I read this as a great question, not any kind of dig or gotcha. — AmadeusD

Yes. Definitely not a dig. :up:

I see absolutely no issue with Consciousness being some more general concept, and 'a mind' being 'bodily bound consciousness' or some such. — AmadeusD

I do too. But for me that "afterlife" does not include my ego--the Subject,"I"--nor any of its Narrative. So, admittedly this is that ego taliking: thanks but no thanks.

Now, more seriously. Yah. Whatever that consciousness is that is not mind, intuition tells me it might even pervade the universe. But if we’re being honest, that's not what we're after when we (myself included) get sucked in by fantasy: milk and honey, streets paved with gold, and the stuff of NDEs.

Idk lol — AmadeusD

I feel you brother (sister, or what not)!

seems to me probably untrue that consciousness dies with the individual mind. — AmadeusD

I used to entertain that. I still wish profoundly that it were true.

But — AmadeusD

But that it survives the body is just as perplexing. — AmadeusD

And there's the rub. How then? And I am asking sincerely, not argumentative. Although, I genuinely believe, alas, that any afterlife for mind necessarily implies dualism, and that we cannot support dualism of Mind and body, beyond the life of the Body. If we can, then I reiterate, how?

, I think the peculiar shared context of NDEs allows us a bit more leeway in terms of moving away from parsimony. — AmadeusD

100% Agreed. Especially, the topic of afterlife, if nothing else, cannot but be approached liberally. Yet that's a field in which we find some of the most of both dogma, and its close relative (if not, progenitor), wishful thinking. Mass shared experience can easily arise from both.

Start from obvious things: yes, try to destroy Hamas, but don't create a famine. I've again and again said one simple example: fight like the Americans. — ssu

You're right. I was over zealous and reckless, even wilfully blind.

I agree with many of your comments on this.

Heidegger’s modes of being are not intended for organizing the universe. Instead, they are intended to capture the manner by which entities come at us. If I am on my morning walk and I look down and happen to see a stone, then the stone is coming at me as a present-to-hand entity. On the other hand, if a skunk is coming my way and I see that same stone, it might come at me as a ready-to-hand entity that I can throw toward the skunk in the hope he scurries off. — Arne

Assuming MH takes the position above, including the example about stone, lets make it his own, why is it we must view MH as describing the Reality (of) such entities; I.e. a stone coming at me as present to hand or ready to hand, as if these are the Real natures of the stone?

Why is it not obvious, wittingly or unwittingly, MH was describe the Signifier stone and how it functions in human Mind to trigger a response. Stone alone, the most fitting Signifier Structure/effect, one thing; stone simultaneously with that other Signifier, skunk, the most fitting Signifier Structure/effect, another thing.

All of his descriptions are not disclosing Truth, but like Aristotle, Hegel, Kant before him, organizing experience in ways convenient to discourse. Why? Because that is how History moves. Through the most functional dialectic and the most fitting settlements upon belief.

Until the next one comes along

Israel not allowing food to the civilians won't cower the Palestinians to give up an seek a settlement, but will harden their resolve. — ssu

Yah. We think war is always functional because, of course, there are measurable, manifest effects. But it does not rule out more functional approaches.

People are more complex than Pavlov’s dogs. Look at the Taliban, the IRA, and Viet cong. Did the wars waged end them?

Also, Hamas. Did their horrendous attack end the plight of their people? No, if anything, it threatens the end of their people, period.

Realpolitik, far from suggesting war, actually ought to be more pragmatic, face the facts, and sit down for some immediate, open minded, bite the bullet, willing to compromise, negotiations. Both sides.

It can be surprising. — Chet Hawkins

It can be. In Mind, that is the surfacing form triggering a feeling which Signifies, the Signifier "surprise." But I wont dare elaborate. What really merits saying is that it is actually all "surprising" to the Body which has since the dawn of history gradually ignored its drives and sensations entirely, displacing them with Minds desires and perceptions, constructions in the Narrative form, constructions which include the illusion of choice, at the instant before the Body reacts to the final trigger.

imbalances can exist temporarily. THAT IS CHOICE. — Chet Hawkins

I appreciate the beauty of this. It moves me. But, as much as I wish otherwise, it is because the words triggered feelings which they evolved over time, my locus, and human history, to trigger.

Fear is delusional. (So is desire). — Chet Hawkins

How can I not agree?

There is nothing empty in any pattern. There is beauty and that means mystery meets order. — Chet Hawkins

Do you mean not empty in the, say, sense of it has essence, substance and is ultimately Real? Not rhetorical question.

So the point is order is always struggling to answer the question and get the pattern right, but, it tends to crave certainty and comfort and DECLARE that it knows now. That is its sin, cowardice, eg, not facing up to the balanced truth — Chet Hawkins

Again, not rhetorical. When you--or Hegel, Heidegger especially, and so on--speak like that, I.e., "Order wants to get it right, etc." are you being metaphorical? Or are you meaning Order is a being which acts with an aim etc. Like when a plant wants to move to ghe light and we can accept that we are describinga real being? Or is it in between, like when we say positive wants to bind with negative?

sees the chaos as an opportunity, and the most powerful fallout groups of order are the ones that build a great consensus within the chaotic mass. This is effectively a kind of self correcting problem in evolution. — Chet Hawkins

You are unwittingly (sorry, I realize how that might be taken. But let me assure you, we all unwittingly) describing the dynamics by which the Fictional constructions of History proceed. Dialectically, a back and forth of Signifiers, driven by desire to be heard, binding with other Signifiers, surfacing in the Narrative form, as human experience. Yes, self correcting, autonomously moving to manifest in the fittest form. That is choice. Choice is the final Signifier, the one triggering the Reality, Body into feeling or action

One seeming vague example is the bizarre situation amid humanity that we have so far resisted the hive mind effect in large part — Chet Hawkins

My friend. We are the hive mentality. History moves as one. It always has and always will. Never-ending the minor variations. Mind Universal is History. But even if I'm wrong, 1. You admit not only the possibility, but probability of the hive; and, 2. Resisting endocrination is a choice, by its conventional use. But wat is choice? A settlement in mund, leading to feeling/action in Body, following a chain of necessarily structured signifiers leading to the choice; sometimes but not necessarily initiated by a natural drive in Body.

Desire is quite strong. This is why we have Indian leaders asking — Chet Hawkins

Chance to clarify. I'm not saying desire doesn't exist, but it is a mechanism in the Narrative process of Mind. Nature or Reality has no relationship with desire. Drives evolved and continue to evolve for survival. Desire evolved in Language to promote the latter's prosperity too. But both desire, and the latter, are an emergence of empty Signifiers, lacking both matter, and any essence. I daresay, the very Dasein itself, is a creative construction of human Mind using the resources of human Mind. In the end, fleeting fiction. Functional, yes! Beautiful, of course. Meaningful? That's exactly what it's business is, and it is accomplished. But it, Dasein, is not a discovery by MH of Reality. It is a construction by History of more History.

I note, without judgement, that your responses to these questions are entangled with matters like "wrong" and "right" and suffering. I can only presume--having, at best, modest familiarity, lacking expertise--that you are expressing an existential(ist) perspective, and given this post, rightly so. But as I trust that I might eventually communicate my thoughts sufficiently, I'll leap to, as you poetically say, carry "on-on!" with faith and a teleological suspension of Reality (which is that both positions are false).

I perceive the existential as the very product of the Fiction, which fiction is the interconnectedness of all things constructed and moving autonomously within human consciousness. I.e., hence there is ultimately no burden of choice. The burden can be negated by the realization that it is not, predetermined but, an autonomous system of triggers.

Does this REALLY imply that choice is meaningless? I think not. — Chet Hawkins

Choice is meaningful. That is my submission. But meaningful and choice are constructions. They too
follow an autonomous chain of triggers. It is only with Mind that choice and meaning have "meaning" (or not; I.e., whether anything has meaning or not). In Reality, for the unaffected Body, there is no meaning; not life is meaningless! Meaning is meaningless. Let the meaning in Mind flourish, but accept that you are constructing it. Or rather, It is. The you in It's case not being the Body, but rather, the construction "you."

Further argument in favor of choice vs determinism — Chet Hawkins

Each of your captivating words which followed, mean one thing (if they support your position that life or at least we have the burden of choice), and another (if they support my claim that when we try to apply them to Ultimate Reality, that's where words fall apart and their empty fleeting Nature is revealed, and so too for all that they purport to represent that is, that they are art and their artful persuasion is no coincidence).

I take the latter position. I say you are compellingly using fiction, describing the way existence is for that one species infected with Mind. Courage, right, wrong, freedom and choice. And burden.

I know I, as a human being post-pre-history engage in a process whereby I arrive at a resolution followed usually by a feeling or action which we conventionally refer to as choice. But I also am relieved of the burden because I know it is a process. This is not fear talking, just an insight reflected in the works of many orthodox philosophers, from Socrates to Heidegger and Sartre. Beyond, but since we speak of existential.

Also if you concentrate any any choice, even to get a glass of water, you can see the chain of triggers. But focus in. And don't skip any steps.

I tire for now but with no expectations, I'll read through the rest of your response, because they are edifying, and take the liberty if I have more to say.

What other criteria would help to strengthen testimonial evidence? — Sam26

Criteria: credibility of witnesses in that, are there inherent biases, or incentives to lie. I note you have addressed this in your reply to other posts, but the fear of death presents an opportunity for fantasy in the form of wishful thinking.

Criteria: are there alternative explanations. I have not yet scrutinized this post to see if this has been addressed. Sorry. But there are other explanations. Given our shared history and shared experiences, these NDE's could be akin to dreams and the appearance of shared symbols or archetypes. Sure, tge testimonials are cross cultural. But if one wished to research it, they might find striking similarities in the ways we dream of witches or falling. Yet we accept that our common dreams about witches do not translate into witches are real.

You counsel from the path of mind alone — Chet Hawkins

Actually, I submit Body alone. Mind, though it exists, is a system of empty signifiers displacing the Body with its empty Fiction.

But — Chet Hawkins

your happenstance name — Chet Hawkins

It happily amuses me that you think my name has any relation to the Ark builder. That's part of what i meant by your writing having an inspirational tone. I am tempted not to correct you. But alas, no.

The need for certainty is only fear. Cowardice is no way to face the world's mystery. — Chet Hawkins

Perhaps, now you see I am not purporting a predetermined reality; but an interconnected one where even our "choices" have been triggered, even by structures of Reasoning and logic autonomously arising to the task, having been input into our minds at some point(s) in our local and universal history.

In fact, my intuition is that those who push free will do so out of fear and wishful thinking; a conceited desire for our constructions to be real etc.

What will it want? If it's a noble thing, maybe not much. But the most of us, of them, get all 'busy' interacting by choice. Notice I did not put choice in quotes. — Chet Hawkins

This is nice. Like you, I like to think about the possibilities of morality or nobility of an atom. But.

You mention "desire" a few times but I'm unsure of its role. For me, there are drives, and feelings, but desire is like meaning, order, and choice: constructs of the Mind which superimposes itself on Nature and displaces it with Narratives. Desire evolved in the system of Mind (not by design or predeterminedly, but by chance) to keep the Signifiers growing and constructing.

Ah, here I am again. Far too much to say, to little room to elaborate.

I am interested in how desire fits in for you as used in your reply above.

Firstly, I sincerely admire your writing, at least in this particular response. And whether I fully understand/follow/agree or not, it is inspiring in a way which transcends the topics being discussed. There are others like you in this forum, but it merits mentioning. I'll read your response more thoughtfully (likely a few times) and will let you know if I have any comments relating to this post.

But for now:

determinism is wrong. Free will is the only possible final perfection — Chet Hawkins

Is it possible that this interconnectedness of all things "idea" which inspires my submission that, to keep it simple, there is nowhere a real burden of choice, but only the illusion that a deliberate being is deliberately choosing (and the suffering which is concomitant with that illusion)...is it not possible that that is not determinism, but only seen as determinism from a perspective which also sees free will and the burden of choice.

Again, to keep it simple. When x triggers y triggers z triggers suicide, the suicide was not predetermined. X could have triggered b instead, and y could have triggered quitting one's job. "Choice" is built into that process, but it is an illusion, in that the "choice" was triggered.

Sure call that chaos, call it meaningless. But is it not possible that from the perspective of the "order" we have constructed; a thing necessarily working with/making meaning, things like meaning, order, balance, and perfection matter. While really, Nature is before/beyond that "order" and (only because we have to assess its function do I say this:) it "functions" as a whole--not with design or predetermination--where each part has an effect upon the other(s) including, ultimately, that whole.

Being before/beyond the order (human Mind) of course we will impose order upon it as part of our dominion over Nature. That is, as part of human Mind displacing Reality.

Anyway, I fear tge complexity of my thoughts about this far exceed my capacity to express it briefly in this forum. I find, the best I can do is offer morsels with the hope, not just that someone bites, like you; but that someone is able to digest it, that's my biggest challenge. Do not, from that, feel obligated to continue biting. I do appreciate your input already.

inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice — Chet Hawkins

Or, there is no "choice." Everything is interconnected. Every action is a reaction to a trigger(s); the same principle applying to each trigger.

Is this not so from subparticles to suicide? a triggered b triggered c triggered molecular bonding. x triggered y triggered z triggered suicide. Even when the free act of choosing seems indisputable, like in difficult decisions where one wishes one had no choice, the difficulty, the process, and the final action were each reactions to triggers.

Choice is the illusion which arises when we (humans uniquely) construct and superimpose meaning retroactively (albeit often with lightning speed) onto the autonomous activities of Nature (said construction and superimposition also caused by triggers).

It takes real courage to pursue meaning beyond the physical and to have the balance amid that pursuit to resist temptations in the realm of imagination and forms only — Chet Hawkins

Or does it take no courage at all, but only imagination and forms? Is meaning also autonomously constructed and superimposed as part of an evolved system we have come to think of as directed by the Subject, "I"; and to "know" as our Mind?

Where in Nature is there striving for meaning? Where outside of human minds is meaning pursued?

They look very much like arguments to me. — Banno

They do to me too. Convincing or not, they are edifying. And much more than I know has likely been built upon, or because of, them.

Are you suggesting that the arguments in the Second Meditation are metaphors? — Banno

I recognize this may be excrutiating to some, maybe you. They can also be satisfying as poetry; read as metaphor. I believe you might have been rhetorical, so rather than offend you, I'll withhold any elaboration. But when you read the meditation, think of Descartes as an existing human being, grappling with a profound personal struggle. For my part, I defy you not to see the poetry.

Anyway, I respect where you're coming from and I won't trouble you with anything further on the topic.

Obviously, reading metaphysics strictly for its logic and reasoning is the orthodox approach.

...unless Descartes was stating the discovery from his meditations is that "he" is a thinking thing.

In which case he could just as easily conclude that he is a breathing thing; a heartbeats thing; and so on, shaved down to the is-ing thing.

But no. Not if it was he who simultaneously decided he was a dualist. Was it he? Or did we superimpose that upon him?

Very informative.
Also, dishearteningly, so.
Logic. Damn!
It seems there is no place for the thinker to rest their weary head.

I fully agree with you. At the risk of offending, I think the poetry metaphor applies to much metaphysics. Perhaps not in the conventional way we view poetry. But, at the end of the day, isn't metaphysics necessarily metaphorical? This does not mean it is not deeply enriching to our particular form of existence. On the contrary, like all art, it is very enriching.

:up:

one must exist in order to think. — flannel jesus

Query: why not thinking is existing in the present; beyond that, "I" and "one" is constructed to suit logic/meaning?

I'm not disagreeing. I'm wondering.

:up:

Ha! :up:

We are taking a real, visceral, present moment, a simple obvious moment like reading these words right now, as I am here writing these words “words” right now, this very second where “I am” needs no explanation, a momentum like this, and then we are trying to make a formulaic logical expression to re-capture this moment and codify a logical explanation on top of it. — Fire Ologist

I think the "problem" with Descarte's thought experiment is the "I". There are likely a few reasons but I'll focus on one. The problem of Time.

You are correct about his conclusion fitting the present. But this "I" which "is," is not the same "I" as the "I" which was nanoseconds ago thinking. The "I" is successive. Just as there isnt really a linear narrative, there are only successive nows.

Descarte's discovery was really "thinking therefore is-ing,." It does not rest thus no "am"; it does not rest thus no "I".

I sounded curt. Sorry.

Now that I quickly familiarized myself with what you meant, I already realized my presumptiousness.

What I was saying can be seen as falling in with biological reductionism.

But briefly, here is how I would say a modified or qualified BR.

1. Of course science is--within conventional terms--right that all of our experiences have at the root neurons and chemistry. There must be that fleshy infrastructure.

2. Mind isn't that fleshy infrastructure. It has evolved a "life of its own" but it is not structured by matter. It is structured by the images in memory saved by the organism to create the appropriate triggers for survival. They now operate autonomously giving "us" as in the flesh, a displacement of our organic being, with an illusion of meaning, linear narrative, etc. etc. It qualifies the BR with an existent, but empty, thing displacing the BR "stuff" with its dynamics. It is not Dualism, because Mind is empty, structured by representations, not Real.

3. Back to that fleshy infrastructure. Ironically, BR fails to do it justice. Everyone, including BR wants Mind to be real. So they just say Brain is Mind. But Mind is empty. And the Body is the locus of the real being. We look at BR and scoff at how they reduce mind to brain function. While ironically, brain functioning is our Reality. The Narrative mind is the Fiction we are inescapably attuned to.

Unfacetiously, I don't know "what" my overall thinking on the matter might be labeled, if labeled it must be. But if the concept expressed in that sentence quoted sounds like biological reductionism, so be it. And if biological reductionism is somehow anathema (I don't know that it is, I'm assuming) perhaps it is redeemable with some fresh modifications. Perhaps I'm intellectually reckless. My ego prefers "open minded."

:up:

That is Mind. In one of its seemingly infinite possible forms of becoming. Right on.

And yet, did it occur to Moore, brilliant as "The Watchmen" is; has it really occurred to any of us, especially in this locus of history, that we, too, are just superimposed creations; not just our world, but all which we consider our selves; and, that we are not bound by our creations, be they dark or beautiful. We are not that.

We are--from the perspective of our Fiction's arrogance--that dumb lump of flesh. Not "no meaning, save what we choose to impose," just, no [place for] meaning. Life, free from our evolved, autonomous need for fabricating meaning, the thing making both dark and beautiful out of what is simply Natural, and inherently meaningless, alien to meaning.

Though there is value in it, and I mean this respectfully, why restrict the discourse to an analysis of the present state of scholarship?

Take dogs, for instance.

Save for my deficiency in Scientific terminology and precision, is this not what our dogs are in Reality? As much as we fantasize about their human qualities. If we’re being honest, isn’t it this? That for dogs, they are not these human-like experiences of love and desire to please, arising out of some advanced empathy, or out of any of the other qualities we superimpose upon them.

But rather, aren’t dogs really an organism which evolved (was bred?) to bond with humans? For them, a most-fit-for-survival-trait. And how are they driven to so bond? Is this where the love etc. comes in? No. They evolved to receive feelings of bliss when we engage in bonding, react positively toward them, and negation of bliss if our bond seems threatened.

There is no story to it but the ones we superimpose upon that natural bond with our Minds’ Language. Signifiers are constructed to displace what is Real. Dog wags tail and licks face: the Signifiers “good boy, I love you too,” displace what in reality was a triggered response to the treat, the contact, or so on.

Now folks may stubbornly reject that, but imagine you accept it, if only for safe passage to the next paragraph.

Now. Why isn’t it obvious that it’s the same for all organisms, sentient and sophisticated ones too, including humans? Why have we, in all our millennia of mythologies and philosophies not settled upon that we are not in God’s image, endowed with an independently willful soul which must be located, but that we are only a conceited ape?

We too, in Reality, are beings driven by evolution to respond to triggers in various ways. What is real human consciousness? Aware-ing those processes, those triggers, drives, responses, organically. What is beyond that for humans, no less than for dogs, is what Mind, a system of evolved Signifiers, superimposes on those drives and responses. Signifiers become the almost exclusive triggers for organic responses, like feelings and movement; empty, fleeting images stored in memory, autonomously constructing Fiction in ways evolved over dozens of millennia, and still evolving, and displacing Reality; usurping sensation, displacing it with perception, feelings with emotions, and image-ing with ideas.

What is Mind? A layer of autonomously dynamic Signifiers displacing being with time and its Narratives. Consciousness, for Humans is displaced by that fiction. Not Real. Always, only Becoming.

What is Reality? For the humans, as for dogs, it is the Organism in its organism-ing. Always present. Being.

Nice. A perfect remedy for thanatophobia!

If there is any modicum of "you" in the afterlife, what is that "written upon"? Presumably, even for dualists, the Brain provides the infrastructure for the memories, emotions, ideas. Even if there is an inner Being benefitting/directing (which i doubt). Even if there is a soul, how does it extend these things beyond the existence of the Brain?

If there is an "afterlife," I submit that it cannot in any possible way resemble this life.

Then, at least a partial answer to your original question, "what can I know with 100% certainty," is "concepts." Generally, concepts can be known with 100% certainty?

Or, rather, you can be certain about "things" conceptually?

Or, is your answer revised, you cannot be certain about "100%" even conceptually?

In the alcohol induced version we would have to say “I am drinking, therefore I am.” Or “I am tipsy, therefore I am.” — Fire Ologist

I think you are correct. Note the pattern though: I am [doing] therefore I am. Descarte's conclusion is flawed because it was to narrow. What defines us as Real existing beings, is the [x]ing.

Thinking, specifically, is not the ontological tool he thought it was. It has no special place in any [potential] hierarchy of Being or Reality. On the contrary, it is no less "mundane" "empty" than "painting" or "bicycling."

Any thought that "I'm bicycling therefore I am" is less persuasive than his cogito, arises as an illusion.

In fact, I would take it a step further. Thinking is proof of being. But thinking about x-ing does not bring x-ing to a "superior" ontological status, but the contrary. At the instant of thinking about x-ing, "Being" is "once removed," from Being and that Reality is displaced by the thinking.

Are you certain regarding the certainty of 100% certainty?

Don't you think it's no different than for any language/linguistic tool?

A person who believes the answers to her questions regarding subject x are best arrived at through correctly applying logic and reasoning, should learn how to use those tools.

A person who believes the answers to her questions regarding subject x are best arrived at through correctly applying Calculus and Cartesian geometry, should learn how to use those tools.

Or, have I misunderstood/oversimplified your query?

Without interference, perhaps, but philosophical thoughts are posted here on the Forum before they pass. — jgill

I was carelessly using Soto as an analogy. I.e., like for Soto, the reward in Zazen is not in the purported goal of Satori, but rather, in the sitting itself. The sitting is Enlightenment.

Thus your point too, might be addressed as follows.

If you are after "mindfullness" whatever that is, let the [philosophical] thoughts [posted here, or otherwis] just pass without interference.

If, on the otherhand, philosophy is what you're after, do philosophy (which necessarily requires "interference"), not with a goal in mind, but simply for the sake of doing philosophy. As suggested below:

"If God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand."
Gotthold Lessing

Has any existentialist ever existed? — Corvus

The question has a second, and more apt meaning if the emphasis on "existed" is interpreted, not as "were there any (existentialists)" but rather, did any who wrote "existentialism" do existentialism? Did any make the final movement which they themselves called for: I e., the leap, the becoming authentic, and so on?

Of what value is a philosophical idea if it does not change lives? — jgill

As it is for just sitting, in Soto Zen, the reward is in the doing.

Yes, I see that he personally could not "transcend" to the leap. I meant for SK, ideally, a leap from reason, also a suspension of the ethical; all of which brings me back to seeing a subtle resemblance Zen. Not that either SK nor Zen deny reason and ethics their proper functions; but both recognize a "ultimate" truth/Reality which I'd not accessible by either means.
But your reply is informative. Thank you

This IS what is missing in Heidegger, Kant, Hegel, and even in Kierkegaard himself: it is one thing to reason and believe, quite another to be nailed to a cross of push the knife into your child. — Astrophel

Wait. Why missing in Kierk? Isn't that exactly his point? Arriving at belief through reason is "inferior" to arriving by a leap.

Would Sartre contend that freedom is a product of our biology ontologically speaking? — Justin5679

I cannot say what Sartre would contend, but climbing upon his shoulders, at least, I can see this. The biological being, I contend to be the only ultimately real being, the being in itself, Being, has radical freedom from the ultimate emptiness of the becoming, the being for itself (and other).