important. Indeed they seem to think I'm completely lacking in common sense when I question it. I hope they are not relying on research funded by those with vested interests. I've read that such research is of no value whatsoever and should be disregarded. And it wasn't someone merely just claiming it. They backed it up with statistics which seemed to me convincing at the time. Unfortunately I'm unable to recollect the source!

Indeed it is claimed by many that we ought to eat breakfast regardless of whether we're feeling hungry. Likewise many people claim we shouldn't wait until we are thirsty before we drink since we are already dehydrated by that point. But it seems strange to me that we should simply ignore our bodily signals. Surely one should eat when one is hungry only? And only drink when we are thirsty?

Presumably non-human animals do not eat and drink when they're not hungry and thirsty? Do they have an obesity epidemic? Er . .no. animals apart from our pets never get fat! Not even when they're in an environment where there is an abundance of food. Do they suffer adverse health consequences since they don't eat when not hungry and drink when not thirsty? Do they get more cancer, suffer more heart disease, dementia etc more frequently than we humans do? I don't think so.

A brooding enigmatic stranger!

Just recently located to a new area of the UK. Tonight I've been drinking quite a bit and I decided to have even more to drink at this pub. I was unshaven -- I wanted to try and convey . .umm . . a broody, moody persona, full of enigma, fully of mystery, full of enigmaticness. A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Who am I? What am I? Who is this mysterious intriguing stranger??


Apparently no-one cared!


Problem I have is I look too normal. If they had read some of my fb posts beforehand, or my blogs . . .