Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

My Response To Bad Puppy


Guest Valk0010

Recommended Posts

Guest Valk0010

This brings up another point. IF materialism is true and there is "nothing" but this life... materialists tell us we have to "make our own meaning". So then... are atheists allowed to freely make their own meaning, but spiritual people are not? There is a huge difference between coercive religion and totally individualized spirituality that doesn't seek to harm or coerce others. If we all "make our own meaning" than a spiritual person's meaning should be just as valid as an atheist's since there would be no "empirical meaning".

Depends on what that entails, if say your answer to a question of meaning entails say believing in adam and eve then you got a problem. If its something that just is related to existence questions like meaning, thats different.

 

Further, if materialism is true, then so is determinism... which would mean that it is really an illusion that anybody makes their own anything... meaning... or anything else. i.e. no free will. So isn't it pointless then for materialists to get upset with non-materialists just over being non-materialists or to act as if they can somehow see their perceived rationality as an accomplishment?

 

I wouldn't say that, it would be a stretch to connect say our genetics and are biology to say me responding to this question. Also it depends on what you mean by materialism. Are we talking about all of life is material? Or we talking about things like methodological naturalism? What about metaphysical naturalism? I am not convinced that all life is just material, but I am not convinced there is a supernatural element either. I am just simply not familiar enough with studies around things like consciousness to really say either way. As far as I can see however, we can only figure out about a natural world. You can't prove the supernatural with something that only can deal with what is natural and consistent. It might be there, but if you can't prove or disprove it, why bother believing in it?

 

With a deterministic worldview can one be proud they broke free of Christianity as if they somehow accomplished it with a free will and free thinking mind?

If this world is soley deterministic, we have to act as if its not. It leads to a countradiction to do otherwise.

 

Incidentally this is PART of what is irrational (to ME personally) about materialism. It is either irrational in it's set-up or in it's lack of application in the real world. i.e. nobody really behaves as if they don't have free will. And even atheists think they can "make their own meaning." However... if life is really random and meaningless, then even if you "could" make your own meaning... it would be a delusion, not much different than the "delusion of spirituality". So then... materialists are allowed to be deluded and make things up but non-materialists aren't? Which assumes of course the free will or free thought to make anything in the first place.

As far as I can see, the world would be more consistent if the world was just deterministic. We wouldn't have this difference of opinion for example.

 

To me, evolution looks like the creative PROCESS. i am a creative person for a living. I know how the creative process works. It doesn't pop out pristine and perfect. It's a messy process. And the end result is never perfect. There are always ways it can be improved upon. Supernatural Gods of monotheism, are, indeed irrational because they are internally inconsistent and contradictory. i.e. you can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and everywhere at the same time and have THIS world. But assuming evolution is a mechanistic/materialistic process IMO shows a lack of understanding of the creative process. The creative process is messy and imperfect but it does still require a consciousness to accomplish it. This isn't to say there MUST be a consciousness driving our reality... but... I don't think it's irrational to think it's a possibility.

PZ meyer's once made this arguement about a designer. He said, imagine two different kinds of walls, a brick wall and a driftwood wall. He said that if there was a designer then nature would be more akin to the brick wall which is obviously created. It really depends on what you consider good design. As far as i can tell, nature is more closer to the driftwood wall hence no designer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Valk Please bear with me, I know I'm being verbose here but I'm trying to reply to your points and express my views and I'm not sure how to consolidate this. I assume you starting a new thread means you're interested in more than a surface discussion.

 

I'm going to try to reply to your points without getting into quote tag hell.

 

re: adam and eve. I think spirituality is WIDELY variant. I am not a monotheist. I do not believe in "creationism or intelligent design". My views are more Eastern. And many eastern views with regards to spirituality and Universal Consciousness are MUCH different from supernatural theism. I don't believe my view is "irrational". I'm not saying it is necessarily "correct". I honestly don't know. But I believe it is closer to true than materialism (as a philosophy of "all that is")... otherwise I wouldn't follow it. However... even if I believed in something like Adam and Eve... if my life was not HARMED by it and I was not harming others by it... if life fundamentally has no empirical meaning (aka materialism/atheism)... then I don't think you would have the right to determine if it was a "problem" or not. It might be a problem for you, but that would be your business to not follow such a path.

 

In a world where you "make your own meaning", then an atheist does not have the right to tell a spiritual person that that somehow only applies to atheists. Why do they care one way or the other what anyone else believes if they aren't harming anyone with it?

 

re: materialism/determinism... I have no problem with methodological naturalism. It obviously works. We've made huge practical strides using it. My objection is when people assume a completely reductionist philosophy while pretending they haven't taken a metaphysical position or made an assumption. Materialism is an assumption. That has nothing to do with the truth of the assumption. It may be true or false, but it's still not a "given".

 

I'm not convinced all life is material (obviously lol), but I don't believe my views could be called "supernatural" either. I believe the universe is in some way conscious and that consciousness drives everything. I believe this in part because my own consciousness is the one thing about reality that I cannot deny (going back to the famous Descartes line) and because the ONLY way I know for SURE that a universe can be created is by a mind in the form of a dream. i.e. I think this universe was in some sense "projected" from a Mind like a dream might be. I also don't see much evidence that our "material reality" is made up of very much "material". 96% is said to be dark matter/dark energy which is invisible and currently unmeasurable. That leaves 4% which is composed of atoms which themselves aren't all that "solid". At root there seems to be an energy perceived differently by different minds. i.e. snakes see heat but we don't. We see and hear things in different ranges/frequencies than other beings do. Dolphins have sonar, etc. etc. If someone believes my view is supernatural I'd like them to explain WHY.

 

My mind is not supernatural. Me creating a world (dreams) is not supernatural. We all experience it and we all do it every night. Why is a LARGER Mind automatically supernatural? I'm not positing an internally contradictory deity "out there" who is All-everything. That's absurdity IMO, but then so is reductionism. Again, IMO. No, I cannot "prove" in any empirical way that I'm right. But I also haven't asked anybody to "convert to my view" either. I fully respect other people using their own reason and experience to come to different conclusions from mine. Doesn't harm me either way since it's obvious that people believe very different things about the nature of reality and we all have blind spots in our viewpoints that seem to only be able to truly be seen by those outside those viewpoints.

 

I don't really "bother believing in it" it's how I perceive it. i.e. I don't have to "work myself up" to a belief. This is just how I think it is. I may be wrong but I just can't see it any other way. That's like asking me to see grass as purple and the sky as polka dotted. Who knows? Maybe the grass IS purple and I just don't see it. What I see is what I see. It doesn't make it empirical truth but I'm not going out of my way to believe in something. I also have the personal experience of lucid dreams and meditation which have both informed my viewpoint to a large degree. If I find supernatural theism illogical and I find materialism illogical (in the reductionistic philosophical sense not as a methodology for a certain type of scientific inquiry), then i can either have some empty void with nothing in it or I can fill that void with my personal perception. (Note that I am NOT saying that everybody has a "god shaped hole" or whatever nonsense fundie theists like to say. I do not believe that. I don't believe everybody needs spirituality, nor do I believe materialists are "lesser beings" for BEING materialists. My ire only arises when they act like they are superior to me in all ways simply because we perceive the world differently. I'm FINE with the variety existing.)

 

re: "if the world is deterministic we have to act as if it's not" But wouldn't that be believing in a "delusion"? According to many atheists that seems to be akin to a mortal sin. If spiritual people are, according to atheists... believing in fairy tales and delusions... then why do atheists get to make an exception with determinism? Let's just pretend what we want? That's okay in this one case? Seems pretty convenient to me. I say if a hardline materialist is going to "believe a delusion because they want to", then they no longer have any room to judge any spiritual person who they feel is "believing a delusion". At least most spiritual people don't "know" their "delusion" is false. If someone knows determinism is true but then spends their life pretending it isn't... to me that's worse.

 

And I agree with you regarding difference of opinion and determinism. People seem stubbornly set on following their own will and their own views. People bleed and die to fight for "freedom". If freedom is an illusion that's pointless bloodshed. Our entire society is based upon the idea of free will and moral responsibility. We fall into absurdity when we take a strict determinism to its logical conclusion IMO.

 

I don't believe in a "designer". I think there is unfortunately no way to use the term "creative process" with regards to evolution without someone thinking it's a version of creationism or intelligent design. I'm not sure how to describe it to make it understandable as a unique alternative. The problem is that Creationism and ID are religious viewpoints masquerading as science which automatically (and for good reason) gets people's hackles up. But creationists and IDers are generally, at root, supernatural theists... so they view God as "perfect" and therefore creation as something done perfectly the first time... and they say "maybe God used evolution" but it's still the same concept. I don't believe in a "perfect" or anthropomorphic God. But I also see a creative process in evolution. (However I am not pretending my perception is empirical science... which is another way in which I differ from a creationist.) It's messy. Some stuff doesn't work. Some stuff gets tossed out. When i write a rough draft it is far from perfect. It has to be edited. Entire parts have to be cut out. Sometimes the final product still has problems that I either didn't see or couldn't fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

re: adam and eve. I think spirituality is WIDELY variant. I am not a monotheist. I do not believe in "creationism or intelligent design". My views are more Eastern. And many eastern views with regards to spirituality and Universal Consciousness are MUCH different from supernatural theism. I don't believe my view is "irrational".

If I am allowed to be a tad critical, what proof do you have? I mean the invisible and the nonexistant look very similar. Good to know, that falls more under the existential kind of thing.

 

 

I'm not saying it is necessarily "correct". I honestly don't know. But I believe it is closer to true than materialism (as a philosophy of "all that is")... otherwise I wouldn't follow it. However... even if I believed in something like Adam and Eve... if my life was not HARMED by it and I was not harming others by it... if life fundamentally has no empirical meaning (aka materialism/atheism)... then I don't think you would have the right to determine if it was a "problem" or not. It might be a problem for you, but that would be your business to not follow such a path.

 

Depends on what you mean by empirical meaning again. If we are trying to learn more about the world, by the nature of the pursuit there has to be correct answers. I don't see how discovery of truth is possible in a soley deterministic world. Empirical meaning, to me describes only things within that realm of correct incorrect. Thoughts like say, my purpose is A, are not empirical becuase there is no correct or incorrect answer.

 

In a world where you "make your own meaning", then an atheist does not have the right to tell a spiritual person that that somehow only applies to atheists. Why do they care one way or the other what anyone else believes if they aren't harming anyone with it?

That criticism really doesn't apply to me, if we are going to discus what can be proven factually then I am willing to have a discussion. But your right unless its harming somebody or themselves(there is really obvious examples of that which come to mind), who cares.

 

re: materialism/determinism... I have no problem with methodological naturalism. It obviously works. We've made huge practical strides using it. My objection is when people assume a completely reductionist philosophy while pretending they haven't taken a metaphysical position or made an assumption. Materialism is an assumption. That has nothing to do with the truth of the assumption. It may be true or false, but it's still not a "given".

 

I wouldn't call materialism in a methological form a assumption. Thats most because, its the only thing we know that works. We have to assume nature is uniform. If all is fair game nothing is discoverable. Materialism in its other forms as far as I understand things assumes more things to be settled then are actually settled, but that could easily be a misunderstanding on my part. But the question then becomes what is nature? Can we prove everything or just some things? What do we do with those conclusions? I would venture to say, that nature can't include supernature without making the supernatural natural. Its like black and white, it either is or it isn't. You could say existence has both black and white in it, but then your back to square one of the can you prove. You could only prove nature because of the nature of supernature.

 

I'm not convinced all life is material (obviously lol), but I don't believe my views could be called "supernatural" either. I believe the universe is in some way conscious and that consciousness drives everything. I believe this in part because my own consciousness is the one thing about reality that I cannot deny (going back to the famous Descartes line) and because the ONLY way I know for SURE that a universe can be created is by a mind in the form of a dream. i.e. I think this universe was in some sense "projected" from a Mind like a dream might be.

Well is that a supernatural belief I would say so. And if the creation of the universe is a matter of the natural world. Then supernatural explainations are out of the question. Comes back to the question of what can we factually prove or disprove, and that doesn't apply to supernatural circumstances. So we either will never figure it out, and then there just then becomes a possibility of the supernatural world. Or it will be totally natural. I don't see how someone could ever really prove the supernatural because by its defintion it goes against the grain of anything natural.

 

 

I also don't see much evidence that our "material reality" is made up of very much "material". 96% is said to be dark matter/dark energy which is invisible and currently unmeasurable. That leaves 4% which is composed of atoms which themselves aren't all that "solid". At root there seems to be an energy perceived differently by different minds. i.e. snakes see heat but we don't. We see and hear things in different ranges/frequencies than other beings do. Dolphins have sonar, etc. etc. If someone believes my view is supernatural I'd like them to explain WHY.

Energy is a form of material. God isn't a form of material, just as a contrasting example.

 

My mind is not supernatural. Me creating a world (dreams) is not supernatural. We all experience it and we all do it every night. Why is a LARGER Mind automatically supernatural? I'm not positing an internally contradictory deity "out there" who is All-everything. That's absurdity IMO, but then so is reductionism. Again, IMO. No, I cannot "prove" in any empirical way that I'm right. But I also haven't asked anybody to "convert to my view" either. I fully respect other people using their own reason and experience to come to different conclusions from mine. Doesn't harm me either way since it's obvious that people believe very different things about the nature of reality and we all have blind spots in our viewpoints that seem to only be able to truly be seen by those outside those viewpoints.

 

Depends on capabilities really, can we create a universe, or animals out of thin air no, that is why some sort of creator idea of mind for the universe is supernatural.

 

I don't really "bother believing in it" it's how I perceive it. i.e. I don't have to "work myself up" to a belief. This is just how I think it is. I may be wrong but I just can't see it any other way. That's like asking me to see grass as purple and the sky as polka dotted. Who knows? Maybe the grass IS purple and I just don't see it. What I see is what I see. It doesn't make it empirical truth but I'm not going out of my way to believe in something. I also have the personal experience of lucid dreams and meditation which have both informed my viewpoint to a large degree. If I find supernatural theism illogical and I find materialism illogical (in the reductionistic philosophical sense not as a methodology for a certain type of scientific inquiry), then i can either have some empty void with nothing in it or I can fill that void with my personal perception. (Note that I am NOT saying that everybody has a "god shaped hole" or whatever nonsense fundie theists like to say. I do not believe that. I don't believe everybody needs spirituality, nor do I believe materialists are "lesser beings" for BEING materialists. My ire only arises when they act like they are superior to me in all ways simply because we perceive the world differently. I'm FINE with the variety existing.)

We don't have quarrel on this point. But the grass analogy is a emperical question, its green even if your color blind. Or we are all wrong as its something else, but its got to be one thing.

 

re: "if the world is deterministic we have to act as if it's not" But wouldn't that be believing in a "delusion"? According to many atheists that seems to be akin to a mortal sin. If spiritual people are, according to atheists... believing in fairy tales and delusions... then why do atheists get to make an exception with determinism? Let's just pretend what we want? That's okay in this one case? Seems pretty convenient to me. I say if a hardline materialist is going to "believe a delusion because they want to", then they no longer have any room to judge any spiritual person who they feel is "believing a delusion". At least most spiritual people don't "know" their "delusion" is false. If someone knows determinism is true but then spends their life pretending it isn't... to me that's worse.

Well I wouldn't call it pretending it isn't. Einstein was a determinist for example. Nor would I call it delusional. Ask me, if you can responed to this, not at least at some level acting if your doing this on soley your own power? See my point?

 

 

I don't believe in a "designer". I think there is unfortunately no way to use the term "creative process" with regards to evolution without someone thinking it's a version of creationism or intelligent design. I'm not sure how to describe it to make it understandable as a unique alternative. The problem is that Creationism and ID are religious viewpoints masquerading as science which automatically (and for good reason) gets people's hackles up. But creationists and IDers are generally, at root, supernatural theists... so they view God as "perfect" and therefore creation as something done perfectly the first time... and they say "maybe God used evolution" but it's still the same concept. I don't believe in a "perfect" or anthropomorphic God. But I also see a creative process in evolution. (However I am not pretending my perception is empirical science... which is another way in which I differ from a creationist.) It's messy. Some stuff doesn't work. Some stuff gets tossed out. When i write a rough draft it is far from perfect. It has to be edited. Entire parts have to be cut out. Sometimes the final product still has problems that I either didn't see or couldn't fix.

Seems like your trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to try to use quote tags.

 

If I am allowed to be a tad critical, what proof do you have? I mean the invisible and the nonexistant look very similar. Good to know, that falls more under the existential kind of thing.

 

What proof do scientists have of dark matter/dark energy? It is invisible and unmeasurable. It's currently a hypothetical presented to make the math work. Nobody knows what it is. Math can lead to proof of something but it can also be wrong. Math is used to support theories within quantum physics, for example, that are mutually contradictory.

 

I can only see reality in the way with which I see it. I can't look out the window and see a polka dotted sky and purple grass. (to repeat myself.) I don't have any "proof" that you would accept. And that's fine. I'm not going to get into the "well here's my proof" game with you.

 

That might seem to you like Christians who run in here, saying they use reason and then end up appealing to faith. The thing is... their views are 'reasonable to them'. It doesn't make them right. But neither does it make ANY philosophy "right" just because it is reasonable to the holder of that philosophy. I could list the things that are convincing to me, but if your mind isn't wired like mine, it won't be convincing to you.

 

My thesis isn't that I have the "truth" and you should "agree with me", my thesis is that human beings perceive differently and therefore can't really "know" which thing is the "ultimate truth" beyond their perception. Christians come in here with the view that they are right and they want to prove it to you. I have no such need.

 

Everybody has limits... one limit we all have is intelligence. We all have different intellectual capacities and different areas in which we excel. This isn't to say I think people who don't see things like me are less intelligent. There are empirically intelligent people who hold different philosophies. Another limit we all have is perception. If you fundamentally see the world in a certain way you won't suddenly see it a different way. You may be able to understand why something makes sense to someone else, but it won't suddenly make sense to you.

 

 

 

 

Depends on what you mean by empirical meaning again. If we are trying to learn more about the world, by the nature of the pursuit there has to be correct answers. I don't see how discovery of truth is possible in a soley deterministic world. Empirical meaning, to me describes only things within that realm of correct incorrect. Thoughts like say, my purpose is A, are not empirical becuase there is no correct or incorrect answer.

 

I believe there is an empirical/ultimate truth. I do NOT believe human beings have the capacity to see it. We are perceptual beings having an experience (life). We can't pretend we can stand outside it without any bias, be purely rational without any other influences, and see things as they are. I believe we interact with the phenomena (perceived thing) rather than the noumena (thing in itself) (Kant reference). I believe also that we are interacting with the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave. Ironically materialists say we are these insignificant beings in the greater cosmos and aren't "important", and yet at the same time they think we are so awesome we will someday understand it all somehow using "science". Yeah. And pigs will fly. I'm not saying science is useless. Many things have been discovered which practically "work", but practicality isn't the same as understanding the whole big picture or the ultimate nature of a thing outside our perception of it.

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't call materialism in a methological form a assumption. Thats most because, its the only thing we know that works. We have to assume nature is uniform. If all is fair game nothing is discoverable. Materialism in its other forms as far as I understand things assumes more things to be settled then are actually settled, but that could easily be a misunderstanding on my part. But the question then becomes what is nature? Can we prove everything or just some things? What do we do with those conclusions? I would venture to say, that nature can't include supernature without making the supernatural natural. Its like black and white, it either is or it isn't. You could say existence has both black and white in it, but then your back to square one of the can you prove. You could only prove nature because of the nature of supernature.

 

Everything, IMO, is an assumption. It doesn't mean it doesn't practically work. It also doesn't mean it can't be empirically true. i.e. materialism could be the ultimate empirical truth of reality. I will absolutely grant materialists that. But just because it "could be" doesn't mean it "is". I just don't think it's possible to objectively KNOW everything. I don't dispute that our world seems very "solid and predictable" and it usually works out that way. That doesn't define its ultimate nature.

 

For an example on perception... Ghosts. Materialists see ghosts as mental projections or hallucinations or maybe some kind of "glitch" in brain wiring. I see them as mental projections or possibly as some sort of energy field but not a conscious entity that is trapped her (i.e. most ghosts that are perceived seem to be repeating something in a loop, not interacting with anyone.), other people see ghosts as lost souls, others still see them as demons.

 

There is no argument that people experience something that some people call "ghosts". The question is... what is the empirical nature of that experience? I don't believe we can know because we are perceptual beings with limited understanding. We aren't omniscient. Each person from the materialist to people like me to Christians to everyone else... create a narrative that supports their perception.

 

 

 

 

Well is that a supernatural belief I would say so. And if the creation of the universe is a matter of the natural world. Then supernatural explainations are out of the question. Comes back to the question of what can we factually prove or disprove, and that doesn't apply to supernatural circumstances. So we either will never figure it out, and then there just then becomes a possibility of the supernatural world. Or it will be totally natural. I don't see how someone could ever really prove the supernatural because by its defintion it goes against the grain of anything natural.

 

I think that this is your perception of things. I don't see anything remotely supernatural about my view. I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that if you can't comprehend something it must not be real and "supernatural" is a catch all for "everything unreal and unprovable."

 

 

Energy is a form of material. God isn't a form of material, just as a contrasting example.

 

And to some... "God" is a form of energy. You still have a supernatural assumption of what "God" is or might be.

 

 

 

 

Depends on capabilities really, can we create a universe, or animals out of thin air no, that is why some sort of creator idea of mind for the universe is supernatural.

 

But I'm not saying the "material world" is created out of "thin air". I'm saying the world isn't "material". At least that's my perception of it. I'm saying we are inside God's "dream". This may sound like a "brain in a vat" theory, but it's honestly the only thing that makes sense to me. I understand if it makes no sense to you. You, likewise, are a perceiving being with your own perception of reality.

 

We also may have very different dream experiences. I'm a lucid dreamer so I've had dreams more real than the consensus reality. I mean hyper-real. So real I would just stare at wallpaper like someone on an LSD trip asking "how can this not be real?" (For the record, I do not use any drugs of any kind.) After lucid dreams I often have false awakenings. I've had a series of up to 5 before. That's when you "wake up" in your normal room/environment and think you just woke up from your dream. You start to get up and do things then something super weird happens and you wake up again. I have to check my digital clock to see if the numbers do something weird to know if I'm still dreaming or not.

 

So my experience very much informs my perception. I can't pretend that I somehow think it's more likely that "this reality" is NOT some form of dream projected by a greater mind of which I am only a small part. You are free to see that as supernatural, but I don't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We don't have quarrel on this point. But the grass analogy is a emperical question, its green even if your color blind. Or we are all wrong as its something else, but its got to be one thing.

 

Color is perception and requires a mind to perceive it. It doesn't exist empirically. I will provide proof for this statement if you need me to.

 

 

Well I wouldn't call it pretending it isn't. Einstein was a determinist for example. Nor would I call it delusional. Ask me, if you can responed to this, not at least at some level acting if your doing this on soley your own power? See my point?

 

Still looks like pretending to me. Though bizarrely deterministic pretending since in determinism you would only THINK you were pretending since it would somehow not be a choice you made to pretend. In which case nobody's beliefs about anything are their real choice so to act as if spiritual believers are willfully accepting a delusion makes no sense inside strict determinism. The whole thing falls apart and contradicts the way people behave, including the way materialists behave.

 

 

 

I don't believe in a "designer". I think there is unfortunately no way to use the term "creative process" with regards to evolution without someone thinking it's a version of creationism or intelligent design. I'm not sure how to describe it to make it understandable as a unique alternative. The problem is that Creationism and ID are religious viewpoints masquerading as science which automatically (and for good reason) gets people's hackles up. But creationists and IDers are generally, at root, supernatural theists... so they view God as "perfect" and therefore creation as something done perfectly the first time... and they say "maybe God used evolution" but it's still the same concept. I don't believe in a "perfect" or anthropomorphic God. But I also see a creative process in evolution. (However I am not pretending my perception is empirical science... which is another way in which I differ from a creationist.) It's messy. Some stuff doesn't work. Some stuff gets tossed out. When i write a rough draft it is far from perfect. It has to be edited. Entire parts have to be cut out. Sometimes the final product still has problems that I either didn't see or couldn't fix.

Seems like your trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

I understand it "seems like that" to you. But that doesn't mean it is. Creationism is a completely different view than mine. Creationism says we have this "material reality" and then posits a supernatural agency (a being outside it all affecting it all.) My view is more pantheistic. I believe consciousness is the ground of being and that this "material" reality isn't material. Both materialists and creationists/IDers operate from the same basic assumption that we are living in a "material world". With the exception of that Madonna song, I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* (needed to tell Valk something... but for some stupid reason it didn't occur to me to just use private message. doh.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What proof do scientists have of dark matter/dark energy? It is invisible and unmeasurable.

 

The effect of dark matter and dark energy are very much measurable. We call them "dark" because whatever they are they do not look like stars in the night sky. Things that burn fusion or explode glow in the night sky. However we can see that some stars are rotating very fast around something that doesn't glow. We can measure the speed and from that we know this "doesn't glow" matter has to be heaver than the amount of glowing stars we can see. We can also measure how galaxies far from us are accelerating in a way that doesn't make sense to us. Something must cause this. It doesn't glow and it does work. Thus we call it dark energy. It will be some time before we fully understand either one.

 

It's currently a hypothetical presented to make the math work.

 

Not just the math but also our observations. If you saw a ball whipping around in a circle you might guess something string like keeps in going in a circle even if you are too far away to see it. Well something must keep galaxies together. We can see the stars and track their movement and speed even if we lack the technology to detect whatever holds them together.

 

Nobody knows what it is. Math can lead to proof of something but it can also be wrong. Math is used to support theories within quantum physics, for example, that are mutually contradictory.

 

I can only see reality in the way with which I see it. I can't look out the window and see a polka dotted sky and purple grass. (to repeat myself.) I don't have any "proof" that you would accept. And that's fine. I'm not going to get into the "well here's my proof" game with you.

 

That might seem to you like Christians who run in here, saying they use reason and then end up appealing to faith.

 

To me it sounds more like agreeing to disagree. Now if you insisted that everyone else must believe what you believe or else Zeus would punish us in the afterlife and then you had no substance to back it up then you would sound like a Christian.

 

My thesis isn't that I have the "truth" and you should "agree with me", my thesis is that human beings perceive differently and therefore can't really "know" which thing is the "ultimate truth" beyond their perception.

 

Sounds reasonable to me. The typical human mind isn't very good with concepts that are outside of life on Earth. We have trouble conceiving of what happens at the quantum level or near the speed of light or what goes on in a black hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm back. I needed a few days away to decompress and also to get some work done. I am going to try to strike a better balance between visiting the forum and staying away from it for the purpose of not getting frustrated and not sucking up all my time I need to be committing to getting work done.

 

 

The effect of dark matter and dark energy are very much measurable. We call them "dark" because whatever they are they do not look like stars in the night sky. Things that burn fusion or explode glow in the night sky. However we can see that some stars are rotating very fast around something that doesn't glow. We can measure the speed and from that we know this "doesn't glow" matter has to be heaver than the amount of glowing stars we can see. We can also measure how galaxies far from us are accelerating in a way that doesn't make sense to us. Something must cause this. It doesn't glow and it does work. Thus we call it dark energy. It will be some time before we fully understand either one.

 

My understanding of dark matter and dark energy is that it is invisible and not actually measurable in itself. The effects of it may be measurable, but so are the effects of wind. (We can actually ALSO measure wind, though.) My point isn't that there will "never" be a naturalistic explanation only that "for now" dark matter and energy function as mathematical hypotheticals... placeholders that make the big bang work with expansion. If dark matter and dark energy in and of themselves have actually been measured can you please point me to a reference I can study? I'm perfectly willing to be wrong about this. It has literally nothing to do with my worldview except to the extent that it functions as an analogy to point out there is a lot of weird shit out there that really only works in the theoretical math but hasn't been proven far beyond that. Other things that function like this would be parallel universes, multi-verses, and billions of universes out there. I don't care how brilliant Stephen Hawking's math is... we are moving beyond science and into philosophy when we move beyond what we can OBSERVE in some sense. So postulating a lot of hypotheticals that seem reasonable are IMO no better than postulating any other thing, including what you might call supernatural woo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not just the math but also our observations. If you saw a ball whipping around in a circle you might guess something string like keeps in going in a circle even if you are too far away to see it. Well something must keep galaxies together. We can see the stars and track their movement and speed even if we lack the technology to detect whatever holds them together.

 

I agree something must keep galaxies together. I just don't think anything is this "material" "objective reality" that so many seem to think it is. What if it turns out everything is somehow made of "consciousness" itself? Is there a way to measure that directly? Hell if I know, but so far there is no way to measure dark matter and dark energy directly, either. Again, if I'm wrong about this particular issue, I'm wrong. That's not really the point. The point is there is a lot we don't know and behaving as if it "must" be something that fits in a neat box we've labeled "materialism" may or may not be actual reality. Getting wrong answers just to have answers seems pointless to me. If there is a higher reality we can't comprehend, then mislabeling it and making it fit into a box called "material is all that exists" is still untrue. It just comforts materialists.

 

 

 

 

 

To me it sounds more like agreeing to disagree. Now if you insisted that everyone else must believe what you believe or else Zeus would punish us in the afterlife and then you had no substance to back it up then you would sound like a Christian.

 

Of course. And I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree. It's pretty obvious to me that human beings perceive the world in wildly different ways based upon various assumptions they start out with. The reason I don't start out with strict materialism as an assumption is because it assumes my "I-ness" is an illusion. Descartes said "I think therefore I am". I repeat this a lot but it's because there is a big point here. If that is not true... then we cannot know anything. And any assumption that relegates consciousness to some curiosity or illusion is less likely (IMO) to be true and, if true, is something we can't know because if we don't really have "I-ness" in a real sense if we don't "think therefore I am" then nothing else matters. To me, materialism is nihilism. That doesn't mean I can't respect those who hold that philosophy. Right now I'm reading a book called: "Oranges are not the only fruit" It's about a girl raised in fundie Christianity where Christianity is seen as the only way. And her mother keeps giving her oranges and acting like they are the only fruit that exists, which of course is a metaphor for the Christianity. I think anytime someone uses their own perception of reality to "define it" they are basically falling back to "oranges are the only fruit". And demonstrably they are not.

 

I accept/admit that the way I perceive is merely my "working framework". I believe ultimate reality is unknowable to a human being. I don't think that means we should twiddle our thumbs and not try to learn things, but a measure of humility (IMO) is in order.

 

 

 

Sounds reasonable to me. The typical human mind isn't very good with concepts that are outside of life on Earth. We have trouble conceiving of what happens at the quantum level or near the speed of light or what goes on in a black hole.

 

Yup. And I will say that one of the reasons I do hope there is an afterlife is not because I "fear death", but because I believe expanded awareness beyond what is possible as a human being (IMO) is the only real way to KNOW more. I want to know more. I seek knowledge, not just comfort. But some knowledge I know is beyond me as a human being. IF there were to be an afterlife, I think I would have a broader way of seeing that would allow me to know more than is currently possible. But if there isn't one, that's fine, too. I just personally feel consciousness is what "Is", and I am consciousness and you are consciousness, so from my perspective it's just silly to think something like a little death could end that. ;)

 

But your mileage may vary and I respect if it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of dark matter and dark energy is that it is invisible and not actually measurable in itself.

 

In the same sense that a bird is generally invisible and not measurable by human means when it is a hundred miles away from the observer/equipment. If we were up close we might find it very much visible.

 

 

If dark matter and dark energy in and of themselves have actually been measured can you please point me to a reference I can study?

 

If you mean directly then no. Humans have never traveled farther than the moon. With current methods it's not even realistic that we can send a probe to the next star and our close relatives will live to see the data. For us to get close enough to dark matter would be like an ant swimming across the Pacific ocean.

 

But your mileage may vary and I respect if it does.

 

The older I get the more oblivion looks like a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In the same sense that a bird is generally invisible and not measurable by human means when it is a hundred miles away from the observer/equipment. If we were up close we might find it very much visible.

 

We "might", but right now you're just speculating. Which, there's nothing wrong with that except that speculation can't define empirical reality, only one person's perception of it.

 

 

 

 

 

If you mean directly then no. Humans have never traveled farther than the moon. With current methods it's not even realistic that we can send a probe to the next star and our close relatives will live to see the data. For us to get close enough to dark matter would be like an ant swimming across the Pacific ocean.

 

Then you can see why I might maintain a healthy skepticism?

 

 

The older I get the more oblivion looks like a good thing.

 

LMAO!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My understanding of dark matter and dark energy is that it is invisible and not actually measurable in itself. The effects of it may be measurable, but so are the effects of wind. (We can actually ALSO measure wind, though.) My point isn't that there will "never" be a naturalistic explanation only that "for now" dark matter and energy function as mathematical hypotheticals... placeholders that make the big bang work with expansion. If dark matter and dark energy in and of themselves have actually been measured can you please point me to a reference I can study? I'm perfectly willing to be wrong about this. It has literally nothing to do with my worldview except to the extent that it functions as an analogy to point out there is a lot of weird shit out there that really only works in the theoretical math but hasn't been proven far beyond that. Other things that function like this would be parallel universes, multi-verses, and billions of universes out there. I don't care how brilliant Stephen Hawking's math is... we are moving beyond science and into philosophy when we move beyond what we can OBSERVE in some sense. So postulating a lot of hypotheticals that seem reasonable are IMO no better than postulating any other thing, including what you might call supernatural woo.

 

 

Really, we don't observe anything directly. Everything we perceive is indirect. When you look at an object across the room, what you are seeing is that object interacting with light rays. What makes that a more direct measurement than observing dark matter through its interaction with gravity? Both are indirect effects. One you see an interaction with gravity and infer something is there. The other you see an interaction with photons and infer an object is there. Is it because one is make with your eyes and the other is made with an instrument?

 

As for dark matter references:

 

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/16may07.html

 

Here is a picture of light be distorted by the gravity of dark matter (called gravitational lensing).

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/dark-matter-map-gallery.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of dark matter and dark energy is that it is invisible and not actually measurable in itself. The effects of it may be measurable, but so are the effects of wind. (We can actually ALSO measure wind, though.) My point isn't that there will "never" be a naturalistic explanation only that "for now" dark matter and energy function as mathematical hypotheticals... placeholders that make the big bang work with expansion. If dark matter and dark energy in and of themselves have actually been measured can you please point me to a reference I can study? I'm perfectly willing to be wrong about this. It has literally nothing to do with my worldview except to the extent that it functions as an analogy to point out there is a lot of weird shit out there that really only works in the theoretical math but hasn't been proven far beyond that. Other things that function like this would be parallel universes, multi-verses, and billions of universes out there. I don't care how brilliant Stephen Hawking's math is... we are moving beyond science and into philosophy when we move beyond what we can OBSERVE in some sense. So postulating a lot of hypotheticals that seem reasonable are IMO no better than postulating any other thing, including what you might call supernatural woo.

 

 

Really, we don't observe anything directly. Everything we perceive is indirect. When you look at an object across the room, what you are seeing is that object interacting with light rays. What makes that a more direct measurement than observing dark matter through its interaction with gravity? Both are indirect effects. One you see an interaction with gravity and infer something is there. The other you see an interaction with photons and infer an object is there. Is it because one is make with your eyes and the other is made with an instrument?

 

As for dark matter references:

 

http://imagine.gsfc....ws/16may07.html

 

Here is a picture of light be distorted by the gravity of dark matter (called gravitational lensing).

 

http://www.nasa.gov/...ap-gallery.html

 

Thanks, I'll check these links out! And I was aware of not perceiving anything directly (I'm a big Kant fan: The noumena vs. the phenomena), but I think we still get in the habit of a certain pattern of language even if we know better. Like we still say: "sunrise and sunset" instead of "earth turn". tongue.png

 

I meant observation/"direct" measuring in the way we do for other things. Though in a sense my analogy for what i was trying to say was weak and distracting.

 

I should have stuck with something like parallel universes... something where "the math works" but we can't observe it AT ALL and it is totally untestable. My original point was that there are plenty of things that don't have a lot of proof that are still accepted as valid theories/ideas within science. (Though to be honest when it's just theoretical math with no way to test it beyond that, I feel it should be called a hypothesis. A theory is testable in a real way. Or it should be IMO.) I'm not sure why a conscious universe should be somehow excluded a priori.

 

Though there are several physicists who HAVE posited a conscious universe or consciousness as the X-factor so to speak. So it's not a foreign concept... but as they say... science progresses one funeral at a time. (Old guard has to die out before a new idea fully takes hold. Even Max Planck said something similar.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of dark matter and dark energy is that it is invisible and not actually measurable in itself. The effects of it may be measurable, but so are the effects of wind. (We can actually ALSO measure wind, though.) My point isn't that there will "never" be a naturalistic explanation only that "for now" dark matter and energy function as mathematical hypotheticals... placeholders that make the big bang work with expansion. If dark matter and dark energy in and of themselves have actually been measured can you please point me to a reference I can study? I'm perfectly willing to be wrong about this. It has literally nothing to do with my worldview except to the extent that it functions as an analogy to point out there is a lot of weird shit out there that really only works in the theoretical math but hasn't been proven far beyond that. Other things that function like this would be parallel universes, multi-verses, and billions of universes out there. I don't care how brilliant Stephen Hawking's math is... we are moving beyond science and into philosophy when we move beyond what we can OBSERVE in some sense. So postulating a lot of hypotheticals that seem reasonable are IMO no better than postulating any other thing, including what you might call supernatural woo.

 

 

Really, we don't observe anything directly. Everything we perceive is indirect. When you look at an object across the room, what you are seeing is that object interacting with light rays. What makes that a more direct measurement than observing dark matter through its interaction with gravity? Both are indirect effects. One you see an interaction with gravity and infer something is there. The other you see an interaction with photons and infer an object is there. Is it because one is make with your eyes and the other is made with an instrument?

 

As for dark matter references:

 

http://imagine.gsfc....ws/16may07.html

 

Here is a picture of light be distorted by the gravity of dark matter (called gravitational lensing).

 

http://www.nasa.gov/...ap-gallery.html

 

Thanks, I'll check these links out! And I was aware of not perceiving anything directly (I'm a big Kant fan: The noumena vs. the phenomena), but I think we still get in the habit of a certain pattern of language even if we know better. Like we still say: "sunrise and sunset" instead of "earth turn". tongue.png

 

I meant observation/"direct" measuring in the way we do for other things. Though in a sense my analogy for what i was trying to say was weak and distracting.

 

I should have stuck with something like parallel universes... something where "the math works" but we can't observe it AT ALL and it is totally untestable. My original point was that there are plenty of things that don't have a lot of proof that are still accepted as valid theories/ideas within science. (Though to be honest when it's just theoretical math with no way to test it beyond that, I feel it should be called a hypothesis. A theory is testable in a real way. Or it should be IMO.) I'm not sure why a conscious universe should be somehow excluded a priori.

 

Though there are several physicists who HAVE posited a conscious universe or consciousness as the X-factor so to speak. So it's not a foreign concept... but as they say... science progresses one funeral at a time. (Old guard has to die out before a new idea fully takes hold. Even Max Planck said something similar.)

 

I agree that there are many ideas that are purely hypothetical. Maybe its a communications or language failure, but most scientist and science enthusiast know amounst themselves how hypothetical many of these theories are so we don't bother communicating it. Parallel universes, as you pointed out, are towards the far end of the theoretical spectrum. Within the scientific comminuty there just isn't a need to preface these ideas with, "This is all hypothetical." because people in that audience know already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you can see why I might maintain a healthy skepticism?

 

 

Nothing wrong with skepticism. Dark Matter and Dark Energy right now are in human understanding where Black Holes were about 30-40 years ago. And there is no guarantee that our understanding on the new topics will improve at the same rate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a category error to expect science to prove what is not within its domain to examine. I flatly disagree with the brazen statement in the opening of Steven Hawking's latest book where he (or his collaborator), says "Philosophy is dead". That is a category error of science to assume understanding the reality of the material sphere of the universe will be able to speak to the reality of mind inside the mental sphere. That is what philosophy is for. It is indeed true that philosophy is dead to explaining the natural world however, as it is a much a category error for reason to speculate about the material universe. The genius of Galileo was to pick up a telescope and actually look at the objects in the universe, rather than merely reasoning it with the mind.

 

But then science oversteps itself to try to explain everything about reality. Reality is more than just the natural, material world. It is also mind. And mind can only know mind through mind, through interview, through interpretation, not through some raw measurement on a machine of observation. Mind is known through the inside, through dialog, not through a monological gaze as an observer looking at a distant galaxy. You only know someone by getting inside their mind, through dialog.

 

Further this into the spiritual domains which transcend the mental-phenomenal sphere into experiential, transrational awareness. Of course the knee-jerk response will be to call that 'supernaturalism', or worse "woo-woo" by the reactionaries, but it is in fact empirically verifiable. It is a domain distinctly different than the material, physical domain where the tools of modern science can penetrate; and it is distinctly different than the mental-phenomenal domain where philosophy penetrates. It is a domain like the mental domain where mind knows mind on a horizontal plane, except in this case it is spirit knowing spirit, through contemplative practices. Science for the material domain; Philosophy for the mental domain; Contemplation for the spiritual domain. Three domains. Three distinctly different tools for three distinct domains.

 

The natural question of course is 'how do you know it exists?', that it's not just your brain, or your imagination? Answer is simple, perform the injunction, do the experiment, compare the data with qualified researchers. In other words, pick up the telescope and look. Perform the math equation and compare notes with qualified researchers. Go into the contemplative spaces with proven techniques of research and compare your findings with qualified peers. I am stressing qualified peers because people get all freaked out about "well you can believe anything you want without science to reign it in! Anything goes!". No it doesn't. No more than an unqualified individual playing with math equations that and making wild speculations about what it means is doing science. No more than some arm-chair philosopher speculating about the causes of human behavior and suggesting moronic courses of action to 'fix' society is a valid philosophical thought. It's the same thing. Checks and balances in the spiritual domains as well as in the mental domains, as well as in the material domains. It is empiricism in the broad sense, even if you are not dealing with observation of the material word. It is an error of reason to reduce valid knowledge solely to the verifiable in the material domains.

  • The mode of knowing the material world with our body is with sensory motor interaction; impulse and instinct, the animal in the world.
  • The mode of knowing the material world with mind is through reason and observation; a technical knowledge, a representational model, an empirical-analytical approach.
  • The mode of knowing mind with mind is through dialog, through a historical-hermeneutics approach; practical reason.
  • The mode of knowing spirit with mind is through a metaphysical symbolism, soteriological, mandalic. Mental representations of transrational domains.
  • The mode of knowing spirit with spirit is liberational, gnostic, direct.

Of course there is interaction within all the domains, but the primary modes of knowing is unique to each domain. You can't understand the natural world scientifically through running naked through the forest fleeing a wolf pack, but you certainly gain knowlege of your animal nature that way! You likewise cannot understand the spiritual using philosophy. You likewise cannot understand the material world using contemplation. In short, recognizing domains of knowledge and appropriate modes of knowing avoids these category errors that lead to beliefs like materialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there are many ideas that are purely hypothetical. Maybe its a communications or language failure, but most scientist and science enthusiast know amounst themselves how hypothetical many of these theories are so we don't bother communicating it. Parallel universes, as you pointed out, are towards the far end of the theoretical spectrum. Within the scientific comminuty there just isn't a need to preface these ideas with, "This is all hypothetical." because people in that audience know already.

 

This is true. However, I'm not sure this is as clear to the layperson. And my question still stands... if we can posit something as bizarre as parallel universes, and even if many scientists disagree with it, nobody screams about how it isn't science, but then, when people mention anything that might make Consciousness primary, even if it makes total sense and lines up with everything we know about quantum mechanics, and we can make some math for it and actually conduct some experiments for aspects of it... it's suddenly "religion" and not science. I think that's an irrational knee-jerk response.

 

It's like the people who will call Near Death Experience research "pseudoscience" based entirely upon the SUBJECT being studied, not the methodology. They look at a "New Age Woo" book on the subject with a bunch of personal anecdotes and just explain the whole thing away with one or more less than satisfactory explanations (i.e. it doesn't explain all aspects of the phenomena or isn't enough by itself to "create" the experience.) There is complete ignoring and merely brushing off of serious prospective (not retrospective which are much weaker as evidence) studies done by cardiologists and such. No one is trying to "prove God or religion" using science.

 

At root it's about trying to get some idea of what consciousness "is". The materialist assumption has failed to bring us many solid (no pun intended) answers, IMO. While I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to be unconvinced by that line of questioning, the questioning shouldn't be forbidden, nor should it require you to "come back to the fold of materialism" when you are finished questioning. That sounds too much like Christians who allow you to question as long as you end up back with Jesus. And even then they only want you to read the Christian apologetic literature, for fear you'll learn something outside the faith that is a real argument rather than the strawmen folks like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel put up.

 

I don't think science can move forward until this kind of knee-jerk reacting goes away. I think, like classical physics, the old paradigm of "everything is material", is incomplete.

 

And it's unfair to pretend like things that can't be tested in any material way can be "science" as long as it doesn't involve consciousness or the nature of it. Strangely, there are actually more, ways to test the nature of consciousness and the mind-body connection than there are to test dark matter, dark energy, parallel universes, multi-verses, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Antlerman IS philosophy dead when it comes to the natural world? i.e. I hold the philosophy that the material world is an illusion/dream of sorts. That would seem to speak about the material world, or am I not understanding you? I agree that a naturalistic methodology is required for "practical purposes", but I'm not sure it's necessarily explanatory of the root reality of that natural world. Though, in principle I agree with what you're saying here.

 

I know that science doesn't own every domain of thought, but talking about category errors often seems to comes across to many as an excuse to cling to a "god of the gaps" model (when one could just as easily posit a "materialism of the gaps" and be just as technically correct. In fact... I find "materialism of the gaps" a more logical idea in light of all that materialism will never be able to explain, IMO.)

 

It seems part of our problem is in how we view categories as reasons to not be integrated human beings. It's like "I'm going to put my science hat on now. Okay, now I'm going to put on my spiritual hat." ... as if there is a cognitive dissonance going on and the two can't integrate and stand together. I believe they can. This doesn't mean I think one needs to "prove their spirituality with science", but that it can be consistent with science.

 

It's like what we talked about re: pre-rational, rational, and post-rational. I think what you're talking about is post-rational thought, but... I think it's often interpreted through a rational lens as cognitive dissonance on the part of the spiritual person.

 

re: category error with mind... they skip around that problem by pretending it's a "known fact" that mind and brain are the same thing. They deny free thoughts, free will, emotions as real things, basically everything that makes us human to be "right". If it's "all deterministic" they can "own it". So they talk about the "illusion" of free will and the "illusion" of love and courage and beauty. What a drab world to live in. Screw that. But it's the price one must pay for strict materialism.

 

Re: transcendental experience: Meditation is totally repeatable. As are lucid dreams. Both things can be learned and experienced directly by the vast majority of human beings if they choose to go after those experiences to determine for themselves what they think about the nature of reality. (There are even standard dream rules that are repeatable. Like one of the ways I, and many lucid dreamers determine between a false awakening [still dreaming but it appears that you've woken up] and "real life" is by checking the numbers on the digital clock by my bed. If they stay numbers, I'm awake. If they do something bizarre that digital numbers don't do in real life, then I'm asleep still. This is one of many repeatable methods used by lucid dreamers.) It baffles me why someone will just accept the word of someone who did some math to define their whole reality. Math is great, but in and of itself it is not necessarily explanatory of everything.

 

Yes. This! . Science for the material domain; Philosophy for the mental domain; Contemplation for the spiritual domain. Three domains. Three distinctly different tools for three distinct domains.

 

It's the same way nobody builds a house with a spatula. But we don't call THAT cognitive dissonance.

 

I also like the idea of "checks and balances" within the spiritual domain. It's like my personal litmus test: It has to be logical/rational/reasonable to me AND it has to be mentally healthy for me. I.e. it makes sense from my perspective and it doesn't produce negative effects like anxiety, depression, or paranoia.

 

I think at issue is that human beings like to construct a narrative around everything. So we look at different spiritual traditions and we see so many different "interpretations", but the root experiences of the mystics in any given spiritual system remain fairly consistent.

 

Even Sam Harris proclaimed that mysticism is a rational endeavor.

 

I think a lot of people are stuck at the "spirit with mind" place instead of moving to "spirit with spirit" because it's easier to logic yourself out of an idea than to seek a personal experience that could shake the ground under your feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Antlerman IS philosophy dead when it comes to the natural world? i.e. I hold the philosophy that the material world is an illusion/dream of sorts. That would seem to speak about the material world, or am I not understanding you?

What I am referring to is to use the mind to merely speculate logically about the material world without using any tools of observation, testing, and verification is what philosophy did prior to Galileo picking up the telescope and actually looking. Here is one of the widely accepted “refutations” of Galileo’s discovery of the moons of Jupiter by nobleman Francesco Sizzi. Now please note that this in fact is very logical and is using reason well, it's just that he happens to be wrong. He didn't have the tools Galileo used. He was out-contextualized:

 

"There are seven windows given to animals in the domicile of the head, through with the air is admitted to the tabernacle of the body, to enlighten, to warm and to nourish it. What are these parts of the microcosm? Two nostrils, two eyes, two ears, and a mouth. So in the heavens, as in a macrocosmos, there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury undecided and indifferent. From this and many other similarities in nature, such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven."

 

A further example of philosophy used in the natural sciences look like this:

 

“Walnuts prevent head ailments because the meat of the nut resembles the brain in appearance.”

 

~Oswald Croll, Medieval Thinker.

 

When you say the world is an illusion/dream, that is a metaphysical view. It is not pretending to explain the order of the natural world, nor does it violate science. I can speak to how I see the Universe as Spirit at play, slumbering and awakening, but this is not pretending to explain the material world as spirit-particles that a responsible for gravitational forces, for instance. It is a metaphysical view, that ultimately is just a way of looking at it and talking about it existentially, from a spiritual perspective. If you were to take the dream analogy and try to catalog, explain, and predict nature in how it works with that speculation you might sound like this scientist from the 1600s:

 

“All Stars have their peculiar natures, properties, and conditions, the Seals and Characters whereof they produce, through their rays; whence every natural thing receives from its Star shinning upon it, some particular Seal, or character, stamped upon it; which Seal or character contains in it a peculiar Virtue. Every thing, therefore, hath its character pressed upon it by its star for some particular effect, especially by that star which doth principally govern it.”

 

~Agrippa von Nettesheim, Renaissance magician.

 

This is a category error, taking mind and speculating about the material world without actually performing any tests. Philosophy doing science. Religion doing science. And it's opposite, science doing philosophy (materialism). Philosophy speculating about spirituality (dogma).

 

I agree that a naturalistic methodology is required for "practical purposes", but I'm not sure it's necessarily explanatory of the root reality of that natural world. Though, in principle I agree with what you're saying here.

If you include mind and spirit as part of the natural world, then we need all three sets of tools - which I support. I tend to see things like systems theory getting much closer to a holistic understanding of nature, but it too can be reductionist. Materialism is to believe only the material is real, and the rest an illusion. So, in an wildly ironic twist, those who see your dream analogy as nonsense are themselves saying the exact same thing. Mind is illusion. Spirit is "woo woo". And so forth. Whereas in reality, these are in fact experiential realities.

 

They are experienced and interacted with, making them tangible, objective, reality. They are just not material in nature, and a whole lot more difficult to penetrate with the eye of flesh. They require the more difficult eye of mind to see into it, and still again, the eye of spirit. When doing the natural sciences you have to use the eye of flesh to penetrate it, not the eye of mind or the eye of spirit. But understanding the material world through the eye of spirit (the world is a dream) is not the same as 'doing science'. It is a spiritual understanding of reality, and is perfectly valid when functioning on that level of understanding to spirit. What is invalid is for someone using the eye of flesh to deny spiritual reality.

 

Again, by spiritual, I mean a categorical difference from body, and from mind. It transcends the eye of mind (reason). It is transrational (not post-rational, as they suggests we are now done with the eye of mind altogether, which is untrue). It transcends rationality, but includes it in a higher order. It does not destroy it, anymore than becoming an adult guts out your entire childhood. You build on the earlier levels: matter, body, mind, soul, spirit. You still have a body, you still have reason, but it is simply not locus of your being through which you see the world. You still use it though, just as you still use your body.

 

I know that science doesn't own every domain of thought, but talking about category errors often seems to comes across to many as an excuse to cling to a "god of the gaps" model (when one could just as easily posit a "materialism of the gaps" and be just as technically correct. In fact... I find "materialism of the gaps" a more logical idea in light of all that materialism will never be able to explain, IMO.)

To equate this with a 'god of the gaps' model is intellectually lazy. Much of this model is based off the philosopher Jurgen Habermas' work on knowledge and general cognitive interests, which when discovered guides a particular process of inquiry. God of the gaps, my butt. wink.png

 

It seems part of our problem is in how we view categories as reasons to not be integrated human beings. It's like "I'm going to put my science hat on now. Okay, now I'm going to put on my spiritual hat." ... as if there is a cognitive dissonance going on and the two can't integrate and stand together. I believe they can. This doesn't mean I think one needs to "prove their spirituality with science", but that it can be consistent with science.

Ahhh.... here is the real crux of the matter!! People are trying to achieve a holistic integration by reductionism! That is not an integration, but a denial. I don't have to try to understand something if I can explain it away as "just the brain". GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif It's dissociation at its finest. Integration, true integration takes all domains and allows each to flourish and grow in harmony with the other domains! Body and mind and spirit. The whole human being. Aware of his natural world, aware of his mind, aware of his spirit, feeding each with from each domain, knowledge, reason, a liberation into a whole being alive in this world.

 

What is spirituality? That is always the question, especially in light of the view of spirit through Christian myth. Imagine it as this. You stop your thoughts and simply let the sunset fill your mind and body with its own knowledge, without reason saying 'my, look at the light rays refracting through the water molecules', or the body demanding attention in distracting ways, but that your whole person is taken in that moment, freed to some place else and you breathe. You breathe in and exhale life itself, as it were. Connected, and momentarily whole. Now take that sunset and fall infinitely backwards into her, a million times over that moment, swimming free in her waters. The mind bathes in her, the body swims in her, and your whole being is brought together in that moment.

 

You take that experience and swim in her waters every day to where your whole outlook on life is transformed, to where you are those waters in yourself. This is not a rational journey of the mind into head knowledge, but it is the knowledge of the heart informed through the transcendent, the ineffable. What knowledge comes is found no other way than by swimming in those waters. Talking about that Ocean, speculating about it, studying it with science does not, will not, and cannot impart that knowledge. It is not material knowledge, it is not rational knowledge, but categorically 'other'. What would you call that? Spirit to me means freed from bounds. It is limitless, infinite, timeless.

 

It's like what we talked about re: pre-rational, rational, and post-rational. I think what you're talking about is post-rational thought, but... I think it's often interpreted through a rational lens as cognitive dissonance on the part of the spiritual person.

Ralph Woodrow Emerson said, "What we are, that only can we see". You cannot know what it is unless you experience it directly. It is not a metaphysical speculation, but direct experience.

 

re: category error with mind... they skip around that problem by pretending it's a "known fact" that mind and brain are the same thing.

Ironically all the while using mind to explain itself as brain. GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

 

Re: transcendental experience: Meditation is totally repeatable. As are lucid dreams. Both things can be learned and experienced directly by the vast majority of human beings if they choose to go after those experiences to determine for themselves what they think about the nature of reality.

Absolutely it is repeatable! I meditate an average of one hour per day. That sunset analogy above is a bit of a crude example of where I go into with this practice. To say the least it is transformative. When I first penetrated that internal domain two major things immediately overwhelmed me. One, that as much mental knowledge I had, nothing could touch this!! It was like everything I knew paled by comparison. I describe it as getting a second brain merged with my reasoning brain! It has been that way ever since. Two, that I felt whole, for the first time. I just kept saying "I feel healed". It was amazing that I now recognized how out of balance I actually was, whereas before that all seemed "normal". GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif. I have been this way ever since first opening that door that way 5 months ago. I am not the same as I was, and not that there was anything 'wrong' with me outside every other average person out there. But that was not this. And so all I can say on the other side of it, is being made whole means integrating mind, body, and spirit. I am speaking from experience, not a theory.

 

I also like the idea of "checks and balances" within the spiritual domain. It's like my personal litmus test: It has to be logical/rational/reasonable to me AND it has to be mentally healthy for me. I.e. it makes sense from my perspective and it doesn't produce negative effects like anxiety, depression, or paranoia.

Exactly, and I think that is why so many people just throw up reactionary walls of defense crying "Woo-Woo!!!!!!!" whenever they hear that word "spiritual". They see it as ungrounded nonsense, and understandably so considering all of our backgrounds in Christianity, particularly Protestant fundamentalist Christianity. They are really messed up, lacking a rational center, knowledge, and any valid practice for development. It is frankly masturbatory spirituality. They do take experience and go running amok with it following whatever charismatic teacher comes along. They externalize the entire affair and never understand integration. People get burned by that. I did too. So anything that smacks of spirituality smells like that. That is the only context and experience for most of us. I could go on, but I'll leave it at that for the moment.

 

Even Sam Harris proclaimed that mysticism is a rational endeavor.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to be cynical when you bathe in that kind of light!! It humbles you to say the least. Absolutely, it is rational to do it, but again, it is transrational in the experience of it. It is not the same as reading some scholarly work. It is your own internal work, your own internal dialog made light to the waking mind.

 

I think a lot of people are stuck at the "spirit with mind" place instead of moving to "spirit with spirit" because it's easier to logic yourself out of an idea than to seek a personal experience that could shake the ground under your feet.

Well, yes it undercuts all your notions, that is for sure! But its good! Very, very good. smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Antlerman re: philosophy of the natural world. Gotcha, and agreed. I *thought* that might be where you were coming from, but wanted to clarify because I wasn't sure of your position. And HOLY crap you write a lot of text! HAHAHA just like me!!!! I feel so not alone in the world now. LOL

 

I'm like a girl version of you... except not as stoic about things! yelrotflmao.gif

 

(Maybe if I meditated more I would reach that level of stoicism and calm.)

 

And re: Logic. Exactly. You can be very logical and rational but still come to the wrong conclusion based upon whether or not your assumption is correct. In some cases it's very difficult, if not impossible to "know" if your assumption is correct, though a lot of times one can at least build a case for one option or another.

 

When you say the world is an illusion/dream, that is a metaphysical view. It is not pretending to explain the order of the natural world, nor does it violate science

 

 

Yes. Correct. It's, like you say, category error that would cause someone to say I am "anti-science" or merely hold my view because I "lack understanding of science". Given many materialist arguments, I would argue they lack awareness of the implications of quantum mechanics, which is... science.

 

I can speak to how I see the Universe as Spirit at play, slumbering and awakening, but this is not pretending to explain the material world as spirit-particles that a responsible for gravitational forces, for instance.

 

 

LMAO!!!! Spirit particles would be hilarious. Now I want some spirit particles to measure.

 

This is a category error, taking mind and speculating about the material world without actually performing any tests. Philosophy doing science. Religion doing science. And it's opposite, science doing philosophy (materialism). Philosophy speculating about spirituality (dogma).

 

"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine." -Sir James Jeans

 

​In this phrase "machine" would be an analogy as well. Since materialists believe (I think) that the world is "like a machine" not that it's literally a computer or something. My dream idea comes in part from this idea of the universe looking like a "great thought". How does a "great thought" create a world? By dreaming. So I believe in some way this is "true" in some "real sense" but, at the same time it would be ludicrous to try to make everything fit into a "literal nighttime dream" theory. And the level of ludicrous is displayed by your example of logic in the 1600s.

 

 

If you include mind and spirit as part of the natural world, then we need all three sets of tools - which I support. I tend to see things like systems theory getting much closer to a holistic understanding of nature, but it too can be reductionist. Materialism is to believe only the material is real, and the rest an illusion. So, in an wildly ironic twist, those who see your dream analogy as nonsense are themselves saying the exact same thing. Mind is illusion. Spirit is "woo woo". And so forth. Whereas in reality, these are in fact experiential realities.

 

Yes, they are subscribing to a materialistic monism. I subscribe more to a nonmaterialistic monism... i.e. they think only one thing exists: material. I think only one thing exists: consciousness. However, I'm perfectly willing to concede that some form of dualism may be correct. I find materialism non-explanatory and absurd... i.e. Descartes "I think therefore I am" under strict materialism turns into: "I only have the illusion that I think (I think anyway... after all if it's all illusion how would I really know?) therefore I might not actually really *be* but for practical purposes, let's just say that I am." Hardly the bedrock I want to base my knowledge of reality on. However, even as absurd as it is, I will admit that I "could be wrong". (Though I class that in the same degree of uncertainty that I class Christianity as a one true truth. i.e. super low probability given what I know and even the level to which I've experienced.)

 

 

But understanding the material world through the eye of spirit (the world is a dream) is not the same as 'doing science'. It is a spiritual understanding of reality, and is perfectly valid when functioning on that level of understanding to spirit. What is invalid is for someone using the eye of flesh to deny spiritual reality.

 

Agreed. And good way of putting it.

 

When I say "post-rational" I mean integrating the rational but going beyond it, but my language is incorrect, you're right. It should be transrational. I used post-rational because it had more symmetry: pre-rational rational post-rational. But it's still an incorrect way to state it.

 

re: God of the gaps being intellectually lazy... I agree. However anytime someone uses it on me I'm flipping it to posit they hold a "materialism of the gaps".

 

 

You take that experience and swim in her waters every day to where your whole outlook on life is transformed, to where you are those waters in yourself. This is not a rational journey of the mind into head knowledge, but it is the knowledge of the heart informed through the transcendent, the ineffable. What knowledge comes is found no other way than by swimming in those waters. Talking about that Ocean, speculating about it, studying it with science does not, will not, and cannot impart that knowledge. It is not material knowledge, it is not rational knowledge, but categorically 'other'. What would you call that? Spirit to me means freed from bounds. It is limitless, infinite, timeless.

 

Unfortunately... strict materialism denies this as delusion/illusion/fun hallucination. It's been categorized and put in a box whether you like it or not, Mister! eviltongue.gif

 

 

Absolutely it is repeatable! I meditate an average of one hour per day. That sunset analogy above is a bit of a crude example of where I go into with this practice. To say the least it is transformative. When I first penetrated that internal domain two major things immediately overwhelmed me. One, that as much mental knowledge I had, nothing could touch this!! It was like everything I knew paled by comparison. I describe it as getting a second brain merged with my reasoning brain! It has been that way ever since. Two, that I felt whole, for the first time. I just kept saying "I feel healed". It was amazing that I now recognized how out of balance I actually was, whereas before that all seemed "normal". GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif. I have been this way ever since first opening that door that way 5 months ago. I am not the same as I was, and not that there was anything 'wrong' with me outside every other average person out there. But that was not this. And so all I can say on the other side of it, is being made whole means integrating mind, body, and spirit. I am speaking from experience, not a theory.

 

Exactly. Though, of course to others it's a "personal anecdote!" haha! tongue.png Compared to you I am definitely a "baby" at meditation. I spend a lot more time with logic and philosophy. I think part of that is... the damage Christianity caused for me requires that I have a solid rational foundation before delving too much into pure experience. I've had a few deeper meditative moments as well as lucid dreams. Both experiences are enough to pretty much convince me strict materialism is bankrupt as explanatory for all that is. However, in time I hope to be more in the experience than in my head philosophizing. But again, part of it is this book I'm writing. So I'm stuck a lot in this place right now.

 

So anything that smacks of spirituality smells like that. That is the only context and experience for most of us. I could go on, but I'll leave it at that for the moment.

 

 

Definitely. I've found myself pushed and pulled by the absolute need for mental health and balance. What forced me out of Christianity was how fundamentally unhealthy it was, resulting in anxiety and depression. Strict materialism was rejected partly for the same reason. I find both extremes "logically untenable" but... beyond that, the most important thing is mental well-being. And materialism taken to its logical nihilistic conclusion offers nothing of value. True or not. But, it can't even be defined as empirical truth because there are so many holes in it. It's the same basis upon which I rejected Christianity. I wouldn't follow fundamentalist Christianity, true or not. Because it's immoral and cruel. I wouldn't subscribe to strict materialism because it denies everything I value... love, beauty, freedom. Strict materialism can go fuck itself. mad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And HOLY crap you write a lot of text! HAHAHA just like me!!!! I feel so not alone in the world now. LOL

Yes, and here I've been trying to be more succinct. smile.png

 

Yes, they are subscribing to a materialistic monism. I subscribe more to a nonmaterialistic monism... i.e. they think only one thing exists: material. I think only one thing exists: consciousness. However, I'm perfectly willing to concede that some form of dualism may be correct.

Ultimately I am a nondualist, but in the Eastern sense of the word where neither subject nor object exist. We are in a dualistic reality however and I do accept the material as literally real. How I create a metaphysical way of looking at it is not so much a dream, but rather a real, tangle expression of the Divine in a circle of enfolding into the world, into the physical form, and an unfolding of the form back to its Source as Goal, realized in the formless All. Emptiness, Shunyata, from which all arises as manifestation of That, from itself, to itself. We are That in this form. We are the eyes of God awakening to our true Self as That.

 

The world is real, but we as conscious beings are awakening within that consciousness to our true Nature, awakening from the forgetfulness of Spirit enfolding itself into a material slumber. It is a path of descension of Spirit into the world, and a path of ascension into the One. With that awakening in ourselves, the world becomes seen vibrant with the Light of Spirit in all things. I have experienced that a number of times now fully, and pretty much most of the time to varying degrees. It's always already fully there. It's simply a matter of awakening from our slumbering states of consciousness. smile.png

 

Unfortunately... strict materialism denies this as delusion/illusion/fun hallucination. It's been categorized and put in a box whether you like it or not, Mister! eviltongue.gif

Yes, well.... I don't think so. smile.png

 

I spend a lot more time with logic and philosophy. I think part of that is... the damage Christianity caused for me requires that I have a solid rational foundation before delving too much into pure experience.

I very, very much understand what you are saying. It describes my own trepidations of the past. Perhaps, with those who cling to the materialist, rationalist way of looking at this, this is their own path as well? I know I certainly turned to a staunch rationality myself to keep myself from slipping off into subjective "woo", as is the new popular pejorative. smile.png There actually is validity in having a solid foundation in order to build upon. I know I shared this elsewhere recently but it fits in here perfectly. This is a quote from Sri Aurubindo:

 

It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

 

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration.

 

Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13

I think it is important to recognize the contributions that rationalism and atheism and materialism contributes toward us being able to break away from our mythic overlords into freedom of mind. But spirit is not accessed by rationality, and it is something within all of us, pulling and drawing us to grow through stages of differentiation from our earlier modes of thought. Rather than chiding it so vehemently, recognize it as a 'partial truth', which it is, even if those holding to it see it as the way. It is the way, for them. It was for me, but I didn't stop. Nothing satisfies ultimately but release from seeking, release into that formless all. Then, the thirst for knowledge is not a looking for Answers, but a response of Love and devotion to Life Itself. The path of ascension fulfilled in the path of descension into the world.

 

I've had a few deeper meditative moments as well as lucid dreams. Both experiences are enough to pretty much convince me strict materialism is bankrupt as explanatory for all that is. However, in time I hope to be more in the experience than in my head philosophizing. But again, part of it is this book I'm writing. So I'm stuck a lot in this place right now.

Ultimately even how you see things now will take on an entirely new light. What you gain in insight is unable to found any other way, and it is priceless to your own life, and through that to others. I can only suggest you make it a point to practice it daily, first thing in the morning before your mind is filled with the day's thoughts. Even 20 minutes will have a profound effect on every moment of your day following. I go into a quite room, light a few candles, some incense, and sit on a meditation pillow of the floor. Just practice gently settling your thoughts into a quite space and see where it takes you. I can share more, but just try that simple thing itself. And by the way, don't drink any coffee first!! GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif I actually gave up coffee altogether in my life as a result. Monkey mind goes absolutely nuts when juiced up on caffeine! It gets like a locust storm in there!

 

Definitely. I've found myself pushed and pulled by the absolute need for mental health and balance. What forced me out of Christianity was how fundamentally unhealthy it was, resulting in anxiety and depression. S

My anxiety is now virtually gone. I cannot extoll the benefits enough, not just spiritually, but mentally and physically as well. As they say, "Just do it!" smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, and here I've been trying to be more succinct. smile.png

 

LOL! Yeah, me too. But I'm really not good at it!

 

 

 

Ultimately I am a nondualist, but in the Eastern sense of the word where neither subject nor object exist. We are in a dualistic reality however and I do accept the material as literally real. How I create a metaphysical way of looking at it is not so much a dream, but rather a real, tangle expression of the Divine in a circle of enfolding into the world, into the physical form, and an unfolding of the form back to its Source as Goal, realized in the formless All. Emptiness, Shunyata, from which all arises as manifestation of That, from itself, to itself. We are That in this form. We are the eyes of God awakening to our true Self as That.

 

The world is real, but we as conscious beings are awakening within that consciousness to our true Nature, awakening from the forgetfulness of Spirit enfolding itself into a material slumber. It is a path of descension of Spirit into the world, and a path of ascension into the One. With that awakening in ourselves, the world becomes seen vibrant with the Light of Spirit in all things. I have experienced that a number of times now fully, and pretty much most of the time to varying degrees. It's always already fully there. It's simply a matter of awakening from our slumbering states of consciousness. smile.png

 

I like how you describe this. In a way I think we are describing the same thing just in different ways. Another thing I've been thinking about... when you experience that sense of "oneness", it's a personal experience you are having. It's not an experience some other thing is having where it "goes dark" for the personal you. You are experiencing yourself on a different level as a different thing. There is no interruption in perception, just a shift. (at least this has been my experience in the personal experiences I have had. I can't speak for you, but let me know if I'm right or wrong here about you.)

 

I do believe consciousness is all there is in the "ultimate reality" sense, though, like you, I don't deny that consensus reality is "real". Like some people say "Thoughts are things", Well I think "things are thoughts". My physical body is the same way. But *I* am not only thought but thinker. (like dream and dreamer) While I think all consciousness is connected in a very real way as a "one thing", I also think differentiated personalities actually "exist". That differs somewhat from the eastern view possibly (though maybe not totally since Tibetan Buddhism seems to correlate with this type of idea with reincarnation and devas and higher planes of existence) but the reason I think it (besides accumulated reincarnation and NDE research) is... even if you have a sense of "oneness", you return back to experiencing through your filter. You can't hop into my mind. (That I know of, LOL). Anyway, that may be more rambling than sense. Not sure if I'm expressing these ideas well. I think I'll have clearer ways of thinking about it over time with more experience. That's just the sense I get of it at the moment. And also I understand that interpretation of a thing isn't the thing itself.

 

Like... another way to look at it would be in our material reality... at the base level we know that there really isn't literal "division" between objects. And yet, a rock is not a spatula. I wouldn't build a house with a spatula just because "it's all one". Even if it is all one and all connected, all matter isn't just interchangeable. Likewise I don't think individual consciousnesses are interchangeable. You are you and you are That. I am me and I am That. If "me" is merely an illusion, then it's a pretty damn good one. The one thing I know is that I'm an experiencing being. I may experience myself at different levels but I still have a "me-ness" and I can't hop into your mind and suddenly be you and experience that as "me".

 

Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

I very, very much understand what you are saying. It describes my own trepidations of the past. Perhaps, with those who cling to the materialist, rationalist way of looking at this, this is their own path as well? I know I certainly turned to a staunch rationality myself to keep myself from slipping off into subjective "woo", as is the new popular pejorative. smile.png There actually is validity in having a solid foundation in order to build upon. I know I shared this elsewhere recently but it fits in here perfectly. This is a quote from Sri Aurubindo:

 

I think for me there was never a long-term cling to strict materialism. I considered it and looked at the evidence for it and looked at the rammifications and logical conclusions. I am not sure it's possible to be a strict materialist and REALLY SEE the logical conclusions and not fall into depression or apathy about life. The only way is to "pretend" you are real (as a conscious being that isn't a computer), which is no different from the "delusion" it is claimed a spiritual path is. Materialism would have been seriously psychologically harmful for me and for the brief period of time I dabbled with it, it was. It wasn't much of a step up from the emotional trauma of Christianity. And I think people who feel everyone should "abandon all woo", should exercise a little more empathy. If they can accept "nothingness" and no purpose and "making up a fake purpose", then that's fine for them, but if there really were no purpose then claiming it's some noble virtue to "bravely face the truth" is its own delusion. And I don't see the point in pretending it's any better than a solid spiritual path and practice. (Though obviously I don't REALLY think spirituality is delusion. This is more "devil's advocate")

 

I think it is important to recognize the contributions that rationalism and atheism and materialism contributes toward us being able to break away from our mythic overlords into freedom of mind.

 

Definitely. Although, acknowledging something has good points that are valuable to us... a piece of the truth puzzle... is not the same thing as saying it's all that exists. Chocolate is awesome, but I think there is other food on the planet.

 

 

 

Nothing satisfies ultimately but release from seeking, release into that formless all. Then, the thirst for knowledge is not a looking for Answers, but a response of Love and devotion to Life Itself. The path of ascension fulfilled in the path of descension into the world.

 

This makes me think of the allegorical interpretation I mentioned to you about Adam/Jesus, that in "Adam" a person experiences their humanity. In "Jesus", a person experiences their divinity. With "Adam" and "Jesus" being states of being/awareness/part of a person's journey and NOT literal historical people.

 

 

 

Ultimately even how you see things now will take on an entirely new light. What you gain in insight is unable to found any other way, and it is priceless to your own life, and through that to others. I can only suggest you make it a point to practice it daily, first thing in the morning before your mind is filled with the day's thoughts. Even 20 minutes will have a profound effect on every moment of your day following. I go into a quite room, light a few candles, some incense, and sit on a meditation pillow of the floor. Just practice gently settling your thoughts into a quite space and see where it takes you. I can share more, but just try that simple thing itself. And by the way, don't drink any coffee first!! GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif I actually gave up coffee altogether in my life as a result. Monkey mind goes absolutely nuts when juiced up on caffeine! It gets like a locust storm in there!

 

:) I'm sure that's true re: take on an entirely new light. Good tip regarding meditating first thing in the morning. Besides just doing it before monkey mind is fully chattering it can keep it from being put at the end of the to do list and not happening. One thing I've found personally is that a quiet space doesn't work well for me. The only times I've been able to meditate consistently, I've had some type of music that is conducive to such a state playing in the background and letting myself sort of "merge with" and "flow into" the music. I'm not sure if this is "correct" meditation, but it is the method that has produced the meditative states I've experienced. I'm wondering about your thoughts on this method and... if using this method, the best way to use it. i.e. "drift into the music", "focus on the music", "some other idea/method"?

 

My anxiety is now virtually gone. I cannot extoll the benefits enough, not just spiritually, but mentally and physically as well. As they say, "Just do it!" smile.png

 

I would say it's hard to be all that anxious when you know you can't die. LOL. (This IMO would be true whether any level of "personal identity" transcends this lifetime. The reality still would not be "nothingness" nor anything like the Christian "hell".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond to the rest of your points later, but for this post I want to focus on the meditation part of your reply...

 

Ultimately even how you see things now will take on an entirely new light. What you gain in insight is unable to found any other way, and it is priceless to your own life, and through that to others. I can only suggest you make it a point to practice it daily, first thing in the morning before your mind is filled with the day's thoughts. Even 20 minutes will have a profound effect on every moment of your day following. I go into a quite room, light a few candles, some incense, and sit on a meditation pillow of the floor. Just practice gently settling your thoughts into a quite space and see where it takes you. I can share more, but just try that simple thing itself. And by the way, don't drink any coffee first!! GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif I actually gave up coffee altogether in my life as a result. Monkey mind goes absolutely nuts when juiced up on caffeine! It gets like a locust storm in there!

 

smile.png I'm sure that's true re: take on an entirely new light. Good tip regarding meditating first thing in the morning. Besides just doing it before monkey mind is fully chattering it can keep it from being put at the end of the to do list and not happening.

The way you need to treat it is as part of your morning ritual (actually the center of it), in the same you get up, take a shower, brush your teeth, get dressed, prepare for work, etc. Just allocate a space of time for that. What I personally do is get up, have a cup of green tea (very low, non-disruptive caffeine content for me). When I'm sufficiently awake, I get rid of any obstacles that might interfere ahead of time, such as gnawing hunger, bathroom, etc. I try to avoid engaging too much in email responses or reading news and the like which might get my mind all engaged in those things.

 

I go down into my music room where I meditate and light a few candles, some incense, and turn the lights low. You create a mental space that is set aside for that purpose, so that when you enter into that space to meditate your mind is already prepared. There are times I can move into deep meditation almost instantly because of training yourself that that space is for that purpose. Treat it as a sacred space.

 

Lastly, make it a daily habit, not when you just feel like it. Discipline. The general rule is if you do something every day at the same time for 2 weeks, it becomes a normal practice. You cannot just do this when you feel like it. But at the same time, don't punish yourself if you have to reschedule for one reason or another. Be gently with yourself. My first and hardest lesson.

 

One thing I've found personally is that a quiet space doesn't work well for me. The only times I've been able to meditate consistently, I've had some type of music that is conducive to such a state playing in the background and letting myself sort of "merge with" and "flow into" the music. I'm not sure if this is "correct" meditation, but it is the method that has produced the meditative states I've experienced. I'm wondering about your thoughts on this method and... if using this method, the best way to use it. i.e. "drift into the music", "focus on the music", "some other idea/method"?

Well, the "correct" way is the way that works for you. The incorrect way is what isn't working for you at that time. That said however, you will in fact be faced with a great deal of difficulty in stilling your mind, which is natural. Everyone experiences that at first. Like I said, with practice and learning how to get there it does become easier. But even so, depending on the day it may be difficult. Some days it’s instantaneous for me, other days, not so much. That's why I have a variety of things I do that are tools, aides, to help facilitate that.

 

You mention music. I'm huge into music in general, but in meditation when I need an aide I have found mantras set to music to be hugely powerful for me. Chanting mantras are powerful aides in focusing the mind and opening it as all the cluttering chatter settles. I am going to make a recommendation for you of one that I use that is particularly useful for me. It is the Gyuto Monks with Deva Premal: http://www.amazon.co...27416040&sr=1-6 As you learn the mantras and focus on their meaning, repeating them with them in that wonderful bed of meditative music they do on this CD, all I can say is you will be amazed. I find the symbolism of Tibetan Buddhism to be meaningful to me. I also have a set of hand beaten antique Tibetan singing bowls I regularly use. Here's on online video you can listen to in lieu of not having any yourself:

 

The thing to bear in mind with this, is that mantras and chant are aides to help move you into deeper states of meditation, but they are not a substitute for the work you need to do when you attain those states. Once your mind is manageable in that state, it is a matter of being perceptive and aware, listening, as it were. What arises from your subconscious mind is you speaking to your conscious mind through a superconscious mind. I experience vivid imagery that arises from the deep at certain stages in meditation. But it is never just one thing. Sometimes it is just absolute stillness and awareness. Other time profound presence and depth. You cannot approach what arises as you would in your normal waking states. It is a very non-linear, dimension, and it is all 'lessons' from yourself to yourself. Take what comes, do what is right where you are. You learn to hear that and respond. It can take on many forms, from Zazen, to concentrative, to insight, to Tai Chi, yogic, astral, etc.

 

You have a lot stored up in your subconscious and through these varying states of consciousness it becomes an integration of your whole self, things you are aware of subconsciously that are always there talking to us in one form or another, now ignited and set free before our eyes in powerful ways. Through this, through touching into the deep, words like devotion, worship, prayer, salvation, have entirely real meaning, whereas before they were just religious words set in some sort of external framework of religious iconography. You go through rooms, chambers, as it were into the infinite deep. Each level is a new depth in yourself. The result is a transformative awakening. Let your own inner self guide you. There is no amount of teaching from another that can expose this to you. You, your depth, is your teacher.

 

My anxiety is now virtually gone. I cannot extoll the benefits enough, not just spiritually, but mentally and physically as well. As they say, "Just do it!" smile.png

 

I would say it's hard to be all that anxious when you know you can't die. LOL. (This IMO would be true whether any level of "personal identity" transcends this lifetime. The reality still would not be "nothingness" nor anything like the Christian "hell".)

The thing is, the lack of anxiety comes through experiencing yourself as unbound to the temporal. It is not some comforting thought we tell ourselves that eases fears and anxiety. It functions entirely differently that that. It isn't a cognitive belief, but a direct, experiential knowing. It's not a specific knowledge of some thing, some idea or concept, but as easy and pure as the wind and air. It is a knowing. All the rest, all the metaphysics, are simply ways to try to talk about what is undefinable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The thing is, the lack of anxiety comes through experiencing yourself as unbound to the temporal. It is not some comforting thought we tell ourselves that eases fears and anxiety. It functions entirely differently that that. It isn't a cognitive belief, but a direct, experiential knowing. It's not a specific knowledge of some thing, some idea or concept, but as easy and pure as the wind and air. It is a knowing. All the rest, all the metaphysics, are simply ways to try to talk about what is undefinable.

 

:)

 

Thanks for all the tips/insights/points regarding meditation! My sense of it is that if I get too goal-oriented it'll be counter-productive... that's like rehearsing a conversation (as well as the other person's replies) in your head ahead of time. When you actually have the conversation, it's unlikely to go where you intended since other people aren't your puppets haha! I see this as sort of the same thing. My "higher self" is not my puppet.

 

Either way, though, I was paranoid that there was something inherently "wrong" with starting a more regular meditative practice with music as the focal point instead of breath, a candle, etc. Not that those things are wrong, but sometimes they just make me anxious and I have no idea what I'm supposed to be "doing". Having a background in dance, I know what it means to "become the music". That's a concept I "get", so meditation with an auditory focus makes sense to me. Which isn't to say I'll always need that in order to meditate, but that that's where I think I am now.

 

 

And i look forward to hearing your thoughts on the other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

I used italics because the quote system were buggering things up, sorry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

What proof do scientists have of dark matter/dark energy? It is invisible and unmeasurable. It's currently a hypothetical presented to make the math work. Nobody knows what it is. Math can lead to proof of something but it can also be wrong. Math is used to support theories within quantum physics, for example, that are mutually contradictory.

 

Personally due to lack of knowledge I don't support any theories in quantum physics. As far as dark matter/dark energy, I accept only on the basis that it makes more sense then any other options. I am skeptical of it too, at a point.

 

 

I can only see reality in the way with which I see it. I can't look out the window and see a polka dotted sky and purple grass. (to repeat myself.) I don't have any "proof" that you would accept. And that's fine. I'm not going to get into the "well here's my proof" game with you.

 

Sure, but how can you have a discussion about whatever is truth if its all relative? That may seem to be a arcane question, but a neccesary one.

 

 

That might seem to you like Christians who run in here, saying they use reason and then end up appealing to faith. The thing is... their views are 'reasonable to them'. It doesn't make them right. But neither does it make ANY philosophy "right" just because it is reasonable to the holder of that philosophy. I could list the things that are convincing to me, but if your mind isn't wired like mine, it won't be convincing to you.

 

True, to a extent, but I am not a relativist. There are better and worse and correct and incorrect answers to every question. At best this could be used for what my roughly be called empathy.

 

 

My thesis isn't that I have the "truth" and you should "agree with me", my thesis is that human beings perceive differently and therefore can't really "know" which thing is the "ultimate truth" beyond their perception. Christians come in here with the view that they are right and they want to prove it to you. I have no such need.

 

Do logical absolutes exist in your idea of the world? That seems to me to be a base example of how your, dare I say, wrong here.

 

 

Everybody has limits... one limit we all have is intelligence. We all have different intellectual capacities and different areas in which we excel. This isn't to say I think people who don't see things like me are less intelligent. There are empirically intelligent people who hold different philosophies. Another limit we all have is perception. If you fundamentally see the world in a certain way you won't suddenly see it a different way.

 

What is your view of deconversions? I went from a type who would write off things like the galapagos islands as a mistake and somehow remain a creationist, to a fairly open minded agnostic.

 

 

You may be able to understand why something makes sense to someone else, but it won't suddenly make sense to you.

 

True.

 

 

 

 

 

Depends on what you mean by empirical meaning again. If we are trying to learn more about the world, by the nature of the pursuit there has to be correct answers. I don't see how discovery of truth is possible in a soley deterministic world. Empirical meaning, to me describes only things within that realm of correct incorrect. Thoughts like say, my purpose is A, are not empirical becuase there is no correct or incorrect answer.

 

 

I have yet to see why the world is deterministic, so I think your talking to the wrong person there. Refer to earlier about relativism.

 

 

 

I believe there is an empirical/ultimate truth. I do NOT believe human beings have the capacity to see it. We are perceptual beings having an experience (life). We can't pretend we can stand outside it without any bias, be purely rational without any other influences, and see things as they are. I believe we interact with the phenomena (perceived thing) rather than the noumena (thing in itself) (Kant reference). I believe also that we are interacting with the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave. Ironically materialists say we are these insignificant beings in the greater cosmos and aren't "important", and yet at the same time they think we are so awesome we will someday understand it all somehow using "science". Yeah. And pigs will fly. I'm not saying science is useless. Many things have been discovered which practically "work", but practicality isn't the same as understanding the whole big picture or the ultimate nature of a thing outside our perception of it.

 

Why bother then with anything from your perspective? You seem to be equivocating human existence with potential human capability, which you can't really.

 

 

 

 

Everything, IMO, is an assumption. It doesn't mean it doesn't practically work. It also doesn't mean it can't be empirically true. i.e. materialism could be the ultimate empirical truth of reality. I will absolutely grant materialists that. But just because it "could be" doesn't mean it "is". I just don't think it's possible to objectively KNOW everything. I don't dispute that our world seems very "solid and predictable" and it usually works out that way. That doesn't define its ultimate nature.

 

Isn't that a bit like believing in russel's teapot?

 

 

For an example on perception... Ghosts. Materialists see ghosts as mental projections or hallucinations or maybe some kind of "glitch" in brain wiring. I see them as mental projections or possibly as some sort of energy field but not a conscious entity that is trapped her (i.e. most ghosts that are perceived seem to be repeating something in a loop, not interacting with anyone.), other people see ghosts as lost souls, others still see them as demons.

 

Okay sorry to say, what evidence other then adhoc and arguement from ignorance there?

 

 

There is no argument that people experience something that some people call "ghosts". The question is... what is the empirical nature of that experience? I don't believe we can know because we are perceptual beings with limited understanding. We aren't omniscient. Each person from the materialist to people like me to Christians to everyone else... create a narrative that supports their perception.

 

I do believe there is some things that can't be known, but those are USUALLY related to personal experience.

 

 

I think that this is your perception of things. I don't see anything remotely supernatural about my view. I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that if you can't comprehend something it must not be real and "supernatural" is a catch all for "everything unreal and unprovable."

 

If I can't comphrend something it may be real. Supernatural is a decent switch out for the word unprovable though.

 

 

And to some... "God" is a form of energy. You still have a supernatural assumption of what "God" is or might be.

 

Another problem I have with the god answer, its undefinable unless your trust sheepherders and bronze age views of culture.

 

 

 

But I'm not saying the "material world" is created out of "thin air". I'm saying the world isn't "material". At least that's my perception of it. I'm saying we are inside God's "dream". This may sound like a "brain in a vat" theory, but it's honestly the only thing that makes sense to me. I understand if it makes no sense to you. You, likewise, are a perceiving being with your own perception of reality.

 

Why, it seems to violate occams razor if anything?

 

 

So my experience very much informs my perception. I can't pretend that I somehow think it's more likely that "this reality" is NOT some form of dream projected by a greater mind of which I am only a small part. You are free to see that as supernatural, but I don't.

 

Why can't it be just a higher primate, taking advantage of a natural process and using it for something greater?

 

 

Color is perception and requires a mind to perceive it. It doesn't exist empirically. I will provide proof for this statement if you need me to.

 

Sure but it would be something even if we didn't exist, just because we conceptually call something a color is irrelvant. A blade of grass would be a blade of grass regardless of if we existed or not. The concepts that flow from that are constructed used by conciousness to percieve the world. I would like proof there.

 

 

Still looks like pretending to me. Though bizarrely deterministic pretending since in determinism you would only THINK you were pretending since it would somehow not be a choice you made to pretend. In which case nobody's beliefs about anything are their real choice so to act as if spiritual believers are willfully accepting a delusion makes no sense inside strict determinism. The whole thing falls apart and contradicts the way people behave, including the way materialists behave.

 

Sure but I never said I was a determinist. All I am saying its the world was deterministic, we would act if it wasn't just so we could act at all. Maybe that makes determinism alone self countradictory in a way. But I know for one, I couldn't at like a robot. I at least in perspection if anything, act as if I am typing this out of my own free will.

 

 

 

 

I understand it "seems like that" to you. But that doesn't mean it is. Creationism is a completely different view than mine. Creationism says we have this "material reality" and then posits a supernatural agency (a being outside it all affecting it all.) My view is more pantheistic. I believe consciousness is the ground of being and that this "material" reality isn't material. Both materialists and creationists/IDers operate from the same basic assumption that we are living in a "material world". With the exception of that Madonna song, I disagree.

 

 

Would you call yourself a panentheist then to avoid occam's razor. Panetheism on its on, is like adding more then needs to be there, at least to me. Its makes the natural world more conveluted.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used italics because the quote system were buggering things up, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOU:

 

Personally due to lack of knowledge I don't support any theories in quantum physics. As far as dark matter/dark energy, I accept only on the basis that it makes more sense then any other options. I am skeptical of it too, at a point.

 

ME:

Fair enough. Do you mean due to your lack of personal knowledge re: quantum theory? Because quantum mechanics is about as certain as gravity. We have a lot of technology based upon it and despite it's ultimate weirdness... it works and has yet to fail to support itself through experimentation. Albert Einstein didn't like it, though... he called some of what went on in quantum mechanics: "Spooky action at a distance."

 

I think someone can read a lot about quantum mechanics but still not think about the implications, largely because many actually DOING the science often have the "shut up and calculate" mentality... i.e. it works but don't think about the implications. The implications are exactly why I don't believe the material universe is "out there" or really very "material" at all. However, there are many theoretical physicists now who are starting to explore and entertain the implications. There are also biologists and astrophysicists and others who are exploring those implications. The implications are what I believe will lead us into a total paradigm shift in science. It's where we get the conscious universe theories, multiverses, parallel universes, holographic universes, etc. etc.

 

 

 

YOU:

Sure, but how can you have a discussion about whatever is truth if its all relative? That may seem to be a arcane question, but a neccesary one.

 

ME:

Maybe the point is the questions, not the answers. The journey, not the destination. How important is it to the quality of your life to know the exact nature of the universe and everything in it and be empirically "right"? This attitude toward knowledge seems fairly modern, possibly the result of too much time on our hands above and beyond the normal act of survival.

 

 

YOU:

True, to a extent, but I am not a relativist. There are better and worse and correct and incorrect answers to every question. At best this could be used for what my roughly be called empathy.

 

ME:

Yes, and it's my view that the correct answer isn't based upon the materialistic assumption. At root there are two very basic assumptions.

 

1. Consciousness somehow arose and came from Matter.

2. Matter is projected somehow from consciousness.

 

A long time ago, science chose option 1. I believe they were wrong. And I believe that if one looks at the things we know now, especially quantum theory with that question in mind, many of them will agree that 2 is more likely the nature of reality.

 

 

YOU:

Do logical absolutes exist in your idea of the world? That seems to me to be a base example of how your, dare I say, wrong here.

 

ME:

Logic leading you to truth is based upon having the correct assumption. As outlined above, I do not believe mainstream science is operating under the correct assumption. So as logical as it may appear to many, it still wouldn't allow us to arrive at an empirical truth.

 

You can successfully use logic with many assumptions, but if the assumption is wrong, the answer is wrong, no matter how brilliant the logic. This certainly could apply to my position and my basic assumption could be wrong, but my basic assumption fits the facts IMO. The other assumption is based upon classical physics which is very incomplete. Quantum mechanics is the "new physics" but it's been here almost a century. During that time only a few have really looked at the implications for the nature of reality.

 

 

YOU:

What is your view of deconversions? I went from a type who would write off things like the galapagos islands as a mistake and somehow remain a creationist, to a fairly open minded agnostic.

 

ME:

I deconverted as well. I, too, would consider myself an agnostic since I don't believe we can "know". However, I still have the narrative/framework that makes sense to me. I can have a level of humility and admit I could be wrong, but I can't see circles as squares no matter how many people insist that I should. ;)

 

 

YOU:

I have yet to see why the world is deterministic, so I think your talking to the wrong person there. Refer to earlier about relativism.

 

ME:

Logically, within strict materialism, determinism MUST be true. There is no other way for it to be. That's the logical conclusion. If you are not a strict materialist, this won't apply to you.

 

 

YOU:

Why bother then with anything from your perspective? You seem to be equivocating human existence with potential human capability, which you can't really.

 

ME:

Because I don't think "knowing everything" is the point. I will be frank. I don't believe in death. I don't believe I am my body. There are many reasons I don't believe this, but suffice it to say, I do not think the point of being here is having empirical knowledge of "how everything works". I believe we have limits for a reason because our journey isn't primarily an "intellectual one". Knowledge and intelligence are wonderful, but the more important thing is how we treat each other. IMO.

 

Of course this is all my perception, and empirically, my perception could be wrong. But we all have a worldview one way or another and our worldview shapes how we interface with the world. I can't pretend I see things differently even if some will brush it off as "woo" or "wishful thinking". If the materialist assumption is correct, then of course I'm wrong. But I think they got it backwards.

 

 

YOU:

Isn't that a bit like believing in russel's teapot?

 

ME:

Study quantum mechanics for awhile and the experiences of the mystics (and maybe have a few experiences yourself), then you tell me.

 

 

YOU QUOTING ME:

For an example on perception... Ghosts. Materialists see ghosts as mental projections or hallucinations or maybe some kind of "glitch" in brain wiring. I see them as mental projections or possibly as some sort of energy field but not a conscious entity that is trapped her (i.e. most ghosts that are perceived seem to be repeating something in a loop, not interacting with anyone.), other people see ghosts as lost souls, others still see them as demons.

YOU:

Okay sorry to say, what evidence other then adhoc and arguement from ignorance there?

 

ME:

Okay, I just told you how several different people/groups might perceive them. I didn't argue for any one interpretation as "THE TRUTH". I don't KNOW the truth. I can tell you my perception, which I did in that list, but I certainly can't prove it. And neither can any other person having any other perception... including the materialist.

 

 

YOU:

I do believe there is some things that can't be known, but those are USUALLY related to personal experience.

 

ME:

Your entire life is your personal experience.

 

YOU:

If I can't comphrend something it may be real. Supernatural is a decent switch out for the word unprovable though.

 

ME:

I think "unprovable" is a problematic term. I think most materialist ideas are "unprovable" but it hasn't stopped materialists from claiming some de facto victory in logic and facts. I don't see it, personally.

 

 

YOU:

Another problem I have with the god answer, its undefinable unless your trust sheepherders and bronze age views of culture.

 

ME:

This is an example of what Antlerman talks about. Every time someone mentions something that could fall into the realm of spiritual, the materialist knee-jerk reaction is to talk about pre-rational superstitious goat herders.

 

When I was a little kid, I thought my parents were gods. They knew EVERYTHING. When I was a teenager I thought they were idiots and knew nothing. When I became an adult I realized they were humans doing the best they could. Because my perception of my parents changed did that mean my parents stopped existing at any point?

 

Just because pre-rational sheep herders saw things in a certain way, didn't mean they weren't responding to SOMETHING. Just because materialists think religion/spirituality is idiotic, doesn't mean it is. Just because mainstream science currently denies spirit and soul doesn’t mean spirituality and science won’t unite in the future. It’s already happening as much of quantum mechanics sounds suspiciously like what the mystics speak about only with different language.

 

 

YOU:

Why, it seems to violate occams razor if anything?

 

ME:

Quite the contrary. I feel it's elegant and simple. If anything, I find the materialist assumption to violate occams razor. Either way, if reality really IS vastly complex (which we can both agree that it is), then why are we looking for a simple answer?

 

YOU:

Why can't it be just a higher primate, taking advantage of a natural process and using it for something greater?

 

ME:

Because it doesn't make sense. You know how Santa Claus doesn't make sense to you? Or Adam and Eve? Well, this is more of that from my perspective. I can't narrow my perception to viewing the world in ways I can no longer view it. You've stated yourself you don't know a lot about subjects I happen to know a little bit about, so obviously I will perceive the world differently from you.

 

 

 

YOU:

Sure but it would be something even if we didn't exist, just because we conceptually call something a color is irrelvant. A blade of grass would be a blade of grass regardless of if we existed or not.

 

ME:

How do you know?

 

 

YOU:

Sure but I never said I was a determinist. All I am saying its the world was deterministic, we would act if it wasn't just so we could act at all. Maybe that makes determinism alone self countradictory in a way. But I know for one, I couldn't at like a robot. I at least in perspection if anything, act as if I am typing this out of my own free will.

 

ME:

Strict materialism only works with determinism. Free will can only exist if YOU are actually something other than a set of chemical reactions. If your mind IS your brain, then there is no such thing as free will. If you can prove there could be, I'm open to hearing about it but the logic doesn't follow for me.

 

I think both materialism and determinism are self-refuting because they deny everything it is to be human. I know I'm more than a machine or an accident. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

YOU:

Would you call yourself a panentheist then to avoid occam's razor. Panetheism on its on, is like adding more then needs to be there, at least to me. Its makes the natural world more conveluted.

 

ME:

I would call myself a nonmaterialistic monist. Strict materialists are monists. They believe only one thing fundamentally exists: matter. I, too, believe only one thing fundamentally exists.

 

Consciousness.

 

Incidentally I believe what we call the "soul" is consciousness. Which is why it's funny to me that anyone would deny the soul. It is your "I-ness". You might say: "Well, labeled that way, I believe in it, I just don't think it survives physical death"... However, many strict materialists DO say that your "I-ness" itself is an illusion.

 

Descartes started with "I think, therefore I am."

 

If we can't know that, we can't know anything. To subvert that and make THAT an illusion... is going in the exactly wrong direction, IMO.

 

I AM. Are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.