What Is Evidence / How Do We Know What Is Real?

[Rev R]

In that case, the word that is usually translated as "suffering" in Buddhist texts is "dukkha". Dukkha is difficult to translate into a single term and refers to uneasiness, unpleasantness, instability, and discomfort. So the First Noble Truth could just as easily be stated as "Life's a bitch." or any of those pithy sorts of colloquialisms that we use when going through a rough patch and can usually empathize with. 

When taken like this, the 8-fold path (which is actually what makes the whole thing tick) is a method soothing the unpleasant, unstable, dissatisfactory nature of existence without getting hung up on the extremes of ecstacy and despair. From the beginning, wherever the beginning was, the practical standpoint had primacy.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Calm down, Walt.  Don't be so hard on yourself,  my friend.  We're all just flawed consciousness perceived in human form, after all.

 

I'm happy to discuss things with you.  I just don't want to argue with you over things that I don't personally believe in.  That's what Ed is here for.

 

 

Thank you.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Lol...

 

We kind of have to ask ourselves why the details matter anyhow.... if we can't ultimately know.  Why then is it important that Walter default to the response he did rather than rely on the details.  And what is ultimately the priority for our meat planes and limited consciousness.  And what makes us seek those details even though we, a decently intelligent group of humans, know beforehand, we can't totally understand.

 

Science gonna do it for us?  Religion?   And what do we do in the interim.

 

Christians, atheists and buddhists all have to work, eat, sleep, pay bills, etc. Though we might claim that people that dont adopt our beliefs wont be able to function in life. 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm guessing you're going to point to a Buddhist rape victim and ask 1) how was her suffering the result of attachment and desire; and 2) why didn't her adherence to the 8-Fold Path prevent her suffering from happening?

 

Is that about right?

 

No, Prof.  I'll quote you and then show you where the problem lies.

 

 

This is reality.  This has always been reality.  This will always be reality.  Do you care to dispute it?  If so, please answer the following questions:

1. Do you deny that there is suffering?

2. Do you deny that suffering comes from attachment and desire?

3. Can you demonstrate that following the 8-Fold Path does not result in an end of suffering?

 

 

Question # 1 is straightforward and I would, of course agree that there is suffering.  No problem there.

 

Question # 2 is a malformed question because it is predicated on something that you believe, not something you have demonstrated to be so.  Therefore, it should really be qualified as a statement of belief by you, modifying the question to say something like this.  'I believe that suffering comes from attachment and desire.  Do you deny this belief?'

 

Then I would probably ask you to demonstrate that this is so, putting the onus on you to back up your statement of belief with evidence before we proceed any further.  If you did that, fine.  But if you couldn't do that, then I'd point out that yours was nothing more than a belief unsupported by evidence.  And that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

Question # 3 is similar.  As the claim maker (following the 8-fold path does result in an end to suffering) the onus is on you to first demonstrate that this is so before I am required to demonstrate that this is not so.  The same process as before would then follow.  If you could demonstrate that it was so, fine.  But if you could not, then I would point out that # 3 was the same # 2, both being beliefs of yours that are unsupported by evidence.  And again, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

36 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Ego-inflation. Aren't we all guilty of presenting our case to the death because we have become quite enamored with our own personal views and preferences?  

 

You are guilty of being human, sir. Nothing more. 

 

Guilty as charged!  

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Lol...

 

We kind of have to ask ourselves why the details matter anyhow.... if we can't ultimately know.  Why then is it important that Walter default to the response he did rather than rely on the details.  And what is ultimately the priority for our meat planes and limited consciousness.  And what makes us seek those details even though we, a decently intelligent group of humans, know beforehand, we can't totally understand.

 

Science gonna do it for us?  Religion?   And what do we do in the interim.

 

The details don't matter for ourselves as individuals, Ed.

 

The details matter for how we treat each other.

 

If we can't ultimately know everything, then let us try to work out the details that we can know.

 

Not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others.

 

Isn't that the core message of Christianity?

 

Doing what is good, not for your own good, but for the good of others?

[walterpthefirst]

I'm logging off now Prof and getting to bed early.

 

That's because I'm travelling all day tomorrow and making an early start to do so.

 

Therefore, no logging on first thing to see how this thread's evolved.

 

I might check in here late tomorrow evening, but I can't be certain.

 

So, thanks again, friend.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The details don't matter for ourselves as individuals, Ed.

 

The details matter for how we treat each other.

 

If we can't ultimately know everything, then let us try to work out the details that we can know.

 

Not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others.

 

Isn't that the core message of Christianity?

 

Doing what is good, not for your own good, but for the good of others?

I actually agree.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

39 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, Prof.  I'll quote you and then show you where the problem lies.

 

 

This is reality.  This has always been reality.  This will always be reality.  Do you care to dispute it?  If so, please answer the following questions:

1. Do you deny that there is suffering?

2. Do you deny that suffering comes from attachment and desire?

3. Can you demonstrate that following the 8-Fold Path does not result in an end of suffering?

 

 

Question # 1 is straightforward and I would, of course agree that there is suffering.  No problem there.

 

Question # 2 is a malformed question because it is predicated on something that you believe, not something you have demonstrated to be so.  Therefore, it should really be qualified as a statement of belief by you, modifying the question to say something like this.  'I believe that suffering comes from attachment and desire.  Do you deny this belief?'

 

Then I would probably ask you to demonstrate that this is so, putting the onus on you to back up your statement of belief with evidence before we proceed any further.  If you did that, fine.  But if you couldn't do that, then I'd point out that yours was nothing more than a belief unsupported by evidence.  And that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

Question # 3 is similar.  As the claim maker (following the 8-fold path does result in an end to suffering) the onus is on you to first demonstrate that this is so before I am required to demonstrate that this is not so.  The same process as before would then follow.  If you could demonstrate that it was so, fine.  But if you could not, then I would point out that # 3 was the same # 2, both being beliefs of yours that are unsupported by evidence.  And again, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Noted.  It would take a separate thread, of course; but I have confidence I could sufficiently demonstrate that suffering comes from attachment and desire,  after which I could support the claim that following the 8-Fold Path alleviates said suffering. 

 

Of course, as barely a novice at basic Buddhist philosophy, the Dunning-Kruger effect might need to be taken into consideration where my confidence is concerned. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The details don't matter for ourselves as individuals, Ed.

 

The details matter for how we treat each other.

 

If we can't ultimately know everything, then let us try to work out the details that we can know.

 

Not for our own benefit, but for the benefit of others.

 

Isn't that the core message of Christianity?

 

Doing what is good, not for your own good, but for the good of others?

 

I believe the first three lines best describe the desired result.   What is in the best interest of WE.   That is why I like the statement attributed to Jesus, "love neighbor as self".  It implies that you should love neighbor the SAME as self.  Not better than self.  You don't "run over" others, and you don't let others run over yourself.  You do good because it is in everybodies best interest.  

 

Although I know very little about Buddhaism, I always thought the suffering it talks about is more about "mental" suffering, than about physical suffering. (But I have also known people who seem to want to hold onto thier physical suffering as long as they can)   If you mix some Freudian thought with it, it can get very interesting.  It does seem like some people seem to hang onto their "hurts" (leading to "suffering")  longer than others.  Especially when their ego gets hurt.  Egos create all kinds of problems in the world, and I haven't thought about it much, but perhaps that is what Buddha was addressing.  Getting ego to calm itself down and quit trying to be king of our little worlds, and quit trying to get others to do and be what we want them to be, and think like we want them to think.  Or am I getting off track with this??

[midniterider]

I think Zen (certain flavor of Buddhism) is trying to tell us that ego (as in "I") is a false creation, that really there is no I. It is a fiction. And in a way doesn't that align with a materialist view of "no soul" ? 

 

So enjoy the meat airplane experience, but don't identify with it. 

 

Unless you want to.

[Edgarcito]

54 minutes ago, midniterider said:

I think Zen (certain flavor of Buddhism) is trying to tell us that ego (as in "I") is a false creation, that really there is no I. It is a fiction. And in a way doesn't that align with a materialist view of "no soul" ? 

 

So enjoy the meat airplane experience, but don't identify with it. 

 

Unless you want to.

Well, what do we honestly think the hierarchy of experience is.  I've been divorced several years now and am missing those times with my children when they were young.  It's very depressing that I can't get that back.  So for me, the top is love, despite any material success.

 

An interesting note about Christianity.....we keep professing that we can't know, but Christianity specifically sends Christ that we MAY know that God, that Creator, etc.  And in this case, it's Love.  Again, it's noteworthy imo.

 

Thx.

[pantheory]

On 3/10/2023 at 7:38 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

AI Philosophy also assumes that there is a reality that is external to our finite experiences. You have to open up the perspective a bit here to what the philosophy entails.

 

MAL is what exists when looking "out there." The Infinite, instinctual and phenomenal based "Spatially unbound field of core subjectivity with excitation of the field." 

 

When we're looking out at deep space, we're looking out at the field of core subjectivity, and what we see as dynamic activities taking place "out there," that's looking out at Mind at Large from within Mind at Large. It's represented as what we see on our species-specific dashboard or headset as the physical universe outside of ourselves. The instinctual nature of MAL is what gives rise to constants like the natural laws. And I'd say Hermetic Principles too. 

 

Our experience is one of looking across a dissociative boundary, from a finite oriented perspective, at MAL. Having our being 'in MAL.' As MAL itself spun off into little versions of itself. Always non-dual and interconnected. Like a whirlpool being a shape formed within the stream. The whirlpool is the water of the stream. It's just taken on form within the stream of flowing water. 

 

That is key to understanding why no dualistic oriented christian apologists can ever speak for non-dual realizations or Consciousness modeling. They don't understand what that is and have no understanding beyond dualistic conceptualizations of reality filtered through literalistic religion.

 

Is there a timestamp to a specific argument? 

 

They are dualists by nature. This is non-dual. Anything they try and say or argue about Mind, comes from a place of disconnect about unitary interconnection and the logic that follows. 

 

The reasoning behind starting with "raw experience" is because it's what exists. We have an experience of matter. And within that experience, is where science happens.

 

It isn't doing what you think it's doing. If you think making predictions about what will be experienced through space-time perception (a dashboard or dials or user interface headset) and seeing the predictions work, has revealed to you the underlying Nature of Reality. 

 

You don't pull the territory out of the map. The map outlines the territory indirectly.

 

And in this case, the territory is MAL. The map is our cognitive perceptions within MAL, as MAL itself looking around at itself, making the predictions about itself, doing the science within itself. Which never comes down to unveiling the true Nature of Reality through our cognitive perceptions.

 

Here's a short video that explains the issue of science and the Nature of Reality to some degree.

 

But I'm not sure if anyone here will automatically understand it. Because it's foreign to christian dualists and also materialist science. Neither understand it. 

 

@midniterider for sure understands it, and probably @TheRedneckProfessor too. 

 

 

The bottom line is that this is something that is always right under our noses. Anyone can realize it at any time. It just jumps out at you when it does. Prior to jumping out, it's a blind spot. 

 

 

 

The speaker is very bright. and says many intelligent things IMO, But it seems that even he does not realize that there is no such thing as true reality IMHO. What humans call reality is just an organization of human perceptions, mainstream theory, and what we believe to be fact based upon what we believe to be logical evidence. The meaning of this is that there are countless ways of organizing so-called facts and calling the results reality.  The word "reality" is simply a human perspective and nothing more IMO.

[pantheory]

59 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, what do we honestly think the hierarchy of experience is.  I've been divorced several years now and am missing those times with my children when they were young.  It's very depressing that I can't get that back.  So for me, the top is love, despite any material success.

 

An interesting note about Christianity.....we keep professing that we can't know, but Christianity specifically sends Christ that we MAY know that God, that Creator, etc.  And in this case, it's Love.  Again, it's noteworthy imo.

 

Thx.

 

Yes, love is one of the most important human emotions, yet evidence has little to do with love for many people.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

An interesting note about Christianity.....we keep professing that we can't know, but Christianity specifically sends Christ that we MAY know that God, that Creator, etc.  And in this case, it's Love.  Again, it's noteworthy imo.

An interesting note about Buddhism.....we keep professing that we can't know, but Buddhism specifically sends Quan Am that we MAY know that Compassion, that Mercy, etc.  And in this case, it's Love.  Again, it's noteworthy imo.

 

https://www.sacred-texts.com/asia/rsv/rsv27.htm

[Rev R]

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Question # 3 is similar.  As the claim maker (following the 8-fold path does result in an end to suffering) the onus is on you to first demonstrate that this is so before I am required to demonstrate that this is not so.  The same process as before would then follow.  If you could demonstrate that it was so, fine.  But if you could not, then I would point out that # 3 was the same # 2, both being beliefs of yours that are unsupported by evidence.  And again, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

Here is the thing about the 8 fold path: it's not a philosophical argument or theological tenet, it's a series of practices. The experiment to test the Four Noble Truths, if you will. No amount of argument will demonstrate it's effectiveness, you have to engage in the activity, some of which you are probably attempting already. 

For example, Walter, you mentioned an issue with how you can get brutal in conversations. That you are aware of it and attempt to moderate it, is practicing Right Speech. If you are honest and not engaging in business practices that deliberately create harm, you are practicing Right Livelihood. 

 

The punchline is that even if you try the 8fold path and find that it does not appear to lead to a cessation of "suffering", no harm, no foul. You are not going to be condemned to some eternal punishment. If you decide not to give the experiment a shot, same thing. 

If if you think "this is some cool shit", you don't necessarily have to call yourself a Buddhist. Buddhism is a term of convenience created by Europeans to describe a multitude of practices across South and East Asia. Toss the word. Look at the ideas. Use what you like, dump the rest. Or not. 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Rev R said:

Here is the thing about the 8 fold path: it's not a philosophical argument or theological tenet, it's a series of practices. The experiment to test the Four Noble Truths, if you will. No amount of argument will demonstrate it's effectiveness, you have to engage in the activity, some of which you are probably attempting already. 

For example, Walter, you mentioned an issue with how you can get brutal in conversations. That you are aware of it and attempt to moderate it, is practicing Right Speech. If you are honest and not engaging in business practices that deliberately create harm, you are practicing Right Livelihood. 

 

The punchline is that even if you try the 8fold path and find that it does not appear to lead to a cessation of "suffering", no harm, no foul. You are not going to be condemned to some eternal punishment. If you decide not to give the experiment a shot, same thing. 

If if you think "this is some cool shit", you don't necessarily have to call yourself a Buddhist. Buddhism is a term of convenience created by Europeans to describe a multitude of practices across South and East Asia. Toss the word. Look at the ideas. Use what you like, dump the rest. Or not. 

 

 

 

 

I hear what you are saying, Rev.

 

However, when I made those comments, the ones you've quoted, what was I attempting to do?  The answer is, to respond to what the Professor wrote for my attention.

 

This is reality.  This has always been reality.  This will always be reality.  Do you care to dispute it?  If so, please answer the following questions:

1. Do you deny that there is suffering?

2. Do you deny that suffering comes from attachment and desire?

3. Can you demonstrate that following the 8-Fold Path does not result in an end of suffering?

 

The Prof made a series of claims and posed a series of questions.  He invited me to dispute his claims.  He also invited me to answer his questions.  This is a textbook example of a philosophical debate between two people employing logical argument and evidence.

 

Your point about the 8-fold path is entirely correct.  It is a series of practices.  But the fact that it is a series of practices is not really germane to what is currently passing between the Prof and I.  He invited me to engage in debate and argument and that is what we are doing.  If we then move on the topic of how the 8-fold path is practiced, then that's fine.

 

Your point about what I am trying to do by looking at what I write and how I write is also on target.  I am trying to practice Right Speech.  Not necessarily because I accept and endorse the Buddha's teachings about the 8-fold way, but more because I can see how the path that the Prof is making for himself is working.  He sees things clearly.  And if I can recognize that something is working in someone else's life, then more fool me if I don't learn from that example.

 

Which probably means that I'm doing what you suggest, Rev.  I'm looking at ideas and using what I like the look of.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

On 3/15/2023 at 11:31 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Noted.  It would take a separate thread, of course; but I have confidence I could sufficiently demonstrate that suffering comes from attachment and desire,  after which I could support the claim that following the 8-Fold Path alleviates said suffering. 

 

 

 

Prof,

 

In my travels today I found myself thinking about our recent exchanges.  Especially about those three questions you put to me.  As I said, # 1 is undeniable.  We have all suffered and can all see the suffering of others and can relate to their suffering from our experiences of it.  

 

But the wording of # 2 isn't so watertight.  You could say that I'm nit-picking here, but why shouldn't we try and tighten it up as much as we can?  It was something that Weezer wrote that got me thinking.  

 

Although I know very little about Buddhism, I always thought the suffering it talks about is more about "mental" suffering, than about physical suffering.

 

Ok, so question # 2 reads like this.

 

2. Do you deny that suffering comes from attachment and desire?

 

Now its not clear from this if you meant ALL suffering.  But today I realized that there are at least three other causes of suffering in the world.  I will explain further.

 

1.

There is the suffering caused by disease organisms. These diseases are the products of evolution, just as we are.  The fact that they happen to make us sick and cause us intense suffering has nothing to do with human attachments or human desires.

 

2.

There is the suffering caused by birth defects.  These have genetic or congenital causes.  Once again, the suffering they cause is in no way related to human attachments or desires.

 

3.

There is the suffering caused by natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, volcanoes, etc.  Many people die, are injured or made homeless by these catastrophes and their suffering is not linked to anyone's attachments or desires.

 

 

So, my suggestion, if you want to tighten up your question and remove the ambiguity from it, would be to make it clear that you are only talking about the human causation of suffering in the human race by attachment and desire.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

So, my suggestion, if you want to tighten up your question and remove the ambiguity from it, would be to make it clear that you are only talking about the human causation of suffering in the human race by attachment and desire.

Except that, again from the Buddhist perspective, I am not only talking about the human causation of suffering; and nor was the Buddha himself.  The 8-Fold Path does not result in an end of injury, pain, misfortune, tribulation, catastrophe.  These are simply life; and life is often beyond our control.  No amount of meditation or enlightenment will guarantee a life of ease.  What is within our control, though, is our response to life.  And it needs to be noted that there is a difference between reacting and responding.  

 

Reacting is "normal" human behavior, driven by emotions, desires, and attachments.  Responding, however, is driven by one's deliberate choice.  I like to use the analogy of bringing the 8 points into alignment, like tuning the spokes on a bicycle wheel.  This will alter one's perspective such that one is able to respond, rather than react, in much the same way that you responded to RevR earlier, with right speech, rather than reacting to what could have been perceived as him challenging your understanding of Buddhism. 

 

About 2 weeks after I first started exploring Buddhism,  back in 2018, I came down with a brutal case of varicella zoster, known in the commoner's tongue as the shingles.  Treatment in the US generally consists of a powerful anti-viral, topical analgesic, and narcotic opioids for pain management.  Unfortunately, due to certain proclivities I have, I cannot take narcotics, which left me little option but to endure.  

 

So there I was trying to learn how to meditate and empty my mind; but all I could think about was the searing white hot hellfire that gripped me from my spine all the way around my body to the center of my chest.  What could I do but come to terms with my pain?  Embrace it like a friend and welcome the lesson it had come to teach me.

 

And that lesson is that pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional.  It is all down to what I choose--a reaction or a response.  Once I decide that I would rather respond than react, then my response, how I respond, also becomes entirely my choice.

 

This is what the Buddha meant when he said, "There is an end of suffering."  Not that horrific things would never happen; but that we do not have to suffer as a result of them.  We can simply choose differently.  It's not always an easy choice; but it is always ours to make.

 

Were I to change the language of question 2 at all, I would simply rephrase it as, "Do you disagree that suffering is a result of attachment and desire; and, if so, what is it a result of?"

[Joshpantera]

On 3/13/2023 at 7:54 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Now that you know I have a sketchy understanding of metaphysics it might help if you tried do something similar Josh.  Ask yourself if I'm going to have any idea of what Schopenhauer's internal 'Will' or the Ontological Primitive are.  And then proceed accordingly.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Ontological primitive comes up as the need for something irreducible. It's turtles all the way down, or an ontological primitive. 

 

The simple version of the issue at hand.

 

Materialism: A priori unconscious energy exists, which forms matter, and life and consciousness emerge from unconscious matter. 

 

This introduces the Hard Problem of Consciousness. How do you get qualia (quality) from quanta (quantities)? This is an issue that we've posted on a lot in the spirituality section, but I know you don't read in there. Several video threads. Plenty of attention given to this. 

 

Analytic / Objective Idealism: A priori Conscious energy exists, which forms matter as a perception, and life and consciousness emerge within the perception of material existence. 

 

This doesn't introduce the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You get qualia from qualia. There's no fundamental question as to how emerges and why. This is also included in most of the threads in the spirituality section. 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Except that, again from the Buddhist perspective, I am not only talking about the human causation of suffering; and nor was the Buddha himself.  The 8-Fold Path does not result in an end of injury, pain, misfortune, tribulation, catastrophe.  These are simply life; and life is often beyond our control.  No amount of meditation or enlightenment will guarantee a life of ease.  What is within our control, though, is our response to life.  And it needs to be noted that there is a difference between reacting and responding.  

 

Reacting is "normal" human behavior, driven by emotions, desires, and attachments.  Responding, however, is driven by one's deliberate choice.  I like to use the analogy of bringing the 8 points into alignment, like tuning the spokes on a bicycle wheel.  This will alter one's perspective such that one is able to respond, rather than react, in much the same way that you responded to RevR earlier, with right speech, rather than reacting to what could have been perceived as him challenging your understanding of Buddhism. 

 

About 2 weeks after I first started exploring Buddhism,  back in 2018, I came down with a brutal case of varicella zoster, known in the commoner's tongue as the shingles.  Treatment in the US generally consists of a powerful anti-viral, topical analgesic, and narcotic opioids for pain management.  Unfortunately, due to certain proclivities I have, I cannot take narcotics, which left me little option but to endure.  

 

So there I was trying to learn how to meditate and empty my mind; but all I could think about was the searing white hot hellfire that gripped me from my spine all the way around my body to the center of my chest.  What could I do but come to terms with my pain?  Embrace it like a friend and welcome the lesson it had come to teach me.

 

And that lesson is that pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional.  It is all down to what I choose--a reaction or a response.  Once I decide that I would rather respond than react, then my response, how I respond, also becomes entirely my choice.

 

This is what the Buddha meant when he said, "There is an end of suffering."  Not that horrific things would never happen; but that we do not have to suffer as a result of them.  We can simply choose differently.  It's not always an easy choice; but it is always ours to make.

 

Were I to change the language of question 2 at all, I would simply rephrase it as, "Do you disagree that suffering is a result of attachment and desire; and, if so, what is it a result of?"

 

Thank you for this clarification Prof.

 

I simply did not understand and thought that the 8-fold way only dealt with the suffering in human life that was caused by human attachment and desire.  But now I see that the scope is widened to take into account how one responds to any suffering, no matter what the cause.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Ontological primitive comes up as the need for something irreducible. It's turtles all the way down, or an ontological primitive. 

 

So would an eternal model of cosmology qualify as an ontological primitive, seeing as there is no need to reduce the model further than the eternally-existing energy that causes an endless cycle of universes or an infinite multiverse?

 

This energy would be scientifically and philosophically irreducible, not needing an explanation of its origin.

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The simple version of the issue at hand.

 

Materialism: A priori unconscious energy exists, which forms matter, and life and consciousness emerge from unconscious matter. 

 

This introduces the Hard Problem of Consciousness. How do you get qualia (quality) from quanta (quantities)? This is an issue that we've posted on a lot in the spirituality section, but I know you don't read in there. Several video threads. Plenty of attention given to this. 

 

I've never visited the Spirituality section, Josh. 

 

Quantity is something known to me, of course.  And logic would suggest that because it derives its meaning from mathematics, its therefore something objective and absolute.  But surely qualia (quality) is, by definition, subjective and therefore a matter of personal choice?

 

People can easily choose to abide by a common standard in mathematics by surrendering their personal choice and their subjectivity, with everyone adopting the same understanding of quantity.  In math, 2 + 2 = 4 for everyone.  Period.

 

But how could something like qualia ever be equally true for all?  And if it can't be, then how can anything objective ever be said about qualia?  Can you assist here?

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Analytic / Objective Idealism: A priori Conscious energy exists, which forms matter as a perception, and life and consciousness emerge within the perception of material existence. 

 

How does this work?  Presumably one does not start with evidence and then work from there?  Presumably one starts with a belief?  So, to what degree is Analytic / Objective Idealism supported by evidence?

 

I ask because we've already touched on the subject of beautifully seductive models of reality that have great explanatory power, but which have no evidence base at all.  String Theory being the best known example.

 

Is that a valid parallel to Analytic / Objective Idealism?

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This doesn't introduce the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You get qualia from qualia. There's no fundamental question as to how emerges and why. This is also included in most of the threads in the spirituality section. 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Rev R]

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This will alter one's perspective such that one is able to respond, rather than react, in much the same way that you responded to RevR earlier, with right speech

Maybe a wee bit more prickly than I expected, but it's still a new interaction. 

 

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So there I was trying to learn how to meditate and empty my mind; but all I could think about was the searing white hot hellfire that gripped me from my spine all the way around my body to the center of my chest.  What could I do but come to terms with my pain?  Embrace it like a friend and welcome the lesson it had come to teach me.

Suzuki Shosan once said something to effect of "A Zen that cannot be practiced in the midst of a battlefield is useless." It is refreshing to see this type of discussion rely on real-world application rather than some of the abstractions I've seen in the past.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Always happy to be of service. 

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

So would an eternal model of cosmology qualify as an ontological primitive, seeing as there is no need to reduce the model further than the eternally-existing energy that causes an endless cycle of universes or an infinite multiverse?

 

This energy would be scientifically and philosophically irreducible, not needing an explanation of its origin.

 

In a nutshell, yes. 

 

The metaphysics of materialism posit energy as the ontological primitive. You can reduce to something like pure energy beneath all of the material. This can go off into the metaphysics underlying any number of physicalist models. I'd imagine Pantheory's has energy in some form as the irreducible, ontological primitive. 

 

It's what simply is, according to the models. And these models have it as unconscious, devoid of any awareness energy. 

 

These are the models that cause the Hard of Problem of Consciousness. Unable to explain quality of experience from quantities of things. 

 

Unconscious field of primary Energy > Formation of Matter > Evolution of Life > Evolution of Intelligent Life

 

Somewhere between the evolution of Life and Intelligent Life, they have Consciousness emerging, in theory. This is the materialist metaphysics underlying the models. 

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Quantity is something known to me, of course.  And logic would suggest that because it derives its meaning from mathematics, its therefore something objective and absolute.  But surely qualia (quality) is, by definition, subjective and therefore a matter of personal choice?

 

People can easily choose to abide by a common standard in mathematics by surrendering their personal choice and their subjectivity, with everyone adopting the same understanding of quantity.  In math, 2 + 2 = 4 for everyone.  Period.

 

But how could something like qualia ever be equally true for all?  And if it can't be, then how can anything objective ever be said about qualia?  Can you assist here?

 

So now we've unpacked the Hard Problem of Consciousness further. Charted it a bit. Which should help answer the questions above. It's the very question of why inner experience (qualia) even exists. Inner experience (qualia) is universal to all, regardless of what kind of inner experience they are experiencing. The universal is experience itself, the qualia. 

 

Qualia from Quanta IS the Hard Problem. 

 

The metaphysics of Idealism is as I've pointed out: 

 

Conscious Field Excitation > Formation of Matter > Evolution of Life > Evolution of Intelligent Life

 

The "qualia" extends from the primary Consciousness as the irreducible ontological primitive. Why does qualia exist? Because it's an aspect of eternal existence. It is what it is, and without it, there wouldn't be anything. When existence itself is an EBR. The one thing that comes with certainty, "raw experience," is fundamental down to irreducible. 

 

This actually engages the explanation rather than standing on the sidelines. Which is why I went in for a deep dive to see where it could lead. And found a source for energy involving excitation of an experiential field of core subjectivity, or the Instinctual Mind of Nature itself. From which everything proceeds into form. This is deeper in to what energy has to be to have the "qualia" of experience interconnected with it. And happening through the medium of material life forms existing within Consciousness, as Consciousness itself. 

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

How does this work?  Presumably one does not start with evidence and then work from there?  Presumably one starts with a belief?  So, to what degree is Analytic / Objective Idealism supported by evidence?

 

I ask because we've already touched on the subject of beautifully seductive models of reality that have great explanatory power, but which have no evidence base at all.  String Theory being the best known example.

 

Is that a valid parallel to Analytic / Objective Idealism?

 

We've been starting with the evidence all along. Remember, there's not more than one single bit of evidence that means anything in terms of locating absolute truth. The truth that we are experiencing awareness. This is big blind spot that can be hard to see for many people. This IS the only evidence that even factors in. 

 

If we start assuming that unconscious energy is ontological primitive from the vantage point of the only truth being that we are experiencing awareness, then the Hard Problem red flags it, basically. Wrong, try again! Paradox. Internal inconsistency. This looks to be headed the wrong direction away from the one truth we do have in terms of explanatory power. Concerning the Nature of Existence itself. 

 

This is why some people moved on to Idealist metaphysics to see how it can be worked out. The Nature of Existence would be Experiential Awareness taking place constantly as something like a spatially unbound field with excitation. The motion translates to the powerhouse that produces the existence of energy. If we asked why energy is neither created nor destroyed, the answer would be because a field of core subjectivity is always excited. Energy transforming from one form to another with no fixed creation or end would be the steady flow of constant excitation of the field. 

 

This gets into the old Brahmanic metaphors. 

 

It's like being in the Mind of Brahman. The Dreaming Deity myths are a way of trying to describe a Conscious Universe that we exist "within." As the Conscious Universe itself incarnate into finite experiential form. Serving the obvious purpose and meaning of "experience" itself. Judging which experiences are favorable and unfavorable. Interaction between finite and infinite experience. Qualia across the board. All planes, any dimensions. 

 

We have individual experiences, and species-wide experiences. 

 

 

The question has come up as to why this correspondence between the interior of the human brain and the universe at large scale out there exists? 

 

One obvious answer is that we have species-wide perceptions formed by evolution by natural selection. Reality out there is an infinite void at the irreducible level. Everything visible with form is perception imposed by us onto the 'void of potential' that's out there. 

 

"As above, so below. As within, so without." 

 

I different species would likely not see the same mirror reflect that we see. They'd potentially see a mirror image of their own species neural networks as the objective universe "out there." That's been a fun situation to explore in the Idealist groups.