Ah good. :)

As for your other questions, I suspect "meaning" is not a linguistic "only" issue.

In my case at least, when I speak of meaning "only" using language, I'd say that when I ask someone "what do you mean?", I'm simply trying to get the person to say to state the point in a different manner, so that I can get clearer on the goal or point of the message.

But of course, as soon as we ask questions like "what does that mean" or "does this have any meaning", we are asking questions that are more multifaceted than linguistics, I think.

Simply put we are part of the natural world, not supernatural entities like angels or God. Being part of the natural world implies that our nature (including our cognitive faculties) has scope and structure, much like any other creature must have them too, if they're natural creatures. What's natural for a bat (echolocation) is alien to a dog, etc.

If we had no given structure, we couldn't be able to create theories at all, everything would come in and go out, like a cloud.

If we had no scope, we could not investigate certain parts of nature at all, we'd be like an amoeba or a jellyfish-like creature, which simply reflect what the environment puts in, with no filter. Then we'd actually be Locke's "white paper".

So to be able to say anything at all, we need to have a fixed, rather rigid, innate cognitive faculty in order to have any faculties (of some depth) at all.

Imagine that. — 3017amen

I think this is true as a matter of fact.

Whether you call them "abstract structures" or "laws of mind" in addition to (or considered alongside) the laws of nature, doesn't alter that fact, I think.

As Chomsky would say we are human beings, not angels.

I don't know how deep ethnoscience goes, it probably varies somewhat from culture to culture, that is, some cultures may have more postulated entities that make the word intelligible than others.

We seem to have an innate structure that looks at the world based on contact mechanics, an object directly touches another one and that's why it moves.

The example I always use is, image being in a park and you see some kid kicking a rubber ball. Based on how strong the kick is and what type of ball it is, we don't seem to be puzzled that rubber balls are moved by us kicking them, it's intuitive in the sense.

Of course, this does not mean the world actually works this way at all (no direct contact, the issue of gravity, friction and all these other things that physics takes into account but that we don't intuitively use in ordinary life) but that's how it appears to us as working.

As for your list, I have doubts. We like to reduce the number of causes and structures to as little rules as possible.

Sure, but we can also point with our finger to denote something. Or with our eyes. No words are needed in these cases.

In manifest (everyday, ordinary) reality, we can refer to things. But the word need not stand in for an object in the world. It could, but it's not necessary.

Denoting is one of the many things we do with words. If you agree with that, then there's no disagreement here.

It appears we are at an impasse? — Don Wade

It's likely. Or as you said you'd need to come up with more examples or different wordings.

Or we may simply have different intuitions about these things.

Can two objects occupy the same space at the same time. - Not which one came first. — Don Wade

An apple includes its seeds. By saying that apples on the one hand and seeds on the other are different objects is just a way of speaking about things, which is convenient for talking.

However, our perception may tell us they can only exist as part of the apple? That doesn't make sense. — Don Wade

It doesn't make sense? If we aren't talking about apple seeds, what are we talking about? Seeds of no fruit at all? We're no longer speaking about seeds if something like that is the case.

But is it a fundamental ontological distinction? I don't think so. These are different levels of maturity of the same object: all apples begin as seeds.

Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? — 3017amen

As presented in the Abrahamic traditions probably not.

On the other hand if we take religion as belonging to ethnoscience - sometimes called "folk science" a term which I don't like much - then we could gain some illustrations of how we look at the world in an intuitive manner.

Knowing little about religion honestly, I'd dare to stick my neck out and guess that polytheism, when we postulate many gods for different phenomena, might be a better framework for our manifest thinking: Apollo carrying the sun, Zeus throwing thunder when he's angry, Cupid using arrows for love, etc.

But, I'm handwaving.

Lots of questions here. I'll only go for one:

Meaning that all words denote existent entities? — TheGreatArcanum

Words don't denote/refer. People do.

The apple also exists. Yes, the apple has seeds in it. Do the seeds exist with or without the apple? Yes. Therefore, it is my conclusion that the space inside the apple "that cotains the seeds" is still part of the apple. Because the space is still part of the apple the two objects (the seed, and the apple) are occupying that same space at the same time. — Don Wade

It's similar-ish to the whole chicken or egg debate.

I'd only try to emphasize that seeds are parts of apples. We also consider seeds apart from apples when appropriate. But we'd still call them apple seeds, not seeds from space. But the same would be true of an avocado seed or a watermelon seed.

The really smart ones would've raced to be the first under the meteor. The rest just suffer.

However this one plays out, it's not going to be as elegant as a meteor. Feel bad for my niece and my friends kids.

There's a small window left to prevent the worst, 8-10 years or so. I don't think we'll make it. :meh:

But it's there.

It's hard to believe. Not that it's not happening, it is. But it's still hard to believe.

Sixth great extinction. But first suicidal one.

In the case of an apple and its seeds, when we visualize and apple, we have to assume the seeds are inside. Otherwise we probably have in mind a piece of wax resembling an apple.

The apple and the seeds thus considered are part of the same object, not two distinct things. We are the one's who individuate in nature, not the things themselves.

In any case, speaking of apples and seeds as occupying the same space at the same time would be redundant in this example.

One can also make the argument that as long as the baby is inside the mother it does not exist - it is still just a part of the mother until it is born - which is also correct. Levels states: both conditions are correct, and can exist at the same time. It does not have to be one-or-the-other (which is the way most people see it.) It is all in how someone "perceives" the baby. — Don Wade

I mean sure, that's one way to analyze it. A lot of people's intuitions and many laws in different countries, as far as I'm aware, consider it a gradual affair. Moral problems don't usually arise after, say, 3 days after conception. But the moral issue in this case is not too strong. If you speak of something like, after 6 months, then yes, it gets more complicated. But religious believers disagree, which is fine.

As for apple seeds, yeah they are part of the apple. But these gain much more importance is you're going to plant an apple tree or use the seeds.

:snicker:

It was a good analysis. :)

:up:

That's an in-depth analysis. I just liked the song, but what you say is correct.

Drive by Incubus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgT9zGkiLig

Sometimes
I feel the fear of
Uncertainty stinging clear
And I, can't help but ask myself how much I'll let the fear
Take the wheel and steer

It's driven me before and seems to have a vague
Haunting mass appeal
But lately I'm beginning to find that I
Should be the one behind the wheel

Whatever tomorrow brings I'll be there
With open arms and open eyes yeah
Whatever tomorrow brings
I'll be there, I'll be there

So, if I
Decide to waiver my
Chance to be one of
The hive
Will I choose water over wine
And hold my own and drive?

It's driven me before and it seems to be the way
That everyone else gets around
But lately I'm beginning to find that when
I drive myself my light is found

Whatever tomorrow brings I'll be there
With open arms and open eyes yeah
Whatever tomorrow brings
I'll be there I'll be there

Would you choose water over wine?
Hold the wheel and drive

Whatever tomorrow brings I'll be there
With open arms and open eyes yeah
Whatever tomorrow brings
I'll be there I'll be there

Babies, in a mother's womb, is the same analogy. The baby still exists even though it is not "born" yet. It is also a "part of the mother" - but not just a part of the mother. — Don Wade

Depends on the stage of development the embryo is in. Is this related to an abortion argument?

In the case of apples, we tend to throw them away once we eat them. We don't use the seeds. So the analogy between apples and babies can be misleading in this respect.

What could it mean to say that my digestion was happening in your gut? — Banno

Well I mean, you should probably ask for permission first...

what the soul ‘remembers’ are ideas that were understood before birth. And those are principles that are grasped by reason. I don’t think such ideas are objectively real. Whereas for us, what is objectively real comprises our cognitive horizon. — Wayfarer

Sure. And we can speak of such terms today in terms of genetics, though we have no clue how genes could contribute to the kind of innate knowledge we have.

As for cognitive horizons, I'm a little unsure what you may mean. If you'd said something like "the world is my representation.", then I'd have no objections.

Have a good day at work. :)



Yes. I agree. Mind is residue of the brain somehow.

Nonetheless, granting that, we could imagine mental processes leaving the brain entirely, and we'd have a zombie of sorts. Not that this actually happens, just pointing out the much postulated zombie.

For substance dualists, it is not an irrational belief to say that mind is qualitatively different from matter. I don't agree this formulation is entirely coherent, but it was an intuition back in the 17th century.

Suppose that someone were to suggest that digestion could become disembodied. That the digestion from one body could move to another.

Would you think this idea had conceptual issues?

Those are much the same as the conceptual issues I see in reincarnation. — Banno

Initially, it faces the same problem as the mind does with the brain.

I assume we could have physiological problems with our gut in such a way that we couldn't digest things. But this doesn't imply that digestion is something over and above what some organs do in species.

Yes, I think that there are conceptual issues here. But I allow for the possibility of dualism, even if I think it's quite unlikely in regards to the mind/brain.

Nevertheless, the prevailing view of the Phaedo is that Socrates accepts, and argues in favour of, the immortality of the soul, even if he admits he doesn't necessarily understand the soul's destiny. — Wayfarer

What does the soul amount to in this? Would in be analogous to something like consciousness or experience.

For this to be plausible, consciousness would have to be something seperate-able from matter. Putting aside the topic of considering if consciousness is physical or not, I don't know how can one speak of experience absent all matter.

I mean, would you be speaking of a kind of mind stuff than can be instantiated in different people or something like that?

I don't follow very well. We may have different intuitions as people.

When I think of an apple, I thinking about the exterior: the (usually) red skin and the shape. If someone were to say "think of the inside of an apple", then I might visualize the apple cut in two and I see the white flesh and the seeds.

But the same thing happens with a house. When someone says I have a house near the mountains, you usually have in mind the outside of the house, not the interior space. Likewise with a mountain or a tree or many other objects. Why this is so is hard to say.

But I don't see how this has implications for a mother and a child. Nor do I see why thinking about these concepts in this manner should have implications on what does and does not exist,

It's very tempting to have opinions about everything, rather than constantly saying "I really don't know enough to have a real opinion about that," so I get the urge. — Xtrix

Yes. I guess the safest move if you disagree with a particular interpretation is to use arguments based on other physicists conclusions. So even if we don't know if something like the Many Worlds interpretation is correct, we could say that we tend to think that physicist X or Y seems more sensible to us.

Or we can say nothing. Depends a bit on the person.

I tend to agree, but it's like playing poker: there's incomplete information, so you have to use your judgment about probabilities (is the likelihood that this person's range beats me here greater than my hand's strength?) -- but determining that probability is "subjective," dependent on how the person gathers information and assesses the situation. — Xtrix

I agree. There's something about this "incomplete information" that leads rational people to disregard opinions which are plain crazy, such as that Trump is some kind of hero rescuing kids in a ring of pedophiles based in a pizzeria. Why some people have this and others lack it, is a good question.

But there's level of crazy. JFK seems to me to be less crazy than 9/11 which is less crazy than Q, etc. And I'll go further, I think you're allowed to have one or two such ideas, as long as it doesn't cloud everything in your vision. It's a fine line.

What gets me is the real conspiracies aren't mentioned much by such people. Pinochet getting into power was a real conspiracy, Dilma Rousseff getting kicked out in a coup was a real conspiracy, parts of Operation Gladio seem to be quite serious. But for some reason, these one's that actually have evidence aren't often mentioned by Jones and people of that mind set.

Yet their conclusions are so absurd it's almost shocking. What I love the most is when they make predictions based on their beliefs. Then it becomes as apparent as poker: they're always wrong. Look no further than the Q-anon people. It's such stupid nonsense that they actually make predictions -- smarter charlatans never do that, for good reason. — Xtrix

And in such instances we even play around with the word "belief". The "belief" Q people have is more akin to religion than it is as the word is used when talking about philosophy or many aspects of ordinary life.

To return to physics, it's a bit like Flat-Earthers or Moon landing deniers. What possible evidence will change there minds? If nothing will, it's likely a cult.

To bring it back to “bad physics,” it should come as no surprise that people with terrible judgment and delusions of grandeur are attracted to such claims— it further supports the self-serving picture they’ve created for themselves of being “contrarian.” — Xtrix

This and simply charlatanry. You get people like Deepak Chopra making a killing from bamboozling people. As is often said, studying consciousness is spooky and hard as is modern physics, so they must be connected in these very respects.

Plus these physicist's get rewards, recognition and respect for what they do. If they can do it, why can't I? Tough luck.

Which is not to say that one can't be skeptical of certain claims made by such people. but one should be careful.

How do we tell? I’m beginning to think it can’t be formally taught. You have it or you don’t. — Xtrix

It's hard to articulate how one should "think" about these topics. A portion of it is simply probability, as is "what is more likely to be true" an inside job or what happened?

But yeah, "teaching" this to certain people is super difficult and rarely rewarding for the people involved.

From personal experience, if you become a peak-experience junkie and don't learn the lessons, then a couple of things will happen. First, the pleasure component will consistently decrease. Second, something will happen in your life that will put you face to face with your own need for self-transformation. — Pantagruel

:up:

Very much true, in terms of keeping up with peak experiences. It's not uncommon at all to find people who keep up trying to catch up with something that can't really be controlled.

On the other hand, in my case, I don't know if there was a lesson to be learned. It simply was a strong personal experience, with no extra meaning than being able to have such experience.

This is an important point. Very important. — Xtrix

You would know of all people. Even taking a straightforward case as the following is instructive. Take a more or less democratic state that is actually quite serious about security matters: Israel. They managed to fool, lie and distort there nuclear weapons program to other powerful states. Sure, some states knew a bit about it, but not much, at least not much in the beginning of the program.

What happened? One conscientious scientist, Mordechai Vanunu, managed to blow the whistle and let the world know that Israel had nukes. Of course, he's now under arrest, can't leave the country, labeled as a traitor, etc. Yet, if in such a secretive country, with relatively few people in the know about such a delicate subject could not keep such a secret, how in the world would an inside job, involving hundreds of people, if not more, possibly commit 9/11 without anyone saying something substantial about it?

Then there's the whole mess of what happened after the attacks. The main goal was always Iraq, not Afghanistan and the hijackers were Saudi. A very clumsy plan to go to war in Iraq.

In short, these "theories" are nonsense.

You can mock Q all you want, but what about the EVIDENCE? Why don't you want to talk about the EVIDENCE instead of just ridiculing? — Xtrix

Evidence is experiential. Essentially a private affair. I cannot say, only show. But I can only show if you want to see.

It's about looking at the obvious. Keep a (very very very very) open mind about it, and you'll get there. :wink:

If by "isms" you have in mind different philosophical views, such as rationalism, phenomenalism, liberalism and the like, you could say you reject all of them.

It would be a bit hard. As in, I agree with the tenants of rationalism, but I am not a rationalist or I am sympathetic to libertarian ideals, but I'm not a (market) libertarian.

If you agree with parts of a certain tradition or traditions, I don't see why saying an "ism" implies you follow each school of thought as if it were religious doctrine.

It's more difficult to deny some type of affinity with any school of thought than to say "I agree with parts X and Y of this-ism and I like Z of that-ism, but I'm not a this-or-that-ist". I don't see what is gained. The problem is how other people interpret said traditions and attribute to them things you don't believe in.

So yes, it's possible, but I'm not sure it's practical. Maybe it could be.

Q is in the building... :sweat:

↪Xtrix Nice response - common sense defended. The National Enquirer magazine's slogan used to be, 'Enquiring minds want to know.' Dressing up yellow journalism as a virtue. Having known a lot of folks who enjoy a conspiracy theory (and I think this the right verb), a lot of blarney is wrapped up in the old, "I'm just asking questions here." — Tom Storm

These are useful distractions for those in position of power. You get people going down the rabbit hole, and they'll never emerge. Focus on JFK, 9/11 and the like and you can forget about Yemen, Taiwan, Russia and all the other states where issues are at stake.

But there are actual conspiracies' people could look at that are useful: just open The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times, you'll learn how money moves and shapes interest. Or try Foreign affairs to see how the military thinks the US should treat China. It's enough to send chills down your spine. Apparently these things aren't interesting...

Enjoy. :cool:

However, if they could replace it incrementally and guarantee I was conscious the whole time, I don't consider that death, Does anyone else share this intuition? — RogueAI

Doesn't something like this happen naturally? That is, cells die off all the time, but we still that we are the same at a moment to moment basis.

As for your intuition, sure I share it too. At the same time we find it almost unnaturally easy to think of consciousness as something distinct from body, including intuitions about it belonging to the brain.

So while in seems intuitive to me, perhaps if such a thing could be done in real life I'm not sure if this intuition will remain.

Well. I want that novel. And I want it NOW ! — Amity

There are a few novels that have done this to me. I suppose the best for me, which is very philosophical too, is called Novel Explosives by Jim Gauer. It's very long, it's quite difficult, but it's amazing.

After that probably the works of Michael Cisco. Member is one such example, but it's very "out there".

More realistic but still good is A Brief History of Seven Killings by Marlon James.

There are others, but those stand out.

Like many, there are times when reading that words affect me so that I have to stop and savour the moment - other times I get carried away...
I always mean to take a note, perhaps for later quoting, but I never do, so wrapped up in the experience.
And yes, everything we take in makes a difference to us in some way or another... — Amity

:lol:

Yes, exactly the same happens to me. If I take notes, I slow down reading. It's fine for philosophy, but in literature it's a problem.

The imagery resulted in 2 days writing poetry non-stop.
The words seemed to come from nowhere without any direct input from myself. Scary as hell. While all this was going on, I kept thinking that I must have a fever. Brain delirium. — Amity

I can relate to an extent. Though with me it's been (mostly) with novels.

Not in my case writing so much, it's as if something in my experience shifts, it's almost impossible to describe. It's like the core of my consciousness remains still while the surrounding waves of experience start spinning in place. They go around me and end up coming back to were I was, but I'm slightly different.

It's beyond words.

But yes, when you find stimulating literature it rubs off on your writing, your perspectives and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi — Amity

That actually looks like an interesting read. Influencing someone like Harrison can't be too easy.

I'll see if I can check it out - too many books to go through... :sweat:

What is it to you? That's really all that matters in the end.

I actually enjoy my bit of synthaesia because it means that I can lie in bed visualising images to music. I am also extremely interested in hypnagogic and hypnopompic dream states because I have many experiences of these, including some which are pleasant and some which are extremely unpleasant. — Jack Cummins

Damn, that's quite a cool capacity to have. I mean, yeah, it kind of sucks when the experiences are unpleasant but on the whole, it's different.

I do think that certain people, including those who have used or not used drugs, in thinking about the experiences they have in a very literal way. That is probably why they become psychotic. — Jack Cummins

Some perhaps. It depends on the person. Most people who do, say, hallucinogenics tend to be fine. Last studies I read reported that something like 2-5% of people tend to react badly to them.

It's strange but, I think certain types of literature simulate experiential states not completely alien to substance use. Of course there are differences, but I've found similarities. It's weird, but seems to have happened to me a few times.

On the other hand, if one happens to belong to the small percentage of people who react badly to such things, it can be a risk and can lead to mental outbreaks. Somewhat rare, but still happens.

I sometimes wonder if I had not found Jung at this time whether I would have been unable to see this dimensions as being symbolic. — Jack Cummins

I can't say. I've moved away from psychoanalysis just because it stopped being interesting to me. I suspect if not Jung, you might have discovered something else that would have provided some meaning to such experiences.

... and everything under the sun
is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed
by the moon.

"There is no dark side
of the moon really.
Matter of fact
it's all dark. — Eclipse

:clap:

Gets me every time. Fantastic quote.

Your profile pic is the album cover to Pink Floyd's 'The Dark Side of the Moon, a fantastic album, with immense light and dark symbolism. — Jack Cummins

You have excellent taste in music. :wink:

Even the idea of the dark night of the soul, within mysticism, are framed within reference to a journey towards the light. — Jack Cummins

I remember a teacher of mine once saying that one of the most striking images of rationalists in general is that they describe there own ideas as being like a light suddenly turning on, getting some illumination when prior to that everything was obscure.

I've heard some people sometimes describe the first experience they ever had, or at least remember having, as the time when "the lights when on".

One of Carl Sagan's last books, was The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. We get some rays of light in amid near total darkness, meaning some insight in sea of ignorance or confusion. That's roughly right, I think.

Of course, there is much more to life than science, as we can get "light" from many sources, in different domains of our existence.

:cheer:

I was reflecting on this and the way in which light is essential to life. What would it be like to live in complete darkness? — Jack Cummins

I suppose if one reflects back to before birth and one tries to imagine that state, that might be "closest to dark" out of everything.

There are some creatures which can survive with no light: marine life deep down on the bottom of the ocean.

Beyond that, light (and dark) can be used figuratively: his inner light is gone, it was a dark period of my life, it was as if a light turned on and I could see the answer to the problem. Light as knowledge, dark as ignorance. Light as in virtue, dark as in evil or bad, etc.

Heck my own profile pic is related to themes of dark and light. So it is very powerful imagery.

But it's hard to make sense of all its possible meanings and uses.

Me neither. I don't quite follow his argument and what I can make out of it isn't persuasive.

But of course I'll take panpsychism over consciousness deniers or people who downplay what it is.

No it's fine, I like to see these type of reviews, I tend to agree with them.

Yeah, it is strange. He says something like the other worlds are part of the one natural world, something like that. But there's no way to test these other worlds.

He has an interesting discussion with Goff about consciousness. Goff is panpsychist whereas Carroll is sympathetic to Dennett, but less extreme.