Philosophy and Metaphysics
The Kant thread about Metaphysics inspired this post about the fundamental nature of reality (or what I often refer to as, the nature of existence). Most of us know that logic itself, as does science, has its limitations, in its methodologies to pursue such questions about said nature of reality. And as such, in the natural sciences (physics), we also know that in practice, synthetic a priori propositions are almost always asked in order to carry a hypothetical forward.
The video below is a wonderfully lucid and hopeful exposé that posits such metaphysical questions:
1. Because we have a consciousness, when we ask philosophical questions relative to the nature of our self-awareness; intentionality, wonderment, the will, Being (ontology), logic (epistemology) and the like are we really all metaphysicians and don't know it?
2. Much like how partisan politics plays a role in creating laws in a democracy, does much of science engage in some sort of metaphysical philosophy without actually knowing it (i.e. theoretical physics)?
3. If other features of consciousness such as sentient qualities/phenomena associated with the perceptions/sense data and feelings of love; the Will, redness, wonderment, causation and the like are considered all part of an abstract nature, does an argument for a Platonic reality only strengthen there ( mathematical reality also being abstract)?
4. What, as a part of consciousness, is considered a timeless truth, besides our apperception of mathematical structures?
5. Do we unknowingly choose to take a metaphysical position on things-in-themselves by claiming there are no abstract objects?
6. What are my experiences made of?
7. Through self-awareness, when we ask ourselves questions, does that in itself, by its very nature, imply Dualism?
8. With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness?
I hope you will take the time review the video, as it uncovers many of those fundamental/metaphysical questions that cross over into these various areas of discourse:
The video below is a wonderfully lucid and hopeful exposé that posits such metaphysical questions:
1. Because we have a consciousness, when we ask philosophical questions relative to the nature of our self-awareness; intentionality, wonderment, the will, Being (ontology), logic (epistemology) and the like are we really all metaphysicians and don't know it?
2. Much like how partisan politics plays a role in creating laws in a democracy, does much of science engage in some sort of metaphysical philosophy without actually knowing it (i.e. theoretical physics)?
3. If other features of consciousness such as sentient qualities/phenomena associated with the perceptions/sense data and feelings of love; the Will, redness, wonderment, causation and the like are considered all part of an abstract nature, does an argument for a Platonic reality only strengthen there ( mathematical reality also being abstract)?
4. What, as a part of consciousness, is considered a timeless truth, besides our apperception of mathematical structures?
5. Do we unknowingly choose to take a metaphysical position on things-in-themselves by claiming there are no abstract objects?
6. What are my experiences made of?
7. Through self-awareness, when we ask ourselves questions, does that in itself, by its very nature, imply Dualism?
8. With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness?
I hope you will take the time review the video, as it uncovers many of those fundamental/metaphysical questions that cross over into these various areas of discourse:
Comments (259)
Good. Perhaps, as he says, the power of metaphysics rests in nothing more than.......”I like it”.
Mww!
Explain what it means to like some-thing?
I listened to some of the video, but not all of it because my mobile signal is a bit wobbly. However, in response to your whole series of questions, I just thought I might as well throw in a few thoughts from discussions which I have engaged in during the last few days.
I am sure that you remember me pondering the whole question of consciousness. In discussions with others, including @FrancisRay, we have been looking at the limitations of dualism. Generally, I think that I have been aware of some inadequacies in dualist thinking for some time. This has been explored by writers, such as David Bohm and Fritjof Capra. In particular, Capra speaks of rather than mind and body being separate, mind can be seen as being immanent in nature. At the moment, I plan to do more reading in the direction of non dualist perspectives on reality.
Thank you Jack!
Great question/post. If you get time, scroll over to about 17:44 where Dennett discusses Dualism. From my interpretation, he seemingly/unknowingly advocates for it. Because he says that by virtue of the ability to ask ourselves questions (self-awareness/consciousness), that we... "are not as unified as we think we are". And so I interpret that literally, as another form of Dualism. We are, in fact, not unified. This process of self-awareness implies a third-person... .
...also, scroll over to 21:00 for additional fodder relative to physics v. metaphysics vis-à-vis consciousness.
What it means: Find favor. Alleviates ill-will.
Technically, the inclination to an idea and the judgement made on that inclination, do not conflict with each other.
Why so? The Mind is looking upon itself.
Thanks Mww!
Well, does that tell us about the nature of said; will, favor, judgement and inclination?
For instance, if one 'likes' a some-thing, at least two questions must be asked:
1. [How] can I describe 'likeness' as a abstract universal?
2. What really is that thing that I like, and why does it matter (no pun intended) ?
Otherwise, you mentioned one's will. Why does will matter when instinct can easily take its place? In other words, what is the existential purpose of the Will?
Nice!
Because, if philosophy lives in words, and words have meaning, then just by mere definition of Human Being, conveys or implies an action (verb). However, existentially, we cannot escape doing. We are trapped in an ordinary life of doing or Being. Yet being and becoming are seemingly two contradictory things. Imagine that(?).
Maybe time is just an illusion. Or, as you suggest, the metaphysics of Tao is an optical delusion of consciousness:
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Taoism-Tao.htm
Ya know......just because we can ask a question, doesn’t mean we should.
“....To know what questions we may reasonably propose is in itself a strong evidence of sagacity and intelligence. For if a question be in itself absurd and unsusceptible of a rational answer, it is attended with the danger—not to mention the shame that falls upon the person who proposes it—of seducing the unguarded listener into making absurd answers...”
That being said, and admitting your questions aren’t exactly absurd, I don’t have any good answers for them. And why does everything have to have a “nature”? Nature of this, nature of that.....why can’t it be just whatever we think of it? Which is, when it comes right down to it, exactly what it is anyway.
Time is essentially the experience of change within our experiences/memory. In essence, Mind is Time.
Mww!
Thanks for continuing the discussion. Are you suggesting, say in science, that there are forbidden questions one should never ask? If so, what would that look like (advancement/discoveries would not occur, no)?
Quoting Mww
What is intriguing (in philosophy) is your "whatever we think of it". Right?
MondoR!
If time consists of past-present-future, then how big a slice of time does the present represent? In other words, how do we apportion the past present future(?)
How do we build a computer? How do we program machines?
Questions as such make use of a conditioned philosophical mind, understanding and reproducing logic, can only be tempered in philosophy, and lots of philosophy is learned in social communities.
Computers themselves were built by man because man understood that the population would enjoy it.
In the process of designing the first computer, more philosophy was conducted.
The past is what we are as a whole. An experience that are memories. The present, is the sense of becoming different. Of memory changing. The future, is an image of what might become as a possibility. All of which we feel as time.
‘Some say experience and feelings are the clearest way to truth, but I need rational analysis.’
He thus equates metaphysics with ‘rational analysis.’
He might instead have clarified that the notion of metaphysics as rational analysis is only one particular definition of metaphysics, one based on Enlightenment rationalism and German idealism.
And all of which we feel in the same moment ‘as’ the present moment, retaining the just past within it and anticipating beyond itself.
As William James wrote :
“...earlier and later are present to each other in an experience that feels either only on condition of feeling both together.” In its most primordial form, consciousness is time consciousness.
Joshs!
Thank you for that. You must have at least viewed some of the video (if not all).
Couple thoughts:
I also find it intriguing that 'feelings' and 'experience' are path's to truth. Feelings themselves do not appear to be exclusively physical absolutes.
Secondly, the irony is that we are trapped in our logical/'rational analysis' in order to discover truth's, which go beyond (transcend) the physical. It's kind of like saying in 11:20 of the video, that by virtue of taking a position on the question of universals, implies one has complete understanding or understands in this case, the nature of reality.
So we use logic to arrive at an illogical sense of reality (metaphysics). Which in turn, is not so illogical at all (abstract mathematics, love, the will, intentionality, redness, ad nauseum). Or is it?
Hello Mr. Wood:
Thank you for your input. Let's parse one at a time. If my experiences are made of nothing (as you seem to be implying), are you suggesting some sort of metaphysical reality instead?
We use logic to work within normative rules that define a the conditions of ‘truth’. But the normative conventions that determine what is true for us and thus what is logically necessary are themselves the product of a value system. Idealist metaphysics , like the video offers, ossifies a particular value system as THE metaphysical
truth. Post-idealist approaches recognize
that value systems are constantly fading and new ones coming into being. The movement from
one value system to another can’t itself be described via a causative logic or rationality. So the role of ‘feeling’ is closely bound up with valuation.
When physicists speculate in the area of quantum mysticism, trying to find a real-world interpretation of what they observe rather than simply "doing the math", it seems to me they are engaging in metaphysics. But then again, I'm not clear on what the term even means. It would seem to go beyond reasoning. I think Leibniz was engaged in the practice when he postulated infinitesimals. .
You mean Metaphysics?
Quoting jgill
As alluded to earlier metaphysics in this context means the study of topics about physics. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relate to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter, etc..
Science is deeply involved in such issues but any meaning-of-life questions are deferred or subordinated to the philosopher.
However we can say that ...."quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which the observer and [the] observed are interwoven"- Paul Davies.
Not at all. There are never forbidden questions, only those that don’t have rational answers. Rational answers are those that do not contradict possible experience or the laws of logic.
————-
Quoting 3017amen
Dunno about intriguing, but it seems to have become neglected. Dismissed. Supervened by the Almighty Test Equipment.
All kind of fun.
Yet it has to be pointed out, again and again, that before any discussion gets off the ground it's helpful to know a few things -- like, "what is metaphysics"? and what is "consciousness"? This thread presumably takes these things for granted. If we don't give even a tentative definition, it's hard to know what we're really talking about.
So, for example, when the question is asked "What are experiences made of?" it's a difficult to even imagine a serious answer, since we have no technical notion of "experience" -- and, in fact, we lack even a tentative definition. Are we simply saying "what is being alive made of?" or "What is being made of?" Seems odd.
Especially since the "observer" is a machine. :cool:
Quoting 3017amen
nice summary. Thanks. Would you consider infinitesimals metaphysical?
Isn't everything a matter of perspective?
Otherwise put, which view is correct (1) the earth goes around the sun or (2) the sun goes around the earth?
1 is correct in a scientific perspective, 2 is correct in everyday experience.
By definition, we can't know what "ultimate reality" thinks of us or of itself or, for that matter, whether it is single or dual.
This is why many metaphysical systems recommend certain techniques such as meditation as an aid to raising our consciousness, i.e., ourselves, to higher levels of experience that go beyond normal experience and though-processes.
Unless and until we've reached those higher levels of experience, all our theories are just speculation. This, of course, doesn't mean that we can't speculate in the meantime.
Not that these views necessarily need to clash with each other. It depends on how you use the terminology. I think Strawson's "Real Materialism" is possibly the most sensible metaphysical view, taken as a whole. But I suspect some people here will take it to be vacuous.
I also suspect we also choose if it makes sense to believe the world to be "ghostly" or "machine-like". Also subject to temperament: tender minded vs tough minded as William James put it.
It keeps coming back to consciousness. You know, what is it? Something the brain does, as the heart pumps blood. But obviously consciousness is our access to the world.
So I agree with Xtrix, the following questions are crucial:
Quoting Xtrix
Metaphysics has many definitions. Maybe the safest characterization of it would be, metaphysics tries to articulate, in the broadest possible manner, what the nature of the world is like, based on experience. Besides saying consciousness is something the brain does - which is true - what can be said about it? Well, conscious activity, when directed at the world, has intentionality.
In the human case, we have reasons to believe that besides consciousness, we have self-consciousness: awareness that we are aware of the world. In poetic terms, I believe Schopenhauer said it somewhere not in these terms, that in human beings, our conscious awareness is nature being able to look at herself.
All very hard questions. I'll end my mad ramblings here. :)
If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure such as neurons, protons, and electrons, etc. and at some point their description can only be accurately articulated through mathematical structures, that would suggest that consciousness is an abstract entity.
Then consider the law of thermodynamics where energy that exists can never be created nor destroyed.
Then go back to the essence of mathematical structures and you get a sense of timeless eternal truth's (what that truth is, we really don't know other than it's abstract much like other features of consciousness like; the will, love, intentionality , wonder, and other qualities associated with the intellect and sentience).
So as a starter can we safely say that consciousness much like matter, comes back to mathematical structures which in turn suggests some abstract platonic realm of existence?
Jgill!
Absolutely!!
Mr. Wood,
Thank you for the question. Religion is a part of life science which is a branch of natural science and natural phenomena (Christianity--->Jesus--->human consciousness).
No worries, your thoughts are welcomed and much appreciated...
Mr. Wood,
Thanks again for your question(s). I would suggest you, at the very least, start here (that way you might find you'll have to reformulate most of your questions): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science
Mr.Wood,
....under life science.
The very idea of “matter” is itself undefined, and itself comes out of the human being. So to say consciousness is matter is like saying x is y. We have no idea about either.
Quoting 3017amen
Language and mathematics are aspects of the human being, of the human mind—related to thought. If we call all of this consciousness, that’s fine—at least it’s a tentative definition. In that case, you’re saying what Descartes said—conscious awareness as “thought” can’t be doubted.
I think there’s more to say about this, of course. Like why consciousness should be a priority, and not the “sum” in the Cartesian formulation, “being” itself. Etc.
Symbolically, suppose there's people's lives which are a phenomena whereby there is a point, let's call it a point of origin, such that no matter how fast or far a person can physically (by foot) travel from it, they have to return (to that point of origin) in their state of rest and before they can travel any further. In this scenario, many people set off with the hope of going somewhere else, perhaps to see the world, perhaps to investigate more of their reality, perhaps just to have something other than their usual experiences, etc, etc. The reasons don't matter that much.
No doubt there will be those who travel a greater distance than others. However, since they all go back to the origin, there will arise a certain distance beyond which nobody can surpass, the simplest explanation being that its the limit of the human body.
Now suppose that, as these [imaginary but relevant] people attempt to delineate the world they exist in, they must find explanations that appease the numerous ideas being thrown about. The most favourable idea being that, the greatest distance which a human has been known to travel marks the radius of life, beyond which human life cannot exist in its usual full vigour. Those who oppose it claim that when that distance was achieved, it was noted by those who observed that there was a beyond that could still be traversed by such as were or would be capable. And the arguments go on and on and on.
That's the end of my story. Poor as it may be, the point is this:- those two arguments (or ideas) about that weird life symbolically represent our version of the 'reasonable' (science, philosophy) versus the 'unreasonable' (metaphysics, mysticism/magic/esotericism, faith).
The 'reasonable' claim only the experience we can validate through sense perception is significant (perhaps due to its utility in our lives, perhaps due to its dependability through the capacity to reproduce it, etc, etc) and therefore knowledge and understanding of life/reality must be based solely upon such methodologies as conform and are based upon such experiences.
The 'unreasonable' claim that there is more to the term experience than that which is limited to being obtained solely through sense perception. For example, a hallucination can be an experience. Also, a dream can be an experience. [Perhaps because the objects and subjects of such experiences have some relevance to those minds in which they are enacted.] Therefore, knowledge and understanding of life/reality must include dimensions beyond sense perception.
Humans have accomplished much through such endeavours as conform to the scientific method.
Humans have accomplished much through endeavours based on faith, gut-feeling, intuition, self-belief, etc.
It's not a contest. Philosophy, science, metaphysics, mysticism, etc, etc, are just attempts to delineate life/reality. However, all is reality. We are a part of reality. Therefore, it is impossible to have information about anything that is not a part of reality.
Over two thousand years ago some guy claimed that there are these minute things (atomos) which everything is composed of. Now, it is impossible to be a scientist without knowledge of atoms and the role they play.
Very old literature and lore tell of substances like prana, chi, aether, etc. They claim these substances pervade everything. Now some scientists are trying to tell us that dark matter (and dark energy) does the same.
I mean, does knowledge/understanding have a point other than what we can make happen in our lives?
:sweat:
1. "... I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." ~Twilight of the Idols
2. Certainly.
3. Not at all.
4. Nonbeing
5. Actually, that's an ontological position; so ...
6. "Experience", at minimum, is "made up of" a connectome of neuronal signals.
7. No. Asking oneself questions only implies that "self" is dynamically composite (e.g. tangled hierarchy).
8. Since, even in its most reductively quantifiable mode, science cannot be philosophy-free, the 'scientific problem of consciousness' is always already a matter for conceptual analysis & interpretation (i.e. philosophy). The closer science and philosophy collaborate, I suspect, the more ground they can and will cover sooner rather than later.
I like to think of a metaphor that gives life to the formalism.But 'if metaphysics is metaphorical than metaphor is metaphysical.'
Fair story, except there are occasions we didn’t make happen, but are rather foisted upon us. The weather, flat tires, your mother-in-law’s special dinner that tastes like the inside of an old shoe.....
Quoting BrianW
This says more accurately the case, although you could have stopped with just philosophy and science, for metaphysics is philosophy and mysticism is merely some esoteric metaphysics.
Still, you’ve hinted here the ground of the continental Enlightenment shift in general philosophy, initiated 400–odd years ago, insofar as philosophy and science each derived from understanding and knowledge respectively, have no meaning outside the human life.
Shirley you don’t intend that consciousness equate to matter. Perhaps you meant consciousness can be conceptualized as composed of parts, as matter is conceptualized as composed of its parts, understood as atomic structure, and those ultimately reducible to mathematical elements.
Even if mathematical elements are synthetic a priori constructs, they can still be represented empirically. To say consciousness equates to matter with respect to its ultimate reduction to mathematical elements, implies consciousness can be represented empirically, just as numbers represent mathematical elements.
Good example of why people these days turn their noses up at metaphysics, when all it can say about consciousness....because it knows better than to say anything else.....is that it is nothing more than a transcendental object of pure reason. A logical explanatory stop-gap.
I was much more impressed by the set of questions you posed rather than the video you included. You ask many questions, which I am inclined to do, and about the whole nature of reality, which is the whole field of metaphysics. There is just so much to explore really, and I recall when I used to write essay plans that tutors often used to tell me that it would not be possible to cover so much in one essay. However, you may explore all the topics with many people, with no word limit and it could be a thread which grows and grows.
One of your questions which I believe is very interesting is that of what experiences are made of? This does seem to be the interface of mind and body, and it probably moves into the spectrum of phenomenology. However, it does seem to me to be at the centre of the mind and body question.
One aspect of it which I think is important is emotions because they involve a complex interaction between the physical and the mental. We know that there is such a physical basis for this, especially by the way that neurotransmitters work. This is central to the whole medical treatment of mood disorders through medication. However, the whole realm of mood goes so much beyond the physical as our thoughts affect our moods in such a profound way.
I could write more, but I will stop for now, because it depends how relevant the discussion is to the way the ideas and discussions in the thread evolve. I probably brought it up at this moment because so far there is some discussion of forms, as abstract ideas which we grasp, but our experiences are embodied. Possibly, it goes into the realm of archetypes, experienced by us, and the collective unconscious, but I will say no more because I probably talk about Jung too much, and I am aware that many people on this forum see the idea of the collective unconscious as being a dubious concept.
Other than the regressive nature of same, it seems to come back to mathematical structures, which in themselves, appear to us as abstract entities or things. As a manifestation of that, we know a pyramid or a structural component has a mathematical formula behind its appearance; compressive and tensile strength, axial and torsional resistance/loads etc. etc. commonly referred to as the things properties. And the design of such structure is mathematical.
And so we don't actually see the math that is unseen, behind the design of the structure. Yet its essence is abstract and can be replicated/built/created through math and material.
The question of my comparison/analogy to abstractness existing behind things like the features/qualities of consciousness, speaks to other abstract metaphysical features of intellect/sentience which I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, we are not able to replicate a brain using similar mathematical means/methods as briefly described.
If you scroll over to the second to last philosophical interview (starting at about 20:20), I'm sure you would agree that consciousness is indeed our last frontier. If we could replicate/design consciousness either ex nihilo or otherwise, game over. But the physical sciences of course have yet to discover/uncover such methodologies or theories….which is reiterated in that interview segment.
I will try to listen further to the video further. Who is the person speaking? Is it Dennett , because I am more of a reader than a watcher of You Tube?
I am familiar with Dennett, but not that fellow from MIT who I'm referring to.... . In any case, some of his bullet-point comments, which were general in nature and more 101-ish (nevertheless useful in getting clear on the distinctions of so-called metaphysical reality) were as follows:
1. He feels philosophy and science should work together.
2. Both are concerned with the fundamental nature of things.
3. He made the distinction between the nature of a thing, and the ontological nature of a thing (are there immaterial things or is everything material).
4. Science is not in the business of exploring ontological entities or things, but they are concerned with the essences of things. (Seems to me, theoretical physics is open to exploring metaphysical things.)
5. The challenge from physical science and the said distinctions lie in parsing the nature of reality (consciousness) and the nature of things-in-themselves.
6.If physical science fails to tell us about the nature of consciousness, we will have reason to believe the Dualist ontology.
7. Science has been unable to explain consciousness.
8. Any Philosophy that interfaces with science is better served.... .
I have read some writing by Dennett and believe that he is one of the most important philosophers of our time. I think that we need to continue to read writers such as him, but also to explore our own ideas, in response to important writers because the arguments are so complex. Some may wish to leave it in the hands of the academics, but that may leave most of us out of the picture. I do believe that our ideas about metaphysics are important too, and it can be a whole area of lively debate, rather than mere discussion by those who are believed to be the professional experts. After all, we are talking about the questions which are central to the whole existence of each of us.
Oddly enough (now I'm being a bit opinionated here) I agreed with Dennett in the interview on the importance of Metaphysics in Philosophy and the part of Dualism that is alive and well, however, I don't think his book Consciousness Explained for example, really explained anything (seemed like a lot of gibberish).
To that end, the title is very misleading, because at the end of the book he basically said it's (consciousness) still a mystery. Maybe there's some theistic axe to grind there (he's an Atheist) that's kind of going on with him not sure, but he tends to politically advocate for materialism/atheism. But I find him contradicting himself. Ironically, I see him pop-up from time to time on YouTube and believe it or not, he's now using words like 'design' more often than not... .
The danger I see is trying to dichotomize the explanation of consciousness thru the exclusive use of materialism thus precluding the obvious metaphysic's. Consciousness has not been found to be logical, nor its complete explanation (its nature) understood from pure reason. That's where Kant was groundbreaking....
Many believe that Kant was groundbreaking. I have spent a bit of time reading him, but do believe him to be more worthy than the attention given to him by many of the present time. However, I was reading the thread which I believe gave rise to the one which led you to start this one. Having read that one, I became aware of all possible complications and misinterpretations.
So, I am left asking how do we interpret him in the context of our time? I am not trying to create confusion, or dismiss his ideas because I believe that they were profound. I know that some find his ideas make so much sense to some, but I find it hard to frame them in the context of the thinking of our time. I would like to be able to see a way forward in being able to demystify his ideas rather than merely rejecting them, because I do believe that he was capturing important philosophical insights. I think that the idea of 'noumenal' reality is in some ways extraordinary within the scope of our present use of language, and scientific models of the construction of 'reality'.
I'm a little short on time at the present moment. However, Kant's Metaphysics, IMO, revolves around (discovery of) the synthetic a priori. This notion of causation that is innate to consciousness and conscious thought (processes). And this innate sense of awareness (intuition) just is, and is a part of logic, yet can't be described as such. The most important question there, is to ask: What makes synthetic a priori knowledge possible.
The first possible answer has to do with self-aware conscious Beings v. Darwinian instinctual impulses. It seems that a higher level of self-awareness (consciousness) is, at the very least, required to ask synthetic a priori questions/propositions/judgements. The next question could be how does consciousness draw exclusively from sense data, and intuition, all at the same time. For example, the infamous, 'all events have a cause' metaphysical thought process, involves something more than formal logic in determining its truth value. It requires empirical analysis for its truth value, but its purpose is to satisfy an intrinsic need (Being/ontology) that is outside normal logical processes (a priori/a posteriori). This need to know, wonder about causes and effects, etc. are the basis of many novel discoveries, which are required for any thought process at all.
The next important metaphysical question could be, why do we care about asking questions about causes. If we didn't care to ask, what would our ontological existence look like? What would science look like, and what would our quality of life look like?
This is like saying we don't see the "words" behind things. Mathematics is something humans do. There's little reason to think the structure of everything is essentially mathematical. That's a projection.
There's all kinds of questions here -- what mathematics is, what numbers are, whether it's subjective or objective, etc. The experience of light is different than the equation for light. The experience of "tree" is different from vocalizing the English word. The world is interpreted by human beings, whose perspectives are varied.
There's also the point that most of our activities, as human beings, are completely unconscious -- automatic, habitual, instinctive. Something like the use of a broom is hardly explainable through mathematics or even scientific reasoning, for example. Thinking of the world theoretically, scientifically, mathematically, and even philosophically, is one kind of thinking. It's one mode of human being. To presume the world is reducible to whatever shows up within this mode is unfounded.
It's like the common idea that language is for communication. If you look at characteristic use to determine the function of something, whether language or human activity generally, you find something very different than what the prevailing dogma states.
Simple. Ask yourself.....how much has a human qua individual rational agent, changed in 300 years? Not his environment, not his knowledge base, not his personal curriculum.....he himself with respect to himself alone.
If you concur a human hasn’t changed at all in so short an elapsed time, because natural evolution won’t allow it, then it is reasonable to suppose Kant’s writing regarding speculative epistemology, would still apply.
Xtrix!
No, I'm not convinced that it's a projection. Why would you surmise such?
Words are logical, not abstract. Consciousness is abstract, just like mathematics. Sure, mathematics is logical in the a priori sense, but it accurately explains how things work. That's all the point I was making on that subject. It's abstract nature is similar to our own abstract nature(?). If you agree, which I think you might at least to some degree, what about metaphysics itself, isn't that abstract?
We determine our part in those interactions e.g. building storm shelters, moving to california, spare tires, divorcing your mother-in-law's daughter/son, etc, etc.
It isn’t the questions, it’s how they are asked and answered.
Yes, and that’s the root of metaphysical investigations: the determination of our part in life, which is always and only, a judgement we make in response to it.
There is so much questioning around questions and answers. How much is about objective or subjective truths?
Sure, good question....truth itself is both subjective and objective. Both are good. Both are necessary in themselves... .
Objective and subjective dimensions of truth are important ,but navigating this pathway may be extremely difficult.
:100: :up:
Quoting Jack Cummins
If I may, I recommend the much briefer and better written than Kant's CPR (or Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics) "Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy (Appendix)" at the end of volume one of The World As Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer (who IMO is, like Solomon Maimon or Witty, a much more consistent Kantian than Kant himself). Also, especially, this.
Excellent suggestions! I'm still waiting for the official Mainlander translation, but I thought his critique of Kant and Schopenhauer to be very, very interesting.
Not that I agree with all of it, but damn, how insightful it is. It's going to be quite nice when that book comes out next year in English.
I think most of what you said is rife with confusion, to be honest.
The difference between what’s abstract and what’s logical isn’t that clear.
Russell, as you know, tried to show that mathematics could be reduced to logic, in fact.
To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd — anyone who’s taken even an introductory course in logic can see the similarities between it and mathematics. All use symbols, all abstract. The basis for them is in abstract/symbolic thought, which is one form of thinking (albeit the only kind philosophers have cared about for most of the modern period), which is itself one part of human being.
To say “consciousness is abstract” to me is utter nonsense. I think you’re just confusing yourself with semantics—a common occurrence.
We don’t know anything about consciousness. Let’s start there. We’re also not interested in just-so stories or armchair definitions. If we want to formulate a technical notion of consciousness, it should be done in the context of an explanatory theory—biological or otherwise. But none of this has been done so far.
If we want to talk in ordinary speech, then yes, I’m conscious. So are you. We’re alive, we see and hear things, we have experiences, feelings, emotions, needs, etc., and much of our lives consist of junk thought, phatic communication, and unconscious activity. What’s left to say about it?
Sounds very Chomskyian to me. Which is most excellent, he's just on another level in terms of intellect and arguments. He'd probably suggest Strawson's "Real Materialism" and "Realistic Monism" in discussions on "metaphysical issues". He's made a few comments here and there (such as in New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind) where he talks about how our common sense notions don't apply to the world.
But there are facets of consciousness that are interesting, even if they're not "theories" in the modern sense. Locke's account of "physic continuity" for example, or C.I. Lewis' talk about "the given". He'd also like some of Raymond Tallis' work in Aping Mankind as well as Goodman's Starmaking. This last work has some clear connection to consciousness, or so it seems to me.
But, good post on the whole. :)
No surprise. He was (and is) my teacher. Still very much in what most call the "analytic" tradition, and so I'm not in complete agreement with everything he says, but he's one of the few people really worth listening to.
Gee, I'm glad you're being honest. I wouldn't want it any other way :smile: Allow me challenge you.
Quoting Xtrix
Okay. Can you make it clear?
Quoting Xtrix
Really? What's abstract about all men are mortal?
Quoting Xtrix
Can you provide an example to your exceptions taken? You seem to be saying, on the one hand, that you understand consciousness, yet on another you don't. Are you basically saying consciousness is a mystery?
Quoting Xtrix
Ahhh, now I think you're getting it:
1. What are feelings?
2. What are my experiences made of?
3. Where do my needs reside? For example, is that some sort of metaphysical Will (Schopenauer)? Are the manifestations of the Will itself abstract?
4. Are junk thoughts a euphemism for Maslonian stream of consciousness, and if so, does the law of non-contradiction/excluded middle logically apply to the conscious and subconscious mind?
Maybe just pick one, if you care to... I'm trying to understand your assertion that consciousness is not abstract.
:100:
Though you have an advantage over me, I find it really hard to disagree with him. I can't speak about his technical linguistics, but overall, it's very hard to disagree with him. Maybe on like 2 small points, but I'm sure it would be semantic issues at bottom.
I believe the root of metaphysical investigations is the human capacity to punch above their weight.
For example, we investigate the weather, something beyond our control. We learn, then we design predictions, and if we're good enough, we develop ways to participate in various weather conditions (including those that are potentially harmful) according to our reasons and needs e.g. surfers who chase after tsunamis in the hopes of riding the biggest waves, scientists at the south pole, desert dwellers, etc, etc.
It even works with superstition — people determine that a great occurrence like lightning must be caused by a great being(s) - god(s). They decide to worship the great being(s) in the hopes that it might keep them protected (thanks to the power being wielded). Sometime later, they decide perhaps the being(s) might want something more tangible from the humans - maybe sacrifice, offerings, etc. Much later, there's an idea that to get to the great being(s) or to attract further personal attention/interaction certain activities have to be undertaken. And so on and on.
Eventually, there develops a whole system or dimension of activities, expressions, interactions, principles, etc, all directed towards object(s) and/or subject(s) beyond humans.
It doesn't matter where we start, it's never enough unless there's more.
Yes, in a scientific sense. In a practical sense, it's the most obvious thing in the world.
Quoting 3017amen
This is baffling. What's abstract about syllogisms? It's like saying "What's abstract about 2+2=4?"
Logic is usually called a "formal science." It's very similar to mathematics. Both are grounded in abstractions. I don't see how this is difficult.
Quoting 3017amen
I'm saying the sentence "consciousness is abstract" is completely meaningless. Abstraction is a cognitive process -- conceptualizations, symbols, words, etc., are all involved in abstraction. Consciousness -- in the ordinary use of the word -- is simply human life, human experience. Abstraction -- like thought, like language, like vision, like hunger -- is one feature of human experience.
So to make a wild statement like that is equivalent, in my view, of saying "experience is hunger," or "consciousness is vision." It's just confusion through and through.
Question 2 is completely incoherent, as I've pointed out before. It assumes there's a materialist explanation for something we have no concrete understanding of, apart from our own subjectivity.
Can't say anything general about "feelings." Needs and feelings arise in my body -- again to talk in ordinary language. If we want to call craving/aversion or approach/avoidance "will" or "want", we can. What Schopenhauer says about it is interesting, but he's trying to distinguish will from representation (hence the title of his main work), claiming that will is (essentially) the thing-in-itself. Very different topic.
By junk thought I mean the same as phatic communication, so maybe "phatic thought" is better. It's what goes on all day long when you're talking to yourself.
My main disagreements really come from the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger, whom Chomsky hasn't really dealt with (unfortunately). When I asked him if he'd ever read Nietzsche, he said he hadn't read carefully enough to really have an opinion about him. As for Heidegger, he finds him incomprehensible from what he's read (which, given the association with Nazism, is very little). So there's little to discuss with him there.
As far as his linguistics -- yeah, it's hard to disagree because he points out things that should be obvious to everyone. It's always hard to disagree with great minds. I have a hard time "disagreeing" with the Buddha, too. Doesn't mean I'll become a Buddhist, but he's very rarely wrong about anything.
Yes. He said the same thing to me. Not with Nietzsche, didn't ask him about that, but about Heidegger. He did begin to read his "Introduction to Metaphysics", but that book expresses sympathies for Nazism. So he can't understand the vocabulary and he doesn't like his Nazism, I get it. Unfortunately Being and Time was translated later on. But after his initial experience with Heidegger, he probably saw no reason to return to him. Which is a bit sad, maybe he would've thought better of B&T, but I doubt it. He does mention other people who are interesting, and not known: Ralph Cudworth, Joseph Priestley and a few others. So there's a give and take there.
Quoting Xtrix
Sure. I still read him and talk to him frequently, but, it's gotten to the point where I can't get much further in my own philosophical interests by listening to him all the time. So now I'm stumbling around and engaging with others that I find fruitful, in particular Tallis. I'll risk looking foolish until I find my own ground. I'm moving away from calling myself a "Chomskyian", it's not a good idea generally to associate as belonging to the thought of one person, a bit like can happen with Marxism. But I see where you are coming from.
Pretty much, yep. It’s what we do, doncha know. Here’s what you just said, in super-fancy speechifyin’, which would have been great for getting university students of the time to get ready for a rough road, except his works were never classroom texts or even actually taught in his time:
“....Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind. It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion. The arena of these endless contests is called Metaphysic....”
In an interview recently, I heard him say that it was a personal choice not to go on reading Heidegger, and that the issue may ultimately lie with him (Chomsky). But he also says a lot of it appears to be "empty verbiage." Again, he's not wrong! It's not entirely fair, of course, given what Heidegger is discussing (and added to that the translations involved), but so be it.
Cudworth I've heard him mention, but I've never read. Never got around to it. I know that there's an interview with Bryan McGee on YouTube where McGee compares his ideas on UG to Immanuel Kant, which Chomsky doesn't deny. I think that's accurate.
Quoting Manuel
No kidding? Did you study under him as well or is it exclusively e-mail (which of course he famously and amazingly responds to quickly, even at 92 years old)?
Quoting Manuel
I agree wholeheartedly. The Marx comparison is a good one. Interestingly enough, Chomsky would be the first to agree as well -- another clear trait of great teachers. They encourage you to think for yourself, not just blindly follow.
Imagine that. Having the same idea, and yet... discussion. Now we have philosophy!
As an addendum to replying to the OP, my own understanding of the 'Platonic-Aristotlean tradition' in (more or less) contemporary terms:
Ontology concerns discerning 'what there is' from 'what there is not'. Metaphysics, thereby, concerns how 'the whole of whatever there is' logically (or categorically) hangs together. These are useful as 'criteria for truth' but are not truths themselves any more than 'looking through a lens' lies within its own a visual field (NB: Spinoza both physically and metaphysically made fine precision lenses).
Sorry, I don't think this is correct. It starts with what is knowable. 'To be, is to be intelligible', according to Platonist metaphysics. And what is intelligible, can be known by the pure intellect (nous) without the intermediation of the senses. And that 'what truly is', is that which cannot begin to be, or cease from being, whereas what the senses see constantly comes into being and ceases. That is the problem which was at the origin of the history of metaphysics, commencing with Parmenides, Plato's response to Parmenides, and Aristotle's modulation of Plato's response. That is metaphysics, the rest is stamp collection, to paraphrase Rutherford.
Yeah. He mentions that several times, especially when Kant is brought up, as he finds Cudworth's ideas more interesting. It's hard to find much literature on him, but it's possible to get an important portion of his epistemology in his Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality, which is readable.
Agree about Heidegger and others. Science is amazing, don't get me wrong, but if philosophy sticks only to interpreting science or speaking about clear propositions alone, it leaves out a lot for me.
Quoting Xtrix
I wish I could've been his student. Have been reading him and learning from him for over 12 years I guess. E-mail for over six years, but I did get to meet him personally in Boston just a few months before he moved to Arizona. So that was pretty cool.
Now, I guess throughout last year, have been consciously looking at his stuff much, much less.
What clases of his did you take?
That must have been an amazing experience! :)
Quoting Xtrix
That example came from him actually. But you can use it for several people: Rand, Derrida, Lacan, etc., etc.
I had a very brief interaction with Prof. Chomsky after a lecture he gave on linquistics at the University of Minnesota in 1992/93. He must have thought I was a lunatic taking his 'generative grammar' to task from a decidedly Wittgensteinian position which he patiently listened to then crushed step by step in typically devastating Noam fashion – well, what else, right? – and then shook my hand thanking me for an "interesting chat". This happened after the lecture as a follow-up to one of my questions. It was a packed hall, good turnout, but I was probably the only non-PhD student in the room. I wish now I could remember that question or my follow-up criticism. (Damn, now I remember I'd forgotten to have Chomsky sign a copy of his new book at the time Year 501: The Conquest Continues.)
Yeah! Believe me, I know the feeling. :rofl: If it wasn't for a friend of mine who told me, I would've not brought a book to get signed. Unbelievable.
I don't know how he manages to stay sharp after talking to so many people on so many different but important topics, it's a bit crazy.
Epistemically, to know presupposes that which is knowable, and ontologically, for something to be is for something to be possibly known about.
Classic metaphysics proper is the doctrine that attempts to unite them, Enlightenment metaphysics subsumes the latter under the former, and in post-Enlightenment metaphysics, of course, is found the reverse.
True enough, but there doesn’t need to be, necessarily. Historical precedent makes explicit the human cognitive system is generally self-correcting, so if one was to restrict himself to that system in the investigation of his questions, odds favor him arriving at an answer consistent with it, iff he can so arrive at all.
I can't help but ask questions because it is as if they explode into my consciousness. I remember my history teacher at school telling me that I wrote in a rhetorical way. As for finding answers, it is as if I am on mythic quest, often crawling through shadowy wastelands. Rather than answers, I come across labyrinths, knots, crosses and spirals and, of course, gigantic question marks looming in front of me, which often makes it hard to sleep at night.
Oh. Sorry. Good luck, then.
:up:
Quoting Apollodorus
:up: I think that hits the nail on the head .
It's a great topic, but I agree with @Xtrix in that it lacks definition. We are considering one indefinite term ( metaphysics ) as it relates to another indefinite term ( Philosophy ), as it relates to another indefinite term ( consciousness ). The result is frustratingly vague for me.
Philosophy is information about a philosophers consciousness ( absolutely and definitively ) - this is all it reliably is - every time it is uttered. That it alludes to some truth or other is unreliable. All that is reliable and enduring about philosophy is that it reflects the philosophers thinking ( consciousness ). This you can take to the bank, as it has always been so and must always continue to be so.
Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. Life expresses a singular thing - a process called consciousness, but this may be easier to understand if we say life expresses self organization. The words consciousness and self - organization are interchangeable - Quoting Jack Cummins
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting Manuel
Metaphysics, for me at least, is the underlying and fundamental logic that causes various phenomena.
So, If you agree with these definitions, then the question of metaphysics and philosophy reduces to - what is the underlying logic of self organization? And, I think, along these lines some progress in understanding can be made. If you do not agree with the definitions then that can be discussed.
As stipulations, for the sake of discussion, this question derived from them definitely works for me. :up:
re: e.g. Autopoiesis
Jack - Just one thing about dualism. In Western philosophy this usually refers to mind-body dualism. In non-dualism it has a much broader meaning. It is best expressed in the word advaita or 'not-two'. It is not just that mind and body that are not two. It is the claim that that there are not two phenomena. This gives us the 'One ' of Plotinus and the claim that Reality and Consciousness are the same unitary phenomenon.
Thus while the rejection of mind-body dualism opens the door to various other ideas, the rejection of all dualism leads ineluctably to mysticism and the single, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. .
. . .
So it must be possible that the intrinsic human complementary system......isn’t?
Which is to say, it must be possible that for every single thought, ever, by a human, its immediate negation does not necessarily follow?
There very well may be a metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism, but I rather suspect it cannot arise from rejecting ALL dualisms. Or, on the other hand I suppose, there very well could be a metaphysical doctrine of non-dualism that rejects ALL dualisms, but such doctrine cannot stand in conjunction with the rational agency calling itself human.
Dunno.....maybe there are humans that conceive up but not down, good but not bad, yes but not no. Bet it would be pretty hard to talk to somebody like that, even so.
My lack of experience causes me to ask....what is being exercised, and that exercised mystically?
My experience, on the other hand, mandates that if this is mystically exercised, than necessarily, that is not, creating a dualism of its own.
Do you agree with the validity of a unique metaphysical doctrine of non-dualism?
It's an interesting formulation. The only concern on my part is that we try to avoid attributing self organization to the world, when it could be the case that we are the one's doing the organizing e.g. "starmaking", "ways of talking", etc.
It's not so clear to me how to distinguish these two when speaking about the world. The phenomena that arise fleeting in my consciousness seem to be fragmented, incomplete, sometimes random and repetitive. But it could be that when we write or speak to others, we are organizing whatever goes on in the head, in a more structured manner.
I assume something like this happens to other people.
Maybe meditation is clearer than "mystical exercise". Relaxing the learned fixations on thinking / speaking / believing via dualities (i.e. binary opposites) by meditating on paying attention without using dualities to categorize our experiences (and, thereby, our expectations).
I conceive of plural-aspect holism (Spinoza, Deleuze ... Bohm) whereby 'epistemological distinctions' are disambiguated from 'ontological wholeness' much like e.g. waves and other surface features are distinct yet not separate from the ocean. This is what I think "non-dualism" is getting at: distinctions-without-disconnect.
Quoting tim wood
Well, horizons (of meaning, intelligibility, information, perception, memory) are absolutely presupposed and can't be "eliminated", therefore, the mystical, like poor, shall always be with us. Trouble (i.e. confusion, delusion) comes, IMO, with filling-in the gaps with gods & other mystagogic woo.
In that same sense as we know metaphysics includes all that which is behind reality, does this mystery you & I refer to also relate to the Christian (Jesus who had a consciousness) or Cosmological God?
Quoting Xtrix
This seems to be a little confusing, are you saying the nature of conscious existence is abstract like mathematical structures?
Quoting Xtrix
Pardon me but I don't think you answered the question concerning Item 1, which was the complete understanding of human sentience/feelings?
Quoting Xtrix
Generally, I agree, thus no exceptions taken. However, for the sake of logical discussion, what makes that question incoherent?
Quoting Xtrix
You seem to be referring to self awareness or self-consciousness is that correct? To that end what do you actually mean by saying basically one chooses to engage in cognitive " talking to yourself" ?
Thanks Pop!
If we try to put logic to consciousness obviously we encounter many problems that are vague, as it should be. For example, considering how the subconscious and conscious mind work together (not to mention unconscious), we find that more often than not it violates the logical laws of bivalence/excluded middle.
Quoting Pop
This again assumes the there's nothing that transcends the logic associated with the mind, or Being. In other words, if we say the essence of consciousness is self-organization then we can easily refer to say Heisenberg uncertainty principle and see that it is something beyond pure reason.
Accordingly Kant was still ground breaking in his theories hence:
So what is independent seems to be much like how the computer works. Consider a computer with hardware and software, your software being your sense experiences, and your hardware being a fixed design comprising intuition, which is something, in part, that seems to be hardwired into the cognitive processes/consciousness. The extended manifestation of the hardware analogy returns us back to the 'nature' behind our sense of wonderment (why do we have this need to wonder about things like causation, etc.), the Will, and other fixed,/innate/intrinsic abstract features of consciousness and self-awareness.
Hello Francis Ray! Thank you for your contribution.
That is a very intriguing supposition. What do you mean by, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non dualism?
If a dualist believes in the necessary phenomenon of subjective and objective truth, does that in itself imply a dichotomous cognition?
Ok. I understand that clarity. Thanks.
—————
Quoting 180 Proof
Can I say that reduces to....Relaxing (...) fixations on thinking (...) by meditating on paying attention?
And at the risk of seemingly picking nits, can I say that reduces further to....relaxing by paying attention?
Pardon my predispositions, for in those alone, your proposition becomes a performative contradiction, insofar as I see no logical means for meditation that does not necessitate human thought. How is paying attention accomplished under the auspices of meditation, that is different than paying attention by mere cognitive faculties?
If by God we mean anything we don’t understand, sure.
Quoting 3017amen
No. You said logic isn’t abstract. Logic most certainly is abstract, as is mathematics.
Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.
Quoting 3017amen
Because it’s like asking about the molecular structure of ectoplasm. Or like asking “Why do things happen?”
Quoting 3017amen
No. I’m referring to what you and I do every day, almost every second of every day in fact. We talk to ourselves all day long. Introspect for a while and you’ll see what I mean.
Yeah.....no I’m not going to do that.
And there’s your sufficient reason for claiming “if you’ve never tried you’ll never know”, which is the most pathetically empty phraseology ever.
(Sigh)
Thank you for saying this, since I often wonder whether philosophy forums are a waste of time. .
The doctrine of non-duality as expressed by Shankara, the Buddha, Lao Tsu, the Upanishads and so forth is not a proper topic of study for metaphysicians since it makes claims that extend beyond what logic can establish or even what we can think about. If we want to evaluate this doctrine in metaphysics by the use of logic it has to be reduced to a formal metaphysical theory. When translated it is a neutral metaphysical theory. This theory is accessible to any philosopher and is not at all complex but, to quote Michael Caine, not a lot of people know this. This is because most philosophers think mysticism is is not worth studying. . .
A neutral theory states that all positive or extreme metaphysical theories are false. We cannot know they are actually false by the use of logic, since for all we know Reality does not obey the rules, but we do know with complete certainty that metaphysics rejects all these theories for being logically indefensible. Thus Bradley tells us 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result' and Kant tells us 'All selective conclusions about the world as whole are undecidable'. These statements are equivalent. It is simply a fact that all positive global theories fail under analysis.
This leaves just one theory standing and this is a neutral theory, non-dualism and the Perennial philosophy. It is Perennial because it makes complete sense in metaphysics and cannot be refuted. It is the only theory the philosophy department does not teach.
I don't think so. They would just be acknowledging two kinds of truth. Truth, for the mystic,would be Being, a consequence of what Merrill-Wolff calls 'introception' or 'knowledge-through-identity', aka 'Realisation' and self-knoweldge. Relative truth would require a duality of knower and known, but to assume this is the best we can do for Truth and Knowledge is dualism. A neutral theory denies that there are two things and this includes the distinct phenomena 'knower' and 'known'. By reduction this distinction would evaporate. Relative knowledge may be true or false but is never Truth, for to be a Truth we must know it is True. I think Aristotle says somewhere, 'True knowledge is identical with its object', for this is just a matter of logic, but I've never been able to find the quote.
The epistemology of a neutral theory states that Knowing is Fundamental. Hence the Sufi master Al-Hallaj was crucified for saying 'I am Truth, and not 'I know Truth'. The former is a statement of non-duality, the latter a denial of it. . .
Sure it seems that human consciousness itself is abstract, mysterious and illogical... much like (and not any different than) the concept of God.
Quoting Xtrix
That wouldn't meet the definition standards of incoherence. To ask why do things happen vis-a-vis consciousness one of many answers would be the Will.
Quoting Xtrix
How do you reconcile the fact that a simple a priori syllogism is not abstract yet the nature of such is abstract (formal logic equals mathematics)?
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not exactly following that can you provide an example?
I have read about Plotinus, and plan to read his writings in the near future. It is just so difficult to frame and give perspective to the ideas of the various writers. Obviously, there are big differences between concepts, but some of it comes down to the specific language they use. I believe it is important to look for the objective, but it is so hard when we live within our subjective realities. For example, you (Francis) interpret Lao Tzu, in a mystical way, whereas I have just been reading someone arguing for viewing his ideas in a non mystical way. Also, the beliefs we grew up with affect us deeply too, on some level.
So, it is difficult to know how far to go with certain ideas, so I try to keep a fairly open mind, until I reach further clarity. I wish to keep reading as widely as possible. I do also try to come to my own personal conclusions too, partly through discussion on this site, and through contemplation.
Like a breath of fresh air, after the stifling atmosphere of circular philosophical argumentation, I enjoy the clear-eyed views of Tim Wood's terse, and often acerbic, contributions to this forum. His adamant Atheism (Scientism?) simplifies the world into "what matters" (Materialism) and "what doesn't matter" (Metaphysics). That neat & tidy Black & White worldview allows him to make concise & emphatic comments on the ambiguous & equivocal concepts that frivolous philosophers concern themselves with.
But in the early 20th century, such Classical scientific clarity was muddied by Quantum queerness. That's why the no-nonsense physicist Richard Feynman expressed his negative attitude toward wishy-washy Philosophy in a curt statement of frustration : "shut-up and calculate". But other quantum pioneers, such as Heisenberg, accepted the challenge of their baffling "facts", and attempted to reconcile their ambiguous quantum calculations with the mysticism of Eastern Philosophy. In doing so, they inadvertently crossed the line between "serious" science and "trivial" philosophy. And that line in the sand becomes fainter after every wave of speculation into metaphysics. God help us! :cool:
Quantum mysticism :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
PS__As an amateur philosopher, I don't claim to be doing hard science, but merely playfully exploring the remaining mysteries that have not yet succumbed to the sharp-edged scalpel of reductionism. So, please continue asking your questions about "nothing". :joke:
What you say is well worth discussing but I've become involved in too many conversations to pursue it far.
You say - "Which is to say, it must be possible that for every single thought, ever, by a human, its immediate negation does not necessarily follow?"
A negation is always required for a thought or concept. This is why the mystics say we live in a world of opposites. But there would be a way out. 'Man partake of the perpetual', says one Sufi sage wrily, 'but not by thinking he can think about it'. .
Ahhh, could not be further from the truth! Much like time itself, metaphysics is not so neet and tidy. ? You may want to review the video...
Quoting Gnomon
And that's because those who consider life being neat and tidy have to face the harsh reality that it's not. Heisenberg/Godel proved that.
The study of metaphysics reveals that all extreme metaphysical theories are logically absurd. This is the most general and final result of metaphysical analysis. It is not disputed by the academics or the mystics. for it is just a matter of logic. The difference is one of interpretation. The mystics reject all these absurd theories and states they are absurd because they are false.
In this way the results of metaphysical analysis lead ineluctably to the door of mysticism. It is a simple argument but unassailable. Quite why so few people see it is a comlpex question, but I think mainly it is because professional philosophers don't do their job properly.
Now I'll be in trouble.
.
Which of course is no different than the logical explanation of human consciousness itself. And so one can say it is beyond/transcends logic.
Quoting FrancisRay
Mr. Ray! If we did not wonder about causation our quality of life would not be what it is today. Among many other humanities science would suffer...
The irony is we are barred from ultimate knowledge and explanation by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek an explanation in the first place. But without the self-aware curious mind, philosophy doesn't exist...
Yes, but only when "metaphysical analysis" is inadequate (i.e. Woo-of-the-Gaps via the principle of explosion). From the incoherent to the unintelligible is the shortest "leap of faith" imaginable.
If you can get a grip on the metaphysical scheme of Plotinus then you'll have no trouble with any other authentic teacher. They all say the same thing in their own way. But you;re right to say this is difficult to confirm. This is why I feel metaphysics is so important, since the only other way to syncretise their teachings is meditation.
Relevancy is a judgement, dependent solely on understanding. You find irrelevancy in the questions I ask, not from the understanding from which they arise, but from the understanding by which they are received.
I will try to prioritise Plotinus, because I have been thinking he is important for a while. But, I am reading several books, writing and looking for work. Some times, there are just not enough hours in a day for thinking about it, and metaphysical thinking is not always easy, and I do find that my thoughts shift. It almost feels as if reality itself, beyond my own stream of consciousness, is changing.
Understood.
Quoting FrancisRay
Yep, seems that way.
Quoting FrancisRay
If negation is always required for thought, but there is a way out, such that negations are not always required, then some system must be possible that is not a (human) system of thought.
I’m beginning to find that out. Amazing to me, how many people don’t know what it is to think, or, knowing that, choose to re-name it and thereby justify their insistence that that’s not really what they’re actually doing.
Great, then we can discuss / speculate on what causes self organization?
Quoting Manuel
Certainly we are the ones integrating the information at our disposal ( which is always limited ) and drawing a picture / conclusion from it. This is how self organization ( consciousness ) works. For the moment lets just agree that all living creatures self organize this way, though ultimately we need to consider whether it is a self organizing universe that we live in.
Quoting Manuel
I can verify that it is the same for me, but I find conceptual models that agree with observation can be created and over time augmented and improved. Self organization is the primary role of consciousness.
Consciousness performs an immensely complicated task of integrating the information effecting it, and then formulating a response that maintains the self. Over time as novel information becomes available, the self has to adjust as the integrated world view changes - the world view being information about the self.
Quoting 3017amen
In recent years Heisenberg's uncertainty has been challenged by decoherence - this story is yet to pan out, imo.
By transcendent I assume you mean subconscious. Self organization is largely subconscious, but this doesn't mean its totally beyond understanding.
Quoting 3017amen
We need to self organize, If we are to survive, and that is what we are hard wired to do. We are born with a certain set of DNA instructions, but as we live our lives epigenetics turns certain genes on and others off, so our lifestyle contributes to our DNA makeup, which in turn contributes to our consciousness - it is all an integrated process of self organization.
What is epigenetics? - we don't know precisely. It is something that interacts with DNA, seemingly it can interact between consciousness and DNA creating an integrated loop. This, as well as many other similar such insights, leads me to think of consciousness as a whole body integrated loop. That brain structure changes in response to new ideas is another similar example.
Consciousness is a convoluted thing indeed. This is why I prefer to call it self organization. We are not entirely free to self organize according to the perceived truth but must continue the consciousness we are given at birth, which then slowly evolves over the course of a life time, but must remain to some extent faithful to the established self. The next thought is dependent on all the previous ones. The domino like consciousness must fall and random information can sway its direction, but at the same time we need to be able to cope with, and this may mean exclude, the information that has a significant disintegrative effect on self. And we have this ability in abundance, and it makes for some interesting psychology.
Quoting FrancisRay
Materialism rejects dualism, but I don't think it could be called mystical?
Quoting Xtrix
Actually consciousness is extremely difficult to define, because its manifestations are endlessly variable and open ended. We can not define it in terms of its end result, as that will continue to evolve, but I think, we can characterize it to some extent via a model that agrees with observation
That consciousness is an evolving process of self organization seems difficult to dispute. so this may be pathway to understand it. - to some extent. There will be those whose self organization will demand it not be understood under any circumstances, and this needs to be respected as this too is a valid form of consciousness if it aids survival.
In constructivist psychology, holding two contradictory concepts as being equally true is the model for mental illness.
So consciousness, which we don't understand, happens because of the "will," which we also don't understand.
Maybe ectoplasm happens because of a zflectov? Or whatever else you like. Regardless, it gets us exactly nowhere.
Quoting 3017amen
They're both abstract. Whatever an "a prior syllogism" is, I don't know. But if it's a syllogism, it's abstract.
You're using terms like "abstract" and "logical" in a very strange way. Either define your terms or stop wasting everyone's time.
Quoting 3017amen
This is meant as a joke, right? If not -- I'm done with this conversation.
No, we can define it any way we'd like precisely because we don't understand it. Something we don't understand isn't "hard to define" -- it's just unknown. So the "its" in your sentence refers to essentially nothing.
If we're talking in ordinary conversation, fine -- then everyone knows what consciousness is. But that doesn't mean we have any understanding in a philosophical or scientific sense. Just like using "energy" or "work" -- we can use those words in everyday life and most of us know exactly what it is. But that's not how the physicists use the terms.
Quoting Pop
In a way, yes. Because most incoherent sentences are difficult to dispute. You've been going on and on about "self-organization" for a while now, yet have no idea what it means. So now we have two terms we don't understand. So saying "x is y" doesn't tell us anything whatsoever.
No. The Will, using pure reason, is one unexplained feature of consciousness.
Quoting Xtrix
You may want to take a refresher on the basics of logic. As mentioned earlier a basic syllogism/propositions of all men are mortals, Socrates is a man, bachelor's are unmarried, ad nauseum, is a priori.
Quoting Xtrix
Backatcha ? you may want to take the time and watch the OP video.
Be well
Pop! Just two clarifications on that point:
1. The point I'm making is that if we consider consciousness a self-organized being, then it implies Kantian pure reason. In our discussion, pure reason has its limitations viz. Heisenberg, Godel, etc..
2. And so if we were to use this logic, our own sense of logic, it would not be able to explain the nature of, in this case [your] self-organization. For that reason it transcends our sense of logic. (The conscious and subconscious mind all working together of course is a whole nother discussion/distinction.)
Quoting Pop
Interesting. What is constructivist psychology?
In the alternative, using logic, that could basically be interpreted as violating the law of excluded middle/bivalence. However in that case, it has more to do with the conscious and subconscious mind working together during the cognitive process, not necessarily subjective-objective truths, unless of course you wanted to parse the differences ( had an interest in that particular area of apperception.
In any event I was wondering if you were going to try to link subjectivity and objectivity (in every sense) to some sort of dualism mind-body problem. You know, making a connection between the physical world which is inanimate, purposeless yet determined, whereas the mental world involves consciousness, self-awareness, planning, willing, desiring, etc..
I'm not sure I understand you. As a living organism you need to self organize. You need to create a self, If you are to avoid fragmentation. Internally you are self organized, down to the smallest particle , and externally you organize the whole in relation to the information effecting you, so you are self organizing.
Metaphysically something can only exist in relation to something else, and a living organism exists in relation to much external information. The externalities are cognized by way of energy waves reaching the senses to be interpreted as information. The state of integrated information is consciousness and it facilitates self organization. Now possessing a state of integrated information you can act on it. Thus achieving self organization.
Where is the nonsense?
Quoting Xtrix
This is the interesting thing, If consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended then each manifestation of consciousness is unique, hence at least slightly different. So when we refer to consciousness, and assume it is the same thing for everyone, we are wrong. We only have full access to one consciousness - our own, and what we really do is project that consciousness onto another. This is why self organization is a more fitting term, it acknowledges that each consciousness is unique, but at the same time, regardless of uniqueness, it acknowledges that what is being facilitated is self organization.
Quoting Xtrix
My understanding has evolved - consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. :smile:
:lol: This coming from a guy who says a symbolism isn’t abstract? Give me a break.
Quoting Pop
We have no idea what “self” is either. But even if we did, to say it needs to be “organized” is meaningless to me. Is the self a collection of puzzle pieces, or parts that need to be put together to create the “self”? Who knows... and who cares.
Quoting Pop
This is simply rambling to me.
:yawn:
Psychology originated by Piaget and Kelly. Very popular outside the US.
Quoting 3017amen
The conscious and the subconscious are not necessarily in conflict. Recent research shows brain structure changes in response to new ideas. Gene profiles change in response to lifestyle. At the same time our consciousness changes in response to this knowledge, as well as these physical changes. There is relational evolution occurring even at this level. There will be a lot that we cannot answer for sure, but inroads are always made, albeit small ones.
We risk going off topic with Heisenberg and Gödel. There are good arguments now that dispute the traditional interpretation of both of these.
Quoting 3017amen
Self organization is now well established in abiogenesis, systems and complexity theory, biology, ecology, sociology, etc. There is the question of is the universe self organizing? If so, then how could we possibly be any different , given we are an element of it?
Issues such as self awareness, planning, willing, etc are all aspects of self organization, so I'm wondering what is its underlying logic? How do others understand it? What can they tell me?
Complexity theory would have it that self organization arises fundamentally from fluctuating patterns of energy. Is this all there is to it? Is it arbitrary?
Self organization creates a self - from elements entirely external to self. It is ubiquitous, and If everything in the universe is self organizing, it is this concept that is responsible for everything's existence.
You must have missed this link I provided in my previous post – Autopoiesis. It's a physical topic and not metaphysical except, maybe, analogously. Thoughts?
I don't know what this means. I'm endorsing logical analysis, avoiding any explosions. But people just don't want to do the sums. Nor is there any need for faith. Indeed, this is what I'm trying to say. .
But hey ho. It's tough fighting against entrenched views.
I'm happy to leave it here.
There are no excepions to the rule. negation are always required. The point is not that there is a way around this limit, but that we can know more than we can think. Nobody is re-naming anything. We're only agreeing with Kant. . .
. . ./
Perhaps consciousness is only as convoluted as the myriad of metaphysical systems under which it is viewed. Favor a system, find consciousness in it, define its parameters or its logical relations......done deal.
Quoting Pop
That’s fine, we all have our preferences. Self-organization carries the implication that consciousness is some sort of cognitive faculty susceptible to reason, but I rather think consciousness is the quality of the manifold of that which is reasoned about, which makes consciousness passive rather than the active self-organization implies.
Much as red-ness is the quality of the state of being red, fit-ness is the quality of the state of being fit, so too consciousness is the quality of the state of being conscious.
“....Consequently, only because I can connect a variety of given representations in one consciousness, is it possible that I can represent to myself the identity of consciousness in these representations; in other words, the thought, "These representations given in intuition belong all of them to me," is accordingly just the same as, "I unite them in one consciousness, or can at least so unite them"; and although this thought is not itself the consciousness of the synthesis of representations, it presupposes the possibility of it; that is to say, for the reason alone that I can comprehend the variety of my representations in one consciousness, do I call them my representations, for otherwise I must have as many-coloured and various a self as are the representations of which I am conscious....”
Given this (favored) rendition of what consciousness is, the rest of your comment can be seen as otherwise, re: we have no consciousness at birth, consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with perceived truth, consciousness doesn’t evolve over the course of a life time (although the aggregate of its contents certainly does), it does, on the other hand, remain faithful to the established self, because it is the established self.
—————
Quoting Pop
Ehhhh.....psychology: the pure metaphysician’s arch-enemy.
Metaphysician: I’ll tell you how I think.
Psychologist: I’ll tell you how you think.
In the immortal words of Darryl Hall.....I can’t go for that, oohhhhnooooo. (Grin)
YEA!!!! Glad you see things my way. Now....lets you and me knock some sense into the rest of the world.......
—————
Quoting FrancisRay
Annnnnddd......that shot our wonderful agreement all to hell. Dammit!!!
We can know more than we can think, but “...I can think whatever I want (provided only that I do not contradict myself)....”. If there’s no limit to what I can think, but I can know more than I can think......how in the HELL does that work????
Must be aggravating, talkin’ to folks who can’t see the other side, huh?
I think you should at least do some reading. The entire message of mysticism is that Knowledge outruns thought. This is explained at vast length in ten thousand texts. .
But yes, it is aggravating.
Yeah, but that presupposes an interest, and at my age....and my seriously ingrained predispositions....is solely lacking. But, on the other hand, I wouldn’t dare deny others their own interests.
There is a possible tension between mere explanatory metaphysics and ones which are bound up with making life meaningful. I think that some more reductionist philosophies fall into that category whereas many of the mystic philosophies went beyond that in providing knowledge in a way which offered meaning or mythic structure. I am sure that many of our time view the mystics as being mere romantics. On the other hand, some of philosophies of our time, especially those interconnected with the physical sciences are so reductive that they do provide any deeper sense of meaning for many.
I am not sure that there is any easy resolution for this problem because we wish to find answers which work on both levels. It is possible that some may be able to find meaning within reductionist philosophies and some can find causal explanations within the mystical. However finding the balance, from my point of view, is part of the art of metaphysics, because it is about explanations, but concepts are interconnected with our way of seeing reality.
Unfortunately, using logic, the subconscious and conscious mind would transcend common logic. Like the law of bivalence, one cannot clearly delineate the object perceived as being unitary, or describe it in a unitary fashion without contradiction. For instance, driving while daydreaming, then crashing and dying, provides for the phenomenon of the mind performing two functions simultaneously. In that case, either the conscious or subconscious mind was driving, not dreaming of a beach in the Med.. And so in that strict sense neither the conscious nor the subconscious was driving, there was some combination of both at work.
And that suggests, although a great description (yours!) in its own right, a self-organized mind or entity is nonetheless incomplete, in a strict logical sense. And accordingly, we know Heisenberg and /Gödel demonstrated the flaws in logic's completeness and resulting randomness, which perhaps leads us to this... .
Quoting Pop
QM (and to some degree double slits and PAP-see John Wheeler) has also taught us that there is such a thing as an open system in the universe. An element of determinism and randomness. In our discussion I analogize randomness to a Maslonian stream of consciousness that allows for random thoughts to present themselves. But what do these thoughts represent? Are they images, and intellectual concepts (among other things) from sense experience only coming back to 'haunt us'? Or are they innate features of consciousness (novel synthetic a priori knowledge), where in this case, they may simply be both. Does the hard drive represent Kantian intuition?
For example, I used the computer metaphor of the software consisting of sense experience, and the hardware consisting of a fixed, innate operating system of self-awareness, or as you may refer to it as, self-organization. The hardware operating system is a type of Kantian blank canvass, that has the logically necessary functions to be able to receive and compute sense data.
I think you raise some wonderfully intriguing questions about the self-organized mind. I will continue to ponder your other questions, thank you Pop!
Hmmm. I have an idea of what it means to have a self. Granted, it's not much, but I make use of such a concept with relative frequency. Organization is a little tricky. Is the universe organized or disorganized?
One idea is that the universe is going towards disorder (entropy...) , in between the state that was the singularity and now, we've moved from "organized"(?) to disorganization, but since there's billions of years in between, we have some pockets where this "order" appears. That's Sean Carroll's view on the matter. Others disagree, such as Arieh Ben-Naim, who has studied entropy his whole life.
I'm not sure speaking of objects or creatures organizing is clear. Maybe they do, but what does organize mean in this situation?
As far as consciousness goes, it seems to me that there's an element of relevance that on occasion pops up, such as crossing a street and seeing a car about to hit you. In these moments one becomes very aware of things.
But a lot of it also seems to be kind of automatic. Sure, awareness is on all the time, but what becomes central to it is not subject to one's volition.
It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a word used to explain another word, and this is supposed to be interesting. It’s really the incoherent ramblings of someone on the Internet. Even if it were true— who cares? Maybe everything is organization. Yes. Maybe everything is God, nature, energy, will, reason, objectivity, etc etc. Just add it to the list and then we can feel like we’ve accomplished something.
Sure, but isn't that true of all words? That is at bottom, when we continue explaining what a word means, we can only go to other words, until we reach the point of gesturing like a crazy person to an object saying "this is what I mean"! (Minus mathematics, I think.)
I think I understand what it means to have an organized room, or an organized schedule. Does that apply to the world? Not as we use the word ordinarily.
But if your approach is on the right track, why speak of "will" or "being"? It's not as if these questions need to have a theoretical answer applicable to the mind-independent world. As is the case with Locke and psychic continuity, for example. Or Goodman's idea of Starmaking.
You're in a Metaphysic's thread, not a uninformed political one. Not sure why you're even participating in this one because in either case, you're certainly not doing philosophy. You seem to have an axe to grind...
What you say makes some sense. But for me metaphysics is a matter of logic and reason and it makes no difference who's doing it or what we want from it. It's just cold, hard logic.The facts of metaphysics are demonstrable. It makes no difference whether we're a physicist, a mystic or a plumber.
I would agree that many people see metaphysics as an excuse for a lot of woolly nonsense and speculative opinions, but in an academic context it is a science of logic with no room for opinion or speculation. The speculation only has to begin when it comes to interpretation of results. The results are not speculative and leave no room for dispute.
This is clear if you review the literature. Approximately all philosophers everywhere agree that metaphysics does not produce a positive result, which is to say it does not endorse a positive theory. The only alternative is a neutral theory which is mysticism. No speculation or opinion is required, just the calculations.
Of course, the subject becomes almost impossibly complex if one denies the facts and rejects mysticism, as we see from the literature. It is very much simpler if one is free of ideology and treat it like mathematics. This is a point made by Merrill-Wolff, a famous writer on philosophy and consciousness who trained as a pure mathematician. In metaphysics it is always best to shut up and calculate. . . . . .
. . . . . . .
This response is as coherent as anything else you’ve said.
What does politics have to do with ANYTHING I said?
Also, “metaphysics” is not an excuse for rambling incoherently. Perhaps try a new age thread.
My only axe to grind is with your mantra about “self organization,” which is devoid of meaning.
Point well taken. As the video suggested, the part of metaphysics that's intriguing is that it uses logic to arrive at illogical conclusions which in turn, comprise consciousness and Being (itself), which is another reason why I posited the analogy to the concept of a God. In other words, using logic, we can't even explain our own conscious existence, so how are to explain a cosmological God's(?).
But perhaps more importantly, that may return us back to causation ex nihilo (turtle power), which seems to be analogous to Kant's synthetic a priori judgements/propositions that have pragmatic, quality of life implications. So we indeed can't overlook this innate sense of wonderment that has enhanced our quality of life in so many ways ( our ability to ask questions/critique and make improvements)...thanks for your continued contribution FR!
In the spirit of Metaphysics, explain for us what it means to you to apperceive meaning?
Quoting Xtrix
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
There is much confusion about logic. The view I'm endorsing is perfectly (!) in accord with logic. What logic proves is that Reality outruns the categories of thought, but this is easy enough to think about.
A God cannot be logically explained because the idea is not logically coherent. It only becomes coherent when we equate 'God' with the 'Brahman',of the Upanishads and non-dualism. but almost all theists would rather give up thinking logically than do this.
It is true that many people conclude that the non-dual doctrine requires a modification to ordinary logic, but this is only because of a widespread misunderstanding of Aristotle's rules It is generally assumed that metaphysical questions take the form 'A/not-A', but the mystics deny this. . .
. , . ' , . .
Third time answering?
Good point, I wonder why?
If logic cannot explain existence ex-nihilo, could it be that he universe is absurd and meaningless, or is understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought? In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole nother metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed... .
Otherwise, mysticism seems to have some popularity in Physics:
...mystical thought lies at the opposite extreme to rational thought, which is the basis of the scientific method. Also, mysticism tends to be confused with the occult, the paranormal, and other fringe beliefs. In fact, many of the world's finest thinkers, including some notable thinkers such as Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, Eddington, and Jeans, have also espoused mysticism...some scientists and mathematicians claim to have had sudden revelatory insights akin to such mystical experiences...Roger Penrose...Gödel...-Paul Davies
Perhaps one consistent theme there is revelation and Kantian intuition. Thoughts?
Mr Wood,
Sorry, I've hit the pass and go button. Not sure what else to tell you....
Be well my friend!
If you pursue this question you will unlock metaphysics.
It is because all 'this or that' conclusions about the world-as-a-whole would be wrong. Metaphysical antinomies take the form of a choice between just two options both of which are absurd. Thus they are undecidable. The mystics say these questions are undecidable because both answers are wrong and our intellect is able to calculate this. They say that these questions are false dichotomies. Our intellect is able to calculate that their dualistic answers are absurd, but only if we study mysticism can we make sense of their falsity since this is the only description of reality that explains it.
Most people can work out that these questions are undecidable, but few ever see the reason why. This requires a study of nondualism.(or a lot of meditation). . .
. ,
Not at all, If ex nihilo creation was the case then the universe would be absurd and meaningless, and we could never know much about it.
A subtle issue. The Truth would be beyond thought, much as Kant surmises, but this is not to say we cannot usefully think about it. An intellectual understanding would be possible, but only for those who have explored what lies beyond the intellect. The crucial component of this understanding has to be an grasp of the principle of nonduality, and this cannot be meaningfully grasped without first-hand experience. . .
I think not. But we have to be much more careful than usual with our use of logic. ... .
:
I've long believed that physicists are deeper and braver thinkers than academic philosophers. Many of the quantum pioneers immediately realised that their discoveries implied the truth of the mystic teachings. Erwin Schrodinger is something of a hero of mine for his insight. Regrettably, modern physicists are generally less well educated and more ideologically hide-bound. . .
A misperception.. Rational thought is rational thought, and the methods of mysticism are scientific. They depend entirely on experiment and empiricism, albeit that here the latter would extend beyond sensory data. This is why mysticism makes no claims that contradict science or logic. There's no chance of it doing so since it proceeds by the methods of science and logic Our ordinary brain is quite up to the task. . . .
Amen to that. Few people bother to study it seriously. Metaphysics and mysticism are the two worst taught subjects in academia, and this is no coincidence. Both represent an immediate threat to the status quo.
Paul Davies' book The Mind of God' is an excellent introduction to metaphysics. It got me started and led me immediately to mysticism. Schrodinger is the most eloquent of them, since he wrote about this for forty years and knew the Upanishads well.
I;m utterly baffled as to why, somewhere around the 1960's, physicists suddenly became deaf to the Perennial philosophy. I suspect it might have been a reaction to hippy culture, and the baby went out with the bathwater. . .
Well said. My apologies. A trap I often fall into indeed. Be well.
Agreed. I have the book and find it an indispensable reference!
Just curious as to your take on this. Do you think Kantian intuition, noumenon, etc. is closely related to Christian Revelation (revelatory knowledge about a novel thing)?
Quoting FrancisRay
I'm not sure I'm following that. If we could create something from nothing, to posit meaninglessness, frankly, would not even be an issue or concern. There would be no human need to posit same. In other words, we would already know the nature of reality (time, matter, etc..). But it's precisely that we cannot create a universe (Paul talks about mini universes) that is at the heart of the mystery. And even if there was always something (think eternity) we still do not have the tools to create same... .
Quoting FrancisRay
Sure, no exceptions taken. But that assumes other 'logically' possible worlds existing. Thus the point that Paul makes about the fact that our sense of logic and math may not suffice here.
Quoting FrancisRay
That would be in conflict with the interpretation of the [Paul's] aforementioned proposition... .
Apology accepted!
Apparently you missed the point of my post. I said Tim Wood's Physical worldview was "neat & tidy". So the implication was that your Metaphysical view is just the opposite : complex & messy. Most scientists, including Einstein & Heisenberg, were at first appalled at the strange worldview presented by Quantum "Mechanics". Because it's actually not very mechanical at all.
Nevertheless, some of then learned to accommodate "quantum queerness" by viewing it from the metaphysical perspective of Eastern philosophies. Unfortunately, many New Agers preferred the traditional religious physical practices (Yoga Tai Chi, candles, incense), over the metaphysical philosophical insights. Apparently most people prefer neat & tidy physical routines over the complexities & ambiguities of Metaphysics --- and of Quantum uncertainties & weirdness. :joke:
Gotcha, I get it now, thanks for the clarification! FYI- there is very little Mr. Wood and I agree on, but that's ok!! If we didn't have differences, it would not provide for the actual practice of discourse itself... .
But to your point, and at the risk of redundancy, to me, Metaphysical world views are no less challenging than that of 'consciousness explained' :joke: It's fun to take the basic tools of exploration in order to see where it leads us or what the possibilities could be...
Hah. Yeah, for sure. I call these the easy problems, just to highlight how easy they are. Utterly trivial really. :joke:
So tell me, do you think that non-mental being exists? That is existence that has no mental properties whatsoever?
Does science tell us about things in themselves generally? Can we have an idea of what they could be?
This last question torments me.
Can you expand on this?
By things in themselves, I take to mean the ground of objects which are not a representation. I don't have in mind Kant, per se, just the general topic.
To illustrate the example in a way I find intuitive and useful: consider any object. Take a book and put it in front of you. You see it, there's a book there. Fine. Now close your eyes. Is there still a book there? Sure. You can touch it, hear it as when you drop it on a table, etc. But now remove your tactile sensations. Do you still have a book in front of you?
You could probably still hear it, maybe smell it. But now lose your sensation of hearing and smell and all other sensations. Assume this happens all at once and automatically. Do you still have an object in front of you?
I think you do, at least as an idea of sorts.
This is more or less what I have in mind when I speak of things in themselves. I think things have a nature which are not reducible to sensations and not dependent on the way objects affect us.
Maybe it leads nowhere, but I find it interesting.
Sorry, I did miss that. @Pantagruel put me onto Autopoisis some time ago, and I am was very grateful to learn of the embodied movement. Matera, Thompson, Capra etc, are all biologists come philosophers, and it is easy to see why this would arise. Anybody with an interest in microbiology, or cellular biology can plainly see that what is happening at that level is far beyond the capability of dumb chemical reactions. They use a systems logic to arrive at self organization, but as originators of an embodied world view ( in the late 70s ) they are reluctant to call it self organization, preferring the term Autopoiesis. :smile: It seems politically expedient, as their world view is quite a challenge to the prevailing Cartesian dualism of the seventies. In the last ten years or so, other biologists come Philosophers like Neil Theise have been more forthright in the statements they make: The self organizing universe.
I think an interest in, and the study of microbiology, and cellular biology leads to a monistic understanding inevitably!
computational-complexity theses[/url] and book exploring them A New Kind of Science?
Quoting FrancisRay
In what ways do they "represent a threat to the status quo"? By "status quo" do you mean 'of any historical era' or only 'of the current era'?
Why are they so badly "taught in academia"? Is it better to learn them outside the academy? With (a) teacher(s) or in a small, dialectical, circle of seekers or autodidactally?
In a sentence or two – describe metaphysics.
In a sentence or two – describe mysticism.
(I wonder how convergent with or divergent from your conceptions of metaphysics & mysticism my conceptions are (to be provided for comparison) – and both of our conceptions may seem in comparison to the Platonic-Aristotlean (i.e. "onto-theological") tradition – in order to better understand the points you're making.)
This isn't intended to argue in favor of anything, just getting your perspective on similar topics:
So these physical objects you have in mind, do they exist mind-independetly, as in, before people existed there were trees, but only after we arose is that the notion or idea of a tree got articulated?
In other words, there are physical objects which have objective properties and we discover these objective properties when we interact with such objects.
I wonder what your definition of metaphysics is? The difficulty is that any definition of consciousness has to work for all instances of consciousness regardless of the underlying belief system, and it has to trump competing definitions.
What I was really getting at is that consciousness need not be logical. It is free to incorporate fantasy alongside facts to construct a world view. And I don't think anybody's consciousness is totally immune to this - given the weight of beliefs composing consciousness.
Quoting Mww
:up: Self Organization is the constituent attribute of consciousness for all lifeforms, and maybe beyond.. It fits absolutely all instances of consciousness, as an explanation of what is being observed - as far as I can see. It need not be about facts and logic. Much of social life is beyond facts and logic. :smile:
Quoting Mww
But this is not very useful knowledge, whereas you can insert self organization into any sentence containing consciousness, and avail yourself of a slightly different take on what is being said, whilst not disturbing the logical consistency of the sentence.
Quoting Mww
Yeah, it doesn't really work does it? So I prefer the embodied approach - it makes more sense -
and then these momentary evolving manifestations are instances of self organization, which will evolve and progress as more information becomes available.
Quoting Mww
We have self organization all the way through - what guides a sperm and egg, and their subsequent development?
Consciousness is self organization - it organizes the self! At all levels of what constitutes the self. And the self as a whole is conscious! - in a self organizing non hierarchical loop.
Now we get to the really interesting nitty gritty, because whilst consciousness / self organization creates the self, it cannot initiate this itself, it must be initially caused. Then in pondering this we start to look at consciousness beyond life. :smile:
In a word no. Of course that assumes we're referring to metaphysical ontology (see video). The theory closest to I think what you're referring to that I embrace is something known as panentheism (not pantheism although I do like Spinoza's versions). In the former instance the universe is thought of being a part of God's cosmological body, as it were. To me, these ideas aren't any more absurd than a platonic reality (Demiurge).
Quoting Manuel
Great question Manuel. This is the crux of the issue at least for cosmology and theoretical physics anyway. And in trying to make a consistent cogent argument, the easiest answer goes back to a Platonic reality and how unbelievably effective mathematical structures explain the universe.
Once again behind (unseen) the pyramid, the skyscraper, the superstructure of a building, lies obvious mathematical formulas that allow designers to create material beams, trusses, xcetera. Speaking of that, one question could be, can a bridge be built between the existence of abstract mathematical structures and an abstract cosmological God, from which abstract consciousness produces innate Kantian sense of wonderment and causation ?
One common theme or take away there is that the foregoing has one thing in common; metaphysics. Consciousness, wonderment, the will (the world as will-schopenhauer) mathematics... .
Not a definition, per se, more an understanding, found on page three.
Which is not so bad. How we can cash out Platonic reality, is difficult.
Quoting 3017amen
Well, to speak of God, I'd need to know what kind of entity you have in mind. Is it an all powerful being, supremely good or is it something else? To me, God can be interesting metaphorically, such as the way Mainländer discusses the topic. But literally speaking, I don't find the idea convincing.
Consciousness seems to me to be concrete actually: the most concretely existing thing we can know, as we have it. This of course raises question of what concreteness is, but if what I say is correct (and I could be very wrong) then we need to reconsider our notion of "concrete." The awe is there, no doubt about it. :)
I do think that Schopenhauer's Will is the most promising of these ideas, which perhaps brings us closest to the "thing in itself" that I can think of. Perhaps it needs a slight reformulation, but I find it persuasive.
Well, we all know the various theories we can adopt here. But the matter or realism versus idealism doesn't interest me much. I'll take quantum waves even though I have no idea what these are. I hold the view that speculative theories about the reality of things in themselves doesn't bring me anything useful.
Interesting.
Thanks for sharing.
:up: Experientially, I agree. Spinoza's substance (natura naturans), though, even more so rationally.
Quoting 3017amen
Pedantic point of priviledge: Spinozism is neither "pan-en-theistic" nor "pantheistic" as close reading of his works and correspondances show.
180!
Thanks for your input! As you pointed out, there are two camps:
"Other scholars have argued that Spinoza is a pantheist, just because he does identify God with the whole of nature."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
Good point. I guess this is based on Kant's pure reason? This is applicable to all and every thought. It is really a criticism of dualism. As a monist I assume every thought has its physical basis ( perhaps as quantum permutations in microtubules, as per Penrose ) so there is no contradiction for me. The system that we are is self organizing and integrated. Extra cellular consciousness does the driving / navigating of the external world, whilst intracellular consciousness takes care of internal organization. My thoughts and actions change epigenetics and brain structure which in turn change my thoughts and actions - in a self consistent loop.
I am currently reassessing the uncertainty principle in light of decoherence, which can provide a probabilistic prediction of an electrons position, so may well change this whole story.
We have no choice but to go with logic, as an alternative does not exist. I am aware of a couple of instances where logic fails, but these exceptions are few and far between. So I go with logic, and then rigorous scrutiny by others.
Quoting 3017amen
Wheeler was stumped at defining the boundary of a boundary. - If the universe is a closed system, how thick is its boundary? It could be infinitely thin or infinitely thick. It can not be defined - what is the boundary of a boundary? :smile: Huge problem for entropy based understanding, imo.
I have appropriated the determinism of Neil Theise, which is determinism with a slight element of randomness. The randomness is necessary for emergence. The domino must fall, but may fall with a slight tilt to the left or right, thus causing emergence in its path. We can see this play out with Covid19, there is a general thrust with a slight random element causing mutation and novel attributes. This works well for organic systems - for evolution and natural selection. I think it would fit with how you have put it.
I imagine thoughts in consciousness are subject to the same determinism. They depend on already established knowledge ( main thrust ) but there must be an element of randomness given the complexity we are dealing with, and given new information is always being accumulated. I think it is important to understand that it is not a fixed, but a dynamically evolving system.
Quoting 3017amen
My understanding most closely aligns with idealism. It's a natural progression from constructivism, where knowledge is accumulated piece by piece, and any subsequent knowledge has to fit into the already constructed system of knowledge. This system of knowledge really is the world - the world being understood in terms of this knowledge. But this is just one way to put it together, and we all self organize in relation to the many and varied information surrounding us, so consciousness being the integrated form of this information is incredibly varied. The thoughts and images in your mind are relevant to your self organization, but perhaps not mine? or visa versa. Communication is the natural regulator of this.
Thanks for the kind words. I can say I also enjoy reading your philosophy. Tell me more about Kantian intuition, and perhaps I can add more.
That is how I understand it also - there are pockets of order. The entropy argument needs a universal boundary, and as I mentioned to 3017amen John Wheeler could not find one - the logical problem being a boundary of a boundary, but, imo, there is just not enough information about this whole area to make any definite conclusions. That the universe is self organized is a fair enough statement, imo. What we see of it is organized, but evolving and changing of course.
Quoting Manuel
This video is a little long - sorry, but if you are really interested it gives a good idea of the current state of research.
[quote=Spinoza, from letter (73) to Henry Oldenburg]... But some people think the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus rests on the assumption that God is one and the same as ‘Nature’ understood as a mass of corporeal matter. This is a complete mistake.[/quote]
(Emphasis is mine.)
:fire: Finally, Spinoza's formula is Deus, sive natura and
N O T 'natura deus est'. (No pantheism here.)
Thanks, I'll check it out tonight.
I think if one were to split hairs, the esoteric definitions or distinctions you posit would still not preclude the most obvious interpretation of his substances, and the concrete things as found in nature.
Albeit in a different context (contingency and determinism) his most salient distinctions incorporate pantheism as his so-called axiomatic means and methods used in his philosophy:
Ip29): " In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way."
I'll check it out. Thanks.
I see the status quo as Materialism, Realism and the idea that metaphysics is hopeless and mysticism is irrelevant to philosophy. I subscribed to the Journal of Consciousness Studies for three years and saw perhaps two mentions of the mystic teachings. They are not considered 'scientific' so three millennia of research is dispatched to the dustbin. Then researchers wonder why they cannot make any progress. It means the literature of this new 'science' is not worth reading. .
They are badly taught because there are no teachers around to do the job. I've never met an academic philosopher with a decent grasp of either topic. I;ve spoken to one or two academics who do, but not from the philosophy department. The problem is the absence of the idea of Unity. Heidegger blames this absence on the post-Socratics. Whatever the reason it cripples the Western tradition of philosophical thought.
Yes, better to learn philosophy outside the walls of the Academy. There is little understanding of it on the inside. Indeed. the claim that metaphysics is comprehensible would probably be considered heretical. . . . .
I would vote for the autodidactic approach every time. This is the philosophical equivalent of the Buddha's advice to 'be a lamp unto yourself'. . .
The study of fundamental questions.
.
The art of union with reality.
After Plato this tradition became just a series of footnotes, as Whitehead pots out. It has never made a yard of progress. But a proper comparison would take a month. One is dualism, the other non-dualism, and never the twain shall meet. .
.
Yes! The underlying idea is that Reality is a Unity as described by the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Kant got most of the way there but we have to go beyond Kant for an understanding of the noumenal. .
. .
Ex nihilo creation is logically absurd. Thus if it is true the universe is logically absurd. It would then be incomprehensible and mysticism would not exist. If the idea is that God created it from nothing then this is not an ex nihilo theory.
I see no need to make assumptions, not even about possible worlds. The inability of logic to take us all the way to Truth is not an assumption but an experience. It is demonstrable. One might interpret the history of Western philosophy as a proof. . .
No problem. Metaphysics and mysticism cover all universes. They study Reality, not this or that universe. It makes no difference whether there is one or an infinite number. . . .
I can't quite follow this point.
By the way, if I suddenly drop out please don;t be offended. I'm struggling to keep up with the discussions having stupidly joined too many. . .
I am still reading your posts and this thread with interest, but,sometimes, I find it better to keep a low profile and be a little cautious about what I say. I try to find safe corners, because I am trying to work through my ideas. But, I am sure that I will interact with you and @3017amen, in this or other threads, because I am extremely interested in metaphysics and mysticism. I am also trying to catch up on my reading, so that I can back up what I am saying with knowledge, rather than wild thoughts.
Ha. I wish I had the good sense to keep a low profile.
.
You are only just beginning to make a known presence on the site. I burst onto this site 8 months ago and have been involved in probably more conversations than I should have got involved in, or started. I have created about 15 threads so far. So, I am trying to slow down, but I have just noticed that a thread on Jung has been started, so I will probably not be able to resist getting involved in that one. At least, it will deter me from creating a new thread for a bit, and I am still involved in my mysteries thread. I wish you the best for the discussion in the Buddhist epistemology thread.
I'm not taking issue with your succinct descriptions, I'll just state my own in order for us to be clearer as to how much or little understanding we share so that we can proceed (I hope) fruitfully.
[quote=180 Proof]I understand metaphysics as 'the apophatic contemplation of strictly logical membership-rules for the Null Set as criteria for negating (i.e. eliminating) unreals from any conception of the real'.
I understand mysticism as 'daily meditations on nonbeing' as a way of life.[/quote]
(NB: again understandings (from my practices): contemplation – exclusive, prolonged, reflective attention to the structural modalities of an external / abstract object or process; meditation – irreflective attention to any internal process of inattention in order to reduce inattention to nothing-but-attention, or attention-without-object.)
[quote=FrancisRay]After Plato this tradition became just a series of footnotes, as Whitehead po[in]ts out. It has never made a yard of progress .. [/quote]
Yes, I think that's because metaphysics from Aristotle onward (even Neo-platonisn) has been kataphatic and therefore, like postulated axioms, such metaphysical concepts/categories can be disagreed with, set aside and/or replaced with others which 'generate' alternative, usually incommensurable, worldviews (like e.g. non-euclidean geometries).
Fascinating how wildly views can vary. I think we're too far apart to communicate across the gulf, and I wouldn't want to make the topics so complicated, but I've enjoyed the chat. So far I've found this a very good forum, ...
In keeping with your theme of self-organization (logic), here's a simple example of Kant's (and Socratic) intuition that many of us can relate to... .
Say you're wanting to know what 786 x 452 is. By sense experience we can look at a math equation or be asked about a math problem and intuitively know that, in this case, a large number will result. Kids, supposedly learn very early before pre-school to add and subtract seemingly based on their sensory perceptions of spatial relationships with visualizing things. So that is something not really novel.
It's not novel because it can be argued that we already intuitively know those math answers generally speaking. Which would be different than a mystical or revelatory experience that presents something to us that is entirely or truly novel. However, the metaphysical explanation concerning the former form of intuition, is that we have a fixed, innate (computer hardware v. software metaphor) hardwired aspect from our consciousness that allows for intuition to even occur. But again, some argue that's all just memory recall.
Then to consider the questions about why or what that represents, or what the nature of that ability is, remains a mystery. And so we obviously know that lower life forms have a rudimentary ability to compute math, but not at the higher levels that we do. Why? How did that develop? Why can't lower life forms develop their evolutionary math skills into those of homo sapiens? Is it because we are self-aware Beings (lower life forms have little so-called self-awareness v. pure instinct)? What is self-awareness? Is it something to do with metaphysical Will? An intrinsic need to know something? A sixth sense?
I think that much can be said about synthetic a priori propositions about the world in which we live. As I've said many times, without this hungry need to know things, even our technological advances from building cars, buildings, and the like, to improving a curriculum in college, art or music, would suffer tremendously.
As an important ancillary note, please know that music theory and mathematics confer no biological survival advantages. Alternatively, it seems we must ask meaning of life questions when discussing the nature of reality (ontologically speaking-in this case our forms of intuition) because we can't help it. Are we here by accident? Those/these fixed metaphysical features of consciousness (will, mathematics, musical ability, ad nauseum) we don't need to survive in the jungle. And we certainly don't need the laws of gravity to dodge falling objects.
Is ignorance bliss? Why should we care? Sorry I got carried away :joke:
:100: :100: on the "advantage" angle, that's exactly right. Maybe the enjoyment of music is a kind of mutation or side effect in which, after certain creatures have some "off time", nature had to provide something to wade of boredom. Maybe music is the result? Total handwaving, I know.
I've had this quote stuck on my mind today, dunno why. But you gave me an opening to state it, since you mention music. :wink:
I think that, in many instances such as "meaning questions", Louis Armstrong's phrase can be applied:
“If you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know."
Ha, love it! (Gee , btw, what is love-don't get me started LOL)
Back at-cha:
If it sounds good; it IS good-Miles Davis
(That btw, was in response to too many musicians getting all twisted-up over music theory; diatonic scales/harmony, chords used for different/wrong key signatures. You know, analyze till you paralyze… .) Another Gee, is that what we're doing here, I wonder?
:up:
Davis is correct here too, if you like it then it's good. Simple as that.
Perhaps, on the music theory part.
In relation to metaphysics, I think that there is a difference between someone simply saying "It's all just one" and actually looking at different ideas, comparing and contrasting, talking to people, experiencing things and then saying "It's all one", or any other such idea.
If you press me, I cannot give better justification. But it seems to me to be the case.
Or, we could just get out of the fly bottle.
I like both being in and getting out.
Yep, me too! Well said.
Another Maslonian mantra assoc. w/the dangers of dichotomizing things. Life is not like engineering, where if its not A, the building falls down. But rather, living life, more often than not (*consciousness/subconsciousness) is both A AND B!
(*And an illogical mix of same LOL)
Yeah, making sense of things has always been not trivial for me too. :chin:
Mr Wood,
Sorry, I've hit the pass and go button. Not sure what else to tell you....
Be well my friend!
Thanks for the referral. Wolfram is an interesting thinker, I will pursue his ideas some more. He doesn't quite use the words self organization, but is interested in the rules that cause the order from which the universe grows out of. Reading between the lines, I think he believes an AI can sift through the mountains of data to find the few simple fundamental rules that everything is based on. Perhaps that will be so. The experience at CERN , 51 Hedrons later and still going, is that the standard model is very deep indeed, and it will be some time yet, If ever, that we might reach the bottom. But I wonder even at the current level of resolution, are we looking at matter, or is this really just patterns of energy and information interacting to ultimately cause matter? What do you think?
Are you familiar with mathematical biology and ecology? These are subjects that have recently emerged on the back of Turing patterns. The short story is that that chemicals interacting self organize to form functional patterns - that give protection to the animal / creature. And what is really exciting is that patterns underlie nature, and they may be mathematically modelled. The great advantage of a mathematical model is that if the model does not align with observation, parameters can be adjusted, and continually adjusted until the model aligns. This is great news for philosophy as it validates the view that patterns of interacting energy and chemistry are fundamental, and it seems mathematics will bring this point home.
All this generally aligns with complexity theory and the view that fluctuating patterns of energy are fundamental. What is not normally stated is that these fluctuating patterns of energy are self organizing within an evolutionary framework, where natural selection picks what survives and what doesn't. And then the question arises - is this a form of mind? If this is fundamental, then it is present in everything subsequent to it, including human consciousness, and not excluding anything.
I have confidence in this approach as it is scientific and has been replicated by others . Kant is a Genius , of course, but I have doubts about some of these older philosophers because they simply did not have this extra information available to them in their time.
I believe consciousness is composed of DNA data, experience, and point in space time ( relativity ). When a bush turkey hatches it leaves its nest straight away, already knowing all it needs to survive, all of its knowledge is contained in DNA. This would not work for humanity, since each generation is born into a quite different social environment. It takes some time for experience to imprint its stamp on brain development and for a functional consciousness to develop, such that can effectively partake in our complex societies. DNA, I think, would contribute to the form of thought, but the content would mostly come from experience, and point in space.
Quoting 3017amen
These are big questions. Lets instead ask how self aware are human beings? To be truly self aware, I think, one needs a theory of everything to compare oneself against. We don't have that - we have various beliefs, and beliefs are not part of the set of truths. If I am self aware one way and you are self aware in another way, can it be said we are self aware?
Quoting 3017amen
I think about this myself - If you could find a theory of everything but it was ugly, would you want it? Wouldn't it be wiser to take the Yogic cue and just create a pleasant reality, for no reason at all? Personally, thinking about all this stuff is not entirely unpleasant, and I guess ultimately it gives me more options of how to self organize. :razz:
Yeah, I will definitely look into him some more, Thanks.
He talks complexity , but it seems he really wants to analyze and reduce, and who wouldn't, but I wonder whether AI will be so concerned with what it concludes at the most fundamental level. Fluctuating energy waves is not very satisfying from an anthropocentric point of view. I prefer to call it information and energy causing the emergence of matter. The question is why should it self organize in the first place? Forces acting on things does nor necessarily mean things have to integrate - but they do.
As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts?
Can you kindly explain in what sense religion is a "natural/physical science"? Thank you.
This makes me think of the distinctions between objective truth and subjective truth. We can assume objectively that we all have self-awareness, but we know with a higher degree of certainty that our own truth is pure subjectivity.
But since we're discussing metaphysics, there are two opposing views from Berkeley and Hegel. The former known as subjective idealism and the latter objective idealism. Are you familiar with Hegel? Your philosophy of consciousness/metaphysics seems to parallel his...
Natural science>life science>cognitive science>phenomenology>religion
Pop! That's a great question! I'll certainly defer to 180 sharing his thoughts, especially concerning human sentience, but wanted to assist in another possibility ( though I don't think Schop. posits sentience here):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation
I have no idea what that means. Would you please clarify that? Thank you.
Here's a good reference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science
Mr Wood,
I'm so sorry.
Please be well my friend.
Can it be said that to be truly self-aware means to recognize, itemize, hence understand the necessary grounds of one’s mental activities? And can it be said that a theory of everything would limit itself to the exposition of those grounds, sufficient for any human, rational self to compare against?
If so, I submit Kant’s tripartite critique fits the requirements.
Keyword, of course....theory.
Must already be time again for new meds.
Thanks Pop, I think I missed this. No, it's my own philosophy, but it is inspired by Kant; existentialism, cognitive science, theoretical physicist Paul Davies, and other's. Coming back to Kantian metaphysics, and the critique of logic, it is worth noting a distinction here.
The main tenants of Logical Positive (LP) was that there are only two types of knowledge; logical reasoning and empirical experience. While experience and testing is most definitely helpful in all walks of life, it doesn't account for things that are fixed, innate and intrinsic to cognition. For example, the aforementioned LP's analytic a priori and synthetic a posteriori (respectively) does not consider the reason why we wonder about causation (synthetic a priori judgements/propositions). Synthetic a priori propositions are almost always used to poisit a theory so it can be tested. And accordingly, this is why much of science debunked LP (vis-a-vis synthetic propositions like all events must have a cause) in that it does not complete the 'metaphysical picture' of the nature of reality-why/how we are here. (Or what's behind our intrinsic need need to know.) And that is part of consciousness. It's more of a complete picture of human reason. Kant saw the deficiency there.
So, all are good, depending of what we're parsing. We must know which hats to wear when questions are posed. Ironically enough, being reasonable essentially means treating like cases likely, different cases differently.
To this end, can you describe your thoughts and interpretations relative to dualism v. monism?
I don't read the OP as claiming that "religion IS a natural/physical science"; 3017amen's awkward grammar aside, I read the sentence in question as comparing the prospect of "philosophy and science" collaborating on consciousnes to (i.e. "like") that of the late Scholastic, early Enlightenment collaboration-rivalry of "religion and science" (i.e. natural theology and natural philosophy) on problems of cosmology.
Or maybe I'm missing something ...?
FR! Thank you for your response. I agree that there are gaps (some of which obviously having to do with recent discoveries over time...) but what is your take on that notion of DDS?
FR! Sorry for the piece meal, but your thread was a bit long, and for cogency sake, I'm allowing for each subject matter to stand on its own merits as it were:
What then, would be your creation ex nihilo theory? Consider then, metaphysically, one would have to reconcile timelessness with temporal time. Meaning, an agent who/that exists outside of time (think relativity, speed of light, eternity) would have to, in theory, come into time to create time as we know it. In other words, in layman's terms, (from our sense of logic) an eternal truth or Being or force with mathematical properties (like those of mathematical structures) would somehow have to exist to create creation itself ( as we know it).
And so my point is there, if we do not have the capacity to understand that (premise) then it is conceivable that (as part of the cosmological argument) the nature of our existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of human thought. Enter, mysticism, revelation, etc. etc. all aided by Kantian intuition.
Quoting 180 Proof
Or something equivalent.
Instead we get this non-answerQuoting 3017amen
Okay guys, let's have some fun!!! I've got some time now to address the peanut gallery :gasp:
But be quick!!!
...let's see, isn't it ironic, that in a Metaphysic's thread, religion, once again rears its head!? No wonder that over 75% of philosophical domains posit EOG. As an atheist (from memory, I think you indicated that you were-perhaps even a Einsteinian fanatical one) do you need to know what EOG stands for too? LOL
To that end, care to share any theories? After all, the thread is about Metaphysics you know~. Did you watch the video?
Surely you're not just trolling (like your fanatical atheist friend ) this thread... :joke:
180!
Thanks, but I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Does this quote apply to you too brother? Or does it just apply to
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
No matter, I do seem to recall, just for clarification purposes (since you like references) that Einstein had a shared concern about your belief system (particularly when it comes to disparaging people's character and personal attacks). Does all this apply to you as well, I wonder?:
'The fanatical atheists, are like [ prisoners] who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' — cannot hear the music of the spheres.'" --Albert Einstein
Put your big boy pants on, I can troll with the best of them :joke:
You stand corrected:
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim
LOL
Apology accepted!!
You of all people 180 should know that internet forums leave little room for inflection :nerd:
Afterall: Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation---William James
LOL
Indeed!!!!
Please be well Mr. Wood.
Actually your participation in this thread is not welcomed.
Let me offer this to you. Your intent is to clearly troll the thread and disparage and discredit people. Unless you have something constructive to add ( review the video) your presence in my thread is no longer welcomed.
Furthermore I have answered your question and you failed to dig through the referenced material I offered you. Do your homework mr. Wood.
And if you continue to send me private messages to harass me I will report you to the moderators.
Now I'm on a roll. Why don't you put up and shut up and open a thread and call it something like the existence of God thread. I challenge you to debate me one on one.
Crickets!!!!
LOL
Gee, I was just getting started... Didn't The Rolling Stones have a song .... .
I'll anxiously await your response to my challenge. Let's check your knowledge of philosophy (Be careful what you ask for mr. Wood) LOL
Yeah, Its like within our belief system we have a self awareness, but belief systems are not fact / truth systems. They have a probabilistic validity, so that seems to imply we really have a probabilistic self awareness, which is not a true self awareness. It may be however, that this situation can never be improved upon given each individual consciousness is unique, and given the evolving / emerging nature of the universe.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, I think all consciousness is good :smile: provided it confers survival. To this end, some are better then others , but we wont know which are better for sure and why until some future time, when they have proven themselves, given the probabilistic nature of the future.
I cannot find a conceptual pathway for the existence of dualism that I can have faith in. Having a conceptual pathway that can, to some extent at least can be verified is important to me. Understanding consciousness as self organization, within a self organizing universe, seems like a viable monistic pathway towards a big picture understanding. Personally, its not quite there yet, but it seems close.
I would be interested in how you justify dualism?
Perhaps I should have said a theory of everything , that everybody agrees on, like E=mc2. :smile:
"Kant had a tripartite doctrine of the a priori. He held that some features of the mind and its knowledge had a priori origins, i.e., must be in the mind prior to experience (because using them is necessary to have experience). That mind and knowledge have these features are a priori truths, i.e., necessary and universal (B3/4)[1]. And we can come to know these truths, or that they are a priori at any rate, only by using a priori methods, i.e., we cannot learn these things from experience " - SEP
I think, in present times this a priori knowledge would be DNA data forming brain structure. At birth we have a certain DNA profile, which over time epigenetics changes ( turns some genes on, and others off ) in relation to experience, which in turn changes brain structure, which in turn changes the a priori knowledge, and so on, and on. ( to some extent ). ** This is also consistent with Piaget's theory of cognitive development - where perception improves in stages.
A theory of everything would explain why this self organization occurs. I don't see how Kant explains this? Most of my knowledge is derived from outside of philosophy. I have only read a little of Kant's views on Aesthetics, which seemed dated to me. So no doubt I am missing something?
Quoting 3017amen
The plain language reading of this is that you are claiming that religion is a natural science. If my reading of this is incorrect and, as @180 Proof hypothesized, you are simply making some sort of analogy? Then please explain what you actually mean.
BUT - if my plain language reading is accurate- that religion is a type or form or subset of natural science, then I disagree. Religion - all religions - are based on supernatural claims which are outside the realm/discourse of what science (let alone natural science) deals with. Science does not deal with supernatural claims.
Again, I'm only talking about your point #8. If you feel the urge to bring in anything from points #1 thru #7, please resist that urge and proceed directly to point #8.
Also, this is not a criticism of religion or people being religious. It is merely to make clear that religion is not a natural science. Please limit your response to this one narrow topic only.
Not everything about religion is supernatural. I think they explained more how we should act in the world and different types of “truths”.
Like noah and the flood. Many people see it as a real boat. It’s more a truism for every human being. The flood is coming no matter who you are. And too be prepared for it (building the boat) is the “true” way.
*i know you where not talking too me
Yeah, a TOE usually implies physical properties, whereas you stipulated a theory sufficient for explaining how one could be “truly self-aware”. I only responded as I did because my self-awareness is theoretically conceivable, but for me to imagine a sufficient a posteriori TOE, is not, under the same conditions.
——————
Quoting Pop
That’s fine. A physical theory predicated on observation with the same translation problem as extant metaphysical theory predicated on transcendental logic. The former starts at the top but cannot deduce the necessary mechanism for the human condition of “seemings”, while the latter begins at the bottom with “seemings” but cannot infer the internal mechanisms sufficient for creating them. Kant didn’t try to reconcile these, and neither does a DNA-based theory, with respect to a priori knowledge. Still, at this stage of the game, even a DNA-based theory of fundamental human nature remains metaphysical, insofar as repeatable empirical proofs are unavailable.
——————
Quoting Pop
As is mine; as is everybody’s. Nevertheless, knowledge derived from is very far from knowledge acquired of.
Self-organization is a good place to start. Metaphysics has already been there with consciousness, perhaps DNA will get there eventually.
What then, would be your creation ex nihilo theory?[/quote]
I find ex nihilo creation to be a blatantly absurd idea.
Creation becomes a rather different idea in nondualism since metaphysically-speaking nothing would really exist or ever really happen. After all, it it did then we'd be unable to explain how it is created.
I don't know it well enough to say much, but what I see in it is the Christian version of the Perennial view. The simplest phenomenon possible is a Unity, so the DDS brings Christian teachings in line with the teachings of the Buddha and Lao Tsu, as were the Classical teachings of the early Church before the great purge of mysticism.by the Roman bishopric in the fourth century.. . .
This thread is about Metaphysics, first and foremost (The Video, Items 1 thru 7, 7 of 8). If you're interested in parsing these distinctions (even for those fanatical atheists espousing their belief systems) relating to science and religion, I will graciously offer you an olive branch.
However, it comes at a price. In the spirit of doing one's homework (and not just trolling/cherry picking/malicious ad hominem...), refer to the following document below, then present your case as to why you think Natural Science is incompatible with the Life Science (phenomenology, cognitive science, religion, etc.).
In addition, to use your words, I'll even take a "different tactic". If you care to open another thread on the subject matter, I would be more than willing to explore it. Because once again, this thread is about Metaphysics; not Religion. (Unless you want to argue otherwise in a new thread that Metaphysics and Religion should be compatible.) But just to worn you, since that topic is broad/comprehensive, it includes my influences from those of David Hume, William James, Freud (among many other's).
But just to stay focused here's my OP supposition in exploring consciousness:
"8. With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness?"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/
I don't have the bandwidth to engage you further, my real life activities are much higher priority. I give you the last word . . .
My last word, with all due resect, is that you have proved by default (or at least one can reasonably infer) to be just cherry picking/trolling this thread. I provided an opportunity to have real meaningful philosophical debate, and you declined. The subject matter is too comprehensive, unless of course you accept that your belief is the only one, or you are simply not sure what your position even is... . In any case, you seem to be pleading the 5th..
Should you change your mind, I still welcome the challenge. I would suggest, read the aforementioned attachment as it will only broaden your philosophical knowledge in that area...
Pop!
Just going back through the questions in order to get caught-up, did 180 ever provide for a Metaphysical insight to that?
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting tim wood
these three are at one another’s throats again...
Quoting Pop
Since "consciousness" is not a fundamental process and "emotions" are components, so to speak, of "consciousness", I fail to discern any grounds for assuming that "emotions" operate at a "fundamental level" even in monist ontology. Only magical thinking, it seems to me, assumes otherwise.
Stop baiting, please. You're turning your own thread into a circus.
It's okay you can close the thread now.
Thanks Baden.