REASON: A shifting of focus from that which we can't use, to that which we can.

I am merely pointing out that they can't yield falsifiable or verifiable knowledge in the sense that logic, math and science can. — Janus

I had no idea you felt that way!!

Uh oh, more snarky applesauce!

That seeing things how they are has soteriological benefits — Wayfarer

Could we perhaps explore a distinction between the act of observation, and any conclusions which may arise from the observation?

OBSERVATION: The act of observation is aided enormously by setting thought aside, to the degree that is possible. This isn't some esoteric concept, it's simply a matter of what we are aiming our attention at. To the degree I'm distracted by my thoughts about reality, reality itself becomes harder to observe.

CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions which arise from observation often propagate like dividing cancer cells, constructing an ever larger conceptual edifice, real estate which is typically then hijacked by ego, which then comes in to conflict with other conceptual structures and their ego owners.

Observation takes us in the direct of peace, while conclusions take us in the direction of conflict.

This is the conclusion I've reached from observation. Should you dispute it in any way whatsoever, thus denting my cherished self image as a super concluder, evolved man of peace and merchant of the "one true way", I will have no choice but to totally kick your ass!!! :-)

I don't have any problem with people having faiths of various kinds, provided they see, and admit, that it is faith. — Janus

Does this apply to you as well? Or just to other people?

As I have said the case with science, logic and the empirical is different, because the corroboration can be achieved with an unbiased observer. — Janus

As you have said many times. And so my question would be, having discarded religiously generated conclusions as unreliable....

What's next?

The discarding seems reasonable to me. The apparent lack of any "whats next" does not.

Krishnamurti, you may recall, always rejected any idea of 'spiritual authority'. Yet it was always him on the podium, speaking. I suppose you could say, he had no authority beyond that of 'pointing out', but he was always pointing out something that most of us don't see, otherwise there would have been nothing to say. — Wayfarer

As much as I'm fond of JK, I still wonder whether having nothing to say might have been an improvement.

Example, I once attended a talk by Amrit_Desai. I was in no way a follower, but rather a college sophomore skeptic, attending in the hopes of meeting hot hippy chicks. This fellow sat on the stage saying nothing at all, and filled the whole room with a fog of peace that was undeniably tangible. Eventually he began to talk, not a word of which I remember.

The counter argument is that had no talk been promised, I very likely wouldn't have shown up.

This is a pointless response — Janus

Yes, it was, totally agree. My apologies. I wore myself out on the forum yesterday and by end of the day my brain had turned to toxic applesauce. Sorry, my bad!

You misunderstand. My suggestion is that we approach religion in the same way as we should do philosophy, by abandoning all our ideologies, beliefs, hopes, dreams, theories and views and other useless baggage at the door — FrancisRay

I don't misunderstand, I've been chanting that very thing over and over to the point where even I'm now annoyed by the chanting. :-)

I am going a little out of bounds of the norm by coming here unsolicited. — TLCD1996

I think you should apologize for apologizing in any way for your contributions here. :-) This is my clever one liner, uh, two liner.

This is because you are caught up in naive realism — FrancisRay

Could be. I think I might be caught up in my Catholic upbringing that stated God is ever present everywhere at all times. I'm not stuck on the Catholic God, never was really, but it appears I am stuck on the notion of WHATEVER IT IS being embedded in material reality. Not limited to necessarily, don't know about that.

But I cannot understand your fatalism — Chris1952Engineer

Would it be fatalism to recall that the Roman Empire thrived and dominated for centuries and then collapsed in to a thousand years of chaos and ignorance? Hasn't every civilization ever constructed eventually collapsed?

Aren't the means for a possible almost instant collapse of our civilization standing by ready for a single human being to press a button? Isn't that a fact? And isn't it true that generally speaking we are bored by that fact? Isn't it true that on a number of occasions we've come within a whisker of Biblical scale calamity?

Meaning no offense, and claiming no perfect knowledge of the future, I don't understand what your faith is based upon. Surely not logic or facts?

And the other question. Assuming for just a moment that my concern is valid, and assuming that neither of us are in a position to do anything about this, should those assumptions be true, should I be pulling back this curtain?

During the Carter administration somebody mistakenly placed a training tape in to the NORAD main computer, and for precious minutes the entire chain of command all the way up to the National Security Advisor were convinced a Soviet first strike was incoming. The National Security Advisor decided not to wake his wife, but to let her die peacefully in her sleep. Is that what I should be doing? A question, not a point, I honestly don't know...

My argument with Wayferer is just that he won't admit the difference I am pointing to, insofar as he wants to claims that religious experience yields inter-subjectively determinable knowledge, and yet is unable to say how that could be possible. — Janus

Ok, argue away, keep going for years, decades, your entire life. Who cares?

Yes. I'm saying there's no need for this situation. Most people do not approach religion and philosophy as I suggest, so trouble follows. — FrancisRay

Every ideology says this. If only everyone agreed with us then we'd have peace. Except that never happens, even within a particular ideology.

What I'm arguing is simply that, unlike mathematics, logic and the empirical sciences, where conclusions may be drawn and tested, no rational, that is testable, conclusions can be drawn from religious or peak experiences. — Janus

Religion is not science, we agree. To me, comparisons between the two are misguided. Science is concerned with facts about reality, whereas religion is about our relationship with reality. Apples and oranges.

So for example, if my religion tells me XYZ is true, it's irrelevant that this assertion can't be proven so long as it enhances my relationship with reality.

Should you choose to read more of my posts you will see that I routinely rant on and on about valuing religious experience over religious explanations. I'm also entirely agreeable to discarding religion entirely if such experiences are more easily accessed by other methods.

My pitch would be, find something that works, and work it.

Yes, my grandfather had Parkinson's and increasingly severe dementia over a period of 15 years — jamalrob

Ah, sorry, so you know of what I speak.

I hope you find a way to deal with it, even if it involves defining waves out of existence. — jamalrob

Thank you, same to ya! We shall see.

Ha, I nailed your birthday. We great imaginary sages have a knack for such stunts. :-)

I also seek the right attitudes for dealing with these things, but for me, metaphysics doesn't help. — jamalrob

Ok, I hear you, I'm not proposing a one size fits all solution.

Regarding my own death, often I think I would like to be a fighter to the bitter end, like your mother — jamalrob

Price tag can be very high. But your choice of course.

Honestly, what scares me is that I try to time my departure too closely, and blow it. And then spend the next 12 years staring at the ceiling unable to move. 12 years that will feel like 2,000. My sister doing this right now. No end in sight. Could be 20 more years to come before it's over. Can you tell I'm terrified?

I had an uncle who was mowing the grass on a hot 4th of July and had a heart attack. They said he was dead before he hit the ground. Now that's the way to go about things.

think we can interpret this as saying that it's precisely the patterns that can be said to significantly exist, rather than matter without form. — jamalrob

This could be a way to define existence, agreed.

I think you need to have greater faith in the "Silent Majority", the Philosophy of science and technological progress. — Chris1952Engineer

I will admit to having reservations about attempts to pop the delusional dream bubble we are living in. If nothing can be done, perhaps better to let folks enjoy their sleep. Seriously.

Or simply the advances just slows down — ssu

But the advances have already reached the point where a single bad day can equal game over. We aren't really talking about a speculative future so much as we are the current reality.

Sorry to be brief! Engaging on too many fronts, my bad.

Let's instead take seriously the position that people and waves and other such composite objects don't exist, that patterns in general don't exist. — jamalrob

Real, but non-existent, according my use of the word. Like space, the overwhelming vast majority of reality.

Does it then follow that people don't die? — jamalrob

If you don't exist, how do you die? If we agree that everything is energy, and energy can not be created or destroyed, then where is there to go?

Again, I do realize this is a highly abstracted way to look it, but then, this is a philosophy forum after all. If your challenge is that it's too abstract to be of much practical use, I would generally agree, on average, most of the time. Religions tend to be much more practical about such things.

Surely what follows is that dying describes the destruction of a pattern — jamalrob

Ok, I can agree, something which doesn't exist is no more. I know, I hear you, contradictory. But perhaps you could revisit the posts above regarding the attempt to map human scale concepts on to the very largest of questions? I have attempted to address this.

If this is right, then there is little comfort in knowing that nothing has ceased to exist — jamalrob

Again agree that such abstractions do not excel at the comfort business. But we are nerds, this is what we do. Mostly. At least here.

If you should feel that comfort is the most rational goal of such an inquiry then perhaps we should discuss different tools?

Nobody says that only things with mass exist, I don't think — jamalrob

Phenomena can be real, without having mass. Space for example. Thus it seems useful to make a distinction between "real" and "exists". Admittedly common usage often lumps the two together.

And by the way, how many millions of God threads have you read that essentially claim God doesn't exist because it has no measurable properties such as weight and mass? Such claims seem to assume that such measurable properties are the definition of existence.

Because it's the wave that I observed, that I loved, that was part of my world, and that is gone. I don't give a shit about the water and energy. You see the problem? — jamalrob

Yes, I do, would agree that such abstractions as we are exploring here will have limited emotional value. That said, I've been considering this for years, and for this nerd it does help create a different mental image than "when I die I lose everything".

There can be very practical implications of such a different mental image, to the degree it's possible to attain. As example, my mother died a very long hard death from Parkinsons because she wasn't a philosopher or religious, so she had nothing but the common "fight to the bitter end" philosophy to guide her. If they should tell me I have Parkinsons, I'm convinced my next step would be to get my affairs in order and then put a bullet in my brain. Part of this is a very ordinary fear of pain, and another part a sense that, um, the ocean is where I come from.

In agreement with your sentiment above I will remind you of the posts I shared above regarding how religions typically understand that this level of abstraction has limited practical use, and so they reach for other more accessible language. But philosophers tend to hate such language, so I am attempting to speak here in the local dialect, if you will.

It is the universal cause of existence while itself existing not, for it is beyond all being’ (from his book On the Divine Names). This might seem like nonsense — FrancisRay

It sounds like space to me. I have no hard opinion on this, but find myself intrigued by the notion that what so many have been trying to describe in so much fancy language is space. As just one example, it's the known proven phenomena which would seem to best align with the Catholic doctrine that God is ever present in all times and places. It also embodies some of the contradictions which have befuddled so many, such as being real but not existent. Oops, wandering off topic...

No, I really do think your definition of existence is wrong, and obviously so, and I don't think it's a popular view either in philosophy or on the street. — jamalrob

Ok then, please continue and share what you feel an appropriate definition would be.

While awaiting your reply, my quick take would be that I don't consider philosophers to be that rational, and am guessing the street doesn't really care one way or another, generally speaking. That sentiment is open to challenge as well of course.

but a man named Schleiermacher (as a member of a "group of Romantics") was noted for his insistence that religion be defined not be its texts, but on a feeling; a universal feeling of intimate oneness with the universe. — TLCD1996

A religion might based on an encyclopedia of various practical techniques for reaching for that experience. If the focus is on the experience itself, it should become clear in time that theories about the experience (such as mine for example) are more obstacle than asset. They probably still happen for some (like me for example) but their importance can perhaps be put in to a useful context.

Sometimes I say things like the "explanations are a waste product of the experience", which is probably too colorful and extreme, but perhaps movement in generally the right direction? Well, according to Hippyheadism anyway.

My experience is that starting debates or arguments gets you bad looks, or you may be approached about the issue later; depending on one's relationship to the community, they may be asked to leave. — TLCD1996

Thanks for this report. I understand this to be the exercise of will at the social level to attempt to manage conflict at the level of the content of thought. This seems like a "middle way" issue to me. Some debate seems essential (imho) but yea, it can indeed become an ego food fight which doesn't serve any useful purpose. Well, unless perhaps one observes the food fight carefully and draws lessons from it?

You asked what was misleading and I’ve shown it — praxis

Yes, yes, we know, you are the Great Debunker etc etc. Yawn.......

So you agree that forms and patterns are the same thing, but you've said that forms of energy or matter can be destroyed, after saying that patterns cannot. — jamalrob

I didn't say anything about forms.

Anyway, to my knowledge there is no such philosophical position on existence as the one you mention. — jamalrob

C'mon, give me a little break, you're sinking in to automated rejectionism mode.

My nitpicking is to try and make things clear and coherent — jamalrob

Ok, no objection to this. If I didn't support that agenda I'd be on a blog where only I can post.

If by "we" you mean philosophers, yes sure, but when I said "we" I meant people, and people value more than mere thought. — jamalrob

Arguably not. One theory is that we don't value things so much as our relationship with those things. The relationships are made of thought.

Gotta step out for a few hours. Look forward to continuing!

Yes. The message is not the thing. It's just the message. The word 'elephant' is not an elephant. I don't think there's any reason for this issue to cause problems. — FrancisRay

Schisms, arguments, hatred, conflicts, violence. Problems.

We learn that it's a good idea to investigate the world with logic and experience and not just speculate or buy into someone else's ideas — FrancisRay

My understanding so far is that many Buddhists have sincerely tried to do just that. And yet, still the schisms.

Certainly many Christians have sincerely tried to love and unite. And yet, still the schisms.

To my knowledge there is no ideology which is not afflicted by schisms.

If it's true that schisms are universal, they can't be arising from thought content. If they were, by now some one would have found the ideology which is schism-proof.

Instead we see lots of people claiming their ideology can do the job, without evidence of success.

So the only way for humans is to find a way to live with it — Skeptic

And die with it. You are probably right.

I don't think so. — jamalrob

Ah, good, would hate to see the thread die so soon. :-)

So according to you, it is not just matter and energy that exist, but matter and energy that has taken various forms, e.g., water? — jamalrob

I'm not a physics major, but it seems only energy exists, with matter being a form of energy. Or so I thought I heard in my advanced studies at Netflix University.

What is the difference between a form and a pattern? What makes a water molecule different from a wave, such that one exists and the other doesn't? — jamalrob

Seem the same thing to me.

You've mentioned "our definition" of existence a couple of times now, but this is far from a settled question in philosophy, and you haven't been explicit about it. — jamalrob

Ah, ok, fair enough, I'm using the general man in the street definition, has weight and mass.

Why would anyone agree with a scheme in which matter and energy cannot be destroyed, but molecules can, but waves and people can't? — jamalrob

I don't expect anyone to agree here. :-) I did say that I thought matter could be destroyed, the atomic structure unraveled etc. Energy no, as far as I know.

I think that what I'm saying, or at least tried to say, is that everything observable is patterns in energy, and that the patterns have no existence (weight and mass) of their own. And I'm certain I'm hardly the first person to say this, but am just expressing things already said many times in my own particular language.

Anyway, let's say that we cannot die and waves cannot be destroyed. Where does that leave us? — jamalrob

United with all of reality. If all is just patterns, and patterns don't exist, there is only energy. Or, a religious person might say, all is God. I'm not religious, so I'm putting it a different way.

What we value, in fact what we're actually talking about when we talk about death, destruction, and even existence, is the patterns. All you've done is redefine them. — jamalrob

Why morn the end of the wave when the water and energy have gone nowhere? Yes, the pattern is gone, but it never existed in the first place.

What we value is thought. "Me" and "my thoughts", all of it thought. What is thought? A pattern of relationships between neurons. The neurons exist, have weight and mass. The pattern of relationships is real, but has no existence of it's own. We can't take a thought out of our heads and put it on the table, leaving the neurons behind.

Good discussion! Good challenges! Good moderator! :-)

It means that in any given time in human society will be a significant number of people without wisdom and there is not way to avoid that (at least, without losing human nature) — Skeptic

Yea, that's what I was referring to, losing human nature. Crafting a new species. I agree there is likely nothing at all realistic about such an idea.

Oneness is always the core message — FrancisRay

And the message is presented in the medium of thought, that which by it's inherently divisive nature destroys the experience of oneness.

Imagine that we all met to discuss this in person. So we're all sitting on the couches in my living room looking at each other across the coffee table. And then imagine that instead of saying anything, we just sat there looking at each other for an hour.

Quick plug, I've started a new thread about life/death, existence and non-existence and it would be neato if Buddhists might comment on it from their perspective. As time permits of course. Or not of course too.

But things that exist cannot be destroyed either, as you stated — jamalrob

I did? Hmm...

Einstein says that energy can't be either created or destroyed, so ok, yes on that one. But the water could conceivably be boiled away from every planet in the universe, the atomic structure could be dismantled entirely etc. Does this satisfy your question?

But you did claim that patterns are created, when you said that a wave was "a pattern created by energy applied to water". But surely something that can be created can be destroyed, no? — jamalrob

Yes, the pattern is real, and has a beginning and an end, agreed. But it doesn't exist, according to our definitions of that word.

One of the things that has become clearer to me from many conversations here on the forum is that phenomena can be real, without existing. And not just "things", but damn near everything, ie. space.

Thanks for engaging. And for being a good sport about my way too many opinions.

This example may help describe what is happening in a lot of philosophical conversations, particularly those about the largest of questions, such as religion.

The story about the wave is perfectly reasonable in our every day common sense human scale lives. The wave was born, it lived, it died. End of story, no reason to complicate it. There is a pencil on my desk or there isn't. Simple, obvious, useful.

The problems perhaps arise when we try to map such a simplistic "alive or dead, exists or not" paradigm which is useful at human scale on to the largest of questions. As I'm found of ranting, space doesn't seem to fit within the constraints of a dualistic "exists or not" concept. Perhaps matter doesn't either because as we dive down in to the details of matter the boundary between exists and doesn't exist seems to blur considerably. So we don't need to enter the realm of religion to explore this possible problem.

If we did want to dive in to religion, one thing I see happening (amongst a million other things) is that religions will attempt to approach such questions, but typically do so in language which is often alien to modern scientific culture. Sometimes the religions are likely just full of crap, but on other occasions the disconnect may be more of a cultural translation issue.

To the degree it's a translation problem, here's how it might come about. Even if the thesis offered here were somehow proven to be exactly absolutely true in every regard :-) this thread would still be largely useless to the vast majority of humanity, few of whom are philosophers, and very many of whom are barely educated. So if you are a religion and your goal is to serve humanity at large, and not just a tiny elite of hyper-intelligent abstraction processors such as ourselves :-) you have to reach for some kind of language other than what is being presented here.

And then you have to establish some kind of authority structure because most human beings, including us, don't really listen to reason so much as we do authority of some kind or another. As example, if Einstein came here to the forum anonymously and began posting as Nerddog28 we'd all begin challenging him immediately. If he instead came here as Einstein, and posted the exact same ideas, very different result.

And for a religion to achieve authority it has to reach across a long time period so as make the implied claim that, LOTS of other people believe this, so you might as well too. And so we wind up with language rooted in a long past cultural circumstance which many moderns will understandably not find relevant to their lives.

So it needs to be found somehow — EnPassant

It's at least conceivable, in theory, that by genetic engineering we could redesign ourselves in to a more intelligent species. But it would be semi-suicidal near cave man idiots doing the redesigning.

Ughh.... Hit head with big stick. See what happens!

Metaphysics & Epistemology - ok, thanks, educational for the original poster.

So I cannot be destroyed because I'm not the kind of thing that cannot be destroyed? — jamalrob

According to the theory, you can not be destroyed because, as a pattern, you don't exist.

They don't have to be people associated with philosophy — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Do they have to be associated with people?

If not, probably pine trees, and the retarded squirrel who resides in a cage just outside of our bedroom.

Seriously. NOT being clever, cutesy, snarky or humorous etc.

Why study what somebody says about reality when we can study reality itself?

Why content ourselves with second hand sources?

Ha! True that. I should have never brought up fart jokes. Ever since I did I've been plagued by this mental image of my hands on a computer keyboard, and a broken sewer main. Too scary! So I will now return to the safety of the topic.