Could be as the events of a Block Universe.

I have experienced that, where time is a dimension. But it raises some serious questions and invites in transcendent realities.

I don't know the answer to that—we are given what we are given. Are you suggesting Karma?

Karma in so much as there is a causal thread of some kind. Karma is bound up in reincarnation and requires an entire transcendent cosmogony. We can go there if you like, but I tend to avoid such ideas here as it can be seen as woo woo.
Perhaps it can be broached in the sense that there is a lineage of some kind in our evolution as a group (the biosphere as one group, or being). With a causal thread and an evolutionary progression. With each individual being on the planet playing their part in the story.

I think we do know what it is we know.

Yes, I do agree with this, but it becomes complicated because I subscribe to the idea that what we know can be radically altered by the addition of one new thought, like when we have a lightbulb moment. This one new thought can in a sense rearrange what we knew prior to the lightbulb moment, such that what we know has changed. A reorientation process within the mind. So we might know one thing one day and something quite different the next. (This is an important process for me, which I have developed quite a lot). So I do agree that we do know what it is we know, but we must as you say provide the caveat that we don’t know the thing in itself, or why we and the thing in itself are here. So we are in a sense blind, but can feel with our hands a world that we find familiar.

We know the world non-discursively and that non-discursive knowledge is not separate from what is known. We always already do know the world non-discursively, it is just a matter of learning to attend to that, rather than being lost in discourse and explanation. Mind you, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with discourse and explanation, just that it needs to take its place alongside our non-discursive awareness, lest we lose ourselves in the confusion that comes form "misplaced concreteness" (Whitehead).

I agree entirely and I go further, I screen out the intellectual mind and its findings a lot in contemplation. Although there is an art in using thought in a more non-discursive immediate process of discovery.

We can go there if you like, but I tend to avoid such ideas here as it can be seen as woo woo. — Punshhh

I've spent enough time thinking about it, to be satisfied that there is no point to it, since we can have no knowledge of such things.

Yes, I do agree with this, but it becomes complicated because I subscribe to the idea that what we know can be radically altered by the addition of one new thought, like when we have a lightbulb moment. — Punshhh

I was only referring to ordinary knowledge of the world. I think the kind of intuitive ideas you are referring to may or may not be knowledge, and that there is no way to tell. That said, I'm all for imaginative speculation, but I value that in terms of the feelings it may evoke, not because I believe it tells me anything about reality.

The non-discursive knowledge I referred to is the knowledge of participation, familiarity, feeling. It enriches our lives, but doesn't tell us anything about what is the case, in my view. If we try to convert it into discursive knowledge we inevitably seem to go astray.

I was only referring to ordinary knowledge of the world. I think the kind of intuitive ideas you are referring to may or may not be knowledge, and that there is no way to

Some scientists have lightbulb (eureka) moments too. Or what was Einstein up to when he came to his realisation about the speed of light and relativity?
There are a number of applications of this idea. Look at the tree example, I have been talking about. I sometimes contemplate the commonality between myself and a tree. Given that we are both alive, are constituted of almost identical cells. We grow and are present in the moment. There are opportunities for lightbulb moments here and it is a contemplation with strict parameters and doesn’t require much in the way of imagination. But more a process of stepping outside one’s pre-conditioned ideas and forming different ways of thinking and knowing.

It enriches our lives, but doesn't tell us anything about what is the case, in my view.

On the contrary, it is our most direct arena of discovery. Enabling us to escape our discursive tendencies.

↪Gnomon
Yes. And don't forget, we are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon. And we got to get ourselves back to the garden. — Wayfarer

Ha! I was in the Navy --- killing the little yellow man, figuratively not literally --- while the US was going through that New Age of Aquarius, when "love will steer the stars".

I'd be interested to get your reaction to the Right Stuff for Consciousness post*1 that I linked in my reply above. It was a response to Janus' reply to Wayfarer in this thread. If not "stardust", what then was the "mindless substance" that became "conscious material"? Although the post is trying to be Realistic, any discussion of Consciousness is necessarily going to skirt the line between Realism and Idealism. What is the question being begged by Philosophers on one hand, and Scientists on the other?

I have just begun to read a new book by Federico Faggin --- quantum physicist and microprocessor inventor --- IRREDUCIBLE, Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature*2. Although he began as a pragmatic computer engineer, he had a mid-life Mystical (not-religious) experience --- a spiritual awakening --- that turned him to the Light Side of Idealism. I personally have never had such an "ineffable unitive experience", so his encounter with The One is hearsay for me. But I'm currently exploring various views of the Science-Philosophy Hard Problem.

Faggin asserts that "consciousness is a quantum phenomenon" and the fundamental "substance" of the world. My blog post is a slightly different view of that mindful substance ; and I reserve the term "consciousness" as an evolved phenomenon/noumenon instead of the fundamental substance. But he boldly goes way beyond my timid postulations to affirm that "everything is made of love". Does that sound New Agey to you? Does the notion of a Love Substance fit your philosophy of Idealism? :cool:



*1. Right Stuff to Evolve Consciousness
“If matter, in all its forms, were nothing but mindless substance, then of course it would follow by mere definition that conscious material is impossible. But that is specifically the "question-begging presumption" I was referring to.” ___Janus
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page10.html

*2. "Federico Faggin is probably the most well-rounded idealist alive. He embodies the near-perfect combination of hard-nosed, scientifically informed thought with direct introspective insights into the primacy of consciousness." ___ Bernardo Kastrup

I have just begun to read a new book by Federico Faggin — Gnomon

oh yeah, I know Faggin. I read (actually, listened to) his autobiography, Silicon. I’ve looked at Irreducible a few times but I have mixed feelings about it, I think his approach is a bit too idiosyncratic.

@Wayfarer @Gnomon @Punshhh @Janus.

On our reality’s message as received and its messenger as the implementation…

The implementation of what we feel as physically real could be mental only, it creating all that goes on, with a working physics, but for some night-dream flaws in probably that same mental model of reality, they perhaps explained away by the model being somewhat diminished during sleep, although mostly seeming as all to real to us.

Imagination is like a waking dream of sorts, it being about 90% transparent, perhaps so as not to interfere with waking reality, yet we take it as mental and not as real.

Philosophers like to consider the nature of our reality and thus wonder about the implementation of the mind, seeking the messenger, but I would suggest that in one regard this may not matter so much, but for curiosity, for the message is the same, whether either its physical or mental basis.

Maya’s perfect illusion would seem as real as if it were physically real; so, then, a difference which makes no difference is truly no difference to the message delivered by the implementation messenger!
The message of our reality can be taken and used as real, for it has an origin somewhere, even if all is mental, in which case the so-called illusion is mentally real in its mental way.

I’m not saying that our reality is meaningful overall, but it comes forth.

So, apparently, saying such as “suffering is not real” doesn’t really help the situation of either a mental or physical broadcast, for the broadcast is real and has a source.

It enriches our lives, but doesn't tell us anything about what is the case, in my view.


On the contrary, it is our most direct arena of discovery. Enabling us to escape our discursive tendencies. — Punshhh

My point was that if you try to frame your insights into accounts of what-is-the-case in some quai-empirical sense, which is precisely not to escape our discursive tendencies, you will inevitably produce something that may or may not have any bearing on actuality. Whether it does or not is rationally undecidable. That said, all that matters is how you feel about it, and no justification is required for that.

I agree with you that the idealism/ materialism debate is senseless. It just doesn't matter. As someone quipped "no matter, never mind".

oh yeah, I know Faggin. I read (actually, listened to) his autobiography, Silicon. I’ve looked at Irreducible a few times but I have mixed feelings about it, I think his approach is a bit too idiosyncratic. — Wayfarer

By "idiosyncratic", do you mean peculiar or individualistic? For an autobiography, I would think individualistic would be a good thing. I've only read the introduction, but so far it seems to be a fairly typical expression of the Consciousness is Fundamental worldview, as imagined or experienced by a quantum scientist. Kastrup seems to find him to be a fellow-traveler on the slender Idealism branch of modern science. Incidentally, Faggin defines The One as "the totality of all that exists" but refrains from using religious terms like "God".

I know your time is limited, but I would appreciate a quick review of the blog post on The Right Stuff to Evolve Consciousness*2 (it's only two pages). It presumes that human-like Consciousness is not fundamental to physics or metaphysics, but a late development from eons of physical evolution : i.e. an emergent property. So, it may be closer to Janus' worldview ; although I think causal Energy is more fundamental than tangible Matter, which is also emergent.

However, it assumes that some mysterious precursor to sentient awareness in physical bodies existed at the beginning of space-time evolution, and is the irreducible necessity to explain how & why you & I now consciously experience Seity*3. Would you call that prerequisite The One or The Form or Cosmic Mind or something else?

I'm hoping that Janus will also chip-in his opinions on the blog post, so I can compare two eloquent defenders of philosophical positions in the great dialog/debate on the role & nature of Mind in the real & ideal world. :nerd:



*1. Irreducible :
The book "argues consciousness is a fundamental, quantum phenomenon, not an emergent property of matter, proposing an idealist model where the physical world is a symbolic representation of a deeper, conscious reality".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=irreducible+book

*2. Right Stuff : Spirit or Causation?
“In essence, the Big Bang transformed a highly energetic, almost featureless state into the structured, information-rich cosmos we observe today, with energy providing the fuel and quantum randomness providing the initial blueprint.” ___Google search
Note ---
How could Chaotic “randomness” create the “blueprint” for an orderly & organized Cosmos with a logical structure of natural Laws? Randomness does imply freedom for exploration of possibilities. But only purposeful, systematic, and intentional design can impart systematic order upon Chaos.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page10.html

*3. [u]Seity[/u] means the quality of being uniquely oneself, selfhood, or individuality, referring to something peculiar or particular to a specific person or thing, derived from the Latin word "se" (oneself). It signifies that unique essence or identity that sets something apart, often used in philosophical or spiritual contexts to describe the fundamental, unique reality of a person or even the divine.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=seity+meaning

As someone quipped "no matter, never mind". — Janus

:cool:

By "idiosyncratic", do you mean peculiar or individualistic? — Gnomon

Not peculiar - I think Federico Faggin is highly intelligent and genuine. I did tackle that book - actually I think I have the Kindle edition, but I couldn't really follow the argument. He introduces a term, seity, ' a seity is defined as a self-conscious entity that can act with free will.' However not necessarily a conscious being. ...'A seity is a field in a pure state existing in a vaster reality than the physical world that contains the body. A seity exists even without a physical body.'

I couldn't really get my head around it.

The other thing is, because Faggin has come from a background outside philosophy, scholarship, cognitive science, etc, I don't think he's going to get a lot of attention from consciousness studies. So it's very hard to integrate his ideas, good though they may be, into the landscape, so to speak.

But don't let it put you off, there are many who will say Irreducible is a landmark book and they may well be right.

On the contrary, it is our most direct arena of discovery. Enabling us to escape our discursive tendencies.

My point was that if you try to frame your insights into accounts of what-is-the-case in some quai-empirical sense, which is precisely not to escape our discursive tendencies, you will inevitably produce something that may or may not have any bearing on actuality. Whether it does or not is rationally undecidable. That said, all that matters is how you feel about it, and no justification is required for that.

Yes, but that’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about orientation. It’s more of a negation of the rational interpretation of insights. The insight is made, witnessed and logged, stored in memory. It is not rationalised. (It is rationalised at a later date in a different department of thought, but that is entirely separate from the experience of the insight). The aim being to arrive at an inner sight, or seeing. The discursive mind is only a passenger on this journey. It’s not so much about feelings either, but more about identification, witness* and communion. A seer develops these faculties so as to develop realisation, knowledge, experience and understanding independent of the rational mind. Yes, the rational mind is also present in this process, but takes a back seat and may offer thought out interpretations now and then.
Then there is another department of mind which combines the two, the knowledge garnered through seeing and the intellectual interpretation and philosophising. The idea being to develop intellectual, architecture, imaginative worlds, so to speak. Which may be of use at some point in developing contemplative techniques.

* I have brought up witnessing in other threads, to bear witness is something important in the development of intuition. The best way to illustrate it is in the case of a traumatic event. If a person witnesses a traumatic event something is burnt into their memory and they can never un-see it. The distinction being that the intellectual mind is absent during this process. This faculty can be developed absent the traumatic event and used in contemplation.