You Kant fail. — jgill

Ahem...

I probably don't. — Moliere

Sorry, I shouldn't have barked. I love that Kafka quote. It points out that you have to bring something to the philosophy game. You have to have developed a world view, a perspective, before you start. You can't just pick a philosopher at random and start believing what they say. You see that a lot here on the forum - people quoting philosophers without really understanding the implications and consequences of those beliefs. Other philosophers can help you find the way, but it's your path.

there's something to be said for not seeking. It's just hard to qualify it as philosophy. — Moliere

You don't need books in order to seek. They can help, but they can't do it by themselves. They can also misdirect if you don't have a strong enough vision of your own.

It's just hard to qualify it as philosophy. — Moliere

Then you don't understand what philosophy is.

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — Kafka

Then, if you want to do some reading, you can.

I can;t imagine what you think mysticism is about. — FrancisRay

Forgive me, I copied this from the OP for a discussion I started a year or so ago called "What is mysticism."

I have some ideas about what mysticism is, but I’ve never tried to tie them down. For that reason, it’s not a word I use much. It definitely has a bad connotation in some uses – it’s often mixed up with ideas about the occult. Chinese warriors flying through the air with their swords flashing. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to look for a definition of “mysticism” that I can use from now on. Here are some definitions from several sources:

[1] Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

[2] Belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

[3] The experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality

[4] The belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)

[5] Vague speculation : a belief without sound basis

[6] A theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

[7] Mysticism is popularly known as becoming one with God or the Absolute, but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.

[8] The belief that there is hidden meaning in life or that each human being can unite with God

[9] The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth).

I like number 4 the best. Based on that, yes, Taoism is a form of mysticism. The lesson I take from this exercise is that "mysticism" has at least two conflicting meanings. The first; as described in Items 1, 3, 4, and 9; represents a potentially valid method to gain knowledge about the world. The second; as described in Items 2, 5, and 6 represents a vague, undisciplined, invalid method to gain the appearance of knowledge or power. These two meanings are often mixed up. There are clearly those who don't think that mysticism, by whatever definition, is a valid means to knowledge.

That's not how I read him. Do you have an example where he says that?
When asked how he acquired his knowledge he answers, 'I look inside myself and see'.

If you're arguing the mysticism is not the study of consciousness then thanks for the chat but we'd best leave it here. It is such a basic and easily verifiable fact. . — FrancisRay

The Tao Te Ching is not about studying consciousness, it's about using consciousness, i.e. introspection and intuition, to study the world.

I've been thinking that moral relativism can provide a good framework to suggest that one's idea of 'goodness' in death is individually determined based on ones cultural and individual factors, and therefore the only definition of goodness in death can be 'that which is satisfactory to those involved. — AlexMcGram

When I talk about a "good death" I'm not making a moral statement. I mean that the death is psychologically satisfying to those involved, especially the person dying. What's considered a good death is certainly based on cultural and individual factors.

Haiku is not a Zen souvenir. It is Japanese art and literature. To compose a haiku, you need to work out on Japanese aesthetics previously. — javi2541997

Javi is Spanish
But his soul is Japanese
He is passionate

William James (sort of)

Is it true? Who cares?
What to do next is what's key
What's useful is true.

Welcome to the forum.

Although I suppose you could say hard problem depends on it being true. — FrancisRay

Unless, of course, the hard problem is metaphysical too. Let me think about it... I'm not sure, but it may be. For me, that ties in with the question of whether the hierarchies of scale are metaphysical too, which is something I've been thinking about for a while.

What current understanding? the natural sciences have no method for acquiring an understanding. — FrancisRay

I'll save this as a great example of begging the question.

My point was that to confuse being ;scientific' with endorsing materialism is a serious error. — FrancisRay

Isn't that what I just said?

I don't agree that mysticism is the study of consciousness.
This is not a matter of opinion. What else could mysticism study when it teaches that everything is consciousness? . — FrancisRay

Of course it's a matter of opinion, your opinion. Here's what the dictionary says:

• Belief in direct experience of transcendent reality or God, especially by means of contemplation and asceticism instead of rational thought.
• Such experience had by an individual.
• Belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are directly accessible by subjective experience.

Psychology is the study of mind, including consciousness.
This is not that case, as is noted by Kant. It studies the intellect, but not the source of the intellect. . — FrancisRay

Another matter of opinion. Again, from the web:

• The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
• The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, group, or activity.
• Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another.

I'm using regular old common usage, i.e. the dictionary, as the source for what the words I use mean.

Introspection is a valid method for studying human psychology. Introspection is not necessarily mysticism. Or mysticism is not necessarily introspection. Or something like that.
I'd say it depends on how you define 'introspection and how you practice it. — FrancisRay

Now you're just being difficult. Valid methods can be used badly.

I think you're mixing things up here. As I understand it, "perennial philosophy" is metaphysics.
Yes it is, but it is also mysticism. Since Huxley's book under this title the phrase 'Perennial philosophy' and mysticism are synonyms. — FrancisRay

I'm not sure that's true and if it is, I don't understand how it's relevant to this discussion.

For Lao Tzu... consciousness and reality are the same phenomenon. . . — FrancisRay

That's not how I read him. Do you have an example where he says that?

This seems correct to me. If a 'scientific explanation' is one that depends on materialism being true then it would be my view also. I'd say it's the only available sensible view. Unless we abandon our unnecessary and demonstrably absurd metaphysical views then we cannot explain consciousness, mind, matter or anything else. . — FrancisRay

Materialism is a metaphysical, not a factual, principle. Scientists don't have to be materialists in order to do science. Nothing "depends" on materialism being true.

As state it is, of course, a gross misuse of the term 'scientific'. — FrancisRay

If you are saying the current state of our understanding of consciousness cannot be considered scientific, I disagree. That's not to say there are not a lot of scientific issues yet to resolve.

To deny the existence of mysticism, which is the study of consciousness, is not just a profoundly unscientific way of avoiding the study of consciousness but a laughable one. — FrancisRay

I don't agree that mysticism is the study of consciousness. Psychology is the study of mind, including consciousness. Introspection is a valid method for studying human psychology. Introspection is not necessarily mysticism. Or mysticism is not necessarily introspection. Or something like that.

I would collect together every book that has ever been published that correctly explains the Perennial philosophy, and hire a fleet of trucks to deliver them to the science department with a note asking them to produce a scientific explanation for why all their authors agree with each other and why everything they say is irrefutable and in accord with modern science and how what they say allows us to solve all metaphysical problems and put the natural sciences on a solid fundamental foundation. They have no 'scientific' method for studying consciousness and discovering the reason, but it might make make them wonder, Would this count as empirical evidence? . . . . — FrancisRay

I think you're mixing things up here. As I understand it, "perennial philosophy" is metaphysics.

Or if it’s not equivocating it’s at least not acknowledging the distinction as that makes the difference. — schopenhauer1

The only evidence we have that consciousness exists in anyone but ourselves is our observations of other's behavior. Perhaps that will change with all the new non-intrusive monitoring methods, but we're not there yet.

My position is that the hard problem is metaphysical, and that if this is not recognized then it is hard (intractable) for the reason Chalmers originally gives. As a metaphysical problem it is tractable but only when we abandon dualism. The same would go for all metaphysical problems. — FrancisRay

I agree with your more general comments about metaphysics, but I'm still uncertain about how others apply it to consciousness. I get the impression that hard problemers believe there is a specific, factual explanation for consciousness that is not approachable from a scientific point of view.

It can be studied scientifically. and Yoga is often described as a science, but not empirically. Lao Tzu makes no use of empiricism for his knowledge but explains it by saying 'I look inside myself and see'' He endorses the non-dual doctrine for which reality and consciousness are the same phenomenon and it is a unity, and this is how he can know about Tao and the 'ancient origin', the knowledge he calls the 'essence of Tao'. . . — FrancisRay

This seems like a good explanation to me. My point wasn't that Taoism was established empirically, but that it provides an effective metaphysical foundation for science. On the other hand, I've always seen introspection as a valid source of knowledge, so "I look inside myself and see," can be a credible statement of fact.

I wonder how you would go about studying consciousness empirically. Can you imagine a way of doing this? Generally, academic researchers have to rely on second-hand reports. It is telling that scientists used to dismiss consciousness as non-existent for the sake of Behaviorism. This view arose because it cannot be studied empirically. Sometime round the 1980s they changed their mind and decided it did exist but I don't know what brought about this change of heart. It was not any new data. . — FrancisRay

Consciousness already is and always has been studied scientifically. Psychology can be characterized as the study of mind, including consciousness. Second-hand reports can be perfectly valid empirical data. Our own consciousness is the only one we have access to direct evidence for, at least so far. Also - what we call "consciousness", especially in others, is really behavior which we can study more or less objectively. Consciousness can also be studied by more nuts and bolts science as in cognitive science.

Banned Jack Rogozhin — Baden

Alas, he had some interesting things to say.

Not a criticism of the moderators.

Well, if that is the worst of the bunch, i've been far more courteous than some of my interlocutors who have accused me of being a Putin puppet... — Jack Rogozhin

Sorry, I shouldn't be lecturing you. I've been known to do that. It's just that I've really been enjoying this discussion and I didn't want it to turn into a mess.

However, if you can show me where I have been impugning motived and intentions instead of arguing the facts, I would gladly correct that — Jack Rogozhin

This is the worst of the bunch.

This is an outright lie. — Jack Rogozhin

Does non-dualism have any insight on how we perceive time? I have a problem with metaphysics being more fundamental than physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

You've already bragged about not knowing much about philosophy. Now you've verified that by showing you don't know much about metaphysics either.

This has been an interesting and informative thread. Your input has been helpful and informative. But you're disrupting things. Stop impugning motives and intentions and argue the facts. It undermines your arguments.

And coup against America? France, definately yes, US perhaps not:

(REUTERS 10th Aug 2023) After ousting President Mohamed Bazoum from office on July 26 and placing him under house arrest, the junta revoked military cooperation agreements with France, which has between 1,000 and 1,500 troops in the country.

So far the United States has not received any request to remove its troops and does not have any indication that it will be forced to do so, said two U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity. — ssu

What is the role of US military in Niger?

China's interest in the Sahel (and in Africa in general) with it's Belt and Road Initiative is simply to get more customers for it's industry and enlarge it's infrastructure building beyond China. — ssu

So, is this iteration of the Great Game primarily an economic one, countries grabbing for markets? Is there still a military purpose, i.e. a struggle for political hegemony?

The below map — ssu

Do the flags represent military presence or just any sort of political or military involvement? What is the US's role in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

mercenaries from Wagner — ssu

Wagner seems to be everywhere. Are they considered an organ of the Russian military and foreign policy? If so, they are an unruly one.

Yes, I definitely agree. — Jack Rogozhin

If you think so, you must think the Maidan coup in Ukraine was evil to, no? — Jack Rogozhin

I've thought about that a lot, especially the US's role. Generally speaking, I consider the overthrow of a democratically elected government a bad thing. One thing is pretty certain, we wouldn't be having a war in the Ukraine if it hadn't happened and we wouldn't be as close to nuclear war as we are now.

It's because I endorse non-dualism and for this no problems arise. — FrancisRay

I'm confused. I've always considered the people who search for answers to the so-called hard problem of as the dualists. Looking back over your posts in this thread, you come down on the side of @schopenhauer1 and the rest of the hard problemers. Doesn't that make you a dualist? Or do I have the terminology mixed up?

You'll find that those who do not understand non-dualism do not understand metaphysics and as a consequence cannot make sense of consciousness. I would cite the whole of modern consciousness studies for evidence. I'm coming from somewhere else and endorse the explanations given by the Buddha, Lao Tzu.and Schrodinger, which are entirely ignored and usually unknown to most people working in modern consciousness studies. — FrancisRay

If you've read much of what I've written here on the forum, you've seen that a lot of my metaphysics is based on my understanding of the Tao Te Ching. I don't see any contradiction between that and a belief that consciousness can be fruitfully studied using science.

This wouldn't happen if you argued with me. — FrancisRay

Is that because you are so wise and articulate? I already spent three or four days discussing this with @Quixodian, @Patterner, and @schopenhauer1 before you started to participate. Those three are certainly capable of making the case. As I noted, this subject gets worn out pretty quickly. We've all made the same arguments before and will again.

I'm trying to decide whether our differences are matters of fact or metaphysics. I have a prejudice toward considering intractable questions as metaphysics, which allows me to put them aside without it feeling like I'm cheating, but I'm not sure here.

If science is not the correct method for studying consciousness, please describe a program of study that might be.

This has lead to central governments being intrinsically weak and has made it possible for armed bands simply moving from one country to another. Military coups have been frequent and now you could talk about a Coup-bloc forming in the Sahel as the armed forces have been in the end the only working (and financed) part of the government. — ssu

Does this in any way mean that the military might be able to provide more stable government than the civil sector?

When I think of governments in central Africa, I think of instability, corruption, revolution, violence, coups, terrorism, war lords, and extreme poverty. There have been crises there my entire life. How much of that vision is my western parochialism? Are there any areas of peace and stability.

I read parts of Mungo Park's "Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa." If I remember correctly, he travelled up the Gambia River and down the Niger in the period between 1795 and 1805. He painted a picture of a region made up of small, relatively peaceful and prosperous kingdoms. It's a really good book. He wrote well, but died very young. I should go back and finish it.

↪T Clark :roll: — 180 Proof

A sadist, or a fiction…or an impartial force of nature, or is aware of and protecting us from a much wider range of horror and misery than we can comprehend or is part of a pantheon…hardly just the two possibilities you mention.
I mean, its all made up so a decent exercise of ones imagination is all thats needed to show its not just sadist or bust. — DingoJones

You put it better than I would have. Now I don't have to comment. Thanks.

From an old thread "The Problem of Evil"...
The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural afflictions (e.g. living creatures inexorably devour living creatures; congenital birth defects; etc), man-made catastrophes and self-inflicted interpersonal miseries is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

This particular argument has always struck me as intellectually dishonest. Is there no God or is God evil? You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.

But what do you think? — ssu

Interesting. Thanks. This is an area I know just about nothing about, so I don't have much to contribute, but I will be paying attention.

How does Boko Haram fit into this? Are they one of the Al Queda/IS franchises you mentioned?

There are two sides and one of them doesn't make sense. — FrancisRay

And this is where this particular argument always ends. It's only a question of how long it will go on till it peters out. And then in a day, or a week, or 10 minutes, it will just start up again. I'll see you then.

I've always liked travelling. I still like the smell of diesel fumes because they always meant riding on a bus to me. I love wandering around cities looking at buildings. On the other hand, like @Tom Storm, I'm lazy. I like my lounge chair, books, iced coffee, and my computer. I think my wanderlust decreased when I had children. Travel with family can't be as easy and free.

I did have to spend time on the road some when I was working. The longest period was for about 6 months living in residential motels and eating out every night. It's fun for about two weeks. After a while it gets really depressing, at least for me.

Like most things in life, I think it comes down to a matter of temperament. My fantasy of travel takes into account my pleasure in seeing new places and my sedentary nature. That involves hiring a driver and riding all over the country in a limousine, RV, or private bus. Stopping on a regular basis to stay in nice hotels. Booking with a travel agent who can plan my itineraries and take care of any details, e.g. reservations, local guides, ideas for activities. As a less expensive alternative, I'll just keep sitting here on my ass, reading, talking philosophy.

The OPs position is more open minded so needs less wriggling on the hook. — FrancisRay

I guess I see it more as imagining a hook so you have something to wriggle on.

there's two sides to the debate. — FrancisRay

I share the view of you and Chalmers as to the amount of sleight of hand that goes on in consciousness studies. It's an epidemic. . . — FrancisRay

I think many of us on the other side of the argument would agree with, obviously, different opinions about who is doing the prestidigitation.

Gathering Evidence by Martin MacInnes — Manuel

I said to myself "Ah, a book on epistemology. I think I'll take a look." It's not about epistemology.

a great New Yorker article on contemporary philosophy of mind. — Quixodian

Thanks for the link. I read the article but I don't think it adds anything new to our perennial discussions about this subject. What are your thoughts on that?

By the way, is my understanding of the meaning of that phrase, which I discussed in my previous post, correct? — T Clark

Looking on the web, it doesn't seem to me this is what epistemic cut means, but I'm not sure.

You misinterpret how “physical” is being used in its juxtaposition to mental. It doesn’t mean “physics” as you seem to be using it. There is a way in which atomic, chemical, biological are physical events that are different in kind than qualia, ideas, what-it’s-likeness and so on. This is what I mean by taking this distinction seriously. — schopenhauer1

I did understand what you wrote, but I don't think the distinction you are making is important in this particular context. As I noted, the universe is just out there wiggling around. We're the ones who put labels like "physical" and "mental" on stuff. Your the one who chose this particular epistemic cut.

By the way, is my understanding of the meaning of that phrase, which I discussed in my previous post, correct?

Why is that?... So why would we not think what is already known to us, all of which is based on consistent characteristics, could’ve been predicted in principle? — Patterner

Perhaps it's a metaphysical position. I'm not positive it's true or that, if it is, it's truth can be demonstrated. It certainly is true for the foreseeable future.

Now, to contradict that, I'll make an argument that it is true. As Stephen J. Gould used to say, the world is massively contingent. If we reran the history of the world, things would turn out differently. [Vague arm waving about chaos theory and quantum mechanics here] Assuming life on Earth would get started at all, I've heard arguments that it would still have to be based on water and carbon for chemistry reasons. But would it still have to be based on DNA? After single cell life first developed, it just sat around twiddling it's thumbs for a couple of billion years before multi-cell life and sexual reproduction popped up. On the other side, I've heard arguments that life would probably look a lot like it does now because of converging evolution. Even if that's true, it still would be different in very significant ways that, it seems to me, would not be predictable.

predictions of the background microwave radiation — Patterner

I thought this was an accidental discovery by some geeks with a microwave detector in the 1960s.

It's nature is consistent. Not random or chaotic. The strength of gravity and the strong nuclear force, the speed of light, etc., are what they are. They are aspects of its nature that we have noticed, and we call them laws. — Patterner

Those are all just conceptual overlays humans have placed over the world. At bottom, there is only the world doing it's thing. The rest is just our trying to jam it into categories. See my previous post to @schopenhauer1.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/828994

It's true that we likely could not have predicted many of these things. There's way too much we don't know or haven't figured out. — Patterner

The claim is they are not predictable even in principle.

But us not being able to predict liquidity from three properties of H2O molecules doesn't mean those properties are not directly responsible for liquidity. — Patterner

I've already agreed that all biological processes are completely consistent with the laws of chemistry and ditto for all the rest of the hierarchy of scale. I think that's the strongest statement that can correctly be made. If you are saying more than that, and I think you are, I think you're wrong.

It seems to me that despite the novelty of biological systems, that they are not different in kind, then their chemical substrates. That is to say, they are still not anything like the loose definition I gave of mental events. They are still physical events, — schopenhauer1

Except I do think biological processes are different in kind from physical or chemical processes in the same sense that mental processes are different from biological/neurological processes.

it may be the case that "emergence" needs "something" for which to "emerge within" (i.e. a point of view). That is to say, assuming there are these "jumps" (which we call "emergent properties"), whence are these properties taking place? We, as the already-observing observer, have the vantage point of "seeing the emergence" but "where" do these "jumps" take place without a point of view? I guess, as another poster used to say, Where is the epistemic cut?. And also, how would that cut take place without an already-existing observer? What does that new enclosure (of the new emergent property) even look like without a vantage point, or point of view already in the equation?. — schopenhauer1

I've never understood the concept of epistemic cut. Does it mean, e.g., the break between chemistry and biology we're talking about? If so, we need to recognize this is an artificial break. It doesn't really represent some deeper sense of reality. I've been trying to fit it into a category and I'm not satisfied I've done it effectively. Is it metaphysics? Whatever it is, the universe without us in it is not aware of it. Is that the point you're trying to make? For me, that just means that the distinction between physical and chemical and biological and mental processes is also artificial. There's just the world wiggling around, doing it's thing.

Basically I am saying, we must keep in mind the incredible difference and distinction between mental and physical versus physical and other physical events. — schopenhauer1

Again, I don't get it.

On a more general level, it is an instance of the principle that information-based systems, which includes organisms, embody a level of organisation which defies reduction to physics and chemistry. — Quixodian

I have no problem agreeing with this. I agree that it makes sense to recognize that living matter is fundamentally different from non-living matter. I don't think it says anything that resolves the differences between our ways of seeing things.