Thank you for the mention. It's been a while.

I cannot possibly claim to know substantially more than the learned people here. As I have revealed to you, I am indeed a Hindu (and specifically someone who follows Advaita). If I understand correctly, people like Dr Harris, despite being atheists, also see value in the phenomenological side of Advaita (even if there are any metaphysical disagreements). It is indubitably much more about a rational exploration of the self rather than mere beliefs and arguments. Fundamentally, Advaita focuses on the transient nature of many of our identities and the deeper reality of awareness that undergirds it. Many forms of Buddhism also come close to it (though one can obviously have different interpretations of what terms like "non-self" mean, even if the experiences themselves don't reveal as many differences).

Well, I for one will try my best to respond to what you state, and not jump to any conclusions about your sanity. — universeness

Wonderful. Mind you, you must keep in mind that I might be insane. Cartesian doubt and all that. .

That conversation between Swami Sarvapriyananda and Dr Kastrup was truly enriching. What I, as an Indian, could gather from Dr Kastrup's words is that non-dualistic ideas and idealism in general aren't particularly popular in the West. However, the works of people like Dr Chalmers may have brought about some changes.

As a Hindu, I also hope that we will not forget the pluralism that Swami Vivekananda had espoused in his 1893 speech in Chicago. There's a growing tendency within many people these days to erect new walls. I think that this will only entomb us. Hopefully, the snake will not prevent us from seeing the rope.

For me, this is a brave claim/conviction indeed. May I ask you for a percentage credence level that you would currently assign to all the 'truths' put forward by Buddhism and/or Buddhists, as a kind of 'general' or 'ad hoc' metric? For example, I consider myself more in line with hard or strong atheism, in that I am 99.999% personally convinced that the supernatural has no demonstrable existent.
Would you be willing to state that you are 100% sure that the main tenets of Buddhism are sound? — universeness

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

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

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

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

philosophical foundation of mysticism — FrancisRay

In my opinion, when someone makes an appeal to a particular doctrine they should provide an explanation of what it is being said and how they understand it. Looking back I see @180 Proof makes this point.

You say "Perennial Philosophy" explains but you do not give (or summarize) the explanation. — 180 Proof

'Nondualism' and 'perennial philosophy' do not have a single agreed upon meaning. The same can be said of 'mysticism' and 'metaphysics'.

180's approach to philosophy is dialectical. A mode of inquiry. It is antithetical to doctrines. It asks questions but a doctrinaire approach is based on the assumption that answers to these questions have been given. There may be some common ground here in undecidable. Socratic (but not Hegelian) dialectic is an examination of opinions, but I am not sure what FrancisRay's means with the claim that:

It predicts that all metaphysical questions are undecidable and gives answers for all such questions. — FrancisRay

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

The unreal cannot hold us forever (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 1.3.28).

Also, thank you for your insightful answers. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that there have been Christian mystics like Eckhart and Abhishiktananda (the latter had embraced Advaita) whose teachings are similar to Advaita.

There is no empirical method for proving that consciousness exists. — FrancisRay

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

This is proved by the past popularity of Behaviorism. — FrancisRay

In what way is behaviorism or its past popularity proof that there is no empirical method that can prove consciousness exists? A human beings 'behaviour,' impacted or influenced by the instructions/education/nurture/daily experiences/culture a person was 'raised' within, has little to do with whether or not consciousness exists. Are you suggesting that a newborn human, maintained physically (perhaps by non-communicative machines,) but not interacted with by any other sentient, would not be conscious?

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

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

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

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

Next, I tried 'Is the study of the actual phenomenon of consciousness called mysticism?'
I read this extract from here, as an attempt by someone called
Bryce Haymond, in Sept 2019, to link the study of consciousness with mysticism.
I have underlined the sentences that I think the author is trying to propose are important 'concepts.'

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

Many people today seem to believe that the brain causes conscious experience, as a friend recently expressed it to me: "I don’t understand any literal concept of mind that isn’t physical."

In other words, it is thought that neurons in the brain fire (have an electro-chemically triggered action potential), which cause us to experience something. The neurons firing is the cause of what we experience. It’s thought that the mind is basically physical, and that physicality is the source of all conscious experience. This might be called materialism or physicalism, that everything reduces to the physical cosmos, including consciousness.

An opposite perspective is perhaps that the mind causes all physicality, that all that we think of as matter/energy is actually just a manifestation of our consciousness, since it only appears in consciousness, and therefore it must be caused by consciousness. This is perhaps known as idealism.

But neither has ever actually been shown to be the case. Science currently knows of no causal mechanism or connection whatsoever that explains how firing neurons cause conscious experiences, or vice versa. For example, how does a network of firing neurons cause our experience of the color red, or the taste of chocolate? No one knows. Or, conversely, how does the smell of coffee cause a storm of neural activity in the brain? No one knows.

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

This also seems to be related to the “mind-body problem” that has perplexed philosophers for hundreds of years. How does the mind control the body, if it is controlling it? If the mind and body are two separate and distinct things, then how do they interact with each other. What is the mechanism of interaction between the two?

The truth may be that there is no causal connection, from one to the other. There may be no interaction whatsoever. Mental states may not be an epiphenomenon, or byproduct of brain activity. And likewise, mental states may not be causing the manifestation of the physical cosmos. Firing neurons may simply be the outward physical manifestation of an inward conscious experience.

Or in other words, the two are really one and the same thing, seen in two different ways. One doesn’t cause the other, or is the source of the other, or have any other sort of interaction as if between two separate and distinct things,but rather they may be both the activity of the very same thing, perhaps seen from inner and outer relative perspectives, two sides of the same coin. This may be what is known in philosophy as dual-aspect monism (or double-aspect theory), which may be closely related to dialectical monism (or dualistic monism).

Conscious experience is perhaps what it seems like on the inside, and physical matter/energy is what it seems like on the outside. Heads on a coin doesn’t cause the tails side, and while the heads and tails side of a coin can be seen as separate and distinct things, they are really part of the same one coin. Neither side can be reduced to the other.

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

The matter/energy in the cosmos may not be wholly dead, inert, nonliving, but rather it may be mindful or conscious in a deep way, and when that matter/energy gets organized in the highly complex forms and layered systems of humans and other life, we observe an amount of consciousness in them, that matter/energy seems to come alive with knowing. This perspective is perhaps known as panpsychism.
It is perhaps like gravity; in minute amounts of mass, gravity is mostly negligible, but in large amounts of mass, gravity becomes quite manifest. Perhaps in the most simple and basic forms of matter/energy there is no noticeable consciousness, but when that matter/energy becomes more complex, consciousness emerges as a recognizable quality of that organization of matter/energy. The matter/energy seems to have come alive, capable of knowing itself as both matter/energy and consciousness.

Another way we could look at this is that we have a physical side of the brain and body, and we have a conscious (spiritual) side of the mind. The brain is physical, yes, but that does not mean that consciousness and the mind is physical. Consciousness and the mind seem to be quite NON-physical. We cannot directly touch the color red, even though we can touch the neurons that are firing which correlate with the qualia of red.

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

However, and this is perhaps a paradox that can never be fully understood, I think the spiritual and physical, mind and body, consciousness and matter/energy, are One. They are only One thing, but we see them from two sides in our lived experience of reality, inner and outer. The realization of the ultimate union of the spiritual and physical, mind and matter, throughout the cosmos, is perhaps partly what the ancient Christians came to know as “resurrection.” The divine cosmos recognized itself in itself, as in a mirror. God became incarnate in humans, and all other forms of life.

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

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

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

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

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

Another TPF member who IMO, might give an insightful response to this is @Alkis Piskas

Thank you for the mention. It's been a while. — Existential Hope

It's always good to get your insights!

Not, dare I say it, quite as good as it is to have yours!

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

You are making sooooooo many statements that I disagree with, but this is part of the problem we all face, when debating on-line. There are soooooooo many so-called 'rabbit holes' that we can dive down, which means there is not enough time to make all the points I want to make and gather all of the supporting evidence I would like to offer. So, forgive me if I can't address every point you make. I am still making my way through P8 stuff! :death:

All the points you state above are certainly not 'uncontentious in the sciences.' You still have some scientists who are also theists :scream:
Space and time and/or spacetime certainly does exist in the minds of many scientists and in the minds of the vast majority of humans alive, I would wager. I am not offering any ad populum-style fallacious evidence here, I am merely making a suggestion.
I also completely disagree that mainstream physics has regressed into an entrenched ideological position. What evidence are you proposing demonstrates this?

180's approach to philosophy is dialectical. A mode of inquiry. It is antithetical to doctrines. It asks questions but a doctrinaire approach is based on the assumption that answers to these questions have been given. There may be some common ground here in undecidable. Socratic (but not Hegelian) dialectic is an examination of opinions ... — Fooloso4

Thank you for pointing this out. @FrancisRay is like too many others who traffic in "doctrines" and dogmas and take offense when someone attempts to cross-examine their so-called "truths". So now @universeness is taking a different approach but I suspect he won't get anywhere philosophically interesting with FrancisRay either because there is no there there – just :sparkle:

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

But metaphysics means 'beyond' or 'above' physics. That's hardly a definition that champions rigorous adherence to logic and reason. I have always said that 'metaphysics' is a very overburdened label that to me, has pushed it too far towards woo woo for my tastes but I do accept that that is not a widely held viewpoint. Perhaps these are just language problems at the end of the day.
I think Rupert would have a big argument with you about your label of his work as speculative. I think similar to you that his work is speculative, despite some of his more interesting results from a probability standpoint, such as his 'who is on the telephone' experiment that he did with the Nolan sisters. Rupert does seem to get more of a hearing amongst respected scientists than most on the fringe. Here is a two min offering:

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

Still on your P8 posts!
I can't get much from a phrase such as "the ultimate lies beyond sensory empiricism and so looks exactly like nothing." Imo, you need to stop using such phrases as you leave yourself open to accusations of 'uncontrolled imagineering.' Great for creativity but not so much for discussions about reality (no I don't think you're insane yet!)
You don't know what 'nothing' looks like!!!!! No human does!
What image do you get in your head from a word like 'Ultimate?'
These are just placeholder terms for notions like 'the biggest number!'
What do you mean by 'which is the view I endorse?'
You say that the idea of 'nothing' is ridiculous, but you then use a phrase like 'and so looks exactly like nothing.' Can you see my issue with such an approach?

As I have revealed to you, I am indeed a Hindu (and specifically someone who follows Advaita). — Existential Hope

I thought so, I thought I had read you mentioning 'Advaita' before. I expect you and @FrancisRay and @Wayfarer would enjoy an exchange about it. :grin:

I wholeheartedly agree. I have thoroughly enjoyed whatever I have managed to read so far. Unfortunately, my work schedule has become increasingly hectic over the past few months (which is why I haven't been as active here as I once was). I remain doubtful that the foreseeable future will herald a change. Nevertheless, I remain indebted to the wealth of knowledge that has been accumulated by the brilliant thinkers of this forum. I hope that this place will continue to flourish.

Not, dare I say it, quite as good as it is to have yours! — Existential Hope

:pray: :flower:

The question of the relationship between ontology and epistemology deserves greater consideration. Questions of ontology are often treated as if they are separate from and independent of epistemology, but both the questions and answers given say much more about how we conceive things to be than about how they are.

Is a dualist ontology more than a misattributed dualist epistemology?

In his book The Continuum Hermann Weyl points out that nobody experiences time. It is created from memories and anticipations, a story we tell ourselves. He draws a careful distinction between the extended 'arithmetical' continuum, which is a theory, and the 'intuitive' continuum, which is extensionless. — FrancisRay

I have not read the book but what actual evidence does he offer beyond his own speculations?
Do you experience 'duration'?
You can only intuit during the 'duration' called your lifeTIME.
Do you accept that the past (let's say 13.8 billion years) did happen?
You did not experience that time, but you can still observe film and photographs and see a galaxy (from the hubble deep field image, for example) that is billions of years in the past.
I think each of us does experience time and if you and Hermann Weyl say otherwise, then I disagree.

The idea of a continuum of spacetime versus a discrete spacetime remains unknown so there is nowhere to take that discussion at present other that via pure speculation.

It would be a terrible mistake to image we experience time rather than create it, and it would lead to a deep misunderstanding of mysticism. — FrancisRay

In my opinion, we do experience time and we do not create it. If mystics and mysticism suggest we do not experience time and that we create time then I think such a suggestion is nonsense, and will remain so, until objective proof of that claim is offered by those who posit it. So, the burden of proof lies with the mystics who make such claims.

All that would be truly real is the 'Eternal Now' and the 'Forever Here', which is Weyl's 'intuitive' continuum. This is what is discovered in meditation. Thus Meister Eckhart warns us not to become entangled in time. . — FrancisRay

The word 'eternal,' is another one of those 'placeholder' concepts that just does not do much for me.
As @Existential Hope pointed out, even folks like the esteemed Sam Harris, have garnished a lot of value from the notion and practice of meditation. I have never practiced it and have no intention to, but I accept that many people value it.
How can any demonstration of being 'intuitive' from a human be a continuum, when humans are finite and have to be born and die? They can only 'intuit' for the time duration they are alive.
How does entropy function in your notion of an 'intuitive continuum?'
Do you have any evidence that humans discover many more 'truths' about the workings and structure of the universe during 'meditation,' compared to the day-to-day, non-meditative, 'shut up and calculate,' hard-working efforts of scientists?

I had to look up 'Meister Eckhart,':
Eckhart von Hochheim OP (c. 1260 – c. 1328), commonly known as Meister Eckhart, Master Eckhart or Eckehart, claimed original name Johannes Eckhart, was a German Catholic theologian, philosopher and mystic, born near Gotha in the Landgraviate of Thuringia (now central Germany) in the Holy Roman Empire.

His status as a Catholic theologian from the 13th century, mostly sinks him for me, unless you can offer me a particularly compelling 'truth' he discovered and could objectively prove was true.

Well, at least I got to the end of P8 and was able to read most of P9. I will try to post more on the P9 content tomorrow. I am all typed out for tonight!

there may be phenomena associated with life-processes whose feedback is long term and complex (read, "karma"), which, as real as they are, may not be measurable in any trivial sense. We need to always bear in mind that science functions explicitly by reductive abstraction. — Pantagruel

Totally agree. My remarks about the ineffectiveness of empiricism with respect to grasping the profound philosophical truths of Advaita were not meant as a criticism of Advaita, but to illustrate the implications and limitations of empiricism in such matters.

:up:

It's always best to be candid about one's own limits. Science is a process of selective limitation. It has a lot to say, but it also leaves a lot unsaid - or at least it ought to.

It has a lot to say — Pantagruel

...at least as far as objects are concerned.....

The thought crossed my mind that mention might be made of William James 'radical empiricism', so I asked my friendly AI assistant to provide a summary:

William James introduced the concept of "radical empiricism" to challenge traditional empiricism and provide a more inclusive framework for understanding human experience. Radical empiricism can be summarized as follows:

Experience as the fundamental reality: James argued that our understanding of reality should begin with individual human experience. He believed that traditional empiricism, which focused on sensory data as the sole basis of knowledge, was too restrictive. Instead, he advocated for a broader view that considers all aspects of human experience, including thoughts, emotions, and even mystical or transcendent experiences.

Pluralistic perspective: Radical empiricism acknowledges that there are multiple dimensions to experience, and it rejects the idea that reality can be reduced to a single, objective viewpoint. James emphasized the importance of considering diverse perspectives and taking into account the richness and complexity of human consciousness.

Rejecting the "block universe": James also critiqued the idea of a fixed, predetermined universe, arguing that experience is continually evolving and that the past, present, and future are interconnected. He rejected the notion of a rigid "block universe" in favor of a more dynamic and open-ended view of reality.

In essence, radical empiricism encourages us to explore and understand the full range of human experience and to recognize that reality is not limited to what can be empirically observed through the senses. It emphasizes the importance of individual and subjective perspectives in our quest to comprehend the world.

A much broader view of empiricism that would potentially be quite open to non-dualism.

Philosophy is always irrelevant until you make something useful out of it 200 years later.

Is a dualist ontology more than a misattributed dualist epistemology? — Fooloso4

I don't think so. :up:

Science is a process of selective limitation. — Pantagruel

Please clarify. Examples would be helpful.

if you are suggesting that 180 Proof, is an example of the persona you are trying to describe in the sentence — universeness

Just an observation - It may be the case that the remainder of your defence of 180Proof is correct - but he comes across condescending, affected and incapable (im gathering, unwilling is the truth of it) to engage with many arguments he doesn't like. His prerogative, but i got hte exact same feeling FrancisRay has.

Rupert does seem to get more of a hearing amongst respected scientists than most on the fringe. — universeness

Interestingly, just listened to a podcast which was a debate between Michael Shermer and Sheldrake.

I thought Sheldrake won the debate, despite basically feeling the same as yourself about his work. Think he and Chalmers could probably figure a more respectable version of his assertions if they cracked heads together.

he comes across condescending, affected and incapable (im gathering, unwilling is the truth of it) to engage with many arguments he doesn't like. — AmadeusD

I don't see this either. @180 Proof seems to be asking for evidence to support a series of claims that keep getting repeated without significant justification. Incidentally those claims sound very close to ones Berando Kastrup makes about idealism e.g., as a more parsimonious and reasonable explanatory narrative than physicalism. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning too.

seems to be asking for evidence to support a series of claims that keep getting repeated without significant justification. — Tom Storm

In terms of why i'm saying this, across about five threads i've seen the opposite. Again, if it's unwillingness i have respect for that. It seemed as if he just had nothing to say in those threads. I'm only lending support to the idea that he can appear that way - and it makes it unfortunately unappealing to engage him.

I reread some James a few weeks back. The thing about focusing on "big" ideas and philosophical themes versus complete texts is that you can miss a lot of detail and nuance. James is definitely a nuanced author.

Please clarify. Examples would be helpful. — 180 Proof

It's the entire basis of the scientific method. You toss out what isn't relevant to an hypothesis in order to be able to accurately reproduce results. Except that the universe doesn't really operate in this kind of compartmentalized way at all. So science isn't really studying the universe so much as it is studying...itself.

Just an observation - It may be the case that the remainder of your defence of 180Proof is correct - but he comes across condescending, affected and incapable (im gathering, unwilling is the truth of it) to engage with many arguments he doesn't like. — AmadeusD

Yes, like when I suggest that science operates by selective limitations and abstraction, and he asks me for an example? It's what science is, and it's a well-known criticism - we murder to dissect. Very disingenuous.