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.

Jeremy England's theory of "dissipative-driven adaptation" is interesting step toward explaining abiogenesis, but probably still a bit of a hunch at the moment. — Nils Loc

I just encountered this idea in Deacon's Incomplete Nature. Fascinating. And a propos the OP. In order to maximize the entropy gradient, organized structures form (viz. Benard cells in fluid thermodynamics).

When you think about it, the universe is essentially the presentation of the counterbalance of forces in relative parity. Otherwise stars would just be explosions. Or black holes. Which ultimately they are I guess.

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.

Just an observation - It may be the case that the remainder of your defence of 180Proof is correct - but he comes across condescending, affected and incapable (im gathering, unwilling is the truth of it) to engage with many arguments he doesn't like. — AmadeusD

Yes, like when I suggest that science operates by selective limitations and abstraction, and he asks me for an example? It's what science is, and it's a well-known criticism - we murder to dissect. Very disingenuous.

Please clarify. Examples would be helpful. — 180 Proof

It's the entire basis of the scientific method. You toss out what isn't relevant to an hypothesis in order to be able to accurately reproduce results. Except that the universe doesn't really operate in this kind of compartmentalized way at all. So science isn't really studying the universe so much as it is studying...itself.

I reread some James a few weeks back. The thing about focusing on "big" ideas and philosophical themes versus complete texts is that you can miss a lot of detail and nuance. James is definitely a nuanced author.

:up:

It's always best to be candid about one's own limits. Science is a process of selective limitation. It has a lot to say, but it also leaves a lot unsaid - or at least it ought to.

I'll give you an example of what I mean. Say that someone says that they have life-altering insights through meditation or spiritual philosophy. How could that be demonstrated to a disinterested third party? There are large-scale studies of the effects of meditation practice carried out by Universities and the like. That is an arduous process involving surveys, questionnaires, and the gathering of data about large numbers of subjects. That is 'empirical data'. What this or that person says about their state of awareness or changed state of being which they attribute to meditation or nondualism is not empirically verifiable. I'm not saying, on that account, that it's not true or doesn't represent a profound insight. But it's not empirically measurable. — Wayfarer

Or as I have often suggested, there may be phenomena associated with life-processes whose feedback is long term and complex (read, "karma"), which, as real as they are, may not be measurable in any trivial sense. We need to always bear in mind that science functions explicitly by reductive abstraction. We murder to dissect. Sure, it frequently works. But the more complex the phenomenon, the less so.

I think that the underlying theme is that of going beyond conventional parameters, which can appear bizarre and even horrifying, but is not necessarily so. The prose gets a bit purple a times, but it works. I'm a certified Lovecraftian now. The "dream within a dream" story (The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath) is brilliant.

I'm 90% through the complete works of H.P. Lovecraft. He has a singular perspective on the emptiness of the scientifically real. This excerpt is from "The Silver Key" which I just finished reading this morning.

Well-meaning philosophers had taught him to look into the logical relations of things, and analyse the processes which shaped his thoughts and fancies. Wonder had gone away, and he had forgotten that all life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which there is no difference betwixt those born of real things and those born of inward dreamings, and no cause to value the one above the other. Custom had dinned into his ears a superstitious reverence for that which tangibly and physically exists, and had made him secretly ashamed to dwell in visions. Wise men told him his simple fancies were inane and childish, and he believed it because he could see that they might easily be so. What he failed to recall was that the deeds of reality are just as inane and childish, and even more absurd because their actors persist in fancying them full of meaning and purpose as the blind cosmos grinds aimlessly on from nothing to something and from something back to nothing again, neither heeding nor knowing the wishes or existence of the minds that flicker for a second now and then in the darkness.
They had chained him down to things that are, and had then explained the workings of those things till mystery had gone out of the world. When he complained, and longed to escape into twilight realms where magic moulded all the little vivid fragments and prized associations of his mind into vistas of breathless expectancy and unquenchable delight, they turned him instead toward the new-found prodigies of science, bidding him find wonder in the atom’s vortex and mystery in the sky’s dimensions. And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation.

I think that, given the ethical poverty of the physical sciences combined with the urgent need for social and ethical wisdom in their application, philosophy is probably due for a resurgence and revitalization, perhaps similar to the reinvention of painting that you mention.

There can only be a serious argument for the permanence of the soul, if the soul is thought to be energy itself. — boagie

:up:

edit: For example, you could argue that knowledge represents a form of energy. Then the process of coming into being of knowledge-being in an organic entity could be akin to the igniting of a fire in a combustible material. Then that selfsame fire, when the original pile of material is consumed, can be used to ignite something else, even a completely different phase of matter, like a gas. So, analogously, this soul or what I would characterize as thought-being can move through material phases, although being essentially energy. Something like that.

:lol:

↪Pantagruel Is there something else behind 'honest'? without it, 'honest' doesn't exist. — YiRu Li

Honesty implies truth. Your choice whether or not to tell the truth is always your choice.

As others have asked, how are you defining "mindset" ?

For example, you are (we assume) being honest in your questioning. But your terminology is unclear. Does this reflect a lack of honesty in your mindset?

Can honesty be considered a culmination of a particular mindset? Is it contingent upon possessing this mindset, implying that without it, genuine honesty is unattainable? — YiRu Li

Are you asking whether this is a fundamental property, that one either is or is not honest?

From my perspective, honesty is the prerequisite for accurate communication, which is the foundation of cooperative social activity. So in addition to being intrinsically or inherently desirable, honesty is also selected for pragmatically.

Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter
by Terrence W. Deacon

Necronomicon: The Best Weird Tales
by H.P. Lovecraft

If transcendentalism gets a person to see the ethical then that's the belief for them, and if materialism gets a person to see the ethical then that's the belief for them, but it's the ethical that matters and is what I would base my preference on. — Moliere

:up:

Just to be sure, this is how you're defining "spirit"? As a connotation of certain actions over time? Or as the source of those actions — AmadeusD

No, that is just my best effort at a pragmatic ethics consistent with a healthy humanized spirituality. I don't think I need to be able to understand or define the nature of spirit minutely in order to be aligned with the overall process of spiritualization I grasp as the inherent positive energizing force of the cosmos.

Possibly there is no one underlying big plan. But human plans are constantly coming into being and altering the universe in significant ways. And if there can be plans of human scope, there can be plans of other scopes as well. It's kind of unlikely that humanity is the best possible mirror of the universe in the universe.

Can you be sure you're not just referencing inter-generational awareness? — AmadeusD

I assume that there is something like a collective consciousness happening at some material level to be sure.

In that sense, how would you define it in practice? — AmadeusD

I think that is the key is that it is defined by practices, practices which are in concert with the most enlightened goals of humanity. I'm reading all about the history of Chinese philosophies right now, and the central theme emerging from Confucianism is that of becoming a spiritual being. Confucius very much melded humanism and transcendentalism; he felt that human actions could enrich and express the tao.

So I would hope right actions would be very much "socially self-reinforcing." I try to act in accordance with this view, through volunteerism and kind acts.

To think that a person cannot feel awe and mystery about life and the universe just because they don't accept religious views and other collective belief systems, is just not true. — Christoffer

I was careful to explain it isn't religion per se I support, but the transcendental attitude.

Adding to that, a belief system that replaces religion, such as the belief in material and materialistic values to bring meaning is also producing mob mentalities and deindividuation. — Christoffer

:100:

Outside of those semantics, what you are arguing is rather that the materialistic society we live in is lacking meaning and means for morality to form on the grounds of people's actual value as human beings and instead has been replaced by a dollar value. — Christoffer

That is definitely a descriptive version of my perspective. My feeling is that there are fundamental aspects of humanity that it is difficult for people to perceive, especially when it comes to themselves. The mystery of consciousness, really, that we can be so close and yet so far from the essence of what we are. I'm not promoting specific ideals. What I'm suggesting is that there is an inherent mystery to life which science hasn't come close to excavating. If anything, the light of science is illuminating depths and expanses far beyond our wildest dreams. But at some point the institution started to exist for its own sake (as institutions will do) and for some reason decided to react against this mystery, instead of embracing it.

It's like you argue that nihilism is the only realm of thought for materialists? — Christoffer

Yes, I'm kind of leaning that way. My sense is that embracing the larger (than self) reality is tantamount to the recognition of (self) transcendent values. As I mentioned, material calculations are all well and good, except where they are plainly insufficient. We think just because we have assigned a dollar value to everything via economics, everything hence becomes computable. When, in fact, our valuations are arbitrary and often misguided.

What is laissez-fair materialism? I was saying that many secular humanists are progressives and believe in helping to make a better world for future generations. — Tom Storm

Well, there are stated agendas, and there is deep psychological commitment. Politicians seldom come out in favour of elitism and favouritism, but still manage to be guilty of it often enough. I don't believe secular humanism necessitates or implies the wholesale abandonment of transcendental values.

As far as examples, it's the direction that our world is heading. I don't see examples so much as a ubiquitous problem. Murder in the name of God. Replacing vital human interaction with depersonalized electronic interchanges. Desertification of our habitat. Increasing inequality.

I'd say physicalists tend to hold utopian visions of a better future for their descendants. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure if utopianism is synonymous with laissez-faire materialism though. The belief in "progress" that says things are always getting better. When that is getting less true every day.

I think there is a cult of individuality happening too, which has hurt the type of collective-social (familial) beneficial motivations that you mention. Certainly nothing that robust universal education couldn't help.

It's curious to me that there are people who think nothing matters if there is no transcendental realm. I don't think I have ever met a materialist/physicalist/naturalist holding that position. — Tom Storm

Anyone who believes that personal responsibility transcends the limits of material life perhaps is not fundamentally a materialist then. :wink:

I think you may need to separate the word 'materialism' as in consumer capitalism from 'materialism' as in non-transcendence. They are not necessarily connected. — Tom Storm

I do think there is correlation happing here too though. I think that something like what Durkheim calls anomie is a product of the wholesale acceptance of a lot of materialistic (choose your sense) propaganda. Hopefully an newly enlightened social consciousness is awakening, in the collective-ecological spirit championed by many indigenous groups. The world needs some kind of fundamental change, because every indication is that we have been on a collision course with disaster since industrialization. Technologies which should have bolstered equality have increased the gap between the rich and the poor. Something is fundamentally wrong.

:up:

but about not having an absolute conviction that corporeal death is an end to all conceivable suffering — javra

:chin:

Most likely I’d trust the person who makes no appeals to unknown worlds or powers and takes seriously the status of an ongoing physical world. Perhaps this comes from hours spent arguing with Christians who say climate change either isn’t real or doesn’t matter because God has it all under control. Generally the people who you have described as ‘when you’re dead, you’re gone’ hold a concomitant belief - ‘this is the only world there is so we must take care of it.’ But no doubt there are outliers in all camps. — Tom Storm

I didn't really suggest it was an appeal. Rather, an underlying factor or condition for evaluating an inherent quality of human motivation. Perhaps it is an exaggeration. Perhaps not. But I think what you are describing is counter-intuitive. I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. I don't see a lot of "materialist conservation." I do see a lot of spiritually motivated conservation efforts, people who are aware of the significance of the health of natural systems in a cosmic sense.

China has the largest buddhist population in the world, but this doesn’t seem to have prevented them from also being the world’s highest emitter of carbon, surpassing the U.S. So much for ongoing responsibility for deeds. — Joshs

I'm thinking more of the propagation of values at and through the level of individual interaction. The translation of that core credibility into the social arena is another issue. Western politics is rife with examples of individuals feigning alignment with communities of transcendental values only to promote their own basest interests.

I can imagine a Transcendentalist who doesn't care about the future because we reap our benefits in heaven, and a materialist who does because they realize that those are their family members and they are committed to family. — Moliere

Yes, there are nuances and flavours, but I do believe the essence of the reasoning holds. I agree, if you see your offspring as a continuation. I'd argue that is a form of transcendentalism. I think the only form of transcendentalism that would be responsibility-immune would be some kind of crazy-Calvinistic notion that salvation is pre-ordained. If you keep it simple, to the belief in an "ongoing," it is hard to escape the burdens and benefits of accepting full responsibility for the ultimate consequences of your behaviours.

touche

As I said, it was a sidebar on a second thread, in which I referred in the same way to a third thread. Anyway...

"I am sorry for having disturbed your (dogmatic?) slumber. I will let you get back to your ideas now."
~The World

That was a reply to some observations made by some other people. It was contextually relevant to their posts and alluded to an interaction on another thread, which isn't uncommon. And yes, I concur with 180 Proof that there isn't any reason to doubt the existence of the world - certainly not more than there would be to doubt your own reasons for doubting it, at any rate.

That clear things up?

No one would agree with you — Corvus

So far you are the only one I hear. As far as I can see, I am bang on topic. It isn't like it's some abstruse tangent. It's literally the title of your post. If you want to dispute the reasoning, fine. If the thought of what I said upset you, I am sorry. It wasn't intended to be rude in any way.

edit. I see this has gone down before. At which time you said you weren't responsible for making someone leave the discussion. Funny how your attitude changes when it is "your" discussion.



Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks.

You do know that the world continues while you sleep. Right up until you try to do philosophy.

So I might leave this conversation there.
— Banno

There is a difference between having no logical ground of believing in the existence of X, and the actual existence of X. Please think about it carefully again. Leaving is fine. It just confirms you ran out of the ideas for the arguments. What can anyone do about it?

How is anything I said emotional?

Like I said, you are never not perceiving the world. If your mind is operating, it is "in touch with the world". The fact that I don't see it when I close my eyes does not surprise me, nor should it. Just because you don't continuously see "exactly the same set of things" doesn't mean that "the world" has in anyway ceased to exist or become dubious. You are just continuing to perceive it in a different way.

Not sure if this poster has read even single book on Philosophy in his whole life. Sounds like just making random statements on nothing. — Corvus

Because I said you are never not perceiving the world?

I agree. We are trying to see the arguments either to prove, disprove or the question is illogical itself. The conclusions will only be evident from good arguments. But still I felt bringing experience to the argument sounded too solipsistic.

And the main topic OP is not to prove the existence of the World. But trying to see the arguments for believing in the existence of the world when not perceiving it. — Corvus

Think about what this says. "Prove that there is a world". Whatever doubts exist with respect to the existence of the world likewise exist with respect to any proofs which you might append to that. As to believing in the world when not perceiving it, you are always perceiving something. So just because you don't continue to see the back of something when you move to the front is no warrant to believe the back disappeared. If you are completely unconscious, having no cognitions of any kind, it is just as likely that you have ceased to exist as has the world. In fact, the former seems more likely.