I do think that Schopenhauer's Will is the most promising of these ideas, which perhaps brings us closest to the "thing in itself" that I can think of. Perhaps it needs a slight reformulation, but I find it persuasive. — Manuel

:up: Experientially, I agree. Spinoza's substance (natura naturans), though, even more so rationally.

I embrace is something known as panentheism (not pantheism although I do like Spinoza's versions). — 3017amen

Pedantic point of priviledge: Spinozism is neither "pan-en-theistic" nor "pantheistic" as close reading of his works and correspondances show.

@3017amenWith respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion,
— 3017amen

How is religion a natural/physical science? When did it become one?
— tim wood

Please answer, ninth tenth time asking.
— tim wood

180!

Thanks for your input! As you pointed out, there are two camps:

"Other scholars have argued that Spinoza is a pantheist, just because he does identify God with the whole of nature."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

Unfortunately, using logic, the subconscious and conscious mind would transcend common logic. Like the law of bivalence, one cannot clearly delineate the object perceived as being unitary, or describe it in a unitary fashion without contradiction. For instance, driving while daydreaming, then crashing and dying, provides for the phenomenon of the mind performing two functions simultaneously. In that case, either the conscious or subconscious mind was driving, not dreaming of a beach in the Med.. And so in that strict sense neither the conscious nor the subconscious was driving, there was some combination of both at work.

And that suggests, although a great description (yours!) in its own right, a self-organized mind or entity is nonetheless incomplete, in a strict logical sense. And accordingly, we know Heisenberg and /Gödel demonstrated the flaws in logic's completeness and resulting randomness, which perhaps leads us to this... . — 3017amen

Good point. I guess this is based on Kant's pure reason? This is applicable to all and every thought. It is really a criticism of dualism. As a monist I assume every thought has its physical basis ( perhaps as quantum permutations in microtubules, as per Penrose ) so there is no contradiction for me. The system that we are is self organizing and integrated. Extra cellular consciousness does the driving / navigating of the external world, whilst intracellular consciousness takes care of internal organization. My thoughts and actions change epigenetics and brain structure which in turn change my thoughts and actions - in a self consistent loop.

I am currently reassessing the uncertainty principle in light of decoherence, which can provide a probabilistic prediction of an electrons position, so may well change this whole story.
We have no choice but to go with logic, as an alternative does not exist. I am aware of a couple of instances where logic fails, but these exceptions are few and far between. So I go with logic, and then rigorous scrutiny by others.

QM (and to some degree double slits and PAP-see John Wheeler) has also taught us that there is such a thing as an open system in the universe. — 3017amen

Wheeler was stumped at defining the boundary of a boundary. - If the universe is a closed system, how thick is its boundary? It could be infinitely thin or infinitely thick. It can not be defined - what is the boundary of a boundary? :smile: Huge problem for entropy based understanding, imo.

I have appropriated the determinism of Neil Theise, which is determinism with a slight element of randomness. The randomness is necessary for emergence. The domino must fall, but may fall with a slight tilt to the left or right, thus causing emergence in its path. We can see this play out with Covid19, there is a general thrust with a slight random element causing mutation and novel attributes. This works well for organic systems - for evolution and natural selection. I think it would fit with how you have put it.

I imagine thoughts in consciousness are subject to the same determinism. They depend on already established knowledge ( main thrust ) but there must be an element of randomness given the complexity we are dealing with, and given new information is always being accumulated. I think it is important to understand that it is not a fixed, but a dynamically evolving system.

But what do these thoughts represent? Are they images, and intellectual concepts (among other things) from sense experience only coming back to 'haunt us'? Or are they innate features of consciousness (novel synthetic a priori knowledge), where in this case, they may simply be both. Does the hard drive represent Kantian intuition? — 3017amen

My understanding most closely aligns with idealism. It's a natural progression from constructivism, where knowledge is accumulated piece by piece, and any subsequent knowledge has to fit into the already constructed system of knowledge. This system of knowledge really is the world - the world being understood in terms of this knowledge. But this is just one way to put it together, and we all self organize in relation to the many and varied information surrounding us, so consciousness being the integrated form of this information is incredibly varied. The thoughts and images in your mind are relevant to your self organization, but perhaps not mine? or visa versa. Communication is the natural regulator of this.

Thanks for the kind words. I can say I also enjoy reading your philosophy. Tell me more about Kantian intuition, and perhaps I can add more.

we have some pockets where this "order" appears. — Manuel

That is how I understand it also - there are pockets of order. The entropy argument needs a universal boundary, and as I mentioned to 3017amen John Wheeler could not find one - the logical problem being a boundary of a boundary, but, imo, there is just not enough information about this whole area to make any definite conclusions. That the universe is self organized is a fair enough statement, imo. What we see of it is organized, but evolving and changing of course.

I'm not sure speaking of objects or creatures organizing is clear. Maybe they do, but what does organize mean in this situation? — Manuel

This video is a little long - sorry, but if you are really interested it gives a good idea of the current state of research.

Well, he does not "identify God with the whole of nature" and those scholars who repeat that are just patently wrong as any brief acquaintance with Ethics, section I Of God shows, to wit: only Substance (natura naturans) is "divine" (causa sui) and not its Modes (natura naturata) – so not "the whole of nature" (i.e. not pantheism) – because the latter, as pointed out, can be conceived of as nonexistent whereas the former, substance, cannot be without self-contradiction. Furthermore, he even dumbs it down for the slower ones way in the back and spoon-feeds this:

... But some people think the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus rests on the assumption that God is one and the same as ‘Nature’ understood as a mass of corporeal matter. This is a complete mistake. — Spinoza, from letter (73) to Henry Oldenburg

(Emphasis is mine.)

:fire: Finally, Spinoza's formula is Deus, sive natura and
N O T 'natura deus est'. (No pantheism here.)

Are you familiar with Stephen Wolfram's
computational-complexity theses and book exploring them A New Kind of Science? — 180 Proof

Thanks, I'll check it out tonight.

I think if one were to split hairs, the esoteric definitions or distinctions you posit would still not preclude the most obvious interpretation of his substances, and the concrete things as found in nature.

Albeit in a different context (contingency and determinism) his most salient distinctions incorporate pantheism as his so-called axiomatic means and methods used in his philosophy:

Ip29): " In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way."

Whatever, man. :sweat:

This video is a little long - sorry, but if you are really interested it gives a good idea of the current state of research. — Pop

I'll check it out. Thanks.

In what ways do they "represent a threat to the status quo"? By "status quo" do you mean 'of any historical era' or only 'of the current era'? — 180 Proof

I see the status quo as Materialism, Realism and the idea that metaphysics is hopeless and mysticism is irrelevant to philosophy. I subscribed to the Journal of Consciousness Studies for three years and saw perhaps two mentions of the mystic teachings. They are not considered 'scientific' so three millennia of research is dispatched to the dustbin. Then researchers wonder why they cannot make any progress. It means the literature of this new 'science' is not worth reading. .

Why are they so badly "taught in academia"? Is it better to learn them outside the academy? With (a) teacher(s) or in a small, dialectical, circle of seekers or autodidactally?

They are badly taught because there are no teachers around to do the job. I've never met an academic philosopher with a decent grasp of either topic. I;ve spoken to one or two academics who do, but not from the philosophy department. The problem is the absence of the idea of Unity. Heidegger blames this absence on the post-Socratics. Whatever the reason it cripples the Western tradition of philosophical thought.

Yes, better to learn philosophy outside the walls of the Academy. There is little understanding of it on the inside. Indeed. the claim that metaphysics is comprehensible would probably be considered heretical. . . . .

I would vote for the autodidactic approach every time. This is the philosophical equivalent of the Buddha's advice to 'be a lamp unto yourself'. . .

In a sentence or two – describe metaphysics.

The study of fundamental questions.

In a sentence or two – describe mysticism

.
The art of union with reality.

(I wonder how convergent with or divergent from your conceptions of metaphysics & mysticism my conceptions are (to be provided for comparison) – and both of our conceptions may seem in comparison to the Platonic-Aristotlean (i.e. "onto-theological") tradition – in order to better understand the points you're making.)

After Plato this tradition became just a series of footnotes, as Whitehead pots out. It has never made a yard of progress. But a proper comparison would take a month. One is dualism, the other non-dualism, and never the twain shall meet. .


.

Just curious as to your take on this. Do you think Kantian intuition, noumenon, etc. is closely related to Christian Revelation (revelatory knowledge about a novel thing)? — 3017amen

Yes! The underlying idea is that Reality is a Unity as described by the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Kant got most of the way there but we have to go beyond Kant for an understanding of the noumenal. .
. .

I'm not sure I'm following that. If we could create something from nothing, to posit meaninglessness, frankly, would not even be an issue or concern.

Ex nihilo creation is logically absurd. Thus if it is true the universe is logically absurd. It would then be incomprehensible and mysticism would not exist. If the idea is that God created it from nothing then this is not an ex nihilo theory.

Sure, no exceptions taken. But that assumes other 'logically' possible worlds existing. Thus the point that Paul makes about the fact that our sense of logic and math may not suffice here.

I see no need to make assumptions, not even about possible worlds. The inability of logic to take us all the way to Truth is not an assumption but an experience. It is demonstrable. One might interpret the history of Western philosophy as a proof. . .

In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole other metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed

No problem. Metaphysics and mysticism cover all universes. They study Reality, not this or that universe. It makes no difference whether there is one or an infinite number. . . .

That would be in conflict with the interpretation of the [Paul's] aforementioned proposition... .

I can't quite follow this point.

By the way, if I suddenly drop out please don;t be offended. I'm struggling to keep up with the discussions having stupidly joined too many. . .

I am still reading your posts and this thread with interest, but,sometimes, I find it better to keep a low profile and be a little cautious about what I say. I try to find safe corners, because I am trying to work through my ideas. But, I am sure that I will interact with you and @3017amen, in this or other threads, because I am extremely interested in metaphysics and mysticism. I am also trying to catch up on my reading, so that I can back up what I am saying with knowledge, rather than wild thoughts.

Ha. I wish I had the good sense to keep a low profile.



.

You are only just beginning to make a known presence on the site. I burst onto this site 8 months ago and have been involved in probably more conversations than I should have got involved in, or started. I have created about 15 threads so far. So, I am trying to slow down, but I have just noticed that a thread on Jung has been started, so I will probably not be able to resist getting involved in that one. At least, it will deter me from creating a new thread for a bit, and I am still involved in my mysteries thread. I wish you the best for the discussion in the Buddhist epistemology thread.

"In a sentence or two – describe metaphysics."

The study of fundamental questions.

"In a sentence or two – describe mysticism."

The art of union with reality. — FrancisRay

I'm not taking issue with your succinct descriptions, I'll just state my own in order for us to be clearer as to how much or little understanding we share so that we can proceed (I hope) fruitfully.

I understand metaphysics as 'the apophatic contemplation of strictly logical membership-rules for the Null Set as criteria for negating (i.e. eliminating) unreals from any conception of the real'.

I understand mysticism as 'daily meditations on nonbeing' as a way of life. — 180 Proof

(NB: again understandings (from my practices): contemplation – exclusive, prolonged, reflective attention to the structural modalities of an external / abstract object or process; meditation – irreflective attention to any internal process of inattention in order to reduce inattention to nothing-but-attention, or attention-without-object.)

After Plato this tradition became just a series of footnotes, as Whitehead po[in]ts out. It has never made a yard of progress .. — FrancisRay

Yes, I think that's because metaphysics from Aristotle onward (even Neo-platonisn) has been kataphatic and therefore, like postulated axioms, such metaphysical concepts/categories can be disagreed with, set aside and/or replaced with others which 'generate' alternative, usually incommensurable, worldviews (like e.g. non-euclidean geometries).

Fascinating how wildly views can vary. I think we're too far apart to communicate across the gulf, and I wouldn't want to make the topics so complicated, but I've enjoyed the chat. So far I've found this a very good forum, ...

:up: Same. Maybe we'll chat again.

Tell me more about Kantian intuition, and perhaps I can add more. — Pop

In keeping with your theme of self-organization (logic), here's a simple example of Kant's (and Socratic) intuition that many of us can relate to... .

Say you're wanting to know what 786 x 452 is. By sense experience we can look at a math equation or be asked about a math problem and intuitively know that, in this case, a large number will result. Kids, supposedly learn very early before pre-school to add and subtract seemingly based on their sensory perceptions of spatial relationships with visualizing things. So that is something not really novel.

It's not novel because it can be argued that we already intuitively know those math answers generally speaking. Which would be different than a mystical or revelatory experience that presents something to us that is entirely or truly novel. However, the metaphysical explanation concerning the former form of intuition, is that we have a fixed, innate (computer hardware v. software metaphor) hardwired aspect from our consciousness that allows for intuition to even occur. But again, some argue that's all just memory recall.

Then to consider the questions about why or what that represents, or what the nature of that ability is, remains a mystery. And so we obviously know that lower life forms have a rudimentary ability to compute math, but not at the higher levels that we do. Why? How did that develop? Why can't lower life forms develop their evolutionary math skills into those of homo sapiens? Is it because we are self-aware Beings (lower life forms have little so-called self-awareness v. pure instinct)? What is self-awareness? Is it something to do with metaphysical Will? An intrinsic need to know something? A sixth sense?

I think that much can be said about synthetic a priori propositions about the world in which we live. As I've said many times, without this hungry need to know things, even our technological advances from building cars, buildings, and the like, to improving a curriculum in college, art or music, would suffer tremendously.

As an important ancillary note, please know that music theory and mathematics confer no biological survival advantages. Alternatively, it seems we must ask meaning of life questions when discussing the nature of reality (ontologically speaking-in this case our forms of intuition) because we can't help it. Are we here by accident? Those/these fixed metaphysical features of consciousness (will, mathematics, musical ability, ad nauseum) we don't need to survive in the jungle. And we certainly don't need the laws of gravity to dodge falling objects.

Is ignorance bliss? Why should we care? Sorry I got carried away :joke:

As an important ancillary note, please know that music theory and mathematics confer no biological survival advantages. Alternatively, it seems we must ask meaning of life questions when discussing the nature of reality (ontologically speaking-in this case our forms of intuition) because we can't help it. Are we here by accident? — 3017amen

:100: :100: on the "advantage" angle, that's exactly right. Maybe the enjoyment of music is a kind of mutation or side effect in which, after certain creatures have some "off time", nature had to provide something to wade of boredom. Maybe music is the result? Total handwaving, I know.

I've had this quote stuck on my mind today, dunno why. But you gave me an opening to state it, since you mention music. :wink:

I think that, in many instances such as "meaning questions", Louis Armstrong's phrase can be applied:

“If you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know."

I think that, in many instances such as "meaning questions", Louis Armstrong's phrase can be applied:

“If you gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know. — Manuel

Ha, love it! (Gee , btw, what is love-don't get me started LOL)

Back at-cha:

If it sounds good; it IS good-Miles Davis

(That btw, was in response to too many musicians getting all twisted-up over music theory; diatonic scales/harmony, chords used for different/wrong key signatures. You know, analyze till you paralyze… .) Another Gee, is that what we're doing here, I wonder?

If it sounds good; it IS good-Miles Davis

That btw, was in response to too many musicians getting all twisted-up over music theory; diatonic scales/harmony, chords used for different/wrong key signatures. You know, analyze till you paralyze… .) Another Gee, is that what we're doing here, I wonder? — 3017amen

:up:

Davis is correct here too, if you like it then it's good. Simple as that.

Perhaps, on the music theory part.

In relation to metaphysics, I think that there is a difference between someone simply saying "It's all just one" and actually looking at different ideas, comparing and contrasting, talking to people, experiencing things and then saying "It's all one", or any other such idea.

If you press me, I cannot give better justification. But it seems to me to be the case.

Or, we could just get out of the fly bottle.

I like both being in and getting out.

I like both being in and getting out. — Manuel

Yep, me too! Well said.

Another Maslonian mantra assoc. w/the dangers of dichotomizing things. Life is not like engineering, where if its not A, the building falls down. But rather, living life, more often than not (*consciousness/subconsciousness) is both A AND B!

(*And an illogical mix of same LOL)

But rather, living life, more often than not (*consciousness/subconsciousness) is both A AND B! — 3017amen

Yeah, making sense of things has always been not trivial for me too. :chin:

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion,
— 3017amen

How is religion a natural/physical science? When did it become one?

Eleventh time asking. Why are you afraid to answer? What are you afraid of?

Mr Wood,

Sorry, I've hit the pass and go button. Not sure what else to tell you....

Be well my friend!

↪Pop Are you familiar with Stephen Wolfram's
computational-complexity theses and book exploring them A New Kind of Science? — 180 Proof

Thanks for the referral. Wolfram is an interesting thinker, I will pursue his ideas some more. He doesn't quite use the words self organization, but is interested in the rules that cause the order from which the universe grows out of. Reading between the lines, I think he believes an AI can sift through the mountains of data to find the few simple fundamental rules that everything is based on. Perhaps that will be so. The experience at CERN , 51 Hedrons later and still going, is that the standard model is very deep indeed, and it will be some time yet, If ever, that we might reach the bottom. But I wonder even at the current level of resolution, are we looking at matter, or is this really just patterns of energy and information interacting to ultimately cause matter? What do you think?

Are you familiar with mathematical biology and ecology? These are subjects that have recently emerged on the back of Turing patterns. The short story is that that chemicals interacting self organize to form functional patterns - that give protection to the animal / creature. And what is really exciting is that patterns underlie nature, and they may be mathematically modelled. The great advantage of a mathematical model is that if the model does not align with observation, parameters can be adjusted, and continually adjusted until the model aligns. This is great news for philosophy as it validates the view that patterns of interacting energy and chemistry are fundamental, and it seems mathematics will bring this point home.

All this generally aligns with complexity theory and the view that fluctuating patterns of energy are fundamental. What is not normally stated is that these fluctuating patterns of energy are self organizing within an evolutionary framework, where natural selection picks what survives and what doesn't. And then the question arises - is this a form of mind? If this is fundamental, then it is present in everything subsequent to it, including human consciousness, and not excluding anything.

Yeah, I'm familiar with all kinds of complexity / systems theories. What Wolfram set out to do, however, is truly radical and much more fundamental than biological or ecological 'self-organization'. I'm not completely sold, however, on his grand project but I've kept an eye on (some of) his work for over a decade now and, as I've learned more from him and physicists like Carlo Rovelli, David Deutsch and Max Tegmark (among others), I've become more interested in the lines of inquiry they're pursuing.

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. This is to do with epistemology. I take my cue from Piaget's constructivism which was developed mainly through a study of childhood cognitive development. Piaget observed that children of certain ages were capable of perceiving certain things, which they were not capable of perceiving at a younger age. He narrowed it down to stages of perceptual development, linking brain growth with perception, but also the accumulation of knowledge piece by piece - the greater the body of knowledge, the greater the ability to analyze and perceive. It has been extensively studied across countries and cultures, and the prevailing view is that perceptual abilities develop in stages, where stage one needs to be experienced in order to go onto stage two, etc. Each stage resulting in a better functioning perception.

I have confidence in this approach as it is scientific and has been replicated by others . Kant is a Genius , of course, but I have doubts about some of these older philosophers because they simply did not have this extra information available to them in their time.

I believe consciousness is composed of DNA data, experience, and point in space time ( relativity ). When a bush turkey hatches it leaves its nest straight away, already knowing all it needs to survive, all of its knowledge is contained in DNA. This would not work for humanity, since each generation is born into a quite different social environment. It takes some time for experience to imprint its stamp on brain development and for a functional consciousness to develop, such that can effectively partake in our complex societies. DNA, I think, would contribute to the form of thought, but the content would mostly come from experience, and point in space.

Why can't lower life forms develop their evolutionary math skills into those of homo sapiens? Is it because we are self-aware Beings (lower life forms have little so-called self-awareness v. pure instinct)? What is self-awareness? Is it something to do with metaphysical Will? An intrinsic need to know something? A sixth sense? — 3017amen

These are big questions. Lets instead ask how self aware are human beings? To be truly self aware, I think, one needs a theory of everything to compare oneself against. We don't have that - we have various beliefs, and beliefs are not part of the set of truths. If I am self aware one way and you are self aware in another way, can it be said we are self aware?

Is ignorance bliss? Why should we care? Sorry I got carried away :joke: — 3017amen

I think about this myself - If you could find a theory of everything but it was ugly, would you want it? Wouldn't it be wiser to take the Yogic cue and just create a pleasant reality, for no reason at all? Personally, thinking about all this stuff is not entirely unpleasant, and I guess ultimately it gives me more options of how to self organize. :razz:

↪Pop Yeah, I'm familiar with all kinds of complexity / systems theories. What Wolfram set out to do, however, is truly radical and much more fundamental than biological or ecological 'self-organization'. I'm not completely sold, however, on his grand project but I've kept an eye on (some of) his work for over a decade now and, as I've learned more from him and physicists like Carlo Rovelli, David Deutsch and Max Tegmark (among others), I've become more interested in the lines of inquiry they're pursuing. — 180 Proof

Yeah, I will definitely look into him some more, Thanks.

He talks complexity , but it seems he really wants to analyze and reduce, and who wouldn't, but I wonder whether AI will be so concerned with what it concludes at the most fundamental level. Fluctuating energy waves is not very satisfying from an anthropocentric point of view. I prefer to call it information and energy causing the emergence of matter. The question is why should it self organize in the first place? Forces acting on things does nor necessarily mean things have to integrate - but they do.
As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts?