I'm not sure what you're talking about but I would include scientism as one of those bedtime stories.

a journal article in biology, as it happens - that disputes this contention. It claims that there is nothing in any known chemical process which can account for the ability of organisms to store and transmit biological information, to maintain homeostasis, and so forth. — Wayfarer

Except for the fact that life exists and is made up of known chemical processes. If he's talking about any one chemical process, well of course not. Life is a complex interaction of chemical processes. I'll need to read the article, but that statement seems inadequate.

The discovery of the genetic code was a breakthrough of the first order. It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’ — Wayfarer

This analysis seems better, but still doesn't counter my point. I didn't say that we couldn't classify life. I just noted the classification is a complex chemical interaction that is internally self-sustaining. If he wants to separate inanimate from animate as having a genetic program, that's fine by me. But that genetic program is still a complex chemical reaction that seeks to sustain itself.

We can classify things as animate or inanimate, but that doesn't mean they both aren't made out of matter, energy, and their reactions with each other. We are not apart from the physical world, we are a part of the physical world.

So what is my evidence? A common observation among all life that differs from the inorganic chemical reactions that I know of. Pour vinegar into baking soda and it runs out when the baking soda or vinegar has completely reacted. It does not seek to find more vinegar or baking soda. Take life at its most basic however and it seeks to replenish what it needs to continue its complex chemical interchange. So much so that it replicates itself in some way before it reaches its limit of self-renewal.

Can you think of any set of chemical reactions that tries to seek out sources of energy to sustain itself, even reproduces, that people would unquestioningly say isn't life?

The fact that we are self-aware is nothing but an illusion, which is a good thing, because this means we don’t die entirely as long as this universe exists.

I can also argue that the source of my experience arises from the movement of my index finger. Doesn't mean it's true, much less that such statements should be taken seriously.

The only way to say that we don't really or truly die until the universe end is to argue that, in some technical sense, completely foreign to our understanding of the word, "consciousness" persists either in pieces of matter, or in some combination of "Universe-stuff".

One can freely decide what terminology one wants to use, but then go on to mistake the technical definition with our understanding of the word. In short, this looks to me as playing with words.

That is an irrelevant example.
Albert's thought experiments ARE NOT claims about facts of reality....the keyword is "thought experiments"
His work was not on QM and the Nobel awarded model of Quantum fluctuations came much later.
Absolute void is NOT possible (according to our current data) in our universe. Quantum foam is everywhere. — Nickolasgaspar

What you're doing is using scientific theory to lay out what we mean by words like "existence." Wouldn't it be better to just look to how we actually use the words? Einstein's thought experiment depends on it being at least logically possible for a person (or one dimensional point if that helps) to exist in a void.

Logical and metaphysical possibility often informs the way we use words. This means that as long as there is no logical contradiction in the idea of a void, it's going to make sense to talk about it. You know what I mean by "void" whether you agree that there is such a thing or not.

The fact that we can meaningfully talk about a thing existing in a void (in spite of believing that there is no such thing) means that "existence" means more than an interaction between items. See what I mean?

I mean in a way that can be understood. 5 dollar words made that unintelligible.

I think the "new age wisdom" part detracts from his point rather than enables it. Just because new age wisdom thinks so doesn't make it true, and I agree. A lot of things in new age wisdom is...well nonsense. Top that off with wishy washy interpretations of science (especially quantum physics) and well...

Not to mention I asked and the Buddhists I talked to say he misunderstands what is meant by Maya in Buddhism, which doesn't surprise me.

But his "evidence" isn't really proof of his point either. It's more like he just interprets it to mean that this is an illusion. The part about us being mostly water is iffy. Sure we are mostly water but call it a bag of water is way too reductive. Like Ice is water frozen solid, the water in our bodies is a part of everything else in us that leads to things being solid.

It's hard to believe he's highly regarded when he makes wacky takes like this: https://www.health.harvard.edu/authors/srini-pillay-md

Well judging from his reply to me I don't think even he really knows what he's talking about, not truly from everyone else I've asked about this:

I think this paradox holds true.

While we are connected to the form of our bodies, there are things we can do to change this. Yet, as we connect more deeply with what the body is,
we recognize that we are really more than just the way we appear through our sense organs.

Thanks.

This is from the guy in the first link, the quote in my OP is from a Quora user but you have to have a plus subscription to read it, which i think is nonsense.

What you're doing is using scientific theory to lay out what we mean by words like "existence." Wouldn't it be better to just look to how we actually use the words? — frank

No because the definition I gave for existence is used in Science.
Science is our ultimate "ontological" tool. It has helped us many times to remove entities from our assumptions. (Miasma,Orgone energy, Phlogiston, Panacea etc etc).

Einstein's thought experiment depends on it being at least logically possible for a person (or one dimensional point if that helps) to exist in a void. — frank

-What Einstein thought is irrelevant, what he managed to prove, that's what counts. You shouldn't use Einstein thoughts in a fallacy (false authority figure). Einsteins Philosophy is not special.

Logical and metaphysical possibility often informs the way we use words. This means that as long as there is no logical contradiction in the idea of a void, it's going to make sense to talk about it. — frank

I think we are drifting away from a meaningful conversation. I avoid vague language because it doesn't produce anything meaningful. When you say "void" you need to define what you mean. What void means to you?
Science showed us that with our current technology we can look in our universe and identify interactions that cause new processes to emerge. Something that doesn't exist is unable to cause anything in our world.
Not using these tools we just limiting our epistemology, rendering our conclusions uninformed and pseudo philosophical.

I would include scientism as one of those bedtime stories. — Tom Storm

Curious: would you also include in this list of illusory/delusional bedtime stories the metaphysics of materialism/physicalism?

I ask because the OP’s quote isn’t about scientism - its conclusions are devoid of anything that is empirically demonstrable, which is what science tackles - but instead addresses perspectives directly derived from a materialistic/physicalist platform. Its argument, in a nutshell, is that because there is no significant distinction between life and non-life (due to all life being inferred fully emergent from non-life), and because all that is real is material/physical (which is non-living), then all life is illusory rather than real.

I’ve already addressed some of the reasons for why this argument is lacking in a previous post.

The current point being, the conclusion that “life is an illusion” is not a product of scientism - but a product of the materialism/physicalism on which scientism is typically founded.

I don't think even he really knows what he's talking about — Darkneos

I was addressing not so much the OP's link but the OP's quote.

All the same, in reference to the OP's link, from where I stand, this assessment of yours sums up the situation nicely.

Sounds like you are not following the conversation I was having with BC. Don't worry about it.

Loosely speaking, the OP is about what is real. I agreed with BC's point that humans are meaning making creatures who invent stories to help manage their environment. (Richard Rorty holds a similar view.) Some of those stories work better in some texts than others. And some of those stories, like the one in the OP, might be borne out of having too much spare time.

Loosely speaking, the OP is about what is real. I agreed with BC's point that humans are meaning making creatures who invent stories to help manage their environment. (Richard Rorty holds a similar view.) Some of those stories work better in some texts than others. And some of those stories, like the one in the OP, might be borne out of having too much spare time. — Tom Storm

Right. Here's a more pithy question. What then is real rather than invented story?

But this question has the potential to lead one down the rabbit hole of philosophical enquiry. With plenty of potholes along the way.

Ok, I'll cease and desist then. :wink:

Right. Here's a more pithy question. What then is real rather than invented story? — javra

That's the underlying question of many an OP, regardless of the ostensible topic.

My own view is we don't get to the really real or the truthy truth, we just arrive at provisionally useful truths or realities about our environment, many of which seem to work and have practical consequences. I don't have commitments to any form of transcendental truth, or that science will one day explain everything.

Kudos. Sounds in keeping with C.S. Peirce's point of view. Though something tells me you'd disagree with his pragmaticist conclusions of objective idealism. :smile:

That's not actually what it was about...

I mean that's what my instincts thought when I read it, usually trying to mix science with spiritualism and philosophy turns out badly, and I knew enough about BUddhism to know this guy doesn't understand Maya or illusion at all. It doesn't mean not real in BUddhism, it's more complicated than that.

BUt I guess I believed him because he graduated top honors and won awards like it mentions in the link:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/authors/srini-pillay-md

That's not actually what it was about... — Darkneos

Didn't say it was. I was riffing off the seemingly endless question about what is real which is foundational to the OP.

Oh?

I guess that makes sense. Personally though even though I know it's mistaken or nonsense I can't let it go because it feels like denying the truth.

it feels like denying the truth. — Darkneos

Talk me through it.

I only skinned through the article, short though it was. To be charitable to the guy, his argument could be deemed to boil down to "there's more to us than what we physiologically perceive via our sense organs". For one easy example of this, we are endowed with things such as emotions and goals ... none of which are thus perceivable.

But yea, when it comes to Eastern notions of Maya, I in this case far more respect your instincts than trust his awards.

It doesn't mean not real in BUddhism, it's more complicated than that. — Darkneos

Precisely.

Others understood what I wrote. I'm sure their replies are not "unintelligible". Also, an online thesaurus doesn't bite.

Every time I email him in response to it his replies don’t really explain it:

I was wanting to emphasize that we are more than that-much more-not just what we perceive

If his goal is to say we are more than that he failed quite miserably at it. Though looking through his articles on psychologyToday I’m a bit skeptical of him.

Not to mention nothing he cites in there would really prove his point either. It’s weird now that I reflect on him. Didn’t help each time I ask him for clarity I get nothing in terms of a solid answer

It’s a long standing issue I have where I can’t disagree with something someone says because I don’t have an alternative to what it could be, either that or they don’t admit they’re wrong.

So whenever I try to move on from what people say that I don’t agree with in my mind it’s like I’m denying truth to be comfortable. I associate the pain something brings me with truth, which is stupid. But I can’t stop it and it’s led to a lot of suffering in my life because believing something because it’s beneficial, helpful, or soothing to be is running from truth, lying to yourself, being stupid, insert terrible thing about you.

And I guess by extension I attribute being happy or at peace with lying to yourself (or insert bad thing). So I’m stressed 24/7 believing things that cause me pain because to let them go is to lose, or be willfully ignorant, loser, etc.

That’s what I mean.

Thanks for clarifying. Sounds challenging.

It’s actually debilitating because my metric for what’s true has nothing to do with content or utility and everything to do with ego.

It’s the only reason I would hold on to something that hurts me, because letting go is weakness.

Any way to make it stop?

I am no psychologist, counselor, self-help wizard, or anything to the like. Wanted to however comment:

Although not everyone, many – both hereabouts and in the world at large, myself as no exception – are to large extents self-righteously arrogant, unknowingly ignorant, and ignorantly callous. Which is to in part say that most could hardly give a damn about those in need if they don’t have some material or social capital to gain from it – to not even get into cases where there's a potential loss of either such capital for doing what one can to help. It’s also to say that most people argue not to better discover that which is true but to further fortify their own ego, which in part consists of ready-constructed presumptions about oneself and the world upon which one’s selfhood depends. Such that anyone who significantly differs from oneself is by default deemed wrong and, to varying extents, unfit. This dislike for others emerging irrespective of the other’s moral character and existential innocence.

Neither philosophers nor those who spend time philosophizing are, as cohorts, exempt from this competition of ego.

Life can be rough, this in more than just a few ways. Especially for those who don’t partake of – or who cannot even find any means of relating to – the dog-eat-dog aspects of the world. It's not the whole of humanity, but it is a significant portion of it.

I get some of what you mean by associating the experience of pain with acquisition of new truths. Though not always, there often for me as well is a sting to the ego involved in a new existential discovery. A bursting of a bubble kind of thing, wherein one acknowledges that what one has so far upheld has been wrong all along. This occasional association between pain and truth, however, does not mandate that all new existential discoveries be uncomfortable to oneself. Nor that pain is somehow equivalent to strength. Heck, some intuitions and inspirations that lead one to see things anew with greater clarity can be downright pleasant intellectually, to say the least. And these pleasant occasions can provide a great deal of strength.

All of that briefly touched upon, I think at least part of you is on the right path in learning to think for yourself. This as evidenced by your questioning certain authority figures whose conclusions make little if any sense to you, such as what you’ve done in this thread. There’s something to be said about not following the dictums of authority figures blindly; in understanding that no human is infallible, not even those who are specialists and who most look up to. It's in no way about universal doubt, but about bearing in mind that ego most often prevails – or is at least in part always entwined – this irrespective of philosophical position. Reasoning things out for yourself to the best of your ability is certainly an important part of this. While I’m at this "question authority and think for yourself" motto, engaging in random acts of kindness can be a noble endeavor as well.

As I said, I know of no panacea – and I’m not pretending to. It’s a struggle – for everyone at some time or another. Some treat life as a joke; other’s take it seriously. But everyone suffers during portions of it. One simply has to find the optimal means for oneself to face the storms when they come and battle with them – or, better said, through them. Hopefully findings ways to hold onto integrity – to an ethical heart – in the process.

The answers you seek to your most important existential questions will, imo, likely not come from others, but from within yourself. Even if there is no success, there will still be dignity for yourself you will find in taking on the strife: in the noble battle with whatever obstacles you have to face.

----------

Any way to make it stop? — Darkneos

Again, not as any type of professional but as a fellow imperfect human being dwelling within an imperfect humanity, I wouldn’t address complete strangers with such questions. Too many sharks in the seas to make such open questions profitable to you – most of the time at least. People at large typically aren’t as compassionate as they profess to be. Still, this isn’t to say that good souls don’t occur in the world.

My own best, though imperfect, answer, is provided in what I've already typed. There is no stopping life's strife; there's only doing one's best to deal with it. And the personal pride that ought to accompany this.

---------

Hopefully at least some of this post will resonate with you. If not, kindly disregard it. Best of luck to you either way.

p.s. I in all likelihood will not have anything further to add on this matter. Again, I'm no professional on the subject.

I appreciate the thought.

It’s given me some to ponder on. I’m getting a sense of how my mind works and how I seem to judge things. A lot of the metrics I use to judge truth are bullshit and part of me knows it but like you said ego plays a big role in it. Through suffering I can tell myself that I see the world as it truly is, the cold and painful reality that people will ignore and lie to themselves otherwise. But that’s a trap.

The other trap I have is that I follow something if I don’t have an alternative explanation, which is just bad. Just because I don’t have an answer to something doesn’t mean they’re right.

I’m starting to see how much work goes into thinking for yourself but also realizing that doing so means conflicting with others. It’s unavoidable and I guess that means I have to grow out of being a people pleaser.

I think part of me already knows what I think and that I’m capable of it too. It’s just a lack of self esteem or fear of failure (one and the same) that keeps me locked into stuff that hurts.

Letting go of the pain feels like losing and giving up, which isn’t logic. Pain and struggle don’t always mean you’re right, and in my case I’m often in the wrong. I can ask the same question on different platforms, get the same answer each time (that I’m wrong) and then insist that they’re the deluded ones because they choose comforting lies over truth. Though now I see that’s stupid. Even more idiotic is believing something just because it hurts, there’s no logic to that. At least you can make a case for believing something if it’s comforting or soothing from a utility perspective.

Though I think my ego is so wrapped up in being the suffering genius, even though that trope is only in books. That to let go is to be normal and stupid like the unwashed masses (even though I’m in the wrong and other people can read what I read without suffering).

I guess writing it all out I see that I rely entirely on emotions or vibes and not reason or logic. Even though I’m capable of thinking for myself I don’t in order to avoid upsetting people or run the risk of being wrong. You know something’s wrong when you believe someone solely based off the perception that they seem like they know what they’re talking about (story of my life and it always it me in the ass).