It's interesting you use the word hidebound to describe the...academics. Have you noticed the inconsistencies in their positions? They want everything to be physical but are alright with information being an abstract concept. Or claiming scientific understanding of information by referencing Claude Shannon. Or genetic information. Or physical information. The point being these are all incompatible as a whole and they don't see the problem in it....they are saying 'because science' without backing it up with a fundamental basis.

I'm saying physicalism or dualism should be logically consistent with your position on consciousness, information, time perception, physical matter...the whole list.

Yes, I cannot grasp why researchers are usually so afraid of thinking outside their box. Not long ago scientists were arguing that consciousness doesn't exist and they still haven't found a 'scientific' way to prove that it does. They don;t seem to notice that the study of consciousness goes back to before the invention of writing but prefer just to ignore previous research. No hard problems arise for the traditional explanation of consciousness, provided by people who actually study it and do not just speculate/ Physicalism and dualism do not survive analysis,and yet still they are endorsed. Apparently ideology trumps logic and reason. . . . .

If you're saying that an explanation of consciousness must work in metaphysics then I fully agree and would expect everyone to do so. Otherwise the explanation will not work. I happen to like information theories, but only if the information space is part of the theory and not just forgotten. As Schrodinger notes, as well as all the multitude of phenomena there is the 'canvas on which they are painted'. .

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.

This wouldn't happen if you argued with me.

As for me, scientific understanding has proven to be of enormous explanatory value in understanding what is like to be me.

Could you give an example of this explanatory value?

I'm with Chalmers. There are two sides and one of them doesn't make sense. But yes, there are two sides. .

I looked at the survey you referenced and don't think I could get through all the questions without a dictionary of philosophy although the questions are rather simple.

Very much agree.I couldn't complete the survey because my view is not listed. The survey gives away just how hidebound and ideologically limited academic consciousness studies is. It's as if nobody has even heard of non-dualism.

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

Perhaps, but I find the problem more one sided. The OPs position is more open minded so needs less wriggling on the hook. But I accept there's two sides to the debate. .

Your opening post is very good. It's difficult to put these things simply and clearly and you've done it. For some reason, however, many otherwise clever scientists and philosophers do not. .Late to the party but...

I feel that calling it hidden dualism is a bit misleading because this is a wider problem afflicting the whole of Western philosophy. 'Hidden mind-matter dualism' would be sharper. I wouldn't call it hidden but just rather obvious sloppy or devious thinking. 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. . .

Okay Sam. I'll leave you to it.

It's not news (as far as I understand it) that the consistent histories interpretation of QM allows for backwards causation, and the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory of time depends on it. How much sense it makes may depend on whether we believe time is real or a psychological phenomenon. . .

.

I like Heidegger's ideas and feel he talks a lot of sense, although do not feel he cracked the case. Much of his work is too difficult for me but I like these comments.

The first is made in his inaugural lecture at Frieberg Uni. in 1929. He states that Western philosophy studies beings but not Being, and that this is no mere mistake. This is obvious, but sometimes obvious remarks are important and need saying.

The second seems remarkably prescient. It comes from a speech given to commemorate a composer friend in 1955. .

"Man finds himself in a perilous position…A far greater danger threatens [than the outbreak of a third world war]: the approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking. What great danger then might move upon us? Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing, indifference towards ‘meditative’ thinking, total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature – that he is a meditative being. Therefore the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive."

The third may be the most profound insight of which anyone is capable, from his inaugural lecture again. . .
“ “Pure Being and pure Nothing are therefore the same.” This proposition of Hegel’s (Science of Logic, vol. I, Werke III, 74) is correct.”

Great philosopher I would say, but often damn difficult to read.

My apologies.

You don't seem to understand the point of this thread. I've constructed an inductive argument based on the testimonial evidence. It's not about me presenting an opinion (if that's your point), it's about presenting a well reasoned argument. There are opinions given in the thread, but usually I try to point out where I'm speculating and where I think there is strong evidence.

I understand this and have given the reasons why I believe it will always be an ineffective argument, It certainly affects the balance of probabilities, but as this thread shows it leaves people free to believe what they like. Perhaps I should have stopped there.but I was trying explain that there is better argument that is overwhelming.

What follows from the argument is an epistemological point, viz., that based on the strength of the testimonial evidence I can reasonably claim there is an afterlife. In other words, I can know there is an afterlife.

I'm astonished by your low epistemological standards. By these standards it would be easy to know that God exists. Your argument establishes that it would not be unreasonable to believe that there is an afterlife, just as long as you have a plausible theory of what you mean by 'afterlife'. It's your proof and you know you're not quite sure whether there is an afterlife or what it is like, let alone know it. Surely you can see this. If you can doubt it, even in principle. then you don't know it.

If anyone wants to argue against the argument, which I've given at various places in the thread, then you need to attack the premises of the argument. So I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the argument before you start saying things like I'm just expressing an opinion.

I'm happy to grant to your argument as much as I've stated here and let you decide whether you want to argue about anything. Thanks for starting an interesting discussion/

Okay. Let's agree to differ. You're ploughing a very lonely furrow and I wonder if you realise this. You're suggesting that you know better that almost every philosopher who ever lived and clearly like to live dangerously.

I feel you're missing something. Metaphysics, by which I mean the logical analysis of fundamental questions, proves that space-time is not fundamental. To explain space-time it is necessary to examine what is prior, and this means going beyond the methods of physics. It's physics that metaphysics must explain. A metaphysical theory must encompass physics and form its theoretical meta-system.

Metaphysics is the foundation of philosophy, so an incomprehension of metaphysics entails an incomprehension of most of philosophy. (just look around and you'll see this is the case). To dismiss the subject as irrational and absurd would mean never being able to explain the origin and emergence of the space-time universe or its phenomenal contents. It surely cannot be irrational to ask whether we have freewill, whether space-time is fundamental, whether there is a God, whether there is an afterlife, whether consciousness is emergent or fundamental and so on and so forth. It would also leave ten thousand metaphysicians with egg on their faces. ,

I would say metaphysics encompasses physics in much the same way that physics encompasses chemistry, so that physics is 'meta-chemistry'.

I would agree, however, that some approaches to the subject are irrational and absurd.

What do you feel is wrong with the the definition of 'meta' as 'transcending' or 'beyond'? It seems spot on to me.

I don't find metaphysics hard to define but would agree with you about most of the terms it employs. It's rather like algebra, where one has to work out the values of the terms by reference to other terms. The idea is to give all the words a meaning which allows them to be combined into a systematic theory, and only when it's complete can one know the terms are fit for purpose.

I think Sam is right about this. Better on another thread. I'd just add that it will always cause havoc in philosophy when opinions are stated as facts. The opinion may be correct but that's not the point. .

It might be interesting to discuss in some fashion, but as stated it's not coherent.

Consciousness is part of body, like lungs are or feet.

Do you not know that this an open debate? If you could prove this you'd be forever famous as the person who falsified the Perennial philosophy and its entire literature. You would never have to work again. Best to start by saying 'in my opinion'. .

Naturalism and materialism are very similar imo. I note the difference, as proposed by such as:

'Naturalism and materialism are two philosophical concepts that differ in their approach to explaining the world. Naturalism states that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena or laws, while materialism argues that all that exists is matter, only matter is real and so the world is just physical. The difference between the two is that materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function' — universeness

I see what is being said here but it is muddled. I believe that materialism is nonsense but that every phenomenon is natural, which is not allowable under the description above. Scientists tend to conflate materialism and naturalism but this is an ideological stance and a bold metaphysical claim. At this time scientists have no idea whether materialism is true or false and have no method for testing which it is, so they have no idea whether it is naturalistic or not. Materialism is methodology that falls apart when it is treated as a theory/ . .

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, materialism and naturalism are metaphysical positions. But, for me, that seems to clash with what science is. Science is the study of the natural, material universe, is it not? Physics used to be called natural philosophy, yes? But Physics is not metaphysics. Where Is my thinking wrong here?

Yes, It does clash. Physical scientists rarely bother with metaphysics, albeit they usually agree that it's nearly impossible do do physics without straying into it. I would highly recommend 'The Mind of God' ; by the physicist Paul Davies if you want to pursue this. It's the best introduction to the subject I've ever read,(and I've read many) because it doesn't waffle on about history but gets down to the issues. It is rightly a bestseller. I often feel that scientists make the best philosophers when they make an effort and would cite Schrodinger as another example. He endorsed the Perennial or 'mystical' philosophy, so was happy with naturalism but not with materialism. . .

In fact scientists usually endorse three metaphysical conjectures. First, that materialism is true. Second,, that naturalism is true,. Third, that materialism is naturalistic.It's a very muddled set of views that requires entirely ignoring metaphysics for the sake of not rocking the boat.

Aha. We have had a misunderstanding. An 'extreme' or 'positive' metaphysical position is a technical idea, not an opinion.

Metaphysical questions always take the form of a pair of contradictory positive thesis. They ask us to decide between two 'this or that' kind of answers. Materialism vs Idealism would be an example. As they are usually treated in philosophy these take the form A and not-A. The key point is that extreme positions make positive statement about fundamental reality.

Thus positive positions include materialism, (subjective) idealism, freewill, determinism, solipsism, realism,etc., and the idea that the universe begins with or something or nothing, that space-time is grainy or continuous, that time is real or unreal and so forth.

Here the word 'extreme' is not a judgement of how strong it is, but simply of how it functions within the dialectical logic employed by metaphysicians.

What metaphysicians discover is that all such positions are logically indefensible, and as a consequence all metaphysical questions are undecidable. Kant prefers the term 'selective' and states that all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. Nagarjuna states that all positive positions are logically indefensible, and Bradley that metaphysics does not produce a positive result. They are all saying the same thing. There in no debate among philosophers on this matter. It is the entire motivation for logical positivism, scientism,and dialethism.

Does this begin to clear up the issue? , .

I , , , , ,

.

I find some of this discussion odd for a philosophy forum.

Is it not easy to work out that materialism is nonsense? I've never come across a materialist who claims it is comprehensible, Most are happy to concede it requires a miracle to avoid being paradoxical and we all know it explains exactly nothing,

Approximately all philosophers conclude that extreme metaphysical position are logically indefensible, as is explained by Kant, Bradley, Nagarjuna, Russell, Carnap et al, and materialism is one of them. If materialism is true then the world in paradoxical and incomprehensible and we might as well all pack up and go home.

It is also a basic fact that disinterested philosophers, while they may take them into account, cannot rely on other people's reports of NDEs, inner realisations and enlightenment. Some sort of demonstrable argument and proof is required.

The starting place for an investigation should surely be the established and inarguable facts, and the first and foremost of these is that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible and can be reduced to absurdity. This disposes of most theories and ideas and clears a path for further investigation.

It''s very weird that academic philosophers claim philosophy is incomprehensible and the mystics claim the opposite, and the former cannot refute the latter. Human beings are are odd lot. .

Hi Sam

As you say. the amount of testimony to be found at all times and places over the last three thousand years is astonishing. A minimum condition for trusting the testimony, however, is that we trust the testifier and the problem in this particular area of knowledge is that one has to know a lot about it before one can make a judgement. A practitioner who has the benefit of some degree of realization will know who to trust, but the common man (I include most philosophers under this heading since few study these things) has no way to judge. .

For this reason I would come at the issue from another angle. If you study metaphysics you'll find logical arguments that make the case in a far less ignorable way. and then you can link them up to the testimony to make it more plausible.

This is not the pace, but it is not difficult to show that there is only one metaphysical theory that survives analysis, or to show that this is the theory endorsed by the Buddha, Lao Tzu and the Indian Upanishads. The complication is only that they say there is no consciousness after death, but what they mean is no intentional subject-object consciousness. It can be demonstrated in logic that the only global theory that works is one for which consciousness (of a more profound kind) is fundamental and reality is a unity.

It completely baffles me why philosophy students are not taught this. It's hardly rocket science. Or, it would were it not that not ideology such a potent force in the philosophy department. .

As I understand Buddhism, the world is real but we hold it in existence by our desires. Transcending to Nirvana finds the true world behind the appearance — Gregory

if you;re speaking of Middle Way Buddhism then nothing would really exist or ever really happen. That is to say, everything is reducible to mind and then to consciousness. This would be why Buddhists don't have to explain why something comes from nothing. It's the same for the mystics everywhere. For example, Meister Eckhart characterizes extended phenomena as 'literally nothing'. Even samsara and nirvana would be reducible. . . .

The moment w assume there is 'something' we have to assume the possibility of 'nothing', and this leads to various paradoxes, antinomies and undecidable questions. This is the price of realism.

Too big a topic to delve into here, but worth noting as a solution for the something-nothing problem. As you say. desire would be what drives the whole thing. . . . . .

Yes so they are not sciences, in the sense that they are seeking to increase knowledge, but rather speculation or mental exercises beyond that which can be scientifically observed. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Metaphysics, which includes ontology, proceeds by analysis and a process of 'abduction',whereby we identify logically absurd theories and reject them. Thus for some us it is a science of logic, and its main purpose is to increase our knowledge.

Your low view is shared by many including Russell, but this is only because Western academic metaphysics is hopeless. We should not blame the discipline.

Although it is speculative its results are often empirically testable in a negative way. For instance, metaphysics rejects the idea that matter is substantial and that space-time is real, and physics is unable to overturn this result. As far as anyone knows logic and experience coincide, so although metaphysics is a calculation, thus a speculation, we should not expect that it disagrees with physics in any respect. ,

My argument is:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must of existed permanently
3. There is no reason for something existing permanently - to exist permanently, it must be beyond causation - have no cause - no reason for it’s existence
4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’ — Devans99

You have not considered the traditional view by which is that there is no such thing as 'something'.or 'nothing'. For Middle Way Buddhism, advaita etc.nothing really exists or ever really happens, so the 'something from nothing' problem never arises.

.

I see no need to contrast materialism with panpsychism. Both do not work. Both assume that matter somehow becomes conscious, or 'has' consciousness.

Materialism cannot be saved because it's logically absurd, while panpsychism and 'many worlds' theory seem to be attemtps to rescue it.

It's odd to see no discussion here of of the Perennial philosophy, for which matter is in consciousness.and consciousness simply is reality. Meister Eckhart describes matter as 'literally nothing', and this would be my view. Materialism looks like a pre-analytical folk-superstition. It cannot survive analysis so is unsaveable. Good riddance. No point in having a theory that explains exactly nothing. . . .




. .

I'd say, that we face a climate and ecological crisis as a consequence of the misuse of science and engineering by a culture that deprived science of any moral worth, and turned it out barefoot, onto the streets - to hawk its wares to government and industry.

It's the difference between science as a tool, and science as an understanding of reality. We used the tools, but stuck with the same old ideological understanding of reality. Consequently, we applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons.

Applying the right technologies for the right reasons, now - we can still save ourselves, but it requires we look beyond partisan ideological interests, to science as an understanding of reality. If we do that, it's fairly simple. — counterpunch

I'd say the physical sciences are what we need to look beyond, since they fall short of telling us anything much about the nature of reality. The real investigation is metaphysics, for this can tell us a lot.

The problem for me is not science but the way it's used. This is an easy criticism in the middle of a global pandemic that seems to have been engineered by scientists. I'd cite the weaponizing of viruses as a typical example of what's wrong with our use of science. It's a great method, which is why it is so dangerous when combined with arrogance, hubris and money.

Just to put a cat among the pigeons I'll venture that the way to save the world is to stop funding science. But there are ideological issues to overcome. Look at how Bill Gates wants to save the world by employing more and more science and technology! This is an ideological position, not a scientific result or forecast, and it seems quite close to scientism. Perhaps it should be called geekism..

I put much of the problem down to a failure to study metaphysics, but can't put the case properly here.

I think Wayfarer's point was that proponents of scientism don't accept that science is in a box. They don't recognise its boundaries. Odd really, because those boundaries are well understood and not a secret. . . .

Although, there are signs that the global population growth rate is going down. here

That would solve a lot of problems. And it's largely due to science and engineering. — frank

Ha. I'd say it's likely to go down big time and soon leaving few survivors, and all due to science engineering.

It seems to me the whole point of the physical sciences is to increase the human population — FrancisRay


No. It is more of a by product in some limited areas pertinent to human health. — Tom Storm

I'd say you massively underestimate the population effect - but it's a complex issue.

For me it comes down to the fact that Israel holds all the cards yet makes no effort to deal fairly with the Palestinians. They seem intent on keeping the conflict alive in order that they can continue to grab land and kill Palestinians. I'm not saying that this is the plan, but that this is what appears to be the plan. If it is not the plan then Israel's PR machine needs overhauling.

If I were Palestinian I would be buying rockets. It would seem to be the only way forward,.So I blame Israel for the Palestinian rockets. I have nothing but disgust for Israel and will risk saying it,

However, it's a complex situation and I can appreciate other views are possible.

I sometimes wonder whether behind the scenes Israel and the US are run by the same people. They certainly seem to share the same broken moral compass. , .

I just did this continuing education class that covered the history of vaccines. The change in human life created by that little scientific biscuit is huge.

But it helped increase the size of the human population with devastating effects on the environment.

Good for whom? — frank

My thoughts also. It seems to me the whole point of the physical sciences is to increase the human population. However, it appears that this virus was created by science so perhaps this is a counter-example.

Our levels of over-population and ongoing destruction of our ecosystem would be unachievable without the material sciences and technology So every silver lining has a cloud... . .

As for whether we should praise science,this will depend on what you're calling science. If you mean the scientific method then okay. If you mean the modern scientific mindset then this deserves vilification. If you mean the science of Yoga then okay. If you mean the science of scientific consciousness studies then we're back to derision and vilification.

So much depends on what you're calling 'science'. .

You will have no luck finding a coherent definition of 'God'.This is for two reasons.

First, metaphysical analysis (Kant et al) reveals that a coherent definition of the Ultimate requires that it transcends the categories of thought, thus cannot be thought or positively defined.

Second, if we define the Ultimate as beyond all positive description, as analysis implies we must, then we are no longer talking about God but about Brahman, Tao, paraNirvana and so forth, or the 'Being, Consciousness, Bliss' of the Upanishads, and this is not God.

The only coherent definition of the Ultimate, if we are looking for a theoretical term to ground a metaphysical theory, is one for which it is not God. Of, course, we can call it God if we wish, and some folk do, but this is the mysterious God of the scriptural via negativa,by which he lies, as one Christian mystic puts it, 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories' or, in other words, beyond the categories of thought.

Despite this, or because of it, it is a very good idea to attempt to define God in a way that makes sense even under close analysis, since this is reliable way to discover it isn't possible to do so. Then Christian mysticism will begin to make more sense and also the Classical Christianity of the early church.

I can recommend an excellent book by Keith Ward titled God: A Guide for the Perplexed.

Descartes is often misread. It is even debatable whether he endorsed mind-body dualism. Here's some thoughts from an essay by Robert Pepperell - (I cannot find the title right now)

"The uncertain relationship between mind and world has of course generated countless finely nuanced philosophical arguments. But, put starkly, it seems there are three options:

That the mind and world are distinct.

That the mind and world are unified.

That the mind and world are both distinct and unified.

… While there are many powerful arguments in favour of the first two options, it is the third which I explore here, and the one I will suggest is most plausible.

René Descartes (1596-1650) is often credited with formalising the dualistic distinction between thinking substance (res cognitans) and material substance (res extensa); that is, between ideas attributable to the mind on the one hand and the material world of bodies and objects on the other.

… Descartes’ reputation as the prototypical dualist, however, does not fairly convey the complexity, some would say confusion, of his view on the distinction between mind and world. In the synopsis of the Meditations, we read:

… the human mind is shown to be really distinct from the body, and, nevertheless, to be so closely conjoined therewith as together to form, as it were, a unity.

And again in Mediation VI itself:

Nature teaches me … that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that I am besides so intimately conjoined, as it were intermixed with it, that my mind and body compose a certain unity.

Despite the hint of qualification, Descartes is quite explicit: The mind and body are both ‘really distinct’ and united – they are two and one."

This line of Descartes' thought is often missed.

It may also be relevant that the introductory exercise given by Sadhguru, perhaps the most famous living Indian guru right now and a youtube star, is to sit quietly and repeat, as one breaths in an out, 'I am not the body, I am not even the mind'. This suggests that the mind-body distinction is superficial. By reduction all such distinctions are transcended in Unity and Consciousness, as is discovered in meditation.

The problem is that we reify matter and assume it is substantial. Then we have to separate it from mind. But Meister Eckhart is clear. By reduction matter is literally nothing!

Just throwing in some thoughts and sticking up for Descartes, He saw the need for a third term in his theory to unify mind and matter. .

(Found the article title. 'Screen consciousness - cinema, mind and world')

.

Yes, the article was about eighth grade,and brief, and this is why I recommended it. Yet it seem to have gone over your head.

Of course the cessation of suffering is a belief or a disbelief unless it is a personal reality. That the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief unitl it becomes a reality. The point is that in both instances belief is transcended for knowledge. Generalities are always dangerous in philosophy. If you'd said 'some Buddhists' that would have indicated some understanding, .

Anyway, no point in going om. , . . .

o clarify, he's not explaining my misunderstandings. He's not pointing out my errors and showing how it really is. Also alleges a clandestine agenda of some kind. I suppose because he believes that I'm not interested in truth and just want to play games. I do love games but I also value truth. Why not have both?! :razz: — praxis

I gave you a link to an explanation and you ignored it. I do not have the impression that you're interested in truth. If you were, you would have investigated this issue and noticed that your objection is misconceived.

When one is beyond time and space the issue of satisfaction and dissatisfaction does not arise. All categorical pairs of this kind are reduced. It's all there in the literature, and I have no wish to get into arguments over issues that can be settled by reference to it.

. .

As I said earlier, I don;t know what your agenda is but I don't want to play. I cannot be helpful so I might as well bow out.

If you were intereeted in the topic you wouldn't have so many misunderstandings of it.

I give up. I can only wonder where you pick up your ideas. See you around.

That F=MA is just a belief for most people. But no Buddhist settles for beliefs. If we're going to settle for beliefs we're going to have to avoid Buddhism. A person attached to their beliefs will find it very painful practicing Buddhism, and they will be wasting their time. Perhaps this was part of the OP's problem.

There are thousands of links for 'suffering', but this one may be is as good as any. https://www.learnreligions.com/life-is-suffering-what-does-that-mean-450094

To believe that Buddhism is all about beliefs is to entirely miss the point of the whole thing. It's a belief that seems to arise because in the West our view of these things is conditioned by commonplace Christianity, and it endures only where the teachings are not known. To say that Buddhists rely on beliefs is is to say they ignore the Buddha;s teachings.

.






.
.




.

Do you not see that the idea is to transcend satisfaction/dissatisfaction? This is basic.

If not, then it might be better if I didn't argue but refer you to an authoritative explanation. I'll have a look for one later.

If your objection holds then all Buddhist are fools, and I suspect that even you would find this is a touch unlikely.

This is not a secret doctrine so I'm tempted to leave it to you to answer your own objection, but I'll try to find a helpful text when time allows. .

The four NTs are central.

I'm not sure I'm seeing the objection. The world of pleasure and pain, satisfaction and dissatisfaction is the world of suffering. Are you saying otherwise?