Hello, I think that you are new to the forum, so I welcome you and hope that you find a lot of helpful discussion. What is good here is that there is a lot of diversity of thought on what the 'truth' is. As you may have discovered if you have read some of this thread there is questioning of science rather simply people being blinded and mystified by its power.

As far as the the relationship between science and religion, it is complex, and I have struggled with it. I don't consider myself as an atheist but have a general interest in religious experience. When I first learned the story of evolution at school, by a teacher who said that he was an atheist, when I was about 9 or 10, I was horrified because I was being brought up by a Catholic family. I requested to be sent to a Catholic school and I stayed in Catholic schools until I was 18. But, what I discovered by about the age of 13 or 14 was that some of the Catholic teachers believed in evolution or were struggling with knowing how to evaluate it.

I found that the English teacher helped me to make sense of it. He explained how the nature of scripture and Biblical narratives are so different. 'The Book of Genesis' is not like newspaper journalism. It was based on mythical and folklore traditions, which were written down. The authors had not witnessed the creation of the world in 7 days and an actual Adam or Eve. So much is symbolic; but that represents a different kind of 'truth', rather than literal.

So, generally, I think that the story of evolution is definitely important, but it probably doesn't represent the whole truth. One of my own interest is in the evolution of consciousness and culture, and this is extremely complex. Science is important, yet all theories, like stories and metaphors are models. It is worth trying to modify them in line with empirical evidence, although it is important to be aware that they are only models and may have big gaps.

I actually meant Theravada Hinduism but there is a fair amount of overlap between Hinduism and Buddhism, which makes sense considering that Buddhism developed from Hinduism. I have read some of Hegel's writings. I have definitely got to the point of thinking that percep)tion is of major importance and hope to read more phenomenology.

I read Karl Popper's, 'Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem' last week which looks at the complexity of the mind and body relationship. One main argument which he developed is based on the idea of emergent evolution. He suggests that, 'The novel structures which emerge always interact with the basic structure of physical states from which they emerge. The controlling system interacts with the controlled system. Mental states interact with the physiological states. And world 3 interacts with world 2, and through it with world 1.

Thanks, I had a quick read through of the article and it is very interesting so I will probably read it again more slowly. I definitely like the term cognitive narcissism, because I think that it is applicable to the fascinating with psychology.

My main understanding of Eastern metaphysics was based on Hinduism which I did a term module on when I was a student and it was based on Theravada Buddhism. I am also influenced by Rudolf Steiner some theosophy and have read books by Benjamin Creme. Have you read anything by Creme, he has some extraordinary ideas, but I have attended workshops on transmission meditation. This was the meditation which he developed and even though I am not sure that it really involves channeling down energies from the Masters, I found it to be the best form of meditation I have come across.

Do you really believe that idealism is true. I thought that you were a physicalist. I am definitely not a materialist. Generally, I think that the relationship between mind and body is complex, and I do have some sympathy with non dualism. However, I do find that my thinking on the matter fluctuates and where I think that mind is the main source of everything. I definitely find Eastern philosophy helpful, although from what I gather there is dispute over mind and matter in Buddhism.

Within esoteric thinking there is a tradition of seeing mind as more real. Plato's idea of the Forms suggests that ideas exist beyond the physical world. Also, the physicist, David Bohm, considered that beyond the physical world, the explicate order, there is the implicate order, which is a bit like the idea of Plato's forms. From what I have read of science, it seems that it does come up with clear answers about whether the body or mind are more real. Physics, which is like the master of the physical sciences because other sciences are lead by it, seems to be about models and interpretations and it does seem that the metaphysical imagination comes into play in the process of theories being developed initially.

To Agent Smith and Mr Daniel Dennett,

You are still you and exist as consciousness, and not an illusion, while asleep, even if part of you goes into the astral dimension.

Yours faithfully,
Mr Jack Cummins

I hope that you sleep well. I do struggle to get to sleep frequently. I will look up what Dennett thinks about sleep and get back to you. My own thinking is that it does seem that identity continues in sleep to a large extent because in dreams we are usually the same person as in waking consciousness. I once dreamt that I climbed out of my body and into that of the body of a drummer playing in a rock band. But, I never went on to learn to play the drums, so maybe that was my long lost vocation...

Actually, if you remember, I did write a thread on the Holy Spirit really, because you wrote on it. The thread was about the idea of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is considered to be the unpardonable sin according to the Gospels. I spoke of how I got into a bad state worrying about the passage in the Bible when I was 13. A few years later, I was relieved to read that both Jung and Kierkergaard had worried over what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit meant.

When I tried to think at some point when I was still going to church about the Trinity, the conclusion which I came to was as follows: God the father is the source, and the son, Christ, is the embodiment, with the Holy Spirit as being the force through which this is mediated, especially in the embodiment as Christ. The view which I came to about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was the general attitude of hatred of good or love and compassion represented by Christ .

Nowadays, I do also think that other teachers, especially the Buddha come from a similar starting point. Rudolf Steiner also speaks of Christ consciousness, which seems related to the idea of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure how the idea of the Holy Spirit stands in relation to materialism. Also, it is questionable whether God the father is male, as it would make more sense to see God as androgynous, and beyond gender.

I don't think that taste, such as art taste is purely physical. The pieces of art are physical objects but this is interconnected with representation or the mental states of those who created them. I see mind as real, even if relies on physical structures as a basis.

But are you and your experience, whether as Agent Smith or the Madfool? It may be about naming of identity, to describe experience, or does the experience in itself have more to say about the nature of consciousness? Each of us is an individual aspect of consciousness, and what does this mean?

It comes down to how reality is viewed and what one means by illusion' in viewing consciousness in that way. Illusion is generally taken to mean that something which is only imaginary and not real. However, the question is whether one gives any significant to the imagination, or whether it is seen as having no importance because it is not physical. Is only that which is physical real?

That is where Dennett' s statement is that of materialism. The implications is that physical reality is all there is or all that is important. Okay, physical matter is observable, although particles are not clearly visible and are in constant movement. It may be that the self and consciousness are processes, but are processes not real? As human beings our meaning is connected to experience, and we experience life as subjects and the basis of our meanings are bound up with our subjective experiences in relation to other beings and objects. To say that consciousness is an illusion is stating that the experiences of consciousness is insignificant simply because it cannot be grasped in the same way as the physical world, which may be the basis for physical reality.

Yes, it may be that it is a reflection of materialism and scientific thinking, but the issue is that the people who adhere to ideas such as consciousness is an illusion don't seem to even question beyond the ideas. It may be that so many people have grown up in a climate influenced by Dennett and similar thinkers that to look beyond for other alternative perspectives can almost be seen as antiscience.

Of course, it is up to each individual to come to their own conclusions but some ideas are represented more prominently in culture generally. Different individuals may come across specific ideas according to their family and educational background, and it is likely that some people are not that aware of the full diversity of ideas, especially historically.

I like the term anti-philosophy and it may be that he has not helped the art of philosophy. However, what may be worse is when people take the idea of consciousness as an illusion in an extremely shallow way to dismiss the importance of mind and consciousness. I do believe that he is at least wishing to understand the complexities of the nature of consciousness. It may be that the conclusion which he comes to is more one which represents the underlying view of many thinkers, based on cognitive psychology, more than from the angle of the historical development of ideas. This is bound up with a picture of reality which emphasises empirical observations above all other ways of understanding.

The area of abstract concepts is where it gets so complex. As you say river, mountain and friend are more straightforward than ideas, although friend is connected to value attachments, so is less straightforward than mere objects. The nature of concepts in general may be why metaphysics may exist beyond language. This may have been thre basis for Plato's theory of Forms. Although it is hard to point to them in a concrete way, it may be that some basis of ideas exists independently of the human mind.

One aspect which is interesting is the way that languages vary unlike mathematical ones, like numbers and the basic principles of mathematics. Of course, there are underlying concepts which seem to coexist although expressed differently in words. I do wonder how the basic ideas seem to have a certain universality but with different expression in the many languages.

There were signs and symbols developed in culture, including hieroglyphs and alphabets. There are some shared alphabets and some which are completely different. It could be asked how such similarities and differences come about. In some ways, it is about naming of objects in the physical world, but it is also about abstract concepts. Ideas may be understood a bit differently from one culture to culture, and this may be where the evolution of language is connected to philosophy, because this involves the naming and framing of basic ideas about life and the human condition.

I haven't been a big fan of Dennett really but in the last few weeks of reading him I do think that his writings are extremely important, if for nothing else other than capturing a major way of thinking in the twentieth first century.

It may be that there are inadequacies in language for talking about consciousness. Therefore, it is rather ironic that some philosophers, ranging from the logical positivists to Wittgenstein, see the philosophy as being restricted to the limitations of language. It seems like some kind of double knot.

I have been reading Julian Jaynes recently and he sees language as arising from metaphors, especially those of poetry and song. He also maintains that subjectivity of self arose in connection with this. In the early stages of culture, there was less of a clear distinction between inner and outer reality. He refers to the way in which the Mesopotamians and writers of the Indian 'Upanishads' involved projection of thoughts as 'voices' from the gods.

Also, I am inclined to think that anthropology may throw some light upon the evolution of language and that some dialogue between philosophy and anthropology may be important in thinking about language, which is a central aspect of philosophy. Language is about shared meanings in communication and it may be that in construction of the idea of 'self' others play an important role in mirroring. No person can exist as an entirely separate entity, even in cultures which value individualism.

Some may see consciousness as an illusion, as Dennett does, and others, including some Buddhists see the self as illusionary. However, in some ways, while each person exists as a unique entity, in some ways each person exists as part of the web of culture and its consciousness, with language being the main point of reference. I do also wonder to what extent does individuals consciousness exist, and how dependent is it upon the physical aspects of reality?

In previous times, in the context of dualism, many believed in the journey of the individual 'soul' beyond life on earth. Some people still adhere to that, which has a certain understanding of consciousness. However, many do not hold that view, and it may be that the individual lives on in cultural memory through artefacts. In that sense, information is the basis for continuity of the person. But, so much of the understanding of consciousness, human identity and its continuity comes down to language, but the origins of language itself may be important in considering this too.

The idea of consciousness as ' a last hideout for the sacred' is an interesting idea, because it may be that many would prefer a perspective in which the individual human being has little value, the person being a mere number and of insignificance. This was the idea which I was thinking of when I wrote the thread on science and objectivity. Even though this thread was inspired by @Agent Smith's query about what did Dennett mean by the idea of consciousness as an illusion, it has ended up back to the philosophy of materialism and its implications for values. Some may find ways of constructing meaning against the void of illusions which may become apparent in the face of materialism.

So, it may come down to the authenticity of meaning and about whether materialism captures the truth. What is really real and how much is about fabrications as fantasy? Perhaps, those who can live with their fantasy constructs are those who are valued in society, because this may be about validation and going beyond some kind of illusion. It does also come down to myth as an idea beyond material reality and it may be that there are social and political issues here, in the way that language and metanarratives of human meaning are communicated.

It may be worth noting the humility of an esteemed philosopher expressing some confusion, but at the same time, he is seeking to demystify the nature of consciousness, and look for the connection between consciousness, language and understanding.

It is by no means a simple matter to consider the nature of consciousness and its origins. One interesting remark which may lead many of us to feel less alone in thinking about the nature of consciousness, especially in relation to where it stands in relation to physicality is Dennett's remark, ' I was the one who's terminally confused, and of course it's possible that our bold community of enthusiasts are deluding each other.'

It may be that in attempt to form a cohesive understanding that some thinkers try to cut corners and simplify. There is so much uncertainty and I am not suggesting that people should give up trying. That would throw philosophy out of the window and be about giving up trying to understand. One idea of Wittgenstein's which may be of importance is that language limits our understanding of the world. This applies to consciousness and it may be that through understanding of the evolution of language that some light can be thrown on consciousness itself, as a way of going beyond what Searle describes as 'the mystery of consciousness'. Language may be an extremely important link in what is often seen to be the difficulty of explaining consciousness, especially that of human beings.

I have sometimes wondered about Dennett' understanding of what it means to be conscious. I have thought about his ideas in relation to the reductive aspects of the ideas within behaviorism, especially that of B F Skinner. In some ways, I do wonder if the idea of consciousness being an illusion is bound up with the question of the value of consciousness and its significance. In thinking about consciousness, especially that the human individual it may be that the inner experience of the individual can be elevated beyond all proportion or diminished as of insignificance. So, when thinking of Dennett' point of view I am left wondering how much is about descriptive knowledge and how much is about the value of the meaning of inner aspects of human consciousness.

I was really thinking about this question with reference to Dennett's outlook, but it does include wider questions about the underlying processes of life, possibly the idea of the will to life as an underlying aspect of the world, as suggested by Schopenhauer. It may be about going beyond the apparent aspects of 'metaphysics' and thinking about origins of culture, consciousness and what is distinct about human beings from other lifeforms. It is likely that that human beings have elevated themselves to the top of the hierarchy of the design.

Nevertheless, as human beings it is easier to understand human consciousness than any forms of consciousness. So, I am still asking about the relevance of language for understanding how human consciousness emerged? That is because from my reading of Dennett and other writers, language and consciousness seem linked clearly.

Sorry if my answer wasn't helpful, but I don't know if heaven or hell could ever be permanent because it is questionable whether they could be without any aspects of the other. When I used to hear of people in heaven for eternity as told in the Bible, I used to think how can they be happy if people who were close to them had gone to hell.

I am not sure that I wouldn't rather be a fool satisfied rather than Socrates in many ways. Some people seem to have such a lot more enjoyment and good fortune in life than others. It may be partly due to attitude and underlying temperament, but life often seems so unfair. Most of the time I am probably somewhere in between being satisfied and disgruntled, but I don't like it I am as miserable and lying on my bed listening to The Doors, The Smith's and The Manic Street Preachers, although they do help. But, getting back to religion, I don't want to go to the other extreme and be singing and dancing to hymns. I would prefer to be reading some existential angst of Kierkergaard and some wallowing in Sartre...

The question about pain and suffering in connection with religious ways of thinking is whether it is about physical or emotional pain. In some ways, people may regard physical pain as more real, but it may be that mental and emotional pain can be as harsh. Emotional pain and physical pain could be seen as hell and ecstatic experience can be seen as heaven in this life. It may be that people mystify the concepts of both heaven and hell as being in a supernatural realm. As far as nirvana and moksha, it is hard to know if they are more goals rather than something which people can attain fully. They are seen mostly as future possibilities.

I suppose that this does apply to heaven as well because even if someone is having a wonderful life of joy it is likely that they will experience pain at some point simply because this comes with the experience of sentience. That may be why heaven and nirvana are seen as more likely in a life beyond the body. Of course, many Christians do believe in a resurrection at the end of the world. This is often viewed as a form of paradise on earth, rather like utopia.

It is true that all religions are about suffering and evil as a starting point but there are many other aspects as well, including a whole basis for social ethics, often focusing on the importance of compassion. Of course, some philosophy points of view are based on ideas about the problem of suffering and evil too, but without the emphasis on the 'supernatural'. It is debatable whether Buddhism has any conception of the supernatural in the way most religions have.

What do you think that these people had in common? It also may be important to think about their differences too. In particular, the Buddha did not necessarily believe in God while Jesus saw his own role and mission in relation to God, his father in heaven.

One viewpoint which I am also familiar with is that of Benjamin Creme, an esoteric artist in England, is that both Jesus and the Buddha were spiritual brothers and Masters. Creme had some very unusual ideas, especially a belief that Maitreya was living in East London, which he had been saying since the late seventies. He founded a group, Share International, and a specific form of meditation, transmission meditation, which he and his followers believed was about channeling the energies of the Masters. One really unusual idea which he had was that Jesus was only Christ during the few years of his ministry.

One major theme uniting the various figures, although I don't know anything about the one you describe in Jainism, is the specific role attributed to them as leaders. Of course, within the framework of the particular religions they are seen as much more, but looked at more from an anthropological perspective, they could be seen as having a shamanic journey and role. They went further in their exploration of reality than those around them and brought knowledge and wisdom for other people.

I am not sure if this relates to your topic but some people believe that the current climate change and some other problems are the vengeance of God. The Old Testament shows that God has a wrathful anger as well as having the loving and forgiving aspects represented by the figure of Jesus.

I think that you make some good decisions. It seems that there are so many myths and things which are contradictory. I know people who cling to the belief that they cannot catch Covid_19 and I am fed up with explaining that it masks only prevent passing germs onto others. Also, some people are adhering rigidly to advice and others doing exactly what they like in terms of mixing, including people with Covid_19 socialising freely while some people who are negative are being so careful.


There just seems to be no balance and the most absurd thing is seeing discarded masks littered on public transport. At some point, if Covid_19 becomes a thing of the past, so much of contradictory advice and behaviour may be viewed as involving so many mistakes. The problem is that those giving rules are making them up as they go along. Some of it seems to be about prescriptive rules. I wonder if it would be more helpful if the emphasis was on harm minimization, with a focus on people balancing risks, amidst all the uncertainties.

It is hard to know to what extent pain leads to 'enlightenment' or being crushed. Many mystics took the view that suffering was important to the point of ascetic practices. Many query this and think about pleasure, including those of the body do not need to be strived against.

But, many people have difficult life experiences and trauma. It can be damaging and even lead to mental health problems, stress and PTSD among other difficulties. On the other hand, it may be that suffering does lead to some increased awareness, whether it is strictly called 'enlightenment' as such. Most of us try to avoid too much suffering, but may be it ushers in some kind of wisdom through the back door, it is possible not to be broken by it too greatly. But it may be more about psychological kicks rather than necessarily in the form of physical kicks.

Physical pain is a fact of life for many and I am grateful that I do not face it daily. When I had a couple of fractures it affected my daily existence so much. Some people have ongoing regimes of painkillers and physical illness which make life so hard.

The harsh experience of pain may affect human existence so much, and one aspect may be about the interpretation of it. Victor Frankl, speaking of his time in a concentration camp spoke of how people can find meaning in suffering in identifying and working with their own chosen goals.

I have found Dennett's 2017 writing good in some ways, but it is here that he does come up with the idea that consciousness is an illusion. This does seem as if it is taking the neurological aspects of understanding consciousness to the extreme. It denies the reflective aspects, but it is with language and concepts that human beings have freedom of thought and choices.

I have come across another book, which I have started reading by Steven Pinker, 'Enlightenment Now: The Case For Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress (2018). This points to the importance of reason since the time of the enlightenment. In many ways, science offers reason and solutions to problems in the world. This is important, so it may be about science which is bound up with values and their examination rather than as knowledge which is flat and unquestioning of the social order and politics.

At the moment, one book which I am reading is 'Freedom: The End of the Human Condition', by Jeremy Griffith and he points to the problem of reductionism in science. He says, 'Science has necessarily been 'reductionist' and 'mechanistic'. It has avoided the overarching whole view of life that required having to confront the issue of the human condition and instead reduced its focus to only looking down on the details of the mechanisms of our world...'.

He goes on to suggest that 'this strategy, the very dangerous trap inherent in this mechanistic, resigned-to-living-in-denial-of-the-human-condition, fundamental dishonest approach is that it could become so entrenched that those practising it could resist the human-condition-confronting, truthful explanation of the human condition when it was finally found and continue to persevere with the dishonest strategy to the point of taking humanity to terminal alienation and extinction.'

One particular writer Griffith seems particularly wary of is the sociobiologist, Edward O Wilson, whom he quoted, 'There is no grail more elusive or precious in the life of the mind than the key to understanding the human condition'. It is hard, I feel, to know to what extent science should be criticised in itself, but the problem may be where it ends up making people feel that their lives and those of other humans and other lifeforms don't matter and are without value, as insignificant.

I think that there is a definite resemblance between Schopenhauer's idea of will and the idea of intentionality. I have begun reading his, 'The World As Will and Idea' recently. His particular interpretation of Kant is also interesting in thesense that he suggests that our experiences are 'the thing in itself.' However, his whole phenomenological approach is fascinating, especially how he perceives perception of reality and how the 'whole world, is only object in relation to subject, perception of a perceived, in a word, idea.'

Some Eastern thinkers suggest that time had no beginning, but I am not sure if that is possible logically. It seems like trying to draw a circle but without beginning it somewhere. The idea of eternal recurrence may have some bearing, but it still seems that there must be some kind of start. But, it could be that there is no end, but even this is hard to know with any certainty.

One main thing is the importance of seeing how science offers models and only that. I come from the perspective of having worked in mental health care and, also at the moment I have a close friend who is an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital. It seems that there are competing ideas within psychiatry, including psychological approaches which recognize the role of trauma as being a factor which can trigger mental illness. However, there is some strong opposition to some holistic models, which recognize the role of social factors and life experiences. There are many thinkers who prefer to see mental illness just as being a matter of genetics and biochemistry. How mental illness is seen affects the treatment regime and support offered in mental health services.

I'm glad that you appreciated Sgt Pepper album and it is so psychedelic. The album cover is important too, with all the people on it and Carl Jung is even there in the group picture.

It's interesting that you mentioned Steven Pinker as well as Dennett, because I have been reading some of a book by Pinker, called, 'The Stuff of Thought.' I do find that it is important to read and listen to all points of view and I can usually see some rationality in arguments, even those which I disagree with basically. I am not a materialist, but I did read a book by John Rawles, 'The Matter With Us: A Materialistic Account of the Human Predicament', a couple of months ago. That may explain why I ended up making this thread. I try to read books which challenge my perspective. But, it is interesting that you mention scientism because it may be an outlook which goes beyond the scientific method into an ideology.

One aspect for which I think that qualia has specific bearing is understanding witness accounts and statements. I wondered about the nature of this before I had even come across the puzzle of qualia. In critical incidents people are often asked to give witness reports and I have been in a few situations where I had to give accounts or look at witnesss statements. There were great discrepancies between accounts, including perception of sequence of events and descriptions of people. It means that working out a clear picture of events can be difficult and part of the issue may be that people perceive the exact same events but uniquely. The emotional impact of stress and heightened emotions may play a major role in this.

My own understanding of the importance of the idea of qualia is that it may throw some light on these kinds of difficulties, but not that it completely eradicates them. I guess my other interest in qualia is the bearing which it has on aesthetic appreciation in the arts.

I am definitely in favour of science as ' a method of enquiry'. Also, I admit that I have dabbled in reading all sorts of ideas in the last few years, and it has really been during lockdown that I have been reading more actual philosophy. I try to look from various angles and the Madfool often has called me 'truthseeker' because I am inclined to approach philosophy looking for 'answers'.

As far as my own questioning of science, part of this comes from my own experience of academic establishments in England. In particular, it was on a couple of healthcare courses, I found that there was so much emphasis on so-called scientific expertise, which lacked any depth of critical analysis. Also, it does seem that in many aspects of thinking that people sometimes back up ideas with pseudo arguments, which are often made on some general ideas in science and, this sometimes includes media journalism.

So you're not a coffee drinker? I adore coffee and coffee shops. I do like some alcohol, mainly wine and, definitely not beer or lager, but would definitely not want wine everyday. It is about the right chemical for everything and we take so many in purely in food, probably ones which aren't great like monosodium glutamate, which can cause drowsiness.

But, yes music is one of the most enhancing factors and it is highly likely that it does affect brain chemicals, like endorphins, because the body is a drugstore in its own right. I have known people who don't use caffeine, alcohol etc who seem thoroughly intoxicated.

Which old ideas do you think deserve more attention? Do you think that Western culture has gone too far in embracing relativism and plurality?

The aspect which we do know is that there is some degree of shared experience, like the sky being blue. Obviously, it is not possible to know another person's actual experience of what this blue is but if people paint it there is likely to be some similarity with what this blue looks like, even to the point of knowing which other colours to mix with it.

However, there are the unique elements to perception which are represented in art, like the swirls in Van Gogh's paintings and the composition of dots in Seurat's. This may be where the emotional or mental states come into the variable nature of what is perceived. There is an external world to be perceived but it is filtered through the lens of perception, and the concept of qualia, even though abstract, may pinpoint the tensions arising in this.