"We are living through one of the most fundamental shifts in history — a change in the actual belief structure of Western society. No economic, political, or military power can compare with the power of a change of mind. By deliberately changing their images of reality, people are changing the world."
— Willis Harman, Global Mind Change
6 comments:
paradigm shifts are showing up in a variety of institutional settings, and the fourth section describes the Institute of Noetic Science’s groundbreaking Transformation Research Project, which is generating deep insights into the nature of enduring personal transformation.
This sounds like dot-com era technobabble. What on earth is this report all about? After viewing their site and even reading the introduction I have absolutely no idea!
What on earth is this report all about? After viewing their site and even reading the introduction I have absolutely no idea!
Hi Dobson,
On another thread you asked about experimental evidence that calls materialism into question. There now exists a very large body of data by fully qualified Noetic scientists that does not fit the materialist paradigm. This body of anomalous data is pushing a "paradigm shift" from a "material first" science to "mind first" science. The document is tracking the ongoing scientific and societal shift away from materialism.
If you wish to start with one scientist I would suggest Rupert Sheldrake. Sheldrake has personally conducted numerous large scale experiments all of which call materialism into question.
If you wish to start with one scientist I would suggest Rupert Sheldrake. Sheldrake has personally conducted numerous large scale experiments all of which call materialism into question.
I'm less interested in what one individual personally conducted, than which results were verified by multiple independent experimenters. Many people make bizarre claims - one of the nice things about scientific process is that bogus claims are quickly identified on account of their irreproducibility or lack of predictive power.
I'm not all that familiar with Rupert Sheldrake other than what I read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
Is there a particular discovery that Mr Sheldrake has made that made that you wish to call to my attention? Preferably something that has been either peer-reviewed or verified by independent researchers? That way we shall not confuse mere untested speculation with well-established science.
I'd prefer discuss the man's work rather than his reputation, which unfortunately does not appear to be one of scientific rigor: He seems to be more notorious than distinguished. Some might even call him a pseudo-scientific crank. Perhaps if you highlight some work that proves your point we can discuss that instead?
Regarding the institute of Noetic sciences, this does seem to be very new-age fringe stuff with no discernible relevance to normal research.
I'm not sure if we have much to gain by indulging in this kind of thing, and I've yet to see any evidence from them that "calls materialism into question". Please show this evidence!
On Wikipedia I found a quote claiming that the institute suffers from "what humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz calls the 'transcendental temptation' [that] drives the flight from standard, peer-reviewed empiricism into the arms of a dualism that privileges the mental over the physical, the teleological over the non-purposive."
Which is also a perfectly valid criticism of both the new-age and ID movements!
Incidentally, I am still confused about what benefits a "mind-first" approach might yield. For example, will a mind-first approach produce a better 2nd law of thermodynamics. Can I be a mind-first Computer scientist? How might I apply noetic principles in my own field of research which is the modeling of financial markets?
Answers please?
Thanks
Hi Dobson,
I am still confused about what benefits a "mind-first" approach might yield. For example, will a mind-first approach produce a better 2nd law of thermodynamics. Can I be a mind-first Computer scientist? How might I apply noetic principles in my own field of research which is the modeling of financial markets?
At root, a "mind first" paradigm provides a logically sound cosmic model in which the universe (an information structure) finds a causally adequate anticedent in the cosmic mind or "God" that produced it. At all levels "minds" are creative and are information producers.
Please note that just as relativity does not impede the use of Newtonian mechanics (where it is appropriate) a relativized thermodynamics does not impede the use of statistical mechanics (where it is appropriate).
With regard to questions of origin (origin of he universe, origin of life, origin of species, origin of consciousness, origin of meaning etc,) materialism has failed as an explanatory paradigm. For example, Darwin's theory of Origin is not a legitimate theory of origin. Darwin's theory is but a theory of selective filtration and accrual in a pre-existing probabilistic solution-space. "Filtration" is not the same as "origination." A theory of gold panning (in which random jiggling and natural selection {"survival of the heaviest"}accrues higher concentrations of gold) does not constitute a legitimate theory of "the origin of gold." Stellar nucleosynthesis (in which gold is actually produced from a prior state devoid of gold) does indeed constitute a legitimate theory of "the origin of gold."
will a mind-first approach produce a better 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Yes indeed, "better" as in "more logical" and "unified." As I see it the mind first paradidgm is in the process of producing a unified generalized 2nd law of infodynamics - I.E., a unification of the second law of thermodynamics with the second law of black hole dynamics with the fourth law (realistic{devolving}, not ideal{conserving}) of modern information theory.
Can I be a mind-first Computer scientist?
Certainly, and if you are a good one you might be able to successfully critique the work of a "mind first" computer scientist William Dembski.
How might I apply Noetic principles in my own field of research which is the modeling of financial markets?
Within an ID paradigm most of science remains the same -- IE, Energy is still equal to Mc**2. Just as there is no conflict between a theory of gold panning and the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis (in which gold is produced from a prior state devoid of gold), there is no conflict between a normalized Darwinian theory and Intelligent Design theory -- for they occupy different domains and explain different natural functions ("filtration" and "origination" respectively). To answer your question, changes in financial markets, are driven people (who have minds) changing their minds. A "mind first" market analist therefore is one who studies the deep psychology of consumers in order to better predict the behaviour of financial markets.
Unfortunately for Materialism this core hypothesis(ideology) sets itself up for failure. For instance how did dead matter come to be alive? By what material mechanism was this reversal-of-nature feat acomplished? ..and how did unconscious matter ever come to be conscious? By what material mechanism was this reversal-of-nature feat acomplished?
I'm sorry I should have said
"..changes in financial markets, are driven by people(minds).."
I also should have said..
"by what material (DEAD) mechanism was this reversal-of-nature feat acomplished?
and ..."by what material(unconscious) mechanism was this reversal-of-nature feat acomplished?"
Dobson,
I'm not sure if we have much to gain by indulging in this kind of thing, and I've yet to see any evidence from them that "calls materialism into question". Please show this evidence!
This is an ID blog. Given your question, I am not sure that you understand the fundamental nature of the challenge being put forward here. What actual evidence is there for a material universe?
For example; consider the case of two individuals. One is a Buddhist a non-materialist (for whom the universe is but illusion/"maya"). The other individual is a materialist for whom the universe is material and is indeed REAL and the only reality (bodies are real, death is real etc,). Given this setup, how does the Materialist convince the Buddhist(skeptic) of the validity of the materialist position -- when he/she can refer only to material evidence. Material evidence as proof of materialism is logically circular. Materialism therefore is not ontologically sound.
One point however on which both the Buddhist and the Materialist can agree is that the universe is an orderly one governed by laws and principles. The Buddhist sees the universe as an orderly(E=Mc**2) illusion and the materialist sees the universe as an orderly (E=Mc**2) reality. Because "information" is a complex form of "order," a universe-as-information paradigm is ontologically sound whereas a materialist paradigm is not.
Post a Comment