Ready To Go, Antlerman!

[bornagainathiest]

CAUSE & EFFECT: AN EFFECT CANNOT PRECEDE IT'S CAUSE.

 

In macroscopic terms, nothing can pre-date or precede it's own time and place of origin. (Ok, virtual particles do appear to violate this principle, but I am talking about human beings, not quantum-level entities) I make the assumption that humans and human thought cannot precede the historical moment when these things first came to be. If human thought is anything more than highly organized matter and energy, then I hope to learn how this can be so. Until that time I shall proceed on the assumption that it is simply that - matter and energy.

 

In terms of all of time and space, human thought is breath-takingly new. Putting the case as simply as I can, even though human thought and imagination can stretch beyond the limits of space and time, it's actual existence within space and time is very limited indeed. If we look at the following diagrams and Wikipedia pages...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg/1024px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Earth%27s_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_%28JPEG%29.jpg

 

...they make a much more eloquent case than I ever could. Summing up what they imply into just a few sentences simply wouldn't do them justice, but for the sake of brevity and to get the salient point of my argument across, I shall attempt to do so.

 

1.

TIME: Human thought did not exist for 99.9 % of the history of the universe. No humans = no human thinking. Humans (and therefore all human thought) have only been in existence for a tiny fraction of 1% of the age of the Earth and even less than that, compared to the age of the universe. Thus, we humans are a very, very new feature of reality.

2.

SPACE: Direct human experience of the universe is confined to just the Earth and the Moon. Our indirect experience of the universe (via telescopes, space probes, thought experiments and theory) is only just getting clear of the metaphorical starting blocks - we aren't even into our stride yet. We are also only just waking up to the fact that we live in an inconceivably vast (and possibly infinitely vast) universe. For much of of our short history we have placed ourselves at the center of everything and smugly called ourselves the reason for everything. Reality clearly says otherwise.

 

3.

PURPOSE: The many mass extinctions, cataclysms and environmental disasters that have befallen our planet were not directed by some agency to bring about the evolution of the human race. These are blind forces and indifferent mechanisms acting blindly and indifferently, with no conscious regard for their effects on anything. Thus, our survival is nothing more than a statistical expression of probabilities in a vast and purposeless universe.

 

Human evolution and the very existence of our hominid ancestors was by no means a certainty. Time and again throughout geologic time (and also, much more recently, during our evolutionary time-frame) we see the wholesale destruction of environments, species, flora and fauna. These forces of extinction were blind and impersonal, sparing nothing that couldn't avoid them or adapt to them. Thus, we humans aren't special. We aren't favored or privileged or protected in any way - we've simply been lucky enough and (so far) smart enough to survive.

 

Humans represent a tiny portion of the diversity and variety of life on Earth. It's both fallacious and hubristic of us to think that we are more fit or worthy to live than any other form of life on this planet. This is especially true when it comes to the value of our intelligence. Our smarts are just one amongst many strategies for survival. E.g., some insects and plants ensure the ongoing survival of their various species by a sheer-weight-of-numbers strategy - reproducing in their millions or billions to counter the range of natural forces that would otherwise wipe them out. The jury is still out when it comes to the future survival of humanity - so we shouldn't make the mistake of believing that our intelligence guarantees anything. So far, so good - but no more than that.

 

4.

MEANING: None of the content listed here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning ...can have existed before we humans possessed the wherewithall to think such thoughts - for all of the reasons already given.

 

 

 

In conclusion...

 

Whatever human thought is, it's existence is and was severely limited in both space and time.

Therefore, can we really advocate the existence of a greater or over-arching meaning or purpose to life?

One that somehow extends beyond the very tight spatial and temporal constraints I've outlined?

Or are we simply imposing our own thinking and concepts on an otherwise indifferent and mute cosmos?

 

My answers are No, No and Yes we are.

 

Thank you.

 

BAA.

[blackpudd1n]

*pulls up an armchair and gets comfortable*

 

This looks like an interesting discussion. Looking forward to it!

[Antlerman]

Hi. I just saw this now. I thought you were going to let me know when you posted it. I hope to get to a response sometime within the next day or so.

[stryper]

"PEANUTS! Get your PEANUTS Here!"

[Antlerman]

Thank you BAA for this start of our unfolding discussion ahead. I think the first part of this will be easy as I pretty much agree with every point you make.

 

Where I agree:

 

1. Human thought did not exist before humans, of course. And it is dependent on our biological structures of the brain in order to have existence. You are describing human cognition in all of this.

 

2. That humans see themselves as the center of this, or that evolution was directed to create them specifically is very anthrocentric and pretty unrealistic to say the least. Your arguments express why quite well.

 

3. Finding 'meaning' by trying to create cognitive models is of course fraught with problems. I see "meaning in life" questions to be at best temporary ways of looking at the world to try to placate a deeper existential anxiety - being and nothingness. At the same time, when I hear people look at the universe and say its all blind chance and there is no meaning, is itself a form of modeling 'meaning'. That said I think it's somewhat a step in the right direction if it doesn't stop there and assume a nihilist philosophy.

 

Points of clarification:

 

1. In your use of the term 'universe', you restrict it to the material, physical world only. When I speak of the universe with a small letter u, I mean it in your sense as well. When I use it with a capital letter Universe, I mean everything, the whole encompassing reality of mind and matter and spirit, as well as the social, cultural, and mental structures. In the Greek, Kosmos meant just that. It was not solely about the visible, material world, but included the subtle, interior reality of subjective experience as well. It is only in modern times that Kosmos was reduced to cosmos and restricts reality to be simply the material form.

 

2. As far as blind evolution, yes and no. I have stated already that I do not believe evolution had "us" in mind as a human species. But I do believe, based on science itself, that evolution has directionality, not of course in any straight linear line, but in fits and starts, rising and collapsing, etc. That direction is towards increased complexity. In this sense I marvel in and celebrate our own species as part of this system, as well as all created forms that have emerged out of this system, through this process of Evolution.

 

My first true awakening moment in my post-Christian life was the realization of the beauty of this tree of life, how that we are marvelous creations of our own, as well as all other forms! It was a liberating moment for me spirituality to celebrate all life. Which leads to the question of purpose and meaning. The purpose is Life Itself; being and becoming; living and dying. Existence. The meaning is in ourselves. Our own being within this Universe, with a capital letter. It is found within us.

 

Points of discussion:

 

1. Can we truly claim to understand meaning using science in the sense of observing the natural world, without injecting philosophical thought from the mental domains? Furthermore, is a question of meaning truly meaningful if it is a philosophical conclusion?

 

2. What is the mental domain and how is it different than simply the material world?

 

3. What is the "human" aspect of life that is non-reducible to the material, in the sense that it operates above the material?

 

4. What is the 'spiritual' in human experience and how does this differ from the mental, or the material domains?

 

That's a small start. Thanks for pursuing this discussion with me.

[blackpudd1n]

"PEANUTS! Get your PEANUTS Here!"

 

I'll grab two bags, thanks!

[Legion]

The chicken and the egg?

 

I love you now Puddin'. You who have not been steeped in a reductionist mindset, you who come to it with a clean and uncaged mind, can almost see it. Absolutely amazing.

 

 

I will weave it in if I can. I've spoken with others, and that helped some.

 

Think of this too Puddin'... Self-fullfilling prophecy.

 

I'd give you a big hug right now if I could.

[bornagainathiest]

To Legion...

 

Yes, I am a Reductionist.

 

But please understand that I'm like this more by default, than by anything else. As I said to the A-man, I've no formal training in Epistemology or the Philosophy of Science or anything similar. I never made it to college, so my primary motivator and driving force is my passion for Astronomy. I'm also self-taught, so I have to fess up to not really understanding what these a priori assumptions (you mentioned) are.

 

Think of it this way.

Newtonian physics works perfectly well most of the time, but breaks down under extreme conditions. Einsteinian physics does much the same, but breaks down at the quantum scale. Quantum physics ditto, but that breaks down on larger scales - we live in a macroscopic reality where cause and effect (Brother J's Arrow of Time?) appear to dominate over the counter-intuitive behavior of quantum entities.

 

So far I've held to Reductionism because it works perfectly well, most of the time.

But now's the time to look a little deeper.

 

I hope you'll appreciate that I must proceed carefully here, ok?

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello A-Man.

 

Thank you BAA for this start of our unfolding discussion ahead. I think the first part of this will be easy as I pretty much agree with every point you make.

 

Where I agree:

 

1. Human thought did not exist before humans, of course. And it is dependent on our biological structures of the brain in order to have existence. You are describing human cognition in all of this.

 

2. That humans see themselves as the center of this, or that evolution was directed to create them specifically is very anthrocentric and pretty unrealistic to say the least. Your arguments express why quite well.

 

3. Finding 'meaning' by trying to create cognitive models is of course fraught with problems. I see "meaning in life" questions to be at best temporary ways of looking at the world to try to placate a deeper existential anxiety - being and nothingness. At the same time, when I hear people look at the universe and say its all blind chance and there is no meaning, is itself a form of modeling 'meaning'. That said I think it's somewhat a step in the right direction if it doesn't stop there and assume a nihilist philosophy.

 

Points of clarification:

 

1. In your use of the term 'universe', you restrict it to the material, physical world only. When I speak of the universe with a small letter u, I mean it in your sense as well. When I use it with a capital letter Universe, I mean everything, the whole encompassing reality of mind and matter and spirit, as well as the social, cultural, and mental structures. In the Greek, Kosmos meant just that. It was not solely about the visible, material world, but included the subtle, interior reality of subjective experience as well. It is only in modern times that Kosmos was reduced to cosmos and restricts reality to be simply the material form.

 

Aha!

U and u. Ok, now that you've introduced the notion of U into this discussion, I must ask you to justify some of the terms you use to describe this U of yours.

 

First, while I can accept that social, cultural and mental structures exist, why are they not simply material expressions of interactions of matter and energy in our brains? Why must they be accorded a special status? Why are they not simply matter and energy, just doing what matter and energy do?

 

Second, why does this subtle, interior reality of subjective experience of yours have to be accorded a special status, different to that of the unsubtle, exterior reality of objective expereince? Surely this is a false dichtotmy, where we egotistically mark ourselves out as something different and special? If you can agree with me (#2.) that we should not see ourselves as the center of things, why do you subvert your own position and plead for a special status for humans?

 

Lastly, please clarify what you mean by the word, spirit?

If you've agreed with me that humans are very new, then I must presume that you also accept that whatever definition of spirituality you advocate, it cannot be any older than the human brain that thinks about it. Please contrast this with the standard notion of spirit used by Theists. For them, spirit is eternal and, in some timeless way, predates the material universe. This surely cannot be your model of spirituality, can it? Please elaborate.

 

2. As far as blind evolution, yes and no. I have stated already that I do not believe evolution had "us" in mind as a human species. But I do believe, based on science itself, that evolution has directionality, not of course in any straight linear line, but in fits and starts, rising and collapsing, etc. That direction is towards increased complexity. In this sense I marvel in and celebrate our own species as part of this system, as well as all created forms that have emerged out of this system, through this process of Evolution.

 

A-Man, I believe that you need to clearly demonstrate that the directionality you see in evolution is anything more than matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Otherwise, imho, you are falling into the same trap as the Theists and simply seeing a pattern that isn't there. I take a purely statistical approach. Given infinite time and opportunity, matter and energy will inevitably run thru all possible arrangements and permutations - we are just the result of that blind process.

 

My first true awakening moment in my post-Christian life was the realization of the beauty of this tree of life, how that we are marvelous creations of our own, as well as all other forms! It was a liberating moment for me spirituality to celebrate all life. Which leads to the question of purpose and meaning. The purpose is Life Itself; being and becoming; living and dying. Existence. The meaning is in ourselves. Our own being within this Universe, with a capital letter. It is found within us.

 

Points of discussion:

 

1. Can we truly claim to understand meaning using science in the sense of observing the natural world, without injecting philosophical thought from the mental domains? Furthermore, is a question of meaning truly meaningful if it is a philosophical conclusion?

 

2. What is the mental domain and how is it different than simply the material world?

 

3. What is the "human" aspect of life that is non-reducible to the material, in the sense that it operates above the material?

 

4. What is the 'spiritual' in human experience and how does this differ from the mental, or the material domains?

 

That's a small start. Thanks for pursuing this discussion with me.

 

(cont...)

[bornagainathiest]

cont...

 

My first true awakening moment in my post-Christian life was the realization of the beauty of this tree of life, how that we are marvelous creations of our own, as well as all other forms! It was a liberating moment for me spirituality to celebrate all life. Which leads to the question of purpose and meaning. The purpose is Life Itself; being and becoming; living and dying. Existence. The meaning is in ourselves. Our own being within this Universe, with a capital letter. It is found within us.

 

Trust me A-man, I share your sense of wonder and enjoyment of nature's beauty!

 

However, I must question the (apparent) fervor with which you invest the universe with such qualities as purpose, meaning, spirituality and direction. Theist's use I.D. to say similar things. Are you not (both) seeing patterns in the fabric of reality that are simply mental constructs that you have imposed on it? As I said above, I believe the time has now come for you to demonstrate where and how you see these patterns manifesting themselves.

Please show us. Thanks.

 

Points of discussion:

 

1. Can we truly claim to understand meaning using science in the sense of observing the natural world, without injecting philosophical thought from the mental domains?

First we must define and agree upon what we mean by the word, meaning? Yes?

 

Furthermore, is a question of meaning truly meaningful if it is a philosophical conclusion?

Ummmm....

 

2. What is the mental domain and how is it different than simply the material world?

Definition of terms first, I think. We should agree on what the words mean, otherwise we'll be going off on differing tangents. Mental and material mean...?

 

3. What is the "human" aspect of life that is non-reducible to the material, in the sense that it operates above the material?

Isn't the use of the word, above, anthropocentric? Who says that humans are special and above anything else?

 

4. What is the 'spiritual' in human experience and how does this differ from the mental, or the material domains?

Please define, spirit.

 

That's a small start. Thanks for pursuing this discussion with me.

 

No problem. This is fun!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Noggy]

 

So far I've held to Reductionism because it works perfectly well, most of the time.

But now's the time to look a little deeper.

 

[bornagainathiest]

So far I've held to Reductionism because it works perfectly well, most of the time.

But now's the time to look a little deeper.

 

 

Noggy, on 07 February 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

 

 

bornagainathiest, on 07 February 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

 

Sorry Noggy, but I can't agree.

 

If a cosmologist makes a prediction (that the CMB will display patterns that indicate collisions with another, separate universe) and then said prediction is confirmed by the data, why should we look for other interpretations?

 

Take the power spectrum of the CMB. It was calculated to be a perfect black-body radiation curve. Then, when the data came in, this was confirmed. Here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cmbr.svg

The prediction and the data agree.

 

Why opt for other explanations of the CMB power spectrum, when there's a next-to-perfect fit?

 

Ok, the jury's still out and will be so until some time next year.

But then, if the Planck data confirms Multiversal theory, will there really be any need to invoke rival explanations?

 

Ummm...help me out here, please.

 

BAA.

 

Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse.

 

"THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT CAN CAUSE HUMANS, BUT THIS BOOK SAYS THAT GOD DID IT, ITS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST PERFECT ANSWER".

 

There are lots of theories out there that predicted lots of good things, and lots of bad things. Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation. Multiverse theory also predicts lots of things we cant see. And doesn't predict everything. There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true? You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence. And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena.

 

 

Ok then Noggy, let's hear about these "other things" please.

 

"Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse."

 

Such as...?

Could you please present these other things - these lots of other things (presumably from peer-reviewed papers) that cause a perfect black-body radiation curve?

 

"Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation."

 

Yes, I agree.

Science always deals with inferred knowledge about reality, However, when one explanation fits reality to umpteen decimal places better than any rival theories, why is it necessary to still consider other, less accurate explanations as being equally valid?

Please say why you think this is so. Thank you.

 

"There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true?"

 

Please cite these other theories. Thank you.

 

Please also clarify what you mean by the word, 'true'. Thank you.

 

"You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence."

 

Can you please justify this assertion. Thank you.

 

"And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena."

 

Once again Noggy...

Please cite what these other things are and who makes these predictions. Thank you.

 

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

 

Noggy,

 

Of course it's right and proper that ALL science submit itself to testing and questioning, but it's also right and proper that those doing so cite the source/s of their objections and questions.

 

So, the onus is now squarely upon you to address this issue. I've politely asked you to do so and I would be very grateful if you would please substantiate your objections.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

I'm getting to a response to BAA. I just need some time to consider the best approach to penetrate to the heart of the matter to better forward the discussion.

[Noggy]

 

Noggy,

 

Of course it's right and proper that ALL science submit itself to testing and questioning, but it's also right and proper that those doing so cite the source/s of their objections and questions.

 

So, the onus is now squarely upon you to address this issue. I've politely asked you to do so and I would be very grateful if you would please substantiate your objections.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

 

1) I don't think this is the right thread for that.

2) I was going to cite my sources, didnt mean to bail on, but i got banned.

3) I'll do that sometime this week, while I dig through some shit.

 

Besides, there are definitely sources for what I'm saying, and sources for what you say. They may differ in popularity, though. But in science, popularity don't mean shit. But this is not this thread.

[bornagainathiest]

Have you ever done something because you foresaw in part what the future held for you and you acted based on these predictions? I have. And I believe anticipatory behavior is shared by all living beings.

 

I think through anticipation the future affects the present. The cause of much of our behavior in the present resides in the future.

 

This is an example of effects preceding causes.

 

Is this link relevant, Legion?

 

http://en.wikipedia....use#Final_cause

 

If so, could you help me out here please?

My intrinsic Reductionism struggles with stuff like this, so the simpler your explanation, the better.

 

Also, please note that the A-Man has already accepted the idea which I began this thread with.

That human thought could not have pre-dated or preceded the mechanism it relies upon to exist in the first place, that is, the human brain.

So, may I ask, are you taking issue with this specific idea or are you taking issue with the wider notion, that nothing in this reality can precede itself, with effect coming before cause?

 

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

 

Btw, for sentient beings, isn't anticipation based upon past knowledge and the assumption that what worked in the past will also work in a similar way in the future? And this assumption becomes the cause, because it changes the present behavior of the being, resulting (hopefully) in the desired future outcome?

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm getting to a response to BAA. I just need some time to consider the best approach to penetrate to the heart of the matter to better forward the discussion.

 

Looking forward to it.

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

I'm getting to a response to BAA. I just need some time to consider the best approach to penetrate to the heart of the matter to better forward the discussion.

 

Looking forward to it.

 

BAA.

Admittedly I'm having some difficulty, because as I'm preparing how I wish to tackle this to bridge the gap of understanding, this thread continues in a different direction. I'm trying to see how the cause and effect question may or may not play into what I'm getting at, but I honestly don't see it as instrumental. It may pertain at some juncture to this discussion, but I don't see it as a ground understanding that makes or breaks where I'm trying to get us to in understanding. Should we consider splitting that part of this thread off into a separate "Egg and Chicken" topic? I think what you and I are heading to in discussion will have a lot more value and relevance, that then a chicken and egg discussion can be interesting in relation to it. I do find it interesting however, not to put it down, to be clear. Thoughts?

 

I'll work on my thoughts now aside from what I see here as a subtopic at this point.

[bornagainathiest]

Noggy,

 

Of course it's right and proper that ALL science submit itself to testing and questioning, but it's also right and proper that those doing so cite the source/s of their objections and questions.

 

So, the onus is now squarely upon you to address this issue. I've politely asked you to do so and I would be very grateful if you would please substantiate your objections.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

 

1) I don't think this is the right thread for that.

 

Agreed. The "Multiverse..anyone?" is. C u there.

 

2) I was going to cite my sources, didnt mean to bail on, but i got banned.

 

Not a problem.

 

3) I'll do that sometime this week, while I dig through some shit.

 

Ok, that's cool.

 

Besides, there are definitely sources for what I'm saying, and sources for what you say. They may differ in popularity, though. But in science, popularity don't mean shit. But this is not this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

I've split the topic off that Legion and Oddbird were having in this thread into its own topic called "Cause and Effect?" I will get to my response to BAA later in this topic in the hopes of addressing his points addressed to me, as time permits. Thanks.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again A-Man! (waves)

 

This is just a gentle reminder that we have an on-going discussion.

 

 

 

Btw, I notice that you are using the word, 'spirit' in your conversation with SairB, Ouroboros and Legion. I have no problem with this whatsoever. None at all. However, I can't claim to understand your usage of it and you'll see that I've outlined my confusion in this thread.

 

Yes, I've asked you to define a LOT of things, most of them concerning the terms you use. But my overriding sense of puzzlement right now stems from my incomprehension of your use of the words 'spirit' and 'spiritual'. Can you help me out please?

 

There's no time pressure here... it's just that reading your words in that other thread bumped our discussion back into the spotlight, metaphorically speaking.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Antlerman]

Oh, sorry. Yes, I've been wanting to get back to you. I wasn't feeling well when this thread first got going, then got too busy with other stuff and the thread took off into a different direction. Now that it's back to our discussion at hand I'll put some time into a response for you. Onward and upward!

[Antlerman]

Aha!

U and u. Ok, now that you've introduced the notion of U into this discussion, I must ask you to justify some of the terms you use to describe this U of yours.

 

First, while I can accept that social, cultural and mental structures exist, why are they not simply material expressions of interactions of matter and energy in our brains? Why must they be accorded a special status? Why are they not simply matter and energy, just doing what matter and energy do?

I think this is where the crux of our discussions has needed to go. I think making a distinction between body, mind, and spirit is important for us to discuss. You have to forgive me if I repeat some of what I’ve said before. What we need to focus on is why there is a distinction to be made, but without divorcing one from the other which is what is often imagined is what is being said when speaking about the mental or the spiritual. The other danger is to do what I hear you doing which is to conflate them into one thing only which we then assume we can approach that way, in a strictly reductionist way in order to gain understanding. I challenge both approaches. I consider them both to be guilty of category errors.

 

My position is that the mental is an emergent level from the body. It is of course tied to the body, to an extent. It is influenced by the body of course, but it is not determined by the body. It is a domain in its own right that transcends the body. That is the key word, transcends. Transcend in this sense does not mean to dissociate. The key to evolution is to transcend and include, transcend and include, repeating this all the way up, from matter, to body, to mind, to the transmental, to the spiritual. Evolution always builds upon the lower levels, including it the next higher emergent level. What that means is that as atoms in the purely component level were functioning in the ‘atom-world’ of interactions, the biological includes but transcends the molecular into a new level, where it is largely ignorant of, nor determined by the activity of the molecular. The body functions as a body in the ‘body-world’. The lower molecular level is completely oblivious to the higher level, as none of its reality as a body, translates into anything at the molecular level. What goes on in ‘body-world’ is irrelevant and non-existent in ‘molecule-world’.

 

Now to the mental. The world of mind includes, but transcends the biological. This is where you somehow disagree. But the mental is in its very nature, immaterial. You cannot find a physical component of say a ‘value’ in the material world. You can say you can measure a physical response of the experience of ‘value’ by witnessing brain activity, but that does not mean that ‘value’, or ‘meaning’ are caused by the material. They are mental phenomena, not physical. The body of course responds to the mental because the mental influences the material, and vice versa. There is interpenetration that occurs in these domains. In your reductionist world, it is one directional and one thing only. The mind is no more than the atom. A sort of magical material singularity that all mind phenomena is inherent within. That is to say the least, mystical thinking.

 

The reason to make a distinction between the physical, biological, and mental domains however, even though valid from a systems theory approach, has really more to do with in our discussions an epistemological understanding. How we approach knowing. How we experience these things, and the sorts of knowledge they impart. The experience and mode of understanding mental phenomena is categorically different that the experience of and modes of understanding physical phenomena. And the same is true with the spiritual, which transcends mental phenomena. It is categorically ‘higher’ than mental reality, and material reality. Even though of course, it is experienced within our mental structures, embedded within our biological bodies, comprised of tiny atoms all spinning about and around in their atom-worlds. You do not understand Hamlet with a particle accelerator, and you do not understand the nature of Being by reading a theory about mind.

 

So what is spirit, or spiritual? Now it gets somewhat complex. I’ll answer in response to your next question:

 

Second, why does this subtle, interior reality of subjective experience of yours have to be accorded a special status, different to that of the unsubtle, exterior reality of objective expereince? Surely this is a false dichtotmy, where we egotistically mark ourselves out as something different and special? If you can agree with me (#2.) that we should not see ourselves as the center of things, why do you subvert your own position and plead for a special status for humans?

Because of what I mentioned above about how its domain is distinctly different than the material. It is experienced differently, it is constructed differently (an interactive world of mental symbols), and it is penetrated with a different set of tools than is used to understand the material world; psychology, historic hermeneutics, etc. Our entire sense of self, is itself nothing other than an illusion of symbols we identify as uniquely distinct from other ‘selves’.

 

I do not believe we are separate from the world, but this is where the spiritual comes in. What this means, and why it is distinct from the material and mental domains, is that it transcends, yet includes them. It transcends the mental domain where reality exists and is interacted with by us in a framework of mental symbols, including our own egoic self-identification as distinct and different from other ‘selves’, it transcends the mental in an awareness and experience of reality that is freed from such temporal constructs, such mental models. It transcends the mere physical embeddedness in the world as well. It is not experiencing the world as 'body', nor as 'mental phenomena'. It is experiencing one’s Self outside such limits. It is connecting with the essence of one’s own transcendent nature which exists both prior to the emergence of mind, the emergence of the material, and the heights and reaches of owns own potentials in the world as body, mind, and spirit.

 

It is also categorically different in knowledge and understanding than the mental or the material. It is not bound to the body, or to matter, even though it is sensed and experienced with the mind in high archetypal symbol sets, within the body in the activities within the brain, as well as physical responses such as breathing rates, emotional responses, body postures, etc, etc, etc, etc. It, as all other domains, interpenetrates. The causal level in this case, is spirit, not body, nor mind in its metal domain. It moves downward, not upward.

 

You do not leave this world, in physical form, but you transcend it through the mental, and transcend the mental into the transmental, transpersonal, domains. It is understood differently, and it is a categorically different experience. Our experience of life is physical, mental, and spiritual. To philosophically reduce these to material components only is to suppress what we are into a potential dissociation resulting in repression and neurosis of mind and body. All three domains are one whole, transcending and including all the lower levels into the higher levels. You can’t simply lob off the top two levels and call that human.

 

Lastly, please clarify what you mean by the word, spirit?

 

If you've agreed with me that humans are very new, then I must presume that you also accept that whatever definition of spirituality you advocate, it cannot be any older than the human brain that thinks about it.

I would say that Spirit exists through all things, it is only realized directly through higher mind as Itself. That comes to my post in the other thread talking about heterarchy and hierarchy. Please refer to this post here to address this point: http://www.ex-christ...post__p__737041

 

Also refer to this post as well: http://www.ex-christ...post__p__737118

 

Please contrast this with the standard notion of spirit used by Theists. For them, spirit is eternal and, in some timeless way, predates the material universe. This surely cannot be your model of spirituality, can it? Please elaborate.

 

Why should I restrict to their understanding? In this case however, outside their mythological constructions about Spirit, I do believe Spirit to be the essence of all that is. To quote a second time today that nondualist paradox that Sri Ramana Maharishi sums up well, "The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the world".

 

I do not believe Spirit is something outside reality, but the Ground and Goal of Reality itself, material and immaterial. It is “not this, not that”. It is no “thing”, no object, nor subject. No entity, but rather the Such’ness and Is’ness of all that is. It is the formless from which all form arises from and toward, in a ceaseless cycle. (I am attracted to the multiverse theory for this reason).

 

 

Summary: To perhaps shed some more light on what I'm getting at in the two above areas touched upon, read this post here as a follow up. Feel free to address it in a response in this thread as well. Link: http://www.ex-christ...post__p__735748

 

 

This should be sufficient enough to get the topic flowing again….

[bornagainathiest]

Yes, indeed A-Man.

 

Thank you!

 

Reading thru your response, I feel I can say the following.

 

1.

I reckon that I can offer an alternative explanation of reality - one that reduces ALL things down to statistics and probabilities. This includes the material, the mental and even what you refer to as the 'spiritual'. Imho, the category errors you see me making, vanish because these categories simply don't exist. What does exist is random noise, which the the human mind is all too adept at seeing patterns in - patterns which aren't really there.

 

2.

This explanation deals with such things as emergence, transcendence, mental models, egoic self-identification, high archetypal symbol sets, transmental and transpersonal domains, the Ground and Goal of Reality, Such'ness, Is'ness and all the other such terms. It reveals them to be products of the human mind which we impose on a Reality that displays no Ground, has no Goal and is not beholden to anyone to be understood or be understandable. I contend that the fact that we can understand some of reality is not down to some transcendent connection we have with it. Rather, it's just a function of our evolution. Those organisms that can understand their environment better than their competitors are the ones who survive - survival of the fittest, that's all.

 

So, I can and do simply lob off two levels and call that human.

I call these two levels, 'illusions', generated by our minds because we have a genetic and evolutionary predisposition to look for patterns in reality - often mistaking random noise for meaning, purpose and a Goal.

 

3.

I'm glad you're interested in Multiversal Theory, because my explanation is founded upon the logical outworkings of this. Full acceptance of the ultimate consequences of this logic can be a difficult thing, because it runs completely counter to our human needs (for connectedness, meaning and purpose) and our inherent predisposition to see these things in reality.

 

However, there is a growing body of data to indicate that we do indeed live in an infinite (spatial and temporal) ensemble of 'universes'. Acceptance of this therefore requires an accompanying acceptance of the mathematical implications of living in an infinity. To commit to the idea of living in an infinite Multiverse but to reject the consequences of what this means, is to fail to face up to the true picture of reality, in favor of what we would prefer to see.

 

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

 

In conclusion, since I've introduced my alternative explanation A-Man, I suppose I'd better make good and go ahead with presenting it. Shall I do so or would your prefer to respond to this post?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

This is good, keep going, guys. Waiting with interest for your explanation, BAA, and your response, A man

 

BAA, this in yours reminds me of Nietzsche:

 

"it runs completely counter to our human needs (for connectedness, meaning and purpose) and our inherent predisposition to see these things in reality"

 

I'm thinking of his Apollo-Dionysos polarity, i.e. Dionysos is the one who unties, leaving us to stare into an abyss that engenders ecstasy but also madness, and Apollo gives us the illusions of harmony. And N says we need both and that both intertwine for us -that's why they alternated their sway over the oracle at Delphi between the seasons of the year.

[Antlerman]

Yes, indeed A-Man.

 

Thank you!

 

Reading thru your response, I feel I can say the following.

 

1.

I reckon that I can offer an alternative explanation of reality - one that reduces ALL things down to statistics and probabilities. This includes the material, the mental and even what you refer to as the 'spiritual'. Imho, the category errors you see me making, vanish because these categories simply don't exist. What does exist is random noise, which the the human mind is all too adept at seeing patterns in - patterns which aren't really there.

Here's the problem. You frame this as me trying to 'explain' reality. I was clear that what I am after is an implicit understanding of the experience of reality. Your mind is not experienced as your body is experienced. Is it? There is a distinction between the two, even if the brain is comprised of the basic material of the body. They are qualitatively different. What you are attempting to offer is a rational explanation in a mechanistic model of the universe, which is itself merely a discussion of the machinery, and zero understanding of subtle content of the more complex, higher levels. You may present your materialist model, but it is likely I won't challenge it as it likely does not violate what I am getting at, since I see what has evolved can be viewed as a nested hierarchy of higher order and complexity, always including all the lower levels within each and every higher order.

 

Envision it as a series of nested bowls, the largest bowl is the least complex and the greatest span; the higher bowls exist within the larger bowl, but are increasingly smaller in size, nesting within each other, including all the bowls going out all the way to the edge bowl - the bowl of atoms. So certainly, what you see happening at the lower levels, the process of evolution, is still happening at the higher. But, you cannot see what is happening at the higher level happening at the lower level. You have to look at the higher level as the higher level. You have to examine the more complex, as itself.

 

Can you know me without a dialog? Of course not. That's what the problem with Reductionism as a philosophy is. It is monlogocial. When you say you happily lob off the upper levels, then I assume you mean you are finished trying to function as a social human being? You are done trying to understand other people as people? Somehow I doubt this, but it is an inconsistency in philosophy on your part.

 

What I see Reductionism as is really pretty much the same as alchemy. You are trying to find the human soul in an organ of the body. You attempt to identify which gland love lives in. You wish to understand the essence of being human in dissecting the body's organs. You wish to find the human spirit by examining and dismembering the brain. And in so doing, you can then safely say, it is all an illusion. In so doing that, you have found away around any dialogical or introspective exploration into the interior content of experience where clean, neat, explainable lines blur and grow increasing more nebulousness and difficult to penetrate. I very much see Reductionism as an attempt to find some clear cosmological explanation for the world in order to bolster Science as a new replacement for Biblical Authority. It is as my friend who left the church with me said, "Boy, I'm so glad now I really DO have the truth"; the exact same thing he said as a Christian. It's the same approach to science as it was to religion.

 

One last point here, you speculate that spirituality is about 'finding meaning' in life, and try to explain that as an evolutionary process. Aside from the fact that for me, spirituality goes vastly beyond mere mental constructs such as 'meaning to life', I see no reason to not say the very thing that what you see religion doing in seeking to find patterns to give life meaning. Reductionism is exactly that same thing. You are creating a worldview, and that worldview serves you as a foundation to find meaning in your life. It is a mental model of reality that you see the world through and try to place yourself within it in order to find meaning. So sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

However, beyond religion or philosophy is direct spiritual Realization, and at the point, it becomes a perceptual shift that can itself see things like 'meaning to life' as a function of the mental domain. It is not functioning at the mental level of symbolic realities. There is only of itself for itself. It is not about 'you' as 'you' are an illusion as well. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The point is none of this, none of this understanding can begin to be accessed by looking at the components alone. You have to engage all the higher levels directly on their levels; mind to mind, spirit to spirit. Then and only then can you have a legitimate holistic insight into them.

 

BTW, I'm really not meaning to attack you personally in this at all. It is a critique of what Reductionism really is and how it is in essence doing the same thing as religion does. It's not truly science. It's trying to be philosophy and religion as well.