For essentially the same reason I assume: the potential for corruption by those in control of the science or doctrine. — praxis
A realization of interconnectedness is clearly a good rationalization for cooperation, and a justification that can be validated by science, I might add. — praxis
I don't think it's a useful characterization to suggest that the culture (and its moral norms) we are raised in is an imposition. For one thing, it's largely unconscious and not deliberately taught. Also, some moral intuitions are more nature than nurture. — praxis
We should recognize the role that authority plays in value systems that respect hierarchy, loyalty, and sanctity, even if we find it irrational. — praxis
My view of morality is that nurture interacts with nature - to either encourage an internal awareness and understanding of interconnectedness through which ‘moral intuitions’ become apparent, or to impose a moral code or set of norms that may or may not fully align with what awareness/understanding one may have of interconnectedness. — Possibility
I'm thinking that the concept of interconnectedness may lead to moral intuition when it becomes apparent that it can serve our self-interest. Like a farmer who hates bees and would like to eradicate them, because she was stung as a child or whatever, but does everything she can to help them flourish because she knows that her crops will fail without them. — praxis
I'm not sure what the ambiguity is. When I say Conscious Sensory Experience I am talking about things like the Redness of Red, or the Toneness of Standard A. For the Redness of Red I am trying to make the distinction between the external Electromagnetic 670nm Phenomenon versus the internal Redness Phenomenon in the Mind. The Electromagnetic 670nm Phenomenon is definitely in a Category of known Scientific Phenomena. The Redness of Red is a Conscious Phenomenon that exists only in the Mind and is not a Property of the Electromagnetic 670nm Phenomenon. The Redness Phenomenon is only correlated with 670nm Electromagnetic Phenomenon. The Redness Phenomenon is a separate Surrogate Phenomenon of the Mind. There is no known Scientific Category for it. You can See Red objects when Dreaming at night. There is no Electromagnetic Phenomenon of any wavelength present but yet you can See the Redness of an object. That Redness is an internal Conscious Mind Phenomenon and is not even Correlated with any external 670nm Electromagnetic Phenomenon. The Redness is a thing in itself that must be Explained.Conscious Sensory Experience seems to be in a Category of Phenomena that is not part of any known Category of Scientific Phenomena. — SteveKlinko
Cognitive science studies sensory experience. There is some ambiguity in your terminology. There can be no sensory experience that is not a conscious experience. A category of phenomena would be a category of things known via experience. — Fooloso4
There is no Electromagnetic Phenomenon of any wavelength present ... — SteveKlinko
That Redness is an internal Conscious Mind Phenomenon and is not even Correlated with any external 670nm Electromagnetic Phenomenon. — SteveKlinko
Psychic comes across to me as being very similar to spiritual. — Ilya B Shambat
It seems like you actually think there is 670nm Electromagnetic Waves banging around in your Brain when you have a Dream about something Red. Any Electromagnetic Phenomena in your Brain has nothing to do with the 670nm Phenomena in the external World.There is no Electromagnetic Phenomenon of any wavelength present ... — SteveKlinko
Except the electromagnetic phenomena detectable in the brain. — Fooloso4
The Colors that we See in our Mind are Correlated to the different Wavelengths of Light in the external World. So 670nm external Light will produce a Red Experience in the Mind. Nobody knows how that Red Experience gets generated from the original 670nm external Light. It's like any Data Acquisition system. The kinds of Computer hardware and Cameras that exist can turn the external 670nm Light into something the Computer can work with, which is usually a hex number something like 0x00ff0000. Analogously the Human Brain hardware turns the 670nm external Light into something the Conscious Mind can work with, which is the Conscious experience of Redness that we have.That Redness is an internal Conscious Mind Phenomenon and is not even Correlated with any external 670nm Electromagnetic Phenomenon. — SteveKlinko
I think that is a questionable assumption. How is it that we can agree that a particular color is or is not red? How are we able to tune a string to 440 Hz? — Fooloso4
I agree that it's going too far to say that any person who acknowledges spiritual experience, or claims to engage in spiritual practices, or is a member of a religious organization, must be "crazy".According to the logic of the so-called “skeptics,” spirituality and religion is craziness.
By that definition, the bulk of humanity is mentally ill, as the bulk of humanity has one or another form of spirituality. This leaves these people thinking that they are the only sane people out there.
If there is such a thing as narcissism, I can think of no more glaring narcissism than that. — Ilya B Shambat
Perhaps most skeptics are not scientists. But it may yet be that most scientists are skeptics. You may want to check the way the logic of these claims pans out into your argument.Most “skeptics” are not even scientists. Real scientists are curious, and many are as curious about spirituality as they are about everything else. — Ilya B Shambat
Do such anecdotes help our conversation here? We all know all sorts of people.I am good friends with a distinguished scientist who openly talks about having had very real spiritual experiences. He has a vast body of academic knowledge, is very well-reasoned and uses scientific method to excellent standard. That has not prevented him from having a spiritual life. — Ilya B Shambat
To say nothing of the tricks performed by charlatans who pretend to have spiritual powers they don't have. Or even the tricks performed by well-meaning dupes who don't understand the ordinary powers they have, and assume that something supernatural must be the source of their skill. Shall we set about listing the devices of deceivers and fools on both sides of this controversy, to see who has more?Spiritual experiences happen all the time, at least they do in my life. I've had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening; and I am nowhere close to being the only one. Many people either forget the experiences that they have or deny them; but if you dig enough you will find in many cases that they have in fact had very real spiritual experiences. The problem is that they do not know how to make them parse with what they know about the world from science and mathematics. This results in many of them denying these experiences; and toward that effect any number of people have come up with any number of tricks. — Ilya B Shambat
I'm not sure I get your meaning here: Whose dishonesty and whose discordance? Do you mean the critic is dishonest to make his charge the way he does? Or do you mean the critic charges the believer with some form of dishonesty?Some want to say that experience is “anecdotal” and does not count as valid evidence. Others want to ascribe it to being on drugs, or being depressed or anorexic, or being otherwise non compos mentis during the time of the experience. Others still start going into beliefs such as that truth itself is relative. In all cases we find dishonesty. It is dishonesty that comes from dischordance between the logical implications of the experience and the worldview. — Ilya B Shambat
Some of the critics you have argued against here would say the same of themselves: they also seek an explanation that does justice to facts of the experience without running afoul of scientific method.Is science wrong? No, it isn't. Materialist fundamentalism however is completely wrong. I seek an explanation that will be consistent with both scientific fact and the facts of my and other people's spiritual experiences; and I am continuing to look for this explanation in any number of paths. — Ilya B Shambat
It seems like you actually think there is 670nm Electromagnetic Waves banging around in your Brain when you have a Dream about something Red. Any Electromagnetic Phenomena in your Brain has nothing to do with the 670nm Phenomena in the external World. — SteveKlinko
Any Electromagnetic Phenomena in your Brain has nothing to do with the 670nm Phenomena in the external World. — SteveKlinko
Conscious Sensory Experience seems to be in a Category of Phenomena that is not part of any known Category of Scientific Phenomena. — SteveKlinko
It is not Super Natural but it is Super Scientific, and I fully expect that Science will get it's thinking together and figure this out someday. — SteveKlinko
It is actually not simply an electromagnetic phenomena in your brain. There is, however, a physical brain state that corresponds to the 670nm phenomena in the external world.. It is a far more complex physical state, but that brain state is a physical phenomenon. One that can, at least theoretically, be detected and measured. There must be some change in brain state when we see something red that differs from the brain state of seeing something blue.
The source of our disagreement starts here:
Conscious Sensory Experience seems to be in a Category of Phenomena that is not part of any known Category of Scientific Phenomena. — SteveKlinko
I took this to be a distinction between scientific phenomena and some other kind of phenomena, mental phenomena, that is outside the bounds of science.
Looking back I see you said:
It is not Super Natural but it is Super Scientific, and I fully expect that Science will get it's thinking together and figure this out someday. — SteveKlinko
I do not know what you mean by "Super Scientific", but we are in agreement that it is something that science can figure it out. We are still at the beginning stages of such an understanding. — Fooloso4
Specifically what metaphysics are you referring to?
Interconnectedness is, in itself, morally benign. It doesn’t inform or imply what we ought to do in any particular situation or moral dilemma. It implies that our actions can have far reaching effects but says nothing about the virtue or vice of any action. Ruining the environment for other species and ourselves doesn’t violate the concept of interconnectedness, at least not unless the term has special meaning not expressed in the name itself. If if did, the core of that meaning would be based in self-interest.
We can act responsibly and cooperatively for mutual benefit, and that seems to be the best strategy to flourish or maintain order, but it’s ultimately based in self-interest. — praxis
I actually am trying to make a distinction between Scientific Phenomena and Mental Phenomena. — SteveKlinko
If you’re asking me to define a specific metaphysics so that it can be quantified, measured and evaluated, then I’m afraid you may have the wrong idea of what I understand metaphysics to be. For example, what we define as ‘energy’ is essentially metaphysical in nature, but what we quantify, measure and evaluate is the way our sense data interacts with the way this ‘energy’ interacts with what we define as ‘matter’. Yet we refer to both ‘energy’ and ‘matter’ as if they are physical entities that we can define, control and manipulate. Metaphysics as I understand it is about interactions and relationships between the underlying events we strive to understand subjectively, not the entities we can define and ‘know’ objectively.
Interconnectedness is intertwined with both awareness and love (as actualizing potentiality) in my experience... — Possibility
In a metaphysical context, the ‘self’ in question has the potential to be the infinite and eternal universe, limited only by our awareness. — Possibility
we can develop awareness of a fundamental connection not just with family and ‘loved ones’, but with all of humanity, life in general and the universe itself, stretching across space and time - not in the sense of a hierarchy of evaluated connections in reference to the physical existence of ‘self’, but all with the same potential strength and value. — Possibility
I was inquiring about any metaphysical claims or theories you might have that would clarify or help to substantiate "interconnectedness beyond our physical existence," I suppose. It's not clear what you mean by that. Are you claiming, for instance, that there are two types of 'connections', one physical and one non-physical? — praxis
It's identity and reason that allows us to imagine that we're an individual human being or the entire universe. — praxis
Wouldn't our values shift with this broadened awareness? For instance, if we valued all life equally how would that affect our actions? — praxis
Because of our species, the extinction rate on earth is 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural rate. If we loved all life equally, quantity and diversity should matter. And if that were the case, the best solution to resolve the loss of life would be to eliminate our species. Quite literally a self-defeating philosophy. — praxis
I guess what I’m saying is that across subjective experience there appears to be a metaphysical connection that underlies, promotes and transcends all instances of observable or ‘reasonable’ connections: physical, biological/genetic, ideological, etc. Many have referred to it as a ‘spiritual connection’ for want of a better term, but I think that invites some people to abandon reason, rather than just get it to step back a little and reserve judgment. — Possibility
It's identity and reason that allows us to imagine that we're an individual human being or the entire universe.
— praxis
Not in all instances - There are plenty of ‘spiritual’ practices that don’t so much ‘imagine’ as ‘feel’ this experience, and in most cases the resulting experience is more profound than simply imagining, because it engages the whole body in the experience, not just the mind. But for those of us who prefer to keep reason in the picture at all times, imagining is as close as we will probably get. — Possibility
This seems like quite a leap - reason is so quick to judge, isn’t it? This judgement of the ‘best solution’ is based on actuality, rather than potentiality. — Possibility
if we can reserve judgement and explore the potential of human beings to work together, to show compassion, to find solutions and put them in place, then the best solution is not to eliminate, but to strive to realise our potential. That probably sounds overly optimistic, but I think it’s actually more ‘reasonable’ and broad-minded than your suggestion. — Possibility
Psychic phenomena basically, right? Like Ilya B Shambat mentions in his linked blog post. — praxis
Imagining and/or feeling that we're the entire universe is still trading one identity for the another. — praxis
What are the intents and purposes of the entire universe? All intents and purposes, I imagine, which means no intents and purposes. In the view from nowhere everything is perfect just as it is. — praxis
Actually, it's not actually the best solution, but it's potentially the best solution. — praxis
The solution I mentioned is not reasonable at all. It was meant to demonstrate the inescapability of our human values. We will explore our potential no matter what the cost to other species. — praxis
Not necessarily that spooky, though. We may also notice it in the little unexplained things that we tentatively accept as part of the human experience. Like falling in love, kindred spirits, the ‘presence’ or disembodied ‘voice’ of a deceased loved one, a connection to ancestral lands, gut instinct, intuition, vibes and other ‘weird feelings’ people get about situations or interactions that they can’t quite explain and often dismiss until other more ‘objective’ evidence vindicates their initial response.
All of this points to a way of interacting with and deriving information from the universe that we keep trying to ignore because we can’t prove to others that we really experienced it. It also includes the capacity and desire to relate on a personal level with ancient expressions of human experience, with animals, with distant planets, etc - not just intellectually with the facts or evidence. — Possibility
Identity is either understood as socially constructed or simply the condition of being oneself and not another. When the ‘self’ expands in awareness, I would think that ‘identity’ is irrelevant either way. — Possibility
It’s not a matter of fixing what’s ‘wrong’ with the world now (as you say, everything is perfect just as it is), but about realistically understanding what the universe could be, and then doing what we can in each brief but potentially universally interconnected life to develop that. — Possibility
Perhaps in your opinion, but what I said was that your judgement, not the solution itself, was based on actuality: on what is or was, rather than what could be. The tricky thing about rational thought is that one must first imagine or define an actual future solution in order to evaluate it. You cannot evaluate potentiality, because you cannot define or measure it without collapsing it into an actuality. That doesn’t make it nothing - it only makes it fuzzy at best. — Possibility
I don’t think our human values are inescapable. We are not bound by our physical form or existence in terms of interacting with the universe. — Possibility
By ‘our potential’, I refer to our capacity to develop, achieve and succeed - not as individuals, but collectively, and not for the benefit of our species, but in order to develop life and the universe itself to its fullest potential. — Possibility
I think that this is why we have these metaphysical experiences. — Possibility
As to whether there is a difference between scientific phenomena and mental phenomena, since, as you say, there is an explanatory gap, the distinction is questionable. If there will eventually be an adequate explanation I think it is likely to be a physical explanation, although others do not think consciousness can be reduced to the physical. — Fooloso4
But yet these two Phenomena are Categorically different things. The Electromagnetic thing is explained by Science but the Redness thing has no Scientific explanation. — SteveKlinko
With the exception of 'disembodied voices' and 'relating on a personal level to distant planets', you basically appear to be talking about in intuition and our modern devaluation of it. — praxis
And ghosts aren't spooky? — praxis
When identity expands to encompass the universe or whatever, there seems to be a tendency for the ego to correspondingly expand, and that's never a good thing. — praxis
I'm theorizing that with 'a view from nowhere' there's nothing to do, no potential, nothing that the universe could be, and nothing to develop. — praxis
Granted our species might have the potential to not ruin the world for ourselves and other life, but it's not looking good at the moment. — praxis
Mind/matter is bound by order. If that order loses integrity then a being ceases to be what it was, so there is no escaping order or form. If a human being came to possess inhuman values then it would no longer be human. — praxis
But yet these two Phenomena are Categorically different things. The Electromagnetic thing is explained by Science but the Redness thing has no Scientific explanation. — SteveKlinko
Since we cannot explain the "Redness thing" we cannot determine whether mental phenomena are categorically different, except in the sense that one can be explained and the other cannot. If the mental can eventually be explained in physical terms then whether they are categorically different would depend on how one categorizes things. — Fooloso4
What do you mean by developing life and the universe itself to its fullest potential? Life and the universe doesn't need us to develop, and as I mentioned, life on this planet will without a doubt flourish far better without us. 1k - 10k times the baseline extinction rate with us on the planet. Yikes! — praxis
We have intuition, hear disembodied voices, and relate on a personal level to distant planets in order to develop life and the universe to its fullest potential? — praxis
What is the fullest potential of life and the universe anyway? — praxis
What is this ‘view from nowhere’ you refer to? — Possibility
Can you theorize this viewpoint even in a limited position such as a single human being? — Possibility
Is one able to reach a point in their life where there’s nothing to do, no potential, nothing that they could be, and nothing to develop? — Possibility
What leads you to think any perspective of the universe could ever reach this point? — Possibility
How do we decide which values are ‘inhuman’? Can you name some? — Possibility
Where does one draw the line, and is that based on knowledge or judgement? — Possibility
What if life and the universe really did need our species - we just haven’t yet developed the collective awareness to fulfill our potential. What if all this colossal messing up, all this pain and loss, is the most effective way to develop that awareness? — Possibility
What is this ‘view from nowhere’ you refer to?
— Possibility
It's from Thomas Nagel. — praxis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.