Personally I benefit from informed, well reasoned views that are different to my own. I count on other people to make me aware of things I devalue or overlook.

It's very disappointing.

But of course you're primed not to see that through your New Age spectacles. — Janus

I think he's a much better thinker that that, Janus. I'm an atheist and sometimes don't agree with Wayfarer either, but for my money he's well read, acute and serious about the subjects he studies.

Who says abduction isn't powerful? Of course Conan Doyle himself was not so acute and thought fairies were real and that Houdini actually dematerialized himself to escape from chains underwater, etc.

That is interesting. The term religion probably makes more sense in cultures with significant pluralism, where an umbrella term for the various traditions is helpful. As you suggest the term religion is gravid with meaning in the West, where you often hear, 'I'm spiritual but not religious'.

Maybe this is a digression, but how do you view Protestant fundamentalist Christianity? Academic David Bentley Hart (who identifies as Eastern Orthodox) argues they are not Christian so much as new cults of reward and punishment.

My understanding is that Holmes generally practiced abductive, not deductive reasoning.

But there are far more questions than answers. — Manuel

No question. I don't think we can underestimate the emotional hook concepts like 'truth' have on people who so often seem to require such notions in order to feel safe and worthwhile. You often hear the echoes of this in discussions of morality "If there is no God then there is no reason to be moral and life is meaningless." That kind of thing. Truth and foundational guarantees still make the world go around.

If knowledge is useful in practice than it's true knowledge? — Cornwell1

Good question. I would think 'truth' is a totalizing idea - 'useful in practice' is a way of measuring knowledge by its efficacy rather than its truth value - whatever that means.

I hope this isn't a silly question. Can accepting ideas which are useful be a potential problem when those ideas are applied in other contexts? I'm struggling to think of good examples but, let's say a belief in God may be useful to manage grief and loss following the death of a wife/husband, but what if this same belief allows you to disown your son/daughter because they are gay? Some ideas don't allow for much parsing and are kind of 'all or nothing' affairs.

I don't disagree at all. I mean, for me everything is essentially a mystery, science included. It's not as if science makes sense, as I've been saying through-out this thread (we don't understand the world, physics is mathematical, math is...?, etc.) . — Manuel

I think this is a reasonable position. Why should anything 'make sense' - the very idea of something making sense is in itself just a frame driven by humans who are meaning making creatures with a fetish for certainty. I guess science as practiced by many does take a metaphysical position that the world is intrinsically knowable - it this a case of elevating predictability to the status of certainty? I am often haunted by something Richard Rorty said in an interview on Dutch TV - "We don't know anything at all about truth, all we know is how to justify ideas."

One might argue that Socrates is completely and utterly a fictitious character, but that does extremely little toward negating the value of the information found in Plato's dialogues. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. It matters not one jot if Socrates was fictional. What we have in Plato's literature is a method of enquiry that transcends the potential truth value. Plato is not dealing in 'revealed' wisdom. The New Testament, by contrast leaves us nothing but myths - a series of whoppers written about an itinerant preacher, produced for the most part decades after he lived by mainly anonymous sources. Not all ancient writings have the same status.

Thanks again. A succinct and engaging summary.

There is no such thing as evidence of something that doesn't exist, as nonexistence leaves no evidence except absence of evidence itself. — Garrett Travers

Nice.

What I'm interested in is 'higher consciousness', which actually has a wiki entry - not brilliant — Wayfarer

Jesus, that really is a slender entry - I wonder why that is? Whole bookshops are devoted to the perennial philosophy and the quest to achieve higher consciousness and only this on wiki! It was all certainly a part of my life 30 years ago when I first encountered Gurdjieff, Watts, Krishnamurti, Madam Blavatsky, etc.

Seems to me this entire discussion, whether it be about higher consciousness or the miracles of Jesus, comes back down to what we think we can reasonably say about reality. One way or another we end up arguing over the basic building blocks of ontology and metaphysics and the risks inherent in certain views.

No worries! Personally I can't tell if people are getting less intelligent or not. I have encountered no reason to think they are.

Of course. Thanks for clarifying.

The jump is not unjustified if you understand it. All material existence is ordered, it is not just random parts in a random spatial-temporal order. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand your argument but it doesn't change my view. Clearly life behaves and for my money this is a natural process. Thank you for articulating your view of intentionality so well and with just the right level of detail.

What you are railing against is elimininative materialism, which treats experience as an epiphenomenon. From the point of view of science it is an epiphenomenon, whereas from the point of view of phenomenology it is central. Two different disciplines which by no means need to be at odds with one another. — Janus

Nicely put.

If this thread were entitled "The problem with physicalism", the agreement between Wayfarer and I would be more apparent. — Banno

Sorry Banno - I'm doing this between meetings - can you expand a little?

In my case, I have sought the resolution to that conflict through non-dualism, which is a hard thing to explain. — Wayfarer

Yep, I've seen several talks on non-duality by Rupert Spira.

You guys have done this a lot longer that I have. Is there any hope for some agreement on terminology?

Physicalism/naturalism/supernatural/extramundane/transcendent - the words seem to trigger reactions and some of those words seem loaded and inadequate in these discussions. Are there better alternatives?

If you don't find it interesting, then why barge in with inane commentary? — Wayfarer

I actually asked @Banno to look over the thread as I was wanting to read something more rigorous in response to intentionalism as a defeater of naturalism. I know his reading of Searle and others is far more advanced than mine.

He said the mind is strictly describable in terms of the entities explored by science, and that when this was complete, there would be nothing unexplained. — Wayfarer

Do you think this is an impossibility?

How small has religion become! Once it explained everything, physical, social, moral and political. Now it is reduced to the hope that neuroscience will not be able to explain why you raised your arm. — Banno

Ha! I guess intentionality, consciousness, something from nothing and whatever's left of Aquinas' five ways or proofs will always be offered up as potential defeaters of naturalism.

I'm not a scientist or philosopher, so I defer to others. But it does often seem that an argument from incredulity is employed by people who cannot imagine how the world could be what it is without some kind of transcendent or supernatural power. I wonder if I should stay out of these discussions in future... :gasp:

When we consider the reality of artificial things, in contrast with natural things, we see that human intention adds something to the material world, in this act which we describe as creative. Simple appeal to "the forces of nature" cannot account for the changes which the human mind have imposed onto the material world. These awesome changes are all around us, and we cannot ignore the fact that they are evidence of a great power. — Metaphysician Undercover

I like your approach to this discussion but I can't share this interpretation. The natural world has animals in it. They behave and do things. We can readily observe and explain this. Birds make nests. People make walls and houses. Not sure why we must accept intentionality (behaviour) as evidence of an enchanted world. Christians apologists like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga are fond of this argument - via Anselm, I guess. This is a complex philosophical idea which is unsettled, so I will accept this point as a matter for further exploration.

For example, an atheist might observe the material world, and conclude that there is no evidence of God, while a theologist would say that the material world itself is evidence of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

The former assuming there is nothing beyond what is directly experienced, the latter assuming that there must be a cause of what is experienced. — Metaphysician Undercover

The big difference is that the former follows principles of skepticism. The latter makes an unjustifiable jump from an extant world to God. Why God? Everything you argue could apply to the role of aliens in a creation story. Why could you not argue that aliens created the world using this reasoning?

Original sin is one of his too. But yes, let's not debate Augustine.

I'm not a scholar of Augustine's works, but I've yet to read anything that he wrote about philosophy that I would consider nonsense. Of course, if I do, then I'll revise my opinion. — Wayfarer

Well, a notable one would be that Yeshua ben Yosef was the son of God.

If so, I'd say that you suffer from the prejudice, "that the natural world is all which exists". — Metaphysician Undercover

Your words are interesting. "Suffer from the prejudice" I think that's a prejudicial way of putting it. :smile: No one can say that the natural wold is all that exists (yet), and I do not know the answer since key evidence is missing. Most of these debates end up arguing about what constitutes evidence.

As a source, look up artificial in the dictionary — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand this but semantics are not my thing. We are talking about the paranormal or extramundane, not the difference between a cliff face and a brick wall.

I don't think naturalism and materialism are necessarily synonymous. In practice, naturalism often ends up meaning commitment to natural science as the only reliable source of knowledge. The problem then becomes what is considered as natural or part of nature — Wayfarer

I think that's fair and I have kind of said this.

'Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature', said Augustine. — Wayfarer

As a quip, Augustine almost got it right here but remember he accepted an awful lot of unjustifiable nonsense too, so it's hardly surprising . I would restate this it Miracles are not necessarily against nature... - the time to believe is when there is good evidence. I don't really think we have a choice.

But what counts as evidence then becomes the new battleground. I generally stay out of this since disputes between irreconcilable world-views are not worth it.

if there is non-natural aspects of the world, we would probably be using something other than science to understand them, science being the means for understanding the natural aspects of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this is the point of challenge.

The artificial aspects of the world are distinct from the natural aspects of the world, because they are created by human activities rather than by nature. And we know that these artificial things are not natural because they are caused through intention, which we understand through philosophy and ethics rather than science. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting.

we know that these artificial things are not natural because they are caused through intention, which we understand through philosophy and ethics rather than science. — Metaphysician Undercover

Naturally occurring versus the product of intention hence artificial - interesting. I've always assumed human activities are a subcategory of naturalism. Are you drawing on a particular source for this?

That's brilliant!

Just think of the implications... the power of precisely the right kind of omelette to restore the sapien in the homo.. Let's contact Sam Harris....

But then, naturalism is contrasted with supernaturalism --or, in a simpler way, natural is contrasted with supernatural-- which is not want we actually need, is it? — Alkis Piskas

I have not introduced 'supernatural' as a concept. But I guess that is the inference one can make. Do you have good evidence for any well known supernatural beliefs - disembodied consciousness, god, reincarnation, ghosts? Those are fair questions. I understand the word supernatural is unpalatable to many people but words in this area are often loaded and people's reactions to them often say more than the terms themselves.

No, I prefer the term "physicalism". It's much more clear and it draws a line --not always clear-- between physical and non-physical. The first one is open and offered for scientific study; the second one, for philosophical study. — Alkis Piskas

It's not so much about what you prefer but which terms are currently in use for the idea you are discussing here. Naturalism is the term most educated skeptics and atheist philosophers would use. They would generally hold to methodological naturalism - that science is the most reliable tool we can use to understand the natural world and not hold to philosophical naturalism - that the natural world is all which exists. This latter claim being too totalising and unjustifiable.

he subject of human consciousness is open for too long a time for scientists, materialists, physicalists, naturalists to come up with tangible, persuasive and workable scientific results. — Alkis Piskas

No. Knowledge takes as long as it takes. Uncovering knowledge does not run to a timetable. What you would be better off saying is that the amount of time it has taken to establish the nature of consciousness suggests it is much less straight forward than the naturalists have often hypothesised. But frankly modern neuroscience is still in its early days.

Even as a subjective experience, how can a physical thing like the brain produce something non-physical? — Alkis Piskas

I'm not a neuroscientist or philosopher so you are best asking someone with real expertise. In the mean time have a look into Thomas Metzinger's work and explanation of consciousness. There are naturalist explanations for what we think is non-physical. My view is that even if we could prove that thoughts are to mind what digestion is to the stomach (Searle) there would be people who wouldn't accept it as so many of us want to believe humans are transcendent.

Idealism isn't an explanation and shouldn't be associated with superstitious beliefs in the supernatural. — sime

Idealism is a philosophical tradition for which naturalists (and others) generally hold there is no evidence. I have not used the word supernatural but I can see how it might be an irresistible inference.

One key strategy is to try to not get too inebriated with your own verbosity. — universeness

Funny stuff. Yes for me verbosity isn't the main problem - it's the poor syntax combined with unnecessary jargon.

Now, what is strange about "materialists" is that they talk a lot about such things as consciousness, awareness, thought, imagination, love, joy, fear, and so on, none of which has been proven to be material (physical). — Alkis Piskas

I've assumed that naturalism had replaced the term materialism. Naturalists generally argue that to the best of our knowledge all we can know is the product of natural processes. The six things you listed above are really one thing - the subjective experience of consciousness - and this may well be the by product of our physical brain. It's an ongoing question awaiting a definitive answer.

In other words, the proposition 'anything real is material' applies an artificial closure to the extent of the unknown, which limits a person's logical capacity to the confines of one's own conception of matter, and this restricts the person's capacity to learn. — Metaphysician Undercover

Some dogmatic folk argue like this. Responsible naturalists would put it differently. They would say that the time to believe non-natural explanations - idealism, gods, reincarnation, that only consciousness exists, whatever it may be - is when there is good evidence for them. These concepts then become knowledge and presumably, a part of naturalism. There's a Noble Prize as yet unclaimed.

It's good that you brought up prejudice, — Alkis Piskas

When it comes to prejudice, it resides as comfortably in the land of woo woo as it does on the continent of scientism.

Part of the philosophy is not trying to seek experiences or get something from it. Which is not to say there is nothing to be gotten from it, but that its real lessons only become clear when you put aside the attempt to gain or to get something, whether that be enlightenment or some other kind of power. — Wayfarer

Thank you. Pretty interesting, even to a layman...

And always remembering Suzuki-Roshi’s advice, ‘give up all gaining ideas.’ — Wayfarer

Can you explain - It sounds tantalising and I am a little slow today.

Edit - Oops - just saw @Praxis' similar question.

I hope you are right about this. Look how much trouble and misery humans have caused just by being Sapien. Some brain cell loss may just the ticket to slow us down. :wink:

Thanks, very interesting.

In any case, the systematic observation, analysis, and control of psychological processes, concentration, etc., are sufficiently similar to the practices found in Eastern systems like Yoga and Buddhism. — Apollodorus

I suspected this might be the case.

The Orthodox Philokalia tradition goes back to the early centuries of Christianity when there was a fusion of various contemplative schools, and is based on the practice of stilling and centering the mind through watchfulness or watchful attention (nepsis) and interior prayer (proseuche) leading to a state of stillness or hesychia, hence the term Hesychasm. This prepares the mind for spiritual experience and, eventually, spiritual realization or perfection. — Apollodorus

The contemplative prayer tradition. Thanks for the word 'Philokalia'.

Which explains why new religious movements have such a ready audience - amongst all of those who feel the need for a mythological or spiritual framework around life, but who are completely lost to the ‘sheep and fields’ tropes of Biblical theology. — Wayfarer

Indeed. And it has to be said that no one does Christianity the kind of disservice that Christianity has done to itself, with its emphasis on shallow-faith literalism and punishment.

More later..

You yet need to show that the GR is a better theory of motivation than any other, such as adherence to rules (and threat of punishment for breaking them), or fear of God's punishment, and that it brings about better results than any other theory or more consistently. — baker

I don't need to show anything, Baker the GR is a principle and has been a motivator in many people's lives for centuries. But it won't please everyone. My approach is simply that we can recommend ideas to each other and people will either see the value or utility in them, or not. My view is that the GR can be defended as a useful principle and you seem to want something more compelling. I don't think there is such thing unless one is some kind of fundamentalist - religious or political.

For what? World peace? Feeling good about oneself no matter what? For what? — baker

I can't believe this is a genuine response. I've answered this. My view of morality is that it recommends principles to guide human behaviour towards each other and towards other conscious creatures. We discuss and decide upon which principles assists us best in this task. That's all. If you want some kind of totalising, meta-narrative that compels people, go for it, show us something better.

You-language is an attempt to rule over others. Some people who use you-language try to ameliorate its patronizing and other-annihilating effect by proposing that there is no ultimate truth, or that "all is relative" and other such ethically and epistemically repugnant positions. — baker

Some people...? If you are calling me a patronising, bossy arsehole I ask you to refrain from this in future.

Why not demonstrate that there is ultimate truth?