Would you call this a "flow" state? — ZzzoneiroCosm

"Flow" is not a term I would normally use in this context, but if by that you mean

...that sense of fluidity between your body and mind, where you are totally absorbed by and deeply focused on something, beyond the point of distraction. Time feels like it has slowed down. Your senses are heightened. You are at one with the task at hand, as action and awareness sync to create an effortless momentum.

then I guess the answer is yes.

@GLEN willows

But the Churchland's (and by the way I don't agree with everything they write) use the term eliminative materialism.
— GLEN willows

I've tagged an article about the Churchlands in the Atlantic, but I haven't read it yet. I'll see if I have anything to add after I read it. — T Clark

Forgot to ask. Do you have a reference for a relatively brief discussion of the Churchlands' ideas that you like.

By the way, I'm always ambivalent about your posts. They are generally well-written, interesting, and well-thought out, and sometimes even right. On they other hand, you always have long quotes and links to articles that I have to read or I'll miss something important. I'm a busy man!! Why can't you write facile, snarky, trivial, brief posts like...well, you know who?

Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes. — Ed Feser

I don't find this very convincing. Again, it comes back to the hierarchical knowledge. It is not reasonable to expect processes and phenomena at one level to fully explain those at a higher level. Chemistry does not fully explain living organisms, but life can certainly "be identified with" chemical processes.

First person consciousness is not objective, it is 'what observes'. — Wayfarer

Calling consciousness "first person consciousness" is redundant. It is possible to study consciousness objectively just like it is possible to look at eyes, think about minds, etc. Introspection is a valid method of inference, as is observing conscious actions and speech.

But the Churchland's (and by the way I don't agree with everything they write) use the term eliminative materialism. — GLEN willows

I've tagged an article about the Churchlands in the Atlantic, but I haven't read it yet. I'll see if I have anything to add after I read it.

I would argue consciousness is a separate "thing" from the brain — GLEN willows

I agree with this.

I think consciousness may require a NEW method of study - that we don't yet have. You know - like when they invented those "microscopes" to study bacteria? — GLEN willows

There is already a method of study for consciousness and other mental processes - psychology, of which cognitive science is a branch. Advances in brain imaging in the last 20 years or so have changed psychology in the same way that microscopes changed biology. That doesn't mean more new methods won't be found.

‘Rational inference’, which neuroscientists, materialists, and everyone else rely on whenever they use the word ‘because’, neither has, nor requires, a scientific grounding. Rational inference depends wholly and solely on the relations of ideas - ‘is’, ‘is not’, ‘is greater than’, ‘is the same as’, and so on. Judgements based on those simple elements are intrinsic to any rational claim about anything whatever, including the claim that thought can be explained in physical terms. Yet those very same elements of thought are not the object of scientific analysis, because they precede scientific analysis - in order to engage in scientific analysis, such judgements are needed in the first place. — Wayfarer

I'm kind of lost. Is this intended as an argument against rational inference about mental phenomena or against any rational inference at all?

A practical example. Consider a neurological expert who claims that data shows that some area within the brain performs a function. You won’t see anything like ‘a function’ when you look at the data, which presumably consists of graphical images of neural activity and so on. You must take the experts word for it that this data means such-and-such. That ‘meaning’ is always internal to the act of judgement - you won’t see that in the data, not unless you are likewise trained in the interpretation of what the data means. — Wayfarer

Again, inference from observations is the way we know almost everything. When I'm reading about some scientific finding, I often say to myself "How did they get that conclusion from that data?" I assume that they know what they are talking about. Is that the problem?

That's mice, right? With smells. So good luck with working out the neurology of Justice, or Truth, or Beauty! — Wayfarer

This is not a very convincing story. Some thoughts:

• Smell is a different kind of thing than justice.
• Just cause I can't do it now doesn't mean I won't be able to.
• Just because the results I've gotten are complex and hard to understand doesn't mean my conclusions are wrong.
• Even if I can never determine the neurology of justice, that doesn't mean it isn't the result of neurological processes.
• I've read that scientists are working to develop a vocabulary of brain states as measured by PET scan or MRI. They can use that to tell what people are thinking in a very crude way. That may not be crude forever or even for long.

I support democracy and majority rule but I certainly would never suggest dissenters just 'suck it up.' Organise, protest, campaign, even engage in civil disobedience but I would also emphasise the importance of a non-violent strategy. Otherwise, you are not being true to yourself and agree to be like a carpet for those you don't agree with to freely walk all over. — universeness

I don't disagree with anything you've written. As I indicated, I am ambivalent about the issue.

The statement "eventually consciousness and qualia will eventually be explained with neuroscience" is speculative, but no more so that "consciousness and qualia will never be explained by neuroscience." — GLEN willows

I think you'll find a lot of people here who are sympathetic to the position you support. I certainly am. At the same time, I can understand why people resist. Consciousness is so personal, intimate, fundamental, experientially mysterious. How could it all just be mechanical. How the heck do electrical impulses become the movies I see in my head? The brain is outside, but I'm here inside. They are obviously different types of things. They are in different categories.

I strongly believe that everything I experience results from processes that take place in my body, primarily in the nervous system. If I may steal a concept from another discipline, there are no hidden variables. But saying that "explains" consciousness is like saying chemistry explains life. And the answer is (drumroll) emergence. Yes, it has become a cliche, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Saying I can break down (analyze) mental phenomena into biological processes isn't the same as saying I can build (synthesize) mental processes up from biological leggo blocks. It doesn't work both ways. That is the hallmark of strong emergence. As P.W. Anderson wrote, "More is Different."

We've had lots of discussions about this here. If you're lucky, Apokrisis will come along and explain downward constraints in hierarchical systems.

Just wanted to say that this is a great conversation you two are having. I don't have anything substantive to add, but I've really enjoyed reading along.

This from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences:

Women received 61% of the humanities bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2015—four percentage points higher than the share among all degree recipients. From 1987 to 2015, the annual percentage of women earning bachelor’s degrees in the humanities remained within a range of four percentage points—from just above 58% (in 1995) to a high of slightly above 62% (in the early 2000s).

With 61% of the field’s degrees going to women, the humanities were most akin to the fine and performing arts (62%) in the representation of women among bachelor’s degree recipients in 2015. The health and medical sciences (with 84%), education (72%), and social sciences (63%) each had a greater share of women completing degrees in the field than the humanities, while engineering (19%) and business and management (47%) had substantially smaller shares.

About the same percentage of men and women in the US have college degrees. A much larger percentage of women than men are enrolled in college and a much larger percentage of women complete their degree.

That’s an interpretation - in the US particularly, it depends on your position in relation to religion. Realistically, the intention is to protect BOTH. — Possibility

Maybe I overstated my case. When I think of separation of church and state, I usually think of protecting the political system against a theocracy such as ISIS. I was pointing out that protection of religion is just as important. I understand that is what you are saying.

This line was always a favorite. It seems to have some link to Pascal's: "All of humanity's problems stem from his inability to sit quietly in a room alone." — ZzzoneiroCosm

I think you're right. The Tao Te Ching emphasizes living lives without desiring more than you have or need. That would include novelty, excitement, fashionable activities. Some say the passage from the Tao Te Ching is one of those that endorses paternalistic government - the ruler keeping his people ignorant and docile.

For what it's worth, the trips I took to Europe with my family in 1989 and with my brother in 2014 were among the high points of my life. I still think about them all the time.

Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
— T Clark

This I connect to the notion of a flexible, flowing self-confidence. For example, 20 years ago I would often schedule my daily and weekly tasks to be sure all were completed in a timely fashion. Whereas today (I'm 46, for reference) my attitude is: this will happen; just wait and see it happen. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Acting without acting, wu wei, is one of the most important ideals of Taoism. Have you had the experience of spontaneous action arising from within without forethought or intention? Maybe when you're being most creative. I certainly have. Action arising from your true self. The subject shows up time after time in many verses.

A lot of spiritual emotion in that line. — ZzzoneiroCosm

One of my favorite verses. The line after the one you quoted was shocking to me when I first read it:

I do not know whose child it is,
It is an image of what precedes God.

Lao Tzu says the Tao comes before God. What could be more amazing, radical, maybe blasphemous than that.

I certainly get the point of the 'secular state', if the alternative is officially-mandated belief. The point of the secular state is to provide a framework within which you can practice any religion or none, but there's a vocal minority who will always take that to mean that none is better than any. — Wayfarer

As I noted, I am personally ambivalent. It's no surprise the country is too.

there are many other examples (although admittedly, the Santa Monica example was not as simple as a shop-window display.) — Wayfarer

That's what confused me. I don't think you'll find anywhere in the US where people are not allowed to show religious symbols on privately-owned property. The story you linked to was about an incident in a publicly owned park. The second amendment has been interpreted to forbid government at all levels from involvement in religious displays. I'm ambivalent about that.

According to Pew, 70% of Americans are Christian, 6% are other faiths (Judaism 2% , Islam 1%), and 22% are no affiliation. I would guess that most of the 22% unaffiliated were raised as Christians and are more or less comfortable with Christian symbols. Part of me wants to tell non-Christians, of which I am one - "You live in a Christian nation, just suck it up." On the other hand, I believe the separation is important.

I don’t know about all peoples descriptions of a possible god but to me the mere physical properties of light or any energy for that matter puts it top of the list of my personal contenders. — Benj96

You've listed a lot of the properties of light. It's an impressive list, but I don't see what it has to do with God.

It appears to slow down through material but individual photons do not slow down their path is just riddled with bouncing around off material before exiting. — Benj96

Sorry to be a nitpicker, but this is not the reason light slows down in different media. Here's a really good explanation.

As for nirvana, do you suppose one of 'em options is via dolorosa (the problem is the solution — Agent Smith

Intelligence - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. I won't do that again.

Wisdom - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow!.... Bang. Hey... wait a minute!

Have patience. Wait until the mud settles and the water is clear. Remain unmoving until right action arises by itself. — frank

Alas, I am not Lao Tzu.

Just expressing my thoughts about it. We are free to criticize, n'est pas? I think it's a bunch of $##%^$. — Hillary

You've made your opinion clear. Now all you are doing is sniping with no substantive content. As I said, it's harassment. Please stop.

Brother Smith! T Clark is serious!.... — Hillary

You're right, I do take this thread seriously. Please stop harassing it.

the way out of the maze of suffering/agony/angst/pain. — Agent Smith

• Alcohol and drugs
• Death
• Enlightenment

The first two are easy.

Sorry - I should point out that my personal experience of democracy is external to the US system. I wasn’t referring to the ‘separation of church and state’ as such, but to its common (mis)interpretation as the ideal of secularism: as Wayfarer pointed out, the difference between ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ religion. — Possibility

Separation of church and state is intended primarily to protect religion from government influence rather than the other way around. One obvious way that could happen is that government will restrict religious practice. Surprisingly, to me at least, many Christians also believe that churches' involvement in politics leads to a corruption of faith.

This is another one of those philosophical enigmas that I haven't been able to crack for, what?, the last 30+ years. — Agent Smith

Avoiding attachment without trying not to try to avoid it is the hardest part. Please don't imagine I know how to do it.

Many religious writers are in complete agreement and sometimes go further than atheists on this subject. Just read Christian writers David Bentley Hart or Bishop John Shelby Spong, or one of the best more recently by a Christian writer Kristen Du Mez Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. This is important stuff and can't really be minimized with vague 'straw man' claims. — Tom Storm

Wayfarer has quoted this text several times on the forum. St. Augustine, one of the Catholic Church's Church Fathers, wrote it in 415. It shocked me the first time I read it.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

What's your take on suffering...in an out of Buddhism? — Agent Smith

My own reading of the ancient Sanskrit texts indicates that the correct translation is "All life is surfing."

But seriously, here's one brief explanation from the web:

A common, sloppy rendering of the Truths tells us that life is suffering; suffering is caused by greed; suffering ends when we stop being greedy; the way to do that is to follow something called the Eightfold Path.

In a more formal setting, the Truths read:

The truth of suffering (dukkha)
The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga)...

The Second Noble Truth teaches that the cause of suffering is greed or desire. The actual word from the early scriptures is tanha, and this is more accurately translated as "thirst" or "craving."

We continually search for something outside ourselves to make us happy. But no matter how successful we are, we never remain satisfied. The Second Truth is not telling us that we must give up everything we love to find happiness. The real issue here is more subtle; it's the attachment to what we desire that gets us into trouble. — Learn Religions

So, who did you ask was committing the Scotsman fallacy? — Merkwurdichliebe

I think you are committing the No "No True Scotsman Fallacy" Fallacy

Gautama, in my humble opinion, was cursed with hyperalgesia (his pain threshold was low) and hence, I suspect, his description of existence as hellish (1st Noble truth: Life is suffering). — Agent Smith

This shows a pretty egregious lack of understanding of what "suffering" means in Buddhism.

Thank you for the opportunity to use "egregious" in a post.

A truly religious person will likely have a fanatical certainty of the general law that is to be observed... I would go so far to say that there are exceedingly few examples of truly religous individuals, — Merkwurdichliebe

This is certainly not true from my experience.

that is true, but when it comes to well-funded lobby groups taking legal action to prohibit displays of religious iconography in store windows then it amounts to rather more than that in practice. — Wayfarer

I haven't heard of anything like that? Was it in the US? Australia?

Though I love the poem. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Definitely powerful. "The power of will" is not just a cliche.

Kazantzakis' epitaph: I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. — ZzzoneiroCosm

When I first read that I thought - "Yes, he means exactly the same thing that Lao Tzu did." Then I read the poem. It's the anti-Tao. For me, the Tao is about surrender of will. Wu wei is action without intention, without will. Kazantzakis' poem is a paean to Will with a capital "W." He has taken hope and fear and wrestled them till they were bloody carcasses lying on the sand. Then he held up their severed heads for the crowd to see so he could hear their roar. Lao Tzu saw through their illusion and didn't think about them any more.

And it means we include secular institutions, devoid of religious values. So non-religious values are given the power. — Hillary

The people who originally set the rules made the government a secular institution because of the problems they saw with religions intimate involvement with government. For better or worse, that's what we have now. I think the separation is important.

I'm wondering about your take on desire. To my view, desire, broadly defined, is the prime motivator for artistic creation and spiritual aspiration. I get that Toaists and Buddhists (I'm a self-made universalist syncretist of sorts) have a beef with desire, and I understand that unregulated desire, untempered irrational desire, can cause a lot of psychical suffering. But I put desire at the heart of inspiration and inspiration at the heart of a life fully lived. — ZzzoneiroCosm

As I see it, for Lao Tzu, desire denotes our craving for worldly treasure - acclaim, success, money, power. On the flip side, our fear of pain, death, dishonor, poverty. From Verse 24, one of my favorite lines:

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

The alternative is "wu wei," non-action, acting without acting. Acting without intention or desire. Acting spontaneously from our true selves.

If you're acting to achieve something or avoid something, that's desire. If you're acting from your heart, it's the Tao. Or actually, maybe Te. I get confused by that.

Keeping in mind, please, that this is my understanding. Lao Tzu gets pissed when I put words in his mouth.

For that reason, the idea of secularism - that we can exclude religious values from this process, which includes discussions of morality to develop an inclusive ethical framework - is naive at best. — Possibility

Separation of church and state doesn't mean we exclude religious values, it means we exclude religious institutions from government.

To find depth, you have to wander. You have to risk irrelevance. You have to be brave, but most of all, you have to be fascinated. You have to be fascinated by people, by the world, in other words, you have to be fascinated by yourself, Because you are the domain of depth. It's what you think and feel: that's where it starts. It's how you connect the dots. It's how you name the planets. — frank

For me, depth comes from awareness. To the extent that thinking and writing increases our awareness of ourselves, the world, and other people is the extent to which it has depth. In philosophy, I think the focus is on awareness of how we think, how we understand the world, how we know things.

I don't think my way of seeing things is all that different from yours.

Well-thought-through and well-expressed.

Good post. What you wrote makes a lot of sense and is well-put.

If a proposition (herein that causality is logically necessary) can't be proven true but feels true, it could be a self-evident truth! — Agent Smith

I think it's the other way around - if it feels true but we can't prove it, we call it self-evident. That's my problem with the whole concept of self-evidence. It lets people be lazy with the illusion of knowledge.

Have women's movements not been rife with just that? Pointing out that: men were allowed to vote while they weren't; men had superior opportunities to pursue education, etc.... When women point out the double standard in condemnation of their promiscuous behaviors in comparison to men, would you say they're putting men down and if so why? — Valued contributer

Women should have the vote because they are adult citizens of our country with as much right to the benefits of citizenship as anyone else, not because men have it. Ditto for education. For what it's worth, college enrollment is significantly higher for women than it is for men. People who are denied what they deserve just for being citizens, residents, human beings should get it, independent of who else gets what.

As for a double standard for sexual behavior, that's a social issue that it's not much use complaining about. It will require a change in attitude. It also would probably be helpful if both men and women were more responsible sexually. I wonder how many women apply the double standard you are talking about to other women. I don't know the answer to that.

Didn't you like our excited debate? — javi2541997

If the discussion were substantive, that would be fine, but...

A post of serious interest as a pleasant interlude in the knucklehead tennis match taking up most of this thread. Thanks for that.