It's impossible to really discuss unity in language, because language is built of thought, and thought is built of division. — Jake

No, you’ve gotten yourself mixed-up somehow. We can only discuss the concept of unity in language. Unity/separation is a dualism. ‘Unity’ in the absence of any referent has no meaning.

Mere human happiness? Of course there’s a wide range of moral intuitions and disagreements about their relative value, but wouldn’t it be rational to hold that the highest happiness for the greatest amount of people be a primary principle? Science could work with a principal like this because it is measurable.

We can only discuss the concept of unity in language. — praxis

Right. And all language is thought. And all thought operates by division. Thus, all discussions are polluted by a built-in bias for division.

And all language is thought. And all thought operates by division. Thus, all discussions are polluted by a built-in bias for division. — Jake

You realize that this reasoning is self-invalidating.

Assuming you’re not kidding around, you appear to be suggesting that unity or non-duality is for some reason inherently virtuous or *pure*. Can you explain how/why that may be?

Holding... Okay, I just held it for 2 minutes and seventeen seconds. What did I confirm???
— praxis

You are intimately connected to everything around you. The boundary line between "you" and "everything else" is nowhere near as neat and tidy as we typically assume.

Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct.

Assuming you’re not kidding around, you appear to be suggesting that unity or non-duality is for some reason inherently virtuous or *pure*. Can you explain how/why that may be? — praxis

I'm suggesting that 1) unity is the fact of reality, and 2) aligning ourselves with reality to the degree that is possible is inherently rational.

Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct. — praxis

You're arguing just to be arguing. If I'm wrong about that and you do really wish to investigate such topics the best move would likely be to conduct your own investigation. Instead of waiting for me to type something so you can tell me why it's wrong, dig in to it yourself. Or not, as you prefer.

Imagine I have a heart attack today and never return to the forum. Will you still be digging in to this topic on your own? If not, then digging in to it with me is unlikely to accomplish much.

f, you believe as I do, that some inherent search for meaning and purpose is part of the human condition. — Rank Amateur

This seems true, but that doesn't automatically equal it being wise. Instead of debating competing meanings we might look more closely at what meaning is.

Meaning, any meaning, is a story, an abstraction, a collection of symbols in our heads. Symbols of any kind are like a street sign which points to something, but is not that something. The word "Jake" is just a word, and not the person it points to.

Symbols, any symbols, are human inventions. They are something very small created by a very small creature. Reality is something very very large, created by perhaps a god, or perhaps billions of years of randomly colliding mechanical forces, or something else. In any case, whatever the source, reality is a phenomena far larger, more complex, and incredible than anything human beings can create. Human symbols are very small potatoes in comparison to the reality they point to.

So while it is true that we often seek meaning and explanations, perhaps we choose poorly.

I'm sitting on a beach watching a sunset. Where should my focus be? On the sunset? Or on my ideas about sunsets? Should I choose to focus on reality, or symbols which point to reality? Should I choose direct experience of that which is real, or settle for a 2nd hand extremely watered down and highly imperfect experience of what is real?

If we were friends, where should my focus be? On your photo on Facebook? Or on you the living breathing person? Should I choose the real, or the symbolic?

Do you want to have sex with a photo on the Internet, or with the person depicted in the photo? Which will you choose, the real, or the symbolic?

I would contend that there is no story about reality that anyone will ever create that is a fraction as interesting as reality itself. So why settle for second best?

Meaning does have a strong appeal, that's true. For one thing, meaning is very easily hijacked by our egos, as we see daily here on the forum. Meaning provides a comforting illusion of knowing which some of us find irresistible.

Focusing on reality requires a process of surrender. Focusing intently on observation of reality requires a surrender of me, me, me and all my little thoughts, thoughts, thoughts. We typically don't really want to surrender, and even if we do a lifetime habit of chronic overthinking requires work, patience, and good luck to overcome.

So yes, we very often seek meaning. That doesn't necessarily mean that seeking meaning is the best choice we can make.

Happiness and suffering are subjective but highly intuitive, as well as measurable by various means. Any reason these can’t these be held as base values and science given the authority to develop normative ethics? Maybe our moral intuitions are not based in suffering/happiness or human flourishing. Maybe they’re based in something much more primitive and irrational, and no amount of reason, training, or discipline can override them. Maybe all we can do is tell stories to each other and watch as we ruin the world for ourselves. — praxis

Or maybe they are based on something more primitive and irrational, but it’s not about overriding them - rather seeking to understand them (not to know, define or control them). Maybe we need to put aside our colonialist ways and stop trying to oppress and diminish the ‘primitive and irrational’, instead valuing the diversity with which we can interact and understand the universe through the full experience of life.

In my experience, there is much about happiness and suffering that cannot be measured by any means. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t attempt to measure happiness - there is a lot to be gained towards understanding and increasing overall happiness through measurement. I’m saying that in attributing a value scientists cannot expect to know, define or control happiness in any way.

This seems true, but that doesn't automatically equal it being wise. Instead of debating competing meanings we might look more closely at what meaning is. — Jake

No real issue with all that - may argue some there is some balance point between experience, refection, and attempts at understanding. But of course one must experience life. As we are all aware knowledge of something and the experience of that thing are very different things.

All that aside - was not where I was going with the apparent human need for meaning. Here is the point I was trying to make, in relation to Rahner's preapprehension. That the reason or source of this desire is the inherent feeling there is something there in all of us.

Assuming you’re not kidding around, you appear to be suggesting that unity or non-duality is for some reason inherently virtuous or *pure*. Can you explain how/why that may be?
— praxis

I'm suggesting that 1) unity is the fact of reality, and 2) aligning ourselves with reality to the degree that is possible is inherently rational. — Jake

1) Unity is a concept.

2) “Aligning” with your concept of reality is normally considered trans-rational.

Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct.
— praxis

You're arguing just to be arguing. If I'm wrong about that and you do really wish to investigate such topics the best move would likely be to conduct your own investigation. Instead of waiting for me to type something so you can tell me why it's wrong, dig in to it yourself. Or not, as you prefer.

The thing about holding the breath makes no sense. If you don’t want to explain that’s your choice.

You’ve made some claims on a public forum that is dedicated to truth seeking, Jake. If you’re unable substantiating these claims you can just be honest and admit it. That would be the honorable thing to do.

Meaning provides a comforting illusion of knowing which some of us find irresistible.

Focusing on reality requires a process of surrender. Focusing intently on observation of reality requires a surrender of me, me, me and all my little thoughts, thoughts, thoughts. We typically don't really want to surrender, and even if we do a lifetime habit of chronic overthinking requires work, patience, and good luck to overcome.

So yes, we very often seek meaning. That doesn't necessarily mean that seeking meaning is the best choice we can make. — Jake

Clearly “Reality” has irresistible deep meaning and purpose for you. Lol

I’m saying that in attributing a value scientists cannot expect to know, define or control happiness in any way. — Possibility

Why not? Maybe it’s our primitive egos that believe our emotional lives can’t be quantified.

You’ve made some claims on a public forum that is dedicated to truth seeking, Jake. If you’re unable substantiating these claims you can just be honest and admit it. That would be the honorable thing to do. — praxis

You're not the kind of poster who has much interest in investigations. You wish to play the male ego competition gotcha Great Debunker game. Ok, play it, go for it. With someone else, as I'm not here to jerk you off.

Do you think that the "phenomena" you perceive are consistent, or otherwise correlate, with "things" that are external from your own mind?. In other words, do you believe that your perceptions relate to a certain way of things that holds true regardless of whether or not you happen to perceive them?

It's basically the assumption that there's some kind of "real" component to the things our senses perceive.

P.S. I was pointing to you as an example to show T-Clark that those who embrace science do not necessarily deny everything else in order to do so. It would not be rational to be offended by this. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I do believe that perceived phenomena "are consistent, or otherwise correlate, with "things" that are external from...(my)...own mind". I would say those things just are the phenomena. We are capable of asking the question as to what those phenomena are "in themselves" independent of our perceptions, but opinions vary widely on the question of whether our scientific understanding (obviously based as it must be on perceptual relations) tells us anything about the independent nature of those phenomena.

That said, I do think it is most plausible to "think that there's some kind of "real" component to the things our senses perceive".

Judging from what I have read written by @T Clark I would not have thought that he needed convincing "that those who embrace science do not necessarily deny everything else in order to do so", but I could be mistaken about that.

I hope you didn't think I was at all offended by anything you said. Apparently there may have been some misunderstanding of what you wanted to say on my part, but it is still not clear to me where precisely that misunderstanding could lie.

Are you suggesting that there is something inherently wrong with being separate from (enter your preferred term here)? — praxis

From my point of view, we aren't separate, a fact which anyone can confirm for themselves with this experiment. Hold your breath for 2 minutes. — Jake

Holding... Okay, I just held it for 2 minutes and seventeen seconds. What did I confirm??? — praxis

You are intimately connected to everything around you. The boundary line between "you" and "everything else" is nowhere near as neat and tidy as we typically assume. — Jake

Holding my breath resulted in no such confirmation. If anything, after about two minutes the boundary between breathing and not breathing became quite distinct. — praxis

You're arguing just to be arguing. — Jake

You’ve made some claims on a public forum that is dedicated to truth seeking, Jake. If you’re unable substantiating these claims you can just be honest and admit it. That would be the honorable thing to do. — praxis

I'm not here to jerk you off. — Jake

You're also not here to explain your goofy notions, apparently.

No real issue with all that - may argue some there is some balance point between experience, refection, and attempts at understanding. — Rank Amateur

Ok, sure. I'm just trying to adjust that balance a bit, and likely overstating the case in the process.

Here is the point I was trying to make, in relation to Rahner's preapprehension. That the reason or source of this desire is the inherent feeling there is something there in all of us. — Rank Amateur

Yes, I hear you. I'm not sure I'd go as far as "all of us" but then there are many levels of such things, and not everybody is going to hear and recognize within themselves the preapprehension you're referring to.

It seems possible to get at least part of the way there using only reason.

It seems every level of existence is largely unaware of the levels above it. As example, a rock knows nothing about plants, plants know little to nothing about animals, and most animals know nothing about humans. Within the animal kingdom most animals are expert within their niche but largely ignorant of anything outside of that limited sphere.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to speculate that humans too are in this position in regards to some level above us. Examples to illustrate might be the microscopic, atomic and quantum realms which have always been there right in front of our face but not perceived until quite recently.

To speculate further, there are always rare people way out at the end of the talent bell curve in every field. Einstein in science, Mozart in music etc. It seems reasonable to me that there may be rare individuals that are able to get some glimpse of some higher level of existence. And then they try to share what they've seen, but it's so far out of the average person's experience that the explanation turns in to a circus.

So perhaps a few of us have intense preapprehension, while for the rest of us it's pretty dull or entirely hidden from our conscious mind.

As you know, what tends to interest me is exploring such topics in a manner which transcends the religious and secular categories. To my biased read anyway, the above could be either religious or secular, as preferred by each reader.

You're also not here to explain your goofy notions, apparently. — praxis

I'm here to explain my goofy notions with folks who are actually interested in the topics being discussed.

To debunk this, start your own thread where you explore such topics in some depth without reference to me or anybody else. If we remove me and all other male egos are you still interested? Probably not, but prove me wrong if you can.

I know this is likely to be outside your scope of interest, so sorry to mention it again, but I can't resist.

The DMT documentary I mentioned earlier was fascinating to me because the participants in the study reported compelling experience of another level of reality, or so it seemed to them. According to them this other level of reality they experienced felt more real than our everyday lives.

And while I wouldn't want to push the comparison too far, much of what they described seemed to sync with Catholic teachings, at least in a general manner. As example, some participants reported experience of an overpowering presence of love that saturated this realm they were exploring. Also a good deal of discussion of ego death.

Most people probably feel that this is just a drug induced hallucination and thus should be dismissed, and that may indeed be an appropriate conclusion. I don't claim to know.

However, we might consider this. You get up in the morning, have that first cup of coffee, sit down at the computer, and your ideas begin flowing effortlessly on to the forum. Are your ideas automatically wrong or fantasy because they are being fueled by caffeine?

It seems at least possible to me that such drugs open channels in the human brain that aren't typically accessible to us, and that to some degree these channels are perceiving something that is actually there.

You're also not here to explain your goofy notions, apparently.
— praxis

I'm here to explain my goofy notions with folks who are actually interested in the topics being discussed. — Jake

Meaning that you're only interested in an unquestioning audience and you don't want anyone to debunk your goofy ideas. I think we all get that.

To debunk this, start your own thread where you explore such topics in some depth without reference to me or anybody else. If we remove me and all other male egos are you still interested? Probably not, but prove me wrong if you can. — Jake

I've chosen to explain your meaning above rather than debunking the claim.

How would my writing a monolog debunk your claim about only explaining your thoughts to interested parties?

Meaning that you're only interested in an unquestioning audience and you don't want anyone to debunk your goofy ideas. I think we all get that. — praxis

No Praxis, you don't get anything. I DO NOT want an unquestioning audience. I thrive on challenge, I really do. I just don't find it interesting to be challenged by folks who aren't actually interested in the topic.

Ok, enough about this.

I thrive on challenge, I really do. — Jake

You are proving this to be false.

I just don't find it interesting to be challenged by folks who aren't actually interested in the topic. — Jake

Rather, you don’t find it comfortable to be, as you say, debunked.

Start your own thread on the subject.

Say something interesting, without making any reference to anybody else.

Or shut the fuck up.

Now you’re just being childish.

Why not? Maybe it’s our primitive egos that believe our emotional lives can’t be quantified. — praxis

Quantified does not equal control.

The DMT documentary I mentioned earlier was fascinating to me because the participants in the study reported compelling experience of another level of reality, or so it seemed to them. According to them this other level of reality they experienced felt more real than our everyday lives.

And while I wouldn't want to push the comparison too far, much of what they described seemed to sync with Catholic teachings, at least in a general manner. As example, some participants reported experience of an overpowering presence of love that saturated this realm they were exploring. Also a good deal of discussion of ego death.

Most people probably feel that this is just a drug induced hallucination and thus should be dismissed, and that may indeed be an appropriate conclusion. I don't claim to know.

However, we might consider this. You get up in the morning, have that first cup of coffee, sit down at the computer, and your ideas begin flowing effortlessly on to the forum. Are your ideas automatically wrong or fantasy because they are being fueled by caffeine?

It seems at least possible to me that such drugs open channels in the human brain that aren't typically accessible to us, and that to some degree these channels are perceiving something that is actually there. — Jake

Sam Harris talks about a similar experience on MDMA in his book ‘Waking Up’.

I think attempts to transcend the religious/secular divide without judgement enable physics and metaphysics to engage in civil, inclusive discussion and share ideas. There is much to be gained from this.

There is a tendency in science and law to dismiss data or evidence that is gathered without adherence to logical processes. The idea is that these logical processes ensure the reliability of the data/evidence (and therefore its ‘objectivity’), when at best they only increase the probability that this data/evidence points to the notion of an objective reality or truth. While I recognise how satisfying it feels to declare ‘close enough is good enough’, one can never be 100% certain.

This gap between logic and certainty is faith in an objective reality or truth. Quantum theory, among other things, has recently eroded faith in that notion, just as evolutionary theory eroded faith in the same notion from a religious perspective 200 years ago. And now it seems we’re all adrift in the same ocean of uncertainty. We can keep pretending that our particular ship is not sinking while shooting holes in the other, or we can try to salvage whatever still floats and work together on building a seaworthy vessel out of what we have left.

Personally, I’m intrigued by quantum theory inadvertently uncovering ‘potentiality’ as an underlying metaphysical concept, and how this relates to Aristotle’s concept of potency/matter and to the concept of Love: both as an act of actualising potential and as God. But perhaps that’s another discussion.

The idea is to generally increase happiness and decrease suffering.

That sounds very noble, but when you start to attribute numerical value and measurements to happiness and suffering, there is a danger of focusing in on that particular measurement and forgetting that it’s collapsing a multidimensional experience into one or two dimensions at best. When you then make judgements and decisions based only on these measurements, you’re effectively dismissing the breadth of experience outside of that value. This is how oppression, neglect and disenfranchisement happens.

I’m not saying don’t attempt to measure elements of happiness. Just don’t forget that everything you’re not measuring is just as informative and valid, if not more so. And there is so much you’re not measuring.

When you then make judgements and decisions based only on these measurements, you’re effectively dismissing the breadth of experience outside of that value. — Possibility

You must admit that the terms are themselves rather broad. We can experience happiness or suffering in a variety of ways. I was thinking of it as a general barometer, but it can also be broken down into various aspects, such as stress level, general health and fitness, socialization, self actualization, etc etc.

Ethical utilitarianism supported or authorized by science, basically, rather than traditional moral codes given by religious authority.

There’s no reason that the full spectrum of moral intuitions couldn’t be taken into account.

Agree - science is very much in the business of looking for stuff that does not exist, and very much not in the business of denying anything with out evidence. — Rank Amateur

Ironically, unless you can name someone here who is denying anything simply on the basis that there's no evidence, rather than on the basis that this absence of evidence is evidence of absence, than that is itself evidence of the absence of any relevant position to attack, which is evidence that you're attacking a straw man.

Science does indeed make claims of the latter type. A pristine bedroom with no evidence of mud, fur, paw prints, and disorder, is scientific evidence of the absence of a filthy and excited dog having been in there.

You give the impression that you're uninformed about things like "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and the burden of proof. Being informed and obliging of how these things work is vital in debates like this. You should know the rules and play by them.

As for my view on this, whether the absence of evidence is or isn't evidence of absence, it is nevertheless the case that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably justify the conclusion of theism or strong atheism.

Or without any evidence to refute them other than a different world view, we could just believe otherwise honest and unmotivated to misinform people that they believe what they believe to be true. — Rank Amateur

This is basically another straw man. I do believe otherwise, and I do believe that they believe what they believe to be true. That's true of every atheist here, I think. But my absence of belief is not on equal footing with their belief, because I'm being reasonable and they're not. They're going by a blind leap of faith, and that's obviously not being reasonable. One can get to space teapots and the like through blind leaps of faith. Blind leaps of faith open the epistemological floodgates and mean you lose epistemological credibility. It screams, "I care less about philosophy, and I care more about being irrational!".

You should know the rules and play by them. — S

You should prove that the rules you're referencing are binding upon the very largest and most fundamental of questions. There's simply no good reason for any reader to accept such an assumption on faith as you are doing.

If someone were to quote some holy book it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that the holy book is qualified to speak to the issue at hand.

If someone were to apply logic calculations to a topic it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that human reason is qualified to speak to the issue at hand.

Exact same challenge, applied equally to all proposed authorities in an even handed manner with no dog in the fight.

Like a Jehovah's Witness, you expect everyone to first blindly accept the qualifications of your chosen authority as a matter of unexamined faith just as you do, and then you proceed from there with your arguments.

As with a Jehovah's Witness, there's simply no point in listening to anything you have to say until you first prove that your chosen authority is qualified to make credible comments on the issues under discussion.

All the clever little arguments you clog thread after thread with, all entirely meaningless waste of space, until you first prove that the authority those arguments is built upon is qualified to speak to the questions you are addressing.

Meaningless waste of space, just as it would be if a Jehovah's Witness entered the thread and began chanting memorized slogans based upon an unproven authority.

Meaningless waste of space.

99% ego, 1% useful content.

If someone were to quote some holy book it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that the holy book is qualified to speak to the issue at hand.

If someone were to apply logic calculations to a topic it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that human reason is qualified to speak to the issue at hand. — Jake

You realise you have just presented two conditionals and a set relation argument. Two arguments in logic.

Did you first prove that logic was qualified to speak to the issue at hand? Because if you did, I missed it.