Failure of Lovecraft's Project: 3 of 3

[Extollager]

My final comment is the one I feel may need the most refinement. I'm an English teacher and not a physicist. I invite help in refining it.

Here goes.

Physicists use the term "Copenhagen interpretation" to deal with the unsettling implications of what was learned in the 20th century about quantum physics and the observer. Basically this means that for the purposes of scientific investigation we "assume" that (1) the undeniable effect of the presence of an observer upon the outcome of an experiment is limited to the submicroscopic level and (2) that the rest of the universe is there apart from an observer.

Lots of people, however, don't think this is tenable. I would reference, at the popular level which is all that I am capable of, a profile in Discover magazine with physicist John Wheeler (June 2002) and, in the same magazine, an excerpt from Lanza and Berman's Biocentrism (issue for May 2009), and also that book.

Put very simply, they argue that nature/the universe are real but the reality of nature/the universe is not entirely separable from an observer.

We know, as scientists, of no observers other than humans and, if you like, animals.

Apart from an observer, Wheeler suggests the analogy of "clouds" of probability -- until observation happens and probability becomes nature/the universe.

I must refer you to these sources if this sounds New Age-y. One reason other people need to deal with it is because New Age-y folks are doing so for their own sometimes dubious gratification.

Clearly this is a long way from Lovecraft's outlook. His whole project depends on our conceiving ourselves as having no essential connection with the cosmos in any way. Au contraire, Lanza and Berman argue: that is precisely what physics shows: that there is an essential connection between consciousness and life, the universe, etc.

For those who want to pursue this matter further, outside the context of Lovecraft, a very good book is Owen Barfield's challenging, mind-opening work Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry.

Discuss?

 

[Extollager]

Discussion of my three postings about Lovecraft's thought has had more fizzle than sizzle. I will now acknowledge that I have drafted an attack on Lovecraft's thought for a forthcoming publication that will probably have a fairly high profile, given it will contain contributions by Ramsey Campbell and Ray Bradbury. (No further details from me just yet!) Speak now, please, Lovecraft admirers, if you think my arguments don't hold water, since I feel pretty confirmed in my belief that his "cosmicism" does not. I think Lovecraft was an autodidact who didn't get the sparring partners he needed, and so he endlessly reiterated and refined his ideas with himself as his main audience. Also, he had the disadvantage of missing out on revolutions in physics and neuropsychology, which of course he can't be blamed for. Books such as Stapp's Mindful Universe as ones that I already mentioned expose Lovecraft's ideas as both untenable and, really, uninteresting compared to the ideas with which we must now deal if we are indeed to "dare to know." I've sent a draft to the editor of the above-mentioned publication, but there is still time for me to learn that I'm wrong and HPL is right......

 

[Extollager]

"Books such as Stapp's Mindful Universe AND ones that I already mentioned [implicitly] expose Lovecraft's ideas as both untenable and, really, uninteresting" -- sorry about the typo.

 

[Ningauble]

I couldn't comment since the discussion is on a level of philosophy to which I'm not accustomed. I wouldn't, however, say that Lovecraft's idead are uninteresting, no matter what they are compared to.

 

[Extollager]

Lovecraft's materialism may, indeed, be interesting in a couple of ways, Ningauble: (1) interesting for the insight it may give into his fiction and personality, (2) interesting as a reflection of a bygone physics, as phlogiston theory is.

I'm saying, however, that as an offering in the marketplace of ideas, his materialism is not a good buy. Lovecraft as thinker may be criticized for the problems that he "should have" recognized (my first two threads on the failure of his project). We his readers may well be criticized if, out of a misplaced fondness for the man and for what his fiction meant to us when we were younger, and what it may still mean for some of us, we esteem his materialism AKA cosmicism despite the developments in physics and neuropsychology that have occurred since his time (my third thread).

In his fiction, Lovecraft asserts that it's best for us if we don't know the facts. See the opening of "The Call of Cthulhu" (which probably some folks here could quote from memory). The idea is that most of humanity, at least, needs its comforting illusions. In his letters HPL is more apt to assert that religion, humanity's non-materialistic philosophies, and so on are illusions, and serious thinkers like himself should live without them: your life is a brief and meaningless thing against the backdrop of a vast but meaningless universe; you can choose to cultivate an aesthetic sensibility towards sunsets and colonial architecture like I, Lovecraft, have done, or towards some other things that seem beautiful to you; but face it, even this is an absurd irony. So he says.

But he's wrong in his materialism, and so claims for him as a thinker should be carefully qualified! If we cling to that materialism out of our fondness for Lovecraft, we are clinging to .... an illusion. He was wrong on two counts that he failed to recognize in his own day, and is wrong on another that is much clearer now.

I'd encourage Lovecraftians to engage with these threads.

 

[nigourath]

Uhm..what progression on neurophysics or physiology or plain physics,you feel, that discredit Lovecraft so-called materialism(i can"t agree with that term, as i have said in your first thread,but lets accept it ,as you call it).Can you be a little more specific?-i can talk with you in a scientific level,if you are willing....Where do you locate a disharmony between Lovecraftian"s cosmicism and recent advances in science?Plz,exhaust your specificity in your claims,so there can be an adequately non-theoretical conversation....

 

[j d worthington]

Extollager: Actually, Lovecraft came remarkably close to some of this later in life, when he was struggling to grasp the concepts of quantum theory (at least what he was exposed to by more popular sources; I don't believe he ever even attempted to read any of the specialized or more technical works on the matter). He also made it rather clear in many of his letters to various correspondents that we actually know nothing -- and are even unlikely to ever know -- about the basic nature of reality, but rather develop models from what has the greatest probability (based on the evidence) of being an accurate representation. Now, he did feel that some of the more radical aspects of quantum mechanics was the result of a "current" inability to decipher these aspects of reality:

What most physicists take the quantum theory, at present, to mean, is not that any cosmic uncertainty exists as to which of several courses a given reaction will take; but that in certain instances no conceivable channel of informataion can ever tell human beings which courses will be taken, or by what exact course a certain observed result came about.

-- Selected Letters III.228
Of course, he was quite wrong on this, but it was a fairly widely-held view at the time.

As for the idea of us as observers being separate from the universe... far from it. While this was not too far from his earlier views (though even there I would seriously qualify this statement), as time went on he came to feel that human beings were, in fact, a part of the process, and that all we could do was to gather together the best information available at the time and construct our models and impressions of reality based upon that information. (With, of course, the caveat that it was always subject to change in the event of radically different evidence coming to light.)

The brand of materialism Lovecraft sported in his earliest years was rather different from that of his later years, as he continued to take on board the latest indications of the science of his day in reference to such matters, which is why certain things about his fiction altered over time -- such things as the "steady-state universe" to something at least touching on the ideas of nuclear chaos and the Big Bang. He struggled quite a bit with Einstein, but finally came to terms with relativity (albeit never giving up a hope that it might be overturned in favor of something more closely approaching his earlier views); but while acknowledging the importance of Planck, de Sitter, etc., he found much of what was being proposed at that point to be (personally) profoundly distasteful... but he also admitted it was quite likely to be true.

I don't think I'd classify Lovecraft as a great thinker qua thinker, but I do think that his attempts to reconcile his philosophical views with the latest scientific findings and then to express those amalgamations in an aesthetic, impressionistic form, makes his work more substantive than that of many. I also think that his constant attempts to come to terms with the quite rapid changes science was bringing to our views of reality were (and remain) rather unusual in such writing. I do, however, think that certain aspects of his thought remain quite valid, and portions of his materialistic views as set forth in his letters show some very keen insights into both current and future (in terms of his own lifetime) developments in scientific thought in various fields.

One of the major things he managed to do, however, was to break the idea of human concepts of good and evil as asbsolutes, and to expand the canvas to address a view of a universe much more strange and awesome than had been done before in weird fiction (with very rare exceptions).

His fiction, however, was never meant to convince anyone of anything -- his letters were where he tended toward that -- but rather as an aesthetic expression of certain moods, impressions, and thoughts; an expression to which his philosophical views became increasingly important, but not the sole imperative. In the end, I think Donald Burleson sums up what Lovecraft was doing best: "ironic impressionism", with the cosmic view a major component, but modified by numerous other aspects, such as his regionalism, conservative (and even in some respects reactionary) views, and his Anglophilism.

If, as you mentioned, you are writing something dealing with these aspects of Lovecraft (whether to take him to task or not), I strongly recommend reading Joshi's H. P. Lovecraft: The Decline of the West, which is I think the best single book to address these topics in a way which may be of help to you. Naturally, it also provides plenty of references to aid you in finding specific discussions by HPL on these aspects of his thought. You might also find Against Religion, a collection of HPL's writings on that subject, to be of some use as well.

 

[Extollager]

Nigourath, I need to refine my discussion of quantum physics and neuropsychology, as I have told my article editor. For now, if you could look up these pieces from Discover, that will give some idea of where I'm going.

"Does the Universe Exist If We're Not Looking?"

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking? | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine

"The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself"

The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine

If you want to read some of the books that I've read, and which offer much more interesting vistas than any provided by Lovecraft's dismal version of the universe, there's Rosenblum and Kuttner's Quantum Enigma (Oxford, 2006) and Lanza and Berman's Biocentrism. I haven't yet read, but would be prepared to recommend based on some skimming, etc., Henry P. Stapp's Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer (Springer Verlag, 2007). Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry, published as long ago as 1955, got me going on a lot of this.

 

[Extollager]

JDW, you mention that Lovecraft "managed to break the idea of human concepts of good and evil as absolutes."

I think he tried to do this, yes. I don't think he succeeded. That goes back to what I said about the "Tao," and how I don't believe (though it is often tried) that one really can ground morality and ethics in a materialist framework, since one cannot attain to ought without appeal to transcendent morality. But if one cannot say ought, then finally there's nothing to choose from between vile acts and ones a decent person will admire, except "I don't like that but I do like that." If this seems too strong, then do this for me: make a convincing argument, on a purely Lovecraftian basis, that there is a real, profound moral difference between a man who enjoys drugging 12-year-old slum children and violating them, and a man who spends much of his inheritance caring for diseased, stray, and abandoned animals and feral pets. Let us suppose so depraved a society as one that approves of the former. It is, in fact, not so very far from conditions in imperial Rome. If there is a true, transcendent moral standard, then the one person in that society who says this is wrong, is the one who is right, however large the majority arrayed against him. But if there is no such thing, then to what can one appeal other than "I don't like it?"

Lovecraft wants to write horror stories that are not about evil. He wants to say that good and evil are parochial human notions; so the real basis of horror is strangeness. And of course his horror is not so far from wonder. What a Romantic he really was (that is not meant as a disparaging remark). But if nothing else would do it, how can we, who have passed through the Holocaust years, the years of Mao's 45 million, and more, maintain that "human notions" of good and evil are invalid? If they are, then we have lost the last weapon the weak have against the wicked strong.

Of course I grant you that individuals and cultures (e.g. Nazi culture) may and do violate the "Tao" all the time. But it is a real, transcendent, metaphysical entity against which they have transgressed. And so they are in the wrong.

 

[Extollager]

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote, "One word of truth outweighs the whole world."

Can one argue, on purely Lovecraftian terms, that this is true? If one cannot, then "The world -- including the evil that men do -- is the great fact, and talk about 'truth' is finally just talk, except for positivistic statements such as 'It is true that the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second in a vacuum'."

 

[j d worthington]

I may have been unclear here, but what I was getting at with his breaking those concepts as absolutes was that his position was that these concepts as we traditionally understand them have no meaning outside the human spectrum. In this, I think the evidence is coming in that he was at least limited in his view, as the concept of morals seems to be fairly widespread among different species (though these are not necessarily the same morals) in their behavior both toward members of their own families, larger groups (or tribes, as some still call them with primates), species, and even (with some variation) toward members of other species. On that, there has been a considerable amount of study done, from different disciplines, and they all seem to indicate that such behaviors are simply conducive to survival of the species, which means that the processes of natural selection would tend to favor them in the long run, however they may be abrogated in the short view.

Hence, I would say that, on a strictly materialist plane, the behaviors you mention, though capable of being sustained for some length of time (horrendous as they are to us emotionally in the main), eventually prove damaging enough to the offspring of that group, tribe, nation, or species, to lower their abilities to cooperate for the good of the whole, leaving them in turn much more vulnerable to attack and even annihilation by those from other groups. On the larger scale (the entire human community), the damage done to our offspring would most likely eventually cause such disruption in societal stability as to cause widespread decimation from much the same causes -- the inability and/or unwillingness to cooperate on any basis long enough to provide for continued conditions ensuring survival of a large proportion of the species. The simple health conditions provoked by widespread use of such practices would severely damage our abilities to control various diseases, likely provoking a variety of pandemic illnesses, many of them with disastrous results for various populations as well as (quite possibly) carrying long-range damage to offspring... making those less likely to produce viable offspring down the line. The result being either a severe reduction of the human population such as we have seen in the prehistoric past (what was it with the last major catastrophe? If I recall correctly, the European population dropped from over 10 million to something around several hundred thousand or less?) or our total extinction, unless these conditions (i.e., the behaviors) changed to promote a more stable and dynamic ecosystem and community.

While such behaviors can be indulged in by more primitive types of societies, the more we become a technologically-oriented species (also meaning we become more dependent on that technology and its effects for our most basic needs), the easier it is to cause major disruptions leading to severe consequences for said societies, including total disruption and a reduction to a state of barbarism we have (quite possibly) never seen. Certainly, Lovecraft felt that such was a good possibility given what he viewed as the "machine-age barbarism" he saw burgeoning around him, but I think in this he was gravely mistaken. That some of the more refined niceties of civilization (points of politesse, the more delicate nuances of some of the arts, etc.) may well be lost or transformed in ways which we or our ancestors would find completely unrecognizable, is by no means impossible. But our very survival as a species, the evidence tends to indicate, may well rely on our increasing use of what we would call higher morality (what Richard Dawkins has referred to as the "shifting moral zeitgeist"), simply because the conditions in which we live have changed so vastly.

This, at least, is my understanding of where the evidence from various studies over the past half century or so seems to lead. These studies also have been taking account of historical trends in human societies as well, noting the fact that such behaviors as you mention have become increasingly to be seen as objectionable, "vile", horrendous, etc., with attendant legal protections and consequences from a larger and larger proportion of humanity, rather than viewed as unfortunate but inevitable consequences of certain states; i.e., war and the like. As many of those studying this sort of thing have pointed out, many of the "moral codes" of the past are, by modern standards, simply horrific; take a look at much of the moral teaching contained in the bible, for instance; or any number of other "holy texts". The fact that modern societies are apparently evolving higher moral codes the more secular and the less reliant on some ultimate authority they become argues, I think, against the idea of any preexisting absolutes, from any source. That some of the ideas within these older systems remain valid and valuable is not surprising really; but that the basis assigned to them remains so is, in my view, gravely to be questioned.

As for the books you've suggested... while I am indeed very interested, it largely depends on whether or not I can clear enough time to read things which are not essential to my own long-term projects at this point, as I am in the middle of a very long-range research project which I foresee taking up most of my (non-work) time for at least another three to four years (possibly longer), and which I have already been working on for the past five. If, however, I can, I would definitely like to get caught up on what is going on in different fields such as this, as I relish seeing where our searches are going.

 

[Extollager]

Thank you, JDW, for grappling with all this.

The "Tao" part of the discussion hasn't been central to the three criticisms of HPL's thought, or anyway I haven't thought of it as such till now, but it seems to be the issue that provokes the most thought. I don't want to weary you, but I will say again that I don't see how one gets, on a materialistic basis, to a convincing argument for morality. Let's grant for the sake of discussion all that you say above about the survival value of what's usually called moral behavior. Someone may still say, "Fine. Let's suppose that drugging and violating kids doesn't conduce to survival value. Why ought I to care? After I die, I cease to exist. All I ever will know is the sensations I experience now, during my few years of life. I don't really care what happens to the species. There will be no 'I' to care about it after I die. For me there will be no human race whose survival will make any difference to me one way or the other. There's no reason you can show me, why I should not do exactly as I like. I 'ought' not to do these acts because they don't promote survival of the species? I don't care whether the species survives. My investment is only in myself."

If limiting ourselves to a purely materialistic basis, we can't argue with this wicked individual. Now it's true that he probably won't care if we say, "But you know that what you are doing is truly wrong." I am not arguing for a transcendent moral standard on the supposal that accepting that it exists will make us good. I'm saying that without it, we are not human. The child-violator I have posited has chosen sub-humanity. I may be able to do nothing to stop him, if society permits and approves what he does. But I am right to say that what he does is wrong.

 

[j d worthington]

Leaving aside the fact that, as social animals, we tend to set up rules and enforce them (meaning that a violation such as that is likely to bring down on that individual's head the wrath of whatever society he or she is in), there is the broader aspect that we are social animals. What is more, we are interdependent. Even the most ornery, cussed, hermitish, self-reliant person on the globe depends on others for some things, whether it be the production of the food they eat, the clothes they wear (from the raising of the fibrous plants or of the animals who produce the basic cloth, to the production of said cloth, to...), the power they use for their various implements, the production of those implements themselves (the production of the lumber, smelting and casting of metals, etc.), production of various medications (including those they use to drug their victims)... the list goes on and on. And, as such, they simply could not make it without the aid of others in some form.

Now, add to all the above, the fact that we are, overall, "hard-wired" toward protective instincts toward our offspring, or children in general -- yet another necessary product of the selective process. (They are finding, by the way, that this also has something to do with the widespread reaction to babies and young of nearly any kind, especially mammals. The large head-to-body ratio, the larger eyes, etc., all seem to be linked to codes in our instinctive behaviors relating to such protective and nurturing instincts.) That being the case, those around him/her are not likely to take kindly to such behavior. He/she would be lucky to find themselves facing legal consequences rather than being strung up or eviscerated from the very basic instincts aroused by such a patent threat to the young.

As I said, the indications are that such behaviors are inherited traits which are basic components of the average human (and most other animal) psychology. Heck, there are plenty of indications that even a fair number of different saurians shared such a basic nurture-and-protect instinct toward their offspring; and we see similar behavior in a very large number of animals today... even to the point of what has been called a "misfiring" of such instinct to the point where they will sometimes foster the young (or injured members) of another species.

It is, in the end, all part of that incredibly long process of selection for survival; those instincts and behaviors which promote the (relative) well-being of the offspring of a species will be favored by the very survival of that species. Those which promote harm to them will, of course, appear now and again, but they tend to be short-circuiting because they simply breed themselves out. They aren't viable in the long run, and with a social species, they seldom prove viable for even the short term, either....

 

[j d worthington]

I suppose I should simply add this to the previous post, but as I am changing emphasis here, may as well have a break between the two....

All the above, however, has little to do with Lovecraft's own approach to such issues, save that he did have a rather nebulous idea that such behavior (as well as many others, some of which are contrary to the above) are indeed traits inherited from our earliest mammalian (and even reptilian) ancestors). To some degree, this was the basis for the horror in "The Rats in the Walls" (speaking of which, if you can lay your hands on a copy of Prof. Barton L. St. Armand's The Roots of Horror in the Fiction of H. P. Lovecraft, you really should give that one a go; it is an examination in detail of that tale, and -- despite the Derlethian slant of some of it -- is a fascinating study and a very enjoyable and thought-provoking read on its own.)

But, as I said elsewhere, Lovecraft stated also that essentially much of what people viewed as his ethics was actually part of his aesthetics; he found such preferable because they encouraged much more strongly the fostering and continuance of the traditional societal patterns which provided for stability, and therefore a greater opportunity for the fructifying and dissemination of the arts as well as the leisure for a cultured person to enjoy them. They belonged to the "norm" of what has long been seen as "good taste", where their opposites tend toward what is traditionally viewed as crass, vulgar, distasteful, sordid, ugly, or mean (in the sense, as he tended to use it, of "impoverishing beauty"). And, quite often, any use of the word "ought" came with the implied "if one wishes to achieve such-and-such results conducive to a more civilized existence which promotes the growth and appreciation of beauty, wonder, ecstasy, and the like, in forms more lasting than the simpler, more coarse, aspects represented by such behaviors" as drunkenness, debauchery, unnecessary violence, etc. In other words, the "ought" itself had no abstract, ultimate, overarching existence, but was entirely relative to the frame of reference given above. Anti-social behavior was to be deplored and combatted because it diminished beauty and -- in some ways more importantly -- unnecessarily increased pain, and Lovecraft always held with Epicurus that "the goal [...] was not an earthy Ἡδονή, or pleasure, but a lofty Ἀταραξία, or freedom from cares & trivial thoughts" (Letters to Rheinhart Kleiner, p. 166).

He discussed the various ways of achieving "happiness" and their relative merits in some of his correspondence, such as letters to Maurice Winter Moe, Rheinhart Kleiner, and Helen V. Sully. In such discussions -- rather than voicing his personal emotional reactions to such things -- he does not make any such authoritative moral claim on whether or not these things are "good" or "evil" but rather discusses their merits in other terms as something which produces more lasting (and therefore more economical) results....

When dealing with the effects of such on human society, however, he was invariably censorious toward them as disruptive and destructive and therefore not to be either encouraged or even tolerated.

 

[Extollager]

Thanks once again, JDW, for engaging with my comments.

I appreciate your efforts. But I don't think you are clinching it, that one can make the case for decent behavior on the basis of probability of survival. You imply that a vile person might refrain from atrocious behavior for fear of counter-attack. Alas, history shows us all too many instances in which the powerful have little to fear from the injured poor. It is true that the powerful and evil aren't likely to refrain from cruelty because someone insists that what they do is objectively wrong. But at least the victims can know that what is done to them or to their loved ones is, indeed, wrong; they aren't left with a shrug ("Hey, **** happens, what can I say?").

I think you believe, or hope, that one instinct will suffice against others. You hope that the instinct of protection of one's species will suffice as a basis for the suppression of instinctive self-gratification, etc. You believe that humanity is, gradually, becoming more decent as opposed to the dreadful past. For myself, I think it is hard to see this. Yes, some modern societies now outlaw slavery. On the other hand 20th century history, especially events Lovecraft died in time to miss or that he probably did not know about or pay much attention to (Stalin's famine in the Ukraine in the early Thirties, for example, or the Armenian genocide), can hardly be dismissed. And what makes much of this sad record even more disturbing is that it originated in highly civilized countries, e.g. Germany. But we are getting away from HPL.

Again, just in case anyone would misunderstand, I'm not trying to make a case for the "Tao" or natural law or objective morality on the basis that it will make people be good. To riff on Solzhenitsyn's remark, the whole world may indeed array itself against one word of truth. One may have to die like a man rather than live with the pack of "subhumans" who reject decency, morality, and truth. That would sound melodramatic except that the annals of the 20th century tell us of such men and women.

To return to my main point: Lovecraft held to strict materialism, as I understand. This means that the explanation for everything ultimately must lie in the properties and interactions of irrational physical properties. There can be no dualism, no exemptions. But if this is true, it must imply that mind and reason are words we give to events produced by material brains. We live in a mindless universe. It is inconsistent to argue that any thought, including the thought that materialism is a true statement about the universe, is anything but the product or effect of mindless processes.

This was a point made in my thread #2, which is probably where subsequent discussion of this matter, if any, should go.

My three threads:

1.Lovecraft's philosophy is ineluctably compromised by his commitment to an incoherent argument: that human beings are insignificant because they are tiny and "recent" over against a vast and ancient universe that knows nothing of them. In so thinking, Lovecraft confuses quantity and quality.

2.Lovecraft's commitment to materialism fastens self-contradiction on him. His reductionism or positivism means that there is no transcendent entity (mind, natural law) over against mere natural processes. Thus he cannot really maintain either than materialism (a mental construction) is true, or that human beings "ought" not to think too lightly of themselves. All he can do is wish people were more like himself (a decent, well-mannered, patient, interesting human being).

3.Lovecraft held that the universe is incommensurable for our intelligence. We are lookers-on, on a universe/cosmos/reality against which we are fundamentally irrelevant. But the conclusions of physics, which insist upon a "mindful universe" or participant observers, expose his thought as obsolete. He can't be blamed for not being acquainted with developments of, say, the last 30 years, such as I have referenced (the two Discover magazine pieces, etc.).

My conclusion: Let's enjoy Lovecraft's fiction, let's enjoy memoirs of him and his letters, but let's not take his thought seriously.* I greatly enjoy the best of the Sherlock Holmes stories and Professor Challenger stories, but I am not thereby tempted to take seriously Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's spiritualism or belief in diminutive fairies in the garden! I would hope that Lovecraft would say, "My outlook being scientific, I accept that reliable data, and reasonable conclusions derived from the same, now militate against my former beliefs."

*Except, of course, as evidence for ideas widely-held, like phlogiston or phrenology were earlier, at a time in history, and as biographical material.

 

[nigourath]

..Extollager..well, lets start like this:How well are you accustomed to the quantum theory or the various scientific theories ,circulating around?What scientific "final conclusion' are you talking about ....(...irrelevant-the phrase itself reminds me of the 'final solution" ,during second world war(as you probably know there was none.....).I read ofcourse your links ,about biocentric theory of the universe,and how quantum theory signifies the power the observation ,as a source and ...cause of the reality ...,or even the final certain -in your opinion-fact that, the whole universe works for life ,that it is "mindful" and works for humanity....
To prove your inevitably dogmatic "truth" you are based in the assumptions of a great physicist called Wheeler,a contemporary of einstein-did they make the relativity theory together ,extollager?i dont think so....and by the way, have you ever read the relation of einstein with all his contemporary colleaques,,-plz do invite yourself to a soap opera of intrique and mystery.....just search google about it,to learn all about their level of "cooperation".
Also,you base your dogmatism and "unafflicted truth " ,to one experiment ,that happened in 1997 ,concerning dual particles,that do not change behaviour ,at a theoretically physically non -admeasured distance,AND ofcourse the different response of the photons ,based on the actions of the observer...

Extollager,what can i say about these 'incontrovertible arguments",that universe does actually care about humanity and all life....trully ,it"s gonna be so irrefutible for anyone to question.Because ,you are More certain than HPL''s cosmicism,you are ready to accept a very temporary uncertain scientific finding a lot more blindly ,than to regard HPL's base argument ,that we know very little ,about its physical properties and laws.Well,wasn't this very HPL's point proven -dead right-with the quantum theory??That particles bear more, than the properties we see-that they also bear a wave-energetic property and do not only behave as physical particles ??But everything depends on the observer....Because you know you are right....because you think it has to be this way, right?....because after all ,Tao-as you call it...-commands it...But you feel,that HPL was somehow so more dogmatic than you,when he spoke about hidden and unpredictible matter properties,with the tools of his uncompromising imagination?

I admit ,when i read your post , i looked upon a dictionary to refine the definition of 'dogmatic".Listen,these arguments and data ,are not enough not only for you to discredit HPL ,but even, in the scientific field ,they are considered mere "little steps' to achieve a greater feedback ,surrounding the quantum state-,they are taken under consideration,experiments like these ,were the inspiration behind the great experiment at Cern-theyare not "conclusions",who told you this??they are inspirations,base experiments in the face of greater research.They are simple considerations for the scientific community,on a long road to travel-some take it a lot more seriously than others ,yes,but even they are not dogmatic about them.

Furthermore,have you-yourself read these links carefully,while proposing them to me??...Has it occured to you ,while you were reading those articles,that it is widely repeated through them,the incapacity of the high -level physicists,to explain in any way the wave-particle duality?yes,the role of the observer ,shapes the outcome of the experiment,but why does not this indicate the inability of the researcher or the limited human perception of these events.Why has this dogmatically to be the nature of the phenomenon ,which shifts according to the observation ,and not the fault of observational means ,still poor technologically advanced??Damn,this is what HPL ,disliked about humanity at first place...
why do you think ,that uncertainty principle (Einstein's) is challenged here(some properties like position of the particle or its movement cannot be measured with accuracy).Have,you found a way in your personal laboratory to measure them?......plz,share this knowledge with the rest..

And about,the 1997 experiment,about the so called 'Quantum Entaglement',(Linked components of the physical system,that behave in a pattern,even in they are each in great distances,very plainly and from what i remember).What i do remember though ,is another experiment -i think 2 years ago-where there were placed new assumptions,about the minimum speed of this entanglement -a lot faster than the speed of light.But that meansthat these particles ,can be considered as one body ,not able to act independently,but in the other hand if we can measure speeds greater that the light"s ,maybe we could discover why these particles behave that way-why this is not happening with other particles,does their state change ,when separated(that hasn"t been answered yet ......),are there other unknown physical powers at hand(still undiscovered?....).Also ,all of these experiments have been questioned,regarding their method validity.

Anyway,the role of the observer influencing the course of the experiment,is a very naive theory ,and many scientists debate that role too,still today,although taken under heavy consideration at the same time:is it the methods,is it something we don"t understand about the phenomenon,is it that ,the observer himself is a relevant source of data,himself?All these and more will be answered ,partiallyor not in the future.In my opinion ,even this relativity of the experiment"s outcome from the observer,doesn"t indicate that he plays a central role in the outcome of that,but rather that he doesn"t,....that he is too incapable -at the current technologic level-to produce any understandable result..........

Extollager,i definitely disagree with all your 3 points,about your first and second i posted some relative posts in your threads,which i think they are adequate-you can take a look if you want,or you can insist in your own views with phanatical precision...but blaming a man for the power of his imagination and strength of focus ,that very close depicts reality,like no other writer,diverts you to faded avenues......

 

[Extollager]

Nigourath, an accusation (dogmatism) is not an argument.

 

[nigourath]

Well,i never said it's gonna be proven ,either......

 

[j d worthington]

First: Let's not get too heated, folks. Argue the points, don't attack the person.

Second: I have a response I'm preparing for the above, Extollager, but yesterday evening and today have been and are a bit crowded, so I may not be able to get it out until sometime tomorrow. However, I will say that I think we are, to some degree, talking at cross-purposes here, as we seem to be fluctuating between general moral or ethical principles and how they can be derived from materialism, and an individually-developed set of behaviors which do not follow the mean. The latter, of course, are not uncommon, but that is because there is no perfect adherence to any such set of behaviors, nor can there be. The general principles -- or, at base, the instincts from which they are developed -- are nonetheless general, and they are constantly being refined.

My points about how they have improved in their humaneness (the principles, that is) the more secular human society has become, is by no means invalidated by the atrocities of the twentieth century. These behaviors are still the aberrations, not the norm; they are matched in type with any of the brutal regimes of history. What makes the ones of the past century different is our technological ability to cause more widespread damage more easily and quickly, and for fewer people to cause such damage. That is the downside of technological progress (including the speed of communications). The obverse of that is that it is much more difficult to keep such atrocities quiet, and the general reaction of the species to them is overwhelmingly against. This cannot be said, for example, for much of European history, when religious thinking often provided what was for most people the strongest possible motive for committing acts of barbarism: following what was touted as the will of God.

Essentially, when you have such an individual as you posit, you are dealing with someone whose brain is, by normative standards, malfunctioning; although for the individual's brain, constructed and wired as it is, it may be working exactly as it should. Or to put it another way, you are dealing with someone who has a diseased intellect. In any case, it is an individual, not the general populace; and as you yourself have noted, even given some absolute authority, you will have individual (and even group) variations from that norm. The difference is that we can actually study the mechanisms at work with the materialistic view of how morality works; we can see what portions of the brain are most active for different activities and even follow and study an increasing amount of the processes involved, and compare these with analogous phenomena occurring in various animal species. There is quite a bit of work being done in this field, and I know that Sam Harris either is coming out with or has recently published a book involving a correlation of this research, and everything I have seen up to this point from various sources strongly supports a strictly material or physical basis for morality. As I noted, the most basic forms can be traced back to some of the most basic neurological components of the amygdala (or even the r-complex), but what we recognize as moral or ethical precepts are, of course, refinements of that evolved over a very long period as we ourselves (and the structures of our brains) evolved into considerably more complex organs, accompanied, of course, by increasingly more complex functions.

Which brings us to the point about rationality. Of course it is the result of such mindless forces. It is the result of complex physicochemical processes which can be studied and measured to an ever-increasing degree of accuracy. There is nothing particular special (and certainly nothing magical) about rationality, save the degree of its complexity. It is, to put it most simply, the result of observation and experience, and a gradual evolution of the ability to connect a far-flung series of stimuli into a pattern which has a coherence which works because it matches previously experienced phenomena and allows for a prediction (which is again simply the production of a similar set of patterns with relatively minor variations) of the likeliest future outcomes of such patterns. It is also largely (though not exclusively) linked to the latest-developed aspects of the human brain, and damage to those areas can partially or completely destroy the ability for such rational thought. It is also, quite often, a term used rather inaccurately, as much which is thought to be rational is actually a rationalization of preexisting predispositions. (As has frequently been said, "Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.") The difference is not always apparent, and may at times take a great deal of questioning and dissection to determine which is which.

It is, if you like, a further refinement of (again) analogous processes which we witness in just about any animal species, from the planarian flatworm up: the ability to learn to improve responses from previous experiences with similar phenomena (or phenomena some of which which can be used as analogs to aspects of an unprecedeted situation). Again, though, this is a strictly materialistic phenomenon requiring nothing of a spiritual or extraphysical nature.

At any rate, I will attempt to get more on this out by tomorrow....

 

[Tets]

My final comment is the one I feel may need the most refinement. I'm an English teacher and not a physicist. I invite help in refining it.

Here goes.

Physicists use the term "Copenhagen interpretation" to deal with the unsettling implications of what was learned in the 20th century about quantum physics and the observer. Basically this means that for the purposes of scientific investigation we "assume" that (1) the undeniable effect of the presence of an observer upon the outcome of an experiment is limited to the submicroscopic level and (2) that the rest of the universe is there apart from an observer.

Lots of people, however, don't think this is tenable. I would reference, at the popular level which is all that I am capable of, a profile in Discover magazine with physicist John Wheeler (June 2002) and, in the same magazine, an excerpt from Lanza and Berman's Biocentrism (issue for May 2009), and also that book.

Put very simply, they argue that nature/the universe are real but the reality of nature/the universe is not entirely separable from an observer.

We know, as scientists, of no observers other than humans and, if you like, animals.

Apart from an observer, Wheeler suggests the analogy of "clouds" of probability -- until observation happens and probability becomes nature/the universe.

I must refer you to these sources if this sounds New Age-y. One reason other people need to deal with it is because New Age-y folks are doing so for their own sometimes dubious gratification.

Clearly this is a long way from Lovecraft's outlook. His whole project depends on our conceiving ourselves as having no essential connection with the cosmos in any way. Au contraire, Lanza and Berman argue: that is precisely what physics shows: that there is an essential connection between consciousness and life, the universe, etc.

For those who want to pursue this matter further, outside the context of Lovecraft, a very good book is Owen Barfield's challenging, mind-opening work Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry.

Discuss?

I dont see why quantum physics should be interessting for this question. quantum physics deals with really small things, most times smaller then atoms. every human can interact with the universe and change it. planting a tree, buliding a house... but this force of mankind wont help much against big and terrible forces from outer space and unknown times for example. Will help as much as quantum physics. Mankind has a connection to the universe, but this connection is unimportant when the power of cosmic horror strikes.

Thats my opinion on this topic.