I read Krishnamurti from about 1978-84, but I realised that 'reading Krishnamurti' (and even listening to his talks) would only get one so far. — Wayfarer

Agreed. But I think JK himself would have said the point was not to listen to him, but to conduct one's own investigation. The way I see it, he was just trying to talk folks in to doing that. The problem though of course is that often the speaker becomes an alternative to one's own investigation. Thus, the urgent need for fart jokes. :smile:

But I think teachings are very like the Buddhist Prajñāpāramitā teachings. (Actually the Dalai Lama said the same.) — Wayfarer

I know nothing about this, please feel free to educate us further. Also, have begun digging in to John Hick as you suggested.

But when he asks 'is it possible for the content of that consciousness to be dissolved?' the answer is: it's extremely difficult! — Wayfarer

Maybe. Certainly it's difficult if not impossible to establish that as a permanent condition. That's not even a healthy goal imho.

However, if one is reasonable and realistic, lowering the volume of thought is available through simple techniques. Techniques aren't even required necessarily. For me, it's just time in the woods. Ok, lots of time. But still it's the time that does the work really, more than me. If you show up, and hang around, and stick around, and don't be greedy and impatient, good things in the right direction can happen pretty much on their own.

(like what happened to Jill Bolte Taylor, the neuroscientist who had a massive stroke which also turned out to be a spiritual awakening.) — Wayfarer

I heard that story on NPR, fascinating! We should dig that story up and share it.

For me, it's just time in the woods. — Jake

You know, Buddhism (and several other ancient Indian traditions like Jain) were actually called the ‘forest-dwelling schools’.

yeah I agree that God doesn't exist as defined above. I was just saying that the question is a perfectly yes or no question unlike what the OP is saying (if you can get people to agree on a definition)

With the limited definition of God as the creator of the universe, it is a perfect 50%/50% question. Many atheists refuse to acknowledge this. My feeling is atheists should be agnostic; there is no logical basis for atheism.

I literally just posted on another post that most atheists don't mind the "cosmic consciousness" God lol. What most atheists mind is the self contradictory Abrahamic God. Arguing for the limited definition is a very easy and reasonable hypothesis. The chances life arises spontaneously is still so miniscule that our vast universe size still shouldn't explain it which is why I'm perfectly fine with cosmic consciousness arguments. What I'm not fine with is someone trying to convince me that this cosmic consciousness for some reason pays this particular collection of molecules (humans) huge attention and even tells it how it must interact with other molecules. That just seems like non sense to me.

I don't mind cosmic consciousness arguments if that makes me agnostic then sure.

Spot on. You are a true deist like me.

You know, Buddhism (and several other ancient Indian traditions like Jain) were actually called the ‘forest-dwelling schools — Wayfarer

Interesting!

didn't say I was a deist either. I said I don't mind cosmic consciousness explanation but I don't necessarily think they're right. It's a reasonable theory with many in development alongside it. Whether the "first cause" of the universe was conscious or unconscious I don't really care. I'm not even sure the question makes sense.

I think the first cause, in order to be a cause of all else, has to have some form of internal drive. This must be intelligence.

Why don't you care about it?

I personally do not believe in cosmic consciousness either.

I think the first cause, in order to be a cause of all else, has to have some form of internal drive. This must be intelligence. — Devans99

Why? You're giving this thing human properties such as drives. They don't necessarily apply to it. How do you define "drive" anyway? Does the moon have a "drive" to revolve around the earth? That statement is just too vague. And I don't see why the beginning of the universe needed a drive. Do apples need a "drive" to fall down wards? If you mean to say that drive only applies to conscious creatures then you've already assumed the answer to your question and stated that the first cause is conscious which is a logical fallacy

Why don't you care about it? — Devans99

Because we've pretty much explained every possible physical phenomena and we haven't found that this "first cause" factors in anywhere or else we reinterpreted it as something else. We know how and why particles go where they go and there is (almost) no unexplained phenomena left. Whatever this first cause is it's either no longer a factor, or is one of the forces we see in physics. Maybe the first cause was gravity, or electromagnetism, or some mystical force that no longer plays a role because we don't detect it.

Why? You're giving this thing human properties such as drives. They don't necessarily apply to it. How do you define "drive" anyway? Does the moon have a "drive" to revolve around the earth? That statement is just too vague. — khaled

The earth's mass causes the moon's motion.

The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to also requires intelligence. Also, the prime mover argument: something has to move by its own accord. Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them. So it all seems to point to an intelligent first cause...

Whatever this first cause is it's either no longer a factor, or is one of the forces we see in physics — khaled

Its important for cosmology; there are competing models, some have first causes others do not. People are wasting a lot of time working on models without first causes.

The universe is fine-tuned for life — Devans99

No it's not. If it was why would there be so many useless stars and planets elsewhere. Why wouldn't it be just earth and the sun.

Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence — Devans99

Why not?

People are wasting a lot of time working on models without first causes.
3m — Devans99

Whoa there watch out Mr expert coming through.

Still no need for the first cause to be conscious

Its important for cosmology; — Devans99

And why should I care about cosmology exactly?

No it's not. If it was why would there be so many useless stars and planets elsewhere. Why wouldn't it be just earth and the sun. — khaled

Those are for the aliens to live on.

Why not? — khaled

Explain how autonomous movement is possible without intelligence then?

And why should I care about cosmology exactly? — khaled

You are on a philosophy forum. Metaphysics and cosmology overlap.

we've pretty much explained every possible physical phenomena — khaled

Read about the 4% Universe?

We know how and why particles go where they go and there is (almost) no unexplained phenomena left. Whatever this first cause is it's either no longer a factor, or is one of the forces we see in physics. Maybe the first cause was gravity, or electromagnetism, or some mystical force that no longer plays a role because we don't detect it. — khaled

Can we explain what this concept we call potential energy is and where it comes from? We can observe evidence of the impact (energy) it can have on the physical world, we can even define, quantify, measure and predict this impact with impressive accuracy. But what is it causing this impact: investing everything in the universe with a capacity to do work (ie. to develop and achieve)? What is this formless, timeless, unchangeable existence that preceded the Big Bang and continually ‘reveals’ itself to physical reality through works?

Is it enough to simply give it a name and a number and use its works to our advantage? In physics (Shut Up and Calculate) we can pretend that we don’t care what it is - but from a philosophical perspective, I think potential energy remains largely unexplained...

That is only the prime mover argument - 1 of 10 and anyway, that seems a good axiom to me. — Devans99

axiom - A proposition formally accepted without demonstration, proof, or evidence as one of the starting-points for the systematic derivation of an organized body of knowledge. — Philosophical dictionary

link to Philosophical dictionary page

An axiom is an assumption, not a proof. An axiom is declared only because there is no proof (of the concept in question). If there was proof, we'd just state it and move on, wouldn't we?

An axiom is an assumption, not a proof. An axiom is declared only because there is no proof (of the concept in question). If there was proof, we'd just state it and move on, wouldn't we? — Pattern-chaser

I am a traditionalist when it comes to axioms. They have to be good axioms - in agreement with our everyday experience and science - I only adopt them if they are very likely to be true.

I only adopt them if they are very likely to be true. — Devans99

OK, it looks like we have to do this the hard way. :sad: Please state the statistical science that justifies your ability to define the numerical probability (likelihood) of any axiom being true. Please do this in the knowledge that axioms are not associated with any evidence or proof:

axiom - A proposition formally accepted without demonstration, proof, or evidence as one of the starting-points for the systematic derivation of an organized body of knowledge. — Philosophical dictionary — Pattern-chaser

If you guess that cause and effect or God's existence is (say) 99% likely - 0.99 probability - where do you get that figure from? What is the statistical science that justifies and demonstrates a numerical probability for this value? How do you assess the probability of an axiom being true? A simple, clear and explicit answer would be appropriate, and appreciated. :smile:

If you guess that cause and effect is (say) 99% likely - 0.99 probability - where do you get that figure from? What is the statistical science that justifies and demonstrates a numerical probability for this value? How do you assess the probability of an axiom being true? A simple, clear and explicit answer would be appropriate, and appreciated. — Pattern-chaser

OK I estimate I witness 30 instances of cause an effect a minute, so that's 43200 in a day, 15,379,200 in a year versus no examples of causeless effects. That 99.99999% certainty from 1 year of data.

OK I estimate I witness 30 instances of cause an effect a minute, so that's 43200 in a day, 15,379,200 in a year versus no examples of causeless effects. That 99.99999% certainty from 1 year of data. — Devans99

I think your understanding of statistics is somewhat lacking. That isn't how it works.

How does it work?

We're trying to see whether axioms are in any way justified (directly contrary to the definition of the scientific term "axiom"). You have given a thought-example where all observations supported one thing, with none supporting its opposite. This does not translate to 99.99999% "certainty" (!!!) that the thing is true, or that it exists. The probability that an axiom is true is impossible to quantify. You cannot state a justified* probability for something without "demonstration, proof or evidence" to exist, or to be true.

* - Justified in the context of the scientific discipline of statistics.

But 15,000,000 observations of cause and effect and no observations of non caused effects is quite a bit of evidence in support of 'cause and effect is the way the universe gets things done'. For inductive evidence, when do you draw the line?

The only structured, scientific, way we have of dealing with probabilities is statistics. Please translate your thoughts about probability into the realm of statistics*, and you will find out what I mean. The breakdown of your experimental observations - all for; none against - does not establish the numerical probability of your beliefs being true or false, according to the science of statistics.

* - I can't teach you statistics because I don't know enough to teach someone else, I'm too lazy anyway, and it's a Big Deal: understanding statistics takes a long time and a lot of effort. Over to you....

We assume that cause and effect hold to get our everyday lives done. I assume that typing this will show up on my screen for example. Our devices use cause and effect. Every time I type, maybe 100000 different cause-effects are caused and effected in my computer.

I think the statistics I've given indicate that the universe does get things done with cause and effect in the vast majority of cases - all cases probably; we know of no other mechanism to replace it.

But I acknowledge that the support for the axiom is only inductive. Cause and effect is still a goof axiom though.

Is it as good as 'the whole is greater than the parts'? I think probably almost. Its almost as good an axiom as I know.

We assume that cause and effect hold to get our everyday lives done. — Devans99

Of course we do. :up: My only wish is to clearly identify assumptions as such. To call them proofs, or anything more definite than the guesses they actually are, is misleading and damaging to the reasoning which follows.

I think the statistics I've given — Devans99

But you haven't given any statistics. You created an example experiment, and observed that all of the resulting observations confirmed your pre-existing beliefs, while none contradicted it. You made, for example, no effort to confirm that your observations did in fact confirm the existence of cause and effect. Such confirmation is, of course, impossible, as I think you know. Anyway, the large number of observations you made, and that they all confirmed your expectations, is not "statistics". Medians and means, and normal distributions, and so forth: those are "statistics".

To call them proofs, or anything more definite than the guesses they actually are, is misleading and damaging to the reasoning which follows. — Pattern-chaser

The axiom of cause and effect is just an axiom. Proofs built upon it stand or fall depending on whether the axiom is correct or not. This is the way with all our theories.

Anyway, that the large number of observations you made, and that they all confirmed your expectations, is not "statistics". Medians and means, and normal distributions: those are "statistics". — Pattern-chaser

I think that is the nature of induction. Should I get on that plane today? The last ones did not crash so yes. So we make potentially life threatening decisions based on induction. To make any progress with the whole metaphysical debate about the origins of the universe requires some axioms. If I would trust my life to induction, I would trust induction for the question of origins of the universe.

Good news, we have achieved discussion which is beyond the God debate! Success at last!!! :smile:

Those are for the aliens to live on. — Devans99

Well that's a wild theory. But according to it there should be Martians right now

Explain how autonomous movement is possible without intelligence then? — Devans99

Ok I can't. But what I'm suggesting is that the start of the universe wasn't autonomous. Would you call the movement of the earth around the sun autonomous? I wouldn't. And besides even if we give that the first cause of existence was intelligent that doesn't mean it's conscious or that it still exists now.

That's what I meant when I said that the first causes for creating the universe are either no longer relevant or have been reinterpreted as something else. Potential energy may be this first cause that created the universe. Exactly what it is I don't know and don't care because I know all it's properties. Maybe the first cause was the forces of physics but we reinterpreted them separately (electromagnetic, gravitational, etc). The only other alternative is that there is some mystery form of force that created the universe and can no longer be detectable by us/is no longer a factor