--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > > > Re "Woo seems to rejoice in them, and it often seems as if something as mundane as evidence is not necessary to determine truth.": > > Thanks for your reply. I agree with what you're saying. The only thing I don't rule out is that there may be some woo stuff going on (*just* possibly telepathy? precognition?) that is not amenable to scientific analysis as it's beyond the control of the conscious ego and so non-reproducible in an experimental set-up. I leave that possibility open. As I've never myself experienced telepathy (or seen UFOs . . . etc) I don't take it on trust such a thing exists.
For the record, I both agree with Xeno's quote, *and* with your caveat. I *have* experienced a number of things for which there is yet an acceptable non-Woo explanation (such as telepathy, seeing siddhis performed, etc.). And, having experienced these things and knowing first-hand that they *can* be experienced (but without a non-Woo explanation for them myself), I do not discount the possibility that there is some non-scientific Woo going down. On the other hand, what I think both of us were commenting on is the *preference* for the Woo Explanation that we seem to see in so many people. They WANT THEIR WOO, and often get really uptight when someone suggests that the Woo they believe in so strongly might be only a...uh...belief. > As well as enlightenment being non demonstrable, there are other important human experiences that I doubt could ever be completely reduced to physics - experiences of love, beauty, remorse . . . > The map is not the territory. The last statement tends to explain the Woo-preferrers to me. They have bought into an "explanation" that was given to them for something. For whatever reason, they have decided to *believe* that "explanation" (map), and have come to believe in it so thoroughly that they now cannot separate it from the phenomenon itself (the territory). I find that in *almost every case* in which I encounter someone who believes so strongly in the Woo Explanation of some esoteric experience or phenomenon *that they have never personally HAD such an experience or witnessed that phenomenon*. They've only read about it or heard about it. Those who have had the actual experiences tend to be a little more flexible. Yes, it may have happened to them, but No, they don't know why or how. > Also, I suspect that a lot of new-age stuff like astrology and tarot is really about providing our subconscious with a language and set of symbols to allow it to communicate with the conscious mind via certain "ritualistic" practices. Or merely providing a ritual in itself. Repetitive action (think drum circles or chanting) can be consciousness-changing. If you performed a ritual once and got high from it (even if there was no legitimate cause-and-effect relationship between the ritual and the high), then they'll keep doing the ritual, and keep getting high. The ritual serves as a "trigger mechanism" for some part of their brain to push the "you're high" button. > I don't engage in these new-age practices but accounts I've read by people who've taken these routes seriously (we know there are lots of scam artists) suggest I could be right. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio. And there are more scams in heaven and earth, too. Learning to tell the difference seems to be the real nature of the game. The real players keep learning. The amateurs settle for the first "explanation" given to them and stop. > ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@ wrote: > > s3raphita wrote: > > > Re "I will prefer a non-woo explanation over a woo explanation because it is more logically connected to well-established physics . . . ": > > > I prefer a non-woo theory also. And Occam's razor suggests we should always go for the simplest explanation. But there's a lot of woo in physics: quantum theory, dark matter, fine tuning, wormholes, . . . > > Quantum mechanics, the standard model is basically the result of attempting to explain certain observations. The theory is adjusted by plugging in real world measurements. The latest addition is the Higgs boson. This does not mean the theory is actually true, only that it conforms to observation. A lot of physics is speculative. String theory is the most woo, as so far no one seems to have been able to formulate a version that can be tested. > > > Re "Woo depends a lot on personal, internal, messy, incoherent world views": > Maybe; maybe not. The thing about these psychological put-downs is that they're double-edged. Couldn't you claim that non-woo types are rigid/frigid/emotionally uptight people who are afraid to admit "there are more things in Heaven and Earth . . . than are dreamt of in your philosophy". > Also, non-woo types can be playing the role of tough guy - the "no one makes a monkey out of me" kind of act. They think they're just being reasonable; maybe they're just being defensive. > > We all have messy internal incoherent world views. What I meant to convey (which means I failed to convey) is some world views are less coherent than others, and the mental model has more logical, experiential, and experimental gaps. Science seems to be a procedure to try to close those gaps or make them less glaring. Woo seems to rejoice in them, and it often seems as if something as mundane as evidence is not necessary to determine truth. > > There are certainly situations where evidence really cannot penetrate. Enlightenment is one example of this. One really has to take it on faith that it is a possible experience. You cannot really show it to anyone. You can hint at it, maybe convince some that it exists. The whole spiritual game revolves around that which is undefined, hidden, invisible. We, here, have all partaken in that to a greater or lesser extent. As we investigate this, we may have experiences that convince us it could be a valid, i.e., real experience, and so are led on. If that does not happen, we drop away. > > Non woo types certainly can be defensive; sometimes, even in the top science journals you can detect a certain emotional smoldering lying behind what scientists write criticising others in their field. Scientist get attached to their ideas as much as anyone, but they know they are stuck in a game where their idea can go down the tube at any time. With woo, it often does not seem to matter because no matter how outrageous, since evidence is not the major criterion, you can continue to promote it, even in the face of substantial dis-confirming experience. > > > And don't underestimate the fun side of woo theories. As an example, it's certainly *possible* that the human race was seeded by aliens millennia ago. Speculating along those lines can be creepily entertaining. > > Woo certainly can be fun. I just do not think it is real. The reason I think enlightenment is real is it is the realisation that there is nothing more to life than what one has already experienced all one's life. The search for something beyond does not discover something beyond (though at times it seems as if there is), it rather exhausts all the ideas one has that there is something beyond, and then one is left with what has always been. Nothing new under the Sun. So as M said, 'nothing ever happened'. So in the end, you achieved nothing, got nothing. There is a certain peace of mind in having gotten rid of a lot of speculation you thought was real because you are no longer seeking something more. Like waking up from a dream, you have not accomplished anything because an hallucination naturally stopped. > > If something seems really strange and mysterious and incomprehensible, is it always necessary to formulate an explanation or an hypothesis or theory about it? Being in a place where you just do not know is not a bad place. I like to speculate, but nothing I say is really true, it's a picture, an incomplete snapshot of a mental model in my mind. It may or may not have utility, for me or for anyone else. To argue endlessly about what cannot be seen, heard, touched, felt, and smelt is a fool's errand. > > "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. > I said I don't know." -- Mark Twain >
