Insights?

It feels good to be perceived as being intelligent and is there any greater pursuit of intelligence than to state humanity's purpose? — Rand

This may help some:

There is also very little testimonial evidence that there are such things as devils or demons. These tend to be religious ideas with very little or no evidence to support such beliefs. — Sam26

Agreed! Hence another reason I chose to be a Christian Existentialist.

My only goal in the book is to argue that there is strong evidence to suggest that consciousness is not confined to the brain. — Sam26

No quarrel there, however, what is the medium? In other words, the means and methods would be intriguing. Otherwise, the book would be restricted to recordation of NDE accounts. As such, aren't there plenty of those?

Sam!

No exceptions taken. Agreed, I realize you are wanting to keep it lucid. And I'm sure it's a struggle to balance all that from, as you said, being too esoteric.

Through induction, translating the NDE into more of a purely universal or objective truth is indeed challenging. For that reason, that is why I think it is more essential than not, to incorporate a chapter about said truth and reality. The reader should have a criterion of what your notion of truth and reality are... . It should be an early chapter in the book too.

Other than that, the last thought is whether you have considered EM field theories of consciousness? The idea there is to theorize consciousness as a direct metaphysical analogy to the NDE, where such phenomena become reality: https://medium.com/@aramis720/is-consciousness-just-a-complex-electromagnetic-field-9d4bf05326f0

You can try to explain metaphysical phenomena that speaks to feelings of Love, euphoria, excitement, intuition, et al. And you can argue that consciousness has not been fully explained by science.

It's all good!

I think the notion of god as a creator and the fact that gods began as beings who controlled nature says it all - god(s) were explanations of natural phenomena and of nature itself. The problem is that the explanation (god) is a product of shoddy thinking - more of a vague notion than a carefully considered inference. — TheMadFool

Well said TMF!! I believe 'carefully considered inference' bridges the domains of both science and philosophy. And all that of course, is looking at the problem through the macro lens, as you suggest. Nevertheless, while logical inference is the wind that propels us into the next dimension of a newness/awareness, and/or a new way of Being. It is apposed to the contrast of deduction and the limitations thereto. And that is mostly because living life is not A or B, it's A and B. In other words, the irony is that while deduction is very useful in its own right, it cannot exclusively help us with the human condition and our way of Being. But you already knew all that!

With respect to the concept of God that you mentioned, I think about the omni-trilemma, or Epicurus Trilemma . We must remember that these were just humans who came up with the idea. Hence the fallibility of same. (Although one could reconcile part of the omni-attributes/dilemma if one incorporates randomness from, say, physics into a notion of macro-inference and/or other analogous/metaphorical ways of Being.)

In any case, we can't stay trapped in the logic of language here because we know that the meaning of life stuff, concerns us more with things that transcend language itself... . And so back to your idea of sentience, along with the notion that if one were to combine that with experience, phenomenology(ineffable phenom), existentialism, cosmology & metaphysics/consciousness, we would abdicate Dr. Spock's pure reason by subordinating that to the higher reaches of human nature; life isn't so bad after all :snicker:

And all of that would suggest yet another domain being relevant here: cognitive science. Of course, William James, Carl Jung, AH Maslow, and other's would be somewhat germane there...

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true? — 3017amen

Try thinking about those questions relative to the OP. You might find the answer you are looking for....

Otherwise, I get it. No problem, if you are not ready to dialogue with me, till next time Frank!

Be well my brother!

I am asking why you think either or both of those statements are NOT just blind guesses. — Frank Apisa

Yes Frank, and I am saying that, by positing my simple questions about belief, those should make sense to you and provide part of the answers...but you refuse to dialogue with me.

I don't know what else I can do. Do you want to parse the differences between objective and subjective truth's? I asked you what was the nature of a truth, and you said I was 'all over the place'. Then I answered that a belief can be held philosophically as a justified true belief.

And so in the specific context of the OP, you refused to answer the questions concerning what might be a type of belief, hence:

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true?

You seem to disagree. — Frank Apisa

Yes. I disagree. Please see my response and follow-up query. Are you not able to debate those?

Gosh, you are 'dropping like flies'. Think about my answers and come back with some constructive criticism when you can!

Be well!

Frank!

What's the problem, I thought we were engaging in discursive debate? I hope you are not acquiescing by silence/not answering my questions concerning belief... .

How did God come to be?

1. Answer: Not sure; how did your own existence come to be; is it infinitely regressive you think? If the answer is yes, that may answer part of your question. Otherwise, you're left with the simple act of creation, your mom and dad's procreation :chin:

Then why arent there others exploiting this nature of becoming a God?

2. Answer: do not understand the question, please re-state(?)

Did he secure the position by not letting anyone else become a God?

3. Answer: same as item 2.

When something first begins, there's likely a variety of similar existences all using the same method. Call it a playground of the Gods.

I'd be more understanding. I'd look at the 'playground' equally as i'd look at the Gods.

I'd realise I'm human, and not less than God - above God, made of the same nature. — wiyte

I'm not following you wiyte, is that the answer to my questions?

LOL

God doesn't exist. — wiyte

Are you sure?

You project that some immaterial form exists. — wiyte

What is; wonder, the will, colors, love, sentience, music, mathematics, change, and of course, consciousness? (What is the nature of those things and can they be explained logically without paradox?) Is that/those things metaphysical or material?

How things can exist. How the universe came to be. Etc. All fall into that category.

It isn't all reduced to one being, but perhaps one, or multiple types of being are involved in the creation of simulation. That's a species, not a deity.

I'm not following you exactly there...I guess I'll ask the rhetorical question; how do things exist? (Through what methodology, axiom, or domain of Philosophy & Science?)

sure what to say...you are moving all over the place rather than discussing a single issue. — Frank Apisa

Well Frank, this subject is not for the faint of hearts. It's quite comprehensive. Think of it this way, virtually all domains of Philosophy invoke God. So, that didn't come from me, it came from Philosophy :gasp:

You seem to disagree.

If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

I'm trying to, you're not listening Frank. Let's start with this train of thought:

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true?

No I don't. Philosophically, you could say belief is all part of a justified true belief, belief system.

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true?

Faith would be trusting what I said, or what I read, is true. Which begs the question, what is true? (What does truth really mean.)

Thoughts?

So, we will be using the three methods described earlier (sensory experience, testimony, and logic) to infer that consciousness survives death. Which brings us to the value of inference, namely, the value of drawing a conclusion based on our evidence. Moreover, in terms of epistemology, if you can infer or prove (inductively prove) that your conclusion follows, then you know your conclusion follows. In this case, we are trying to inductively prove that consciousness survives death. What does it mean to inductively prove your conclusion?

Sam!

Good job. I certainly agree with your thoughts about inductive reasoning there. However, as a critique, in your subsequent paragraph you mention the nature of truth and reality. The constructs of subjectivity, objectivity, and abstract truth's come to mind here. And you used Einstein as an example. All that said, because we are essentially referring to Metaphysics and Phenomenology in the NDE experience, how have you reconciled those?

For example, there are mathematical truth's that are essentially a metaphysical language (of truth) that underlies or is the essence of physical existence or properties of existence (a structural beam can be created/described through a mathematical formula). And so those truth's are abstract yet real, and are also a part of our reality.

Then there are Objective and Subjective truth's. Though not always mutually exclusive, Subjective truth's are truth's someone cares about, while Objective truth's nobody cares about (Love versus 2 +2 =4 respectively).

Then there are also paradoxical truth's like the nature of time and change, and consciousness itself, when describing the nature of reality.

And so, I would suggest adding a chapter to your book that could speak to other relevant phenomena that we experience as a kind of truth from our reality. And how that kind of truth results in a belief system that can be analogized to the NDE experience.

When you said in the last paragraph, "A statement is generally true if it corresponds with reality", that is what made me think of the forgoing. Also, maybe attack part of the issue with experience relating to causation and/or determinism, associated with reality. Otherwise, the reader might be left with an incomplete understanding of truth's and reality (not that that is a comprehensive analysis).

Here's the so-called definition standards:

Belief:
1.an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

"his belief in the value of hard work" ·
synonyms:

guess · speculation · surmise · fancy · notion · suspicion · presumption ·

•something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs" ·
synonyms:

opinion · view · viewpoint · point of view · attitude · stance · stand ·
•a religious conviction.

"Christian beliefs" ·
synonyms:

ideology · principle · ideal · ethic · conviction · doctrine · teaching · dogma · tenet · canon · article of faith · credence · creed · credo · code of belief

2.
(belief in)

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

"a belief in democratic politics" ·

Faith:
1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:

trust · belief · confidence · conviction · credence · reliance · dependence · optimism · hopefulness · hope · expectation

2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
synonyms:

religion · church · sect · denomination · persuasion · religious persuasion · religious belief · belief · code of belief · ideology · creed · teaching · dogma · doctrine

•a system of religious belief.

"the Christian faith"
synonyms:

religion · religious belief(s) · religious persuasion · religious conviction ·

•a strongly held belief or theory.

"the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe"


Frank!

I don't think Belief is a blind guess. Belief, in the context we are discussing (synthetic a priori statements/judgements) are not blind in the sense of what is referred to as a person having blind faith. A belief is both an innate sense of something (an idea existing), along with some empirical evidence that infers existence or possibility. Life without a belief system, or life without a system of beliefs, would not allow our sense of wonderment to flourish. Flourish in the context of scientific discovery, advanced cognition, and other quality of life (meaning/purpose) features of conscious existence.

Now all that relates back to metaphysical elements of consciousness which transcends Darwinism, yes?

in a Philosophy forum...when matters of the true nature of the REALITY of existence are being discussed, I think the words are inappropriate. — Frank Apisa

Frank!

Well, I get it, sort of... . I mean I get the ambiguous usage.

And it's okay to parse the meaning of belief because in my opinion it is still germaine. It seems to me that faith and belief are closely related. For example, at the risk of redundancy, the Kantian judgment that all events must have a cause, is based on an element of faith or belief, or something...

And the so-called pragmatics of that proposition or judgement (or irony in the case of the atheist), is the essence of , or what drives the logic, behind thoretical physics. In other words, most all physical theories start with a synthetic premise. A premise that can be tested. Part of the scientific method.

So there is some sort of belief system at work in our consciousness...

In a word: power. And that means prediction and control. We care about what can help or harm us. Feed the hungry. Foil the tyrant. Heal the sick. To an unbeliever like myself, religion taken literally looks like wishful thinking. I wish there was a benevolent god. It's such a nice idea that I'm amazed I haven't let myself believe it without evidence. The skeptical path is a dark one. It's a manifestation of elitism through a 'dietary restriction' (what the mind will accept as reliable.)

Am!

Just so I understand, was the answer to that question in the OP, comprise your forgoing thoughts about religious paradigm's or dogma or fundamentalism, etc. etc.?

I could have said "i accept evolution" or "i accept the theory of evolution" or "i accept that the theory of evolution is true". — christian2017

Christian!

I get a sense that you are opposed to the dichotomization of creation and evolution. Can they co-exist? For instance, in a similar fashion, theoretical physicist Paul Davies has a theory about the concept of a di-polar God, are you familiar with that?

That "believe in" construct just sits so poorly with me, I mention it from time to time. — Frank Apisa

Frank!

I realize that word 'Belief' gets under your skin. It would be intriguing to explore some of the reasons with you, as I don't recall us ever chatting or reading about that... . Can you elaborate on your contempt of same?

You can't prove God by reference to empirical evidence because if you did, you would be misunderstanding the epistemological method for believing in God, which is through faith alone. — Hanover

Hanover!

Thank you for those thoughts, relative to the distinctions of Faith v. experience that is... . I agree with you for the most part. However, if one did not have the ability to experience actual experience itself (or experience empirical evidence), then there would be no reason to believe through say, inductive reasoning, that phenomenal happenstance actually exists. Pragmatically, that has value and a purpose. It helps to provide for a meaning. Otherwise, we are just brains in a jar, pontificating about something or another. So, we can embrace experience as a meaningful thing.

Conversely, you mentioned the sense of wonderment (that exists a priori without experience). That in itself is a metaphysical property of consciousness (conscious existence). An innate thing that we have which has no biological/evolutionary advantages. And so yes, I would agree, that in itself, could lead to a cognitive feeling or justification of a faith. Similar to the other synthetic a priori judgements like : all events must have a cause.

Of course Kant believed in those innate structures of thought from consciousness, however, we know he never took the Kierkegaardian leap of faith.

I'm okay with the paradigms of Faith, Hope, and Love. What would Darwin say about those metaphysical properties of conscious existence, I wonder :cool:

We have had this discussion before but what the heck, let's try again. Maybe it will get better.

If you are having conversations with God, what is there to prove? The whole thing about proof, as something that people do, is to make something necessary beyond any doubt. If God starts talking to me in clear language that my tiny mind understands, it will be life changing and incommunicable to others. Other people don't want to hear about the good time I am having with God.

And I don't blame them for their resentment. It is really annoying to have other people claim a relation to stuff that others don't feel, share, or understand.

What could make for a different outcome? — Valentinus

Valentinus!

I don't quite remember the previous discussion, but in any case I agree with your premise.

Once more, there are plenty of illusionary and/or mysterious things in life that seem real (paradoxical: time, conscious existence, abstract truth's, etc.) and so I never understood why an atheist could feel comfortable with their position. It actually seems a bit ignorant, considering all the knowledge out there. Perhaps their inability to disprove that a God exists results in that resentment you mentioned...

For example, if someone has a William James 'religious experience' (as you alluded), that is real to them. That is their truth; their experience of God, whatever that would comprise phenomenologically...

And so, I can't really answer your question about what would make a different outcome(?)

Yeah, the concept of a god exists...but what does that do for the conversation. The concept of everything for which there is a word...exists. — Frank Apisa

Frank!

Great comments, thanks. Well, lets parse the meaning of concepts and reality. If it is true that we live primarily in an abstract reality, what would it be to distinguish between what is real and not real?

For instance, other than the physical, it appears that there are more abstract things existing than there are concrete things existing (if you were to include the concept of time) to a value of 3 to 1 (the mental, mathematics, time itself, and the physical--respectively)? In other words there are more abstract things that exist, no?

It is a simplistic look at how to do science... — Frank Apisa

I thought that probability theory ( justification of Occam's razor ) was alive and well, no?

Funny, I could have sworn you meant to say contradiction.

LOL

You say this without any realization of ad hominem , I presume?

Sorry for this observation; are you one of those stereotypical angry atheists? Do you have an axe to grind about something?

Sorry, without you adding anything constructive, your one-liner political statements seem to indicate such. Actually, ironically enough, you seem to be the typical Atheist from the OP/parody. (LOL)

If your spam resulted in winning the lottery (not that that happened to me), would you then call your spam evil? (LOL)

Ignoring the use of "believe" in that comment, I have no idea of what that means. Do you choose the former or the latter? — Frank Apisa

Frank!

The former. I'm saying that the concept of a God certainly exists. Why wouldn't it? A concept of Santa exists too. Is there a difference to you? And is that subjective? And is subjectivity wrong, right or incorrect?


How would, in your view, Occam's razor square with theoretical physics and/or common everyday inference?

Predicates attributed (by scriptures? theology? metaphysics?) to g/G that entail evidence in the world which could not be caused by any other worldly (i.e. natural) entities and, thereby, be used as search parameters — 180 Proof

Can you give me some examples there?

Defeasible (& abductive, hypothetical-deductive) reasoning suffices. "Proof" obtains only in formal domains such as mathematics. — 180 Proof

Are you saying formal logic will not provide much help? If so, of course, I would agree. However, except for the following:

1. Abstract mathematical reasoning itself v. the Darwinian thought process.
2. The mathematical secret to the physical world (underlying same)
3. Laws of gravity not required for survival

There are more, but that's all for now :blush:

a) Ontology (+ modal logic? actualist rather than possibilist).

(b) Epistemology (re: fallibilistic (e.g. Peirce, Dewey, Popper-Feyerabend, Haack) rather than justificatory). — 180 Proof

Examples, in form of propositional statements?

Conservation laws (i.e. fundamental physical symmetries) + physics (e.g. thermodynamics, quantum cosmology), chemistry (e.g. nucleogenesis, mass spectronomy + carbon-dating), & biology (e.g. neo-darwinian evolution, population genomics + proteomics, cognitive neuroscience). — 180 Proof

Example, in the form of propositional statements or judgements?

And, thanks for your contributions!

I've encountered several people who claim to have had a god reveal itself to them...but have never had one of them respond reasonably to the question I ask. Most merely offer, "I know I am not deluding myself"...and then refuse to discuss it further. — Frank Apisa

Hey Frank!

Well, one possible 'logical' response could be in that scenario, as well as other scenarios or experiences: "Either God exists, or there is a heck of a lot of coincidence. And I choose to believe in the former/latter ."

And that sort of speaks to the concept or so-called logic behind Pascal's Wager (excluding the apologetic's about punishment, etc. etc.).

Hey 180!

Thanks for that. Actually, I'm the one who had the latter experience. I could go into somewhat shocking details of totally unplanned happenstance; an unsolicited phone call from a lending institution(s) for ALOT of money, an unsolicited individual appearing at my doorstep offering me something, an unsolicited employer offering me something, and a few more unsolicited things... . All of which I accepted to my delight.

Your comment made me think that, ironically enough, I had dated a Christian girl in college who said she was a schizophrenic, and hindsight being 20/20, I should have explored that with her a bit more...of course I don't know how much of it she would have been aware of anyway. It's an interesting thing to study though... . That maybe answers one of my questions about which domains of science could speak to phenomenology: cognitive science. Of course, we can also make inferences based upon other sciences... .

Rather than dividing Reality into a third category, I prefer to view it as a universal Whole with no hard (objective) dividing lines between classes of things. That makes me a Monist. — Gnomon

Gnomon!

How does your belief system square with Hermeticism?

In Greek philosophy, the term "metaphysics" originally meant "that which comes after physics." It refers to the fact that Aristotle's metaphysics was found, untitled, placed after his treatise on physics. But metaphysics soon came to mean those topics that lie beyond physics (we would today say beyond science) and yet may have a bearing on the nature of scientific inquiry. So metaphysics means the study of topics about physics (or science generally), as opposed to the scientific subject itself. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying "reality" and order, the relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues, but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them, or any "meaning-of-life" questions.

Although metaphysical theorizing went out of fashion after this onslaught, a few philosophers and scientists refused to give up speculating about what really lies behind the surface appearances of the phenomenal world. Then, in more recent years, a number of advances in fundamental physics, cosmology, and computing theory began to rekindle a more widespread interest in some of the traditional metaphysical topics. The study of "artificial intelligence" reopened debate about free will and the mind-body problem. The discovery of the big bang triggered speculation about the need for a mechanism to bring the physical universe into being in the first place. Quantum mechanics exposed the subtle way in which observer and observed are interwoven. Chaos theory revealed that the relationship between permanence and change was far from simple.

Time and Eternity: The Fundamental Paradox of Existence

"Eternity is time

Time, eternity

To see the two as opposites

Is Man's perversity"

The Book of Angelus Silesius

"I think, therefore I am." With these famous words the seventeenth-century philosopher René Descartes expressed what he took to be the most primitive statement concerning reality about which any thinking persons could agree. Our own existence is our primary experience. Yet even this unexceptionable claim contains within it the essence of a paradox that obstinately runs through the history of human thought. Thinking is a process. Being is a state. When I think, my mental state changes with time. But the "me" to which the mental state refers remains the same. This is probably the oldest metaphysical problem in the book, and it is one which has resurfaced with a vengeance in modern scientific theory.

What, then, is absolutely constant? One is inevitably led away from the material and the physical to the realm of the mystical and the abstract. Concepts like "logic," "number," "soul," and "God" recur throughout history as the firmest ground on which to build a picture of reality that has any hope of permanent dependability. But then the ugly paradox of existence rears up at us. For how can the changing world of experience be rooted in the unchanging world of abstract concepts?

Men and women, perhaps for psychological reasons, being afraid of their own mortality, have always sought out the most enduring aspects of existence. People come and go, trees grow and die, even mountains gradually erode away, and we now know the sun cannot keep burning forever. Is there anything that is truly and dependably constant? Can one find absolute unchanging being in a world so full of becoming?

No attempt to explain the world, either scientifically or theologically, can be considered successful until it accounts for the paradoxical conjunction of the temporal and the a temporal, of being and becoming. And no subject confronts this paradoxical conjunction more starkly than the origin of the universe.

--
Paul Davies

, on my account will evolved, as did consciousness, and all of those emotional things we've been talking about, and many of them (or prototypical variants of them) are shared with "lower" life-forms.
1h — Pfhorrest

Forrest!

Great. Let's parse each of those concepts. I would like to explore many other metaphysical phenomena from consciousness such as mathematical abstracts, the feelings from looking at colors, feelings from music, feelings from a sense of wonderment, and other abstract metaphysical properties.

Let's start with the will. Think about an explaination of how lower life-forms experience the will. How would, say, that compare to instinct and survival needs in lower life forms? You may have other theories about the Will. Please share how the will is necessary for survival of the fittest, when instinct works perfectly. (Are they concerned about the meaning of life?)

Since we were talking about depression, mood swings, the need to take drugs, and so forth, if animals have some form of will would they too want to commit suicide? In a sense, do they seek out other forms of psychedelic drugs?

Those are just a few thoughts about the will....

I'm not sure what this question means.

Also, I'm still not clear what any of this has to do with God, unless you just mean the noncognitivist sense of "God", which I've already said in the OP that I think exists (it's just this feeling of ontophilia), but I don't think deserves to be called "God", which would make any disagreement between us purely verbal. — Pfhorrest

I'm not sure what you mean by noncognitivist... .

To clarify the concern, consider the following concepts we've been discussing: anxiety, depression, hope, the will, sentience, psychedelic drugs, meditative practices, invulnerability, mathematics, abstracts, meaningfulness, et al.

I just pulled those from all the words that we've shared. Accordingly how does that square with the darwinian thought process?

In other words, are some if not all, of those metaphysical concepts or features of consciousness confer any type of meaning to lower life-forms? For example, using your definition of will; did the will evolve?

Obviously, I'm drawing inferences relative to EOG, or negative theology if you will.

What would endangerment entail?

Very Nice, once again! Very Existential I must say!!!!

How can we escape this....do we distract ourselves with pain/pleasure...or do we seek meaning some how...or do we engage in intellectual pursuits...or do we engage with each other...or... .

Is life dynamically circular-as apposed to static(?) In other words, I'm trying to picture life without the need to have wants and needs...

Very Nice, oh great one!

Or, could that be, that we are no longer human then???

Yet another question could be, why do I wonder whether my wants and needs should be met?

How does one counter the need for more wants, when all one's needs have been fulfilled and satisfied? — Shawn

We can't. It's another unresolved paradox about the human condition. Something beyond logic. Kind of like the Heraclitus quote: "Change is the only constant in life.".

You see, life is not very logical. One must learn to embrace paradox, or become totally disillusioned by the need to lie to oneself over same.

Perhaps another question to consider there would be, is that then, a want, or a need? In other words, should we lie to ourselves out of a want or need for something; to protect us from something?

Cognitive science is fascinating, no?