So it's like the pessimism vision goes through life as a frustrated, defending that image has of himself because he is afraid that what is outside will attack his authenticity. — armonie

Philosophically, Aristotle remains relevant here in that the best gift we can give to ourselves (and each other) is to 'know thyself'.

Perhaps there are those who have fears about knowing themselves. Or maybe a fear that they need other people. Or maybe a fear that there is some truth out there that may negatively impact their self-esteem needs.

Anyway, I think Aristotle would not repudiate fears/pessimism. He might integrate pessimism instead, as a yin-yang virtuous balance that everyone chooses.

In this context, if pessimism is a choice to avoid fears, why not choose optimism? But if we choose optimism and ignore the truth that life can be filled with our own fears and anxiety, is that virtuous?

Existentially, we must make choices. We have no other choice but to make choices. Seems to me in either case, we cannot dichotomize those existential volitions/emotions. Otherwise happiness becomes static and not dynamic.

So, is knowing thyself the first step... ?

Pessimism is just an excuse to not try. — Pfhorrest

Ha, I love that!

An ex-colleague of mine who has a lot of book smarts (PHD) is always glass-half empty/has negative energy. You can see it on his face; his demeanor and body language. I feel that he's projecting his displeasure about how the world seemingly treats him-in his mind anyway. Projecting insecurities about himself and the people in the world like the character in the old Seinfeld sitcom (George).

I think it's a cognitive dysfunction or pathology...philosophically, the law of attraction would preclude, or at least make difficult, the realization for positive energy.

To answer one of the OP questions, cognitively, pessimism has the strange effect of empowering the individual. By manifesting pessimism, they create an illusion of projecting their Freudian Superego/Neurotic Psyche as a protection mechanism. It all has to do with intrinsic fears.

Slay your Gilligan's!!!!!
LOL

I think Love is a fascinating subject. A subject that relates to abstract phenomena that we experience as humans.

In the context of , say, romantic love, when humans look at each other and determine they are attracted to each other, that cognitive process does not seem to have rational explanation. Sure, that which you suggested is real, and seemingly consists of some elements of subjective and objective truth's, but what about the concept of chemistry?

Often, we hear of people who have a deep love for each other say "...I don't really know what it is, I just feel really comfortable with him/her. I just knew it when I met him/her."

Is that an existential love that 'just is', with no rational explanation?

Or, what about the phrase " I have a walk in front of a train love for him/her." Would we sacrifice our selves for another? Is that rational?

Now a quick look at the emotion of hate. Look at, say, terrorism. If two terrorist conceive a plan for destruction, and they get enjoyment from it, can we say that they love to hate? Are they passionate to hate?

PS: and BTW thank you for your gracious compliments Mark. I'm a little embarrassed because I feel humbled...like everyone else here, I'm just exercising my mind. We are all interconnected in that we need each other to bounce ideas off one another, which in turn we end up uncovering or discovering some element of truth to our sojourn here... .

What is Existential Love? What is Love? A mixture of joy, gratitude and care of the object of love? Does all life, love something the universe contains? Do all humans? — Mark Dennis

I think that's worth noting, because it seems to be a mixture of many truth's.

Abstract Love: what is the love we have for aesthetics?

Consider the feeling when we look at an object, thing, person, an idea, agreement, et al. and we say 'I love that', what kind of truth is that?

Interesting thought there. Your first two paragraphs capture the classic Existential angst that one, at some point, will encounter during life's sojourn; intrinsic fear and anxiety. How can we mitigate that?

Well back to the metaphysical elements of experiencing life's phenomena. Are emotions in fact, metaphysical elements? Some would say yes:

Fear, anxiety, joy, wonderment, love, perceptions of the color red, most of which can't really be defined, at least for the materialist. Are they pure a priori abstracts as perhaps a Kantian things in themselves? Thing's that just are, with no explanation other than the phenomenon of experiencing them?

From a cognitive science point of view, I believe one thing we do know, is that the need to integrate them rather than repudiate them, is essential in self-awareness and gaining knowledge about the world.

That notion makes me think whether humans encounter metaphysical phenomena everyday, without realizing it... ?

In the alternative we're back to trying to define one of the greatest metaphysical abstracts of all called Love.

Evidence continues to suggest that past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior; obstruction and abuse of power. Stay tuned.

Calculating feels like thinking, but what does it feel like to think? I — Mark Dennis

But why are we calculating or thinking?

If I'm calculating a formula to determine the size of a roof truss, I'm feeling a sense of anticipation. I'm feeling a sense of hope.

If I'm calculating a formula in physics, I'm feeling a sense of wonderment.

Hope, anticipation, wonderment.

I'm simultaneously feeling those feelings while performing mathematical computation.

Cognitive science would probably say some of those feelings are from the subconscious; an illogical mix of sensory experience from consciousness.

Maybe it can be said then our encounter with a priori mathematical abstracts is all part of another phenomenon?

just don't see where one would find the time to experience a priori knowledge — Mark Dennis

The world of mathematics you would. Which begs the question, what does it feel like to run calculations (?).

21. Longtime Trump associate Roger Stone was found guilty on Friday (today 11/15/19) of lying to Congress and other charges in a case that has shed new light on President Donald Trump's anticipation of the release of stolen Democratic emails in 2016 by WikiLeaks.

Stone, a political operative, was found guilty of all seven counts brought by the Justice Department, a victory for special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Stone was found guilty on five counts of lying to Congress, one of witness tampering, and one of obstructing a Congressional committee proceeding.

Stone is facing anywhere between 5-20 years in jail.

A fair point. Would It be fair to say then that the anchor points lie in cognition and the language used to describe cognition? — Mark Dennis

I think one would have to define anchor points first(?). Similarly:

Daniel Dennett identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia.[2] According to these, qualia are:
1.ineffable ; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any means other than direct experience.
2.intrinsic ; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3.private ; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4.directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

Were certain Qualia of Kants mind doomed to become pure abstract the moment he died or do his writings retain the anchor points to our anchored abstractions of Kants mind and thoroughly preserve the Qualia of his mind? — Mark Dennis

I'm thinking in terms of Kant's Transcendental philosophy there, because I don't think he really parsed abstracts or Qualia, only in the a priori/noumenal sense, otherwise he stuck pretty much with our phenomenal sense of understanding:


Kant's investigations in the Transcendental Logic lead him to conclude that the understanding and reason can only legitimately be applied to things as they appear phenomenally to us in experience. What things are in themselves as being noumenal, independent of our cognition, remains limited by what is known through phenomenal experience.

Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding.

...time is a pure a priori intuition that renders mathematics possible. Time is not a concept, since otherwise it would merely conform to formal logical analysis (and therefore, to the principle of non-contradiction). However, time makes it possible to deviate from the principle of non-contradiction: indeed, it is possible to say that A and non-A are in the same spatial location if one considers them in different times, and a sufficient alteration between states were to occur (A32/B48). Time and space cannot thus be regarded as existing in themselves. They are a priori forms of sensible intuition.

According to Schopenhauer's essay, Kant's three main merits are as follows:
-The distinction of the phenomenon from the thing-in-itself (Ding an sich) The intellect mediates between things and knowledge
-A priori knowledge is separate from a posteriori knowledge
-The ideal and the real are diverse from each other

Mark, those are just some talking points about Kant's views on our so-called limits of knowledge. Unless I'm missing something (which is entirely possible) I don't think he really explored much relative to abstracts.

For instance, we don't know the nature of existing things (nature of our existence in general) but rather, we just experience them. However, we can feel through our intuition (synthetic a priori judgements) that abstracts must/might have a real existence. Otherwise, in this context of discussion, he only felt there were things existing a priori, like the concept of noumena. My interpretation is, I think the only thing he thought was abstract was the concept of unknowable noumena.

So back to your question, if you take known a priori qualities, or the so-called nature of mathematics/music for example, what kind of existence is that? Here are some possible choices:

1. purely abstract
2. metaphysical abstract
3. cosmological abstract
4. universal abstract (universal languages-math/music)
5. physical abstract (through the ability to describe physics)
6. cognitive abstract (our consciousness)

and so on...

That's how I'm interpreting part of your questions. The logic of language is another topic of course...

so it might be risky to say the anchor point is the minds of people as opposed to the language of people. — Mark Dennis

...sure, the a priori thing in itself.

And the question begging notion that in either case of apprehending reality, it is not knowable. It just is.

I'm sure there are smarter and more intuitive minds out there that could elucidate better...

Purely abstract concepts are the things we know we don't know and the things we don't know we don't know, they may also be the things that we don't know that we know. — Mark Dennis

You probably already know this ( no pun intended-ha), but that is basically one interpretation of Kant's noumena.

Anchoring a purely abstract concept requires giving it a physical point with which to identify it physically through language. — Mark Dennis

I would say Mark, that anchoring abstracts is a method of apprehending or perceiving such through cognition. And through that cognition, we can posit it through the logic of language or consider it an ineffable phenomena.

I would submit, it would also not mean in either case, it could not become an objective truth. It could be a subjective truth, or an illogical truth, or even indeterminable. Beyond that, there are all kinds of logical truths, tautologies, contradictions, et al.

I think Leo has done a somewhat convincing or otherwise eloquent job at making the case for the metaphysical will in nature.

Accordingly, and in more of a succinct fashion, indeed I think of it like Schopenhauer's metaphysical will in nature, along with combining it with Kant's concept of noumena/intuition, then finally with cognitive science's ontology (Maslowian constant state of human striving-Being).

In that way I think of it in a reductionist manner. Meaning if you consider lower life forms (cosmology), instinct, higher levels of intellect along with existing abstracts like math and music (higher consciousness), then how can you not infer a metaphysical Will as a driving force?

That is not to say human's don't have instincts as a shared feature of existence. Take procreation as an example. Is that instinct or the phenomena of Love? Is it a combination of the two (or something else)?

So the why's of existence, is another way of defining the meaning of a metaphysical Will in nature. It's the closest concept that we can grasp to existence [the nature of] or Being (higher consciousness).

I found an interesting statement by Einstein related to this:

"The physical world is real." That is supposed to be the fundamental hypothesis. What does "hypothesis" mean here? For me, a hypothesis is a statement, whose truth must be assumed for the moment, but whose meaning must be raised above all ambiguity — Andrew M

That's basically Kant's synthetic a priori (aka: all events must have a cause).

I wonder, what does the realist say about abstracts/mathematics; is it something human's created, or did it always exist and we just uncovered/discovered its truth... ?

if a person perceives their life to be brilliant and they narcissistically believe they are infallible, can harm really befall them if they don't see it that way?



Ignorance is bliss on the one hand; curiosity and the thirst for knowledge on the other. Like so much in life, it is good to have a balance.

Nietzsche would probably just do all the new drugs.. — Mark Dennis

Kierkegaard would have enjoyed Viagra LOL.

But seriously, I think (particularly ancient philosophy), that those philosopher's would have most certainly changed their views viz modern physics and cognitive science.

It's always been my concern there, that one should always consider the source of contextual relevance in applying old theology or philosophy to the 21st Century.

Maybe I'm missing your point. My point is that it's written into text books on Philosophy. It's intrinsic to the domain as it were.

Maybe my question should be posed to academia... .

Do you see my concern? In other words couldn't one make a case for God / causation being intrinsic to the so-called Human thought process? Otherwise, philosophy text's would exclude it and replace it with something else(?).

And so if that is part of your argument (I'm trying to understand your argument/concern) what - axiom or otherwise-should we replace it with?

Yes Janus I've experienced that which you mentioned, as well.

In an attempt to get the good from the bad, and lessons-learned kind of things, it's inspiration of "how not to be". For example I think sometimes while we get into heated passionate discussions or debates, to be self-aware or disiplined enough where stepping back or allowing more time pass before responding can provide for a better discussion, excetera. I think he probably could have benefited some from that maybe.

Of course we are all guilty of that, to a greater or lesser extent.

One other note of inspiration that I'm gleaning from all this is to try to be more positive in my approach to passionate subject matter. I think people are on here because by and large they're interested in gaining knowledge and wisdom as well as testing and practicing their craft. And if we can remind ourselves of our original intentions, that may go a long way in keeping ourselves in check.

Again easier said than done...

My point/question is not rhetorical. The concept of God/causation is part of philosophical discourse whether we like it or not. Hence my question, why(?)

If a girl spends her whole life in a black and white room, and then experiences colour she is overjoyed. Why is this?

Her body remembers colour from her ancestors past lives. The body has many lessons it’s been ready to teach the conscious mind about colour. Like: Red is scary. — Yadoula

Question: under what circumstance could one imagine, that she would not be able to understand the color red?

Bonus questions: have you solved the hard problem of consciousness and subconscious working together? Or how about the phenomena of Love? For example, when someone looks at someone (or some thing) else and they feel love, what is that? How do we quantify or describe that?

Just food for thought....I like your thoughts about sentient beings though... .

I'm actually not too terribly surprised. I noticed a difference in his posts lately; antagonistic. Almost arguing for the sake of arguing.

Indeed He does! But in ways that are by no means easily evident, intuitive, obvious, or well understood. And ultimately just these are worth laying out and laying bare for a scrutiny that can lead to a better understanding of the whole subject matter. But is it to be war or discourse? For too many of us, it's war. And that alone, it seems to me, is worth confronting. — tim wood

Well notice I didn't say *ugly* 'head'. It rears its head for a reason.

That reason must convey some sort of 'universal' notion of cause that's associated with existence, right?
Why?

1. How so? If you look at all the philosophical disciplines, God rears its head as part of the analysis. It is used as a typical antithesis or contrasting form of discourse. I didn't put it in there and neither did you; it's what we read in the aforementioned domain's, right?

2. A lot of different ways? Sure, but doesn't it all come back to the nature of existence?

3. I missed that thread you're alluding to, please share... .

I think maybe if you would have linked it to artificial intelligence, which is an emerging topic, you would have had more success. You know, robots, driverless cars/trucks/commerce... .

If I may say, you would be denying Philosophy itself by ignoring the first cause axiom's.

For instance, you would have no criteria to argue the domain's of epistemology, ontology, ethics, metaphysics and so forth. In other words, how/why does one argue the nature of those existing things(?).

Am I missing something? As other's have alluded, are you serious, joking, or trolling?

( Why not take that disdain [and energy] you have against Religion and do a specific thread on it instead?)

In the ethical world:
Karma - good things happen to good people, and vice versa
Aristotle's mean of virtues - virtue is a balance, or an average, between extremes
Jesus's golden rule - treat your neighbor as yourself; in other words, your neighbor is equal to you — DanielP

Your above quote is yet again another direction or discipline one could explore. In ethics [how to live a life of happiness], I think it's important.

Real quick, politically and religiously, and in a general sense, I'm what you would call a moderate. I make a conscious effort not to dichotomize life's experience. Easier said than done I know, but as you suggest, balance has its virtues. Aristotle, Maslow and many other's have advocated such. The new term is generally called hybrid. Whether it is social norms, laws, politics, food consumption, music, vehicles, computer devices, on and on, striking a magical balance indeed has its virtues. Many things in life that work well are combining the virtues of two opposites into a hybrid. Obviously, in some ways, that is nothing new under the sun.

Are there exceptions to some of this of course... .

Once again, in short, I too believe in Balance. PoeticU and other's here have suggested same. Thank you for the reminder.

Do you think one reason that consciousness appears to be irrational is that the universe cannot be defined solely by logic, and requires or other tools to describe it? — DanielP

I think that's a great question. Sort of an all inclusive type of question that could lead one into many areas or directions. Gee, where to start.

1. My first thought is two-fold: the Kantian thing-in-themselves viz the nature of conscious existence. Then the a priori metaphysical language of mathematics having its limitations in describing the natural world-albeit pretty amazing thus far in theoretical physics.

2. The parallel is that both concepts are a priori.

3. As far as other tools, it would be worth looking into the technical aspects of our ability to discover truly novel ideas in propositional logic via Kant's Modalities: Possibility / Impossibility Existence / Non-existence Necessity / Contingency.

"Kant's Categories are a list of that which can be said of every object, they are related only to human language. In making a verbal statement about an object, a speaker makes a judgment. A general object, that is, every object, has attributes that are contained in Kant's list of Categories. In a judgment, or verbal statement, the Categories are the predicates that can be asserted of every object and all objects."

A good read here would be The Mind of God by theoretical physicist Paul Davies.

In short, I believe we have a problem with knowing objects themselves, as well as a problem with knowing the nature of our consciousness and how it works. So we have a problem with the perceiver us, along with the object in question. In other words, we can't escape the metaphysical components that rear their philosophical head's in the phenomenological world of perception/existence.

Can experience itself, be the tool that discovers and uncovers existential mystery? Or are we back to intuitional/metaphysical theories about our existence...can we use both to infer possibility?

Right now, in words, the closest we come to that answer is the synthetic a priori. That would be one answer to your question about intellectual tools... .

Assuming we can adequately define reason, did rational thinking make human beings more ethical in the past, perhaps in Plato's era, and is this still the case? — Enrique

I don't know if the ancients were more ethical, though if I were to guess I would say less ethical in some areas. For example, violence was obviously popular in Gladiatorial games.

Ironically enough though, I was having a nice conversation with a lady friend/dinner date yesterday about how relevant Aristotelian ethics are, and still somewhat applicable in the 21st Century. Aristotle outlines many of these virtues that we should practice to achieve happiness, including:

•Intelligence and scientific (or certain) knowledge.
•Practical wisdom: the ability to “deliberate well about what is good and expedient for [oneself].”
•Temperance: restraint, usually with regard to pleasurable activities.
•Generosity and friendship.
•Courage: The tendency to act in order to achieve some good even when facing the risk of physical harm.
•Contemplation: reflection on eternal truths.

I think the distinctions between happiness being a static (end-goals) or dynamic activity is an interesting argument to have. Or, as an alternative, if one can be happy simply in a state of Being, it begs the questions of how that can be achieved.

One may argue that say gaining intellectual wisdom in and of itself would provide for contentment or happiness in this case. Another person may argue that achieving end-goals is a better method. While still other's would say it's the activity itself (the journey; not destination) that should bring happiness-doing things but not just thinking/talking about things.

So there seems to be at least 3 or 4 ways of Being... . And they all contribute to some level of happiness. Ultimately though, we are hardwired for doing.

I think other intriguing answers might lie in parsing boredom, anger, fear, anxiety...

What is boredom?

t wherever we look it is missing or otherwise immeasurable, and therefor not something noticed, but imagined. — NOS4A2

Are you suggesting anything from consciousness that is immeasurable does not exist?

why are some souls sent to heaven and some to hell? — dazed

Dazed, as a Christian Existentialist I don't believe in hell. I'm sorry I won't be able to help you there. Though I don't necessarily consider myself a Unitarian Universalist, much of their apologetics I endorse.

As far as my personal ethics and some examples thereof:

1. Don't believe in killing humans.
2. Don't believe in capital punishment
3. Believe in law of attraction
4. Believe we choose our own hell on Earth
5. Believe Jesus exists

(With respect to item 2. politically, I don't believe in a cushy prison life for heinous crimes-deterrent. )

For more insight, look at the NDE phenomenon that people experience.

then the brain is ultimately more powerful than the soul in causal force? So how can any soul be held responsible for anything? B — dazed

Consider the (metaphysical) soul in another way:

Imagine the soul as an informational database of storage. Where the hardrive operating system storage of information is kept over time. Information collected from this life's experience.
The soul could be the a priori eternal thing in itself, that includes all your genetic footprints ... .

In that hypothesis, the brain could simply be part of the software. And the game that you desire to upload into it, is your volitional existence.

I don't think the soul can be held responsible.

wondering then, if other sentient species experience similar emotions and have the capacity to empathise, show compassion, possess theory of mind etc... why do so many people place our species on a pedestal? — Bella Lack

It's been awhile but studying the brain's limbic system which is basically the primitive small brain, is apparently where many animals have a form of sentience.

The main distinction between human and lower life-forms is the ability to communicate our intellectual and abstract reasoning.

Take for example the metaphysical abstracts of Music and Mathematics. Those features of consciousness confer no biological survival value.

Other features that go beyond instinct would be our metaphysical will to survive, our sense of wonderment, and other psychological intrinsic needs for human purpose.

To that end, for instance, one simple question is why do humans care about the meaning of life? Is that caring an accident? What does it mean to care? Why?

Interesting question on consciousness and subconsciousness, I haven't thought much about them. What's your perspective on them? — DanielP

Consciousness is irrational or illogical or otherwise beyond rational explanation... . It's like saying red and not red at the same time (LEM).

I always use the typical example of driving a car while daydreaming and risking an accident. Part of your brain is consciously working out details of navigation, while the other part has you thinking about work or a relationship or solving a math problem or whatever else you're preoccupied with... .

Cognitive science says your consciousness is driving and your subconsciousness is daydreaming. Or is it the other way around?

So we have an unresolved paradox of sorts...or brute mystery. Our conscious existence appears beyond explaination. But so is cosmology, metaphysics, phenomenology, and the concept of God.

Could it be plausible that in another world, our logic would be totally different? For example, would the metaphysical a priori language of mathematics be totally different (ToE)?

In any case we're apparently barred from ultimate knowledge about our existence. Yet as you suggest, there appears to be a metaphysical will in nature. Self-aware Beings who realize through abstract thinking, which in itself transcends Darwinion survival value, that there exists balance-homeostasis in our world.

Consider starting from the simple meaning of words, in a secular way.

Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

What does that mean to human's... ?

20. On 11-7-19: Judge ordered President Trump to pay $2 million to a group of charities on Thursday, ruling that the president had broken the law by directing the proceeds from an event advertised as benefiting veterans to his presidential campaign instead. The president admitted misusing money raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his presidential bid, pay off business debts and purchase a portrait of himself for one of his hotels.

Very inspiring and insightful post(s).

I'll add one to Poetic's listing:

27. Consciousness/subconsciousness

Questions; much like the numerous examples of balance, for example, good bacteria v. bad bacteria, what if we only had good and no bad? What if we only had bad but no good? And finally, and maybe more mysterious, what if we just had consciousness and no subconsciousness, and are they truly opposite's?

No more multitasking LoL

I feel bad and want to contribute briefly. I also mirror those comments from other's here.

To that end, practice does make perfect; or at least more tenable. Your feeling of not being comfortable around folks reminds me of when I started performing (music). When I started I was totally self-conscious and worried about making mistakes all the time. Then over TIME, I got more comfortable and realized my so-called purpose in performing, which was to entertain people. I owed it to the people watching me because that's what they deserved and payed for... . They don't deserve watching someone looking down, not smiling, who is worried all the time... .

Maybe think of it like, what do you owe to yourself, as well as to other people, when you engage with them? Always remember ( as cognitive psychologist Maslow said) it is through other's we achieve our goals.

In other words, back to the music example, if I practice my guitar all day, then go to perform and nobody shows-up, what's the point? If I buy a boat and sit on an island by myself, what's the point if there is no one around to enjoy it with? We are all interconnected Beings; we need people.

Otherwise, I agree with other's not to more or less ruminate over stuff; try not to overthink certain things. There is a popular routine called 'mindfulness' which is basically meditation. Goggle it and try it. It may replace the ruminating some.

Much about of the art of living is finding a balance in things.

God Bless

In "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" (1995), Chalmers wrote:[4]


It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

In the same paper, he also wrote:

The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive there is a whir of information processing, but there is also a subjective aspect.

Then, of course there is Dennett's qualia who identifies four properties that are commonly ascribed to qualia.[2] According to these, qualia are:
1.ineffable ; that is, they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any means other than direct experience.
2.intrinsic ; that is, they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3.private ; that is, all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4.directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness; that is, to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

Then there is also Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will, and Kant's metaphysical noumena.

Many of those attempt to explain the various non-physical aspects of the conscious phenomena.

I hope that helps some...

perceive it more in terms of its adherents' modes of behavior, the impacts it has in a given society — uncanni

Indeed I've argued over the dangers of perpetuating age-old religious paradigms that no longer fit the contextual values in the 21st century...

Medical science, cognitive science, physical science have all progressed to our benefit. And it's also been argued in the past that science and religion need to come together where possible. Fundamentalism seems to resist that...

Hey no problem at all Mark... And be safe with your move, hopefully the weather will cooperate for you. And be safe and remember to lift with your legs.

We don't want you suffering from any Existential Angst when you're doing the Taoism thread LOL.