the template is information processing in a mind. — Hallucinogen

Whose mind? and how do you know whether or not that mind is simulated? This is just another infinite regression, that get's us nowhere, imo.

just a nice, clever man who never did any military service. — Vera Mont

Nice. Is the following still the case?

Since 1940, the United States has required all able-bodied males aged 18 to 25 to register with the Selective Service, meaning they could be drafted into military service if required. However, the United States has not had to use the Selective Service since 1973 due to the high number of voluntary recruits.

Yes, indeed! And I endorse them wholeheartedly - except for that unfortunate bit about soldiery. — Vera Mont

Perhaps you even married him?

scraptious — Jamal

:grin: I like it. Sounds to me like it has some common ground with my 'warify.' 'A scrap' is often used as a phrase that can mean a fight, So scraptious gives me another image of being incited to violence. But why was 'a scrap' related to fighting? I always associated scrap with a metal that is available for recycling. :chin:
Do you know how it became associated with fighting?
I think new words demonstrate new/original human thinking, do you agree or do you think it's just recycled old thinking, like repurposed scrap? I don't want to sound 'scraptious' here! You know! Like scrap with a meaningful but threatening caption underpinning it! :lol:

Such questions! Here I am, one of 8,000,000,000 people on earth. What on earth could be special about me? Would it make any difference if I did not exist? — George Fisher

There are around 100 billion stars in the milky way galaxy. It is also estimated that there are up to 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe. So there are probably more planets in the universe than grains of sand on earth. You, as a unique member of a population of 8 billion unique individuals living on this planet, are, on a universal scale, very rare indeed. Also, as far as we know, without a creature such as you, the universe may have no meaning or purpose, other than that which the like of you create. You can even imagineer gods.

The wait for someone to point the way to the path of progress!

:up:

Do you know you can edit a post after you have posted it? Just click on the three dots option and then on the pencil icon.

I appreciate an u willingly to go over the same arguments hundreds of times. I merely meant to illustTte the appearance of him as I’ve described isn’t a wild thing to hear someone say. — AmadeusD

You might want to proof read that and edit it a little. i couldn't make much sense of it.

Well, how about a really simple experiment such as testing the validity of speed = distance/time.
Is there not restriction here? Such as ignoring speed = distance/(time + any delay caused by unexpected factors?) The formula is accurate in idealised conditions. Is that always stated in the education books? This 'delay' variable is normally ignored, yes?

A better example might be the time dilation formula T=To/√1−(v2/c2). If you consider V2 as getting closer and closer to light speed then you can get a time dilation result, which is more than the predicted time for the heat death of the universe. As V squared gets closer and closer to light speed, the result gets closer and closer to To/0, an infinite time dilation!

Bottom line, it's not just about what is said but also about how it is presented. Thoughtfulness has value. — Pantagruel

Agreed.

Interestingly, just listened to a podcast which was a debate between Michael Shermer and Sheldrake.

I thought Sheldrake won the debate, despite basically feeling the same as yourself about his work. Think he and Chalmers could probably figure a more respectable version of his assertions if they cracked heads together. — AmadeusD

I saw that recently on YouTube and intended to watch it, Thanks for the reminder of it, it's back on my top 10 to watch as soon as I can.

Yes, scientific experimentation often involves abstracting and limiting variables from natural contexts in order to isolate and control the factors being studied. — Pantagruel

For what it's worth, In my opinion, as a Computer scientist and educator, when it comes to individual scientific projects, I think this is correct. But in the broadest sense of the scientific approach, science is the study of 'everything.' I suppose that is also almost a given, that needs little comment.

I am not trying to play @180 Proof's bulldog here. I simply value him as an interlocuter because I like the way he challenges me and others. I cannot be offended by the 'short shrift' he offers some on occasion as I can react in a similar way myself sometimes and he has been here for 8 years and I am sure you both agree that there are a lot of woo woo bullshitters who have passed through TPF in that time.

We all have our supporters and dissenters on TPF. I certainly have more dissenters than supporters of my worldviews on this site. But that comes with the territory, yes?
I have not witnessed the mods on this site complain much about 180 Proof's manner of exchanging with other members, so, if he challenges you, then just keep taking on his challenge, if you think you can.

I understand why you think I'm, being dogmatic, but this is my view and I;m sticking to it. — universeness

Then continue to expect me and my like to challenge you.

I feel that the burden of explanation being placed on me here is unreasonable. — FrancisRay

I disagree.

Why do you leap to conclusions about a topic you don't study and think is not worth studying. By the time theosophy was invented mysticism had been around for thousands of years. — FrancisRay

As you might expect, I completely reject your suggestion that I do not have a deep enough understanding of mysticism. I am not an expert in it but I would question the proposal that there is enough substantive concepts under the title 'mystic' to warrant any title as academically high as 'expert,' except perhaps in the 'history of mysticism.'

I feel it would be best if we ended the discussion.here . since for me it's like wading through treacle and I suspect it's a waste of time.

I hope you won't be offended but I'm going to retire from the thread once I've finished this post.. . — FrancisRay

No, I am not offended at all, thank you for even having such a concern. I enjoyed the exchange between us. It's a pity you are too fatigued or exasperated to continue.
For me, you have not offered any compelling arguments or evidence to support your claims and you seem to be attracted more to the esoteric than to what I would label 'reality.'
I think your worldviews are built on a very unsound foundation, but at least we have a little common ground in that I think the baseline of adviata (nondualism) is more plausible than dviata (dualism).

Unfortunately, my work schedule has become increasingly hectic over the past few months (which is why I haven't been as active here as I once was). — Existential Hope

You gotta pay them bills my friend, so I fully understand. I have the joy of being currently financially stable and retired so, I can spend more time engaging in on-line chatter.

I remain doubtful that the foreseeable future will herald a change. — Existential Hope

Yeah, I think we are still a toddler species but words from past humans such as Carl Sagan, continue to reinforce me:

"We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each new generation, asked anew with undiminished wonder. What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars."

Perhaps we will have to linger a little longer on the shores of the cosmic ocean after all.
Sorry Carl, we are just not as good as you thought we were, not quite yet anyway!

I broadly agree with your general lackluster opinion of the Bryce Haymond article. I think he is just trying to use some scientific gaps, to sneak in god posits. :roll:

I'm sorry you see no value in them, and find it astonishing. I wonder why you're talking to me about these things when you already know enough to know there's no value in them. — FrancisRay

That's a very fair and good question. I am exchanging with you about these things for two main reasons:
1. I am as astonished as you about my worldviews, regarding your positive view of anything that belongs under the heading of mysticism and I want to know what your thought process are and how you arrived at such worldviews and why you hold them so strongly and in such high esteem, especially if they influence how you vote and how you relate to your fellow humans (for the good or bad on a case by case basis).
2. I want to be always testing my own worldviews against the logic employed by others and the evidence they have for their own positions. Such exchanges on TPF over the past year or so, have caused me to modify/reform some of my own worldviews. For example, I gave more credence to panpsychism at the start of my membership on TPF than I do now and I was a lot more hesitant to challenge theistic views, dearly and deeply held. Not so much now, as long as my theistic interlocuter is of a stable and strong mindset.

My uncompromising view is that a person who cannot work out that materialism is logically absurd does not have the skills to be a serious philosopher. — FrancisRay

If you cannot see the assumption-riddled arrogance in that rather emotive and almost evanhellical, irrational claim, then you will begin to see why folks like @180 Proof and I suspect many others, will slam doors in your face. Don't ossify so strongly FrancisRay. If you don't bend sufficiently then you are much easier to break.

So do I. — FrancisRay

:up:

If you're uncertain then try to design an experiment to prove the presence of consciousness. It cannot be done. . — FrancisRay

'Cogito ergo sum,' works for me. Why does it not work for you? Solipsism is absolute nonsense IMO, but I agree hard solipsism cannot be falsified but so what? neither can god be falsified! But that does not stop all god posits being highly unlikely to most rational scrutineers.

By reducing conscious states to behaviour one can then claim behaviour is not evidence of consciousness. This is Daniel Dennett's strategy in 'Consciousness Explained'. He can adopt this approach because there is no empirical test for consciousness,but just behaviour that may or may not signify its presence. . , — FrancisRay

I agree that DD holds that consciousness is only applicable in the 'third person' sense but DD is also a physicalist/naturalist/atheist who also states that:
The physicalists believe, with Dennett, that science can explain consciousness in purely material terms.
World-renowned philosopher Daniel C. Dennett argues that our inner worlds and religious ideas can all be explained as evolutionary functions
You might find this discussion on the philosophy stack exchange about DD's book 'Consciousness Explained,' interesting.

Neuroscience studies brains. It is unable to prove that consciousness exists. — FrancisRay

Theists have been unable to prove god exists in the past around 10,000 years, since it was first posited by humans but they have not given up yet. Neuroscience is much younger than theism, so let's give it at least another 10,000 years (a mere 23 seconds in cosmic calendar time) to prove consciousness exists.

universeness is taking a different approach but I suspect he won't get anywhere philosophically interesting with FrancisRay either because there is no there there – just :sparkle: — 180 Proof

I also think that you are a fan, (if perhaps after 8 years, a more jaded fan) of 'try, try, try, try again!'
Imo, it's just too important to do otherwise.

I also hope that we will not forget the pluralism that Swami Vivekananda had espoused in his 1893 speech in Chicago. — Existential Hope

What do you mean here by your use of 'pluralism?' Is it that we should all remain open to the search for common ground between us, as opposed to becoming completely ossified in our own worldviews?

Hopefully, the snake will not prevent us from seeing the rope. — Existential Hope

Well put, and perhaps we could also notice that the snake has to make effort, to climb the rope, to show that it's possible even for a snake, to reach a higher viewpoint. This is true, despite the biblical curse on its species, that they must forever slide and slither on their bellies on the ground. Keep climbing snakes! Perhaps if we humans keep doing the same, we can (metaphorically) find more common ground in higher places!

In my opinion, when someone makes an appeal to a particular doctrine they should provide an explanation of what it is being said and how they understand it. Looking back I see 180 Proof makes this point. — Fooloso4

I fully agree.

If we're speaking about Middle Way Buddhism then I'd say 100% sure. I'd bet my life on it. — FrancisRay

Do you have no concerns that this could be labeled an almost fundamentalist or evanhellical position to take? My 0.0001% credence level that a god exists, is my very important defense against an accusation that I am a fanatical atheist ( folks like @Jamal have accused me of being a fanatic on certain issues in the past.)

In one of his sermons Meister Eckhart, a Christian Bishop, pledges his soul on it. — FrancisRay

I give a similar 0.0001% credence to the proposal that humans have a soul. There is currently zero evidence to support such a claim.

This indicated that his confidence was grounded in knowledge and not speculation. — FrancisRay

For me, this is another example of the 'jumps' you seem to make. Perhaps 'leaps of faith,' might be a more appropriate and less offensive phrase. I think such 'leaps of faith' are based on pure speculation and certainly not any 'knowledge' that Mr Eckhart could have demonstrated as fact.
If you, me and Mr Eckhart, were in the same room with each other (just a fun thought experiment), what do you think he could have said or done to convince me that your 'middle way Buddhism,' was the most important 'truth' about the universe? As a Catholic from the 13th-14th century, I reckon he would want us both burned at the stake. Me for my apostacy and you for your heathen Buddhism!

I don't believe any phenomenon is supernatural and nor do any mystics. — FrancisRay

I think all mystics are theosophists, and must accept such characters as Rasputin and Aliester Crowley as members. They believe in 'magic,' but I accept that many mystics see the transcendental or the esoteric as hidden (occultist) knowledge about the physics/workings of the universe that scientists have yet to discover. I don't think that this is true in any way, shape or form, but I accept that is a point of view held by many 'mystics.'

As for God, in mysticism He is explained as misinterpreted meditative experience. — FrancisRay

So, god, the mere product of a speculative human imagination then. If that's the case, then we have common ground in that viewpoint.

Okay/. Here goes. First - would you agree that all metaphysical questions are undecidable, and that this is because all their extreme answers are logically indefensible? This can be verified from a survey of philosophers, or by working through a number of such questions. If so, then I'll move on the to the next step of a proof. . . . — FrancisRay

'The next step of a proof! Wow! I can only be excited by such a claim! Do you realise that if you have such a proof that 'middle way Buddhism,' IS the facts about the nature and workings of the universe, then you could be up for a Nobel prize in the future?
I look forward to your 'next step,' I genuinely do, I am not attempting to ridicule by stealth here.

The 'all metaphysical questions are undecidable,' prerequisite is problematic for me in a similar way that you cited difficulty in your exchange with @180 Proof when you typed:

Okay. I was providing a starting point for further discussion but did not make this clear. I cannot answer the second part of 180 Proof's question without some preliminary philosophical chat. — FrancisRay

I also require some preliminary philosophical chat regarding the imo, very overburdened term 'metaphysical.' My example would be, would you say that when Copernicus challenged the geocentric model with his heliocentric model, he was making a metaphysical claim, due to comparison with the accepted/orthodox physics of his time? The heliocentric model then became the accepted/orthodox physics, due to the subsequent overwhelming evidence to support it. So, that which may well be labeled metaphysical, as it is sooooo contrary to the accepted physics of the time, can become accepted physics, once sufficient evidence is demonstrated in support.
In this sense, string theory, CCC, many worlds theory, and even Sheldrakes morphic resonance etc, could all be labeled metaphysical, in the sense that they are projections of physics 'above' or 'beyond' currently accepted experimentally demonstrable, predictive, falsifiable physics.
If this is an acceptable use of the term 'metaphysics' then this would suggest that some questions that might be categorised under the overburdened term of metaphysics are not 'undecidable.'
BUT, please don't let that mean that you will not offer the second step of your proof!

In his book The Continuum Hermann Weyl points out that nobody experiences time. It is created from memories and anticipations, a story we tell ourselves. He draws a careful distinction between the extended 'arithmetical' continuum, which is a theory, and the 'intuitive' continuum, which is extensionless. — FrancisRay

I have not read the book but what actual evidence does he offer beyond his own speculations?
Do you experience 'duration'?
You can only intuit during the 'duration' called your lifeTIME.
Do you accept that the past (let's say 13.8 billion years) did happen?
You did not experience that time, but you can still observe film and photographs and see a galaxy (from the hubble deep field image, for example) that is billions of years in the past.
I think each of us does experience time and if you and Hermann Weyl say otherwise, then I disagree.

The idea of a continuum of spacetime versus a discrete spacetime remains unknown so there is nowhere to take that discussion at present other that via pure speculation.

It would be a terrible mistake to image we experience time rather than create it, and it would lead to a deep misunderstanding of mysticism. — FrancisRay

In my opinion, we do experience time and we do not create it. If mystics and mysticism suggest we do not experience time and that we create time then I think such a suggestion is nonsense, and will remain so, until objective proof of that claim is offered by those who posit it. So, the burden of proof lies with the mystics who make such claims.

All that would be truly real is the 'Eternal Now' and the 'Forever Here', which is Weyl's 'intuitive' continuum. This is what is discovered in meditation. Thus Meister Eckhart warns us not to become entangled in time. . — FrancisRay

The word 'eternal,' is another one of those 'placeholder' concepts that just does not do much for me.
As @Existential Hope pointed out, even folks like the esteemed Sam Harris, have garnished a lot of value from the notion and practice of meditation. I have never practiced it and have no intention to, but I accept that many people value it.
How can any demonstration of being 'intuitive' from a human be a continuum, when humans are finite and have to be born and die? They can only 'intuit' for the time duration they are alive.
How does entropy function in your notion of an 'intuitive continuum?'
Do you have any evidence that humans discover many more 'truths' about the workings and structure of the universe during 'meditation,' compared to the day-to-day, non-meditative, 'shut up and calculate,' hard-working efforts of scientists?

I had to look up 'Meister Eckhart,':
Eckhart von Hochheim OP (c. 1260 – c. 1328), commonly known as Meister Eckhart, Master Eckhart or Eckehart, claimed original name Johannes Eckhart, was a German Catholic theologian, philosopher and mystic, born near Gotha in the Landgraviate of Thuringia (now central Germany) in the Holy Roman Empire.

His status as a Catholic theologian from the 13th century, mostly sinks him for me, unless you can offer me a particularly compelling 'truth' he discovered and could objectively prove was true.

Well, at least I got to the end of P8 and was able to read most of P9. I will try to post more on the P9 content tomorrow. I am all typed out for tonight!

Not, dare I say it, quite as good as it is to have yours! — Existential Hope

:pray: :flower:

As I have revealed to you, I am indeed a Hindu (and specifically someone who follows Advaita). — Existential Hope

I thought so, I thought I had read you mentioning 'Advaita' before. I expect you and @FrancisRay and @Wayfarer would enjoy an exchange about it. :grin:

Quite so. the idea is ridiculous. What is not ridiculous is the idea that the Ultimate lies beyond sensory empiricism and so looks exactly like nothing, which is the view I endorse. — FrancisRay

Still on your P8 posts!
I can't get much from a phrase such as "the ultimate lies beyond sensory empiricism and so looks exactly like nothing." Imo, you need to stop using such phrases as you leave yourself open to accusations of 'uncontrolled imagineering.' Great for creativity but not so much for discussions about reality (no I don't think you're insane yet!)
You don't know what 'nothing' looks like!!!!! No human does!
What image do you get in your head from a word like 'Ultimate?'
These are just placeholder terms for notions like 'the biggest number!'
What do you mean by 'which is the view I endorse?'
You say that the idea of 'nothing' is ridiculous, but you then use a phrase like 'and so looks exactly like nothing.' Can you see my issue with such an approach?

I steer well clear of these sorts of speculations. I stick to metaphysics, where logic and reason are the only deciding factors. — FrancisRay

But metaphysics means 'beyond' or 'above' physics. That's hardly a definition that champions rigorous adherence to logic and reason. I have always said that 'metaphysics' is a very overburdened label that to me, has pushed it too far towards woo woo for my tastes but I do accept that that is not a widely held viewpoint. Perhaps these are just language problems at the end of the day.
I think Rupert would have a big argument with you about your label of his work as speculative. I think similar to you that his work is speculative, despite some of his more interesting results from a probability standpoint, such as his 'who is on the telephone' experiment that he did with the Nolan sisters. Rupert does seem to get more of a hearing amongst respected scientists than most on the fringe. Here is a two min offering:

For instance, it is today fairly uncontentious in the sciences to claim that God does not exist, that space and time do not exist, that consciousness is fundamental and that the source of existence is empirically invisible. As these ideas and others are developed and integrated we come ever closer to the world as described by the Upanishads. The quantum pioneers were well aware of this, albeit that mainstream physics seems to have regressed since then into an entrenched ideological position. . ,.. — FrancisRay

You are making sooooooo many statements that I disagree with, but this is part of the problem we all face, when debating on-line. There are soooooooo many so-called 'rabbit holes' that we can dive down, which means there is not enough time to make all the points I want to make and gather all of the supporting evidence I would like to offer. So, forgive me if I can't address every point you make. I am still making my way through P8 stuff! :death:

All the points you state above are certainly not 'uncontentious in the sciences.' You still have some scientists who are also theists :scream:
Space and time and/or spacetime certainly does exist in the minds of many scientists and in the minds of the vast majority of humans alive, I would wager. I am not offering any ad populum-style fallacious evidence here, I am merely making a suggestion.
I also completely disagree that mainstream physics has regressed into an entrenched ideological position. What evidence are you proposing demonstrates this?

Thank you for the mention. It's been a while. — Existential Hope

It's always good to get your insights!

There is no empirical method for proving that consciousness exists. — FrancisRay

You are claiming to know a fact that you cannot possibly know. The recent work by folks like Stuart Hameroff in conjunction with Roger Penrose. An attempt to find common ground between quantum mechanics and human consciousness, demonstrates to me, that we will always tug against your statement above. I think it's unwise to think that the scientific method will never crack at least the 'how' of human consciousness.

This is proved by the past popularity of Behaviorism. — FrancisRay

In what way is behaviorism or its past popularity proof that there is no empirical method that can prove consciousness exists? A human beings 'behaviour,' impacted or influenced by the instructions/education/nurture/daily experiences/culture a person was 'raised' within, has little to do with whether or not consciousness exists. Are you suggesting that a newborn human, maintained physically (perhaps by non-communicative machines,) but not interacted with by any other sentient, would not be conscious?

A science of consciousness would require a study of the actual phenomenon, and not just a lot of speculation. — FrancisRay

I don't understand this sentence. You are surely not suggesting that neuroscience is 'just a lot of speculation.' That would be a bit irrational IMO. In what way does neuroscience, not study 'the actual phenomenon?'

The study of the actual phenomenon is called mysticism. — FrancisRay

I typed in two search engine questions:
'What name is given to the study of the phenomenon of consciousness?' and I got sentences such as:
Consciousness is currently a thriving area of research in psychology and neuroscience.
In philosophy of mind, the hard problem of consciousness is to explain why and how humans and other organisms have qualia, phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experiences.
“Consciousness” is the name that scientists give to a phenomenon of brain function.

Next, I tried 'Is the study of the actual phenomenon of consciousness called mysticism?'
I read this extract from here, as an attempt by someone called
Bryce Haymond, in Sept 2019, to link the study of consciousness with mysticism.
I have underlined the sentences that I think the author is trying to propose are important 'concepts.'

The Mysticism of the Hard Problem of Consciousness
The hard problem of consciousness may lead us to an irreducible mysticism in the nature of the mind and body, namely that they are two sides of the very same one thing.

Many people today seem to believe that the brain causes conscious experience, as a friend recently expressed it to me: "I don’t understand any literal concept of mind that isn’t physical."

In other words, it is thought that neurons in the brain fire (have an electro-chemically triggered action potential), which cause us to experience something. The neurons firing is the cause of what we experience. It’s thought that the mind is basically physical, and that physicality is the source of all conscious experience. This might be called materialism or physicalism, that everything reduces to the physical cosmos, including consciousness.

An opposite perspective is perhaps that the mind causes all physicality, that all that we think of as matter/energy is actually just a manifestation of our consciousness, since it only appears in consciousness, and therefore it must be caused by consciousness. This is perhaps known as idealism.

But neither has ever actually been shown to be the case. Science currently knows of no causal mechanism or connection whatsoever that explains how firing neurons cause conscious experiences, or vice versa. For example, how does a network of firing neurons cause our experience of the color red, or the taste of chocolate? No one knows. Or, conversely, how does the smell of coffee cause a storm of neural activity in the brain? No one knows.

This dilemma has been called the “hard problem of consciousness.” We simply do not know how or why firing neurons and conscious qualia (experience) are related, or if one even causes the other.

This also seems to be related to the “mind-body problem” that has perplexed philosophers for hundreds of years. How does the mind control the body, if it is controlling it? If the mind and body are two separate and distinct things, then how do they interact with each other. What is the mechanism of interaction between the two?

The truth may be that there is no causal connection, from one to the other. There may be no interaction whatsoever. Mental states may not be an epiphenomenon, or byproduct of brain activity. And likewise, mental states may not be causing the manifestation of the physical cosmos. Firing neurons may simply be the outward physical manifestation of an inward conscious experience.

Or in other words, the two are really one and the same thing, seen in two different ways. One doesn’t cause the other, or is the source of the other, or have any other sort of interaction as if between two separate and distinct things,but rather they may be both the activity of the very same thing, perhaps seen from inner and outer relative perspectives, two sides of the same coin. This may be what is known in philosophy as dual-aspect monism (or double-aspect theory), which may be closely related to dialectical monism (or dualistic monism).

Conscious experience is perhaps what it seems like on the inside, and physical matter/energy is what it seems like on the outside. Heads on a coin doesn’t cause the tails side, and while the heads and tails side of a coin can be seen as separate and distinct things, they are really part of the same one coin. Neither side can be reduced to the other.

This is a radical possibility, because it also means that mind and matter/energy are at some level one and the same entity, and not two separate things as we often think. In the spiritual traditions they might express this same reality by saying that spirit and body are one.

The matter/energy in the cosmos may not be wholly dead, inert, nonliving, but rather it may be mindful or conscious in a deep way, and when that matter/energy gets organized in the highly complex forms and layered systems of humans and other life, we observe an amount of consciousness in them, that matter/energy seems to come alive with knowing. This perspective is perhaps known as panpsychism.
It is perhaps like gravity; in minute amounts of mass, gravity is mostly negligible, but in large amounts of mass, gravity becomes quite manifest. Perhaps in the most simple and basic forms of matter/energy there is no noticeable consciousness, but when that matter/energy becomes more complex, consciousness emerges as a recognizable quality of that organization of matter/energy. The matter/energy seems to have come alive, capable of knowing itself as both matter/energy and consciousness.

Another way we could look at this is that we have a physical side of the brain and body, and we have a conscious (spiritual) side of the mind. The brain is physical, yes, but that does not mean that consciousness and the mind is physical. Consciousness and the mind seem to be quite NON-physical. We cannot directly touch the color red, even though we can touch the neurons that are firing which correlate with the qualia of red.

So to return to my friend’s statement, “I don’t understand any literal concept of mind that isn’t physical,” I replied,I don’t understand any concept of mind that is physical. Mind is non-physical (or spiritual). Brain is physical.

However, and this is perhaps a paradox that can never be fully understood, I think the spiritual and physical, mind and body, consciousness and matter/energy, are One. They are only One thing, but we see them from two sides in our lived experience of reality, inner and outer. The realization of the ultimate union of the spiritual and physical, mind and matter, throughout the cosmos, is perhaps partly what the ancient Christians came to know as “resurrection.” The divine cosmos recognized itself in itself, as in a mirror. God became incarnate in humans, and all other forms of life.

The cosmos and consciousness are perhaps One, the Holy (Wholly) One, as attested by so many spiritual and mystical traditions throughout history. The physical and spiritual sides to this One may be irreducible manifestations of its singular Self. And we are That Divine Self.

The words I have emboldened above are part of the problem of using a word like mysticism. The Christians will often use the door to sneak their irrational god of the gap jumps into a discussion about neuroscience and not mysticism. I see no compelling reason at all to connect the study of human consciousness to the word mysticism, especially when even places like Wikipedia define the word as:

Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning.

It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

I assume you prefer the second description. I don't see much value in either of them and I see a lot of problems with the crossover between the two.

Another TPF member who IMO, might give an insightful response to this is @Alkis Piskas

I find that very often when I speak about mysticism my statements go unquestioned, even when they are very bold, but my sanity is brought into question. — FrancisRay

Well, I for one will try my best to respond to what you state, and not jump to any conclusions about your sanity.

but I can tell you that I became convinced of the truth of Buddhist doctrine on purely intellectual grounds well before I read a book about it or tried meditation. It's just a matter of doing the sums. — FrancisRay

For me, this is a brave claim/conviction indeed. May I ask you for a percentage credence level that you would currently assign to all the 'truths' put forward by Buddhism and/or Buddhists, as a kind of 'general' or 'ad hoc' metric? For example, I consider myself more in line with hard or strong atheism, in that I am 99.999% personally convinced that the supernatural has no demonstrable existent.
Would you be willing to state that you are 100% sure that the main tenets of Buddhism are sound?

I am happy for you if you have found a doctrine of life (Buddhism), that you find so compelling and that has acted as a strong bulwark for you, as you face life's inevitable personal adversaries, but, as perhaps an annoying skeptic. I have to ask, what are these sums you are talking about?
How can you be so sure you are adding them up correctly?

nowadays it is not unusual for physicists to speak about creation from nothing, the unreality of time, the notion that space is conceptual and so forth. — FrancisRay

I wanted to post about this sentence separately.
No physicist I have read about can demonstrate the concept of 'nothing.' There is no experiment in physics, that can currently demonstrate any example of 'nothing.'
Folks like Carlo Rovelli certainly posit that time is a very localised experience, in that, even when I am talking to a person standing right next to me, there is a notion of me, sensing that person, from their past, rather than their present. This is because there is a tiny duration, before I see each frame of their movement or hear their words or register their touch etc. So in this sense I cannot experience YOUR present, I can only experience my own. So time is, in a sense, a unique experience for all humans.
That's not mystical and it may also not be of much importance, especially in the macroscopic life of a human. Exactly how important it is to the existence of a quark or any quantum field excitation or the information held inside a black hole or in the case of quantum fluctuations or the 'information state' that exists between two entangled quanta, remains unknown. I still don't see where the word 'mystical' is of use here, other than as a placeholder for 'it's still a mystery to us.'

Perhaps it is relevant that physics is coming ever closer to the same conception of reality as the mystics, for this suggests that empiricism does at least support the discoveries and realisations of those who explore consciousness. Newton's universe was hopelessly out of step, but with QM and relativity, entanglement and non-locality physics comes into line, as Schrodinger was keen to point out, and nowadays it is not unusual for physicists to speak about creation from nothing, the unreality of time, the notion that space is conceptual and so forth. — FrancisRay

I find this a fascinating statement.
But what do you specifically mean by the words I underlined above?
They seem to me, on an initial reading, to be stating the obvious, in that experiment and the scientific application of empiricism, is currently, our best method of discovering new truths, or arriving at new 'realisations' about the nature of consciousness (human consciousness in particular). Perhaps I am missing your point. But in what way does this suggest that physics is coming ever closer to the mystics?

The Rupert Sheldrake proposals regarding his 'morphic resonance,' come to my mind.
Can rats, who have never taken part in the maze experiments that Sheldrake goes on about, really learn how to best traverse these mazes via 'morphic resonance?' All rats, everywhere on the planet?
That seems quite 'mystical' to me.
Do you think that Sheldrake's work, does contain some real physics-based truth behind it, at a quantum or 'fundamental' level?

I provided an initial answer and expected a follow up question or some discussion. Instead my answer was dismissed for being new age nonsense. This is a pity, since I find the relationship between the Perennial philosophy and physics fascinating but tricky. — FrancisRay

Your last two responses to me are very reasonable and well-balanced. I also found your last sentence above intriguing.

I'm always happy to debate issues, but I become agitated when people who don't study these issues and seem to have no interest in them waive their arms around and dismiss mysticism as nonsense. Never do they exhibit an understand of what they are dismissing. . — FrancisRay

For me, this is a interesting accusation. I am a neophyte at best, in academic philosophy, (even though I am 59). My area of expertise is Computing science. I am also an atheist, a naturalist, and a secular humanist. It is part of my current convictions to initially respond with, :roll: , when anyone proposes anything related to 'mysticism,' depending on how that word is being employed. I then try my best to give the proposer the benefit of the doubt and listen more to what sense/level of logic versus skepticism, they are using in what they are proposing. I suppose you could even label such, their epistemology.
I would certainly push back, if you are suggesting that @180 Proof, is an example of the persona you are trying to describe in the sentence I have underlined from the quote above. He has been a member of TPF for 8 years. Think about how exasperated he must be at times, with the woo woo mob that he has had to deal with in that time. I have only been here for a year or so, and I have also become a bit more unforgiving towards the more extreme peddlers of woo woo. I will again admit that words like 'mysticism,' can be a bit of a red flag for me, but you seem to be willing to take part in useful discussion/debate. We all just have to accept that each of us can get a bit heated. I can assure you, @180 Proof is a very good interlocuter. I have my disagreements with him but he makes his points very well and provides valid and logical arguments to back them up. He is worth debating with.

The question of what the nondual doctrine explains is easy to answer, but the question was what it claims that is testable in physics and this is trickier, since it requires some chat about exactly what counts as testable. — FrancisRay

I'm very much influenced by my encounter with Advaita and (also Buddhist) non-dualism, although that mostly amounts to reading about it, with some regular meditation over periods of years. But I don't think it is an easy thing to explain. — Wayfarer

These are interesting paragraphs, which I for one, would enjoy reading TPF member responses to, which would include @180 Proof
I have already enjoyed reading the contributions from @Wayfarer, @Fooloso4 and many others in the past 8 pages. I would like to hear some contributions from folks like @Existential Hope, as I suspect he knows a great deal about Eastern philosophy and probably 'Advaita' as well.
Perhaps, I can contribute something of value myself as the posts here invoke my 'search engine' attempts, to look up terms like 'Advaita,' 'nondual doctrine,' and 'Perennial philosophy.'

I'm not here really, having taken a break, but I'll give an answer.

The nondual doctrine translates into metaphysics as a neutral theory. In principle it explains all metaphysical problems and questions. For instance, it explains why metaphysical questions are undecidable. It explains ontology, epistemology, ethics, religion, consciousness, life. death, the universe and everything.

It predicts that all metaphysical questions are undecidable and gives answers for all such questions. It predicts that no scientific data or philosophical argument will ever falsify or refute it, a prediction that is tested every day, albeit only in a negative way.

As it denies the true existence of space-time and that reality has dimensions it seems to be relevant to non=locality, entanglement and other things, as Ulrich Mohrhoff explains in his book 'The World According to Quantum Mechanics'. It predicts the 'hard' problem of consciousness, which arises because it is impossible to disprove the 'advaita' explanation of consciousness. mind and matter. It predicts that science will never discover any substance or essence at the heart of matter/ It also explains (of course) the phenomenon known as 'mysticism'.

I would say that if one understands a neutral theory one understands philosophy, and we don't then we don't. . . — FrancisRay

Just in case you think I had not read this response you gave. I have, but it did not answer the questions 180proof asked imo.

I think that's a loss to all members here, as you seem to have a lot of knowledge of Eastern philosophy.
Perhaps you get exasperated too easily, we all get frustrated when we are challenged but it is very important to stand your ground, if you give a damn about who else might read these exchanges on TPF.
Perhaps 180proof is still waiting for you to answer his two questions:

i. What 'facts of the matter' do "the nondual doctrine of the Perennial Philosophy" explain?
ii. What 'predictions' can be derived from this "Perennial" explanation which can be experimentally falsified? — 180 Proof

Surely one of the reasons that you find this site, one of the better ones on the internet is that you WILL get challenged here by some folks, who are well-versed in the philosophy field.
Readers might think better of you, if you stand your ground and answer questions put to you rather than throw a couple of insults at the member asking the questions and then stop posting.

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Wealth is an evil concept. — Vera Mont

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Nurture people and flora and fauna and justice and purpose and meaning, not personal wealth, status and power. Every human being alive should be able to take all their basic needs for granted, from cradle to grave. That has to be a prime directive, imo.