In his metaphysical essay Appearance and Reality F. H. Bradley say of materialism and orthodox theology that they 'vanish like ghosts before the daylight of free sceptical enquiry'. This would be my view also. .

So being an atheists and not a materialist is a perfectly reasonable position. It better be, since it is the the position adopted by the Perennial philosophy and widely endorsed. .

I have read the baghavad gita but I don't remember the whole thing. — Average

.

Much of it is about the difficult decision of whether or not to take up arms, and it's a deep analysis.

I find this passage revealing of Sartre's view of consciousness, which I share..

“It has always seemed to me that a working hypothesis as fruitful as historical materialism never needed for a foundation the absurdity which is metaphysical materialism. In fact, it is not necessary that the object precede the subject for spiritual pseudo-values to vanish and for ethics to find its bases in reality. It is enough that the me be contemporaneous with the World, and that the subject-object duality, which is purely logical, definitively disappear from philosophical preoccupations. The World has not created the me; the me has not created the World. These are two objects for absolute, impersonal consciousness, and it is by virtue of this consciousness that they are connected. This absolute consciousness, when it is purified of the I, no longer has anything of the subject. It is no longer a collection of representations. It is quite simply a first condition and an absolute source of existence.

Sartre
The Transcendence of the Ego

For the Cartesian cogito this implies that both ontologically and epistemologically.the 'I Am' is prior to the 'I think'. As the poet Paul Valery writes, 'Sometime I think, sometimes I am'.

The point being that 'I Am' precedes all other knowledge and is the sufficient and minimum condition for consciousness. But Sartre warns us not to imagine the 'I' of 'I Am' is the individual ego. Both 'me' and 'my world' would arise from a prior condition.

He's called an existentialist but I cannot grasp what this label means. To me he is just agreeing with the Buddha.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that God does not exist at all outside our heads. Then a good analogy for the first section would be something like, "What experiences we have that caused people previously to believe in the existence of phlogiston," or "Phlogiston, as experienced." — Brendan Golledge

This makes sense. It might be worth mentioning up front.

I'm not sure the question is properly answerable. Over the course of seven decades I've had many such experiences but couldn't meaningfully describe them and wouldn't want to on a forum. It's a very personal question for theists and a matter of conjecture for atheists, and I'm neither.

One of the reported components of such experiences is usually a sense of immediate contact with a deeper and more real level of reality than the one we call 'me' and 'my world', When this intuition is externalized it becomes an objectified God; an individual other than ourselves. Regardless of the exact nature of the experience it seems to be this process of conceptualization and externalization that gives rise to the idea of a God from whom we are apart. The Old Testament story of the Golden Calf may be a warning against making this mistake.

I have the impression that this story is usually understood by Christians as saying that God cannot be conceived but that they often miss miss the implication that He cannot be externalized. . . .


.

Okay. I don't understand your point but perhaps this is my fault.

“You think seeing something is a simple task because it happens so rapidly and automatically, but beneath the surface it is as if a thousand high-powered scientists are labouring away. What you experience is the end result of an intensive assembly line of computational processes.”

Colin McGinn
The Making of a Philosopher

If there is a time of no perception and a time of perception then would this not suggest the necessity of time? If there were no time then our perception would be fixed in the present moment and would never change. We would be permanently frozen in a single unchanging moment of perception. .

I see what you mean in saying that the actual moment of perception is timeless, but this argument would apply to all events and processes. If we look at any individual moment it is timeless.

Awareness might be said to be timeless but perception is a process. Could it be that you're talking more here about awareness than perception? Or accidentally conflating the two? .

I see your point. But to me a better analogy would be asking how aliens are experienced. The question takes a lot for granted and may have no answer.

Thanks for the reassurance. .

Ok. What do you think perception is? — Mww

I believe it is a process, and as such requires time. Is this arguable? . .

How God is Experienced:

God, as experienced, seems to have something to do with a projection of a person’s highest values. When a person is thinking about what is most important, and what is most real, he is, in a sense, thinking about God. — Brendan Golledge

I did not read further than this because your initial premise seems to be incorrect, or at least may be.
. .
In mysticism God is explained as misinterpreted meditative experience. There would be no possibility of experiencing God.

This is not to deny the veracity of the experiences, however, and what you say would be true in respect of Being and ultimate truth. .

This means that even your section title, 'How God is Experienced' represents a bold and arguable metaphysical statement. Might be better to start with a less contentious statement or a question such as 'Can God be Experienced'. . . . . . .

I have never been able to grasp what it means to say "This statement is true"/ What statement?

How can 'This statement' be true or false?

Very naive thoughts I know, but I seem to have a mental block on this topic.

Not metaphysically, it doesn’t, with which the thread topic is concerned. We perceive a thing, or we do not. Perception requires an object, and even if the object requires time for its relations, it does not follow that the mere perception of the object does. — Mww

I'm not sure what it means to say that perception doesn't require time metaphorically. It seems indisputable to me that perception requires time in order in order to to happen. Are you suggesting this isn't the case? . . .

Agreed. But that doesn’t say much. We don’t doubt the world, and if time is a necessary condition for the manifold of phenomenal representations of that world, the the reality of time is given. But, real in what sense?

This is the crucial issue. I'd suggest time is real in the same sense as the phenomena in our dreams. This is what is discovered by meditators. Meister Eckhart. for instance, tells that becoming entangled in time is the source of all our problems and advises us to become disentangled. .

It's a difficult idea but as it has yet to be refuted it must be considered.

. .

In Kant, then, the external material object is that which appears, and the object of perception is the sensation afforded by that which has appeared. Now perhaps it is clear space and time have nothing to do with any of this, insofar as all that has happened thus far are simply physical manifestations, not yet subjected to intelligence. — Mww

Does perception not require time? Can anything happen, even a thought or image, in the absence of time?

I would read Kant as saying that space-time is unreal thus that the subject with its experiences, perceptions and sensation is unreal. At any rate, this would be the 'perennial' view. .'Unreal' here would mean ideal.and reducible.

I'm not sure it would be possible to doubt the reality of time without doubting the reality of the entire phenomenal world. Clearly it's a real appearance, but metaphysics does not endorse the idea it is any more real than this, and according to skilled meditators neither does experience. . . .

My view also. In any case, are we not already brains in vats?

Have you read the Baghavad Gita? It answers your question, and in a way that Jesus does not seem to contradict.

Logical analysis is always subject to Garbage-In/Garbage-Out. Believing oneself to have proven all other philosophies are absurd, is liable to be an epistemic trap which impedes one's ability to learn from others. That is an unfortunate state to be in. — wonderer1

I understand your view but can reassure you. There is no need to put any garbage in or take any out.

It is surprisingly easy to prove that only one global theory survives analysis. Most philosophers have succeeded. It is well known that all metaphysical questions are undecidable and that the reason for this is the absurdity of all their extreme or dualistic answers. This is metaphysics 101. .

What is less well known is that this leaves only one theory standing, and it is the nondual doctrine of mysticism or or what has come to be known as the Perennial philosophy. This translates into metaphysics as a neutral metaphysical position, and this is the only theory that cannot be reduced to absurdity by analysis. When we do not know this metaphysics is a road to nowhere. . .

Almost all philosophers know about the absurdity of extreme metaphysical positions but a lack of acquaintance with the philosophical foundation of mysticism leaves them unable to see that there is a viable, ancient and popular alternative.that works and massively simplifies philosophy. . .

.

One of the most productive current offshoots of the linguistic turn in philosophy is enactivism, whose founding authors ( Francisco Varela and Even Thompson) advanced a non-dual philosophy melding cognitive science, phenomenology and the mindfulness traditions of the buddhists. — Joshs

Good point. One could also cite Schrodinger, Bradley, Spencer Brown, Schopenhauer, Kastrup, Mohrhoff and many others. These are outliers, however, that do not reflect the mainstream. If any views are mainstream it is probably materialism and monotheism, for both of which the advaita doctrine is false and metaphysics is incomprehensible . .

Do Varela and Thompson say much about metaphysics? I'm guessing they don't go this deep. Otherwise they would be promoting their theory as the final solution for all philosophical problems. But for this it would be necessary to go beyond cognitive science and mindfulness.

Cab you recommend an article on their ideas? I know of Varella only from reading his thoughts on G S Brown and it was along time ago.

. .

.

So you’re saying academic philosophers need to deploy, or at least cite the results of, scientific experimental methods of study in order to validate or falsify the claims of Perrenial philosophy? — Joshs

I believe that the empirical methods of the natural sciences go a long way to proving the plausibility of this philosophy, when the data is interpreted in a certain way, and would cite entanglement and non-locality as immediately relevant, but this method does not allow the matter to be settled. In metaphysics, however, logical analysis allows us to produce a formal proof that all other philosophies and philosophical positions are logically absurd,

This is not a proof of the truth of the only one that remains standing, but it proves that would be perverse to suppose it is not. The proof is simple and I'll sketch it out if you wish. It is, in effect, a proof that philosophy is still relevant and always will be.

What are your own views on the validity of Perennialism?

If you mean the nondual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy, as found in advaita Vedanta, Middle Way Buddhism and Lao Tzu's Taoism then I'd happily and confidently bet my life on its truth.and on the inability of scientists and philosophers to falsify it. I wouldn't even consider it a hostage to fortune. .

think the essence of metaphysics is that it is always about what is a little bit beyond what we think we know - hence the 'meta.' Some people just flat out deny there is anything there. Like Dennett. To me, Dennett's "proofs" always amount to little more than the confession that he, himself, is incapable of envisioning anything beyond the limits of his own current understanding. Which is sad for him, but doesn't really prove anything. — Pantagruel

I would agree to some extent, or in a certain sense, about metaphysics but we can know enough to know where the truth lies and this is all we need for a successful metaphysics. Logical analysis will never prove which global theory is true but it can establish that there is only one that works.

Fully agree about Dennett. I don't know how he gets away with it. In management there is a well-known phenomenon called 'articulate incompetence' and it's very dangerous. .

As you know, there are many strands and styles of philosophy taught within academia. Some of them find a more comfortable home in academic departments outside of philosophy. Are you dissatisfied with all of these approaches or just a certain one that you feel has been allowed to dominate? — Joshs

I see the same approach being taken right across the academic world. It entails not studying the nondual philosophy of the mystics and then not being able to solve any philosophical problems or construct a fundamental theory.

Philosophy then becomes almost useless and has difficulty defending its place in the university curriculum. Nobody benefits from this blinkered approach and I regard it as a betrayal of professional standards and public trust. . . .

Are you familiar with philosophical movements like phenomenology, deconstruction, poststructuralism, postmodern hermeneutics, enactivism, New Materialism, Science studies, Cultural studies or neo-Pragmatism? Do you think what you wrote above is true of the many academics who study and teach within these approaches? — Joshs

I'm aware of all these 'ism's' and more and yes, what I wrote earlier appears to be true of most if not all of the academics who teach these subjects. I find it difficult to think of exceptions. Are you aware of any?

It seems the Perennial philosophy is not considered relevant to academic philosophy, so nobody tries to falsify it and it is simply ignored. Then we end with a muddle of phenomenology, deconstruction, poststructuralism, postmodern hermeneutics, enactivism, New Materialism, Science studies, Cultural studies and neo-Pragmatism.

This would be how folks like Dennett and Chalmers can get away with publishing books on consciousness that fail to mention the views of those who study it experimentally without being laughed out of their profession. It's the orthodox approach in their profession. , ,

Clearly this approach does not enable those who take it to understand metaphysics or construct a fundamental theory, but presumably they feel this is an acceptable price to pay for avoiding the study of mysticism.

Your list of 'isms' does not include the one I'm talking about, which perhaps supports my point.

There would be no problem if someone could falsify the metaphysics of the Buddha and Lao Tzu, but as it is the situation seems surreal. .



. .









.

As you know, there are many strands and styles of philosophy taught within academia. Some of them find a more comfortable home in academic departments outside of philosophy. Are you dissatisfied with all of these approaches or just a certain one that you feel has been allowed to dominate? — Joshs

As a general rule academic philosophers examine all philosophies except non-dualism and a neutral metaphysical position. This is an academic scandal it seems to me. It means most philosophers are unable to explain why metaphysical questions are undecidable and so for them philosophy is an ineffective and interminable area of study that never makes any progress.

The consequence is that in the academic world metaphysics is widely thought to be incomprehensible. This is the price of not studying the whole of philosophy. It leads to to the view that philosophy is hopeless and can be dispensed with,when in fact the problem is merely limited scholarship.

In the past this blinkered approach to philosophy was understandable but now we have the internet I would call it poor scholarship. So yes, I am dissatisfied with all of these approaches, since they all require rejecting the only metaphysical theory that work and allows sense to be made of philosophy.

Thus the rather surreal situation is created in which almost all academic philosophers carry on as if the Perennial philosophy is nonsense while being unable to falsify or refute it or even come up with a plausible alternative. I do not regard this approach as dispassionate, honest, useful or rational;

I did warn you I might start ranting. .

My thesis is that when first philosophy is abandoned as impossible philosophy has died. — Leontiskos

My view also. I see university philosophy as the proof.
.

Does philosophy still contribute? When you are reading it, do you feel you are contributing? — Pantagruel

f you mean the sort of philosophy taught and practiced in our Western universities then I'd say no, it does not contribute to our understanding of the world. This is indicated by the rise of scientism. Not a shred of progress in two millennia.

If you're talking about philosophy in its widest sense then I'd say it contributes more than any other academic or scientific discipline.

The issue is that many people do not see the ideological limitations of modern academic philosophy,or how they can be overcome, so tend to dismiss philosophy as hopeless. Thus the tools get blamed for poor workmanship.

I must be careful not to start ranting on this one.
. .

Aha. Thanks. I get it now.

when we're done with this book, we can maybe look at
http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/VarelaCSR.pdf
And perhaps it might start to convince @Banno that we are not a cult

Regrettably, this is the kind of article that goes over my head. I have to leave the technical details to mathematicians and stick with basic principles. .

By the way, can you tell me why I often don't get a 'quote' option and have to copy/paste replies? Occasionally I do but usually not and it seems odd.

I know what you mean but I feel it's misleading to speak of East vs West. Brown is a Westerner and his mate Wei Wu Wei was born Terence Grey, an Irishman with a love of fine wines and racehorses. I'd;even want to argue about the distinction between non-duality and science but that's a trickier topic. Minor quibbles. Brown is underappreciated imho so it's great that you've raised his profile a little.

Good luck with LoF. When I was getting started on it I found this essay useful (by the president of the Jungian Society in the USA). Robin Robertson, SOME-THING FROM NO-THING: G. SPENCER-BROWN’S LAWS OF FORM http://www.angelfire.com/super/magicrobin/lof.htm

This extract makes the connection between Brown's approach and philosophy. (I suspect that by 'consciousness' here Robertson means intentional consciousness, since for Brown consciousness is not emergent but is the birthplace of form.). . .

“Anyone who thinks deeply about anything eventually comes to wonder about nothingness, and how something (literally some-thing) ever emerges from nothing (no-thing). A mathematician, G. Spencer-Brown (the G is for George) made a remarkable attempt to deal with this question with the publication of Laws of Form in 1969. He showed how the mere act of making a distinction creates space, then developed two “laws” that emerge ineluctably from the creation of space. Further, by following the implications of his system to their logical conclusion Spencer-Brown demonstrated how not only space, but time also emerges out of the undifferentiated world that precedes distinctions. I propose that Spencer-Brown’s distinctions create the most elementary forms from which anything arises out of the void, most specifically how consciousness emerges.”



.

I haven't read all the discussion but like the topic. I've written a bit about Spencer Brown and once talked to him on the phone.for a hour. A terrifying experience.

I can't help much with the details of the calculus he presents in LoF but have deeply explored its metaphysical implications. His calculus describes the logic of 'non-dualism', hence his quoted references to Lao Tzu. This is a fundamental description of reality and, equivalently, a fundamental theory of sets, and as such it solves Russell' and Cantor's problem of self-reference.

Basically, it states that there is no such thing as the 'set of all sets'. Rather, sets would reduce to the blank sheet of paper on which the Venn diagram is drawn. For an information theory this would be the
information space, whether in psychology or cosmology. ,.

In his way the 'Perennial' philosophy solves all metaphysical problems, including the reduction of the many to the one. You could say Brown's book explains thee reason why problems of self-reference do not arise for the philosophy of the Upanishads, Buddhism, Taoism and so forth, allowing it to be fundamental without giving rise to paradoxes.

Later in life Brown became a close friend of Wei Wu Wei, the renowned nonduality teacher, and perhaps this indicates that he knew his stuff. In his phone call he stated he was a buddha and I had no reason to doubt him other than the fact he mentioned it.

I don't see this as mystical. A perspectiveless world cannot be imagined, but it also cannot be imagined that the world absent any percipients could be anything but perspectiveless; I don't believe it can be imagined as simply non-existent, I think that notion is even more incoherent, more mystical.

If the absolute cannot be imagined then this is just a fact. Kant established that it is a fact and yet he is not dismissed as 'mystical'. The fats are the facts. But Kant does not say it does not exist and neither does mysticism. They say it lies beyond the categories of thought thus can be known but not thought.

This is just a thought. I'm moving on so no need to reply. . . .

I see lots of examples of science gaining some grasp of cognition and psychology in your list but none that indicate an understanding of consciousness. We know a bit about anesthetics, as you say, but this tells us nothing nothing about consciousness. If you look at your list it doesn't include a knowledge of consciousness but behaviour and mental factors.

subscribed to the journal of consciousness studies for three years and in that time did not see one scientific article that moved our understanding of consciousness forward by an inch and only about two philosophical articles that added anything useful. The subject is at a standstill. Fifty years of work and they can't even falsify the traditional explanation of consciousness that dates back three millennia.

But no matter. I'm going to drop out of the discussion. The idea that consciousness is fundamental and was explained long ago is clearly unwelcome. See you around. . . . .

"What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding" — FrancisRay

He says in a post on an internet forum.

I should have said 'physical' sciences. With this qualifier I'd say the same in an academic journal if you wish and wouldn't be the first to do so.

Do you have a significant example of how science has helped us understand consciousness? At this tome I know of no scientist who claims any understand of it except for the rare ones outlier who explores meditation and mysticism. . .

Unless, of course, the hard problem is metaphysical too.

This is what I mean. It is metaphysical, so of course it's going to be a hard problem to prove that it's not. I'm unable to understand people who believe it is not a metaphysical problem for it is ancient and well-known in metaphysics. It's just a guise of the mind-matter problem. .

What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding. — FrancisRay

I'll save this as a great example of begging the question[/Quote}.

It IS a question? How can a question beg the question?

Of course it's a matter of opinion, your opinion. Here's what the dictionary says:

Belief in direct experience of transcendent reality or God, especially by means of contemplation and asceticism instead of rational thought.
Such experience had by an individual.
Belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are directly accessible by subjective experience.

NO, this is not mysticism. It is NOT a system of beliefs. It the pursuit of knowledge. Surely everybody knows this. Mysticism is the endorsement of these 'beliefs', yes, but this is a painfully worded definition. It is the pursuit of the knowledge of these things and it may be acquired only by exploring consciousness. Any fool can have a belief.

I would have thought that it is only necessary to read one book on mysticism to know that mysticism is the study of consciousness. It's goal is the discovery of Being, Consciousness and Bliss. ,.

Another matter of opinion. Again, from the web:

The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, group, or activity.
Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another.

Exactly. It does not study consciousness.

I'm using regular old common usage, i.e. the dictionary, as the source for what the words I use mean.

Always the best idea.

Now you're just being difficult. Valid methods can be used badly./quote]
Most people's idea of introspection is not meditation. This confuses the issues.

That's not how I read him. Do you have an example where he says that?

When Lao Tzu is asked how he acquired his knowledge he answers, 'I look inside myself and see'. Is this not a clue?

If you're arguing the mysticism is not the study of consciousness then thanks for the chat but we'd best leave it here. It is such a basic and easily verifiable fact. .

Materialism is a metaphysical, not a factual, principle. Scientists don't have to be materialists in order to do science. Nothing "depends" on materialism being true.

Yes. Although I suppose you could say hard problem depends on it being true.

If you are saying the current state of our understanding of consciousness cannot be considered scientific, I disagree. That's not to say there are not a lot of scientific issues yet to resolve.

What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding. My point was that to confuse being ;scientific' with endorsing materialism is a serious error.

I don't agree that mysticism is the study of consciousness.

This is not a matter of opinion. What else could mysticism study when it teaches that everything is consciousness? .

Psychology is the study of mind, including consciousness.

This is not that case, as is noted by Kant. It studies the intellect, but not the source of the intellect. .

Introspection is a valid method for studying human psychology. Introspection is not necessarily mysticism. Or mysticism is not necessarily introspection. Or something like that.

I'd say it depends on how you define 'introspection and how you practice it.

I think you're mixing things up here. As I understand it, "perennial philosophy" is metaphysics.

Yes it is, but it is also mysticism. Since Huxley's book under this title the phrase 'Perennial philosophy' and mysticism are synonyms.

If you doubt that mysticism is the study of mind and consciousness then I wonder how you interpret Lao Tzu. Do you see him as just a metaphysician? What else can one study while sitting in meditation? For Lao Tzu and the Perennial philosophy consciousness and reality are the same phenomenon. . .

When it comes to hard problem (or more broadly mental versus physical or realism versus idealism, etc), one place to start is at the notion of "properties". What does it mean for a property to adhere/inhere in an object, versus a mind?

Good question. This is known as the problem of attributes.

For the Perennial philosophy, as for Kant, extended phenomena are empty of substance or essence. They would be conceptual imputations. They would consist of their attributes and properties and in the words of Meister Eckhart are 'literally nothing. Both mind and matter would be illusory in some sense while the origin of all, which hides behind the veil of mind and matter but is always here and now, would would be prior to both.

If you ask the same question about the objects and attributes that appear in your dreams this would be a roughly analogical situation. . . . . ,

I have this reference but not the original. . .

Martin Heidegger
Speech commemorating German composer Conradin Kreutzer in 1955
(from Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind – Guy Claxton p207)

— "T

I agree with your more general comments about metaphysics, but I'm still uncertain about how others apply it to consciousness. I get the impression that hard problemers believe there is a specific, factual explanation for consciousness that is not approachable from a scientific point of view.

This seems correct to me.If a 'scientific explanation' is one that depends on materialism being true then it would be my view also. I'd say it's the only available sensible view. Unless we abandon our unnecessary and demonstrably absurd metaphysical views then we cannot explain consciousness, mind, matter or anything else. .

As state it is, of course, a gross misuse of the term 'scientific'. If we use Popper's definition then of course there is a specific and factual explanation for consciousness. It's been around for thousands of years, ever since research into consciousness began. .

My point wasn't that Taoism was established empirically, but that it provides an effective metaphysical foundation for science. On the other hand, I've always seen introspection as a valid source of knowledge, so "I look inside myself and see," can be a credible statement of fact.

Spot on. If science rejects non-sensory experience as valid data then it has no reason to believe that consciousness exists and cannot study it. This is pretty much why Behaviorism became the orthodox view for a couple of decades. To deny the existence of mysticism, which is the study of consciousness, is not just a profoundly unscientific way of avoiding the study of consciousness but a laughable one.

I wonder how you would go about studying consciousness empirically. Can you imagine a way of doing this?

I would collect together every book that has ever been published that correctly explains the Perennial philosophy,and hire a fleet of trucks to deliver them to the science department with a note asking them to produce a scientific explanation for why all their authors agree with each other and why everything they say is irrefutable and in accord with modern science and how what they say allows us to solve all metaphysical problems and put the natural sciences on a solid fundamental foundation. They have no 'scientific' method for studying consciousness and discovering the reason, but it might make make them wonder, Would this count as empirical evidence? . . . .

Consciousness already is and always has been studied scientifically. Psychology can be characterized as the study of mind, including consciousness. Second-hand reports can be perfectly valid empirical data. Our own consciousness is the only one we have access to direct evidence for, at least so far. Also - what we call "consciousness", especially in others, is really behavior which we can study more or less objectively. Consciousness can also be studied by more nuts and bolts science as in cognitive science.

My view also. The only consciousness we can study scientifically is our own. Every other method depends on speculation. this seem such a basic and simple point that It's hard to imagine why anyone would miss it, other than for ideological reasons. I am very sure that our view will win the day, but how long it will take to do so is not easy to predict. .

I'm confused. I've always considered the people who search for answers to the so-called hard problem of as the dualists. Looking back over your posts in this thread, you come down on the side of @schopenhauer1 and the rest of the hard problemers. Doesn't that make you a dualist? Or do I have the terminology mixed up?

I can see the problem. My position is that the hard problem is metaphysical, and that if this is not recognized then it is hard (intractable) for the reason Chalmers originally gives. As a metaphysical problem it is tractable but only when we abandon dualism. The same would go for all metaphysical problems. In this context 'dualism' would be the belief that two things exist. Non-dualism states there are not two things, hence the phrase 'advaita' (not-two) to describe it. . ,

If you've read much of what I've written here on the forum, you've seen that a lot of my metaphysics is based on my understanding of the Tao Te Ching. I don't see any contradiction between that and a belief that consciousness can be fruitfully studied using science.

It can be studied scientifically. and Yoga is often described as a science, but not empirically. Lao Tzu makes no use of empiricism for his knowledge but explains it by saying 'I look inside myself and see'' He endorses the non-dual doctrine for which reality and consciousness are the same phenomenon and it is a unity, and this is how he can know about Tao and the 'ancient origin', the knowledge he calls the 'essence of Tao'. . .

I wonder how you would go about studying consciousness empirically. Can you imagine a way of doing this? Generally, academic researchers have to rely on second-hand reports. It is telling that scientists used to dismiss consciousness as non-existent for the sake of Behaviorism. This view arose because it cannot be studied empirically. Sometime round the 1980s they changed their mind and decided it did exist but I don't know what brought about this change of heart. It was not any new data. .
. .

Sorry, it's the first I've heard about non-dualism, but that's not surprising because I just hate reading philosophy, so I never do.

As a test, does non-dualism have any insight into time perception? The materialist/physicalist view seems to have some difficulty with it and they may need to concede that the brain has an ability to deal with the non-physical. Dualism based on physical matter seems to do better. Does non-dualism have any insight on how we perceive time? I have a problem with metaphysics being more fundamental than physical matter.

Hmm. This is an odd place to find someone who hates reading about philosophy.

Non-dualism requires a neutral metaphysical theory.for which time does not really exist. The idea of the practice is to transcend time and space. You might like to check out the mathematician Hermann Weyl's book on the continuum. He points out that we do not perceive the passing of time but create it out of memories and anticipations. The continuum of mathematics and physics he dismisses as a fiction. In this respect he endorses the non-dual doctrine.

Metaphysics rejects time and matter as fundamental phenomena. If we believe they are fundamental then metaphysics will be a muddle of paradoxes and antinomies since this idea contradicts logic. Do you really find ti difficult to imagine that matter has a prior origin? Is it not more difficult to believe it does not? . .

Is that because you are so wise and articulate?

Oh no. Certainly not. It's because I endorse non-dualism and for this no problems arise.

I already spent three or four days discussing this with @Quixodian, @Patterner, and @schopenhauer1 before you started to participate. Those three are certainly capable of making the case. As I noted, this subject gets worn out pretty quickly. We've all made the same arguments before and will again.

You'll find that those who do not understand non-dualism do not understand metaphysics and as a consequence cannot make sense of consciousness. I would cite the whole of modern consciousness studies for evidence. I'm coming from somewhere else and endorse the explanations given by the Buddha, Lao Tzu.and Schrodinger, which are entirely ignored and usually unknown to most people working in modern consciousness studies.

I'm trying to decide whether our differences are matters of fact or metaphysics. I have a prejudice toward considering intractable questions as metaphysics, which allows me to put them aside without it feeling like I'm cheating, but I'm not sure here.

I don't believe there are any intractable problems in metaphysics. If you look you'll see that all those who claim metaphysical problems are intractable do not know the Perennial philosophy. This is not a coincidence.

If science is not the correct method for studying consciousness, please describe a program of study that might be

.
The empirical sciences are unable to prove consciousness exists. This is why back in the mid 20th century the orthodox 'scientific' view was that it doesn't. Using sensory empirical methods to study consciousness is not a scientific approach. A scientific approach would study the actual phenomenon. This requires a 'hands-on' approach, as employed by the old science of consciousness,

The critical issue is dualism in whatever form it takes. To make sense of metaphysics and consciousness requires abandoning it. Once one abandons dualism progress is possible, If one sticks to it no progress is possible, as is evidenced by the history of Western philosophy.

I don't regard the approach taken by modern consciousness studies as scientific and suspect neither would Karl Popper. I feel a scientific approach is required. But this would mean investigating consciousness and not just talking about it, and this idea is too mystical for dualists and materiallsts.

The fact remains, however, that non-dualism allows us to explain consciousness and metaphysics, and until it is falsified or refuted there will be no good reason to conjecture it is wrong. But on this topic ideology seems to cause endless problems. Most people argue against it without even bothering to find out what it is. This approach is not scientific or even in accord with basic standards of scholarship.

I hope my indignation at this sloppy workmanship is not too obvious. .
.

. .

Sure. Understanding the nature of deep learning in neural nets has given me a lot of insight into the nature of human intuitions, the reliabilty or lack thereof of human intuitions, and what it takes to change intuitions.

I seriously doubt this - but can't imagine how you could demonstrate your new understanding so won't push the point.