Well, I believe consciousness is akin to an energy without mass in that it causes things to happen, like quarks coming into existence.

That means it finite/material in my terms. And subject to falsification, since we could examine the present experiences in relation to caused states.

I just meant that God’s consciousness is unfalsifiable in that there are no experiments we could do to detect Her.

States of consciousness themselves aren't falsifiable because they don't have a manifestation outside their immediate appearance. Human states of consciousness aren't falsifiable in this sense either. We cannot do experiments to detect it directly.

I was referring to falsifying that some state of consciousness was causing something.

There are many different scientific metaphysics that attribute some kind of cause or other to the universe. These are also not falsifiable.

In a scenario where you were trying sell me religion based on the features and benefits, I'd be like: that's not a unique selling point, why shouldn't I just buy a different product? And likewise with the search for wisdom. — S

[My highlighting.]

If it's not a derail, I'd be interested to know what you think wisdom is, and how it might be discovered or attained?

If it's not a derail, I'd be interested to know what you think wisdom is, and how it might be discovered or attained? — Pattern-chaser

We know what wisdom is, in a sense, or at least the gist of it, because we know what the word means, or we can look it up.

What it consists in is trickier, although we aren't completely ignorant of that either. We can accurately identify what's wise and what's unwise in at least some cases, wouldn't you agree? The trick is in developing the skill to do so, knowing when to apply it, and following through with the right actions.

That seems alright as a brief summary, and as a working model - or at least the beginnings of one. Don't expect too much detail from me, though. It might be unwise to say too much or to venture too far. Sometimes there's wisdom in caution. Sometimes there's wisdom in silence. But then, it almost seems that nothing is guaranteed here.

In Taoism, wisdom is construed as adherence to the Three Treasures: charity, simplicity, and humility.

- Wikipedia article

If it's not a derail, I'd be interested to know what you think wisdom is, and how it might be discovered or attained? — Pattern-chaser

We know what wisdom is, in a sense, or at least the gist of it, because we know what the word means, or we can look it up. — S

I would normally agree that we all know what wisdom is, but your words confuse me. You seem to claim wisdom is easy, something we all know and understand. And yet, your description of wisdom is .. missing from your words.

What do you think wisdom is? :chin:

science generates wisdom.

wisdom does concern the extraterrestial but never has been God directly.

science is definitely not atheistic but can be stupidly if the God question is already taken seriously. They don't stand by "not God" at all.

science generates wisdom — kill jepetto

Even more than my last post: what do you think wisdom is? :chin: :gasp: :scream:

wisdom is like knowledge, but beneficent knowledge, things which improve experience, pe sey.

ways we can advance with knowledge, are ways envisioned by wise minds, because not only do they have this knowledge, but they are aware of it, the truth-value - this is wisdom, or good morality.

wisdom is like knowledge, but beneficent knowledge, things which improve experience, pe sey. — kill jepetto

And that comes from science? I think perhaps science alone is insufficient for this task. :chin: Where does the ethical aspect of wisdom come from? Or the beneficence you refer to? Not science, that's for sure. :chin:

Science is used for discovery, when discovering more about something, we tend to become more wise. Wise, being, that quality which is benefient for themselves or can produce wise informaton, a print-out that's beneficent to others.

Handling life requires wisdom those wise of life handle it.

I think this quote fits here

Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do.

Guy Consolmagno

I would normally agree that we all know what wisdom is, but your words confuse me. You seem to claim wisdom is easy, something we all know and understand. And yet, your description of wisdom is .. missing from your words.

What do you think wisdom is? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Consult Wittgenstein. That will reveal an insightful method for answering your own question, which I take as a question which can be generalised to a question about linguistic meaning.

Consult Wittgenstein. That will reveal an insightful method for answering your own question, which I take as a question which can be generalised to a question about linguistic meaning. — S

I didn't intend to ask about linguistic meaning. Nor do I especially want to know what Wittgenstein thought wisdom was. My interest is more focused than that. I just asked:

What do you think wisdom is? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Wise, being, that quality which is beneficent for themselves or can produce wise information, a print-out that's beneficent to others. — kill jepetto

So wisdom is "that quality which [...] can produce wise information...", which looks a lot like a circular definition to me. :chin: What do you think wisdom is?

science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do. — Rank Amateur

Now that is starting to sound like a description of what wisdom is. I'm sure it's incomplete, but it does actually address the issue (what wisdom is). :up: :smile:

What do you think wisdom is? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I think wisdom is something along these lines (quote taken from a Reddit discussion):

Do any of you find the Daoist principle of way similar to the Buddhist idea of Right Action? The Way being action that is in perfect harmony with the Dao, Right Action being action in perfect harmony with your inherit Buddha Nature. Sound a little similar?

Wisdom, I think, is what oriental philosophies tend to refer to as "right action".

In Ignatian Spirituality this would be called discernment of spirits. Basically it is an understanding of our decision making. We all make hundreds of decisions each day, some big, some very small. We make those decisions based on desires. What Jesuit discernment is, is trying to identify the source of these desires, and see if they are ordered or not. Ordered being for the greater love of God and each other. In simple terms like your eastern beliefs of “ right action” it is "do the right thing", or more correctly learn, or train yourself how to desire the right thing, and internal source of these right desires. It is becoming aware of your feelings, and evaluating the source of those feelings, and if the source and the desires are ordered or not. Hard to explain in this small box, maybe think of it as a very well exercised conscience. What it is not, is some set of rules, the "thou shall not's" that is not it at all - it is just becoming aware of the sources of our desires, and do these desires increase good, increase love, or not.

What Jesuit discernment is, is trying to identify the source of these desires, and see if they are ordered or not. Ordered being for the greater love of God and each other. — Rank Amateur

Thanks for adding Catholic doctrine to such threads Rank. Although I'm not qualified to evaluate your interpretations of Catholic teaching, I sense you're doing a good job of it. Although not formally Catholic myself, I find such commentary an inviting jumping off place for my own interpretations. Here's an attempt to translate what you've shared in to Jake-talk.

As I see it, the source of all desire is the experience of division, an illusion generated by the nature of thought.

The will to live is built in to the body, and so any threat to the supposed division between our body and the rest of reality will trigger alarm bells in the form of pain. But this perceived physical division is really a fantasy, just as an ocean wave is not actually divided from the ocean at any point in it's "existence", but only appears to be a separate "thing".

To translate Catholic terminology in to Jake-talk, an "ordered desire" would be one which seeks to relieve the fantasy of division rather than reinforce it. Catholics advise us to love God and each other, which is a method of redirecting our attention away from the tiny prison cell of "me", a compelling form of illusory division which is the source of most of our suffering.

This has sometimes been expressed as "dying to be reborn", which I would translate in to secular language as "letting go of the illusion of division and embracing the reality of unity with all things."

While such secular language may be preferable to many users here, the problem with it is that it's far too abstract to usefully serve most people, who typically are not incurable nerds like us. And so in the attempt to serve as many humans as possible and not just nerds, Catholic culture has created a far more accessible story revolving around "love Jesus" and "love your neighbor" and "get back to God" etc. Love is an act of surrender, and each of these Catholic ideas boil down to advice to surrender the illusion of division, which is indeed good advice.

There are problems with this approach too of course, as there are with any approach.

First, assigning the noun "God" to the single unified reality has the effect of creating more division, because creating conceptual division is after all the purpose of nouns. And so for example the statement "I love God" presumes that "I" is one thing and "God" is another thing, and loving God is suggested as a method of bridging a a gap which doesn't actually exist anywhere but in our thought drenched imaginations. But what does exist is the illusion of division, and love is useful in the attempt to heal that illusion.

Catholic teaching does seem to address this in the doctrine that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places. If one takes that literally what it would seem to mean is that there is actually no division between God and everything else, or in new age talk, "all is one". However, in my experience Catholics usually reject the notion of this unity of all things and instead cling pretty stubbornly to the idea that God is something separate from us and everything else. I don't share that view, but then like I said, I'm no longer Catholic and haven't been for 50 years.

And then of course there is the issue of clerical structure, which preserves itself by reinforcing a division between "Catholics" and "everybody else". There is some hope here though, as in our time the Catholic clerical structure appears to be determined to destroy itself by any and all means available.

In my view, it's a mistake to get sucked in to debating what approach to fundamental human problems is the best. Instead we might focus on trying to understand what the fundamental human situation actually is, and then each of us can try to address that by whatever methodology works best for us personally.

As example, in the East they often approach this very same issue of fantasy division in a different manner by attempting to learn how to better manage that which is generating the illusion of division, thought. Same exact problem, but a different way of approaching it.

Which method is better? Whatever works best for you. And of course we don't really have to chose. One can love one's neighbor and meditate too.

My opinion on the OP: science is secular just like history or mathematics, but secular doesn't necessarily mean athiestic.

Jake: perhaps there is no fundamental human situation. And in meditation, when I dissolve all distinctions between self and other, what neighbor remains to be loved?

Wisdom, I think, is what oriental philosophies tend to refer to as "right action". — Pattern-chaser

Excuse me; I am an idiot. :yikes:

Wisdom is that which enables us to discern or recognise right action. It is not right action of itself. :up: :wink:

First, assigning the noun "God" to the single unified reality has the effect of creating more division, because creating conceptual division is after all the purpose of nouns. And so for example the statement "I love God" presumes that "I" is one thing and "God" is another thing, and loving God is suggested as a method of bridging a a gap which doesn't actually exist anywhere but in our thought drenched imaginations. But what does exist is the illusion of division, and love is useful in the attempt to heal that illusion — Jake

agree - was struggling with a way to secularize the concept - but gave up on it. Understanding the obvious leap into a faith based belief would be off setting.

Catholic teaching does seem to address this in the doctrine that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places. If one takes that literally what it would seem to mean is that there is actually no division between God and everything else, or in new age talk, "all is one". However, in my experience Catholics usually reject the notion of this unity of all things and instead cling pretty stubbornly to the idea that God is something separate from us and everything else. I don't share that view, but then like I said, I'm no longer Catholic and haven't been for 50 years. — Jake

The core concept in Ignatian Spirituality is " Seeing God in all things" - for some stuff this is real easy, for some stuff this is near impossible for those of weaker faith like me. But the concept is very much as you describe above. That God is active and present in everything, and if you train yourself to look you will see it.

As for the second half, it is just human to try and frame such a concept as God in some type of unique anthropomorphic form. It is the only way most can get their hands around such a concept. My personal take is that we as humans have no reasonable basis at all to say anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God. My faith tells me God is, as some type of entity, and with some qualities of absolute goodness, absolute love, etc, but i don't have any view on form or substance ( except of course a few very Catholic beliefs , such as Christ and The Eucharist)

And then of course there is the issue of clerical structure, which preserves itself by reinforcing a division between "Catholics" and "everybody else". There is some hope here though, as in our time the Catholic clerical structure appears to be determined to destroy itself by any and all means available. — Jake

This is a little trickier - in Catholicism the role of the clergy is different than the laity - not separate and not superior. Here is the teaching for better or worse - We are all "The Body of The Church" and we all have a calling. Some are called to family life, some to serve as clergy. The clergy are sacramentally bestowed an ability to act in some circumstances " In persona Christi" - This is an important concept in Catholicism - it is not the priest that can absolve sins, or perform the transfiguration - it is God - acting through the priest. Now in practice, by human beings, with all the frailties they inherently have - some turn this to their own power, and some allow them to. But the teaching is the clergy is just another calling.

In my view, it's a mistake to get sucked in to debating what approach to fundamental human problems is the best. Instead we might focus on trying to understand what the fundamental human situation actually is, and then each of us can try to address that by whatever methodology works best for us personally.

As example, in the East they often approach this very same issue of fantasy division in a different manner by attempting to learn how to better manage that which is generating the illusion of division, thought. Same exact problem, but a different way of approaching it.

Which method is better? Whatever works best for you. And of course we don't really have to chose. One can love one's neighbor and meditate too. — Jake

no issue with any of this

The core concept in Ignatian Spirituality is " Seeing God in all things" - for some stuff this is real easy, for some stuff this is near impossible for those of weaker faith like me. But the concept is very much as you describe above. That God is active and present in everything, and if you train yourself to look you will see it. — Rank Amateur

Yes, and it seems the serious question is the practical one, how to best train oneself. Regrettably, there is no one perfect answer to this. For me, it's spending lots of time in nature, for somebody else it might be attending Mass, or doing scientific research, or driving a bus. We spend a lot of time arguing over which is the "one true way" when we probably should instead be focused on the question of "what is the right way for me?"

Words can easily get in the way. As example, if we ask "what is the right way for me to see God" the word God immediately brings to mind a collection of images in Western culture that may be helpful, or may be a fatal distraction. That's why I'm often arguing for ignorance, clearing the mind of theories and conclusions to assist in facilitating experience. Each of us can reach for experiences that transcend the mundane, and there is really no need to then label and categorize the experience. I'm not sure what part of Catholic teaching might address any of this, perhaps you point to something?

As for the second half, it is just human to try and frame such a concept as God in some type of unique anthropomorphic form. It is the only way most can get their hands around such a concept. — Rank Amateur

Yes, which is why I'm unwilling to dismiss Christianity out of hand. It's proven it's usefulness to billions of people over thousands of years, quite an accomplishment. It's obviously not useful to everybody, but so what, that's surely asking too much of any perspective.

The following will be useful to far fewer people, but for what it's worth, if we can shift the focus from concepts to experience, most of these kind of problems can melt away. I do however acknowledge that this way of looking at things will not have the broad reach of an approach like Christianity. I'm offering it only as an option for those who find Christianity, or any religion, to be an obstacle.

As to the clergy, I'm conflicted. My instinct is to decline an intermediate level between man and "Whatever It Is" but then here I am, basically acting like clergy myself by endlessly typing all kinds of explanations.

As far as Catholicism goes the solution I see is simple and straightforward, have the clergy and nuns swap roles. Still an entirely Catholic operation, but all the branding damage is removed as an obstacle. One decisive act and Catholic credibility is back on track in the public realm, but regrettably in it's current form Catholicism appears to be incapable of such clarity. But then, I haven't been Catholic in a long time, so what do I really know about it?

While I'm ranting...

Spring is underway here in Florida, with fresh new baby green leaves exploding in every direction. The big meeting in Rome has been on my mind, and inspired this...

Think of a tree as The Church, the sun as God, and the leaves as the clergy, the interface between Catholics and God. Let's look how nature, the church that God built, actually works.

After a long summer season the leaves get worn out. They are chewed on by bugs, they get diseases etc and their ability to translate sunlight in to energy for the tree is diminished. So the tree does the sensible thing, it lets go of the leaves and they fall, melt in to the ground, and become nourishment for the tree.

In the spring an entirely new crop of leaves appears, fresh, new, perfect little engines of photosynthesis.

The tree remains the same. The sun remains the same. The leaves perform the same function as always. But, it's not the same old worn out leaves from last season.

As I see it, the current crisis in Catholicism is basically a matter of stubbornly trying to hang on to the old leaves, to prevent them from falling to the ground. The old leaves won't get out of the way, so the new ones can't emerge, and the old leaves keep getting older and older, weaker and weaker with each passing day.

The good news is that the old leaves are unlikely to have the last say in the matter. The laws of nature will intervene and keep the endless cycle of renewal going by some method or another.

When I listened to reports about the recent conference in Rome I was filled with hope. As it becomes clearer and clearer that the old leaves are worn out, it becomes ever more likely that they will drop from the tree and the new leaves will emerge. Just saying, this whole child rape clergy crisis thing might actually be good news for the Church, though it understandably doesn't always feel that way.

I didn't intend to ask about linguistic meaning. Nor do I especially want to know what Wittgenstein thought wisdom was. My interest is more focused than that. I just asked:

What do you think wisdom is? :chin:
— Pattern-chaser — Pattern-chaser

Sorry, but I'm not going to give you the easy answer. Do you think that that's a good way to find wisdom? By having it handed to you on a silver platter?

Sorry, but I'm not going to give you the easy answer. Do you think that that's a good way to find wisdom? By having it handed to you on a silver platter? — S

I'm so sorry, Master. I am humiliated. I have addressed you as an equal, and I am but a lowly student in your eyes. I abase myself before you and salute the knowledge and wisdom you hold. I sought only to discover your thoughts, not to trouble you with my own. I sought to learn from you, but I am not worthy. My apologies.

I'm so sorry, Master. I am humiliated. I have addressed you as an equal, and I am but a lowly student in your eyes. I abase myself before you and salute the knowledge and wisdom you hold. I sought only to discover your thoughts, not to trouble you with my own. I sought to learn from you, but I am not worthy. My apologies. — Pattern-chaser

Is this what they call "sarcasm"? You'll have to teach me all about that some time. But first, of course, I must answer your question in exactly the way that you want me to, instead of you taking onboard my points and acting accordingly. I simply must do this for you, or else...? Or else what? You'll repeat the same question and expect a different answer each time? You'll give me some more of that sarcasm?

I am autistic, and cannot see a constructive way out of this conversation. I'm sorry for bothering you. :yikes: