Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Tom Butler]

I am trying to find a way of describing the difference between a person who is guided by prior assumptions and a person who is not predisposed to assumed truths.

I have been using "Point of view" as argument based on prior assumptions. In contrast, I use "perspective" as perception based on prior understanding.

For instance, a person who accepts the possibility of nonphysical aspect of reality has a different point of view than one who thinks reality is only physical. In contract, as a person moves from a body-centric relationship with his or her reality to a mind-centric one, his or her perspective changes.

I may be making too big of a things about the difference but I use both terms extensively in my writing and I need to be consistent.

The point I am trying to make in my writing is that a researcher who does not allow for the possibility of a nonphysical aspect of reality applies a different set of choices to research results than one who allows for nonphysical reality. I am calling that a difference in point of view.

Contrast that with the perspective a personality has about the nature of reality based on an incarnate person verses a discarnate person.

I know there is a difference. I am not sure how to express that difference. What is a good term for the predisposed researcher?

[AmericanKestrel]

Can you clarify further the difference you see between assumptions and understanding?
Assumption is something about which you draw a conclusion based on some kind of evidence.
Understanding would be understanding those evidence in order to be able draw the conclusions and make assumptions.
Would this be right?

[Tom Butler]

Thank you for responding.

My challenge is to describe decision making from a most fundamental level.

Here is one context for my question. Spiritualists work with the understanding that they can quiet their mind and make contact with discarnate personalities. That means, when they sense information while in a meditative state, they assume it is from "outside" of themselves -- from spirit. But ... current research is indicating we unconsciously "preprocess" information before becoming consciously aware of it. The effect is that we become aware of what our unconscious perceptual processes "thinks" of it. That preprocessing appears to be based on our worldview which represents what we think is true and not necessarily what is true.

As I am describing it now, different worldview means different point of view. Different sense of "I am this" means different perspective.

Spiritualists' worldview has it that they are in contact with discarnate personalities. That is their assumption and understanding. Science is telling us that is not exactly true. In a pragmatic sense, it may be true that neither skeptic nor Spiritualist have the right answer.

It appears that we are incapable of direct understanding of anything. Instead, as a seeker of understands (greater lucidity), we converge on understanding as an incremental process over many experiences.

Decision making is what this is all about. When a person makes a decision about something, he or she does so from the perspective of cultural conditioning and memory. Human instincts are a dominant, unconscious influence in our decision making. A seeker seeks to achieve increasing control over those instincts. In doing so, their point of view changes from a person who has not made such an effort. In my world, a skeptic decides with the point of view that reality is physical ... period. A seeker decides from the point of view that things paranormal are possible.

At the same time, a person who is more lucid than the average person has a different perspective about things. I am a poor example, but my perspective is that I am not my body. I seek to develop a discerning intellect-centric perspective rather than a body-centric one.

My question concerns how this difference can be talked about in ways more people will understand. How can I say in a few words that a person is more or less lucid than another person?

[Pattern-chaser]

... current research is indicating we unconsciously "preprocess" information before becoming consciously aware of it. The effect is that we become aware of what our unconscious perceptual processes "thinks" of it. That preprocessing appears to be based on our worldview which represents what we think is true and not necessarily what is true.

Yes, human perception works more or less as you describe. The raw data from our senses is "preprocessed" - integrated into our internal mental world-view - before being passed to our conscious minds. We see (or hear, or...) what we expect to see. What we see is based on sensory data, so what we see isn't entirely random. But we don't necessarily see what is there. The shortcomings of our perception are quite well known, even if the reasons why and how it happens are not. We're still learning.... And the process of perception itself is entirely unconscious, so we are not, and cannot be, aware of it. It happens before we even have conscious awareness of what we are seeing.

How can I say in a few words that a person is more or less lucid than another person?

You just did it, I think.

[Tom Butler]

Thanks for commenting Pattern-chaser. It is the fact that our mind works as I have described that I am trying to apply to some of the paranormal phenomena I study. I am trying to find useful ways to speak of the different conclusions people arrive at for the same input. Why does one person turn toward a Physicalist point of view while another person given the same information turns toward Dualism?

What are the underlying assumptions held by a person when he or she speaks of an abstract concept? My thought is that usually unexpressed assumptions determine their conclusions. I am trying to explain to my readers that this unconscious bias is manageable. It is what a seeker of spiritual maturity intends to manage.

This is a common question in sociology. I see this from Google Dictionary:

Woke: alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
"we need to stay angry, and stay woke"

Why is one person "woke" and another not? While I do not like the term, I see that it satisfies the need for a shared symbol with which people can easily make their point.

The "point of view" versus "perspective" question is my wordsmithing effort to make such a distinction without spending a hundred+ words defining the term. I have the sense not many people get the point ... thus, I must suspect that I do not have a valid point or I need better symbols.

I have defined the "Lucidity Spectrum" as an informal scale relating a person making decisions entirely under the influence of instincts, on one extreme, and a fully lucid person on the other.



This diagram represents a comparison of the estimated distribution of "woke-like" perception. There is a persistent 30-40% of the USA still supporting conspiracy theories so I think the bell curve needs to be biased more to the left. The diagram was prepaired to explain the influence of human instincts on decision making, but it represents a universal concept.

As an example, when I say that a researcher ignored information from Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC) in evaluating their results, I might follow by trying to make the point that, in failing to consider ITC, they are predestined to produce a misleading report. Assuming the researcher intends to be scientifically correct, it is reasonable to consider his or her predisposition toward Physicalism. That is typically an unconscious predisposition. What is the nature of that influence?

There may be good literature on this but I am an Engineer and not well versed in psychology. Second, I have given up looking for good literature because all that I have studied are predisposed toward physicalism. I was hoping for your insight.

[Steve3007]

I am trying to find a way of describing the difference between a person who is guided by prior assumptions and a person who is not predisposed to assumed truths.

In your view, why do those prior assumptions exist? Are they a result of prior observations?

[Pattern-chaser]

I am trying to find a way of describing the difference between a person who is guided by prior assumptions and a person who is not predisposed to assumed truths.

I suspect there is not a single human being who does not base their thinking on assumptions, even if we don't realise they're there, and that we're using them. So I think I might categorise people a little differently from the way you have done, into those who question their assumptions and those who don't.

How to distinguish them? One is open-minded, the other is content. I'm guessing that's not exactly what you're looking for, but I can't see a snappier way of putting it that is also accurate and fair. Most humans are not interested in thinking, philosophy, or assumptions. Only a few of us enjoy it enough to do it.

[Tom Butler]

In your view, why do those prior assumptions exist? Are they a result of prior observations?

Thanks for the question. I was calling the factors that influence the development of perception as "prior assumptions." They are assumed to be true without further examination.


Trying to figure out the conditions by which people produce phenomena I have come to think that there are several mostly unconscious influences that bias choice:

• Temperament: People are predisposed to interact in predictable ways. https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/tempe ... ent-types/ and https://www.pocketbook.co.uk/blog/2017/ ... al-styles/

• Instincts: Every living organism appears to be guided by the urge to assure gene dominance. Our human instincts are dominant at birth but there appears to be a non-biological second set of instincts involved that tend to moderate biological instincts as a person matures.

• Prior Experience: This is current lifetime memory but if reincarnation is to be considered, this may also include memory of a prior lifetime.

• Taught Information: After instincts, cultural influences are probably the second most influential bias in development of perception.

I try to always use "understanding" in the sense of awareness of the actual nature of something. It appears that a person converges on correct perception of the actual nature of reality in an asymptotic manner but never achieving full understanding.

Part of my "proof" of the Survival Hypothesis is what I refer to as the "two mind solution to the Survival Hypothesis." In that model, a person is defined as an etheric personality entangled with a human in an avatar relationship. In this Dualistic model, some of the influences that inform our decision making come from our human and some come from our relatively long-lived etheric personality. The initial question of this thread concerns how to characterize the degree to which either mind influences choice.

[Tom Butler]

How to distinguish them? One is open-minded, the other is content.

A person with what we think of as an open mind tends to make less dogmatic decisions that allow for alternatives. Yes, that is part of what I am trying to consider. I could argue that a person with a closed mind will base choices on a less inclusive set of factors than one with an open mind. That would be the difference in point of view I am after.

Perspective is a little more difficult. In my above response to Steve3007, I defined a person as an etheric personality entangled with a human in an avatar relationship. In that model, both minds share the conscious self and Worldview. When a person decides something, is that decision moderated by the avatar or the symbiont? Is the person more or less lucent?

An easy way to apply the lucidity concept might be as wisdom or maturity. Maybe the wisdom of maturity, but that is not a given.

The difference in point of view is important for ITC practitioner because it appears the practitioner or an interested observer provides the trans-etheric conduit for physical phenomena. In Dualism, all physical phenomena is modeled as a trans-etheric influence, so the question should be considered for everyone. Being aware of the influence of point of view makes it more possible for a person to manage the formation of their perception.

I think the answer to my question is that i should spell the point out each time. I have yet to find a term that properly symbolizes the point.

Thanks!

[Pattern-chaser]

An easy way to apply the lucidity concept might be as wisdom or maturity.

I have an acquaintance who has done quite a lot of work on lucidity. Here is a link to his work. I don't know if it fits with the way you are considering lucidity? Sorry if this turns out to be a derail. I won't mention it again.

[Tom Butler]

I have an acquaintance who has done quite a lot of work on lucidity. Here is a link to his work. I don't know if it fits with the way you are considering lucidity? Sorry if this turns out to be a derail. I won't mention it again.

Thanks for the reference. I gave it a quick read and found it facinating ... mainly in how McIntyre approaches such questions. I am mostly in agreement with his points about perception. I use "hyperlucidity:" where he uses "hypercredulous” to mean, I think, essentially the same concept. https://ethericstudies.org/perception/#Hyperlucidity

Of course, I don't know the man and I am certainly not qualified to critique his work, but based on the referenced talk, McIntyre seems to be approaching lucidity from a physicalist, body-centric point of view. That goes back to my initial effort to understand differences in approach to information (point of view or perspective).

By body-centric, I mean the assumption that mind evolves from brain. After all of these years, I can no longer find support for that in metaphysics. So what is a useful way to describe that difference in a way that lay people will understand without a long introduction to what are apparently way too arcane concepts?

[Gertie]

I don't know if mind evolved from/is an emergent property of brain, but we do have plenty of evidence of a correlative relationship. So an understanding of brains can further our understanding of minds.


The most striking feature of brains is their unimaginable complexity, so any simplistic dichotomy is not going to capture that. And that w while we are born with genetic predispositions, human brains are 'designed' by evolution for plasticity - learning. Consciously or unconsciously, neural connections are re-forming moment by moment. Some pre-dispositions are fairly stable, some are being triggered by experience, while some are relatively dormant. And it's all fed into this inconceivably complex web of connectivity which somehow arrives at integrated cohesive internal narratives about the world and our selves. A world view.


So how any individual fits onto the sort of scales you select at any moment, will be a unique story of their genetics and specific unique experiences over a lifetime.


The above simply notes mind-body correlation, it doesn't rely on physicalism. The issue of whether physically disembodied minds exist should be examined on the evidence. So far, the evidence hasn't led scientists to re-evaluate the physicalist model, but then the physicalist model doesn't address non-physical mind. Still, if the evidence was persuasive, dualism would be our mainstream model. But it hasn't. The movement has been in the other direction as we learn more. Diembodied 'souls' have been pushed into the realm of religious faith now, not mainstream science. People who say they see or hear them might have their claims better explained by psychology, or charlatanism. Theology aside, there is little contemporary philosophical support for them either. Where-as mind as an emergent property of physical processes is regarded as a legitimate hypothesis based on evidence.

[Tom Butler]

The above simply notes mind-body correlation, it doesn't rely on physicalism. The issue of whether physically disembodied minds exist should be examined on the evidence. So far, the evidence hasn't led scientists to re-evaluate the physicalist model, but then the physicalist model doesn't address non-physical mind. Still, if the evidence was persuasive, dualism would be our mainstream model. But it hasn't. The movement has been in the other direction as we learn more. Diembodied 'souls' have been pushed into the realm of religious faith now, not mainstream science. People who say they see or hear them might have their claims better explained by psychology, or charlatanism. Theology aside, there is little contemporary philosophical support for them either. Where-as mind as an emergent property of physical processes is regarded as a legitimate hypothesis based on evidence.

Thanks for commenting Gertie. The contention that mind is an emergent property of biological brain is persistent, but I have yet to see anything more evidential than that certain parts of the brain lights up during certain mental processes. The engineer in me want to see a better supported argument. So far, it is mostly "We are right because so many of us think we are right. The prevailing biological cosmology does not address the evidence.

For mind to be a product of brain, it is necessary to explain the existence of Psi functioning and psychokinetic influence using physicals principles. These are not matters of religion but are the target of considerable research given the small community of researchers. Here are a few references: https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references.

The two characteristics of mind that must be present for Dualism to work is a means by which intentionality can influence a physical process. Of course, we have that with ITC, but we also see it in the way that the randomness of Random Event Generators (REG) has been shown to change under the influence of thought. Stochastic Amplification seems to be one one of the physical processes involved.

While it can be shown that there is a mechanism for thought to influence the body, there remains the need for a mechanism for the body to influence mind. To my knowledge, the physical-to-etheric mechanism has not been identified. However, there is some indication that a model for a phased-array antenna might point to a mechanism.

It is useful to characterize the nonphysical aspect of Dualism (etheric, Psi Field) as conceptual space. If that is true, an etheric-to-physical influence (thought in Dualism) is a conceptual-to-physical effect. For instance, it looks defensible to argue that psychokinesis acts on the concept of, say audio noise, in EVP and not the actual physical change in voltage. From my experience, a person with the point of view that all is physical will have difficulty integrating that sort of difference in modeling.

Once we get past brushing off why we think Dualism may be viable as charlatanism or religion, It is necessary that mainstream neuroscientists to at least consider the parapsychological research and explain how thought is able to effect machines at a distance. What propagates thought beyond the biological organism?

I don't disagree with you. I just can't see a way that you can be right.

[Pattern-chaser]

By body-centric, I mean the assumption that mind evolves from brain. After all of these years, I can no longer find support for that in metaphysics.

Perhaps your assumption is simply a good guess, but metaphysicians can't find anything more to support it? Just a thought.

[Protagoras]

I am trying to find a way of describing the difference between a person who is guided by prior assumptions and a person who is not predisposed to assumed truths.

I have been using "Point of view" as argument based on prior assumptions. In contrast, I use "perspective" as perception based on prior understanding.

For instance, a person who accepts the possibility of nonphysical aspect of reality has a different point of view than one who thinks reality is only physical. In contract, as a person moves from a body-centric relationship with his or her reality to a mind-centric one, his or her perspective changes.

I may be making too big of a things about the difference but I use both terms extensively in my writing and I need to be consistent.

The point I am trying to make in my writing is that a researcher who does not allow for the possibility of a nonphysical aspect of reality applies a different set of choices to research results than one who allows for nonphysical reality. I am calling that a difference in point of view.

Contrast that with the perspective a personality has about the nature of reality based on an incarnate person verses a discarnate person.

I know there is a difference. I am not sure how to express that difference. What is a good term for the predisposed researcher?

Having read all the thread. I will come at if from a slightly different angle.
I would seperate these viewpoints into the artistic and scientific temperament.
The feelings based and the materialist temperament.
The creative temperament and the controlling temperament.

There is and never will be any evidence for mind emerging from matter.
But it is obvious to me,being an artistic temperament,that both mind and matter coexist together.

The materialist mindset as I have observed is one that craves the security to think that matter is totally controllable and can cure and fix all the problems of humans. Hence the overprivledged position of technology.

The artistic temperament is one that wishes to express itself and fully trusts in its creative spiritual power rather than matter.

One major difference is you will see materialists tend to be very closed minded about the power of human intention...Yet they are using human intention to try to explain and control the earth!!!