Yeah, that certainly doesn't look like denial — QuixoticAgnostic

This is the part I was referring to:

It seems to me that it is all quantitative. Look at TheMadFool's Laws, they both include the concept of one, and another which is quantitative. — Harry Hindu

The part you are referring to was me translating "mathematical" to "explainable", as mathematics is a type of explanation - so no contradiction.


The type of explanation depends on what type of question is being asked.

I don't know. It's your imaginary universe. You tell me.
— Harry Hindu

What's wrong with imagined scenarios? They're legit philosophical devices, no? Isolate the key variable and do something to it and see what follows and so on... — TheMadFool

You asked me a question about the state of your imaginary universe. If it is imaginary, then that means we can make up whatever we want, so you could imagine that your Universe A actually does have more information than what some statement (law) about it exhibits.

We don't live in an imaginary universe. We live in a universe that is a certain way and that we come into, being ignorant of. We make stuff up in our minds, but the universe has a different story that contradicts our story about it, so we have to adjust our story from time to time to fit our observations of it. The universe fine tunes our explanations via our observations of it. To keep making stuff up about the state of the universe without using our observations to filter the stuff we make up would be a symptom of delusional disorder.

Yes. Exactly. Nonmathematical laws are incomplete and also precludes order, a necessary ingredient for life. — TheMadFool

As I have said many times already, there is no distinction between mathematical and nonmathematical laws. Mathematical explanations are worded explanations.

Both you and QuixoticAgnostic have used numbers in both of your "non-mathematical" laws!

This last paragraph is irrelevant so long as you agree that nonmathematical laws come off as incomplete. In this incompleteness is the seed for chaos and where there is chaos, life, but a pattern (order) in matter-energy, becomes impossible. — TheMadFool

No, explanations are incomplete or complete depending on the question being asked. What kinds of questions can we ask about both universes? Can we ask the same questions about both? If so, would we receive the same answers? Why or why not?

The distinction is in relationships that don't merely describe, but define. For example, in Conway's Game of Life, you can say there is a dead cell with 3 live cells in its neighborhood. I just described a relationship between a cell and its neighbors, but this isn't a mathematical description because it doesn't tell me about how these things interact with one another. If I say, however, that cells are initially either "live" or "dead" and transition states according to rules X, Y, Z, then I am making a mathematical statement because it is defining the behavior and interactivity of things. — QuixoticAgnostic

Sure it's a mathematical description. You just described the number of dead cells relative to live cells. TheMadFool did the same thing in his OP, that I pointed out in my previous post to you, but you seem to have missed it.

The former and the latter are simply answering, or explaining, two different things. They each answer two different questions, yet they both use mathematics in their explanation. They also use words, and I have said that numbers are words, so essentially you explain everything with words, which mathematics consists of.

Although what I'm confused about is you say both universes are explainable, but deny that the first universe is mathematical? You say "if things are interrelated, then they are explainable in mathematical terms", so in universe A the two objects are interrelated, so they are explainable in mathematical terms, which means the universe is mathematical, no? Regardless, we're both in agreement that there is no fundamental difference between universe A and B. — QuixoticAgnostic

I never denied that the first universe was mathematical. I specifically said that it was, and even bolded the text to make it easy for you to see, but you still missed for some reason. I also said that both universes are explainable and by explainable I mean that you use words to represent some state-of-affairs, and mathematical explanations consist of words.

So, if numbers are words, and you explain things with words, then there is no distinction between a universe that you can explain with mathematics and one you can explain with words.

Remember that I had to find an explanation for why the laws of the universe are mathematical. Thus the necessity for a scenario with two different universes, one operating under a mathematical law and the other under a nonmathematical one. Only then could I demonstrate why s universe with life has to be mathematical.

As far as I'm concerned, regarding your claim that the imagined universe A with the nonquantitative law is not chaotic, all I ask from you is to describe the pattern (since you deny this is chaos) in the motion of objects with the law: if one object is struck by another object the struck object will move. The pattern you might claim exists is simply that the struck object will move but how this motion occurs will be totally chaotic, no? It is this chaos I'm referring to. All other physical and chemical laws too will result in chaos if the laws that govern them are nonmathematical for the same reason. This chaos, I hope we're clear on what I mean, is sufficient to prevent any kind of order in universe A. Without order, life, which is simply patterns (order) of energy and matter, is impossible.

That said, you're not entirely wrong in saying that the existence of a law implies there is no chaos; all I can say about that is this chaos is at a different level than the chaos I'm referring to. — TheMadFool

I don't know. It's your imaginary universe. You tell me.

If one object strikes another and the other will move is a law, it seems to be an incomplete law because it doesn't tell how the struck object will move after being struck, or anything about the nature of the objects themselves. If there isn't a pattern then it can be said that the universe is chaotic. It wouldn't be chaotic because one pattern is explained by mathematics and the other is explained by words, which I pointed out isn't a difference because numbers are just words. It would be chaotic because you couldn't establish a pattern of like causes leading to similar effects.

I believe you're describing what my first intuition was, that both universes are actually mathematical, just at a different level of description and precision. — QuixoticAgnostic

No, that both universes are explainable. Like I said, you can use words or numbers to explain it, and numbers are just words.

But if you imagine the universe of a cell (I'm not going to pretend I understand how the cell works at even a high school level), you can define all the parts and describe how all those parts interrelate, and even though this may be a consistent and determinable system of relationships, we wouldn't generally consider that mathematical. — QuixoticAgnostic

As I said, mathematics describes the relationship between things. If things are interrelated then they are explainable in mathematical terms (which are just words). F=m*a is the symbolic representation of how force, mass and acceleration are interrelated.

The cell is defined and described in non-quantitative means, by empirical observation. — QuixoticAgnostic

It seems to me that it is all quantitative. Look at TheMadFool's Laws, they both include the concept of one, and another which is quantitative.

Universe A:
1. Two objects
2. Law of motion: if one object is struck by another object the struck object will move. This law is non-mathematical

Universe B:
1. Two objects
2. Law of motion: if one object travelling at velocity w, strikes another object at an angle x the, the struck object shall move with a velocity y at an angle z., This law is mathematical — TheMadFool

Objects of perception are bounded and quantitative by their very nature. It is how the mind conceives of the world that isn't made up of objects, but of relationships.

So if the victim had been a white man, you think the same events would have followed? — frank

That there is favoritism within positions of power? Sure. Your skin color doesn't make a difference when someone's position of power is on the line. They will throw anyone under the bus to maintain their grip on power.

Just look at Joe Biden. He supported the right of women to be heard when it comes to sexual harassment/assault, but when his aspirations for power are threatened, he changes his tune.

Favoritism, but then why did the DA think she could get away with ignoring a possible murder? Because the victim was black? — frank

Maybe because she was favored by her superiors.

This constant insinuation that any time a white person and black person end up in a conflict that it has to be because of the racist white's fault, simply isn't warranted.

provided some interesting statistics here:

Of the 6,266 known offenders:

53.6% were White
24.0% were Black or African American
12.9% race unknown — FBI Hate Crime Statistics

Here are the stats on the racial composition of the country:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/IPE120218
Whites make up 75% to blacks 13%, yet blacks are 24% of the hate crimes. So it seems to me that blacks are the ones that have instigated more than their fair share of hate crimes when compared to the percent of the population. So it seems to me that you are more likely to meet a racist when meeting a black person than meeting a white person for the first time, not the other way around.

Was the black judge that sentenced the white woman to jail for simply trying to make a living for herself and her employees racist?

The DA shut the police investigation down because she had a relationship with one of the suspects — frank

Are we talking about racism or nepotism/favoritism?

Well, my contention is that a nonmathematical law leads to chaos but a mathematical law leads to order. Your comment reveals a not unexpected bias engendered by (over)exposure to the laws of this universe in which we live where all known phenomena are non-chaotic. You've been conditioned to associate "law" with "no chaos" as there are no known exceptions that could've made you think otherwise.

The fact of the matter is a qualitative nonquantitative/nonmathematical law can exist such as the one I described in my OP that can only lead to chaos; on the other hand, a quantitative/mathematical will always lead to order. — TheMadFool

You are wrong in your assessment of my worldview. It seems like you didn't really bother reading what I said. You are the one that labeled each statement in each universe as a LAW, not me, and then you went on about explaining what is the case:

Law of motion: if one object is struck by another object the struck object will move. — TheMadFool

If it were a universe of chaos, then it wouldn't always be the case that if one object is struck by another object the struck object will move. Maybe the objects would pass right through each other. Maybe the struck object doesn't move, and you wouldn't be able to make statements like this, which means that there aren't any laws.

A law is a statement, or a representation, of some state-of-affairs. You can represent things with words or with numbers and numbers are just words. (7 is seven, 8 is eight, f=m*a is force equals mass times acceleration).

How did you learn to pronounce, or even say, "7" if not for "seven"? Just as Dr. is an abbreviation of doctor, 7 is an abbreviation of seven.

So all you have done is provide the same explanation in both universes, just with different symbols. Both statements allow you to make predictions - that struck objects will move. How can you make predictions in a chaotic universe?

How would the p-zombie argument be inappropriate to the hard problem based on p-zombies not feeling pain?

That's exactly what the p-zombie thought experiment is about - beingsidentical to us in every way but lacking any consciousness and that includes an inability to feel pain, pleasure, etc. — TheMadFool

To make my point clearer consider people who can't feel pain e.g. diabetics with neuropathy and Leprosy patients. Their inability to feel pain (due to nerve damage) makes them highly susceptible to severe injuries, ultimately resulting in disfigurement and death. So, pain plays a critical role in survival. — TheMadFool

So are p-zombies identical to us in every way but lacking any consciousness and that includes an inability to feel pain, pleasure, etc. when what they lack has a causal impact on their survival?

It seems to me that the assertion that p-zombies can be "identical to us in every way but lacking any consciousness and that includes an inability to feel pain, pleasure, etc." is just plain false when you account for the causal impact having a mind has on your survival compared to not having a mind, as you have shown.

The same thing can be said about blind-sight patients. They don't behave identically to humans with normal sight.

The fact is that minds play a causal role in your behavior. If you don't have one, then your behavior won't be identical to something that does have one.

Just as it is insane to do the same thing over and over and expect different results, it is just as insane to expect the same result from doing different things.

To make my point clearer consider people who can't feel pain e.g. diabetics with neuropathy and Leprosy patients. Their inability to feel pain (due to nerve damage) makes them highly susceptible to severe injuries, ultimately resulting in disfigurement and death. So, pain plays a critical role in survival. — TheMadFool

Hmmm. So would p-zombies be less fit than the humans they are suppose to be "identical" to in every way except that there isnt any experience of pain? Sounds like p-zombies are an illegitiment argument for the "hard problem".

Universe A:
1. Two objects
2. Law of motion: if one object is struck by another object the struck object will move. This law is non-mathematical

Universe B:
1. Two objects
2. Law of motion: if one object travelling at velocity w, strikes another object at an angle x the, the struck object shall move with a velocity y at an angle z., This law is mathematical — TheMadFool

Mathematics is simply a method of symbolizing relationships. F=m*a. We can use words or numbers to represent the relationship, which is what you did here. Neither one is chaotic if the both contain LAWS. You said the same thing, one with words and the other, with more symbolic details about the relationship. The extra detail allows me to use the representation to make predictions about other instances of where objects bump into each other and what the results will be.

Many, many minds can do more than most minds. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This puzzle piece doesn't integrate with the rest of the puzzle that you presented. This piece is for a different puzzle.

to determine if my mind can do more than most minds.. — ZzzoneiroCosm

is a great example of the thought process of

Mystics who get plump with ego — ZzzoneiroCosm

The fact that you don't see the former as an example of the latter is an indication that you are probably talking about yourself as someone who thinks that their mind can do more than most minds - I mean how egotistical is that?

And why would a mind that can do more than most minds want to communicate this fact and what it can do to those minds can that can't do what it can do, other than to gloat?

Is critical thinking no longer a requirement in philosophy?

Reappropriation and expropriation are not opposed or antithetical to novelty. — StreetlightX

Sounds like we can apply the theory of evolution by natural selection to our psychology, as in evolutionary psychology. Just as the theory of the evolution of organisms explains how we have many new species as using existing adaptations in novel ways, or genetic modifications to existing structures that has some effect on the organism's fitness to reproduce, it can also apply to how we learn, or apply and falsify our new ideas.

New ideas pop up almost like random mutations, but it is the filtering aspect of natural selection, of falsifying those mutations/ideas, and keeping what works and abandoning what doesn't is what makes some mutation/idea useful or not.

No one said anything about expecting the mind to do more than it can do. That's a phrase you invented. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:meh:

The 'seeker' sees the people in his world and hopes the mind can do more than this. He seeks the more the mind can do. Nothing at all supernatural in that. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:roll:

It's a question of will: willing the mind to do more than most minds can do. Again, nothing supernatural in that. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:meh:

Mystics who get plump with ego - or overexcited by young revelations - are the kind who make assertions about ultimate truth or minglings with the supernatural. — Harry Hindu

:roll:

As I said at the outset: A fruitful dialog between the two of us is unlikely. You're entrenched. You want to negate and not to understand. That's your prerogative. But I'm not interested in continuing our talk. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, I am entrenched in my idea that ideas need to be coherent and consistent to qualify as knowledge.

Did I? The things that I mentioned are pretty unremarkable and I think show the how limited our imagination is, and not how otherworldly expansive it could be in an altered state. Like our dreams, visions in altered states may offer insights about ourselves or the mind in general, but the elements are comprised of our worldly experiences. Even if there were a premonition that proved to be true, it is still limited to the world we know and human concerns. — praxis

You said,

I don’t think we can begin to imagine what is beyond our little fishbowl of experience. — praxis

Obviously, we have begun to imagine. We may be the first imaginers in the universe.

Now, you're saying that our imagination is limited. Well sure, nothing is infinite, except maybe the (multi-)universe in space and time. If what you mean is that fact may be stranger than we could imagine, then we could talk about that.

If the mind can do a thing, that thing is not supernatural. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Exactly. It would be natural.

The 'seeker' is seeking new vistas in the mind. It's a question of will; although belief - namely, a belief in the corruption, laziness and littleness of most minds - does play a role. The 'seeker' sees the people in his world and hopes the mind can do more than this. He seeks the more the mind can do. Nothing at all supernatural in that.

Mystics who get plump with ego - or overexcited by young revelations - are the kind who make assertions about ultimate truth or minglings with the supernatural. You can divide mystics neatly into humble and ego-plump. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This post contains two contradictions:

The first part seems to me a delusion of grandeur - the type you equate with "mystics who get plump with ego" later in your post. It would fall into your ego-plump category.

If a mind can do a thing, and that thing is not supernatural, then expecting more than the mind can do would be expecting something supernatural, not natural, from the mind.

The Golden Rule mistakenly assumes that everyone likes being treated the same way. — creativesoul

Everyone wants to be treated respectfully, no?

I take it that you were talking about the means by which everyone likes to be respected isn't the same, which I would agree.

But, isn't it beholden upon the actor, practicing any moral code - the Golden Rule, or some other moral rule - to know the means by which any other wants to be respected, and to know that others may not like the same means as you.

Is any moral code about one's own wants and needs and projecting them out onto everyone else, or is it in being aware of our varying wants and needs relative to yours and navigating through that varying moral landscape?

So if the Golden Rule applied generally to doing things that people like and not doing things that people don't like and knowing what others like and don't like is a necessary requirement, because that is how you would want to be treated, rather than applied to a specific act, like singing to someone public, then it seems to work nicely.

It seems to me that one can do these things and not have a mystical experience. So, what makes these experiences mystical for one and not another?
— Harry Hindu

Desire and determination are key. The word 'seeker' comes to mind along with the old phrase 'seek and you shall find.' The obverse reads: do not seek and you shall not find. — ZzzoneiroCosm

So how is this not the same thing as what I have said in that you already have to believe in mystical, supernatural things to go seeking it out? You already have to believe in ghosts to be scared by them, or use ghosts as an explanation for the "unexplained" sounds in your house.

The conflict between you and I is whether or not things do or do not have multiple dimensions or aspects.
— Harry Hindu

The conflict between you and I is that you will never settle on a middle ground for anything. — Pantagruel

So instead of addressing the point, you would rather engage in ad hominems. :roll:

Look who's talking. It seems to me that if we can't agree on whether things have multiple dimensions or aspects or not, then we are both not settling on a middle ground. Can you point to the post where you settled on a middle ground with me?

I guess you missed this part:

I was socialized in a Christian environment and I was initially a believer in the Christian god, yet as I got older, I began to question the "rationality" of the social order that I developed in. How does one escape their social upbringing and take a up a position that is in direct opposition of the "rational" socialization one was indoctrinated with if they don't possess some inherent, rational, private language with which to do that? — Harry Hindu

So, if I am so entrenched in my beliefs, then how is it that I did a complete 180 on my beliefs earlier in my life? It is because I began to ask questions that weren't being asked and any answer I received didn't integrate with the rest of what was known or being said.

As part of our conversation, I have taken your position and then, like I did with my Christian beliefs, I began to ask questions and integrate your answers with the rest of what you said but, as I have shown, it is inconsistent.

So it seems to me that you are guilty of what you are accusing me of. Hypocrisy.

I've read that in others' responses to your posts and seen it in our past discussions. You relentlessly pursue your own very specific narrative without attempting to moderate or adapt your perspective to allow any kind of co-existence with alternative perspectives. — Pantagruel

Wrong. I am pursuing your narrative and asking questions about it - questions that you should be asking yourself, but you aren't, because you "relentlessly pursue your own very specific narrative without attempting to moderate or adapt your perspective to allow any kind of co-existence with alternative perspectives." - specifically that things have multiple dimensions or aspects.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm well aware of the dimensions of a great many philosophical issues and know where I stand on them. To my knowledge, there is no universal consensus on almost any issue you might care to pick. There are current favourites, but those also evolve. Anything I might say is a summary of what I believe as well as a brief account of the reasons for that belief. I'm always careful to point out what is my opinion, I never claim to have an authoritative answer. — Pantagruel

I don't understand how you could be disagreeing with me if all we ever talk about is our opinions.

This also contradicts this statement of yours:

We know that we are talking about the same thing when we achieve consensus. — Pantagruel

Which is why I asked how we know that we are talking about the same thing if there isn't a consensus, which you avoided and then attempted an answer that just contradicted another previous statement of yours, which I showed, and so now you respond with hypocrisy and ad hominems.

So, who is it that needs to re-think their position again?

Buddhists see past lives, Christians are one with God, some people see ghost girl... and yeah, cults and religions are built around these experiences. People like Timmothy believe they’ve found the way to free the mind and save humanity or whatever. At the risk of philistinism, it’s all bullshit. An asshole is going to be an asshole after ‘enlightenment’. They might even be an asshole with a more inflated ego, because they’ve experienced selflessness, oddly enough.

I don’t think we can begin to imagine what is beyond our little fishbowl of experience. — praxis

I think you just posted examples of how we imagine what is beyond our little fishbowl of experience. What distinguishes imaginings from reality is the process of falsification.

That you consider the claim grandiose is a sign that a dialog on this subject will prove fruitless.

But in case there's fruit to be had: Lying on one's back staring up at the sky can evoke a mystical revelation. As can a fixed gaze at a sunset. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It seems to me that one can do these things and not have a mystical experience. So, what makes these experiences mystical for one and not another?

In saying it is mystical, what are you actually saying - that there is knowledge to be obtained, or that there is happiness to be felt, or something else entirely?

Except that capacities emerge phylogenetically, not just ontogenetically. So for any individual capacity you can equally well point to its collective origin. I think trying to authoritatively say what something is instead of acknowledging that most things have multiple dimensions or aspects is one of the biggest sources of unnecessary conflict. — Pantagruel

Which origin are you referring too? The origin of self-replicating molecules, the origin of sex and males and females, the origin of warm-blood over cold-blood, the origin of social behaviors that began well before the existence of humans, or what?

To say that something has multiple dimensions is the same as authoritatively saying what something is. The conflict between you and I is whether or not things do or do not have multiple dimensions or aspects. If something has multiple dimensions and aspects, then how do you distinguish between things? It seems to me that the multiple dimensions of one thing would overlap with the multiple dimensions of something else thereby blurring the boundaries of our mental categories.

In saying that some thing has multiple dimensions, are you saying that you can represent one thing in many ways? If yes, then the problem is that you are confusing the many ways of representing, or viewing, something with the thing itself.

Sure. What else would you need other than a rational interpretation of other beings and their behaviors and their relationship to you? It seems to me that you need to be able to categorize other beings and their behaviors in a rational way prior to emulating them in a rational way.

It also seems to me that you would have to understand object permanence - to understand that people still exist even when they are not part of your experience. It seems like this has to be done prior to being socialized.

I was socialized in a Christian environment and I was initially a believer in the Christian god, yet as I got older, I began to question the "rationality" of the social order that I developed in. How does one escape their social upbringing and take a up a position that is in direct opposition of the "rational" socialization one was indoctrinated with if they don't possess some inherent, rational, private language with which to do that?

1. It is a fact that we are communicating now.
2. Because I have presented this fact, it is (trivially) my opinion that this is a fact.
3. You can dispute the factuality of 1 (because you don't believe that we are communicating).
4. Nevertheless, you can't dispute my opinion that 1 is a fact (that's what makes it an opinion). — Pantagruel

We know that we are talking about the same thing when we achieve consensus. Then our communications are co-ordinated. I fully admit, this is an intersubjective (social) approach. That's consistent with Popper, Habermas, generally, the direction in which I am moving now. If you don't have any use for a consensus/communication perspective, well, then we aren't going to be able to communicate, are we? From my current philosophical perspective, there is no rationality at a purely individual level; rationality necessarily emerges as a social (cultural) phenomenon. — Pantagruel

But that was my point, and your point in step 3. - that we aren't reaching a consensus. If you make the claim that we are communicating, and I dispute that, then we aren't reaching a consensus thereby contradicting your step 1. - that it is a fact that we are communicating.

It seems to me that you have to rational prior to being socialized, or else how do you make sense of your experiences of other beings that are more or less like you in appearance and behaviors you can emulate?

The mystical-natural dyad is a commonplace but inaccurate bifurcation. Certain kinds of mystical experience are as natural as the sky or the sun. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I was hoping that some great examples of mystical experiences that are as natural as the sky or the sun would follow such a grandiose claim.

I agree and don’t find it unappealing, though I imagine that many do. It’s only unnatural in the sense that it’s uncommon, in my opinion, and ‘mystical’ in the sense of it being an altered state that is completely internal (others can’t experience the same thing like they can with external places and things). Also, some describe it as trans-rational in being a non-dualistic kind of consciousness. — praxis

What is "unnatural"? Life itself doesn't seem to be a common feature of the universe. Does that mean that life is unnatural?

How do you know that we don't experience the same thing when we have an altered mental state as the result of taking some peyote? The difference seems to only be in how we interpret that experience - how we explain it based on our prior assumptions, like mystical/supernatural experiences exist - just like the people in the elevator assumed ghosts exist - hence their reaction in the elevator.

The "ghost" girl in the elevator is an external thing, yet I wouldn't interpret the experience it the same way as the people in the video. I don't believe in ghosts.

3. You can dispute the factuality of 1 (because you don't believe that we are communicating). — Pantagruel

If I dispute the factuality (btw, what's the difference between factuality and fact?) of 1, then how do we know we are talking about the same thing - us communicating? I've asked that question three times now. It seems to me that my dispute is what communication is.

I believe that mystical experiences correlate to a deactivation of the neural default mode network. A couple of the basic characteristics of that brain state are a loss of a sense of self and a depatterning effect on the mind. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine the sort of insight that could be gained from this kind of experience. In any case, one benefit is existential anxiety relief.

Any method to deactivate the network could work, like meditation, psychedelics, electrical fields, whatever. — praxis

So when you explain your experience as a deactivation of your neural default mode network, is that the insight/knowledge about you that you are talking about obtaining?

Are you saying the insight the experience gives about you is that it correlates to some neural state of yours?

If mystical experiences are by definition ineffable, and you just explained your "mystical" experience as such, then doesn't that make the experience natural, rather than mystical?

Is that explanation unappealing? Is that why people seek something more - something that separates them from the natural world and natural explanations and makes them something more than a natural part of the natural world?

I didn't say that. I said our own opinion about whatever it is we are talking about. You have missed the nuance of the statement. — Pantagruel

So your argument is, we can only talk about our opinions and our opinions are about whatever it is we are talking about? Whoah, that one made me dizzy. :vomit:

If our opinions differ, then how do we know our opinions are about the same thing?

What do you mean for your talk to be of your opinion that you wouldn't mean for your opinion to be of the thing it is about? If you already assumed that your talk is of your opinion, then what prevents the infinite regress of assumptions to then assume that the opinion is also of something?

It just seems to me that not everything we talk of is only our opinions. Is "I have written this post in English" an opinion or fact? If there are some statements that are of opinions and some that are of facts, maybe trying to figure out the pattern of which statements are facts and which are opinions would be a good place to start.

I'm open about sex with the people I have sex with, and not so open about it with those I don't have sex with.

Who talks the same way about sex with their significant other as they would with their best friend whom they don't have sex with?

Wouldn't your significant other become jealous if they found out that you were sharing the same intimate details about your sexual life with someone else that you aren't sleeping with (yet)?

So unless you and all of your partners are into the same consensual polygamy, you would probably want to limit your unfettered openess to those you are actually engaged in a sexual relationship with.

Say praxis obtained some insight into himself (obtained knowledge about himself) using mysticism as a means (whatever that really means we'll ignore for the moment). Could you, Tzeentch, or I use the same means to obtain the same insight into praxis? What method would we use to gain the same insight into praxis? It seems to me that, logically, we'd have to use the same method to obtain the same knowledge, but will we? Why, or why not?

What method seems to work for everyone in gaining insight into reality itself - to the point where we can manipulate it on a planetary scale and extend our senses beyond the solar system?

As I understand it most recorded mystical experiences are given within a religious or cultural framework. — Janus

Exactly. Peyote is often taken to cause mystical experiences in the context of a religious ceremony, but if I take some Peyote for the psychedelic experience and for mental experimentation, I don't think of it as a mystical experience.

So it seems to me that you would already have some assumptions that you are basing your interpretation of the experience on. If you already believe in spirituality, mysticism, supernatural, etc. (name your favorite anthropomorophic buzz-word that makes humans special creations separate from nature), then you are likely to interpret some ineffable experience as such.

Would you agree that the people in the elevator believe that they are having a mystical experience?

We get a more accurate picture when we can relate our perspectives to each other as partial maps of the territory, so to speak, rather than arguing whether our respective views are true or false. — Possibility

If this is the way that you want to put it, then there are more or less accurate maps of the territory. If your map contradicts mine, then what do we do? Who has an actual map of the territory? If neither of us do, then we don't really have maps then do we?

Mysticism is being talking about as a kind of knowledge, or as a means of obtaining it. Is it a means of obtaining knowledge or happiness?

Assuming these individuals and their 'cults' are genuinely happy, why does this bother you? — Tzeentch

Being happy is one thing. Being knowledgeable is something else. It bothers me when someone confuses one with the other and expects me to have the same confusion, by not being clear about what their goal is - knowledge or happiness.

Mysticism doesn’t have to involve woo woo. I understand that many people view Plato as woo woo, but it’s hard to deny there is actual tangible content to mull over - maybe it’s a matter of cultural heritage? The New Age caused a bizarre fetishism in the west for all things ‘eastern’. — I like sushi

People are looking for answers to questions that science just hasn't been able to answer yet. Some questions have been answered by science and many people don't find those answers appealing because it doesn't make them feel important, or have a purpose. When their own culture doesn't provide appealing answers, then they look to different angles to answer the question. The assumption, though, is that our answers should be appealing. When you don't like an answer to a question, then is your dislike sufficient reason assert that it is an non-answer to then keep looking somewhere else, or with different means?

Thanks for your opinion of your opinion of opinions.

Possibly they will be useful to someone else though. — Pantagruel

But according to the other statement you asserted, someone else only has access to their opinion of your opinions, and what they would find useful is their own opinion, not your opinion, so then no one can really ever find use in any else's opinion because all they have access to is their own opinion.

I didn't pretend to solve it, I just situated it in a context of rational discussion. — Pantagruel

You could start solving it by backing off the statement that all we ever talk about is our own opinions because it leads to an infinite regress and doesn't seem like you actually believe it.

Did you re-read your post where you said that all we can ever do is talk about our opinions? Is your entire post an opinion or fact about systems theory, the scientific method, logic and me being not open to reasoned arguments? You're the one that seems to not be open to your own "reasoned" conclusions that all you can talk about is your opinion, as you keep implying that you aren't talking about the nature of your opinion, but the nature of systems theory, the scientific method, logic and my mental states.

That seems to me to be a bit of a non-starter. Everyone is always talking about their own opinion of whatever it is they are talking about. You can purport and pretend to objectivity, this aspect can never really be discounted. You are splitting hairs. — Pantagruel

That's your opinion.

Edit: ie. https://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/RandL.pdf - why logic is not reason and vice versa — Pantagruel

So is this Gilbert Harman's opinion of logic, or is he getting at what logic actually is?

The problem is that if we can only ever talk about our opinions, then what is the relationship between our opinions and what they are about? What information does one's opinion carry about the thing their opinion is about? If we can only talk about our opinions, then how do we ever know that our opinions are themselves about something? If our opinions differ, then how do we know our opinions are about the same thing?

Moreover, logic does not reduce to reasons: logic is a system of formalized relationships. — Pantagruel

Exactly - a relationship between reasons (premises) and conclusions.

It’s like love. — I like sushi

It's like god, as in "God-of-the-Gaps".

An unexplained experience is the same as an ineffable experience. The problem is that you explain it by naming it "mystical", or implying a mystical, or supernatural cause. Mystical, like god, is just a gap-filler in our knowledge of something that we haven't been able to explain yet.

In saying that an experience is "mystical" seems to be a loaded term that implies supernatural causes, whereas just saying that the experience is unexplainable is being more precise.