Is that a problem? Starch -> sugar and so on. Give or take some gluten and animal products - contents - the same processes occur. You feed your digestion, and I feed mine, because that is convenient, and the pipes don't join up. But let's not argue that one is more important or significant than the other.

X-)

"Yes, from his/her point of view, there is no rat's point of view. Of course". — Michael Ossipoff


There cannot possibly be a point of view from which there is no point of view. Not even solipsists are that radical. And while views differ, points are all the same. — unenlightened

I just meant that the points of view are mutually exclusive.

From what I remember of what Eliminative Physicalists say, it's canonical that the valid point of view is the objective, 3rd-person point of view, and animals' experience is fictitious "folk-psychology".

And I was just saying that that view isn't justified, making canonical a point of view that isn't anyone's point of view.

I'd also said:

There's no evidence for that. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

No evidence for what? There is evidence that I don't feel your pain, and that my senses are limited.What there is no evidence of is that there is some other separation

But the fact that you don't perceive from my point of view, or that of anyone or anything else, is, itself, evidence that you're one individual, one person, one body.

First of all, forgive my manner of expression. I'd just been previously replying to Thanatos :)

Every indication from your experience is that you're the person, the body, and nothing more.

One person, one body.

I don't harm any living-thing, if I can help it, because I recognnize all living things as being like eachother. ...and, as I said, identical at core. But the fact remains that we're each one individual body, and there's no evidence or indication otherwise.

I take it that you're an Advaitist. I have two arguments for Skepticism, vs Advaita:

1. As I emphasized above, there's no indication or evidence that you're more than one body.

2. Why is there the one consciousness that Advaita posits?

Michael Ossipoff

From what I remember of what Eliminative Physicalists say, it's canonical that the valid point of view is the objective, 3rd-person point of view, and animals' experience is fictitious "folk-psychology". — Michael Ossipoff

Then it's rubbish. We know there are animals, and there is plenty of evidence that they have a point of view - their eyes for example, but there is no evidence that there is a third person view, and there cannot ever be evidence even in principle. That is the fiction.

But the fact that you don't perceive from my point of view, or that of anyone or anything else, is, itself, evidence that you're one individual, one person, one body. — Michael Ossipoff

It is very common to think so, but I question it. There is no end of stuff I don't perceive about my own body, how it heals a cut for instance, or my own fingerprints and DNA. Is this evidence that it is not my body after all? I think it is incontrovertible that there is much more to a person than they can perceive or know, and therefore lack of perception is not evidence of non-identity.

I'd like to further clarify my suggestion about how reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism.

At the stage of body-shutdown that I called "stage 1)", the person doesn't remember hir most recent life, or remember that s/he is dying, but s/he still feels identity, and possesses the Vasanas that I referred to.

I spoke of Vasanas, which include feelings, impressions, inclinations, subconscious attributes, etc.

One of those feelings or inclinations is our natural orientation towards the future, something that we anticipate, or intend to do.

Therefore, because the person doesn't know that s/he's dying, and because of our natural orientation towards the future, with feelings such as anticipation and intention, ...

...and because there is a life-experience story that starts out exactly where you are at that point, then isn't it plausible to suggest that, at that point, given your future-orientation, you're at the beginning of a life?

If someone objects, "Isn't that a bit of a reach?", I'd answer, "Why are you in your life in the first place?"

That's simply because there is a life-experience possibility-story that has you as Protagonist.

So the origin of, and reason for this life is something as aethereal and nonphysical as the fact that there's that hypothetical life-experience possibility-story.

That remains so in the above-described situation too.

The reason why you're in this life now will still be a reason later too.

Yes, if Physicalism is true, there's no reincarnation. But I the Principle of Parsimony suggests that Pysicalism isn't true.

Michael Ossipoff

"From what I remember of what Eliminative Physicalists say, it's canonical that the valid point of view is the objective, 3rd-person point of view, and animals' experience is fictitious "folk-psychology". — Michael Ossipoff


Then it's rubbish. — unenlightened

Of course.

We know there are animals, and there is plenty of evidence that they have a point of view - their eyes for example, but there is no evidence that there is a third person view, and there cannot ever be evidence even in principle. That is the fiction.

Quite so.

I'd said:

But the fact that you don't perceive from my point of view, or that of anyone or anything else, is, itself, evidence that you're one individual, one person, one body. — Michael Ossipoff

It is very common to think so, but I question it. There is no end of stuff I don't perceive about my own body, how it heals a cut for instance, or my own fingerprints and DNA. Is this evidence that it is not my body after all? I think it is incontrovertible that there is much more to a person than they can perceive or know, and therefore lack of perception is not evidence of non-identity.

But, until the cut heals, it hurts if you disturb it. And, if the cut gets infected, due to neglect, then you might get sick. Those are things that you directly perceive, and even have a survival stake in.

No, you don't perceive all the details of the body, but it's still what you are.

That finger-cut is in your tissue. That's part of you.

That's qualitatively very different from matters involving other bodies.

I want to not harm an insect, not because it's me, but because living beings are so similar, nearly alike in important ways, arguably identical at core. It isn''t me, but it's my brother or sister.

Advaita's assumption that there's only one consciousness, instead of separate individuals, is just that--an unsupported assumption.

But I emphasize that, as I've said, Skepticism shares the same general aspects, conclusions and consequences as those of Advaita, and other Vedanta versions. ...qualifying it as a Vedanta version.

But it could also be said with respect to the conclusions and consequences of Buddhist metaphysics.

...except that I can't make heads nor tails about what Buddhist metaphysics is saying. But maybe that doesn't matter, if the overall conclusions and consequences are the same.

So maybe it would be better to more broadly say that Skepticism is a member of the broader category that includes the various Vedanta versions and Buddhist metaphysics (though I don't know what Buddhist metaphysics is saying).

Michael Ossipoff



Michael Ossipoff

"I don't see how we can separate you from me." I wouldn't mind hearing you give some thoughts on this if you'd like.

"That patterned structure and internal relations and transformations", are dependent on and what a few pounds of grey meat can do.

The bullet example clearly shows consciousness no longer exists in any sort of way we recognize it once you disrupt the precise make up of the physical substance. Granted humans don't "recognize" everything in this world but we have nothing but religion and unfounded meta-physical theories when it comes to a concept of consciousness standing alone with no substrate.

The person is necessarily both the body and the structure and process.

The person is necessarily both the body and the structure and process. — La Cuentista

I agree: well not 'necessarily', but as far as we know.

That finger-cut is in your tissue. That's part of you.

That's qualitatively very different from matters involving other bodies. — Michael Ossipoff

Are you saying you feel differently about your cut finger? Probably not. It can happen that one cuts a finger and yet doesn't feel it, at least not immediately. Do you want to say it is qualitatively different, and in some way the same as if it was an other body?

This is what we do; we identify ourselves with the limits of our sensations. Whatever I can feel the hurt of or the pleasure of is me, and if there are hurts and pleasures that I don't feel, that is another. It's strongly intuitive, and it's the way we go on. So I'm not surprised that there is resistance to my questioning this intuition. But I am trying to show, with a closer look, that it is a bit arbitrary.

I think that my explanation is the best one. Go figure, eh?

"That finger-cut is in your tissue. That's part of you.

That's qualitatively very different from matters involving other bodies." — Michael Ossipoff


Are you saying you feel differently about your cut finger? — unenlightened

Different from if it's someone else's finger? Sure. And that doesn't conflict with my disagreement with harming anyone.

Probably not. It can happen that one cuts a finger and yet doesn't feel it, at least not immediately.

Sure, but it's still a cause of immediate personal concern, and will hurt later if it gets infected. ...and could result in dangerous illness. ...things that will involve direct perception by the person whose finger it is.

Do you want to say it is qualitatively different, and in some way the same as if it was an other body?

I'd say that it's qualitatively different, but similar, and still important. Injury to anyone should be undesirable to everyone.

This is what we do; we identify ourselves with the limits of our sensations.

Literally identifying ourselves with other bodies--saying that they're literally "Me", would be a tremendous leap-of-faith, unsupported by any indications from our experience.

Yes, sometimes I don't feel a cut till later, but I never directly sensorally feel a cut on someone on the other side of the world (though I don't want them to be harmed).

Whatever I can feel the hurt of or the pleasure of is me, and if there are hurts and pleasures that I don't feel, that is another. It's strongly intuitive

...and strongly obvious. It's intuitive because it agrees with our actual experience.

What you're proposing is a theory.

Yes, Advaita says it. I don't mean any criticism of Advaita. As I said, Skepticism agrees with Advaita in general aspects, conclusions and consequences.

, and it's the way we go on. So I'm not surprised that there is resistance to my questioning this intuition. But I am trying to show, with a closer look, that it is a bit arbitrary.

But it's reasonable to compare theories according to how well they accord with experience.

Michael Ossipoff

Basically, you're re-defining the word "Me".

Michael Ossipoff

I think that my explanation is the best one. Go figure, eh? — Wosret

You didn't say whose explanation of what you're referring to. Why not at least "mention" whom you're replying to, by clicking "reply" at the bottom of the post to which you're replying.

But, in case you were speaking to me, I'd answer, "Would you rather that I give you the explanation that I consider the worst one"" :)

Michael Ossipoff

Basically, you're re-defining the word "Me". — Michael Ossipoff

Well I hope I am doing something more than just playing with words. Suppose, imagine, that I have convinced you, that quite literally, another's pain is your pain even though you don't feel it; that another's harm is your harm. Do you not think it would change your prioities, change your life, if your identity was actually 'everyman'?

Well, very, very different than my discoveries which are full of symmetries and deeper understanding of the nature of creativity and life. Different strokes for different folks.

Claudio Arrau discovered precisely the same feeling that I did about the nature and expression of the soul. — Rich

What difference exactly are you trying to indicate? What part of the statement I made are you disagreeing with?

Of course I would agree there are patterns that 'run deep'; symmetries, broken symmetries and asymmetries everywhere. Do you believe, though, that any model really does justice to reality in a unique way that all the others do not, or is it not rather than each model (if it is a 'true' model) captures reality from a particular 'angle'?

When has there ever been a real example of consciousness that wasnt dependent upon a physical process to manifest? — La Cuentista

When has there ever been a real example of a physical process that wasn't dependent upon consciousness to manifest?

As I see it physical processes and consciousness arise co-dependently. If there were physical processes prior to the arising of consciousness (which we might surmise) I would say they were unmanifest.

Yes, all lot these experiences and much more lead me to a different way of looking at life and nature. Then it is a matter of picking up read each of these little pieces of the puzzle and trying to identify patterns which create a bigger picture. This is how I ruminate over philosophical questions. It is detective work and requires manipulating the patterns in my mind.

OK fairy nuff.

There was an opinion piece published in Scientific American, by physicist (and physicalist!) Sean Carroll, called Physics and the Immortality of the Soul. Carroll argues that belief in any kind of life after death is equivalent to the belief that the Moon is made from green cheese - that is to say, ridiculous.

But such an assertion is made because of the presuppositions that the writer brings to the question. In other words, he depicts the issue in such a way that it would indeed be ridiculous to believe it. But this is because of a deep misunderstanding about the very nature of the idea.

Carroll says:

Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?

I can think of a straightforward answer to this question, which is that the soul is not 'made of particles'. In fact the idea that the soul is 'made of particles' is not at all characteristic of what is meant by the term 'soul'. (I also think the claim that 'the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood' is ridiculously hubristic, but I'll leave that aside.)

But I think the soul could more easily be conceived in terms of a field that acts as an organising principle - analogous to the physical and magnetic fields that were discovered during the 19th century, that were found to be fundamental to the behaviour of particles. This is not to say that the soul is a field, but that it might be much more conceivable in terms of fields than of particles.

Morphic Fields

Just as magnetic fields organise iron filings into predictable shapes, so too might a biological field effect be responsible for the general form and the persistence of particular attributes of an organism. The question is, is there any evidence of such fields?

Well, the existence of 'moprhic fields' is the brainchild of Rupert Sheldrake, the 'scientific heretic' who claims in a Scientific American interview that:

Morphic resonance is the influence of previous structures of activity on subsequent similar structures of activity organized by morphic fields. It enables memories to pass across both space and time from the past. The greater the similarity, the greater the influence of morphic resonance. What this means is that all self-organizing systems, such as molecules, crystals, cells, plants, animals and animal societies, have a collective memory on which each individual draws and to which it contributes. In its most general sense this hypothesis implies that the so-called laws of nature are more like habits.

As the morphic field is capable of storing and transmitting remembered information, then 'the soul' could be conceived in such terms. The morphic field does, at the very least, provide an explanatory metaphor for such persistence. (And notice the reference to 'collective memory' which is similar in concept to the previously-mentioned 'alaya-vijnana' of Mahāyāna Buddhists.)

Children with Past-Life Memories

But what, then, is the evidence for such effects in respect to 'life after death'? As mentioned previously in this thread, a researcher by the name of Ian Stevenson assembled a considerable body of data on children with recall of previous lives. Stevenson's data collection comprised the methodical documentation of a child’s purported recollections of a previous life. Then he identified from journals, birth-and-death records, and witnesses the deceased person the child supposedly remembered, and attempted to validate the facts that matched the child’s memory. Yet another Scientific American opinion piece notes that Stevenson even matched birthmarks and birth defects on his child subjects with wounds on the remembered deceased that could be verified by medical records.

On the back of the head of a little boy in Thailand was a small, round puckered birthmark, and at the front was a larger, irregular birthmark, resembling the entry and exit wounds of a bullet; Stevenson had already confirmed the details of the boy’s statements about the life of a man who’d been shot in the head from behind with a rifle, so that seemed to fit. And a child in India who said he remembered the life of boy who’d lost the fingers of his right hand in a fodder-chopping machine mishap was born with boneless stubs for fingers on his right hand only. This type of “unilateral brachydactyly” is so rare, Stevenson pointed out, that he couldn’t find a single medical publication of another case.

Carroll, again

Carroll goes on in his piece to say that 'Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren’t any sensible answers to these questions (about the persistence of consciousness)'. However, that springs from his starting assumption that 'the soul' must be something physical, which, again, arises from the presumption that everything is physical, or reducible to physics. In other words, it is directly entailed by his belief in the exhaustiveness of physics with respect to the description of what is real.

He then says 'Believing in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the Standard Model. Most importantly, we need some way for that "new physics" to interact with the atoms that we do have.'

However, even in ordinary accounts of 'mind-body' medicine, it is clear that mind can have physical consequences and effects on the body. This is the case with, for example, psychosomatic medicine and the placebo effect, but there are many other examples.

He finishes by observing:

Very roughly speaking, when most people think about an immaterial soul that persists after death, they have in mind some sort of blob of spirit energy that takes up residence near our brain, and drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV.

But that is not what 'most people have in mind'. That is what physicalists have in mind - because that is how physicalists think. If you start from the understanding that 'everything is physical', then this will indeed dictate the way you think about such questions. And it is indeed the case that there is no such 'blob' as Carroll imagines. But that is not what 'soul' is; but what it is, is something that can't be understood, given the presuppositions you're starting from.

If the soul is the having, then it is empty apart from the had.

Regarding my explanation of reincarnation, in terms of it being consistent with Skepticism, someone could object,

"I don't know--that transition from one life to another just sounds a bit magical."

Sure, if you believe in Physicalism.

But sure, maybe it still sounds magical, and counter to the kinds of things that we expect to observe.

But we didn't observe it.

You didn't notice it happening, because it happened when you were too far-gone to know that you'd just left a life.

And, then, in the new life, who can say about that?

When that happens, it will be unobserved and will later remain inaccessible, behind the same veil that masks the beginning of this life.

Whatever your beliefs, this life began when you didn't know it. ...didn't know what was happening. That origin and beginning were unobserved.

Ask yourself: wasn't the origin and beginning of this life unobserved, and isn't it inaccessible?

Fantastic? What do you think this life is?

Michael Ossipoff

Yes this life is fantastic, but it is fantastic within the rules of physics and recorded phenomena. Neither accounts for reincarnation. So believe in it if you want, but it's no less fantastical than believing in God or the Easter Bunny.

So, skepticism, which demands verification and/or demonstration would not accept reincarnation.

Well I hope I am doing something more than just playing with words. — unenlightened

But maybe some disagreements aren't really substantive, but are really only differences in wording.

That can eliminate some philosophical disagreements.

I've felt that really Skepticism and Advaita differ only in wording. Their conclusions and consequences are the same. So, they're just different descriptions leading to the same conclusions.

Advaita was first written about millennia ago, when maybe people said things differently, in different terms, in terms of different premises and traditions.

...maybe in terms of an earlier tradition.

So I don't feel that there's a substantive disagreement between Skepticism and Advaita.

Suppose, imagine, that I have convinced you, that quite literally, another's pain is your pain even though you don't feel it; that another's harm is your harm. Do you not think it would change your prioities, change your life, if your identity was actually 'everyman'?

Sure. Though I already want to not harm other living things, it's conceivable that if I knew what you're saying, for a fact, I'd be in a better position to convert my household to complete vegetarianism.

But, though I don't believe that we're all the same "I", I still don't want to harm other living things, and so the only change, if I were convinced of what you're saying would be that I'd have a stronger argument for vegetarianism...an argument easier to justify to everyone.

...assuming that I could convince others to it as well. It wouldn't help if I couldn't.

And of course that would apply to human-affairs too, all the depredations that are in the news.

But, in those human-affairs matters, and in every matter other than our household's lack of all-the-time vegetarianism, it wouldn't change me one bit, because I already don' t want anyone or anything harmed.

Michael Ossipoff

Nicely written. I believe by combining ideas of Bergson, Bohm and Sheldrake one can puzzle out an interesting framework for memory persistence. Inherited traits, innate skills, inborn abilities would all be evidence that such persistence exists. Child prodigies can be explained in this manner.

Child prodigies can be explained in this manner. — Rich

I often felt so, but it's a bit of a pat explanation. But young Joey Alexander, an Indonesian child, burst onto the world jazz scene back in 2015.



When asked, he said God gave him this gift. But it's really like he came into the world with a lot of practice behind him.

I've felt that really Skepticism and Advaita differ only in wording. — Michael Ossipoff

Similarities between Pyrrho and Buddhism have been noted by scholars, but I'm not aware of such a comparison being made in respect of Advaita.

When asked, he said God gave him this gift. But it's really like he came into the world with a lot of practice behind him. — Wayfarer

My martial arts teacher, to was quite a materialist, once mumbled to me that his skills are from past lives. I was really shocked at the time.

The evidence is staring at us right in our faces. We have memory in one physical life and it appears to persist as a field.

If the soul is the having, then it is empty apart from the had. — John

But there is no having without the had. They create one another.

A new form of Platonic Idealism appears, thanks to .

He probably learned it in a previous existence, so it's not 'new'. ;-)

Yes this life is fantastic, but it is fantastic within the rules of physics and recorded phenomena. — Thanatos Sand

Physics doesn't have bearing on metaphysics

...unless it does in some special case, as described by that author on quantum-mechanics, who said that quantum-mechanics lays to rest the notion of an independently existing objective physical world. But I don't believe that Physicalism needs that to lay it to rest. It's already laid to rest by its own unparsimony.

If you want to say that you have an instance of physics having authority in metaphysics, then give a convincing justification.

And haven't you lately been the great science-hater? But i guess a troll can be whatever he wants, and say and believe contrary things in different conversations, because it's just a devil's-advocate game.

So now you've changed from a science-hater to a science-worshipper :D

...and of course a Physicalist.

In terms of your Physicalism, you couldn't accept anything that I'm saying. You've heard what I've said about Physicalism. If you're still a Physicalist and a Science-Worshipper, then we have nothing to talk about.

...because our conversation was about the validity of Physicalism. If we don't agree on that, then we can hardly discuss tthe conclusions and consequences of a different metaphysics.

Neither accounts [for?] reincarnation.

So that's your pronouncement

Well, then that settles the matter, doesn't it. :D

So believe in it if you wan[t]

Nonsense. We aren't (or shouldn't) be only expressing beliefs at these forums. But of course I can't speak for you. :)

t, but it's no less fantastical than believing in God

A different topic.

So you're an evolution-denying, science-hating, science-worshipping Atheist. :D

Neither I nor you know what God it is that you disbelieve-in...something that, I admit, is entirely your business.

or the Easter Bunny.

This is typical of Thanatos' "arguments". He's prolific with his expressions of strong opinion, which he never justifies. "That's just blather (or gibberish, or as in-valid as belief in the Easter-Bunny...etc, etc.)".

Repeated pseudo-angry characterizations of what he (says that he) disagrees with, with never a justification. ,,,often or usually accompanied by a claim that none is needed.

Or sometimes replying to things that weren't said.

I said "pseudo-angry", because of course a troll isn't really angry when he goes on the attack. It's just part of his fulfillment of a psychological need that he has.

Call it "angry-noises", with the understanding that "angry" means "pseudo-angry".

These are some of the typical standard habits of the typical troll..

I inititally said that I wasn't going to answer this particular one. But then I felt that every argument, objection or question deserves an answer on its own merits, no matter who it's from.

But that policy doesn't really work well, because it encourages the troll to post replies to me, if I've been answering them, and then take the trouble to judge just when he's crossed the troll-line.

I don't want to encourage him in that way, and I don't want to take the trouble to read and evaluate each of his posts. To bother with that would give him respect that he isn't entitled to.

So I'm going to go back to my policy of not replying to anyone who has demonstrated himself to be a troll.

If a confirmed troll were to say something qualifying for an answer (an unlikely occurrence), that would just be too bad. He had his chance. If it's a valid criticism, objection, comment or question, then someone else can post it themself.

So, I'm going to, again, post this troll-non-reply statement (it will be standard in these instances):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I won't be replying to "Thanatos Sand" again. My not replying to him doesn't mean that he's said something irrefutable. It's only because he's demonstrated that he doesn't deserve a reply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Ossipoff