Your definition of what constitutes woo is only an indication of the narrowness of your horizons

I accept Pierre Hadot’s notion of philosophy - a way of life, a way of being:

According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos.

Of course science is a part of that, but currently science does not have a cosmology at all, if by cosmos you mean an ‘ordered whole’. Which is no slight on science, and no harm to philosophy, so long as you don’t confuse one for the other!

Anyway, enough squabbling, it’s unseemly.

thinking in continuums — Jack Cummins

That's interesting but binary thinking, if I understand what it really means, is still a problem. Imagine the usual way to break the habit of binary (black & white) thinking - point the person in its grips to the so-called grey area between black and white. However, if there's a grey area, there's a non-grey area. Every point in a continuum has points on that same continuum that are not that point. In other words, the notion of a continuum doesn't aid us in escaping dualism.

I read in a critical thinking book that the very idea of non-dualism is dualistic for it's the opposite of dualism. In other words, non-dualism and dualism are a pair that together reinforce dualism. It's like being a prisoner - attempt to escape and you're transferred to a high security block.

I do agree with you that it is difficult to escape dualism entirely, because while I was engaging on the thread I got to the point of embracing non dualism. However, when looking at specific philosophers who try to go beyond duality, I have not been convinced entirely that they really manage this. Yes, it's true that dualism and non dualism are once again binaries, which is why I thought about a whole continuum or spectrum of gradations from mind to body, even if there are points within the continuum.

But, as with all philosophies, we are trying to fit the reality into our constructs of this comes with certain limitations. I am sure that I am slipping into phenomenology, and I haven't read the significant writers, but I would ask where do emotions lie in between mind and body, because they are based on physical drives and instincts but also dependent on ideas, especially in the form of the ideals we have. For example, the heartbroken person may feel get to the point of being depressed clinically, which is based on neurochemistry but this is connected to ideas or ideals about the nature of love.

I do really agree with you that thoughts can be seen as 'guests' and that is why I don't see them as matter, even though they are transmitted, or arise, within the brain as a bodily organ. While I am not very familiar with cognitive science, I am familiar with the cognitive behavioral therapy model and that looks at the way in which thoughts arise in an intrusive manner, which does seem to involve seeing them as strangers which we house. I think that meditation is one way in which we are able to think about thoughts as guests, and the way in which decide to treat them in our own experience.

Of course science is a part of that, but currently science does not have a cosmology at all ... — Wayfarer

:gasp:

I do struggle a bit with methodological and philosophical materialism, but I am hoping that I will get there at some point. If anything, I do smile when I look at certain books and begin to think, 'woo woo'. I am serious about my questions, but try to keep a certain amount of humour.

Maybe this rule-of-thumb will be of use:

If X is methodological, then X is used to filter-out – eliminate for the sake of argument or study – any alternative not-X.

For example: methodological naturalism denotes explaining phenomena without using any 'supernatural' entities or concepts (regardless of whether or not they are believed to 'exist').

If Y is philosophical, then Y is assumed to be 'all there is', or necessarily excludes from systematic consideration any alternative not-Y.

For example: philosophical naturalism denotes committing to nature – natural entities or concepts – as all that exists which, therefore, entails the nonexistence of 'supernatural' entities or concepts.

One can be methodological X without also being philosophical X (like e.g. most experimental scientists, engineers, modern/conceptual artists, social critics & religious skeptics) or vice versa, though many people are both, I think, because it's cognitively easier.

:100: Chewy. Nutritional.

I can see your purpose of naturalistic explanations. What I see as being a particular problem is when people make particular arguments which depend on certain ideas about the supernatural. Being by nature a bit of a 'woo woo', mystical psychonaut, I am inclined to contemplate all kinds of possibilities, but I am aware that these are only speculation, so I prefer not to use these as a premise or foundation. I think that I can live with uncertainty, and I do wish to be able to formulate arguments on the basis of what is known, rather than the unknown.

It seems thoughts and thinking is a material process and a response of memory. Thoughts are verbalized experiences. The "I" is an emergent thought construct..

Okay, I'll drink to that. :up:

Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings – always darker, emptier and simpler. — The Gay Science

It is interesting to see this thread pop up suddenly and it probably is connected to qualia. The idea of thoughts as 'shadows of our feelings' of Nietzsche is interesting here. I also wonder where dreams fit into this because they may be shadows of thoughts and feelings.

The way I think about this, is the following: Thoughts, and for that matter consciousness, and here we're talking about the concepts, are reflected in two ways. First, our bodily actions (digging a ditch, or building a home), and second, linguistic actions (talking and writing). So, consciousness as a concept, is reflected in things we can observe. However, this doesn't deny that there are internal reflective experiences, but as soon as we try to make the meaning of the concept the internal thing, then we run into problems. Pointing to the internal is not the same as pointing to a cup (which we all can observe), obviously, but that is what people do. So, they ask, "What are thoughts?" - and they try to focus on some thing (I'm talking generally, not necessarily referring to the OP) that corresponds to the concept thought, and it is here that they go astray. What can help, is to try to focus on that which gives the concept its footing, viz., how we use it with one another. And, what we see are the expressions (both physical and linguistic), that give substance to these concepts, that is, the social setting.

I'm not saying that the internal experiences are not real, or that there is no connection between what's happening in our minds, and the concepts we use. I'm saying that we lack the objective component to be able talk sensibly, in some cases, about consciousness or the self. In other words, we can't get beyond ourselves, we lack the proper view.

I think each side of the argument tends to go to far in one direction or the other, and they stick with their particular conceptual view. The problem is probably linked with linguistic boundaries, i.e., what can be sensible said about the subject without talking nonsense. So, I see the problem, at least much of the problem, as a conceptual one. We have a tendency to limit our conceptual view based on a theory, and if this theory comes up against another theory, with a different conceptual view, then the clash. It's like chess conflicting with checkers. My piece doesn't move like your piece, etc.

Just some thoughts.

I also wonder where dreams fit into this because they may be shadows of thoughts and feelings. — Jack Cummins

:up:

Hmm, I'll take another stab at this topic. It's (thoughts) related to the term "mental", it's hard to given a definition of what thought is, without using substitute words related to it.

I like Strawson's definition here of the "mental", which is "occurrent experiential episodes". The happenings that go on in your mind now and the nows that go on beyond this instant, as you "focus" on them, constitutes mental happenings.

A thought would be a mental happening that has a (inevitably arbitrary) beginning and end point, which if someone asked you about it, you could say, I was thinking about how Airplanes go through clouds or how Descartes thinks of metaphysics, etc.

Of course, what we verbalize captures a part of what goes on in our heads, as we don't express colours and emotions and the like with mere words.

The idea of thoughts as 'shadows of our feelings' of Nietzsche is interesting here. I also wonder where dreams fit into this because they may be shadows of thoughts and feelings. — Jack Cummins

In one sense we are inclined to say that if I express my thoughts or feelings, then those are my thoughts or feelings. They're not shadows of my thoughts or feelings. We just don't talk like this, at least generally. Imagine someone saying, "Here is a book that expresses my thoughts, but they're not the real thing. They're only shadows of my thoughts or feelings." So, the wording is a bit strange, to say the least.

On the other hand, if I use a concept to refer to objects in space, that concept is not the actual thing, it's simply used to refer to the thing in space, depending on the context. So, we think of the concept as a kind of reflection of the thing. In this sense, one might say that the concept is a kind of shadow of the thing, it's not the real thing. However, if you're not careful in your wording, you're going to run into problems.

Lastly, to refer to dreams as "shadows of thoughts" also seems a bit strange. Last night I experienced shadows of thoughts. What would that even mean? This seems like even more of a confusion. However, I think we can sympathize with the questioning of what dreams are, many of us do have questions. Again, we have to go back to how we use the concept generally.

In one sense we are inclined to say that if I express my thoughts or feelings, then those are my thoughts or feelings. They're not shadows of my thoughts or feelings. — Sam26

For Nietzsche , like Freud, thoughts are the tip of an iceberg. It is the feelings-values lying below the surface as implicit or unconscious that gives thoughts their sense and purpose. People think they know their thoughts , but they often can’t tell you the larger system of values they hold that make these thoughts coherent.

It's difficult to say what role the subconscious has on us, no doubt some role.

It could be asked where in the mind do thoughts come and how much is a posteroi or a priori. Each of us lives in a world of subjective experience, based on social meanings and logic, and thoughts may come somewhere in between. Plato spoke of the Forms outside of us and current perspectives in cognitive psychology speak of the way human beings are hardwired, which may include some innate aspects of human nature, as well as human nature. But, in understanding thoughts it may be about trying to put together the various sources which come into play in understanding the divergent sources of the streams of thought processes.

It could be asked where in the mind do thoughts come and how much is a posteroi or a priori — Jack Cummins

Really? That's like asking 'where in the sky do winds and clouds come from' as if the latter are not aspects of the former (i.e. as if facial-expressions are not aspects (your) face). Waves "come from" tidal currents deep beneath the surface of the ocean generated by diurnal temperature gradients and the moon's gravity, no? More precisely, I surmise from the extant neuroscientific literature that thoughts "come from" subpersonal processes (brain sys 1) and only occasionally, barely, intermittenly are experienced consciously as subvocalizations (brain sys 2) used most basically to track or trace predictions about one's environment (or one's own feelings and other thoughts), and therefore thoughts are transparent to themselves just as everything visible appears within eye-sight except its own seeing.

I also think this thought-transparency (which gives rise to the naive question "where do thoights come from?") is the source of "subjective experience" insofar as we cannot ever get out of our own heads (i.e. spatiotemporally unique, embodied, perspectives) to perceive our own cognitive processes as they are happening objectively. Thus, idealist confabulations-of-the-cognitive gaps since our brains are biased to project patterns (e.g. fact-free narratives – just-so stories – that mistake correlations for "causes") where they don't – can't – recognize any patterns. Aside from contemporary neuroscience (e.g. T. Metzinger, S.Dehaene, A. Damasio, S. Seung, D. Kahneman), the speculations about "self-identity" by e.g. Laozi, Buddha, Heraclitus, Epicurus ... Spinoza, Hume, Nietzsche, Freud, Foucault-Guattari, Dennett et al suggest that Humans may, in fact, be "zombies" cognitively complex enough to delude themselves that they are "(phenomenally self-aware) persons". :eyes:

Interesting, and it may be that we are 'zombies' or
'robots' I have read some of the writers, but not all,but do wonder if there are certain criteria of self awareness, and to what extent this may be established. I am not wishing to collapse the problem to that of relativism, but am wondering how the nature of thoughts can be critiqued. How do we evaluate thoughts and their significance?

How do we evaluate thoughts and their significance? — Jack Cummins

Please elaborate. I don't grok the question.

This thread was one which I created several months ago, so I am trying to tune into it again. That may even be relevant to the issue because specific thoughts arise at times and states of consciousness. So much may be about specific moments, and mindfulness of this. It may be that thoughts arise almost spontaneously at times, but they are probably connected to aspects of awareness which are form of subtext to the most conscious aspects of awareness. In other words, some thoughts may arise out of the blue, but they may be aspects of subliminal awareness, which have not been expressed, or formulated into words, previously.

Each of us lives in a world of subjective experience, based on social meanings and logic, and thoughts may come somewhere in between. Plato spoke of the Forms outside of us... — Jack Cummins

I don't quite agree that each of us lives in a world of subjective experience. I think we have both subjective and objective experiences. However, both worlds are real, and both are important to who we are as individuals.

I'm sympathetic to Plato's ideas, because my own take is that the unifying principle of the universe is consciousness itself. My reasons for believing this have to do with my studies of NDEs and DMT, and what people are describing during these experiences. If it's true that consciousness is the unifying principle of the universe (by universe I mean all that exists), then there may be some deeper connection between each of us. Moreover, if there is an intelligence in back of the universe, not some religious God, but something much more profound, then Plato might have a point. However, some of this is speculation, but I think more and more, the scientific community is considering consciousness as a possible candidate for a unifying principle. I strongly lean is this direction. I think the truth lies somewhere between the dogma of religion, and the dogma of the materialist.

I don't quite agree that each of us lives in a world of subjective experience. I think we have both subjective and objective experiences. — Sam26

:up: