Luc Turpin

Lot’s to unpack in your post. I find the multiplicity of paradigms interesting. And I was aware of varying institutional bias, but did not dared to bring it up. Does this demonstrate even more bias in science? As for qualia, I also do not see the issue about interpretation between seekers, but where it comes from or how it is produced is enigmatic to me.

In the sense that you describe it, objectivity may be well under threat. In my neck of the woods, it is not as threatened. A bit of humour not seriousness on my part in the use of the term crusade.

Can we not ask 100 people how 25c feels like and then average out the results? how about a validated questionnaire for nde experiencers? How about documenting supposedly mystical experiences and see if there are patterns? science can explore the subjective through indirect evidencing Was the higg’s boson not confirmed through a five sigma significance on a distribution graph? Did the higg’s boson appear at every trial or was it an average of occurrences? My point is the ignoring of data because it does not fit with current paradigm I know of the principle of replicability. my question again is what if replicable data is ignored because it does not fit the current paradigm?

1- when did I say that science was not great and not beneficial to humanity. The contrary, i am all for science. What I am saying is that there is a part missing if one wishes to fully grasp reality, and what is hampering this quest for a fuller reality is partly bias. 2- hope that this time it will push aside the prevailing computer model of brain. Allow me to be a bit doubtful on though. So far, it has made very limited in ground on the neuroscience community 3- the process is brutally hard on bias. The weakness lies with scientists and the scientific community. Again, science is very good at exploring and understanding the objective part of reality. That is why we have such great technology. That is why covid did not wreak more havoc onto the world. How many times do I have to state that science is great at what it does. If it can find a way of exploring the subjective part of reality or at least respecting what others are saying about it, then we are in business toward a greater understanding of reality Yes, but sometimes is it possible that the evidence is just ignored?

Why the -1 ? Need time to gather what everyone is clamouring for, and stoping this discussion from going around in circle. As a matter of statement, I might be the only one thinking that this conversation is actually not going in circle as I have learned in the process, it was established that people not process was at the origin of bias and that some of you have been initiated to the concept of worldview having a probable impact on science. I long route that we have walked together. People not process is at the origin of bias, I think.

1- Fair enough comment of yours that the evidence that I presented is at best circumstantial. But saying that I was shot down by several posters, I beg to differ. It’s where the hand of man has touched, but it is in much better control and easier to control in "hard" sciences such as physics and chemistry. I state and assume responsibility for my statement that there is biasness in neuroscience and, shocking news, most probably in evolutionary biology. As for not being bias to accept explanation that work well for us, I entirely agree.. If this is true, then I would have to withdraw my comment about science being biased because of its promotion of a preferred worldview This is what science should be and if indeed it is that, then again my comment about biasness in science would not hold up. But, it seems a long way from what seems to transpire in the real world. I will pause from posting for a while as my armour is sufficiently dented. It is a strategic withdrawall to better arm myself with more evidence, if it is out there. My concern is how can anyone produce hard evidence on a biased worldview. If I find any, I will share it.

Where is the evidence shooting down my claim of biasness in science? I have at least brought observation to the table, but the other side has not even done that. Show me the evidence that there is no bias towards a certain worldview? If I say idealism at a science conference, will I be as warmly welcomed as if I say materialism? I agree with you that evidence is scarce,,,,on both sides. And I am continuing this discussion only because I am being peppered with posts. And I also believe that our discussion, notwithstanding its lack of evidence, is very beneficial to all. If you ask me to stop, then I will do so. I don’t have that much skin in the game on this one. Laughed again😊 Its not religion, but maybe, just maybe spirituality. Again, the jury is still out on this one.

1- Dawkins does not state that subjectivity does not exist (sorry for the two negatives in the sentence), but that subjectivity operates like a "fog" that distorts objective reality. He states that "now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of objective truth". As if objectivity was in danger and that those defending 'objectivity" are only the good gals and guys. Sounds like another crusade. 2- And I say that science can try with at least indirect quantifiable evidence. It will not probably get to the core of the matter, but we will at least be able to determine its confine, which is a start. 3- Agree that I am veering a bit off course when I bring it back to consciousness, but it is the best example that I have of bias towards one approach in comparison to another. One is being shot down before it even hits the tarmac. 4- Indeed it is very-very successful; that's not the point; the point is that it went beyond it's privileged position and strongly inferred what the worldview should be.. 5- I am sayiing that there is an overarching bias in science and that this is, its preference for a specific worldview. That is why I contend that it is interdisciplinary. 6- Agree that it is not failiure overall ; neuroscience tells us much about the brain, but not so much about mind. And more knowledge about mind would help us understand the mind, and maybe our place in the universe. 7- Never said that it stopped science from progressing. Where would we be without science ? I contend not very far from where we were before it.

Don't know why, but I laughed upon reading your parrot line😊 I have many reasons for being biased on bias in science and on consciousness. I will stop talking about bias in science when it goes away, and trust me, it will never go away. And I will stop talking of my bias in the way that consciousness operates, when there will be clarity in how two pounds or so of matter creates mind.

What I don't get is how are we going round in circles chasing our tails. If there was no bias in science, no one would be interested in the matter, and if you look at the number of posts, there seems to be interest. To me, getting at least some on this forum to accept that its man-made and that we need to incessantly keep it in check is a step forward. And I again strongly reiterate that we are all bias, including me. Baked in the human-pie.

1- So, Richard Dawkins does not refute, but equates it to the "fog" of subjectivity. Daniel Dennet does not deny it either, but says it's an illusion fabricated by the brain. Sam Harris does not deny subjectivity and does not seem to put any caveats on it. As for Christopher Hitchens, he was all into atheism and I could not find anything on subjectivity coming out of him. 2-So, science does not refuse to investigate the metaphysical? Science has no preferred leaning towards materialism? And it has definitely resolved the living and consciousness? Show me the evidence! 3- Science holds a priviledge postion in western societies and uses this leverage very efficiently. It did set up the boudaries of what it can investigate and then bled through the boundaries by being strongly suggestive of how the world should be viewed through science. 4- No impact on identifying rocks and minerals, but the mind will be doing it through the brain, rather than the brain doing it itself. Neuroscience is starting to show evidence that I am using in my posts. I did takl about Wilder Penfield, did I not and his live experiences on humans. I did talk about Paul Pietsch and his shuffle brain experiences. etc. 5- Neuroscience and science have been trying to crack the mind from brain nut for centuries and have not done so. After trying for so long, it might be time to try something different that is supported by incomplete, but tantalizing partial evidence. 6- Nope, it will not. But maybe some equations might have to be revisited, but too early to tell as we don't know at this point what mind really is. 1- If it quacks and walks like a duck, its a duck. 2- "Measurable" was the word being used in posts, but I agree that quantifiable is better. 3- Bias is unevenly distributed, but found in all fields. As for consciousness, finding out what it really is would unlock locked doors. Agree with you on this matter. I also am interested in your likes and dislikes 😊

yes, the process reduces, but does not eliminate bias. its the individuals t not the method. studying it will help identify and control it, but it remains essentially a human affair. my main bone of contention is that science wishes to study only what is measurable (fair enough) and then inadvertently or otherwise, a determination is made on the predominant worldview without consideration for the subjective aspect of reality. This to me is the main bias in science. 1- agree that I have not supported other disciplines 2- yes, it is acceptable to not have an answer 3- those that have not moved on, seem to not be able to go beyond computer analogies. This observation comes from those that have moved on will continue tomorrow

Yes, yes, this is bias. This is exactly what I was implying from the get go. Not only in neuroscience, but in many disciplines. The brain is definitely not a computer, But when discussing this with many neuroscientists, they do not even have a fallback position, only being able to discuss the matter in a computer analogy context. I said that they probably did not, not that they definitely did. I will investigate. And you are correct that it would have been unsubstantiated if I stated it as a fact. However, I remember a Dennet talk that definitely implied that there was next to nothingness after the objective reality. This is a contention of mine, which, you are correct again, does not make it true. I put the statement up there to clarify my position on the matter under discussion. Putting someone in a scanner is a way of peering into the subjective nature of mind. It does even if some reject it. Polarization does not only exist in politics. If I tell you that mind expresses itself through brain, then what does stop it from having an effect on more elementary matter? Yes, letting panpsychism through the backdoor. Not saying that it is, but one shall not preliminarily disqualify it. A minority but growing number of neuroscientists are now contemplating this. Why is this? Because of contrary findings to a mind from brain model. I have given many intriguing areas of investigations on this matter in some of my posts. And these mind from brain inconsistencies can be empirically studied. Do remember that Wilder Penfield started his career as a staunch mind from brain proponent, made numerous prodding of the brain with electrodes and ended his carrer saying that he was no longer sure of this. When prodding his patients with electrodes, something would happen, but patients always replied, “its not me doing this, you are” which was unexpected. One of many odd results of neuroscience studies. Not smart enough to understand this.

It is maybe "I" that is the fatalist in all of this, not science. I think also that Dawkins is deluded. I am getting very dizzy being on the merry-go-round and soon will fall off into silence. Have any suggestions for a better question? I still think that mine is good as it seems to encourage thinking about bias. But, maybe, you know, all of this may be very all for nothing. Correction - But, maybe, you know, all of this may very well be all for nothing.

1- My indictment of science is this <Science cannot refuse to investigate the metaphysical on the grounds that it is not its business to do so and then declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Neither can it impose this worldview until it has definitively resolved the issues of the living and consciousness. Doing so is premature and biased towards other possible worldview candidates.> -me. My beef is focussed, but broadly applicable. 2- Outcomes are part of reality. a = GM/r^2 does tell us something about gravity, which is part of reality. We would know less about reality without it. 3- When I use the "you" in my text it is about the broad based "you" as in all physicists, not you "swansont". You (as in you swansont this time) can have a lot of fun doing science, but the "you", as in all physicists, share a passion of wanting to know how the world or reality works. Is it not the case? 4- Electric fields and phonons are calculation tools that help us better understand reality. QM speaks loudly about our microscopic reality. So much so that we benefit from inventions based on QM. And these inventions affect our day to day reality. 5- There is an objective reality that can be measured and a subjective reality that can be indirectly measured. Consciousness can be indirectly measured through scanning devices. Meditators were placed in scanners and we learned something about this state of reality. All then that I am asking is a fair competition between the objective and subjective. I did mention that I thought that they did so, not that it was so. I will have to investigate this assertio. And I say "that some areas of knowledge will always yield usefull explanations of their objects if they are adequately studied, via indirect objective measurement." Scientists argued a while back ago that dogs did not really feel pain; that it was all reflexes, and that extended to us human for many scientists. I then stil cling to my idea that some scientists still believe that subjective reality is not real, but an artifice. Then why all this fatalism in science. When I read science, I feel excitement about the discovery itself, but less enchanted about its implication. According to most of science, I get the feel that we are pointless dots haphazardly floating in a vast ocean of pointless dots.

1- might be too tired, but I am not getting this one. The search for holistic types of studies would be fast as there is not too many and limited to social sciences types of studies. 2- if you need both to grasp at reality, then so be it. If nature has decided to incorporate both then who are we to decide that its too general. 3- some other research is needed to grasp at all of reality 4- ho, so why are you doing science?just to do science for science sake? I think not. You want to know how the world works, which is part of our living reality. World, universe are the same and are our reality

1- i disagree, it permeates most of science. I have followed you and most physicists on this forum. You could all dispense of subjectivity if you could. Some even say that they avoid the interpretation of their theory. You personally seem uninterested in consciousness, the holy grail of subjectivity. Subjectivity seems an avoidable nuisance for your discipline but not for most other sciences. And it is necessary to fully grasp reality. You cannot divorce yourself from it if you want to attain full meaning. 2- what a shame that they are missing out on so much more reality

As indicated some do not even believe that the subjective even exists. I believe that it is the case for the four horsemen of the apocalypse: Dawkins, Dennet, harris, Hitchen.

Ok then, that the domain of the subjective is not required to have a full grasp of reality. Some even contend that it does not exist.

Not Swansont, but many scientists.. I was talking in general terms. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

Nothing to do with lasers and optical fibers. Bias in the general sense that a holistic approach is rarely used as a scientific investigative tool. Both, not mutually exclusive My beef is on the subjective and mostly on the living and consciousness not currently being well represented in science and when they do, this will have a significant impact on the current science paradigm and all of science in general. Let us not forget that the subjective is too part of reality, but summarily touched upon in science. And if it is not the domain of science, then you cannot claim to have a full grasp of reality.

My mistake, type Shuffle Brain - The Quest for the hologramic mind by Paul Pietsch. I know personnaly both Paul and Stanislov Grof and they have interesting, but "incredible' data on the subject of the holotropic mind.

!- Science does declare that these are limitations (which is true) and many scientists do declare that the world is materialistic and mechanistic (which remains to be seen). And fully agree with your statement that findings of science shown to be true will continue to be true regardless. I am not objecting to the findings of science, but that scientists have not taken into consideration all of the evidence before making such statements. 2- Again, I do not wish to have any new approach. All that I am advocating is for a broader look at all of the evidence, not only the ones that fall in line with current paradigm. And again, not looking for a revolution but an evolution. Nothing wrong with being biased towards what works; it is common sense to prefer things that work to things that do not work.

Now I think that I understand better. There is no bias in choosing to follow the process, but some scientists use the process and methodology with an intention of their own. The matter is this: if you put your values and beliefs in the process, it becomes less objective and therefore biased toward the interpretation that you want to obtain. Physics and chemistry are less prone to this I suppose.

General <Science cannot refuse to investigate the metaphysical on the grounds that it is not its business to do so and then declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Neither can it impose this worldview until it has definitively resolved the issues of the living and consciousness. Doing so is premature and biased towards other possible worldview candidates.> -me Items a) and b) are correct statements. Add c) <a promising avenue of exploration with interesting preliminary evidence, but does not respect the current paradigm, so it went nowhere.> and I agree with this part of your statement Adding horizontal gene transfer to an exclusively vertical one should have shaken the grounds to the core of the selfishness part of evolution theory and it has barely made a dent. The core foundation of the theory of evolution had no place whatsoever for epigenetic and its requirement of environmental factors having to be taken into account in the theory. I have witnessed so many <surprises> over the years that I am <surprised> that the theory is still intact. I was not talking about the recent examples that I posted. Yes, observations, not research directions , I admit. The articles that I produced in other posts were not far fetched as the mitochondria example, just not in line with predominant paradigm. See my text under <General>. I predict significant paradigm shifts when issues related to the living and consciousness are satisfactorily resolved. I have not called for a revolution in science, but an evolution encompassing parts of reality that have been ignored so far. Unrelated to evolution theory, but to those outside the current paradigm trying to be inside. Again, I predict significant paradigm shifts when issues related to the living and consciousness are satisfactorily resolved. I posted numerous summaries of articles with citations and references to the actual article in numerous posts of mine with no feedback. And you did not respond to my question. I am asking you a question about any holism papers that you have ever encountered; meaning that there is none and that is a problem; and an example of biases. Again, Holotropic mind with years of observations and experimentation; Is this a trick question? Yes, I consider this a form of bias. Why would you not be able to employ known physics? Now, now Dim, no swearing😊 Thinking as hard a I can (maybe I am just dim-witted) and with the amount of time at my disposal for posting. Trying hard to be as clear as possible, but admit that I am having communication problems.