Energy is not matter.

Non-physical (which is not the same as 'immaterial' ) properties are by definition not detectable or measurable, therefore are purely speculative.

Ehteric matter and contemporary science
How far are scientists in discovering four level of etheric matter?

Quite close, really. They estabilished something that they call "dark matter". They know it exists, but are unable to define it exactly. Their calculations show, that there's something they missed out. That there is some material substance, that is invisible. They can't prove it, but all their calculations point at the fact, that this level of matter exists.

These are the etheric levels of matter. Scientists could only look into some esoteric magazine and they would find out what is ether. But they rather create cyclotron for 20 billions and spend years by sending electric current through it and by constant speeding up, to find out what the matter is. But they could find it out quite easily, just by opening for example Blavatsky's Secret doctrine.

Some scientists know about discovery of Wilhelm Reich, about his orgone from 1939. Orgone is nothing else but four levels of etheric matter. Reich saw them as one material field. But in fact this field is divided into four levels, each more and more finer.

Some people succesfully continued in his experiments. On what level and to what extent it became known in the world, I don't know. Today many astronomers speak of dark matter. They know, that there is something to what all their experiments point, but what wasn't yet proven to be anything but an idea.

So, dark matter equals orgone equals etheric level of matter. They're the same. In relatively short time scientists either discover it, or it will be revealed to them. How it will happen, I don't know.

RatDog wrote:

Would any philosophical argument convince you of the existence of something immaterial (were immaterial is defined as something that exists completely independent of physical reality)?

does time only exist because the earth goes round the sun?......and why do you need to nervously define immaterial entities as "independent" anyway? What of those which are not "independent"?

now please define "material".......last time I looked it was all energy.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science justifies empiricism, and supersedes philosophy, when they address the same issues.

Empiricism does not provide 100% verification, that is not how it works. But it at least has some independent justification

Science does not, in any way, shape or form, justify empiricism.  To assert otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand what empiricism is.  Empiricism is a theory of knowledge which holds that all knowledge is acquired from sense experience.  Since derivation from sense experience is not contained in the definition of "knowledge", I am not sure what it is that you possess which constitutes an independent justification for the universal claim that all knowledge is acquired from sense experience.  It certainly cannot be our observations, since we are finite and cannot observe every instance of a particular phenomenon.

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from evidence gathered via sense experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views that predominate in the study of human knowledge, known as epistemology. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or tradition.

In a related sense, empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

The central flaw in empiricism is that it does not do justice to the very self that longs to know.  The subject to which all knowing is predicated of is itself not an object of sensation and therefore cannot be understood empirically, yet its being is understood.  Empiricism, then, is demonstrably false.  Furthermore, empiricism is an arbitrarily limiting epistemology which does nothing for the advancement of human knowledge.  It simply puts us in an epistemic straightjacket, positing that we can only know what our senses tell us, whereas other epistemologies broaden the scope between the knowing and the knowable. 

Do not make the mistake of confusing the knowledge derived through scientific inquiry with the metaphysics which may or may not underly the investigation.  You cannot necessarily credit empiricism with the success of science.

Quote:

Energy is not matter.

Non-physical (which is not the same as 'immaterial' ) properties are by definition not detectable or measurable, therefore are purely speculative.

I'm not a physicist, so I'd have to do some research re: matter vs. energy.  My understanding is that matter constitutes all the different conglomerations of elementary particles while energy is what gives matter the ability to change its state.  For example, kinetic energy allows material things to move, potential energy allows material things to restore their position after being acted on by some external force, light energy allows material things to be seen, etc.  Of course, the last time I studied physics was as an undergrad and I could be off on this.

You are making the mistake of conflating epistemic accessibility with sensation, which is ultimately based on your presupposition that empiricism is true.  Since you have yet to justify empiricism as an epistemology, your premise is unjustified.  How do you know that non-physical things are purely speculative?  How do you know that measurability or detectability by the senses is the only metric by which we determine that something is? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary's_room

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5213

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_dualism.htm

I'm not going to argue for one position over some other, I just want you to appreciate the fact that your assertion is by no means a closed case in academia.  If you are going to make metaphysical assertions, please justify them using metaphysics. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

That pretty well sums up what I was claiming.

It is not up to me to justify empiricism, it is for you to provide some justification for the validity of alternative sources of 'knowledge'.

It is up to you to justify empiricism because it is a metaphysical position that you put forth as being valid.  Here is what you've stated:

"Science justifies empiricism."

"'Classical philosophical understanding' is superseded by modern actual science-based understanding of any subject."

It is not my responsibility to refute claims that you do not back up.

Furthermore, I'm not quite clear as to why you've put the word "knowledge" in quotes. Are you suggesting that knowledge does not really exist or that it is somehow a misnomer?

Quote:

We certainly do NOT need to "observe every instance of a particular phenomenon" to gain useful and meaningful knowledge of it

Empiricism postulates that all knowledge is acquired through sense experience.  Therefore, in order for empiricism to be vindicated, you'd have to observe that for any thing which is known or potentially knowable, that knowledge was acquired through empirical observation. 

Quote:

unless we wanted to make 100% accurate and completely universal assertions about it, which is not what science or empiricism is about. It is about assessment of degrees of confidence in any proposition

It is what empiricism is about.  Empiricism is a universal assertion that empirical observation is the only way towards knowledge.

"Empiricism is the philosophical concept that experience, which is based on observation and experimentation, is the source of knowledge."

http://www.answers.com/topic/what-is-empiricism

"Empiricism is a philosophical theory which argues that human knowledge is derived entirely from sensory experience. As a branch of epistemology, empiricism disregards the concept of instinctive ideas and focuses entirely on experience and evidence as it relates to sensory perception. Ferociously debated, the philosophy of empiricism eventually spawned additional schools which would take it to different levels of application and direction."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-empiricism.htm

"Empiricism is the belief in philosophy or psychology that all knowledge is the result of our experiences. (See John Locke's Tabula rasa or "blank slate" theory.) Empiricism is closely allied with (philosophical) materialism and positivism and opposed to continental rationalism or intuitionism."

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Empiricism/

Quote:

Any approach to gaining knowledge that does not check its proposition or starting assumptions against some experimentally or observationally verifiable data is speculation.

Again, that's based on your presupposition that empiricism is true. You are on a philosophy forum discussing metaphysics. Are you willing to actually consider other epistemologies that are out there?

Quote:

How do you distinguish between imagined or internally generated experiences from ones hypothetically caused by some entity that has an independent existent?

I don't understand the question.

Quote:

Empirical data is not limited or determined by the ability of our senses to directly 'sense' something, data relayed through our senses from our instruments can be vastly more sensitive and accurate, and convey to us information way beyond our innate capabilities to perceive. All our senses need to be able to handle is the position of needles on dials, or the numbers on a digital display, which can be read with virtually 100% accuracy. This is in fact the main source of new information in science, the accuracy and reliability of our senses is not relevant. If we personally have doubts we can have colleagues check it for us.

What is the relevance of this?

Quote:

Nothing can be 'justified' with metaphysics, since metaphysics itself cannot be justified.

What exactly is your fascination with putting words in quotes? I do not understand why you keep doing that. Is that your way of saying that I am misusing terms?

Based on this comment, I'm going to presume that you do not understand what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is not a philosophical position, it's a field of study. That is like saying, "Mathematics cannot be justified." Metaphysics itself is not making any assertions. It is the study of being.

Quote:

Our confidence in the validity of any particular empirical data is greatly enhanced by cross-correlating as many different 'channels' of sensation or instrumentation as possible.

I am quite comfortable with my position, you have not presented anything which really challenges it. I really don't care that 'academia' is not in universal agreement with it, I do not expect that it would be.

I've mentioned several problems with empiricism. The problem is that you do not even appear to understand what empiricism or metaphysics actually is. As such, you are totally ignorant of the fact that such ideas cannot be defended scientifically, such that when I present an argument, you practically ignore it and bring up matters which have nothing to do with what we are discussing. This is made apparent when you cite things like needles, dials, digital display, peer review, etc. All of this stuff is irrelevant in philosophy.

I totally understand if you think philosophy is fundamentally useless, but this is a philosophy forum.  If you are unwilling to engage in philosophical discussions, then why post here?

RatDog wrote:

Would any philosophical argument convince you of the existence of something immaterial (were immaterial is defined as something that exists completely independent of physical reality)?

Nothing will convince me that a physical reality can exist independently of a mental reality that perceives it.