:up:

What would this movie be without the music? — Mikie

Yes indeed - Star Wars one one of those films that brought back the Dimitri Tiomkin-style orchestral film score - even if it sounded more like Holst's The Planets.

Any idea why 55 year-old men have shrines of plastic figures four decades on?

Metaphysics is about giving the best general account of what reality is while increasing explanatory power and decreasing complexity. Every theory stops somewhere, and that stopping point is the metaphysically necessary stuff. — Bob Ross

I think that's mostly true, but I am not certain about the 'stopping point'. But we can leave it.

I'm not motivated to explore this speculative subject much further since I've made my comments already and I would just be repeating myself. I get that you disagree. That's no problem for either of us. :wink:

Thanks for the chat. I might dip in and out later based on interest levels.

I wasn't referring to your arguments. I was saying in general any argument for universal mind would be held by fallacious ideas

Those two statements contradict each other. — Bob Ross

I don't think so. You seemed to take my comment as personal, I was talking more generally about arguments that attempt to describe mind-at-large as axiomatic. It's an inference at best. And while it might be compelling if you share certain presuppositions, it is still an inference which can't be demonstrated. And before anyone says, 'but materialism relies on inferences...' remember that's an equivocation fallacy. I am not defending materialism.

But hey, I'm not a philosopher. This matter is really best left with people who have deep understanding the full range of metaphysical implications and arguments in this space (and I am not talking about a cultre war materialists versus idealists type thing). I am in fact more interested in idealists who do not favor a mind-at-large concept.

Maybe there needs to be a separate thread on idealism and universal mind or non-solipsistic accounts of idealism - since for idealism a way around solipsism and an explanation for object permeance often seems to require a mind-at-large.

Interesting. I largely agree.

Otherwise: Lucas was a master of merchandising on the moment! :D — Moliere

That's for sure.

I did not come to say there is a universal mind on faith nor is it grounded in fallacious argumentation. What fallacies do you think I have committed? — Bob Ross

I wasn't referring to your arguments. I was saying in general any argument for universal mind would be held by fallacious ideas - like the ones I already mentioned and probably others. Such as universal mind being metaphysically necessary - this is no different than a Christian presuppositional apologist making the same claim about God.

The Universal Mind that I am discussing is not Yahweh—not even close. — Bob Ross

I didn't say it was like Yahweh (in personality). I said like Yahweh it plays a similar role - I am very familiar with Kastrup's account of what he calls mind-at-large - instinctive, not metacognitive, etc.

This is a straw man: I never made this argument nor has any Analytic Idealist I have ever encountered. — Bob Ross

It's not a straw man (at least not intentionally) - it comes from Kastup interviews where he essentially says - for there to be object permanence, a universal mind is necessary. His line (I'm paraphrasing) ' It means that when I park my car in the garage it is still there after I go inside'. If I knew which interview, I would include a clip here but I don't have to time to go find it.

But you can help us all here by answering the question - does your understanding of mind-at-large provide object permanence?

Here's Kastrup August 19th 2015 from his blog:

-- You cannot explain how different people experience the same world unless you infer something transpersonal, which connects people at a fundamental level. The most parsimonious inference is to simply extend something we already know to exist -- i.e. mind -- beyond its face-value boundaries. This is analogous to inferring that the Earth extends beyond the horizon in order to explain the cycle of day and night, instead of postulating a flying spaghetti monster who pulls the sun out of the sky. It is impossible to offer a coherent ontology that (1) isn't solipsist AND (2) does not infer something beyond ordinary personal experience.

-- My formulation of idealism differs from Berkeley's subjective idealism in at least two points: (1) I propose a single subject, not many, explaining the apparent multiplicity of subjects as a top-down dissociative process. Berkeley never addressed this issue, implicitly assuming many subjects; and (2) I state that the cognition of mind-at-large ('God' in Berkeley's formulation) is not human-like, so that the way it experiences the world is incommensurable with human perception (see: http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/09/on-how-world-is-felt.html). In Berkeley's formulation, God perceives the world as we do.

Essentially, as Kastrup himself admits, this metaphysics is arrived at through inference rather than evidence. It's clever and I'm not saying it is junk, but I don't see how this can be certain.

Thoughts on this are very welcome. The one bit of theory neutral-evidence I can think of is exactly related to consciousness, and that is the insight that I am conscious. — bert1

I generally suspect that all our ideas exist in a web of relationships alongside other ideas, so everything is what it is by virtue of its relation to everything else. You can't isolate anything in its 'purity' because it exists entirely in those relationships.

I am not as confident as you in variations of 'I think therefore I am'. Do I know it is me doing the thinking? I've worked with many people who have schizophrenia, who experience thought insertion and voices. They are often not sure whose consciousness they are aware of. What are my thoughts? If pressed, the best I can say is there is thinking. I hope it's me. :wink: Common sense - which may be more useful than philosophy - tells me I am conscious. But so what?

I call it reading while awake. In some cases, it may be necessary to do it twice, because the author is smarter, wittier, better-informed or more subtle than I am. I never assume he just didn't understand what he wrote. — Vera Mont

When I studied aesthetics briefly back in the 1980's the dominant thinker was Monroe Beardsley. It was commonly held in lectures that the writer/artist may not always know what matters in their work or what their work is really about, or what makes it great or s/he may be unaware of a range of subtexts, humour or biases present in the work.

The idea that there is one interpretation - the author's conscious intention - is not often a key navigational tool for texts. Also times change and the work is necessarily understood differently - a work which starts as history may end up as literature (with the history no longer being considered relevant). Gibbon springs to mind. Some classic works are fecund in possible meanings and interpretations - like Shakespeare - and can be (and are) understood or contextualised quite differently with each new generation.

What I object to is reducing the author of a literary work to the unconscious amoeba at the bottom of its evolutionary pond. — Vera Mont

I think the choice of wording here is needlessly negative. It might instead be put that a classic work may be so fecund in aesthetic possibilities that it allows us to generate interpretive prospects and evolves in meaning and nuance over generations, staying relevant in new ways as culture changes.

:lol:

:up:

Their problem, not his. Marx made his observations and wrote what he saw in his own world, in his time — Vera Mont

That's not the point. Author's intentions are transcended. The point is we have texts which are consistently reinterpreted and subjected to new understandings. That's how texts are generally situated across time. The idea that an important text only has one interpretation would be naïve. However the Bible stories began or were intended, they have have ended up something else, in fact many things over the generations. This is an unstoppable process.

What "universal mind"? There is not any publicly accessible evidence for such an entity. And if "everything is fundamentally mind-dependent" (including itself, which I find self-refuting), then "a universal mind" is only an idea, not a fact or "natural process". — 180 Proof

Yes, I figure universal mind is essentially a god surrogate - held in place by similar fallacious justifications and essentially by faith. Instead of (in the case of Yahweh) arguing there can't be something from nothing, therefore god - AI seems to be saying, there can't be consciousness from nothing, therefore universal mind. Universal mind still functions as 'god', as the foundational guarantor of all conscious experience.

Would you agree that there are such consistent , recognizable behavioral differences between the genders in dogs and cats? Would you then agree that there are also such robust inborn gender differences in behavior between male and female humans? — Joshs

Would you contend that perhaps a transwoman is someone who has inborn feminine gender behaviors and perceptual affective style and this may lead to identifying as female?

Sounds good.

How do you think these 8 points sit with identifying panpsychism?

I haven't heard them do so. And I don't see why they'd need to. — Vera Mont

Neo-Marxism is the name for this school - usually an attempt to provide a more modern, sophisticated account. But amongst the Marxists I've known getting 'the correct' interpretation/reading was often the topic du jour and a source of acrimonious debate.

Whom? — Vera Mont

The dogmatic dullard atheist cocksuckers, of course. :wink:

I became an atheist directly through the Jesus story. — Vera Mont

Was it Twain who said, 'The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible?' Anyway it's a common path. The Bible when read does convert a lot of folk to atheism - you encounter this is secular circles all the time. But of course the key is to find the right sophisticated interpretive framework to transmogrify the book from a lowbrow literal interpretation to efficacious exegetical insight - Marxists would say the same thing about Marx. You just need the right interpretative framework, Comrade.

I should have stuck to real life to avoid your criticism about contrivance. True crime would be better, and that's really what I meant. — bert1

:up:

Ture crime is fine, but as I said you are just asking what are the key indicators of consciousness. Not sure your enquiry requires much more elaboration than that.

I was going to write a different OP titled something like "Is there any theory-neutral evidence for consciousness?" — bert1

Can you give me an example of theory neutral evidence?

But with consciousness, what do we use to determine what to admit as evidence? Do we look in dictionaries for definitions? Well, I think we should. That will help. But people typically don't do that, and that's really weird. — bert1

I'm not sure what constitutes consciousness in human beings (except in a trivial sense) let alone inanimate objects.

To make that work, seems to me you have to either 1) show that rocks have mental processes or 2) show that consciousness in humans is not a mental process at all. If you can't do that, you should just come up with a different name for the process you're describing. — T Clark

Yes, that's kind of where I was going to go. Possibly stuck between Rupert Sheldrake and Daniel Dennett. :wink:

We're familiar with TV crime dramas. We have a suspect we think may have done a murder. Why do we think that? We have some evidence. And we are seeking more evidence in order to obtain more certainty on the matter. So what might we look for? In the case of this crime, we might look for:

- a dead body
- proximity of people to that body in time and space
- a report on the cause of death
- fingerprints on the crime scene
- alibis
- motive
- opportunity
- DNA

...etc. All the usual stuff. — bert1

Hmm. Is a TV crime drama a useful analogy? These are often written and directed to highlight certain things about the suspects and manipulate an audience - false leads, clues and behaviours specifically filmed and constructed to deceive and take you in a direction. This is not like ordinary evidence, it is contrived to elicit a response. Maybe true crime would be a better analogy? Or maybe crime is not useful at all. Perhaps what you are saying can be made more simple - what are the key indicators of consciousness? How do we determine if something has consciousness?

Would it be unnatural for example, for a human to try to live life as if they were an ant or a fish or a god? — universeness

No. It would be futile. Someone might have a very natural mental illness which makes them attempt this. But perhaps we are using the term natural in different ways.

One persons truth is another persons lie, is a fair definition of subjective truth, but I think if your epistemology is the scientific method or scientific empiricism, then I think increasing your credence level to a level of an (to you) acceptable truth, based on demonstration of a process with observable predicted outcomes, is valid. — universeness

I'm mostly there, but some subjects are not so neat and the 'evidence' is contested. Personally I don't think humans have access to reality or absolute truth, just provisional little truths which are useful for certain goals (or not). But this is for another thread.

Yeah, but does that make guns, atom bombs, gods and murder, natural, merely because they are products of the human mind and also, would it follow that the word unnatural has no existent. — universeness

How could they not be natural? If beaver's damns and bird's nests are natural, then guns and highways are too. The matter of human intervention on nature upsetting the natural balance may well be a fair point, but takes the discussion in a different direction. But I am willing to be corrected on this.

This is just the basis for the Kalam Cosmological argument, yes? Which has been fairly convincingly debunked, yes? — universeness

No. I am referring to a type of apologetics that is called presuppositional apologetics. Quite sophisticated and the best of them are provided by philosophy professors - like Alvin Plantinga. As a subsidiary argument, they also use the evolutionary argument against naturalism which is pretty cool too.

I always remember that whether an argument is debunked depends a lot on whether you are susceptible to or agree with the arguments made.

Do you think that it does not matter, either way? If so, why? — universeness

I don't care enough about theology to hairsplit the gradients of Nazarene identity and purpose.

The concept of natural can be so strongly related to 'moral' by nefarious individuals. — universeness

Indeed - some forget that arsenic, heroin and melanomas are perfectly natural.

3. The idea that some activities are "intrinsically worth while". This is a popular concept in philosophy of education. I learnt of it from R.S. Peters' work, but I don't know if he originated it. This amounts to declaring that some ends need no justification, though if you look at the examples (art, music, philosophy &c.), there is a widespread fondness for turning them into the means for other ends. Perhaps those are intrinsically worth while. I think the idea is that these are axioms, from which it is rational to deduce means. So this too amounts to incorporating means into a rational framework. — Ludwig V

Interesting. The challenge is how do we determine what is intrinsically worthwhile and what is not? This has to be based on a value system which is open to challenge. We all hold presuppositions as the building blocks for our views and actions. Some would say God is a necessary presupposition to explain why there's something rather than nothing, why there's intelligibility, morality and goodness. Christians and Muslims often argue this way. Kant and CS Lewis did.

4. Naturalization of values. By this I mean argument from what are posited as human needs or instincts, shaped by the natural and social context. — Ludwig V

Can you think of anything available to humans that is not natural? I don't know how far this gets us in practice. I tend to think that if we can do it or make it, it's natural... Whether it is 'good' or not is a separate matter.

But not the temporary death of god? — universeness

Whatever. :cool:

Winnie the Pooh taught me that people can be all different and all have different weaknesses and strengths, and yet be good friends to each other and live lovingly together even if they all make mistakes. — unenlightened

Lolita taught me that pedophilia is unacceptable, especially if you are an ironist with a baroque prose style.

The Star Wars stories are historical analogues of Beowulf repeated ad infinitum with Jane Austin thrown in for romantic interest. — Paine

:cool:

Thanks. By sacrifice I meant the temporary death of Jesus, the 'blood sacrifice'.

A thread on this would appeal greatly.

I think I agree. I like what you said about novelists as phenomenologists.

How about spiritual truth through scriptures? The non-literal sort. What ‘truths’ do we find in scripture? I can see how parables are like fables. But in relation to Christianity, I can make no use out of sacrifice and resurrection. You?

I guess what I’m wondering is can you name how a particular book contributed to truth or understanding? If fiction conveys truth then to me it’s ineffable. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever learned anything from an aesthetic experience, no matter how affecting.

Do you have an example from your experience?

The point is often missed that fiction and truth are not opposites. The point of most fiction, or at least the well written sort, is that it contains much truth.

That is where most truth, or at least the wisdom sort, is found. — Hanover

I hear this point made regularly (not least by a friend of mine who is a novelist) and I think it was Gore Vidal who used to say 'we only tell the truth in fiction.' Nevertheless, in my own experience, I can't think of anything I have gained in wisdom from a work of fiction. What I have learned, perhaps, is how words can be used to 'dress up' and develop ideas and evoke a mood or tone. The spectacular fiction of Saul Bellow and Vladimir Nabokov come to mind.

I don't even know anymore what to do, or even what to believe. I don't know what I did wrong. I don't even know anymore, if god does exist (or any 'spiritual' system like karma or "law of attraction" thing etc etc), what is my sins that somehow the universe just keep punishing me again & again & again, even when I've already at least tried to do good. Of course I know I'm far from perfect. I even admit that. I'm just only a human being, who can make mistakes. But why all of these happened to me — niki wonoto

It's hard to know what you are referring to since this is all quite vague - you seem to be saying you have unusually bad luck in life. What are you hoping to find by posting this here?

I hope too see the recent Dune too when I can sit still for longer than 15 minutes. :wink:

I see universal themes or themes from myth. I'm not especially interested in tracking it too strongly to Tao or Zoroastrian or Christian. The film seems to be a piece of post-modern pop, a hybrid of mythology and film history styles, so anything you want you will probably find in it - from pirate movie tropes to Cold War metaphors. :smile:

The interesting part is the hold it has had on culture.

Yep. Zoroastrianism had a final judgement, with redemption for all. Salvation was a Persian concept, as I understand it. But Star Wars is cod-mythology, so too much analysis will make it vanish, I suspect.

The Good vs. Evil plot, I think, is what makes me think of Christianity in particular, — Moliere

Actually, I always took that as the Zoroastrian contribution which takes light and darkness as a key theme. Later religions were influenced.

Also, the whole farm-boy to savior arc has Jesus all over it. — Moliere

That's one reading. The farm boy is the son of Lucifer the fallen angel, in this instance. :wink: Lucas borrowed this trope - the callow youth who goes out has adventures and returns as a hero/saviour from world mythology. It's a common story. No doubt we can see any religion in this story - A Japanese friend of mine was convinced the story had been borrowed from Japanese religion.

All these ideas are directly from A Hero With A Thousand Faces by Campbell, the source of the Star Wars storyline. Check it out. The evil father, the wise wizard, the tutelary guardians, the quest, the rescue and princess, the sister, facing the father, enlightenment, etc. As I recall, the Force was inspired by the Tao.

Sounds like you come at truth from a more spiritual or religious path - hence the role of transcendence in your formulation.

Metanarratives like God or Reality or Ultimate Truth seem to be interchangeable fantasies.

Truth is an abstraction. Better to talk about specific things and determine if they are the case or not. Truth is not a property that looks the same wherever it is found. Truth is established in different ways for different matters. Eg - mathematical truth, geographic, historical, legal, philosophical, etc.

We can’t dismiss truth out of hand since we are able to use maps to get to places and science to solve problems. We know what happens if we take arsenic, or if we use bad maths to build bridges. These things are true. But I don't see how we can magnify truth into a god surrogate, as the ultimate explanation for everything. I think humans have a craving for totalizing narratives because it is comforting. And because we can see small, quotidian truths at work in direct empirical terms, we believe we can magnify this into any number of overarching truth fables, from alchemy to Scientology.

"IMO, Absolute truth"-tellers e.g. gurus, sages, prophets ... are immoral insofar as they preach 'illusions of "absolute knowledge"' – ignorance – to their naive and gullible followers. Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof

Nice.

But from same article: "Many historians believe that the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after victory in the war.[17]" — Hanover

Could be. Doesn't mean the Nazi's didn't make consistent and effective use of Christianity in 'productive' ways, tapping into associated anti-Semitism and nationalism, which so often accompany religious dogma. It's worth noting that Hitler killed allies and associates when he had strategic changes (e.g., Ernst Rohm and the SA, who were so useful in establishing Nazi power at the start). Even if Hitler was an atheist and even if Hitler wanted to vanquish Christianity after the war was won - has little bearing upon the cultural uses of Christianity in galvanizing the German Volk and supporting the Nazi worldview and plans. After all, even an assassin is likely to dispose of the rifle once the killing is done.

That's an elegant little piece of AC's writing.

Sure. I would not argue Hitler is a Christian any more that I would argue Trump (a very different figure) is a Christian. But they both galvanized Christians expertly to achieve their political ends. And drew upon existing bigotries and hatreds that the church had fermented for generations. That's bad enough. To argue, as some might, that there were some Christians against Hitler is beside the point. Over the years, I've met many staunch Catholics who were against the Vatican and various Popes. Religion follows complex, twisted pathways, like most human endeavors.

There's an old critique of A C Grayling which seems to agree with Un's view of this, its emphasis being that 'militant atheism' in a sense needs religious texts to be rendered literally, to make its literalist critique possible: — mcdoodle

I think Grayling quite rightly holds that sophisticated theologies like those held by David Bentley Hart are not a great concern to anyone in daily life. No one is at risk from the God of Paul Tillich. I have no doubt Grayling can explore more sophisticated philosophical accounts of god if pressed. But these are not a significant problem.

There's no question that in a world packed with various forms of religious fundamentalism, which can significantly damage a culture and disrupt the world - from Trump's evangelicals, to Modi's Hindu nationalists (and let's not forget Islam) - these ideas are worth resisting, debunking, challenging. Just as the ideas of secular dictators are also worth debunking and challenging.

You may be right. But there are some interesting associations in this space.

Martin Luther wrote the following - and it does sound suspiciously like most steps taken from Kristallnacht to the Final Solution:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
"Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …

Hitler described Luther as a great German - hence:



The writing says:

Hitler’s fight and Luther’s teaching are the best defense for the German people.”

If the brain is a representation, then the consciousness that seems to reside there, and the self-model that comes with it must also be representations. The question then is what is doing the representing? Perhaps nothing? Or everything? — Janus

I like this question. I suspect that Kastrup would say that consciousness manifests as a brain, in a skull, in a body, in a world when viewed across the dissociative divide. It's just the form it appears to come in. Given that legs are as illusory as brains, I guess the functionality implied in a 'physical' body is a kind of combined hallucination to begin with. That's all I got....