To me, consciousness in itself is rather spiritual. It is so mysterious. How in the world did inanimate matter collect itself, arranging itself in such a way that it can experience itself? That just blows my mind. The ordinary thought of as extraordinary.

For essentially the same reason I assume: the potential for corruption by those in control of the science or doctrine. — praxis

Agreed.

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’m not suggesting that science isn’t useful, but I am in agreeance with Ilya that logic is not an overarching process - I see it as one of at least four main contributors to understanding experience. Science has a tendency to filter all experience through logic as a priority. Define, quantify, measure, evaluate. Among other effects, this process diminishes the validity of feeling except when objectively defined and controlled ‘emotions’ are acknowledged through sense data. What science has dismissed is often referred to as ‘spiritual’ experience - this term makes more sense and has more validity than ‘metaphysically inexplicable’, in my opinion.

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

That doesn’t mean culture is not imposed. The majority of what we learn is not deliberately taught - like bigotry, for example - but we can certainly become conscious of how they are learned, and then choose how we raise our children, including how they interpret and internalise cultural ‘norms’.

Also, I don’t see nature/nurture as a useful dichotomy, particularly for moral intuitions. 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.

We should recognize the role that authority plays in value systems that respect hierarchy, loyalty, and sanctity, even if we find it irrational. — praxis

But do you agree that this authority is essentially a construct? It’s a scaffolding that serves as a ‘temporary’ sense of security, while we develop sufficient awareness and understanding of interconnectedness (not to mention courage) to act morally without reliance on a sense of authority, let alone hierarchy, loyalty or sanctity.

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.

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 don’t know if she can simultaneously wish to eradicate bees and also do everything she can to help them flourish. In any case, it’s still a very narrow awareness of interconnectedness, but it’s a start.

The problem with self-interest is that it is limited - if everyone only sought self-interest, then the environment’s ultimately fucked for one thing, and we’re likely to destroy ourselves before then. But we do have the capacity to broaden awareness of interconnectedness beyond our physical existence, so if we have any interest in realising our full potential, then I think this metaphysical awareness, and the reasoning behind, should be explored more.

"Perhaps you might be inclined to if your experiences offered some kind of spiritual insight that you felt could benefit others. Again, I’m just curious why you describe these experiences as spiritual, rather than psychic or whatever."

Thank you for your insight, I definitely do hope that what I write benefits others.
Psychic comes across to me as being very similar to spiritual.

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

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.

There is no Electromagnetic Phenomenon of any wavelength present ... — SteveKlinko

Except the electromagnetic phenomena detectable in the brain.

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?

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.

Psychic comes across to me as being very similar to spiritual. — Ilya B Shambat

Viewing them as synonymous seems to imply that psychic phenomenon indicate something about the nature of our spirit, like dualism or that mind is not dependent on matter.

There is no Electromagnetic Phenomenon of any wavelength present ... — SteveKlinko
Except the electromagnetic phenomena detectable in the brain. — Fooloso4

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.

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

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.

So the Computer does not work with the external 670nm Electromagnetic stuff but rather works with a number that is correlated with the stuff. The number is a Surrogate for the Electromagnetic stuff. Likewise the Human Brain does not work with the external 670nm Electromagnetic stuff but rather works with a Conscious Redness thing that is Correlated with the stuff. The Conscious Redness thing is a Surrogate for the Electromagnetic stuff. The Conscious Redness thing is a Phenomenon that exists in the Mind.

We know exactly how the Camera/Computer converts external 670nm Electromagnetic stuff to the number 0x00ff0000. There is however an Explanatory Gap with how the Brain converts the external 670nm Electromagnetic stuff into the Redness in the Mind. How this happens in the Brain is the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

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

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".

I disagree that anyone who calls himself or is called by others a "skeptic" must affirm a claim like this unreasonable charge you've ascribed to the so-called skeptics here. I count myself as a sort of skeptic, and I certainly don't think it's insane to have spiritual experiences or to adopt spiritual practices. And I know many sane people who belong to religious organizations. (As far as sanity goes, I mean. We're all just human, and mad enough on that basis alone.)

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

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.

In any case, I would argue that there is a skeptical tendency built-in to scientific method. So even if every scientist is not a "skeptic", every competent scientist has a skeptical tendency.

Being skeptical does not entail being antireligious, any more than being religious entails being antiscience. It seems your views on skepticism have been biased by a narrow range of encounters. Some of the early skeptics in the West were Christians who used skeptical arguments derived from Sextus Empiricus to defend their faith.

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

Do such anecdotes help our conversation here? We all know all sorts of people.

I notice you say the scientist is "spiritual" but not that he is "religious". Is there some reason you have selected one term here and not the other?

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

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?

I think it preferable to address the real philosophical issues here in a spirit of goodwill.

I agree that there is something we may call spiritual experience, and something we may call spiritual practice. I agree that such experiences and practices can be a valuable feature of human life, and that to some extent they are an inevitable feature of human life. I agree that there are some advocates of scientific materialism who go too far in denying or neglecting the utility of such phenomena.

I don't think the reason they go too far is that they can't make sense of these experiences and practices. I think they make sense of these experiences and practices in their own terms, and members of fundamentalist religious sects make sense of the same experiences and practices in rather different terms.

What the materialist may deny is that the theist, for instance, has a correct understanding of a particular event. Just as the theist denies that the materialist has a correct understanding of the same event. The theist says, a god came to me in a dream.... The materialist doesn't deny that the theist had a dream, that is was powerful, that it changed his life... But he does deny that any god came to him.

That's not a denial that the experience occurred; and not even a denial that it was something we may rightly call a spiritual experience.

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

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?

It seems here you may perhaps conflate dishonesty and error. It is not a lie to utter falsehood one mistakes for truth.

Each side in this controversy charges the other with error, with error in judgment concerning the interpretation of a particular sort of experience.

As I've said, I agree it's incorrect to attribute spiritual experience in general to the sort of factors you've indicated.

You may be aware, moreover, that some of the critics you take with issue here also argue that anyone who draws supernatural conclusions on the basis of this or that "spiritual experience" is necessarily "irrational". I reject that line of argument as well. I think sane, rational, reasonable people can and do draw very different conclusions on the basis of similar evidence, especially in such matters as politics, religion, and art.

The critics' attempt to characterize the believer's belief as grounded in various forms of mental instability is just another example of this very tactic, aimed at establishing that the believers are irrational, or have "lost their reason".

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

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.

But what are the facts of these experiences? How do we distinguish the facts from the interpretations? It seems to me that once you boil it all down, this is the crux of most such disagreements.

I had a moment of euphoria and lucidity on the mountaintop. About this we are all in agreement. Now explain how the moment came to be, and what was "really" happening at the time.... Disagreements will arise. On what basis shall they be resolved?



To be clear: I call myself a sort of skeptic and also a sort of naturalist. I do not call myself a materialist, for materialism, as I understand it, is a sort of metaphysical position, and my skepticism has led me to treat all metaphysics as a sort of fantasy, concerning which it seems unreasonable to expect any standard, any evidence or reasoning, by which we may definitively answer questions, test hypotheses, and resolve disputes.

The same skeptical discipline prevents me from counting myself an atheist. Faced with the question, does god exist, I declare myself agnostic. I confess I still possess residual atheist tendencies, though as a wholehearted skeptic I aspire to expunge those tendencies in the fullness of time. Of course, even when I used to call myself an atheist I still had residual religious tendencies, and I suppose those are still with me too!

Nowhere along the course of my philosophical transformations have I ever denied the existence or value of spiritual experiences and practices.

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

No, I do not think that there are 670nm Electromagnetic Waves banging around any more than I think there is a little house and a little dog banging around in my brain when I have a dream about a house or a dog. What I actually think is that there are brain states and that we are learning more and more about how to identify and measure them. The brain is able to detect something red and the resulting brain state will differ from the detection of something blue. It would be theoretically possible to conclude from the brain state that someone is seeing something red. Since the state of the brain is different when we dream, seeing something red in a dream may differ from seeing something red in the external world, but in both cases there are corresponding brain states.

Any Electromagnetic Phenomena in your Brain has nothing to do with the 670nm Phenomena in the external World. — 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.

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

There are separate groups of Neurons that fire for Red and separate groups of Neurons that fire for Blue. Measuring the firing of these Neurons will indicate that there is Red and or Blue in the field of view. But this has been known for many decades. Measuring that these Neurons fire does not Explain anything about how the Mind experiences Redness or Blueness. These are the Neural Correlates of Red and Blue Conscious Experience. There is an Explanatory Gap when it comes to Explaining how the Mind experiences Redness or Blueness.

I actually am trying to make a distinction between Scientific Phenomena and Mental Phenomena. I was doing an analogy between Super Natural, which I thought meant outside the bounds of what we think is Natural, and Super Scientific which I thought would mean outside the bounds of what we think is Scientific. I fully expect that Science will figure out a good Explanation for Conscious Experience someday and then Conscious Phenomena will not be Super Scientific anymore.

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

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 actualising potentiality) in my experience - and in that relationship on a metaphysical level, it informs morality as a guide to the virtue and vice of any action. When we consider interconnectedness beyond our physical existence, 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. Our environmental actions in this sense have far reaching effects that limit potentiality, and so are considered at least as important as immediate and personal benefits, if not more important. In a metaphysical context, the ‘self’ in question has the potential to be the infinite and eternal universe, limited only by our awareness.

But I get that the self-determined priority of rationality and logic (which in turn prioritises self-interest in terms of physical existence) gets in the way of this kind of thinking. The only way past it, I think, is to enable experience to question logic - like quantum physics, for instance - and not be afraid of the result...

I find that spirituals and nonspiritual's are two sides of the same coin. Much like the horseshoe theory in politics the farther you get away from each other the more similar the two sides become. Nonspirituals simply put their beliefs in what they consider to be logic.

I actually am trying to make a distinction between Scientific Phenomena and Mental Phenomena. — SteveKlinko

So this is why I said there was an ambiguity with the term phenomena. In one sense all phenomena are mental -the way something appears or shows itself to us. But the term is also used to mean what is experienced in the sense of the object that is experienced. In the latter sense some distinguish phenomena from noumena.

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.

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

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?

In a metaphysical context, the ‘self’ in question has the potential to be the infinite and eternal universe, limited only by our awareness. — Possibility

It's identity and reason that allows us to imagine that we're an individual human being or the entire universe.

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

Wouldn't our values shift with this broadened awareness? For instance, if we valued all life equally how would that affect our actions? 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.

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

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 judgement.

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.

Wouldn't our values shift with this broadened awareness? For instance, if we valued all life equally how would that affect our actions? — praxis

Yes, our values do shift with our sense of awareness. They always have.

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

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. Reason must fix all observations in time and space before it can evaluate, but 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.

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

Psychic phenomena basically, right? Like Ilya B Shambat mentions in his linked blog post.

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

Imagining and/or feeling that we're the entire universe is still trading one identity for the another.

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.

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

Actually, it's not actually the best solution, but it's potentially the best solution.

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

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.

Psychic phenomena basically, right? Like Ilya B Shambat mentions in his linked blog post. — 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.

Imagining and/or feeling that we're the entire universe is still trading one identity for the another. — praxis

I disagree. 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.

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

Not quite. We tend to conceive of intents and purposes as individual and fundamentally distinct from each other - like we tend to see everything else in the universe. But as we develop awareness of that underlying interconnectedness with the universe, we also develop awareness of the awesome potential that interconnectedness brings, and of our collective capacity to develop, achieve and succeed at almost anything. 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.

Actually, it's not actually the best solution, but it's potentially the best solution. — praxis

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.

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

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. 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. I think that this is why we have these metaphysical experiences.

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

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.

And ghosts aren't spooky?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!

I think that this is why we have these metaphysical experiences. — Possibility

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?

What is the fullest potential of life and the universe anyway?

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

For example, I think there is a Huge difference between the 670nm Electromagnetic Scientific Phenomenon and the Redness Mind Phenomenon that we experience. These two Phenomena are related somehow because they can occur at the same time. But yet these two Phenomena are Categorically different things. The Electromagnetic thing is explained by Science but the Redness thing has no Scientific explanation.

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.

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

Basically. These examples are mainly to demonstrate that ‘psychic phenomena’ is not as ‘out there’ as some people think. It’s a broad spectrum of experiences that starts with intuition and extends to more ‘spooky’ experiences such as ghosts and those examples that Ilya mentioned, which I tend to reserve judgement on because I have no direct experience that comes close enough to what he’s describing.

And ghosts aren't spooky? — praxis

If I’d meant ghosts, I would have said ghosts. I wasn’t talking about moving objects or apparitions. I meant those interactions in an experience that cannot be reliably attributed to any specific physical entity, despite our attempts to do so. We may find ourselves experiencing a moment where we suddenly ‘feel’ reconnected with a dearly departed in a very real way, and then we search for a reason that fits with our understanding of the universe. By then the moment has passed, and we have nothing to show for it except a memory of that feeling.

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

Yeah, you gotta watch that ego. This is why Buddhism is so difficult for many of us to grasp. I’m not talking about identity, though, but about self awareness. Part of that is the recognition of pain, loss and humiliation experiences as the process of life - not as suffering. This is where most reasonable people struggle, because ego gets in the way.

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

What is this ‘view from nowhere’ you refer to? Can you theorise this viewpoint even in a limited position such as a single human being? 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? What leads you to think any perspective of the universe could ever reach this point?

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

I guess that depends on what you’re looking at, and how you make your evaluation.

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

A living being ceases to be precisely what it was with every passing moment. The integrity of a living form interacting with the universe is not as ordered as we would like it to be, and we really aren’t certain what mind or matter is, if we’re honest - let alone whether either is bound by anything except our own awareness.

How do we decide which values are ‘inhuman’? Can you name some? Where does one draw the line, and is that based on knowledge or judgement?

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

I think the Redness thing will always be in a different Category than the Electromagnetic thing even if Science can find an Explanation for the Redness thing. When Science finds an Explanation for the Redness thing then the Redness Category will be come a Scientific Category.

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

While I understand your reasoning behind it, I disagree that this is without a doubt. My understanding of evolution suggests that if we took humanity out of the gene pool, another species would eventually evolve in our place and begin to develop self awareness and intelligence. Many popular theories suggest the ecosystem will flourish in our absence - in the crisis we find ourselves facing, this could be interpreted as humility, but also as an excuse to continue on our path to self destruction. In my view, that seems a waste of the awareness we’ve been gradually developing.

I don’t have a rose-coloured view of humanity. I’m well aware of our capacity to destroy at an alarming rate for our little slice of ‘heaven’, but I’m also aware of our capacity to create very real, global solutions when we have the courage to think beyond our physical existence. If our potentiality is between these two extremes, then I’m personally inclined to focus on encouraging inclusive solutions rather than resigning to our worst fears.

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? After all, isn’t awareness of failure the first step to learning? And it’s not like we’re listening to the advice of anyone with a broader awareness of the universe - the way we would with, say, a parent - are we?

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

I know - it sounds far fetched. But I think it’s mainly about awareness. We have intuition because we need to stop ignoring feeling as a valid way of gaining awareness of the universe. We hear disembodied voices because we need to stop focusing on our physical existence as if it were the only way for us to interact with the universe. And we imagine beings from distant planets with whom to relate on a personal level because we need to develop a broader awareness of the universe....

What is the fullest potential of life and the universe anyway? — praxis

On reflection, I think it’s inaccurate for me to suggest that there is a ‘fullest potential’ as the best or most complete actuality that the universe or life should strive to achieve. I will say that I think our current tendency to strive for maximum independence, autonomy and esteem is an ultimately self-defeating task. Likewise, I think we’ve worked out that our evolutionary drives (to dominate, procreate and maximise genetic benefit) are equally self-destructive and fear-driven - especially once we reach the top tier and differentiate within the species.

I think the most valuable, non-destructive achievements of life and the universe so far have come from facing fear, broadening awareness, building relationships, valuing diversity, maximising interconnectedness and recognising potential - without judgement or concern for limitations. I think as humans and despite our many failings, we represent the highest evolution of this capacity in the universe. That doesn’t make us better - but, to butcher a popular quote: ‘with great capacity comes great responsibility’...

What is this ‘view from nowhere’ you refer to? — Possibility

It's from Thomas Nagel.

Can you theorize this viewpoint even in a limited position such as a single human being? — Possibility

Yes, I did.

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

I don't know, but Buddhists call this the realization of emptiness.

What leads you to think any perspective of the universe could ever reach this point? — Possibility

The point was basically that values and goals would shift with, I will say mind for the sake of brevity, expansion. I think you agreed with that.

How do we decide which values are ‘inhuman’? Can you name some? — Possibility

Not valuing life would be inhuman. Not valuing pleasure or happiness would be inhuman.

Where does one draw the line, and is that based on knowledge or judgement? — Possibility

To quote myself, "where order loses integrity," and based on knowledge and judgment.

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

The late comedian George Carlin had a bit where he speculated about the role humanity plays in the evolution of earth. We're here to produce plastic.

What is this ‘view from nowhere’ you refer to?
— Possibility

It's from Thomas Nagel. — praxis

Thanks for the reference - I’m already intrigued by his approach to the objectivity-subjectivity tension. Bear with me, as I withdraw for further study...

Why expend so many words, all you needed to say was "I don't like skeptics, they're self-centred and don't know how to experience things properly".

Everything in the OP is ad hominem, conjecture, speculation, assumption, nonsense. Experiencing an event or sensation and fervently attributing it to something imaginary that you don't understand is called "delusion".

"Everything in the OP is ad hominem, conjecture, speculation, assumption, nonsense. Experiencing an event or sensation and fervently attributing it to something imaginary that you don't understand is called "delusion"."

It is delusion if it exists in your mind and nowhere else but your mind. It is not a delusion when it corresponds with events in the external world. And my experiences very much do have a correspondence with the external world.