Consciousness, Materialism and Idealism

[Rev R]

51 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Thank you.  I will tentatively plan to check them out and then most likely not get around to it for a while.  It is, indeed, possible to practice Buddhist philosophy without any kind of theistic belief or religious trappings.  Because Ms. Professor is Vietnamese, we have the traditional shrines in our home and we observe some of the rituals.  But, for her it is more cultural than religious; and, for me, it is simply a reminder to stay grounded in the moment.

No sweat. One thing that I've learned about Zen in nearly 30 years of practice (holy crap! I haven't calculated that number in a while.) is that while there is a sense of immediacy, there is no rush. Maybe we'll compare notes at some point.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, Rev R said:

while there is a sense of immediacy, there is no rush.

I like that.  It took me a while to train myself to stay completely focused on the moment; and I still fail pretty consistently.  But my awareness is the beginning of enlightenment, right?  So, just being conscious of not being entirely conscious counts as consciousness.  Or so I tell myself. 

[Joshpantera]

19 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Starting out, there's no evidence of anything concrete aside from our experience of awareness in the current moment.

 

If we're to venture away from the Math's, and the models, and anything abstract, and focus only on the absolute truth that we have access to - it's awareness of experience. All other bets are just that, guess work. We don't have a variety of options. Just the fact that we start off aware of the fact that we are experiential centers of some type. 

 

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

 

And here's where we (amicably) diverge, Josh.

 

Science acknowledges that in terms of our experience we have no absolute proof of anything outside of ourselves.  But it gets around that hurdle by not promising to deliver absolute proof of anything.  All of empirical science is tentative and provisional, not absolute.

 

Having done that science then works on the assumption that there is a reality that is external to our experiences.  Does that assumption work?  The answer is a resounding yes.  Science delivers astonishingly reliable results.  But if you want to doubt that because you cannot be sure of anything outside of your own experience, then beware!

 

That is the line consistently taken by the Christian Presuppositional apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL8LREmbDi0

 

He tried the brain-in-a-vat argument against Matt Dillahunty.  Didn't work!

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Josh,

 

You say that I need to open the perspective to what the philosophy entails.  Ok.  But there's a line that I have to cross before I'm prepared to do that.  I think of that line as my personal threshold of credulity.  The line is a divide between things that are supported by evidence and things that are not.  If there is no evidence for something, then why should I cross that line?

 

I'll illustrate what I mean.  Below is a mixed list of a dozen scientific theories, some supported by evidence and some not, religious beliefs, philosophies, superstitions and just woo-woo.  A horizontal line (my credulity threshold) divides them.  Above that line they are supported by evidence and below they are not.

 

Plate Tectonics

Thermonuclear Fusion

Quantum Mechanics

Evolution

Germ Theory

Genetics

 

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

 

Primary Consciousness

String Theory

Judaism

The Loch Ness Monster

Christianity

Santa Claus

Cold Fusion

 

 

So, my question is this Josh.  If there is no evidence to support any of the six listed below my line of credulity, why should I open up my perspective by lowering my credulity threshold?

 

Please note that the line I'm taking here (pun intended) is the same as I take when debating Christian apologists in the Den.  There's no evidence for Christianity, so it does not rise above my credulity threshold and so I do not believe it.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Above that line they are supported by evidence and below they are not

...

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

...

The Loch Ness Monster

 

 

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Josh,

 

You say that I need to open the perspective to what the philosophy entails.  Ok.  But there's a line that I have to cross before I'm prepared to do that.  I think of that line as my personal threshold of credulity.  The line is a divide between things that are supported by evidence and things that are not.  If there is no evidence for something, then why should I cross that line?

 

What I meant is that you set the philosophy up as something that it isn't. I only meant first get in order what the model itself is. Not anything about you believing it as true or any of that.

 

We have to start out with analyzing a model, and the model suggests that there is a reality out there beyond our own individual minds. You started with the assumption that the philosophy posits that nothing out there beyond our own personal mind exists, and then went into problems with that mentality. 

 

Sure, those are good problems, but they haven't anything to do with Analytic Idealism. Those are dualist problems, and panpsychic problems, and New Age problems. We have to narrow in on what this particular philosophy posits.

 

Just for sake of consideration, not belief. That was a point of confusion from the outset. 

 

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I'll illustrate what I mean.  Below is a mixed list of a dozen scientific theories, some supported by evidence and some not, religious beliefs, philosophies, superstitions and just woo-woo.  A horizontal line (my credulity threshold) divides them.  Above that line they are supported by evidence and below they are not.

 

Plate Tectonics

Thermonuclear Fusion

Quantum Mechanics

Evolution

Germ Theory

Genetics

 

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

 

Primary Consciousness

String Theory

Judaism

The Loch Ness Monster

Christianity

Santa Claus

Cold Fusion

 

This makes sense from the perspective of living with something like a situation where all observation happens within a user interface headset type of perceptive ability. The headset has constants. Natural Law. Firmness. Determinism. You can make predictions about what will be observed through the headset, and then set out to verify the predictions with supporting evidence, within the headset. 

 

Within the 4D space-time headset that Donald Hoffman refers to, all space-time based perception takes place. 

 

There is no argument against either BBT or Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

These EBR naturalist models stick to the accepted science of today. The issue is a metaphysical one. Which metaphysics has the more powerful explanatory power between materialist metaphysics and idealist metaphysics, is the question.

 

The standard model remains the same either way. The only difference is that instead of being stumped by the hard problem of consciousness, it isn't. Evolution, Geology, Physics, Cosmology all remain as is, but in addition they involve nature / existence as an EBR. 

 

There's no sense of choosing either Idealism or the Standard Model. That would be a false dichotomy from the perspective of understanding the model. They both exist as supporting metaphysics for the current Standard Model. 

 

12 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

So, my question is this Josh.  If there is no evidence to support any of the six listed below my line of credulity, why should I open up my perspective by lowering my credulity threshold?

 

Please note that the line I'm taking here (pun intended) is the same as I take when debating Christian apologists in the Den.  There's no evidence for Christianity, so it does not rise above my credulity threshold and so I do not believe it.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

It's hard to answer this question without first straightening out the misunderstandings that you led with before getting into the question above. You have to ask the right questions to get the right answers. 

 

That you should believe in anything presupposes something that really isn't true.

 

You don't have to believe in the standard model in order to contemplate it. So why would you suddenly have to believe in either 1) materialist metaphysics or 2) idealist metaphysics as supporting metaphysical models below the standard model? 

 

So, with belief not even a factor, just the contemplation of explanatory modeling, what sense does the rest of the question make?

 

There's no evidence for Christianity so you don't believe it. That's smart. But there's also no sense in believing the standard model as a "belief," despite the fact that it has tons of supporting evidence. Evidence or not, the BTT is well know by most atheists as not a "belief," situation, ever.

 

In fact, when the same christian apologists accuse any of us of "believing" or having "faith" in the standard model BTT, we actively correct them. Because it's wrong to think that belief should be applied to scientific models. There's consensus based on explanatory power. 

 

You see what's going on here? Below is the model itself, illustrated in terms of what an idealist metaphysics supporting the current Standard Model look like drawn out: 

 

Ontological primitive: The irreducible starting point for supporting the Standard Model. 

 

Spatially unbound field of core subjectivity (OP) > 

Dissociation Processes within the Spatially unbound Field > 

Decorated Permutations >

Geometric Shapes beyond Space-Time > 

*Space-Time*

Standard Model Cosmology / Physics > 

Evolution by Natural Selection > 

Genetics > 

Sociology > 

Political Science

 

Naturalist oriented metaphysics of Mind, is merely explanatory power that erases problems like qualia from quanta, why we're even experiencing awareness in the first place, what interconnects everything, what can explain all PSI issues via a Naturalist worldview. 

 

This is something that any christian apologists can endorse without leaving behind mainstream christianity as they endorse it. Because it's non-dual, and they are arguing for dualism. Consciousness breaks down a non-dual, ontological primitive level. They have to avoid that level, due to their dualistic religious "beliefs." 

 

There is genius involved in the actual positioning and arguing, and that is demonstrable. Just look at the model. It unifies primary Consciousness, which is an EBR, with the existing dominant worldview. All the christian apologists need to see is this model. Which is where a primary Consciousness argument has to lead. 

 

You've already seen what happens when they try and come at this from a dualistic position - they can never make it so 'simplest explanation.' By sheer order two things existing to only one thing existing, they are kept out the Occam's Razor position.

 

There's playing it safe and hugging to safe spaces. I understand that. But then there's also coming out of the shadows and engaging the game, taking risks, and pushing the limits of the known and knowable. In these debates when huddle in close to agnostic-atheism only, we're in a safe space. No positive claims = no ability to be refuted. But have to remain in the cave. You have to remain withdrawn and disengaged. 

 

I became incredibly bored and unchallenged with that, especially beyond 20 - 30 years atheist outside of the church. 

 

And I'm having much more fun challenging myself to engage the game and get involved in positive beliefs, exploring what my positive beliefs even are at this age, so far out from theism by three decades of life. And I've found that I myself, do have plenty of positive beliefs. And I have no good reason to be shy or withheld about having them. 

 

I don't believe that any of these models are static and unchangeable. Creation myths and cosmological theories are of the same psychological soil. Everyone who understands them knows that they aren't absolute. 

 

But then again, so what? 

 

I myself have no problem stepping out into a belief spotlight about science. I believe that we have enough evidence in science today to conclude that Evolution by Natural Selection has tuned us up for fitness-based perceptions, not in terms of directly perceiving absolute truth. This is an argument grounded in Cognitive Science, which, seems true enough of an argument. Our models literally never reach absolute truth, because they can't. They can only adapt to better explanations as they're adjusted along the way. This has the potential to go on forever. 

 

I believe that the idealist metaphysics has better explanatory power underlying the Standard Model than materialist metaphysics. I've seen enough of the discourse (the course on Analytic Idealism that I have posted as citation) to feel good about concluding on idealist metaphysics as preferred. Does believing it to be the better explanatory option mean that I can't change mind in the future? I don't see why it would. 

 

I've been undergoing mental transformations what I can feel happening inside. Very conscious, Hermetic oriented acts of personal transformation within. And it's far greater than anything I have experienced within organized religion. I was annoyed with someone just at breakfast this morning, and I thought to myself, inside, "Compassion!" 

 

One word. 

 

And I felt my inner core subjectivity change from annoyed to understanding the perspective of the "other." And peace come over me in the wake of a quick flare up of the "qualia" of mental frustration. I'm doing the very thing that I should have been taught to do as a young christian boy. It was the dualism that blocked out real life application of the suggested worldview. 

 

It was just a suggestion the dualist way, not a fundamental aspect of Reality. 

 

I can get the very things that I was missing in life as young adherent to christianity, through non-organized religion based philosophy and metaphysics. Married with logic, reason, and the accepted Standard Model. I do not have to live in self-contradiction - as a religionist or a materialist. 

 

I have another option. 

 

And by gollies, mate, I've taken it!!!!

 

Namaste!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

18 hours ago, 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. 

 

 

 

 

That's an interesting video. 

 

I dont know if any of the following has to do with anything but I like it, so there: 

 

https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Sobottka.pdf

A course in consciousness, sure to irritate a materialist as it integrates non-dual awareness with science! 

 

Headless.org is another site where you can do easy empirical testing over and over and over again until you decide that you have replicated it enough times to prove that not only are you the human being you've been told that you are by others, but that you are also the entire universe as well as the awareness in which the universe lives. There is no separation. 

 

https://headless.org/experiments/pointing.htm . How about that for science.  

 

Self-enquiry is the ultimate investigation into discovering that there is no you. 

 

The non-dual non-separable whole continues to play hide and seek with itself. We are viewers of a movie on a screen.... science and every other pursuit involves a very serious commitment to exploring what's on the screen. Then maybe someday you realize you are the movie and the screen and everything else. 

 

Love your neighbor as yourself....after all, they are yourself. lol

 

That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being -- I am that.

(Amritbindu Upanishad)

 

Discover all that you are not -- body, feelings thoughts, time, space, this or that -- nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. (Nisargadatta Maharaj)

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

What I meant is that you set the philosophy up as something that it isn't. I only meant first get in order what the model itself is. Not anything about you believing it as true or any of that.

 

Then what would be the point of considering it if it doesn't get me closer to the truth?

 

My point about the line representing my threshold of belief is that things above that line are demonstrably closer to the truth than those below - because they are supported by evidence.  That is why I will consider plate tectonics, but I won't consider Islam.  The first is worth my consideration, the second is not.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

We have to start out with analyzing a model, and the model suggests that there is a reality out there beyond our own individual minds. You started with the assumption that the philosophy posits that nothing out there beyond our own personal mind exists, and then went into problems with that mentality. 

 

Sure, those are good problems, but they haven't anything to do with Analytic Idealism. Those are dualist problems, and panpsychic problems, and New Age problems. We have to narrow in on what this particular philosophy posits.

 

Just for sake of consideration, not belief. That was a point of confusion from the outset. 

 

Thank you for clearing that up.  My bad.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

This makes sense from the perspective of living with something like a situation where all observation happens within a user interface headset type of perceptive ability. The headset has constants. Natural Law. Firmness. Determinism. You can make predictions about what will be observed through the headset, and then set out to verify the predictions with supporting evidence, within the headset. 

 

Within the 4D space-time headset that Donald Hoffman refers to, all space-time based perception takes place. 

 

There is no argument against either BBT or Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

These EBR naturalist models stick to the accepted science of today. The issue is a metaphysical one. Which metaphysics has the more powerful explanatory power between materialist metaphysics and idealist metaphysics, is the question.

 

Explanatory power on its own, unsupported by evidence, is where String Theory is at.  But show me something that has both explanatory and supporting evidence and then it will cross my threshold of credulity and I will give it due consideration.  As a sceptic, those are my terms.

 

The beauty of deep explanatory power on its own has taken many a theorist down a blind alley.  Blind, because evidence allied with explanatory power is the true measure of progress towards a better understanding of reality.

 

Alan Guth, the co-originator of inflation theory has said (and I paraphrase) that what inflationary theory predicts about what happens in other universes means nothing if what it predicts about this universe is not borne out by evidence in this universe.  And since we can never gain evidence of anything from other universes, inflation theory's explanatory power about them, for all of it's mathematical beauty... is worthless.  It has to work here first to be worth anything.  And we can only know if it works by evidence, not by the beauty of what it appears to explain.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The standard model remains the same either way. The only difference is that instead of being stumped by the hard problem of consciousness, it isn't. Evolution, Geology, Physics, Cosmology all remain as is, but in addition they involve nature / existence as an EBR. 

 

There's no sense of choosing either Idealism or the Standard Model. That would be a false dichotomy from the perspective of understanding the model. They both exist as supporting metaphysics for the current Standard Model. 

 

 

It's hard to answer this question without first straightening out the misunderstandings that you led with before getting into the question above. You have to ask the right questions to get the right answers. 

 

That you should believe in anything presupposes something that really isn't true.

 

You don't have to believe in the standard model in order to contemplate it. So why would you suddenly have to believe in either 1) materialist metaphysics or 2) idealist metaphysics as supporting metaphysical models below the standard model? 

 

But why would I need to contemplate the Standard Model when it is already above my credulity threshold?  I don't 'believe' it as I would believe in Christianity, because that is to compare apples with oranges.  Christianity requires religious belief without evidence.  Science asks for secular belief with evidence.

 

Which is no different from a secular belief in the existence of Paris as the capital of France.  There's no religious or supernatural component involved in believing that Paris exists, is real and can be visited.  For the record, I LOVED the Musee D'Orsay, but that's another story.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So, with belief not even a factor, just the contemplation of explanatory modeling, what sense does the rest of the question make?

 

There's no evidence for Christianity so you don't believe it. That's smart. But there's also no sense in believing the standard model as a "belief," despite the fact that it has tons of supporting evidence. Evidence or not, the BTT is well know by most atheists as not a "belief," situation, ever.

 

Perhaps we are disagreeing over the word belief?  As far as I can see, secular belief is something we all do, every day of our lives.  We follow what our senses tell us and live accordingly,  basing our decisions on the evidence they give us.  

 

Whatever our personal philosophies, we all live according to what our senses tell us and we treat that evidence as valid.  I'd hazard that those people who don't treat the evidence of their senses as valid tend to remove themselves quickly from the gene pool.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

In fact, when the same christian apologists accuse any of us of "believing" or having "faith" in the standard model BTT, we actively correct them. Because it's wrong to think that belief should be applied to scientific models. There's consensus based on explanatory power. 

 

You see what's going on here? Below is the model itself, illustrated in terms of what an idealist metaphysics supporting the current Standard Model look like drawn out: 

 

Ontological primitive: The irreducible starting point for supporting the Standard Model. 

 

Spatially unbound field of core subjectivity (OP) > 

Dissociation Processes within the Spatially unbound Field > 

Decorated Permutations >

Geometric Shapes beyond Space-Time > 

 

Right now I cannot see how the items listed above are any different the events that Alan Guth talked about, the ones happening in other universes that we can never access and never gain any evidence about.

 

Perhaps that is the difference between us Josh?  I'm interested in physics, not metaphysics.  My natural scepticism requires me to look sceptically upon things that can never be investigated and for which there will never be any evidence.  Which is, of course, exactly the same line I take with the imponderables that Christian apologists want us to accept as real.  God's omnipotence can never be investigated and the examples described in the bible do not qualify as evidence for it.

 

Whereas, the items listed below can be investigated and are supported by evidence.   

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

*Space-Time*

Standard Model Cosmology / Physics > 

Evolution by Natural Selection > 

Genetics > 

Sociology > 

Political Science

 

Naturalist oriented metaphysics of Mind, is merely explanatory power that erases problems like qualia from quanta, why we're even experiencing awareness in the first place, what interconnects everything, what can explain all PSI issues via a Naturalist worldview. 

 

Sorry, but this above sentence is gobbledegook to me.  I do not write this disparagingly, but as a true description of my inability to understand what you meant.  If you had assumed that I understood what...

 

Naturalist oriented metaphysics of Mind

qualia from quanta

PSI issues via a Naturalist worldview

 

...meant, then I'm sorry again, but I don't.  I don't DO metaphysics Josh. I'm not well engaged with philosophy.  I don't understand philosophical buzzwords, soundbites and acronyms.  If you want me to follow you then it's best that you assume nothing and keep things as simple as possible.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is something that any christian apologists can endorse without leaving behind mainstream christianity as they endorse it. Because it's non-dual, and they are arguing for dualism. Consciousness breaks down a non-dual, ontological primitive level. They have to avoid that level, due to their dualistic religious "beliefs." 

 

There is genius involved in the actual positioning and arguing, and that is demonstrable. Just look at the model. It unifies primary Consciousness, which is an EBR, with the existing dominant worldview. All the christian apologists need to see is this model. Which is where a primary Consciousness argument has to lead. 

 

You've already seen what happens when they try and come at this from a dualistic position - they can never make it so 'simplest explanation.' By sheer order two things existing to only one thing existing, they are kept out the Occam's Razor position.

 

And as you know from what I've written in this thread I am sympathetic towards the notion of Primary Consciousness because of its simplicity.  But that alone is not enough for me to go further.  If there is no evidence to confirm that this simplicity is actual and real, then I cannot go further.

 

As a sceptic I must be an equal opportunity sceptic, requiring that all philosophies, religions and ideas first meet my standard of evidence before I will go any further than being sympathetic towards them.  I'm sorry Josh, but I can't relax that personal rule.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

There's playing it safe and hugging to safe spaces. I understand that. But then there's also coming out of the shadows and engaging the game, taking risks, and pushing the limits of the known and knowable. In these debates when huddle in close to agnostic-atheism only, we're in a safe space. No positive claims = no ability to be refuted. But have to remain in the cave. You have to remain withdrawn and disengaged. 

 

I became incredibly bored and unchallenged with that, especially beyond 20 - 30 years atheist outside of the church. 

 

And I'm having much more fun challenging myself to engage the game and get involved in positive beliefs, exploring what my positive beliefs even are at this age, so far out from theism by three decades of life. And I've found that I myself, do have plenty of positive beliefs. And I have no good reason to be shy or withheld about having them. 

 

I don't believe that any of these models are static and unchangeable. Creation myths and cosmological theories are of the same psychological soil. Everyone who understands them knows that they aren't absolute. 

 

But then again, so what? 

 

I myself have no problem stepping out into a belief spotlight about science. I believe that we have enough evidence in science today to conclude that Evolution by Natural Selection has tuned us up for fitness-based perceptions, not in terms of directly perceiving absolute truth. This is an argument grounded in Cognitive Science, which, seems true enough of an argument. Our models literally never reach absolute truth, because they can't. They can only adapt to better explanations as they're adjusted along the way. This has the potential to go on forever. 

 

I believe that the idealist metaphysics has better explanatory power underlying the Standard Model than materialist metaphysics. I've seen enough of the discourse (the course on Analytic Idealism that I have posted as citation) to feel good about concluding on idealist metaphysics as preferred. Does believing it to be the better explanatory option mean that I can't change mind in the future? I don't see why it would. 

 

I've been undergoing mental transformations what I can feel happening inside. Very conscious, Hermetic oriented acts of personal transformation within. And it's far greater than anything I have experienced within organized religion. I was annoyed with someone just at breakfast this morning, and I thought to myself, inside, "Compassion!" 

 

One word. 

 

And I felt my inner core subjectivity change from annoyed to understanding the perspective of the "other." And peace come over me in the wake of a quick flare up of the "qualia" of mental frustration. I'm doing the very thing that I should have been taught to do as a young christian boy. It was the dualism that blocked out real life application of the suggested worldview. 

 

It was just a suggestion the dualist way, not a fundamental aspect of Reality. 

 

I can get the very things that I was missing in life as young adherent to christianity, through non-organized religion based philosophy and metaphysics. Married with logic, reason, and the accepted Standard Model. I do not have to live in self-contradiction - as a religionist or a materialist. 

 

I'm pleased for you Josh.  But for the reasons given above I don't think I can join you.

 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I have another option. 

 

And by gollies, mate, I've taken it!!!!

 

Namaste!!!!

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Perhaps this will be of interest to you, Josh?

 

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

 

Peter Woit is a mathematician and a hard-nosed sceptic.  He has taken an interest in Nima Arkani-Hamed's work on the  Amplituhedron.  Here are some links to his comments.

 

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6607   The Amplituhedron and Twistors

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11012  The Universe Speaks in Numbers

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10842 The Mathematical Question From Which All Answers Flow

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8433   This Week's Hype

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8002   Visions of Future Physics

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7303   Quantum Mechanics and Spacetime in the 21st Century

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7235   Various News

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6476   Latest on Amplitudes

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6260   Physicists Discover Geometry Underlying Particle Physics

 

Maybe when reading through all of these it would be instructive to look and see if there is any mention of hard evidence supporting the reality of the Amplituhedron?

 

I don't suggest this to be difficult or combative, but for you to peruse the comments of someone who is sceptical about it.  Sometimes it can help to look at something important to us from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't agree with us about it.  Their scepticism can act as the necessary checks and balances to our enthusiasm.  In case, in our enthusiasm, we fail to be properly sceptical.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

What is involved in being properly skeptical? 

 

What happens if we, in our enthusiasm, fail to be properly skeptical? Will we do some crazy thing like, oh, I dont know...go out and buy a surf board or something?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

"There's playing it safe and hugging to safe spaces. I understand that. But then there's also coming out of the shadows and engaging the game, taking risks, and pushing the limits of the known and knowable. In these debates when huddle in close to agnostic-atheism only, we're in a safe space. No positive claims = no ability to be refuted. But have to remain in the cave. You have to remain withdrawn and disengaged. 

 

I became incredibly bored and unchallenged with that, especially beyond 20 - 30 years atheist outside of the church. "

 

"And I'm having much more fun challenging myself to engage the game and get involved in positive beliefs, exploring what my positive beliefs even are at this age, so far out from theism by three decades of life. And I've found that I myself, do have plenty of positive beliefs. And I have no good reason to be shy or withheld about having them."

 

--

 

I dont particularly like an organization such as Christianity to decide for me whether or not I am going to enjoy some particular topic of thought. Nor am I going to allow the philosophy of materialism or scientism or (pseudo) skepticism to deny me spiritual wonderment and passionate investigation. Evidence is not my ball and chain. 

 

Enjoy your fun, Josh. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

What is involved in being properly skeptical? 

 

What happens if we, in our enthusiasm, fail to be properly skeptical? Will we do some crazy thing like, oh, I dont know...go out and buy a surf board or something?  

 

 

 

For me being properly sceptical means taking a consistent line with all claims that aren't supported by evidence.

That consistent line is to disbelieve all of these claims until they satisfy my criteria of supporting evidence.  It also means resisting calls to lower my threshold of belief by anyone who claims that I will receive benefits if I do so.  And here's where Josh will probably disagree with how I frame this argument.

 

John 20 : 30  & 31

 

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

These verses are a call for readers of John's gospel to lower their threshold of belief from what they can test and check for themselves to blindly accepting what is written there.  Readers are asked to take John's word as acceptable evidence, even though there is no way they could investigate if they are true.

 

If they do that, then they will receive everlasting life.  Believe without evidence and be rewarded.

 

Now Josh's exposition and call for me to consider his ideas is similar.  He can produce no evidence for some of the things he describes, but asks that I consider them.  He also describes the reward that I will receive for accepting them as he has.  In his case, a wider and deeper understanding of reality.

 

So, the pattern of Josh's request and John's request are very similar indeed.  Both ask me to consider things unsupported by evidence as true and real and both promise a reward for me if I do so.  But the price of doing either is that I lower my personal threshold of belief.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"Truth," though is somewhat of a relative term.  Is the Theory of Evolution true, based on its evidence?  Well, it's certainly factual; but does that qualify it as truth?  Or is it simply closer to factual truth than Creation, which, for many, holds spiritual truth?

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm definitely with Walt in having a threshold of evidence that must be met before I'm willing to accept, or even consider, a claim.  But I'm also with Josh on the idea that not all truth can necessarily be supported by science.  Between the two, and I think both gentlemen would agree, lies the application of logic and reason.  For me, without science or math, I can discount christianity based solely on the absence of logic in any of its many manifesmanifestations. . Applying to same reasoning to Buddhism, I can see that the 4 Noble Truths, the 5 Basic Precepts, and the 8 Points of the Middle Way certainly contain truth for me. 

 

As such, based upon my own experimentation, I have concluded that a limited approach to Buddhism is a beneficial prospective for my life.  I'm am content enough with only that, based in evidence.  But I have also, based on the deeper ponderings of meditation and enlightenment, become content with the idea of open-mindedly exploring other, more profound truths which may not entirely adhere to the scientific method.

 

I suppose that the key really does lie in one's contentment with where one is in life.  Where's the sense in having a spirituality, or worldview, if it doesn't lead one to a deeper contentment and happiness in life?  If evidence alone is enough to be content,  well, be content with it.  If something more is needed, wanted, or even just of passing interest,  then, hell, be content with that.

[walterpthefirst]

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"Truth," though is somewhat of a relative term.  Is the Theory of Evolution true, based on its evidence?  Well, it's certainly factual; but does that qualify it as truth?  Or is it simply closer to factual truth than Creation, which, for many, holds spiritual truth?

 

You are perceptive, Prof.

 

Truth be told (pun intended) I did baulk at using the word truth in my replies to Josh.  But eventually I caved in because I couldn't think of a better word to use.  Perhaps I should elaborate on what I mean by using that word?

 

As I see it, whatever the truth is, it cannot bypass factuality.  It has to equally true for all, just as facts should be equally true for all.  If truth is relative then it can be whatever anyone chooses it to be.  Then, rather than uniting mankind in something greater and better than itself truth becomes an agent of division, fracturing the human race because everyone has their own 'personal' truth.

 

The same outcome would also hold if there were no such thing as one ultimate truth.  Then we would all be free to find a relative and subjective truth that works just for us and nobody else.

 

So, how about this?  Assuming that the truth is something that we can aspire to but may or may not find, then I submit that discovering facts can help us discover what is false.   The facts themselves are not the truth but they help point the way to it.  As such, we get closer and closer to the truth by discarding what the facts have told us is false.

 

Whether we actually get there is an open question.  Who knows?  Maybe the whole point lies in what we do in the journey and reaching the destination is secondary?

 

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm definitely with Walt in having a threshold of evidence that must be met before I'm willing to accept, or even consider, a claim.  But I'm also with Josh on the idea that not all truth can necessarily be supported by science.  Between the two, and I think both gentlemen would agree, lies the application of logic and reason.  For me, without science or math, I can discount christianity based solely on the absence of logic in any of its many manifesmanifestations. . Applying to same reasoning to Buddhism, I can see that the 4 Noble Truths, the 5 Basic Precepts, and the 8 Points of the Middle Way certainly contain truth for me. 

 

This is interesting and once again makes me think of the collective vs the personal, the objective vs the subjective.

 

If people find a truth that works for them, this is surely something personal and subjective.  Whereas, if science finds something that applies to everyone, regardless of their choice (like gravity) that is surely collective and objective. 

 

I struggle to see how 'the truth' can be personal and subjective and not collective and objective.  Sure, people can find something that works for them.  But to call that something 'the truth' smacks of hubris and not humility to me.  On what grounds should I claim that the something that works for me actually applies to everyone, the entire universe and all of reality?  What right do I have to impose my personal and subjective truth on anyone but myself?

 

However...

 

If I can demonstrate with evidence that what I have discovered applies not just to me but to everyone else, that is another thing entirely.  I will have crossed my own line of demarcation, my own threshold of credulity.  That is a whole different ballgame. 

 

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

As such, based upon my own experimentation, I have concluded that a limited approach to Buddhism is a beneficial prospective for my life.  I'm am content enough with only that, based in evidence.  But I have also, based on the deeper ponderings of meditation and enlightenment, become content with the idea of open-mindedly exploring other, more profound truths which may not entirely adhere to the scientific method.

 

These truths (plural) are subjective and personal, collective and objective or something else?

 

Please feel free to adjust/alter/change my terminology if it suits your needs, Prof.

 

14 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I suppose that the key really does lie in one's contentment with where one is in life.  Where's the sense in having a spirituality, or worldview, if it doesn't lead one to a deeper contentment and happiness in life?  If evidence alone is enough to be content,  well, be content with it.  If something more is needed, wanted, or even just of passing interest,  then, hell, be content with that.

 

I am currently content with using evidence as a yardstick to measure what I will accept or reject.  But, I am also open to a better way if someone will show me.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

With that in mind, I can say that there is not enough evidence for the Amplituhedron for me to accept it as truth or reality, at the present moment.  But there is enough indirect evidence for me to accept it as a possibility.  And, at times, indirect evidence is all we have to work with.  You cannot "prove" that a white domestic turkey is white by amplifying the gene that codes for white feathers.  That gene doesn't exist.  Rather, the turkey has the genes for every other color and they all cancel each other out; resulting in a white turkey.  Point being, the only "evidence" for the turkey being white is indirect evidence (and flawed perceptions, of course).

 

But the Amplituhedron does not need to be sufficiently demonstrated for me to accept other aspects of the worldview Josh puts forth.  The ideas of oneness, compassion, lack of Self, and others dovetail nicely with the more demonstrable aspects of Buddhism.  If a worldview can be established that bridges the evidential with the spiritual, I'd certainly be among the first of its acolytes. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Sure, people can find something that works for them.  But to call that something 'the truth' smacks of hubris and not humility to me.  On what grounds should I claim that the something that works for me actually applies to everyone, the entire universe and all of reality?  What right do I have to impose my personal and subjective truth on anyone but myself?

 

True.  And this is why I am generally careful to distinguish The Truth from "my truth."  What works for me might not work for you.  It's very subjective and relative.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

These truths (plural) are subjective and personal, collective and objective or something else?

My repeated use of the word "my" would imply personal.  But if they can apply to others as well, so much the better.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

With that in mind, I can say that there is not enough evidence for the Amplituhedron for me to accept it as truth or reality, at the present moment.  But there is enough indirect evidence for me to accept it as a possibility.  And, at times, indirect evidence is all we have to work with.  You cannot "prove" that a white domestic turkey is white by amplifying the gene that codes for white feathers.  That gene doesn't exist.  Rather, the turkey has the genes for every other color and they all cancel each other out; resulting in a white turkey.  Point being, the only "evidence" for the turkey being white is indirect evidence (and flawed perceptions, of course).

 

But the Amplituhedron does not need to be sufficiently demonstrated for me to accept other aspects of the worldview Josh puts forth.  The ideas of oneness, compassion, lack of Self, and others dovetail nicely with the more demonstrable aspects of Buddhism.  If a worldview can be established that bridges the evidential with the spiritual, I'd certainly be among the first of its acolytes. 

 

Amen.

 

We remain sympathetic to Josh's thoughts but are not necessarily persuaded by them.  

We give them due consideration without necessarily embracing them.

We accept that they might point to something fundamental, but reserve judgment on the matter.

We can appreciate their benefits and strengths, while also being aware of their tentative nature.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Amen.

 

We remain sympathetic to Josh's thoughts but are not necessarily persuaded by them.  

We give them due consideration without necessarily embracing them.

We accept that they might point to something fundamental, but reserve judgment on the matter.

We can appreciate their benefits and strengths, while also being aware of their tentative nature.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

You will not be assimilated. 

 

 

[midniterider]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

For me being properly sceptical means taking a consistent line with all claims that aren't supported by evidence.

That consistent line is to disbelieve all of these claims until they satisfy my criteria of supporting evidence.  It also means resisting calls to lower my threshold of belief by anyone who claims that I will receive benefits if I do so.  And here's where Josh will probably disagree with how I frame this argument.

 

John 20 : 30  & 31

 

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 

31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

These verses are a call for readers of John's gospel to lower their threshold of belief from what they can test and check for themselves to blindly accepting what is written there.  Readers are asked to take John's word as acceptable evidence, even though there is no way they could investigate if they are true.

 

If they do that, then they will receive everlasting life.  Believe without evidence and be rewarded.

 

Now Josh's exposition and call for me to consider his ideas is similar.  He can produce no evidence for some of the things he describes, but asks that I consider them.  He also describes the reward that I will receive for accepting them as he has.  In his case, a wider and deeper understanding of reality.

 

So, the pattern of Josh's request and John's request are very similar indeed.  Both ask me to consider things unsupported by evidence as true and real and both promise a reward for me if I do so.  But the price of doing either is that I lower my personal threshold of belief.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Fair enough, sir. What are your thoughts on eastern sages who suggest the practice of self-inquiry as a means to enlightenment? They will say, "I'm not asking you to believe, just to find out for yourself through practice of self-inquiry or mindfulness.

 

And what are your thoughts of living enlightened masters like Eckhart Tolle or Adyashanti? Or long dead masters like Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi? Are they full of baloney? If someone lives a daily non-dual experience that most people in the general public cannot easily reproduce , is it legit? 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

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. 

 

Now I begin to see things more clearly, Josh.

 

The Hard Problem of Consciousness is generated by the assumption that the fundamental energies that make up reality are unconscious.  And this reductionist paradigm cannot successfully explain how consciousness emerges from unconsciousness.

 

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

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

 

So, because those fundamental energies cannot explain qualia from quanta, you've recategorized them.  Now, instead of assuming that they are unconscious you've assumed that they are conscious.  This then gives you what could be a viable mechanism for generating qualia from quanta. 

 

If the most basic substrate of reality is conscious and we, higher up the scale are conscious, there ought to be a connection between these things.  This connection ought to be consciousness.  So, there should be an unbroken of chain of consciousness between ALL levels of reality.

 

This assumption then neatly "solves" the Hard Problem of Consciousness by re-examining our basic assumptions and re-casting them in such a way as to make the Hard Problem go away. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

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. 

 

 

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. 

 

Ok, so you've "solved" the Hard Problem by recategorizing everything as being conscious.  If you've already done that by re-examining our basic assumptions, why not re-examine the assumption that absolute truth can be located?  Why not just assume that absolute truth can never be apprehended by human beings?

 

Doing that would be working with Occam's Razor, simplifying things by removing the need to find evidence that means something in terms of absolute truth.  Why not take this step if you've already taken a similar one?

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

 

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? 

 

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

 

Is there really a correspondence or are we just falling victim to Pareidolia here?

 

After all, if we point out to Christians that the face of Jesus that they claim to see in the clouds is just a construct generated by our brains, shouldn't we apply the same standard to ourselves?

 

There are many things in nature that appear similar to other things, but we need to be very wary of making spurious correlations.

 

https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 

As I see it there are at least two hurdles we need to clear before we can meaningfully say that neurones and the dark matter web are similar because of the underlying consciousness of reality itself.

 

First, we need to be absolutely ruthless with ourselves and eliminate pareidolia and confirmation bias from our own thinking.  And then we have to go further than simply pointing to a correlation.  Why?  Because correlation does not necessary imply causation.  This is another point we raise with Christian apologists when they try to claim that correlations they see between the bible and science are evidence that Christianity is true.

 

Again, we must apply the same standard that we apply to them to ourselves.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Josh,

 

You might have noticed that I wrote that you have "solved" the Hard Problem of Consciousness.  But I must to confess to grave doubts about that.  Which is why I enclosed the word solved in speech marks.  To be fair, you never claimed to have done so, but I've cast your thoughts about the Hard Problem using that word for a particular reason.

 

Because we have been using the expression, The Hard Problem of Consciousness.  A problem remains a problem until it is solved.  When a solution comes along and the problem can demonstrably be shown to no longer be problem then we usually say that it has been solved.  There was a problem but now there is a solution.

 

I hope you find my use of the word solve acceptable in this context.  Once again, I freely admit that you've never claimed to have solved the Hard Problem.  So, if I've gone too far and taken too much liberty here, please let me know and I'll remedy things asap.

 

Anyway, now to my grave doubts.

 

As you know I rate your model highly, but I still place it below the line of my credulity threshold.  For it to rise above that line it would have to do three things.

 

1.  It would have to be testable.

2. It would have to be falsifiable.

3. It would have to supportable by evidence.

 

This link explains why.  https://www.thoughtco.com/testable-hypothesis-explanation-and-examples-609100

 

Ok, what you've described in this thread is a metaphysical argument and not a scientific hypothesis.  But I'm a sceptic and those are terms.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

11 minutes ago, aik said:

https://www.science.org/content/article/simple-explanation-mysterious-space-stretching-dark-energy

 

I'm sorry aik but this link does not explain the point you were trying to make.

 

To know that you will have to describe to me your thinking, not someone else's.

 

Please try again.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

On 3/18/2023 at 7:31 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Now I begin to see things more clearly, Josh.

 

The Hard Problem of Consciousness is generated by the assumption that the fundamental energies that make up reality are unconscious.  And this reductionist paradigm cannot successfully explain how consciousness emerges from unconsciousness.

 

Yes, this is actually objective thinking aimed at the issue of a core subjective reality. You think objectively, so you get it upon explanation. 

 

On 3/18/2023 at 7:31 AM, walterpthefirst said:

If the most basic substrate of reality is conscious and we, higher up the scale are conscious, there ought to be a connection between these things.  This connection ought to be consciousness.  So, there should be an unbroken of chain of consciousness between ALL levels of reality.

 

This assumption then neatly "solves" the Hard Problem of Consciousness by re-examining our basic assumptions and re-casting them in such a way as to make the Hard Problem go away. 

 

The technical aspect of the AI Philosophy model specifically, is that Mind at Large has inner experience and so do all metabolizing life forms. Kastrup takes this position because in terms of what is demonstrable, we can see inner experience as accompanying metabolism. And metabolizing life forms are the dissociated altars (finite perception / experience) of MAL, which has to be viewed as the Mind of Nature itself. This contrasts supernaturalism.

 

The "things" that we see which are not metabolizing life forms are viewed as "appearances" that take place within Consciousness, but which are not in and of themselves conscious with inner experience. Like a stone, or any number of similar examples. This contrasts with panpsychism which posits that matter does have standalone existence and is also conscious with inner experience. It's dualistic. Matter + Consciousness.

 

Whereas in AIP all that exists is a Conscious continuum of sorts. One, not two. Matter is the appearance from our perspective of states of experience taking place within MAL. The instinctual nature of MAL is what's firm about it, and which produces the natural laws that are constant and steady. 

 

On 3/18/2023 at 7:31 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Ok, so you've "solved" the Hard Problem by recategorizing everything as being conscious.  If you've already done that by re-examining our basic assumptions, why not re-examine the assumption that absolute truth can be located?  Why not just assume that absolute truth can never be apprehended by human beings?

 

Doing that would be working with Occam's Razor, simplifying things by removing the need to find evidence that means something in terms of absolute truth.  Why not take this step if you've already taken a similar one?

 

This requires outlining what the absolute truth would be? If it's to know the Nature of Reality, then that has but one answer. It's going to be experiential. Which is why Consciousness and Awareness are terms used. If Consciousness is irreducible, then there is no beyond Consciousness.

 

The absolute truth is experience. And even if it were possible to exist outside of experience, outside of experience may as well not exist. It would be completely meaningless. It's the same problem of trying to get "experience" from "no-experience," just another way of looking at the same Hard Problem. 

 

It's literally "experience ex nihilo" the materialist way. 

 

Which I now see as too close to "creation ex nihilo" in dualistic religions. 

 

On 3/18/2023 at 7:44 AM, walterpthefirst said:

First, we need to be absolutely ruthless with ourselves and eliminate pareidolia and confirmation bias from our own thinking.  And then we have to go further than simply pointing to a correlation.  Why?  Because correlation does not necessary imply causation.  This is another point we raise with Christian apologists when they try to claim that correlations they see between the bible and science are evidence that Christianity is true.

 

Again, we must apply the same standard that we apply to them to ourselves.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

If that's all it was then that would be one thing. But it's as deep as all of this philosophy and hard problem combined. Not to mention ancient philosophy like Hermeticism that has always posited that reality works in terms of "correspondence."

 

Shortly before BAA died, he sent me an image of what looked a repeating pattern in space. Thinking that maybe it 'could' point towards evidence for infinite replication paradox. But that particular theory is out the window with materialism. But at the same time, that doesn't mean that replication (fractal reality) is out the window altogether. 

 

The idea that given an infinity of depth, things will necessarily have to repeat, can work out according to any number of models. Including the Idealist modeling.

 

The Hermetic principle of "correspondence" has always pointed at this. And esoteric lore has it coming from ancient Egypt and further back to the last Golden Age / Satya Yuga, which Robert and I always refer to and discuss. The Great Year and cycles of human awareness rising and falling over time. 

 

I understand the response to come back as Jesus on a piece of toast, but it's rather more than just that. From myriad perspectives and philosophies converging. It could be just seeing things which aren't there. And that has to be worked out. 

 

Another issue is musical notes, I've noticed. 7 whole notes repeat over and over again, on a continuum. It's 12 notes with all sharps and flats. You go up or down one octave but the notes are the same notes. This visual can help to look at how reality itself could repeat over and over again. 

 

Two sacred number sequences used the world over. Seven and twelve. Widespread usage in mythology. And just so happen to repeat essentially infinitely. 

 

The Hermetic philosophy says that an understanding of this plane equals and understanding of all planes, because existence is like a repeating continuum. Like the musical notes are. If I understand A,B,C,D,E,F,G on this plane, then I understand the same notes on every possible plane of its repetition. 

 

Just for fun, look at that image of the universe at largest scale. Where is the earth in that image? Obviously, it's not visible or even detectable. Wouldn't that be something if we could enlarge the image of our own neural network system to see what's in there in the lighted sections? Could we zoom in enough to see habitable looking planets and stars down in there? Corresponding to what we see looking out at deep space. 

 

That would make one hell of a sci-fi theme at the minimum. I'm a little imaginative after watching the new "Ant Man" movie about 'inner and outer realms of habitation'....

 

On 3/18/2023 at 8:14 AM, walterpthefirst said:

I hope you find my use of the word solve acceptable in this context.  Once again, I freely admit that you've never claimed to have solved the Hard Problem.  So, if I've gone too far and taken too much liberty here, please let me know and I'll remedy things asap.

 

Anyway, now to my grave doubts.

 

As you know I rate your model highly, but I still place it below the line of my credulity threshold.  For it to rise above that line it would have to do three things.

 

1.  It would have to be testable.

2. It would have to be falsifiable.

3. It would have to supportable by evidence.

 

This link explains why.  https://www.thoughtco.com/testable-hypothesis-explanation-and-examples-609100

 

Ok, what you've described in this thread is a metaphysical argument and not a scientific hypothesis.  But I'm a sceptic and those are terms.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Yeah, I get the drift of what you meant by solved. 

 

I was just talking to a guy on an Idealist group who does college lecturing. He wants to move forward with a lot of this primary Consciousness modeling and figure out how to get it to testability. I told him to count me in and I support the effort. He wants to understand how this metaphysical core model will translate through the whole of accepted standard model categories. And get more into the details of how primary Consciousness impacts accepted science. 

 

That's something that we may be able to conceive of with more people contributing to the brain storming. He wants tests. 

 

Donald Hoffman's work ties into prediction of scattering amplitudes. I've added a video below. Right now several people in the Idealist community are reviewing the same video. Same time stamp, but reviewing the whole interview and it's content. 

 

18:00 - 40:00 really sets the stage for explaining the above.