• To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    s I wrote in a recent post to Mww, metaphysical positions don't have to be true or false and they don't have to "work," they only have to be useful. — T Clark

    It seems we are far from kindred spirits after all. If I held your view I'd abandon philosophy immediately.as a waste of time. A theory that doesn't work would be completely useless. I'm very confident that a neutral theory works and that all others do not. How would you go about proving otherwise?. .

    It strikes me, ironically enough, that Collingwood's view is neither correct nor misleading, it's metaphysics.

    II wondering why you bother with metaphysics if this is your opinion. What would be the point in talking about it? Do you really believe that the Perennial philosophy has a metaphysical foundation that doesn't work and is incorrect? Wow.

    I feel that one reason metaphysicians struggle with metaphysics is that they don't pay enough attention to the rules for the dialectic and often violate them. . — PeterJones

    Now that would be a good subject for a new discussion - I've never understood the value of the dialectic or what it even means. I'm all for moderation in all things, but it feels pretty namby-pamby. It seems more complicated than Collingwood's formula.

    You've just made my point for me. If you haven't studied the dialectic then metaphysics will be incomprehensible and you won't understand what I have to say about it, or indeed what anyone who endorses the nondual doctrine has to say about it. I see metaphysics as a science of logic, and I can't see any way to reach an understanding of it without having a clear grasp of the rules.

    Only if one knows the rules can one see the mistake that most philosophers make and avoid making it, I'm,gobsmacked by your approach. If you're right then what would be the point of doing philosophy?

    .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    Non-dualism is a fairly difficult perspective because it involves going beyond splits, or binary divisions. It is a bit like the title of the Waterboys' song, in trying to see, 'The Whole of the Moon'. It involves awareness of partiality in epistemology in trying to be aware of the 'other side' of perception. — Jack Cummins

    Yes. It requires seeing the unavoidable divisiveness of our perceptual/cognitive system, as noted by Kant, thus the need to look beyond perception and cognition for the eternal Tao. . .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    Collingwood wrote that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are the unspoken, perhaps unconscious, assumptions that underpin how we understand reality. Collingwood thought that absolute presuppositions are neither true nor false, they have no truth value. — T Clark

    A great deal of confusion arises over this issue. It is not difficult to prove that most presuppositions are rejected by analysis, but when we say an extreme view is false we usually mean that the opposite view is true, (eg theism vs atheism). This is the A/not-A logic of the dialectic.

    For the Middle Way 'view' we have to reject both A and not-A,but both would normally contain something of the truth. On this view our presuppositions do have a truth-value, but their value is partial. It is therefore better to say they are wrong or unrigorous rather than strictly true or false in a dialectical sense. But if we presuppose that the Middle Way doctrine is true no problems arise.

    This issue deserves a thread of its own. I see what Collingwood is saying, but the reason metaphysical problems arise is that we can, in fact, decide that most presuppositions do not make sense and don't work. Hence, for instance, Nagarjuna argues that all positive positions (presuppositions) are logically indefensible, rather than strictly true or false. That is to say, theism and atheism would be wrong, but neither would be false in the sense that the opposite view would be true. Both would describe an aspect of the truth, or contain some truth, and both would be wrong. .

    To sort this one out would require going back to Aristotle and his laws of logic. I'd say Collingwood 's view (as stated) is roughly correct but rather misleading . . .
    .
    So, we agree that metaphysical positions are neither true nor false, but I'm not sure I understand the logic behind your reasons. I think you and I may be kindred spirits when it comes to metaphysics.

    I'd be happy to dive into the logic if you want to go down that rabbit-hole. I feel that one reason metaphysicians struggle with metaphysics is that they don't pay enough attention to the rules for the dialectic and often violate them. .

    It certainly seems we're on the same wavelength, which is a happy situation.. . . . .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    ↪Wayfarer
    Thanks for the recommendation. It's not a topic I want to further research, but it looks like a good read.
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    …. For, as the world has never been, and, no doubt, never will be without a system of metaphysics of one kind or another, it is the highest and weightiest concern of philosophy to render it powerless for harm, by closing up the sources of error…. — PeterJones


    Is this from Bradley? Do you have a reference?     — T Clark

    I did not post this quote. Not sure where it comes from but it sounds like Bradley. .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    There is not only one world-theory that works he said definitively. They all work, more or less, for better or worse, sometimes, in certain situations. — T Clark

    Hmm. I wonder why you think this. I can state definitively that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible,and can be reduced to absurdity. This is what Bradley means by saying metaphysics does not endorse a positive result. I can also state that a neutral theory, which is the only alternative, cannot be reduced to absurdity. I'm not sure why,. as a fan of Lao Tzu, you would think this doesn't work. After all, there's got to be one theory that works.


    .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    Believing that some metaphysical positions are true and some are false strikes me as dualistic. — T Clark

    All is well if one avoids extreme positions. Non-dualism is not directly opposed to theism or atheism. They are two extreme ideas that oppose each other. Thus folks on both sides of the God debate reject mysticism.

    Lao Tzu's remark 'True words seem paradoxical' is better translated (and sometime is) as 'Rigorous words seem paradoxical' - to avoid the idea that they are true as opposed to false in a dialectical sense. If they were true or false in the usual dialect6ical sense then hey wouldn't seem paradoxical. . . .

    The choice of seeing nature/consciousness or God/consciousness may be the duality of choice inherent in human thinking. — Jack Cummins

    Yes. The inherent duality of human thinking is the reason non-duality is such a difficult idea. In metaphysics. For Lao Tzu's position we have to look beyond the categories of thought.
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    ↪Mww
    Oh boy. How do you make things so complicated and confused? But okay, it's not a topic you wish to pursue, so we can leave it here. See you around.
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    f Kant placed this Ultimate, wouldn’t he have already asked and answered as to what it is? I’m trying desperately to understand how Kant’s idealism could be tweaked to a non-dualistic system by placing the Ultimate beyond the categories of thought, when it is the case Kant never placed the Ultimate anywhere, insofar as, to my knowledge, he never mentioned the concept in the first place. — Mww

    Well, there are a variety of interpretations of Kant's transcendental idealism. I interpret him as saying that the phenomenal world consists of mere appearances. This is Buddhist doctrine. Also, he places the origin of the intellect beyond the categories of thought on which the mind depends. He say that this phenomenon would be the central explanandum for a rational psychology, and no mystic would disagree.

    Crucially, Kant realizes that all selective conclusions about the world-as-a-whole are undecidable. This is because all extreme or positive metaphysical positions may be reduced to absurdity. If Kant is right then it would be irrational and perverse to endorse one (as I believe). The only other option is a neutral theory, which is the theory endorsed by the Buddha, as was proved by Nagarjuna in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way. . . .

    Now, Kant does indeed place the unconditioned beyond the categories of thought, that towards which pure reason always directs itself in its purely metaphysical exploits but for which it never attains an object, but even if this is the case enforced by transcendental logic, it still leaves vacant the notion of non-duality necessarily arising from it. Not that it couldn’t so arise, but that it hasn’t been explained how it could.

    I'm not sure I understand your point here but suspect I may have addressed it already. For the non-dual doctrine or a neutral metaphysical theory nothing really exists or ever really happens. So the mind will never achieve the unconditioned as an object. There's no object for it to achieve. For non-dualism one has to look beyond mind to its origin. This cannot be done by the mind, of course,which is why scholars can never hope to understand non-duality in the way meditators and contemplatives come to understand it, as an actual phenomenon. . .

    And no, I don’t reject perennial philosophy; I simply don’t have any use for it, that expositions on critical thought hasn’t already sufficiently dismissed.

    I would say that if you have no use for it then you have rejected it. Perhaps you feel you've done so for good reasons, but clearly you believe it is useless.

    {quote]“…. For, as the world has never been, and, no doubt, never will be without a system of metaphysics of one kind or another, it is the highest and weightiest concern of philosophy to render it powerless for harm, by closing up the sources of error….”

    Seems like Bradley’s “metaphysics does not endorse a positive result” isn’t quite right after all. Powerless for harm seems a rather positive endorsement, n’est ce pas?[/quote]

    You've misunderstood Bradley's statement. I should have explained it. A 'positive' metaphysical position is a 'yes' or 'no' answer to a metaphysical question. (EG. To say we have freewill or do not have it to adopt one of two opposed positive metaphysical positions.),Metaphysics, which is to say logic and reason, does not endorse any such position since they may all be reduced to absurdity. ,

    To say 'metaphysics does not endorse a positive result 'is to say that it is an immensely valuable and effective discipline. Bradley calls it the 'only effective antidote to dogmatic superstition' (He cites orthodox theology and materialism as paradigm examples of superstitions against which it protects us.)

    If we know metaphysics does not endorse a positive result then we know that a neutral metaphysical theory is the is the only one that survives analysis. This is an extremely simple point, but one can only see it if one knows there is such a thing as a neutral theory and this would require knowing something about mysticism. Few do in Kant's tradition, so confusion reigns. He characterises Western metaphysics as an arena for mock fights where nobody ever gains an inch of ground. This, I would suggest, is the price of not studying the Perennial; philosophy.

    You made some good objections, but don't forget that people have been trying to find a telling objection to (what we now call) the Perennial philosophy for thousands of years without success. .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    Oh. Ok. So if one holds with the idea that the categories of thought are fundamental and fundamental necessarily, the principle of non-duality fails. — Mww

    It doesn't fail. It's just that you don't agree with Kant and reject the Perennial philosophy.

    What is this Ultimate?
    This is the question metaphysics has to answer.

    By what other (non-Perennial philosophy) conception might it be understood, given that the Kantian categories of thought are the ground always and only for a posteriori cognitions?
    In metaphysics it takes the form of a neutral metaphysical theory.

    It is not my wish to be contentious, but being embedded in Western Enlightenment speculative metaphysics in which rational extravagances are properly cautioned, sorta prejudices one against various and sundry forms of ineffable mystical experiences.
    I'm talking about metaphysics. You can believe what you like about ineffable experiences. the logic is inexorable, as Kant shows. As F.H. Bradley puts it, 'metaphysics does not endorse a positive result'. This leave just one option, which is a neutral theory. These are demonstrable facts that do not depend on what anyone believes.

    It's just a matter of doing the sums. No need to abandon your rationality. I imagine every philosopher discovers the truth of Bradley's remark, which merely restates Kant's conclusion. Do you dispute this fact? Or do you interpret it differently to Kant and Bradley? . .
    . ,
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    At the moment, a friend who has become a Jehovah Witness, keeps sending me 'preachy' emails, saying that the Bible holds the 'truth' for the troubles of the world, the 'end times', which will be replaced by a better world for the righteous to inherit. Such people cling to hope, which may be similar to the romanticism of the 'new age'. — Jack Cummins

    Note that they might be right about the Bible, but wrong in their interpretation of it. Babies and bathwater and all that.
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    Interesting notion. How would you suppose non-dualism to arise from it, on what….logical?…. ground would it be possible? — Mww

    Kant places the Ultimate beyond the categories of thought, which is just where the Perennial philosophy places it. He sees this as a matter of logic, as do I. Thus it is easy, with a few tweaks, to reconcile Kant's analysis in the Critique with the Middle Way doctrine. Both require a particular approach that allows one to transcend the dualism intrinsic to dialectical logic.

    The idea that the categories of thought are not fundamental immediately gives rise to the principle of non-duality and the rejection of all dialectically opposed metaphysical positions, I suspect Kant would have seen this if only he'd known something of Buddhist philosophy, . . . . . .





    .







    .
    . . . .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    And if we do 'untangle' these issues, what's next? — Tom Storm

    Well, once we have calculated that only one world-theory works and identified it then all we need do is study it. We then have a sound understanding of metaphysics and only need develop it.

    The calculation is quite straightforward, but the theory that emerges is anything but. .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    Tricky may be dependent on mere subjective inclination, insofar as there is an established transcendental idealism, while not “absolute”, is certainly dualistic. Or, perhaps, sufficiently demonstrates the intrinsic duality of the human intellectual nature. — Mww

    Kant's idealism - for which space and time are empirically real but transcendentally ideal.- is quite a vague affair, but it could be interpreted as a first step towards non-dualism. It doesn't go far though, so you're right to say it remains dualistic.However, I tend to think that if Kant had come across Nagarjuna then his idealism would have become non-dualism overnight. At any rate, Kant was certainly on the trail of the Perennial philosophy and, as you say, demonstrates that we live in a world of opposites of our own making, The categories of thought and all that.
    . . .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    I think that you wrote a post to me some time ago about non-dualism. It is interesting that it can be an approach for approaching all metaphysics but is so often ignored within Western philosophy. It may be about the organisation of the right and left brain in thinking, especially within education. It may be that those with a more mystical leaning find it makes sense than those with a more theoretical approach. Ideally, I would like to be able to blend the two as a more synthetic understanding, going beyond the duality of right and left brain, Eastern and Western philosophy. I am all in favour of seeing bridges rather than inherent splits. — Jack Cummins

    I feel you're approach is spot on. The relationship between Western philosophical thinking and the Perennial philosophy,is quite a simple matter underneath all the details.

    I was impressed by a Catholic Bishop I heard speaking recently on YT, who was expressing the view that God Is Being. Leaving aside the issue of whether 'God' is the right word in this context he is basically endorsing the |Perennial philosophy.

    Have you read much of Eckhart? He bridges the gap between theism and atheism. So also does Plotinus. The latter tells us that to call the One (the Ultimate) God or Mind is to 'think of it too meanly'. Eckhart takes the same view, and speaks of what lies beyond God. Their view is not strictly theism or atheism. which is where you seem to be going.

    My view is that unless one is going to sit in prayer, meditation and contemplation for a very long time these issues cannot be untangled without a careful study of metaphysics. . .
  • Currently Reading
    Robert Kennedy - The Real Anthony Fauci,

    Completely unmissable for all thinking people. For two decades I've been trying to understand what is going on in US society - it's toxic food, poor healthcare and incomprehensible foreign policy - and this book explains most of it. , . .
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. I am aware that there have been many debates on the topic on the forum. Also, there are various philosophical positions, including substance dualism and deism, so it is a complicated area. Here, in this thread, I am focusing on the idea of non-duality and asking do you see the idea as helpful or not in your philosophical understanding, especially in relation to the concept of God? — Jack Cummins

    Hi Jack

    Fascinating question. Yes, non-dualism deals with the split between materialism and idealism, and between atheism and theism. The issues are tricky, however, because of the words.;For instance, 'transcendental' or 'absolute' idealism is non-dualism.

    All extreme or 'positive' metaphysical positions are rejected by non-dualism. It states that all such positions are wrong. Philosophers find that all such positions are logically absurd, and this is the central problem of metaphysics, but usually overlook this fact and fail to reject them. Kant makes the situation clear in the Critique of Pure Reason, where he concludes that all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. Here a 'selective conclusion' is an extreme position, and 'undecidable' means not what it means in mathematics, but that positive (yes/no) both answers are absurd, rendering all metaphysical questions undecidable. As F.H. Bradley puts it, 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result'. .

    Thus non-dualism does not simply solve the two problems you mention but all metaphysical problems. Simply put, (as I explain at length in a forthcoming book), non-dualism is the only global theory or 'theory of everything' that survives analysis.

    This is the reason why metaphysics is not understood in the Western philosophical tradition, which studies every philosophical theory except the one that works. I would suggest that most people could understand philosophy better than most famous philosophers if only they study the only theory scholastic philosophers almost never study.

    Russell's paradox is what happens when set theorists do not endorse non-dualism, and many other paradoxes arise.
    ,

    . .

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

    I feel the same about people who think the earth is flat. It's an inabiliiy to think the issues through.

    I understand why you think I'm, being dogmatic, but this is my view and I;m sticking to it. Materialism is for people who are incapable of understanding metaphysics, just as a flat earth is for people who are incapable of understanding astronomy. . .     — universeness
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    If we're speaking about Middle Way Buddhism then I'd say 100% sure. I'd bet my life on it. — FrancisRay

    Do you have no concerns that this could be labeled an almost fundamentalist or evanhellical position to take?     — universeness

    None whatsoever. I place complete reliance on logic and experience. I'd happily bet my life. . .

    My 0.0001% credence level that a god exists, is my very important defense against an accusation that I am a fanatical atheist ( folks like Jamal have accused me of being a fanatic on certain issues in the past.)

    I don't go in for idle speculation.or playing the odds. Either I know or I don't,

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

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

    You hold this view because you don't understand mysticism. Eckhart had all the evidence he needed or wanted.

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

    For me, this is another example of the 'jumps' you seem to make. Perhaps 'leaps of faith,
    '

    Why? I simply state a fact here. Faith is for theists. The mystic is concerned only with knowledge. . .

    might be a more appropriate and less offensive phrase. I think such 'leaps of faith' are based on pure speculation and certainly not any 'knowledge'

    Yes, I get this, But you don;t know anything much about mysticism, so your opinion is not informed.

    If you, me and Mr Eckhart, were in the same room with each other (just a fun thought experiment), what do you think he could have said or done to convince me that your 'middle way Buddhism,' was the most important 'truth' about the universe?

    Nothing. The only way to be convinced is to discover the truth yourself. A person would be a damn fool to believe someone else. I might be able to persuade you that according to reason one theory can be true and Eckhart and I endorse it, but you still wouldn't know it;s;true. . . , . .

    As a Catholic from the 13th-14th century, I reckon he would want us both burned at the stake. Me for my apostacy and you for your heathen Buddhism

    Eckhart endorsed the nondual doctrine, as do I. He's famous for it, me not so much.

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

    I think all mystics are theosophists, and must accept such characters as Rasputin and Aliester Crowley as members.
    Why do you leap to conclusions about a topic you don't study and think is not worth studying. By the time theosophy was invented mysticism had been around for thousands of years.

    They believe in 'magic,' but I accept that many mystics see the transcendental or the esoteric as hidden (occultist) knowledge about the physics/workings of the universe that scientists have yet to discover.

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

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

    I'm was going to make the same logical proof that Nagarjuna famously makes in the second century, It;s quite an easy one as far as his results go. But like 180 Proof you do not answer my question but start arguing about other things. This leaves me unable to move on.

    [quote[The 'all metaphysical questions are undecidable,' prerequisite is problematic for me /quote]

    What;s the problem? Is the history of philosophy not proof enough?

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

    I hope you won't be offended but I'm going to retire from the thread once I've finished this post.. .
    also require some preliminary philosophical chat regarding the imo, very overburdened term 'metaphysical.' My example would be, would you say that when Copernicus challenged the geocentric model with his heliocentric model, he was making a metaphysical claim,

    What's metaphysical about it? If you think this then yes. your idea of metaphysics is non-ordinary. .

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

    You don't half make things complicated. Metaphysics is the study of fundamental questions. .
    .
    I cannot move on unless you agree that metaphysical questions (questions about the fundamental nature of reality) are undecidable. There would be no point. It's such a simple point. Why do think logical positivism exists? It;s because all fundamental questions are undecidable.

    Anyway, enough said. I apologise for being unable to find a way through all this muddle and complexity, and wish you all the best, but will now retire defeated. I may just respond quickly to your next post before I go. . . .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    It predicts that all metaphysical questions are undecidable and gives answers for all such questions. — FrancisRay


    Is the answer that there is no answer? If so then 180 and FrancisRay are in agreement. If not then perhaps FrancisRay can tell us what these answers are.     — Fooloso4

    Sure thing. As Lao Tu says ;True words seem paradoxical. The answer for every metaphysical question is to reject both their extreme answers.This then leads to seemingly paradoxical answers. Thus it is easy to know the answers, albeit difficult to understand them. .

    Does the world begin with something or nothing? The answer would be no. Does it begin or not-begin? The answer would be no. Is time real or unreal? The answer would be no, . .

    The trick of non-dualism is to see beyond the extreme positions adopted by the questioner, all of which do not survive analysis. As Kant notes, for a fundamental theory we have to see beyond the categories of thought. .

    I feel that the burden of explanation being placed on me here is unreasonable. Why not read about these issues? I cannot explain them from scratch on a forum. There has to be some prior knowledge on which I can build. It's all there in the literature. . .
    . .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    In my opinion, when someone makes an appeal to a particular doctrine they should provide an explanation of what it is being said and how they understand it. Looking back I see 180 Proof makes this point. — Fooloso4


    I fully agree.     — universeness

    So do I.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    There is no empirical method for proving that consciousness exists. — FrancisRay

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

    I stated a fact. There is no empirical method for proving consciousness exists. It's called the 'other minds' problem and is very well known.The unfalsifiability of solipsism is further proof. What I said is scientifically uncontentious. If you're uncertain then try to design an experiment to prove the presence of consciousness. It cannot be done. .

    In what way is behaviorism or its past popularity proof that there is no empirical method that can prove consciousness exists?

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

    .
    Are you suggesting that a newborn human, maintained physically (perhaps by non-communicative machines,) but not interacted with by any other sentient, would not be conscious?
    Of course not.

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


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

    Neuroscience studies brains. It is unable to prove that consciousness exists. It has to rely on first-person reports, To paraphrase one neuroscientist (Kaufman) 'Looking for consciousness in the brain is like digging into the Earth in search of gravity'.' .


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


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

    There is no empirical way to study consciousness. It's a thriving area of speculation.by people who cannot even solve the hard problem.and believe consciousness is a brain function. So far this hands-off approach has explained exactly nothing. . . . . .
    Next, I tried 'Is the study of the actual phenomenon of consciousness called mysticism?'
    I read this extract from here, as an attempt by someone called
    Bryce Haymond, in Sept 2019, to link the study of consciousness with mysticism.
    I have underlined the sentences that I think the author is trying to propose are important 'concepts.'

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

    This is not what I mean by 'mysticism'. Haymond is using the word to mean 'unknowable'. I'm talking about the a method and practice that gives rise to what Huxley calls the Perennial philosophy.

    Many people today seem to believe that the brain causes conscious experience, as a friend recently expressed it to me: "I don’t understand any literal concept of mind that isn’t physical."
    His friend is not alone. I don't see the relevance of his friend's lack of imagination. . .
    In other words, it is thought that neurons in the brain fire (have an electro-chemically triggered action potential), which cause us to experience something. The neurons firing is the cause of what we experience. It’s thought that the mind is basically physical, and that physicality is the source of all conscious experience. This might be called materialism or physicalism, that everything reduces to the physical cosmos, including consciousness.

    Yes. This is the view I'm suggesting is nonsense. There is no evidence that it's not nonsense. Fortunately materialism is revealed to be nonsense by metaphysics. My uncompromising view is that a person who cannot work out that materialism is logically absurd does not have the skills to be a serious philosopher. . . .
    .
    But neither has ever actually been shown to be the case. Science currently knows of no causal mechanism or connection whatsoever that explains how firing neurons cause conscious experiences, or vice versa.
    Exactly. There is no empirical method to decide this question.

    For example, how does a network of firing neurons cause our experience of the color red, or the taste of chocolate? No one knows. Or, conversely, how does the smell of coffee cause a storm of neural activity in the brain? No one knows.

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

    Yes. No idea at all. The physical sciences do not have the methods required to settle such issues.

    ...This may be what is known in philosophy as dual-aspect monism (or double-aspect theory), which may be closely related to dialectical monism (or dualistic monism).

    Neither of which is mysticism. .

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

    Descartes thought they were one. Mysticism says they don't really exists. The whole idea is to transcend body and mind for the truth about consciousness.

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

    He can hold this view because there is no empirical test for consciousness. It might as well be immaterial. . .

    However, and this is perhaps a paradox that can never be fully understood, I think the spiritual and physical, mind and body, consciousness and matter/energy, are One.

    This is not a paradox and it's well understood. Does he not read the literature?.

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

    Yes. As far as anybody knows something like this is the case.

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

    If he sees no compelling reason then clearly he's not read a book on the topic. For the Perennial philosophy consciousness is fundamental and this is what we discover by studying it scientifically, as opposed to speculating about it or poking around in brains. . .

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

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

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

    No - mean both of them, with some tweaks. Yoga in its true form is the art of union with reality. and consciousness and reality would be the same phenomenon. . .

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

    You asked me for a logical argument and I started to provide one, But you've ignored it in order to make a very lengthy series of objections to other ideas to which I've had to respond. This is damn hard work.and I don't see the point. It;s perfectly obvious that science and philosophy have not yet managed to falsify the teachings of three Buddha and Lao Tu, so it's hardly likely you're going to succeed. I find it an odd approach. ,
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    For me, this is a brave claim/conviction indeed. May I ask you for a percentage credence level that you would currently assign to all the 'truths' put forward by Buddhism and/or Buddhists, as a kind of 'general' or 'ad hoc' metric? For example, I consider myself more in line with hard or strong atheism, in that I am 99.999% personally convinced that the supernatural has no demonstrable existent.
    Would you be willing to state that you are 100% sure that the main tenets of Buddhism are sound?     — universeness

    If we're speaking about Middle Way Buddhism then I'd say 100% sure. I'd bet my life on it. In one of his sermons Meister Eckhart, a Christian Bishop, pledges his soul on it. This indicated that his confidence was grounded in knowledge and not speculation.

    I don't believe any phenomenon is supernatural and nor do any mystics. This would be a law governed universe. As for God, in mysticism He is explained as misinterpreted meditative experience. Hence many Christians see mysticism as the work of the Devil and interpret their scriptures accordingly.

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

    Okay/. Here goes. First - would you agree that all metaphysical questions are undecidable, and that this is because all their extreme answers are logically indefensible? This can be verified from a survey of philosophers, or by working through a number of such questions. If so, then I'll move on the to the next step of a proof. . . .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    Well, I for one will try my best to respond to what you state, and not jump to any conclusions about your sanity. — universeness

    Wonderful. Mind you, you must keep in mind that I might be insane. Cartesian doubt and all that. .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    I wanted to post about this sentence separately.
    No physicist I have read about can demonstrate the concept of 'nothing.' There is no experiment in physics, that can currently demonstrate any example of 'nothing.'     — universeness

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

    Folks like Carlo Rovelli certainly posit that time is a very localised experience, in that, even when I am talking to a person standing right next to me, there is a notion of me, sensing that person, from their past, rather than their present. This is because there is a tiny duration, before I see each frame of their movement or hear their words of register their touch etc. So in this sense I cannot experience YOUR present, I can only experience my own. So time is, in a sense, a unique experience for all humans.

    In his book The Continuum Hermann Weyl points out that nobody experiences time. It is created from memories and anticipations, a story we tell ourselves. He draws a careful distinction between the extended 'arithmetical' continuum, which is a theory, and the 'intuitive' continuum, which is extensionless. This double-aspect approach is consistent with Buddhism;s Middle Way doctrine. It would be a terrible mistake to image we experience time rather than create it, and it would lead to a deep misunderstanding of mysticism. All that would be truly real is the 'Eternal Now' and the 'Forever Here', which is Weyl's 'intuitive' continuum. This is what is discovered in meditation. Thus Meister Eckhart warns us not to become entangled in time. .

    [/quote]That's not mystical and it may also not be of much importance, especially in the macroscopic life of a human. Exactly how important it is to the existence of a quark or any quantum field excitation or the information held inside a black hole or in the case of quantum fluctuations or the 'information state' that exists between two entangles quanta, remains unknown. I still don't see where the word 'mystical' is of use here, other than as a placeholder for 'it's still a mystery to us.'[/quote]

    It's not a mystery, but it's a mystery in physics. You seem to forget (as does David Chalmers) that an information theory requires an information space. As Schrodinger observes, as well as the multiplicity of space-time phenomena there is the 'canvas on which they are painted'. The Perennial philosophy is an information theory, but the information would be dream-like and only the information space would be real. .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    But what do you specifically mean by the words I underlined above?
    They seem to me, on an initial reading, to be stating the obvious, in that experiment and the scientific application of empiricism, is currently, our best method of discovering new truths, or arriving at new 'realisations' about the nature of consciousness (human consciousness in particular).     — universeness

    There is no empirical method for proving that consciousness exists. This is proved by the past popularity of Behaviorism. A science of consciousness would require a study of the actual phenomenon, and not just a lot of speculation. The study of the actual phenomenon is called mysticism. I know of no truths discovered by modern consciousness studies and see no hope of there ever being any. All the discoveries were made long ago by people who adopt a scientific approach and do the research. . . .

    Perhaps I am missing your point. But in what way does this suggest that physics is coming ever closer to the mystics?

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

    The Rupert Sheldrake proposals regarding his 'morphic resonance,' come to my mind.
    Can rats, who have never taken part in the maze experiments that Sheldrake goes on about, really learn how to best traverse these mazes via 'morphic resonance?' All rats, everywhere on the planet?
    That seems quite 'mystical' to me.

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

    Do you think that Sheldrake's work, does contain some real physics-based truth behind it, at a quantum or 'fundamental' level?

    Quite possibly but I haven't examined the evidence. It wouldn't surprise me if it did or did not.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    It is part of my current convictions to initially respond with, :roll: , when anyone proposes anything related to 'mysticism,' depending on how that word is being employed. — universeness

    Thanks for an interesting post. I think there are two problems here. The first is the issue of how the word 'mysticism' is employed. Clearly you and I employ it in different ways, and others employ it in all sorts of ways. The second is that those who employ it as I do may often speak about in ways that are meaningless to a discursive philosopher, appealing to experience, enlightenment, authority and using ideas that will be meaningless to a non-practitioner. I do not do this, yet am often subjected to the criticism that this is what I'm doing.

    My feeling is that sceptics such as yourself underestimate the powers of reason and logic to reveal the facts about mysticism and the doctrine that arises from it. This is understandable, since much is made in mysticism of the inability of the intellect to reveal the truth, but it is a misunderstanding. I won't address it right now, but I can tell you that I became convinced of the truth of Buddhist doctrine on purely intellectual grounds well before I read a book about it or tried meditation. It's just a matter of doing the sums.

    I then try my best to give the proposer the benefit of the doubt and listen more to what sense/level of logic versus skepticism, they are using in what they are proposing. I suppose you could even label such, their epistemology.

    This seems a sensible approach.

    I would certainly push back, if you are suggesting that 180 Proof, is an example of the persona you are trying to describe in the sentence I have underlined from the quote above.

    Fair enough. I'll reserve judgement.

    He has been a member of TPF for 8 years. Think about how exasperated he must be at times, with the woo woo mob that he has had to deal with in that time. I have only been here for a year or so, and I have also become a bit more unforgiving towards the more extreme peddlers of woo woo.

    Yes, I see the problem. Perhaps I should take more note of this, since there certainly is a lot of nonsense in the air these days. I feel this problem largely goes away when we deal only with the actual statements people make. I find that very often when I speak about mysticism my statements go unquestioned, even when they are very bold, but my sanity is brought into question. This sort of response is almost impossible to deal with. I sometimes deliberately make bold statements in order to fire up a discussion and demonstrate that such statements can be made, but very often they are not challenged but simply dismissed.

    I'm aware of the widespread scepticism surrounding the Perennial philosophy and how little it is studied in academia, but I'm a big fan of the Principle of Charity and think it should be more widely employed by sceptics. . .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    Perhaps it is relevant that physics is coming ever closer to the same conception of reality as the mystics, for this suggests that empiricism does at least support the discoveries and realisations of those who explore consciousness. Newton's universe was hopelessly out of step, but with QM and relativity, entanglement and non-locality physics comes into line, as Schrodinger was keen to point out, and nowadays it is not unusual for physicists to speak about creation from nothing, the unreality of time, the notion that space is conceptual and so forth.

    My belief is that physicists will see the plausibility of the advaita doctrine before philosophers, since they often seem more brave in their thinking and have less invested in metaphysical conjectures. . , , . .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    I agree with what you say about meditation. But I don;t understand why the inability of philosophers to decide metaphysical questions is not an empirical fact. It is information acquired through the physical senses and easily verifiable. .

    Likewise, it is an empirical fact that the non-dual philosophy is globally endorsed,by meditators and that it makes no claims that contradict any scientific facts. To me this seems to be an empirical fact in need of an explanation. How come the writers of the Upanishads could claim that nothing really exists and 21st century physicists still cannot gainsay them?

    We seem to be demonstrating that judging the extent to which the advaita doctrine is empirically testable is not a straightforward problem. .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    Not factual in the sense of being about objective things or states-of-affairs. I don't mean it in the sense of not being true - far from it! - but not being about empirical facts. As Edward Conze says, 'the wise men of old have found a wisdom which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody." Why? because it depends on insight. — Wayfarer

    Hmm. I see what you mean but see things differently. It is an empirical fact that philosophers cannot decide metaphysical questions due the the logical absurdity of all their positive answers. Advaita explains this empirical fact. Would you not count this as being about empirical facts?



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

    I believe,that it is the hardest thing in the world to explain. But explaining how it explains philosophy at the level of principles is easy. The crucial issue to grasp is that all metaphysical questions are undecidable. If we are aware of this then we will be able to grasp that a 'non-dual' or neutral theory explains why they are undecidable and thus explains all Russell's 'problems of philosophy'.

    Happy to delve deeper if you wish to go down this rabbit-hole. . .

    Recently I've discovered an excellent Advaita teacher, Swami Sarvapriyananda, of the Vedanta Society of New York, who has many online videos and discussions with other philosophers (some can be found here. I particularly liked his conversation with idealist philosopher Bernardo Kastrup.) He is articulate, educated, and philosophically literate. Indeed the Vedanta Society of New York was originally founded by Swami Vivekandanda in the late 1800's and has had a profound influence in America and beyond.

    I'll look out for this swami. I've been speaking with Bernardo for many years now and we agree on nearly everything. My metaphysics is stronger that his but his physics bests mine hands down. His mate Rupert Spira is a wonderful teacher.

    Nevertheless I don't believe that the teachings of Advaita are easy to convey, as they demand a deep kind of perspective shift or insight. They are not trying convey factual information, but a fact about existence, which is said to be obscured by avidya, ignorance. And 'piercing the veil of ignorance' is the fundamental teaching of Advaita. It's simple in the sense of not being complicated, but it's not necessarily easy to grasp.

    It's fantastically difficult to grasp, but making sense of it in philosophy as a theory is not so difficult. It's a neutral metaphysical theory, and this can be explained in standard philosophical language. I would strongly disagree that the advaita teachings do not teach factual information, however, and wonder what you mean by this comment. After all, it teaches that reality is not-two, and what more important fact could there be?
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ust in case you think I had not read this response you gave. I have, but it did not answer the questions 180proof asked imo. — universeness

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

    For example. Does the question of whether space-time is grainy or continuous belong in philosophy or physics? I'd say philosophy, but there is an overlap. The Perennial philosophy states it is both since there are two ways of looking at it, as is argued by the mathematician Hermann Weyl. It predicts that it would be impossible in logic or empiricism to decide this question and this is the case. but is this relevant to 180Proof's question? I'm not sure.

    Likewise, it predicts that physics will never prove anything really exists. Is this a testable prediction/? I feel it depends how one looks at it. There are many more similar issues that fall between philosophy and physics,

    And again, is the 'hard' problem of consciousness, as defined by Chalmers, a problem for physics? Or is it strictly philosophical? Mysticism disposes of this problem at a stroke, but is this relevant to physics? It might depend who we ask. ,, ,

    Thus a straight answer is difficult to give, and impossible in the face of a dismissive attitude to mysticism. .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    I think that's a loss to all members here, as you seem to have a lot of knowledge of Eastern philosophy.
    Perhaps you get exasperated too easily, we all get frustrated when we are challenged but it is very important to stand your ground, if you give a damn about who else might read these exchanges on TPF.     — universeness

    Excellent point. I accept that I become exasperated too easily. It's a fair cop. .

    ]Perhaps 180proof is still waiting for you to answer his two questions:

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

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

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

    The general issue here is how best to study and understand philosophy. It's standard practice in our universities to study only a restricted part of philosophy and ignore much of it, but only when one studies the whole field does it become comprehensible.

    The question of what the nondual doctrine explains is easy to answer, but the question was what it claims that is testable in physics and this is trickier,since it requires some chat about exactly what counts as testable. There are some subtleties. It's a topic that interests me and I'm up for discussing it, but only when it's taken seriously.

    Thanks for your peacekeeping effort. .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪universeness
    I expected to be speaking to 180 proof about his question, but he took his bat home. What am I to do?

    I find this about the best philosophy forum on the internet, but it seems to be ruined by less than a handful of posters. Wherever I go they turn up to lay waste to the discussion. I gave up the first time I joined, a few years ago, because of this and having come back I find them still here. So I've given up again. No need to defend anyone, I'll be off and stop causing trouble. .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    and we can all judge for ourselves who the idiot between you and 180 Proof is based on your exchange on this thread. I for one — universeness

    All I see see is some people who don't want to think outside their comfort zone.

    As for my pseudonym;I'll stick with it, thanks. My point was only that not all editors and dissertation advisors are as shirty and closed-minded as some on this forum. Thanks goodness.

    If these are the standards applied here I'm very happy to seem to be an idiot.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    This is what thinkers, particularly philosophers, do, Francis: we disturb the peace (i.e. smug givens, unexamined assumptions, etc). You're right, though, I am "not interested" in unwarranted, or dogmaric, beliefs; I prefer to dialectically discuss speculative ideas. Go vegitate in an ashram if philosophizing disturbs you. — 180 Proof

    Oh boy. I've come across some idiots before but you take the biscuit. Do you actually have an interest in philosophy? If I weren't here under a pseudonym I'd give a link to my publishes articles,or send you you my new book. As it is I'll leave you to your inevitable fate of never understanding philosophy.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪180 Proof
    Why bother wasting my time in this way? I get it that you're not interested.- so why disturb my peace?
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪180 Proof
    ↪FrancisRay
    You say "Perennial Philosophy" explains but you do not give (or summarize) the explanation. You also say it "predicts"; but in the absence of any intelligible explanation, your "predictions" are just unwarranted claims (i.e. just-so stories). I'd hoped you would have answered both of my questions; apparently, however, New Age talking points is all I'm going to get. :yawn:     — 180 Proof

    What a strange reaction. Why bot ask some follow up questions? It's an interesting topic and we could explore it together.

    But if you cannot see that a solution for philosophical problems cannot be dismissed as /New Age' talking points', then maybe there would be no purpose, I would have expected some objections or questions, not just a blanket dismissal. I wonder why you asked the question.

    Do you not want to investigate further?

    .
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    i. What 'facts of the matter' do "the nondual doctrine of the Perennial Philosophy" explain?

    ii. What 'predictions' can be derived from this "Perennial" explanation which can be experimentally falsified?     — 180 Proof

    Hi 180 Proof

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

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

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

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

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



    .

    . . . . . .



    .
  • Neutral Monism / Perspectivism / Phenomenalism
    ↪Janus
    We seem to agree. But by 'knowing' I mean a state of consciousness, so maybe not entirely. It is said that knowing is fundamental, and this knowing would not be 'propositional talk'. . But at this depth most of us can only speculate. My concern is with what can be proved in metaphysics, which is that such knowledge is possible.

    I'll be off now. Thanks for the chat. . . . . . , .
Home » PeterJones