I don't think Hippyhead's patterns are in conflict with what Schrödinger said.

Nor me. These patterns are bang in line with what Schrodinger said. But he also notes that as well as the patterns there is 'the canvas on which they are painted'.

The canvas is what is revealed when the patterns are seen for what they are. As the Upanishads say, 'the voidness of one thing is the voidness of all'. ,

If matter and energy are not ultimate forms of being and can be destroyed, then would the purported "something yet more basic" continue to exist?


Not in the ordinary sense of the word. The Ultimate would be real and would exist in a real sense, while all the rest would exist only in he sense of 'standing out' or being distinguishable.

After all, energy cannot come from energy, or matter from matter, or existence from existence. There has to be a phenomena that transcends these things in order that it can be their source. Kant's argument for the 'thing-in-itself' is relevant here. . . . .

Error

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a universally shared transcendental prejudice. It is a cognitive knee-jerk reaction. It necessarily and inescapably distorts all human thinking about consciousness and natural phenomena. Its persistent and tiresome theme is: "THERE HAS TO BE, SIMPLY MUST BE, A REASON WHY!!!!"

Quite the contrary!!!! "THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANY REASON WHY I, YOU, OR ENTITIES EXIST!!!!! In fact, the positing of a Thing-in-Itself is nothing more than an expression of this prejudice!!!

Everything may just be gratuitous and The Principle of Sufficient Reason may simply be the most universal, abstract expression of the Principle of EPISTEMIC ANTHROPOCENTRISM!!!!

I think it is best to leave spirit undefined, other than its being something we know because we are alive and have being. This fits the reference to the Upanishads you mentioned. — Punshhh

I like to define things, otherwise we talk past each other with different understanding of vague terms like soul, or spirit, but I can respect your wish. I was really focusing on what Schrödinger said, I am not familiar with the Upanishads.

The canvas is what is revealed when the patterns are seen for what they are. As the Upanishads say, 'the voidness of one thing is the voidness of all'. , — FrancisRay

The canvas being a pattern itself? If we lay quantum field theory over this, the wave would be an intersection of various fields. The consciousness would be the self organization, the state of matter the result of self organization, and energy would enable it all. It is something for a brief moment and then vanishes and turns into something else. Sounds about right.

Shhh. No yelling.

...there are the patterns, which don't actually exist. — Hippyhead

That's just wrong. There are patterns.

You have to assume there is a third state, and this would be immortality. With practice one can discover this state. Then one knows one is not subject to life and death. This is the basic message. .. . — FrancisRay

This can occur once one identifies with the universe, rather than something anthropocentric. The universe dose not die. It would indeed be a shift in paradigm.

Fully agree! There's nobody home over here.

THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANY REASON WHY I, YOU, OR ENTITIES EXIST!!!!!

Yes, but there must be a mechanism by which they come to exist. Unless you wish to assert that this existing thing is the natural state, so there is no beginning ?

The only thing I don't define here is spirit (for want of a better word), because any attempt falls short. Remember what I said about a different kind of knowledge, one not requiring the intellect, which you agreed with. What I'm saying here is that each of us knows spirit (for want of a better word), but via being rather than intellectualising it.

Please do describe such things by another system, I am familiar with most of them. I will remind you though at some point that our current understanding of material and life is quite limited and that the reality of manifestation might be quite different from what we can deduce with science for example.

That's just wrong. There are patterns. — Banno

REAL. Just not existent.

Like space.

The coin is real, it's not forged.
The painting is real, it's not a print
The river is real, it's not a mirage.


The pattern is real, it's not a...?

The pattern is real, it's not a...? — Banno

... artifact

So... OxOxOxOxO is an artefact, and hence not a real pattern.

What?

Sometime when you look at clouds you see patterns in them: eg a horse head, a cross or a dick. But this pattern is not real in the sense that you projected it onto a random shape of water vapour seen from a random angle. It looks like a pattern but it is not one. There's no horse in the clouds.

Pardon me, but I'm unable to see the relevance of your comment. Do you not believe in causation? . .

he canvas being a pattern itself?

No. The canvas is not a pattern. This is its definition. If it were a pattern it could not be the canvas.

This can occur once one identifies with the universe, rather than something anthropocentric. The universe dose not die. It would indeed be a shift in paradigm.

It would be, unless it is already ones paradigm. It would be to become a buddha or find the Holy Grail. . . .

The pattern is real, it's not a...?

You might like to look up mysticism. The idea you need is 'dependent existence'. .

REAL. Just not existent.


An idea that takes some work to get across where metaphysics and mysticism are poorly known, but utterly crucial to philosophy. . .

An idea that takes some work to get across where metaphysics and mysticism are poorly known — FrancisRay

Well, could be. I dunno, seems kinda obvious though.

Space. No weight, no mass, no shape, no form. Not meeting the most common definition of existence. And yet it's a real phenomena.

Math. No weight, no mass, no shape, no form. Not meeting the most common definition of existence. And yet it's a real phenomena.

Well, could be. I dunno, seems kinda obvious though.

Space. No weight, no mass, no shape, no form. Not meeting the most common definition of existence. And yet it's a real phenomena.

Math. No weight, no mass, no shape, no form. Not meeting the most common definition of existence. And yet it's a real phenomena.

Are these real phenomena? On what basis do you dismiss some phenomena as non-existent but real, but say these two are both existent and real?

Are these real phenomena? — FrancisRay

The reality of space has been confirmed by science. Some will say this means it exists. Ok, that's one definition of existence which can be chosen. Personally, I'm attempting to make a distinction between two kinds of phenomena.

1) Is real, has mass and weight.

2) Is real, does not have mass and weight.

Given that most of reality is in category 2, and most of what we focus on is in category 1, such a distinction seems worth considering.

You are confusing the Principle of Cause and Effect with the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Just because natural phenomena have causes which explain "how" they occur doesn't mean they have reasons which explain "why" they exist. Do you see the relevance now?????

Mysticism is utterly crucial to philosophy????

I don't think so!

Fundamentally, mysticism, in all its forms, is not so much meaningless or nonsensical as it is primarily ELITIST. The Gnostics, for example, were very forthright about their inherent superiority. They promoted, among themselves, a false kind of consciousness of superiority. They claimed to be a special breed of pneumatic humans who were above the majority of merely material or psychical humanity. Only they were able to have a direct, intimate, personal encounter with the transcendent via some secret (magical) way of knowing, which the rest of us poor slobs, by our inferior natures, could never hope to be privy to. Mysticism evolves by promoting a religious frame-of-reference that would turn the rest of humanity into inferior beings. It is this dangerous elitism that I find shallow and self-serving about the paradigm of mysticism. It promotes, either explicitly or implicitly, the idea of the transcendent Nothingness of the worth of the rest of humanity.

No. The canvas is not a pattern. This is its definition. If it were a pattern it could not be the canvas. — FrancisRay

I can not agree with this. The wave has ripples on it, the ripples are themselves waves.

What I'm saying here is that each of us knows spirit (for want of a better word), but via being rather than intellectualizing it. — Punshhh

You are referring to experience, and the essential element of experience is emotion, which I would agree can not be described with intellect at all - it must be experienced - suggesting emotion is a force rather then a concept. To feel the force / emotion of ones body is the only way of knowing it. This is the hard problem of consciousness.

The interesting thing about this thread, is that people have arrived at similar conclusions via different reasoning. So, I think, it is worth while elucidating it in the best way that one can, so as to put as much light on it as possible.

To understand something one way is one experience, whilst to understand it another way is yet another experience.

That's just wrong. There are patterns.
— Banno

REAL. Just not existent.

Like space. — Hippyhead

I believe, the pattern you are describing is consciousness, which I define as self organization. The consciousness ( self organisation ) exists for the duration of the wave, but when the wave passes the consciousness disappears, whilst the matter and energy are conserved, and go on to create a different consciousness - so a different experience is created, if you like.

The pattern exists as part of the wave, but as the wave passes, so dose the pattern. So, the pattern cannot exist independently of the wave. This is monism.

This can occur once one identifies with the universe, rather than something anthropocentric. The universe dose not die. It would indeed be a shift in paradigm. ↪Pop

It would be, unless it is already ones paradigm. It would be to become a buddha or find the Holy Grail. . . . — FrancisRay

There is one thing missing from the wave. It is something we attribute to ourselves, but begrudge almost everything else, and it is a stupid, stupid thing that we do, as it impoverishes our experience of the world, and makes us mortal. Emotion exists in the wave as the reason why it self organizes. If emotion is attributed to the natural world, then everything in the natural world comes to life as a peer. So waves and trees can become friends, and there is meaning in every blade of grass. So you are never alone, as it is all equally as meaningful as you are. But also you can never die, as you will always become something such that you will continue to experience, but not as yourself, but as an equal something else. So you become immortal, via a shift in paradigm, by identifying with the universe.

...that's nothing to do with artefacts...

You might like to look up mysticism. — FrancisRay

I'd rather read Terry Pratchett.