I re-read William James from time to time. He was from a different epoch in history, very much idealist in today's terms, before Western philosophy turned its back on idealism. His Varieties of Religious Experience is still a standard text in comparative religion. Anyway I thought his 'radical empiricism' worth mentioning in light of the discussion about empiricism and non-dualism.

That's not my understanding of scientific practice. Science certainly does not "study itself". Again, you got examples? There must be countless many if, as say, "it's the basis of science".

Objective, measurable, repeatable. Keywords of scientific method.

Wow.

You:
Does scientific experimentation involve abstracting and limiting variables from natural contexts

ChatGPT
Yes, scientific experimentation often involves abstracting and limiting variables from natural contexts in order to isolate and control the factors being studied. This process is known as experimental control and is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method. By manipulating and controlling variables, scientists aim to establish cause-and-effect relationships and draw reliable conclusions from their experiments.


It's so fundamental to the essence of science that it barely even warrants comment. Scientists study the effects that they are able to cause. In essence, science studies the practical causal powers of the human mind doing science.

If we're speaking about Middle Way Buddhism then I'd say 100% sure. I'd bet my life on it. — FrancisRay

Do you have no concerns that this could be labeled an almost fundamentalist or evanhellical position to take? My 0.0001% credence level that a god exists, is my very important defense against an accusation that I am a fanatical atheist ( folks like @Jamal have accused me of being a fanatic on certain issues in the past.)

In one of his sermons Meister Eckhart, a Christian Bishop, pledges his soul on it. — FrancisRay

I give a similar 0.0001% credence to the proposal that humans have a soul. There is currently zero evidence to support such a claim.

This indicated that his confidence was grounded in knowledge and not speculation. — FrancisRay

For me, this is another example of the 'jumps' you seem to make. Perhaps 'leaps of faith,' might be a more appropriate and less offensive phrase. I think such 'leaps of faith' are based on pure speculation and certainly not any 'knowledge' that Mr Eckhart could have demonstrated as fact.
If you, me and Mr Eckhart, were in the same room with each other (just a fun thought experiment), what do you think he could have said or done to convince me that your 'middle way Buddhism,' was the most important 'truth' about the universe? As a Catholic from the 13th-14th century, I reckon he would want us both burned at the stake. Me for my apostacy and you for your heathen Buddhism!

I don't believe any phenomenon is supernatural and nor do any mystics. — FrancisRay

I think all mystics are theosophists, and must accept such characters as Rasputin and Aliester Crowley as members. They believe in 'magic,' but I accept that many mystics see the transcendental or the esoteric as hidden (occultist) knowledge about the physics/workings of the universe that scientists have yet to discover. I don't think that this is true in any way, shape or form, but I accept that is a point of view held by many 'mystics.'

As for God, in mysticism He is explained as misinterpreted meditative experience. — FrancisRay

So, god, the mere product of a speculative human imagination then. If that's the case, then we have common ground in that viewpoint.

Okay/. Here goes. First - would you agree that all metaphysical questions are undecidable, and that this is because all their extreme answers are logically indefensible? This can be verified from a survey of philosophers, or by working through a number of such questions. If so, then I'll move on the to the next step of a proof. . . . — FrancisRay

'The next step of a proof! Wow! I can only be excited by such a claim! Do you realise that if you have such a proof that 'middle way Buddhism,' IS the facts about the nature and workings of the universe, then you could be up for a Nobel prize in the future?
I look forward to your 'next step,' I genuinely do, I am not attempting to ridicule by stealth here.

The 'all metaphysical questions are undecidable,' prerequisite is problematic for me in a similar way that you cited difficulty in your exchange with @180 Proof when you typed:

Okay. I was providing a starting point for further discussion but did not make this clear. I cannot answer the second part of 180 Proof's question without some preliminary philosophical chat. — FrancisRay

I also require some preliminary philosophical chat regarding the imo, very overburdened term 'metaphysical.' My example would be, would you say that when Copernicus challenged the geocentric model with his heliocentric model, he was making a metaphysical claim, due to comparison with the accepted/orthodox physics of his time? The heliocentric model then became the accepted/orthodox physics, due to the subsequent overwhelming evidence to support it. So, that which may well be labeled metaphysical, as it is sooooo contrary to the accepted physics of the time, can become accepted physics, once sufficient evidence is demonstrated in support.
In this sense, string theory, CCC, many worlds theory, and even Sheldrakes morphic resonance etc, could all be labeled metaphysical, in the sense that they are projections of physics 'above' or 'beyond' currently accepted experimentally demonstrable, predictive, falsifiable physics.
If this is an acceptable use of the term 'metaphysics' then this would suggest that some questions that might be categorised under the overburdened term of metaphysics are not 'undecidable.'
BUT, please don't let that mean that you will not offer the second step of your proof!

In my opinion, when someone makes an appeal to a particular doctrine they should provide an explanation of what it is being said and how they understand it. Looking back I see 180 Proof makes this point. — Fooloso4

I fully agree.

There is no empirical method for proving that consciousness exists. — FrancisRay

{quote]You are claiming to know a fact that you cannot possibly know. The recent work by folks like Stuart Hameroff in conjunction with Roger Penrose. An attempt to find common ground between quantum mechanics and human consciousness, demonstrates to me, that we will always tug against your statement above. I think it's unwise to think that the scientific method will never crack at least the 'how' of human consciousness. — universeness

I stated a fact. There is no empirical method for proving consciousness exists. It's called the 'other minds' problem and is very well known.The unfalsifiability of solipsism is further proof. What I said is scientifically uncontentious. If you're uncertain then try to design an experiment to prove the presence of consciousness. It cannot be done. .

In what way is behaviorism or its past popularity proof that there is no empirical method that can prove consciousness exists?

By reducing conscious states to behaviour one can then claim behaviour is not evidence of consciousness. This is Daniel Dennett's strategy in 'Consciousness Explained'. He can adopt this approach because there is no empirical test for consciousness,but just behaviour that may or may not signify its presence. . ,

.

Are you suggesting that a newborn human, maintained physically (perhaps by non-communicative machines,) but not interacted with by any other sentient, would not be conscious?

Of course not.

A science of consciousness would require a study of the actual phenomenon, and not just a lot of speculation. — FrancisRay

I don't understand this sentence. You are surely not suggesting that neuroscience is 'just a lot of speculation.' That would be a bit irrational IMO. In what way does neuroscience, not study 'the actual phenomenon?'

Neuroscience studies brains. It is unable to prove that consciousness exists. It has to rely on first-person reports, To paraphrase one neuroscientist (Kaufman) 'Looking for consciousness in the brain is like digging into the Earth in search of gravity'.' .


The study of the actual phenomenon is called mysticism. — FrancisRay

typed in two search engine questions:
'What name is given to the study of the phenomenon of consciousness?' and I got sentences such as:
Consciousness is currently a thriving area of research in psychology and neuroscience.
In philosophy of mind, the hard problem of consciousness is to explain why and how humans and other organisms have qualia, phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experiences.
“Consciousness” is the name that scientists give to a phenomenon of brain function.{/quote]

There is no empirical way to study consciousness. It's a thriving area of speculation.by people who cannot even solve the hard problem.and believe consciousness is a brain function. So far this hands-off approach has explained exactly nothing. . . . . .

Next, I tried 'Is the study of the actual phenomenon of consciousness called mysticism?'
I read this extract from here, as an attempt by someone called
Bryce Haymond, in Sept 2019, to link the study of consciousness with mysticism.
I have underlined the sentences that I think the author is trying to propose are important 'concepts.'

The Mysticism of the Hard Problem of Consciousness
The hard problem of consciousness may lead us to an irreducible mysticism in the nature of the mind and body, namely that they are two sides of the very same one thing....

.

This is not what I mean by 'mysticism'. Haymond is using the word to mean 'unknowable'. I'm talking about the a method and practice that gives rise to what Huxley calls the Perennial philosophy.

Many people today seem to believe that the brain causes conscious experience, as a friend recently expressed it to me: "I don’t understand any literal concept of mind that isn’t physical."

His friend is not alone. I don't see the relevance of his friend's lack of imagination. . .

In other words, it is thought that neurons in the brain fire (have an electro-chemically triggered action potential), which cause us to experience something. The neurons firing is the cause of what we experience. It’s thought that the mind is basically physical, and that physicality is the source of all conscious experience. This might be called materialism or physicalism, that everything reduces to the physical cosmos, including consciousness.

Yes. This is the view I'm suggesting is nonsense. There is no evidence that it's not nonsense. Fortunately materialism is revealed to be nonsense by metaphysics. My uncompromising view is that a person who cannot work out that materialism is logically absurd does not have the skills to be a serious philosopher. . . .
.

But neither has ever actually been shown to be the case. Science currently knows of no causal mechanism or connection whatsoever that explains how firing neurons cause conscious experiences, or vice versa.

Exactly. There is no empirical method to decide this question.

For example, how does a network of firing neurons cause our experience of the color red, or the taste of chocolate? No one knows. Or, conversely, how does the smell of coffee cause a storm of neural activity in the brain? No one knows.

This dilemma has been called the “hard problem of consciousness.” We simply do not know how or why firing neurons and conscious qualia (experience) are related, or if one even causes the other.

Yes. No idea at all. The physical sciences do not have the methods required to settle such issues.

...This may be what is known in philosophy as dual-aspect monism (or double-aspect theory), which may be closely related to dialectical monism (or dualistic monism).

Neither of which is mysticism. .

This is a radical possibility, because it also means that mind and matter/energy are at some level one and the same entity, and not two separate things as we often think. In the spiritual traditions they might express this same reality by saying that spirit and body are one.

Descartes thought they were one. Mysticism says they don't really exists. The whole idea is to transcend body and mind for the truth about consciousness.

So to return to my friend’s statement, “I don’t understand any literal concept of mind that isn’t physical,” I replied,I don’t understand any concept of mind that is physical. Mind is non-physical (or spiritual). Brain is physical.

He can hold this view because there is no empirical test for consciousness. It might as well be immaterial. . .

However, and this is perhaps a paradox that can never be fully understood, I think the spiritual and physical, mind and body, consciousness and matter/energy, are One.

This is not a paradox and it's well understood. Does he not read the literature?.

The cosmos and consciousness are perhaps One, the Holy (Wholly) One, as attested by so many spiritual and mystical traditions throughout history. The physical and spiritual sides to this One may be irreducible manifestations of its singular Self. And we are That Divine Self.

Yes. As far as anybody knows something like this is the case.

The words I have emboldened above are part of the problem of using a word like mysticism. The Christians will often use the door to sneak their irrational god of the gap jumps into a discussion about neuroscience and not mysticism. I see no compelling reason at all to connect the study of human consciousness to the word mysticism, especially when even places like Wikipedia define the word as:

If he sees no compelling reason then clearly he's not read a book on the topic. For the Perennial philosophy consciousness is fundamental and this is what we discover by studying it scientifically, as opposed to speculating about it or poking around in brains. . .

Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning.

It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

I assume you prefer the second description. I don't see much value in either of them and I see a lot of problems with the crossover between the two.

No - mean both of them, with some tweaks. Yoga in its true form is the art of union with reality. and consciousness and reality would be the same phenomenon. . .

I'm sorry you see no value in them, and find it astonishing. I wonder why you're talking to me about these things when you already know enough to know there's no value in them.

You asked me for a logical argument and I started to provide one, But you've ignored it in order to make a very lengthy series of objections to other ideas to which I've had to respond. This is damn hard work.and I don't see the point. It;s perfectly obvious that science and philosophy have not yet managed to falsify the teachings of three Buddha and Lao Tu, so it's hardly likely you're going to succeed. I find it an odd approach. ,

I also hope that we will not forget the pluralism that Swami Vivekananda had espoused in his 1893 speech in Chicago. — Existential Hope

What do you mean here by your use of 'pluralism?' Is it that we should all remain open to the search for common ground between us, as opposed to becoming completely ossified in our own worldviews?

Hopefully, the snake will not prevent us from seeing the rope. — Existential Hope

Well put, and perhaps we could also notice that the snake has to make effort, to climb the rope, to show that it's possible even for a snake, to reach a higher viewpoint. This is true, despite the biblical curse on its species, that they must forever slide and slither on their bellies on the ground. Keep climbing snakes! Perhaps if we humans keep doing the same, we can (metaphorically) find more common ground in higher places!

universeness is taking a different approach but I suspect he won't get anywhere philosophically interesting with FrancisRay either because there is no there there – just :sparkle: — 180 Proof

I also think that you are a fan, (if perhaps after 8 years, a more jaded fan) of 'try, try, try, try again!'
Imo, it's just too important to do otherwise.

In my opinion, when someone makes an appeal to a particular doctrine they should provide an explanation of what it is being said and how they understand it. Looking back I see 180 Proof makes this point. — Fooloso4


I fully agree. — universeness

So do I.

It predicts that all metaphysical questions are undecidable and gives answers for all such questions. — FrancisRay


Is the answer that there is no answer? If so then 180 and FrancisRay are in agreement. If not then perhaps FrancisRay can tell us what these answers are. — Fooloso4

Sure thing. As Lao Tu says ;True words seem paradoxical. The answer for every metaphysical question is to reject both their extreme answers.This then leads to seemingly paradoxical answers. Thus it is easy to know the answers, albeit difficult to understand them. .

Does the world begin with something or nothing? The answer would be no. Does it begin or not-begin? The answer would be no. Is time real or unreal? The answer would be no, . .

The trick of non-dualism is to see beyond the extreme positions adopted by the questioner, all of which do not survive analysis. As Kant notes, for a fundamental theory we have to see beyond the categories of thought. .

I feel that the burden of explanation being placed on me here is unreasonable. Why not read about these issues? I cannot explain them from scratch on a forum. There has to be some prior knowledge on which I can build. It's all there in the literature. . .
. .

If you're uncertain then try to design an experiment to prove the presence of consciousness. It cannot be done. . — FrancisRay

'Cogito ergo sum,' works for me. Why does it not work for you? Solipsism is absolute nonsense IMO, but I agree hard solipsism cannot be falsified but so what? neither can god be falsified! But that does not stop all god posits being highly unlikely to most rational scrutineers.

By reducing conscious states to behaviour one can then claim behaviour is not evidence of consciousness. This is Daniel Dennett's strategy in 'Consciousness Explained'. He can adopt this approach because there is no empirical test for consciousness,but just behaviour that may or may not signify its presence. . , — FrancisRay

I agree that DD holds that consciousness is only applicable in the 'third person' sense but DD is also a physicalist/naturalist/atheist who also states that:
The physicalists believe, with Dennett, that science can explain consciousness in purely material terms.
World-renowned philosopher Daniel C. Dennett argues that our inner worlds and religious ideas can all be explained as evolutionary functions
You might find this discussion on the philosophy stack exchange about DD's book 'Consciousness Explained,' interesting.

Neuroscience studies brains. It is unable to prove that consciousness exists. — FrancisRay

Theists have been unable to prove god exists in the past around 10,000 years, since it was first posited by humans but they have not given up yet. Neuroscience is much younger than theism, so let's give it at least another 10,000 years (a mere 23 seconds in cosmic calendar time) to prove consciousness exists.

So do I. — FrancisRay

:up:

My uncompromising view is that a person who cannot work out that materialism is logically absurd does not have the skills to be a serious philosopher. — FrancisRay

If you cannot see the assumption-riddled arrogance in that rather emotive and almost evanhellical, irrational claim, then you will begin to see why folks like @180 Proof and I suspect many others, will slam doors in your face. Don't ossify so strongly FrancisRay. If you don't bend sufficiently then you are much easier to break.

I broadly agree with your general lackluster opinion of the Bryce Haymond article. I think he is just trying to use some scientific gaps, to sneak in god posits. :roll:

I'm sorry you see no value in them, and find it astonishing. I wonder why you're talking to me about these things when you already know enough to know there's no value in them. — FrancisRay

That's a very fair and good question. I am exchanging with you about these things for two main reasons:
1. I am as astonished as you about my worldviews, regarding your positive view of anything that belongs under the heading of mysticism and I want to know what your thought process are and how you arrived at such worldviews and why you hold them so strongly and in such high esteem, especially if they influence how you vote and how you relate to your fellow humans (for the good or bad on a case by case basis).
2. I want to be always testing my own worldviews against the logic employed by others and the evidence they have for their own positions. Such exchanges on TPF over the past year or so, have caused me to modify/reform some of my own worldviews. For example, I gave more credence to panpsychism at the start of my membership on TPF than I do now and I was a lot more hesitant to challenge theistic views, dearly and deeply held. Not so much now, as long as my theistic interlocuter is of a stable and strong mindset.

If we're speaking about Middle Way Buddhism then I'd say 100% sure. I'd bet my life on it. — FrancisRay

Do you have no concerns that this could be labeled an almost fundamentalist or evanhellical position to take? — universeness

None whatsoever. I place complete reliance on logic and experience. I'd happily bet my life. . .

My 0.0001% credence level that a god exists, is my very important defense against an accusation that I am a fanatical atheist ( folks like Jamal have accused me of being a fanatic on certain issues in the past.)

I don't go in for idle speculation.or playing the odds. Either I know or I don't,

In one of his sermons Meister Eckhart, a Christian Bishop, pledges his soul on it. — FrancisRay

I give a similar 0.0001% credence to the proposal that humans have a soul. There is currently zero evidence to support such a claim.

You hold this view because you don't understand mysticism. Eckhart had all the evidence he needed or wanted.

This indicated that his confidence was grounded in knowledge and not speculation. — FrancisRay

For me, this is another example of the 'jumps' you seem to make. Perhaps 'leaps of faith,

'

Why? I simply state a fact here. Faith is for theists. The mystic is concerned only with knowledge. . .

might be a more appropriate and less offensive phrase. I think such 'leaps of faith' are based on pure speculation and certainly not any 'knowledge'

Yes, I get this, But you don;t know anything much about mysticism, so your opinion is not informed.

If you, me and Mr Eckhart, were in the same room with each other (just a fun thought experiment), what do you think he could have said or done to convince me that your 'middle way Buddhism,' was the most important 'truth' about the universe?

Nothing. The only way to be convinced is to discover the truth yourself. A person would be a damn fool to believe someone else. I might be able to persuade you that according to reason one theory can be true and Eckhart and I endorse it, but you still wouldn't know it;s;true. . . , . .

As a Catholic from the 13th-14th century, I reckon he would want us both burned at the stake. Me for my apostacy and you for your heathen Buddhism

Eckhart endorsed the nondual doctrine, as do I. He's famous for it, me not so much.

I don't believe any phenomenon is supernatural and nor do any mystics. — FrancisRay

I think all mystics are theosophists, and must accept such characters as Rasputin and Aliester Crowley as members.

Why do you leap to conclusions about a topic you don't study and think is not worth studying. By the time theosophy was invented mysticism had been around for thousands of years.

They believe in 'magic,' but I accept that many mystics see the transcendental or the esoteric as hidden (occultist) knowledge about the physics/workings of the universe that scientists have yet to discover.

I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense.
.

Okay/. Here goes. First - would you agree that all metaphysical questions are undecidable, and that this is because all their extreme answers are logically indefensible? This can be verified from a survey of philosophers, or by working through a number of such questions. If so, then I'll move on the to the next step of a proof. . . . — FrancisRay

'The next step of a proof! Wow! I can only be excited by such a claim! Do you realise that if you have such a proof that 'middle way Buddhism,' IS the facts about the nature and workings of the universe, then you could be up for a Nobel prize in the future?
I look forward to your 'next step,' I genuinely do, I am not attempting to ridicule by stealth here.

I'm was going to make the same logical proof that Nagarjuna famously makes in the second century, It;s quite an easy one as far as his results go. But like 180 Proof you do not answer my question but start arguing about other things. This leaves me unable to move on.

[quote[The 'all metaphysical questions are undecidable,' prerequisite is problematic for me /quote]

What;s the problem? Is the history of philosophy not proof enough?

I feel it would be best if we ended the discussion.here . since for me it's like wading through treacle and I suspect it's a waste of time.

I hope you won't be offended but I'm going to retire from the thread once I've finished this post.. .

also require some preliminary philosophical chat regarding the imo, very overburdened term 'metaphysical.' My example would be, would you say that when Copernicus challenged the geocentric model with his heliocentric model, he was making a metaphysical claim,

What's metaphysical about it? If you think this then yes. your idea of metaphysics is non-ordinary. .

due to comparison with the accepted/orthodox physics of his time? The heliocentric model then became the accepted/orthodox physics, due to the subsequent overwhelming evidence to support it. So, that which may well be labeled metaphysical, as it is sooooo contrary to the accepted physics of the time, can become accepted physics, once sufficient evidence is demonstrated in support.
In this sense, string theory, CCC, many worlds theory, and even Sheldrakes morphic resonance etc, could all be labeled metaphysical, in the sense that they are projections of physics 'above' or 'beyond' currently accepted experimentally demonstrable, predictive, falsifiable physics.
If this is an acceptable use of the term 'metaphysics' then this would suggest that some questions that might be categorised under the overburdened term of metaphysics are not 'undecidable.'
BUT, please don't let that mean that you will not offer the second step of your proof!

You don't half make things complicated. Metaphysics is the study of fundamental questions. .
.
I cannot move on unless you agree that metaphysical questions (questions about the fundamental nature of reality) are undecidable. There would be no point. It's such a simple point. Why do think logical positivism exists? It;s because all fundamental questions are undecidable.

Anyway, enough said. I apologise for being unable to find a way through all this muddle and complexity, and wish you all the best, but will now retire defeated. I may just respond quickly to your next post before I go. . . .

I feel that the burden of explanation being placed on me here is unreasonable. — FrancisRay

I don't think it's the burden of proof, as much as the request to explain what you mean. And this if from someone who has a very similar philosophical orientation. You tend towards sweeping statements 'As Kant notes' you say, omitting the fact that what Kant said about that precise issue constitutes some of the most difficult passages in the history of Western philosophy. 'Oh yes, everyone here will obviously know what I mean'. Afraid not.

The fact that we are involved in a "discussion" proves that consciousness exists. If you dispute that, well then, your "disputation" doesn't exist since it exemplifies a conscious function.

You don't have to beg the question of whether it is possible to ask questions.

If you cannot see the assumption-riddled arrogance in that rather emotive and almost evanhellical, irrational claim, then you will begin to see why folks like 180 Proof and I suspect many others, will slam doors in your face. Don't ossify so strongly FrancisRay. If you don't bend sufficiently then you are much easier to break.[/quot

I feel the same about people who think the earth is flat. It's an inabiliiy to think the issues through.

I understand why you think I'm, being dogmatic, but this is my view and I;m sticking to it. Materialism is for people who are incapable of understanding metaphysics, just as a flat earth is for people who are incapable of understanding astronomy. . . — universeness

Unfortunately, my work schedule has become increasingly hectic over the past few months (which is why I haven't been as active here as I once was). — Existential Hope

You gotta pay them bills my friend, so I fully understand. I have the joy of being currently financially stable and retired so, I can spend more time engaging in on-line chatter.

I remain doubtful that the foreseeable future will herald a change. — Existential Hope

Yeah, I think we are still a toddler species but words from past humans such as Carl Sagan, continue to reinforce me:

"We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each new generation, asked anew with undiminished wonder. What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars."

Perhaps we will have to linger a little longer on the shores of the cosmic ocean after all.
Sorry Carl, we are just not as good as you thought we were, not quite yet anyway!

I understand why you think I'm, being dogmatic, but this is my view and I;m sticking to it. — universeness

Then continue to expect me and my like to challenge you.

I feel that the burden of explanation being placed on me here is unreasonable. — FrancisRay

I disagree.

Why do you leap to conclusions about a topic you don't study and think is not worth studying. By the time theosophy was invented mysticism had been around for thousands of years. — FrancisRay

As you might expect, I completely reject your suggestion that I do not have a deep enough understanding of mysticism. I am not an expert in it but I would question the proposal that there is enough substantive concepts under the title 'mystic' to warrant any title as academically high as 'expert,' except perhaps in the 'history of mysticism.'

I feel it would be best if we ended the discussion.here . since for me it's like wading through treacle and I suspect it's a waste of time.

I hope you won't be offended but I'm going to retire from the thread once I've finished this post.. . — FrancisRay

No, I am not offended at all, thank you for even having such a concern. I enjoyed the exchange between us. It's a pity you are too fatigued or exasperated to continue.
For me, you have not offered any compelling arguments or evidence to support your claims and you seem to be attracted more to the esoteric than to what I would label 'reality.'
I think your worldviews are built on a very unsound foundation, but at least we have a little common ground in that I think the baseline of adviata (nondualism) is more plausible than dviata (dualism).

I am not trying to play @180 Proof's bulldog here. I simply value him as an interlocuter because I like the way he challenges me and others. I cannot be offended by the 'short shrift' he offers some on occasion as I can react in a similar way myself sometimes and he has been here for 8 years and I am sure you both agree that there are a lot of woo woo bullshitters who have passed through TPF in that time.

We all have our supporters and dissenters on TPF. I certainly have more dissenters than supporters of my worldviews on this site. But that comes with the territory, yes?
I have not witnessed the mods on this site complain much about 180 Proof's manner of exchanging with other members, so, if he challenges you, then just keep taking on his challenge, if you think you can.

Yes, scientific experimentation often involves abstracting and limiting variables from natural contexts in order to isolate and control the factors being studied. — Pantagruel

For what it's worth, In my opinion, as a Computer scientist and educator, when it comes to individual scientific projects, I think this is correct. But in the broadest sense of the scientific approach, science is the study of 'everything.' I suppose that is also almost a given, that needs little comment.

The fact that some of the greatest minds in history can have been completely mistaken about basic scientific concepts doesn't in any way detract from the cogency of their thought. Odds are no one on this forum has got everything "quite right." In fact, the more complex your argument, the more likely there are to be errors in the details, statistically speaking. "It's raining and Julie's hair is wet" is statistically less likely to be true than "It's raining" because those two events may not be correlated. But human nature is to interpret the more complex apparent truth as more reliable.

Bottom line, it's not just about what is said but also about how it is presented. Thoughtfulness has value.

For what it's worth, In my opinion, as a Computer scientist and educator, when it comes to individual scientific projects, I think this is correct. But in the broadest sense of the scientific approach, science is the study of 'everything.' I suppose that is also almost a given, that needs little comment. — universeness

Sure, there is "observational science." But that is essentially just observation. Experimental science is far more typical, far more paradigmatic of what is meant by science, historically and now. And for experimental science, my observations are valid.

:sweat: Gotcha, it's so basic or fundamental to science that you can't provide a single example.

Interestingly, just listened to a podcast which was a debate between Michael Shermer and Sheldrake.

I thought Sheldrake won the debate, despite basically feeling the same as yourself about his work. Think he and Chalmers could probably figure a more respectable version of his assertions if they cracked heads together. — AmadeusD

I saw that recently on YouTube and intended to watch it, Thanks for the reminder of it, it's back on my top 10 to watch as soon as I can.

Bottom line, it's not just about what is said but also about how it is presented. Thoughtfulness has value. — Pantagruel

Agreed.

Well, how about a really simple experiment such as testing the validity of speed = distance/time.
Is there not restriction here? Such as ignoring speed = distance/(time + any delay caused by unexpected factors?) The formula is accurate in idealised conditions. Is that always stated in the education books? This 'delay' variable is normally ignored, yes?

A better example might be the time dilation formula T=To/√1−(v2/c2). If you consider V2 as getting closer and closer to light speed then you can get a time dilation result, which is more than the predicted time for the heat death of the universe. As V squared gets closer and closer to light speed, the result gets closer and closer to To/0, an infinite time dilation!

What do you mean here by your use of 'pluralism?' Is it that we should all remain open to the search for common ground between us, as opposed to becoming completely ossified in our own worldviews? — universeness

Yes, I think that we should pursue the avoidance of the construction of too many fences and appreciate what unites us (including but not limited to the value of the truth as one understands it and the maintenance of genuine relationships).

Well put, and perhaps we could also notice that the snake has to make effort, to climb the rope, to show that it's possible even for a snake, to reach a higher viewpoint. This is true, despite the biblical curse on its species, that they must forever slide and slither on their bellies on the ground. Keep climbing snakes! Perhaps if we humans keep doing the same, we can (metaphorically) find more common ground in higher places! — universeness

:clap:

You gotta pay them bills my friend, so I fully understand. I have the joy of being currently financially stable and retired so, I can spend more time engaging in on-line chatter. — universeness

I will show this portion of your reply to you the next time someone who belongs to my age group claims what being in one's 50s is somehow an invitation for unmitigated misery.

Yeah, I think we are still a toddler species but words from past humans such as Carl Sagan, continue to reinforce me:

"We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each new generation, asked anew with undiminished wonder. What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars."

Perhaps we will have to linger a little longer on the shores of the cosmic ocean after all.
Sorry Carl, we are just not as good as you thought we were, not quite yet anyway! — universeness

The liminal zone is invariably arresting.