Surveying the landscape => A paranormal, religious future?

I think the fact that there have been no hits from AWARE only strengthens the sceptical cause.

Blackmore is obviously confident that there will be no hits. I agree that Parnia seems convinced despite the lack of hits. But that's the case with most of those who take the trouble to look and consider the evidence with an open mind - most are convinced. Yet the weight of materialist dogma is huge and heavy and stifles open-minded inquiry.

Well, only if the sceptics are dishonest, though, to be accurate. Because firstly, the out of body experience hypothesis has not actually been able to be tested in the Aware study so far. Only two people reported out of body experiences and neither of those occurred in a research area (with a board fitted). So it's a bit ridiculous that sceptics make such an assumption, although you are correct in thinking that they do, of course. That's the type of animal they are, sadly. 

And in my estimation, Blackmore is only confident there won't be any hits because she knows very well how incredibly difficult it's going to be to capture the 'effect' (an OBE sighting of a double blind target that the patient would have little reason to want to look at even if they are in a position to). I am confident with enough time and OBE's, they'll eventually achieve it, though.    

She's also dishonest because she ignored the case of the 57 year man who heard the automated defibrillator advising the medics to shock the patient (twice) which from a materialist perspective is quite impossible, leaving aside his additional observations (all when he was dead). This case was collected during a clinical trial looking for that particular effect and although it missed the double blind bar, it was not nothing, either. He heard that automated defibrillator and that's impossible.

I agree with the last bolded statement more or less. I still think things are slowly changing all around the world. This formerly hard headed materialist scientist here, for instance who had a kind of STE when his daughter's class mate was accidentally killed.   

Prof. Dr. Oliver S. Lazar, born in 1974, was born in Essen/Germany. In 1995 he began studying human medicine at the University of Essen, where he received his first state examination in 1999. He then studied computer science at the Technical University of Dortmund and graduated in 2005 with a degree in computer science. In 2008 he received his doctorate in the natural sciences of medicine at the medical faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen. Until 2011, as a scientist and project manager at the Fraunhofer Institute for Microelectronic Circuits and Systems (IMS) in Duisburg, he gained in-depth experience in applied research through various BMBF-funded research projects. Since 2012, he has been Professor of Computer Science at Germany's largest private university in Düsseldorf. What kind of event could change me in such a concise way, touch my soul in such incredible ways and completely realign my life even though I hadn't planned to do so? The natural scientist Professor Dr. Oliver Lazar describes in this extremely exciting book how the spiritual world revealed itself to him after the tragic accidental death of a girl and profound supernatural experiences. He examined the current research situation on the topic of our existence from a scientific, philosophical and spiritual point of view and reports on an emerging paradigm shift in our society. 

Prof. Dr. Oliver Lazar - Beyond Matter - YouTube

Here's what disturbs me about some of the things you mention. TikTok Tarot readings and Ghost Hunts are precisely the kind of thing that provides ammunition to the sceptics. They will point out that interest in the paranormal is "magical thinking" or, more simply, "woo".  I get the sense that such things are considered in a similar light to the rampant conspiracy theories that so many gullible social media followers consume with ever increasing voracity. 

I agree. That's why I see the proliferation of interest in the paranormal (or maybe we should call it para-tainment?) and conspiracy theories as less a sign of an evolving society and more a symptom of cultural degradation. (Though I certainly wouldn't want to imply that there is absolutely no truth to be found in either.)

And I get the feeling that those conspiracy theorists are huddled somewhere on a forum claiming that they will eventually be proved right and the world will change.

Physicalism-materialism was not a passing fad, it was a religion that dominated not just STEM academia but a good chunk of the humanities. Even still it is losing ground now.

In the grand sweep of human history, I would still call it a passing fad. You're right, though, calling it a religious fad would be more accurate.


As for shifting attitudes in STEM, I think Kamarling makes a good point, we've been here before with Niels Bohr, Schroedinger and the like. Even further back in time, a number of top scientists and inventors, influenced by spiritualism and theosophy, were very keen practitioners of parapsychology, Benjamin Franklin is one example here.....

Time will tell, I suppose.

I agree. That's why I see the proliferation of interest in the paranormal (or maybe we should call it para-tainment?) and conspiracy theories as less a sign of an evolving society and more a symptom of cultural degradation. (Though I certainly wouldn't want to imply that there is absolutely no truth to be found in either.)

It might get silly at times but I think people turning more inward to access their inner self and inner power is ultimately a good thing.

After all this was the occult ideal in the Renaissance before the Church and Mechanists joined together. At least if you with David Griffin's history of the paranormal.

In the grand sweep of human history, I would still call it a passing fad. You're right, though, calling it a religious fad would be more accurate.

As for shifting attitudes in STEM, I think Kamarling makes a good point, we've been here before with Niels Bohr, Schroedinger and the like. Even further back in time, a number of top scientists and inventors, influenced by spiritualism and theosophy, were very keen practitioners of parapsychology, Benjamin Franklin is one example here.....

Time will tell, I suppose.

I think in the past you had some mysterious quantum ideas that were very esoteric yet still did feed into the New Age communities (not always a positive).

But yeah it does depend on a variety of factors coming through especially related to quantum/magneto biology + neuroscience.

I think in the past you had some mysterious quantum ideas that were very esoteric yet still did feed into the New Age communities (not always a positive).

 I think those quantum mysteries have still not been explained to the satisfaction of the scientific realists. You had people like Victor Stenger and, I guess, Daniel Dennett furiously asserting "nothing to see here" but I don't know of a fully accepted explanation of the quantum questions. Add to those the other questions that science struggles to get to grips with such as Origin of Life and DNA, emergence, and - most of all - consciousness, and we can see physicalism is in a huge fight to remain dominant. 

Yet there is this stubborn intransigence on the part of materialists that is clearly part of the atheist faith. The attitude that - well, we might not know the answer yet but we will soon (and God will finally be dead). I very much doubt it though and I remain convinced that, while materialism can't accommodate those anomalies, idealism can. From the idelaistic POV, there is no mystery to consciousness. Quantum weirdness looks less weird, perhaps not at all weird, when viewed in the light of idealism. Maybe that's why those great quantum pioneers tended towards idealism?

From the idealistic POV, there is no mystery to consciousness.

Well, if one is contrasting materialism with idealism, in that limited context then I can agree.

However, I still think consciousness is mysterious. There are worlds within worlds and mysteries within mysteries in consciousness itself. Some mystics spend a lifetime meditating, exploring different states - while the fortunate few (not me!) with little or no effort are privileged to spontaneously be transported into something 'other'.

Well, if one is contrasting materialism with idealism, in that limited context then I can agree.

However, I still think consciousness is mysterious. There are worlds within worlds and mysteries within mysteries in consciousness itself. Some mystics spend a lifetime meditating, exploring different states - while the fortunate few (not me!) with little or no effort are privileged to spontaneously be transported into something 'other'.

I think with Idealism - or any other paradigm that accepts Consciousness as Fundamental - there's no Hard Problem in the original sense.

But yeah, this question of why *we* are here in the midst of Idealism remains since nobody has a good explanation for why there are first person PoVs in the grand scheme.

I think with Idealism - or any other paradigm that accepts Consciousness as Fundamental - there's no Hard Problem in the original sense.

But yeah, this question of why *we* are here in the midst of Idealism remains since nobody has a good explanation for why there are first person PoVs in the grand scheme.

Exactly: any "paradigm that accepts Consciousness as Fundamental".

If all is mind (one mind) then there is no mystery as to why "we" are conscious. We could argue over why we seem to be separate entities but I don't believe that we are - I believe that is an illusion. As I said, we could argue over that. For me - although my understanding of idealism might be lacking or just plain wrong - "we" are aspects of the same consciousness. This physical experience is just one of (probably) an infinite variety of possible worlds, some physical as we know it, others with entirely different laws and forms. Creativity is unbounded and unrestricted and "we" are co-creators.

I think with Idealism - or any other paradigm that accepts Consciousness as Fundamental - there's no Hard Problem in the original sense.

But yeah, this question of why *we* are here in the midst of Idealism remains since nobody has a good explanation for why there are first person PoVs in the grand scheme.

When I referred to the mysteries of consciousness I was perhaps referring to such things as Love and Beauty. There are others. Things which go beyond description. These almost seem like an add-on or an optional aspect in ideas of idealism. However they seem to have an existence of their own. These things are real and idealism just seems a pale sort of tiptoeing around, unable to say anything meaningful. To me it really doesn't offer anything better than materialism in this respect, except for those who like legalistic formulations of language.

When I referred to the mysteries of consciousness I was perhaps referring to such things as Love and Beauty. There are others. Things which go beyond description. These almost seem like an add-on or an optional aspect in ideas of idealism. However they seem to have an existence of their own. These things are real and idealism just seems a pale sort of tiptoeing around, unable to say anything meaningful. To me it really doesn't offer anything better than materialism in this respect, except for those who like legalistic formulations of language.

I think it really depends on the person. Materialism would say Love and Beauty are nothing more than illusions, they have no truth on their own.

Idealism - or any other metaphysics that offers a fundamental place for consciousness - at least offers a place for Love and Beauty.

Of course if one starts with Love & Beauty, then yeah I could see Idealism being sterile.

Not sure I'm following this line of reasoning. My approach, FWIW, is to regard love as the nature of consciousness. Beauty is consciousness given form which is appreciated by consciousness. I'm almost certainly lacking the word-power to do justice to what I'm trying to say but essentially consciousness, love and beauty are all the same thing.

It seems to me that it must be very tempting to want to have things separated out from consciousness but idealism, for me at least, means that any and all separation is an illusion. So love is not something that consciousness can either have or not have - it is that condition in which consciousness operates. I'm trying to think of an analogy ... perhaps I might say that it is like sight and light: sight is meaningless without light and vice-versa thus they only have meaning as aspects of a singular entity.