Finding a place for the paranormal?

1. Finding a place for the paranormal?

2. In the conceptual fruit bowl • Placing fruit in a bowl • Where do we place the ‘strange fruit’ • Of the paranormal?

3. Why is the paranormal a problem at all? • The paranormal is a problem • Primarily because of science • Which tells us that only molecules • Are real and nothing else • This dominates our thinking • It has hijacked our imagination

4. introduction • How many of you believe in science? • How many believe the world is entirely physical? • Is there anything beyond the molecular? • How many believe in religion?

5. Issues • The molecular view raises several issues • Is mind solely a product of molecules? • Are mind and brain the same thing? • Are ‘things’ real?

6. Paranormal • Paranormal includes • Telepathy • Ghosts • Mediums/Clairvoyance • Telekinesis • Intuition, dreams? Attractions?

7. Science • Science first kicked off • by Galileo [1564-1642] around 1600 • Who first questioned • The truth of the Church • And conducted experiments

8. Thomas Hobbes • Thomas Hobbes [1588-1679] • Established a materialistic philosophy • Sceptical of religion

9. Sir Francis Bacon • Francis Bacon [1561-1626] • established the method of induction • so central to science: • Based in observation • And experiments

10. Rene Descartes • René Descartes [1596-1650] • contributed to this new system • In mathematics • And psychology

11. Sir Isaac Newton • Newton [1642-1727] • regarded world as a machine • Gave birth to the mechanical philosophy: • An exquisite mechanism created by • The divine watchmaker

12. Locke • John Locke [1632-1704] • He developed Hobbes’s views • Into a wholly materialistic view

13. Science and Religion • Yet they were all religious men!! • A fact conveniently forgotten • by scientists today

14. Enlightenment 1 • In the 1700s • science made great strides forward • This was called the enlightenment • Materialistic culture

15. Enlightenment 2 • Opposed to religion and spirituality • This view dominates modern life since 1800 • The paranormal challenges this belief system

16. This talk today • We need to try and place • The paranormal into a new context • And try to reconcile science • With non-molecular views

17. Paranormal Phenomena • We need to create a theoretical framework • For the paranormal to be possible • And find a belief system • that reconciles it with science • This is no easy task!

18. choices • We seem to have a straight choice: • either to believe that paranormal phenomena are genuine • or to dismiss them all as bogus

19. problems • However, if we accept even provisionally • that paranormal is true and real, • then this poses a problem • both for science • and for our understanding.

20. mutuality • However, maybe we can find • a philosophy that embraces • both science and the paranormal, • Giving them both some validity? • Is such a view possible?

21. plurality • The answer is ‘yes’ if we • Cast around and • can accept views like… • Berkeley, Husserl, Simmel, Buddha

22. George Berkeley • George Berkeley [1685-1753] • Matter is merely thought • In the mind of God • An entirely spiritual view – all is mind!

23. Husserl • Edmund Husserl [1858-1938] • his phenomenology: • We should strive to • Seize the whole • In all its fullness, • Which can never be grasped • Through ‘parts’

24. Simmel • Georg Simmel [1858-1918 ] • Who stressed empathy • Which allows us • To engage with • Each other and • Reality

25. Implications • The upshot of Simmel’s work applies • Especially in the arts, literature, music, healthcare and religions • Where empathic connection of some form • Is of paramount importance

26. Buddha • Buddha [624 BC - 544 BC] • A Buddhist view: • World is a flux • Self is an illusion [transient] • ‘things’ are an illusion [transient] • Lose ego…

27. Buddhist view • The upshot of Buddhism stresses • Two factors of relevance to our search • First, demolition of the self is a pre-requisite for empathic engagement • The world is constantly created and destroyed • moment by moment

28. construction • From these elements • we can construct a broader view • of ourselves • and the world • as being more intimately commingled • into a vast and subtle matrix.

29. A view • Such a view would allow • telepathy and clairvoyance, for example, • to be quite valid aspects of life • Just as scientific phenomena are.

30. No dislocation • Such a view would reduce • the tension that exists • between science and telepathy • by seeking common ground • to underpin them both. • HOW?

31. No ego • Such a view would comprise • spiritual empathy • mental osmosis • when ego is dropped • Ego blocks empathy & knowledge WHY?

32. Holistic • The resulting view is a Neo-Berkelian form of Phenomenology & entails: • Holism • Continuity • Inter-connectedness • Empathy • System.

33. Ecology • Ecological awareness • also contributes to this worldview • as an interlocking matrix or complex • comprising multi-leveled events • and self-regulating feedback loops.

34. combination • If we combine this • with the ideas of some mental and emotional realities • beyond mere molecules…

35. Imagine • Then it is possible to imagine • all minds networked together • But this is rarely our experience • WHY? • Because of ego? • Because of solid belief in ‘things?’

36. Connections • However, from an ego orientation • or from scientific materialism • they still seem separate • and disconnected ‘things’ • And we each seem separate beings

37. Hangs together • If you then add to this • the idea of an immortal essence • then it all hangs together.

38. Spiritual machine? • Neo-Berkelian phenomenology • would see the world not just as • A vast physical machine • Composed only of myriad ‘things’ • But also a vast spiritual machine.

39. Events, dear boy… • In this machine • events shadow events • in a non-rational manner • that can never be fully explained • by reduction into solely physical particles and forces.

40. Delusional view? • It is because reductionism • is only part of the picture, • [a delusional view?] • that the complete view • of our experience • fails to conform to the world as ‘things’ • World is thus more than simply ‘things’

41. Incomplete • If it were complete • then it would explain everything. • That it cannot do this, • renders it incomplete.

42. Only one view • Reductionism • is merely one view • of how the world might be, one view • of how it seems to function • In a fragmented sense…

43. Missing link? • What is left out? • = the non-molecular dimension • of substance • that binds the whole thing together • I.e. a matrix

44. The glue that binds… • This acts rather like the ‘glue’ • that binds the fabric in a model • or the medium on/in which something floats. • This is the interface between • Subjective inner reality • And the ‘outer’ world

45. Matrix • is this mysterious ‘substance’ • or substrate • or medium • that underpins • every ‘physical’ thing • in the universe.

46. Subjective • This extra something is • The subjective dimension • Of our experience • Our inner lives and how • That connects with what we think is • The external world

47. Inclusivity • What is excluded from science • is perhaps just as real to us • as physical phenomena appear to be. • Art, dreams, feelings • Love, creativity…

48. Irreducible • But it is a something • that is unsuitable for reduction • to molecular phenomena • or the molecular view. • It is an aspect of our experience • Quite irreducible to molecules

49. Non-real? • If something • cannot be reduced • It is seen by science • as proof that it is non-real.

50. Subtle forces • For science to even conceive of telepathy or clairvoyance it has to • invoke invisible subtle forces • and particles • to connect ‘things’ together and so • to create ‘events’.