walterpthefirst Posted March 19, 2023 Share Posted March 19, 2023 20 hours ago, Joshpantera said: Yes, this is actually objective thinking aimed at the issue of a core subjective reality. You think objectively, so you get it upon explanation. 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. Ok, I can see that. This doesn't signal my agreement, but I see what is meant. 20 hours ago, Joshpantera said: 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. I see this too and I'm sufficiently open minded to not dismiss this out of hand. 20 hours ago, Joshpantera said: 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. Again, I can appreciate what is meant here. There are umpteen aspects of physical reality that we are totally unaware of, which science has brought to our attention. I'm currently unaware of the billions of neutrinos streaming through my body tight now. But my lack of awareness doesn't mean that this isn't happening. 20 hours ago, Joshpantera said: 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. Now this I find a step too far, Josh. So I'm glad that you've begun your second sentence with an 'if'. The absolute truth could be the Nature of Reality. However, since this is such a big question we should proceed with extreme caution and extreme rigor. It might seem obvious that the absolute truth must be the Nature of Reality, but surely it is better to discover what it really is through careful and deliberately measured steps, rather than going with what seems obvious to us? If nothing else, the self discipline that is required to rigorously and stringently test everything that we do will be good for us. 20 hours ago, Joshpantera said: 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. Ah yes, but what have we just agreed upon? We have agreed that matter could just be an 'appearance' to us and also that there are many aspects of the reality that are totally beyond our perception. Like neutrinos. Therefore, in my opinion its premature to declare that absolute truth is experience. It also premature to declare existence outside of experience would be completely meaningless. The passage of billions of neutrinos through our bodies every second would be completely meaningless to most of the human race for most of history. But they weren't stupid. Their horizons were just more limited than ours in terms of their thinking. Experientially, a neolithic human and a 21st century are just as unaware of neutrinos as each other. The only difference being that the modern person can think about reality in new and different ways to the ancient person. The point I'm trying to make here Josh is this. That which is meaningless to us now might not be meaningless in the future. Therefore, we will be presumptuous and premature if we declare that certain things are so. We should always qualify our statements, declaring that they might be so or that our thinking leads us to believe that they are so. In fact, in the absence of evidence and the absence of testability we should be doubly cautious! 20 hours ago, Joshpantera said: It's literally "experience ex nihilo" the materialist way. Which I now see as too close to "creation ex nihilo" in dualistic religions. 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. I know something about the infinite replication paradox. If the universe is truly infinite in size and the number of possible ways matter and energy can arrange themselves is finite, then matter and energy will repeat their arrangements an infinite number of times. But I don't quite understand why that theory (it's actually a prediction) is out of the window with materialism. Sure, it's a strictly materialist model of reality. But what we are talking about here is mathematics. Can you please explain why there's a problem here? 20 hours ago, Joshpantera said: 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. We need to be very careful of seeing patterns in nature, the existence of which can't be tested, Josh. Seeing that there are common denominators in the thinking of different cultures is just such an example. Does that pattern really exist or are we seeing something because we are imposing our preconceived notions, confirmation bias or plain wishful thinking on to reality? This is an example of what I mean. https://www.theoracleslibrary.com/2015/01/08/mysterium-cosmographicum-johannes-kepler/ Kepler imposed his thinking on the solar system, believing that the planets all orbited the Sun in perfect circles. He thought he saw a beautiful geometric pattern in the spacing of their orbits. One that had strong correspondences with Platonic philosophy, mathematics, geometry and musical notation. He posited the following. Planetary Orbit Circumscribed Platonic Solid Mercury Icosahedron Venus Octahedron Earth Dodecahedron Mars Tetrahedron Jupiter Cube The image in the linked page shows a 3-d model made of brass and Perspex. Each brass hemisphere represents a planetary orbit and contained within each is a 3-d Platonic Solid. But, when he tested his model against reality, by carefully measuring how the planets moved across the sky he found out that he was wrong. Reality did not match up with his beautiful ideas. His model required perfectly circular orbits so that the all of the corners of each Platonic solid touched them. But Kepler found that the planets all orbit in ellipses and not in circles. His model was wrong! And he was only able to find that out because he could test his model. This is the fatal problem for all untestable models of reality. We can never really know if they are true or false - leaving us to judge them on other, less rigorous criteria. Like apparent correspondences and correlations. And I will never accept any model of reality that cannot be tested to see if it is true or false. 20 hours ago, Joshpantera said: 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'.... 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. So, could you please apply yourself to what I see as the critical issue here, Josh. Finding correspondences and correlations is fine. Formulating models that are logical and internally consistent is fine. But the acid test is the testability of the model against reality. If it is not falsifiable by evidence, then that's not good enough for me. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted March 21, 2023 Share Posted March 21, 2023 Science-lujah, Science-lujah..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 Josh, I have some news. Tonight I attended a lecture at our local astronomical club given by Professor Nigel Watson. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/physics/watson-nigel.aspx He's the lead British scientist at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva. After his fascinating talk there was a Q & A session. I asked if the Baryon Multiplet (shown above) was a true depiction of reality or was the shape that resulted from how the information was displayed. He said that it was the latter. There is no actual tetrahedron-like arrangement of quark masses in the real world. But since humans are very good at spotting patterns, these kind of shapes are preferred because they can lead to insights that columns of numbers might not. He went on to say that if the triple Charm Omega ++ quark hadn't yet been detected, the absence of the tetrahedron's apex would point to its existence. Scientists could then tune their search for something of that particular mass, spin and energy. So I'm sorry Josh, but my idea that these shapes indicated something fundamental about reality was wrong. I was doing exactly what I've cautioned in this thread. I was reading too much significance into a pattern and believed that it was telling me something new about reality. Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted March 22, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 22, 2023 On 3/19/2023 at 1:58 PM, walterpthefirst said: Now this I find a step too far, Josh. So I'm glad that you've begun your second sentence with an 'if'. The absolute truth could be the Nature of Reality. However, since this is such a big question we should proceed with extreme caution and extreme rigor. It might seem obvious that the absolute truth must be the Nature of Reality, but surely it is better to discover what it really is through careful and deliberately measured steps, rather than going with what seems obvious to us? If nothing else, the self discipline that is required to rigorously and stringently test everything that we do will be good for us. This is good, I'll take a try. 1) We have awareness of experience as our starting point. As to what we're experiencing, it could be anything. All we know in terms of an absolute truth is that experience is happening. 2) It looks as though separately existing objects which are not visibly interconnected exist within a vast "space." Centuries of science have shown us that evolution by natural selection doesn't work towards seeing the truth, it works toward fitness. And in cognitive science (the video I cited in my last post) it's well known that we do not perceive reality "out there" as it actually is. Nobel prize for non-locality has gone out. Entangled particles. Particle-wave duality are all game changers towards the perception of separate unconnected things existing within a void space. 3) The Hard Problem of Consciousness enters the arena behind a lot of science that points to Reality being more interconnected than it appears by taking a face value approach. The separate particles in space theory presents no explanation for the one certainty we have in the absolute sense. The interconnected Idealist metaphysics flow through without a break in the explanatory model. And gels with what science has been steadily discovering about reality as not what it appears to be. 4) I have no better reason to reach back towards materialist metaphysics after seeing its futility, then it would be to try and return to christinity after learning everything I have about Genesis and the non-literal content of the Bible. Once I know it's suspect, the gigs up. In my thinking, truth is out ahead not behind us at this point in time. Both dualistic religion and materialist metaphysics are basically 'dead men walking' from this perspective. Which wasn't too surprising when I realized this more fully. On 3/19/2023 at 1:58 PM, walterpthefirst said: Ah yes, but what have we just agreed upon? We have agreed that matter could just be an 'appearance' to us and also that there are many aspects of the reality that are totally beyond our perception. Like neutrinos. Therefore, in my opinion its premature to declare that absolute truth is experience. It also premature to declare existence outside of experience would be completely meaningless. Did you understand the models I've outlined? I've added a new video that goes straight into the evidence and the maths based theory of DH. At this point you should response to the video itself with time stamp references to what you're responding to. Our perception through mathematics goes all the way down to below "space-time." Not just down to neutrinos within "space-time." All the way past neutrinos and quantum foam, deeper in than "space-time" itself, which then opens up to static geometric shapes below the level Quantum Theory itself. Past all of that. Decorated Permutations are used to predict scattering amplitudes at the Large hadron Collider. All of this outlined the video I cited in my last post. On the Consciousness models, none of this exists outside of Consciousness. What Donald Hoffman as done is added mathematically precise "Conscious Agents" below the level of "Decorated Permutations," for the purpose of 'predicting scattering amplitudes' in space-time. The issue of perception in general versus the perception of a specific dissociated alter of Mind at Large, needs some attention. The theory calls for Mind at Large, a field of core subjectivity with excitation of the field, to have its own inner experience. That inner experience of MAL is the reason behind why we have any experience happening to begin with. And the inner experience of MAL is the experience of being everything all at once, the omnipresent experience. While our experience is of being a finite life form looking out from a point of center. Diamond Shaped mathematical constructs like the Amplituhedron, Neutrinos that no one has every laid eyes on (Electron is the furthest image we've literally seen) and all particles of matter are appearances in MAL. None of it has any stand-alone existence. It's all interconnected. Ultimately, it's all just the spatially unbound field of core subjectivity which is "inner experience." The image here is of an "Experiential Based Reality." Through and though. Nothing separate, no material stand-alone existence, in other words, face value perceptions of separately existing "things" in space have been pretty much set aside due to science having already figured out that that isn't what's going on. What is going on is "raw experience" of reality that can't be reduced to the dual existence of separately existing objects in a void space. On 3/19/2023 at 1:58 PM, walterpthefirst said: The point I'm trying to make here Josh is this. That which is meaningless to us now might not be meaningless in the future. Therefore, we will be presumptuous and premature if we declare that certain things are so. We should always qualify our statements, declaring that they might be so or that our thinking leads us to believe that they are so. In fact, in the absence of evidence and the absence of testability we should be doubly cautious! That's the blind spot again. The evidence has always been right under everyone's noses, more to the point, right between everyone's ears! I've set out on an evidence-based analysis starting with only absolute truth we have to work with. The evidence started at #1 and ran to conclusions based on the evidence by #4. Whether past, present, or future, the evidence points to an eternal (unchanging) explanation. The same today, tomorrow, or 5 billion years from now. Religion and materialistic science which was born out of and broke away from same religion, are behind us. Ahead is new territory. And many folks will be going down with the ships due to not being able to see things right in front of their own noses. Both ships, sinking. Taking on more and more water every year. I'm off the ships looking back as they take on water. This will all become more evident with time. It's difficult to communicate to these christians here that their worldview is long dead. But it is. We know it is. They just can't see it. We try to show them. We jump through hoops trying to show them at times, but they just aren't open to seeing it. At least with materialistic science, there is at least an awareness of the possibility that it could be wrong. That these evidences that do exist could be revealing to us that a paradigm shift is underway. It's not out of the question like it is for believer theists. We have people coming into the idealist groups pretty regularly. Most are people who are crossing over from the materialist worldview. Because that worldview does allow that it could be completely wrong, unlike religion. On 3/19/2023 at 1:58 PM, walterpthefirst said: I know something about the infinite replication paradox. If the universe is truly infinite in size and the number of possible ways matter and energy can arrange themselves is finite, then matter and energy will repeat their arrangements an infinite number of times. But I don't quite understand why that theory (it's actually a prediction) is out of the window with materialism. Sure, it's a strictly materialist model of reality. But what we are talking about here is mathematics. Can you please explain why there's a problem here? Matter having no stand-alone existence. It wouldn't go down as the materialist model has it. But like I said, it could replicate in terms of replicating "appearances" within a spatially unbound field. That's what I was looking at with the images of the universe at large scale. Fractals repeat in that way too. On the premise that existence is experiential throughout, then I would suspect that worlds of experience like we're experiencing right now are a repeating process that allows finite experiential states to exist continuously. I was going over the BB from the idealist perspective. What we see as the BB would be the beginning of an experiential based growth experience of Mind at Large. What we get in the model is an instinctual / phenomenal based Mind. Primal inner experience. Which extends to metabolizing life forms which are little finite perceiving versions of the infinite MAL. Instinctual, phenomenal Consciousness runs through Nature and the animal kingdoms. Becoming meta-cognitive at some point. From the outset, it wasn't metacognitive. This separates it from the usual "God" myths of a metacognitive Mind greater than our own. If anything, a greater metacognitive mind would be ahead of us as a type of outcome of the process of starting out primal and becoming advanced through collective meta consciousness arising and then merging into a type of meta conscious collective Whole. On 3/19/2023 at 1:58 PM, walterpthefirst said: We need to be very careful of seeing patterns in nature, the existence of which can't be tested, Josh. Seeing that there are common denominators in the thinking of different cultures is just such an example. Does that pattern really exist or are we seeing something because we are imposing our preconceived notions, confirmation bias or plain wishful thinking on to reality? We need to be very carefully about a great many things that perception has to offer! As I've explained in depth so far. In the first place, we have to understand that we're looking at "representations" and not the things in themselves. That there couldn't very well be separate objects wizzing around through a void space. That leads to dead ends. But it's something. We're looking at something when looking out at the external dynamics of motion in the universe. This theory posits that we're looking at representations of inner core subjective experiences taking place within MAL. Our representations are of a sun, planets, moons, debris, supernova's, quasars, galactic structures, and these neural network looking connections between it all that we can now see as more representations than we could see previously. On 3/19/2023 at 1:58 PM, walterpthefirst said: But Kepler found that the planets all orbit in ellipses and not in circles. His model was wrong! And he was only able to find that out because he could test his model. This is the fatal problem for all untestable models of reality. We can never really know if they are true or false - leaving us to judge them on other, less rigorous criteria. Like apparent correspondences and correlations. And I will never accept any model of reality that cannot be tested to see if it is true or false. No one physically looked up and saw the orbits at face value. They calculated them. Wrong at first, then narrowed down on a better matching calculation. What were they calculating is what matters here. And that would be calculating representations to see which calculation more closely corresponds to what is being observed as a representation. Donald Hoffan is using CA's to make predictions about scattering amplitudes, which is discussed in the video. If this works successfully then it would make him something like todays Kepler in a certain sense. Having dispelled previously incorrect assumptions in science. Which I'm sure most people who are true to science and not dogma's within science, would applaud if carried out successfully. Again, that would mark a Kepler type of moment in science. On 3/19/2023 at 1:58 PM, walterpthefirst said: So, could you please apply yourself to what I see as the critical issue here, Josh. Finding correspondences and correlations is fine. Formulating models that are logical and internally consistent is fine. But the acid test is the testability of the model against reality. If it is not falsifiable by evidence, then that's not good enough for me. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability Thank you, Walter. Again, I cited a video in my last post that I'm pretty sure you haven't watched, since the content of the video has to do with the demands for evidence and how he plans to provide evidence where materialism has failed do to date. That's an important part of understanding the overall issue. He's going after the evidence that we currently lack with the materialist metaphysical assumptions. Evidence in the form of mathematically precise ways of explaining the questions about "qualia." We're into a completely new era of this focus now. It's coming to mathematically precise science, not just philosophy and metaphysics. Which makes it all the more interesting. 1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said: He went on to say that if the triple Charm Omega ++ quark hadn't yet been detected, the absence of the tetrahedron's apex would point to its existence. Scientists could then tune their search for something of that particular mass, spin and energy. So I'm sorry Josh, but my idea that these shapes indicated something fundamental about reality was wrong. I was doing exactly what I've cautioned in this thread. I was reading too much significance into a pattern and believed that it was telling me something new about reality. Thank you, Walter. Fundamental reality has to go beyond shapes and appearances, which can only be representations - whether through eye perception or mathematically constructed. Images of any type can never be fundamental, in other words. This is why the field of core subjectivity with excitation of the field is well below any form or image that would appear as a representation within the spatially unbound field. Below the amplituhedron, quantum foam, neutrinos, electrons, atoms, the world, solar system, galaxy, and universe. If you do go back and watch the video I linked, it explains how they know that space-time is not fundamental. And then go into how that impacts Quantum Theory which is attached to space-time, and neither can be fundamental. This is Kepler type change happening in our lifetime. I'm thinking that a lot of older generations will never be able to understand this and will likely cling on to old ways right to the grave. But we already know that about science as it "advances one funeral at a time." Here's an even newer interview on the issue about his new paper. Right away they go into the theory itself and all of the evidence that they do have: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 I'm sorry Josh, but I think you are tripping yourself up here. Our perception through mathematics goes all the way down to below "space-time." Not just down to neutrinos within "space-time." All the way past neutrinos and quantum foam, deeper in than "space-time" itself, which then opens up to static geometric shapes below the level Quantum Theory itself. Past all of that. Decorated Permutations are used to predict scattering amplitudes at the Large hadron Collider. All of this outlined the video I cited in my last post. We never perceive anything through mathematics alone. Mathematics alone tells us nothing about reality. That was why the Hawking-Penrose Singularity theory, so beloved of William Lane Craig, failed to deliver what it mathematically promised. It promised, or rather predicted on the basis of mathematics alone, that the universe should have begun with a singularity. But that theory was falsified, not on the basis of any mathematical problem inherent to it, but on the basis of real-world evidence. In that particular case, a positive cosmological constant, which was detected in 1998. But you already know all about how this theory failed. And why. It was the 'e' word that killed it. Evidence. Mathematics must be tested against reality. If it is not or cannot be then what it points to is unfalsifiable. And nothing that is unfalsifiable can rightly be labelled as perception. It is theory. It is evidence-free theory. It is theory awaiting confirmation or refutation by evidence. It has the same standing as the evidence-free claims made by Christian apologists. And I should also point out that when a Christian apologist points me to a video, claiming that it is scientific evidence supporting their claim I will ask them for a link to the science paper where said evidence was peer-reviewed and published. So, to be consistent, I'm going to have to take the same line with you Josh. Please note that there's nothing personal in this and I'm not being deliberately awkward. It's just that I have to take a consistent stance for all claims, no matter who makes them. I hope you can understand and appreciate that. To further illustrate the point, consider the Higgs boson. If this discussion were taking place in 2011, then that particle would be a theoretical possibility, currently unsupported by evidence. So, if you were proposing that it was real, on the basis of mathematics alone, I would have to disagree with you. Mathematics alone does not evidence make. But this is 2023 and now there is more than just mathematics to support the existence of the Higgs boson. There is evidence. Evidence derived from testing and experiment. It was evidence that decided that the Higgs Field theory was confirmed and not falsified. That was and is and always will the acid test of the truth that mathematics may or may not be pointing us to. Ok Josh, I'm now going to watch and listen to the video. Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 Ok Josh, I made it as far 4:57 before seeing enough. Hoffman begins talking about a simulation and De Chardin's Omega Point. A simulation is a mathematical representation of reality and not reality itself. The Omega Point is a supposition and not reality itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point So Hoffman starts by talking about a simulation of a supposition. In no way can this simulation be likened to reality without it first being tested. Nor can De Chardin's supposition be likened to reality without it being tested too. So the act of simulating a supposition in no way justifies calling either 'real'. One is an abstract mathematical model and the other is an abstract philosophical supposition. They remain abstract until they are tested and shown to be real by evidence. At 3:10 Hoffman talks about a theory of consciousness that is mathematically precise. That's fine, but a theory is not reality until it is tested and shown to be real by evidence. If we relax that rule, then chaos ensues. Then, anything which is mathematically precise, like String Theory, becomes real, regardless of the lack of evidence for it. At 3:50 Hoffman claimed that conscious agents are using space time as a kind of user interface. If a Christian apologist claimed that each bible is a user interface between them and god, we'd ask them to back up their claim with evidence, wouldn't we? So, to be consistent, I have to ask, does Hoffman have evidence of these conscious agents are doing that or is he describing something that is theoretical? Something that, like String theory, sounds persuasive, but is not supported by an atom of evidence? After that I stopped watching and listening and Googled Hoffman's paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367000099_Fusions_of_Consciousness Please look at the abstract, Josh. What are conscious experiences? Can they combine to form new experiences? What are conscious subjects? Can they combine to form new subjects? Most attempts to answer these questions assume that spacetime, and some of its particles, are fundamental. However, physicists tell us that spacetime cannot be fundamental. Spacetime, they say, is doomed. We heed the physicists, and drop the assumption that spacetime is fundamental. We assume instead that subjects and experiences are entities beyond spacetime, not within spacetime. We make this precise in a mathematical theory of conscious agents, whose dynamics are described by Markov chains. We show how (1) agents combine into more complex agents, (2) agents fuse into simpler agents, and (3) qualia fuse to create new qualia. The possible dynamics of n agents form an n(n−1)-dimensional polytope with nn vertices—the Markov polytopeMn. The total fusions of n agents and qualia form an (n−1)-dimensional simplex—the fusion simplexFn. To project the Markovian dynamics of conscious agents onto scattering processes in spacetime, we define a new map from Markov chains to decorated permutations. Such permutations—along with helicities, or masses and spins—invariantly encode all physical information used to compute scattering amplitudes. We propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents. This is a mathematical theory. It tells us nothing about reality because all purely mathematical theories tell us nothing about reality. To do that they must first be tested and they must produce evidence. Where there is no testing (or no possibility of testing) and where there is no evidence there is only an untested and possibly unfalsifiable theory. I think you need to be very, very careful here Josh, especially when claiming that we can perceive through mathematics. We can visualize and imagine through mathematics, but these visualizations and imaginings are not true perceptions of reality. Mathematics is a language that allows us to understand reality but it is not the reality itself. So, to mistake the language about reality for the reality itself is, in my opinion, a huge mistake and one that you need to be very wary of. I hope that you are put off by this post Josh. I have to take a consistent line with all claims and equally sceptical of all of them, regardless of who makes them. Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Krowb ◊ Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said: opens up to static geometric shapes below the level Quantum Theory itself. I'll take Plato's theory of forms for $200 Alex. This is just a hit and run, but I can't help myself being a bit cheeky this morning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 I've set out on an evidence-based analysis starting with only absolute truth we have to work with. The evidence started at #1 and ran to conclusions based on the evidence by #4. Whether past, present, or future, the evidence points to an eternal (unchanging) explanation. The same today, tomorrow, or 5 billion years from now. I disagree. I find your evidence-based analysis long on claims and short on evidence. 1) We have awareness of experience as our starting point. As to what we're experiencing, it could be anything. All we know in terms of an absolute truth is that experience is happening. 2) It looks as though separately existing objects which are not visibly interconnected exist within a vast "space." Centuries of science have shown us that evolution by natural selection doesn't work towards seeing the truth, it works toward fitness. And in cognitive science (the video I cited in my last post) it's well known that we do not perceive reality "out there" as it actually is. Nobel prize for non-locality has gone out. Entangled particles. Particle-wave duality are all game changers towards the perception of separate unconnected things existing within a void space. Please cite your sources for these claims, Josh. And they must be properly peer-reviewed science papers that are not just mathematics, but which also contain empirical evidence. 3) The Hard Problem of Consciousness enters the arena behind a lot of science that points to Reality being more interconnected than it appears by taking a face value approach. The separate particles in space theory presents no explanation for the one certainty we have in the absolute sense. The interconnected Idealist metaphysics flow through without a break in the explanatory model. And gels with what science has been steadily discovering about reality as not what it appears to be. Please do the same again here. 4) I have no better reason to reach back towards materialist metaphysics after seeing its futility, then it would be to try and return to christinity after learning everything I have about Genesis and the non-literal content of the Bible. Once I know it's suspect, the gigs up. In my thinking, truth is out ahead not behind us at this point in time. Both dualistic religion and materialist metaphysics are basically 'dead men walking' from this perspective. Which wasn't too surprising when I realized this more fully. Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted March 22, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 22, 2023 11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: I'm sorry Josh, but I think you are tripping yourself up here. Our perception through mathematics goes all the way down to below "space-time." Not just down to neutrinos within "space-time." All the way past neutrinos and quantum foam, deeper in than "space-time" itself, which then opens up to static geometric shapes below the level Quantum Theory itself. Past all of that. Decorated Permutations are used to predict scattering amplitudes at the Large hadron Collider. All of this outlined the video I cited in my last post. We never perceive anything through mathematics alone. Mathematics alone tells us nothing about reality. What I'm saying is that we haven't directly perceived anything that small yet. Everything is indirect. Math is used to go penetrate into the sub-atomic realm. Such as String Theory and similar. And the high energy physics that I've referencing in context which have found the Amplituhedron and Decorated Permutations, with math. Not direct perception. There's a photograph going around of an electron. I think that's the smallest we've ever directly perceived without using math. But even then, using our eyes never works out to direct perception either. So, it doesn't matter too much in terms of what we've laid eyes on or not. 11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: Mathematics must be tested against reality. If it is not or cannot be then what it points to is unfalsifiable. And nothing that is unfalsifiable can rightly be labelled as perception. It is theory. It is evidence-free theory. It is theory awaiting confirmation or refutation by evidence. It has the same standing as the evidence-free claims made by Christian apologists. Which is why they use DP's to predict scattering amplitudes at large hadron collider, right? To take mathematically precise predictions and then observe the results indirectly through computers. 11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: And I should also point out that when a Christian apologist points me to a video, claiming that it is scientific evidence supporting their claim I will ask them for a link to the science paper where said evidence was peer-reviewed and published. That's cited in the video. 10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: So, to be consistent, I have to ask, does Hoffman have evidence of these conscious agents are doing that or is he describing something that is theoretical? Something that, like String theory, sounds persuasive, but is not supported by an atom of evidence? After that I stopped watching and listening and Googled Hoffman's paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367000099_Fusions_of_Consciousness Please look at the abstract, Josh. What are conscious experiences? Can they combine to form new experiences? What are conscious subjects? Can they combine to form new subjects? Most attempts to answer these questions assume that spacetime, and some of its particles, are fundamental. However, physicists tell us that spacetime cannot be fundamental. Spacetime, they say, is doomed. We heed the physicists, and drop the assumption that spacetime is fundamental. We assume instead that subjects and experiences are entities beyond spacetime, not within spacetime. We make this precise in a mathematical theory of conscious agents, whose dynamics are described by Markov chains. We show how (1) agents combine into more complex agents, (2) agents fuse into simpler agents, and (3) qualia fuse to create new qualia. The possible dynamics of n agents form an n(n−1)-dimensional polytope with nn vertices—the Markov polytopeMn. The total fusions of n agents and qualia form an (n−1)-dimensional simplex—the fusion simplexFn. To project the Markovian dynamics of conscious agents onto scattering processes in spacetime, we define a new map from Markov chains to decorated permutations. Such permutations—along with helicities, or masses and spins—invariantly encode all physical information used to compute scattering amplitudes. We propose that spacetime and scattering processes are a data structure that codes for interactions of conscious agents: a particle in spacetime is a projection of the Markovian dynamics of a communicating class of conscious agents. I feel like we're running around in circles about math's. If I get away from math (personally I'll go all the way through this with zero math and philosophy only) you want the math. If I show you the math, you start acting like math doesn't mean anything. What are we doing? Math's or no Math's? I'm happy to toss all Math in trash bin and take a completely different route towards the Nature of Reality. I don't know if you realize this or not, but Hoffman's doing the math because people are demanding mathematically precise theory. There's a demand to have it done that way, so he's attempting to meet that demand. And that's why there's an attempt to do it with mathematically precise CA's which will attempt to predict scattering amplitudes. 10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: At 3:10 Hoffman talks about a theory of consciousness that is mathematically precise. That's fine, but a theory is not reality until it is tested and shown to be real by evidence. If we relax that rule, then chaos ensues. Then, anything which is mathematically precise, like String Theory, becomes real, regardless of the lack of evidence for it. At 3:50 Hoffman claimed that conscious agents are using space time as a kind of user interface. If a Christian apologist claimed that each bible is a user interface between them and god, we'd ask them to back up their claim with evidence, wouldn't we? Real evidence like predicting scattering amplitudes? Or is that still not real evidence in your opinion? Space-Time is created by CA's, as the most fundamental components of the model. Space-time is our headset. That's established by the "fitness over truth" arguments from evolution by Natural Selection. As it stands, we perceive the world "out there" indirectly. There's no direct perception of anything. Not atomic, not subatomic. Models are always metaphors. Never 'direct perception' oriented. They can't be. We have only been modeling "representations" so far. All models. 10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: This is a mathematical theory. Uh, yeah, again, that was the point going into this citation. And we have to decide is it Maths yes, or Maths no? What's going on here in this exchange? 10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: I think you need to be very, very careful here Josh, especially when claiming that we can perceive through mathematics. We can visualize and imagine through mathematics, but these visualizations and imaginings are not true perceptions of reality. Mathematics is a language that allows us to understand reality but it is not the reality itself. So, to mistake the language about reality for the reality itself is, in my opinion, a huge mistake and one that you need to be very wary of. I hope that you are put off by this post Josh. I have to take a consistent line with all claims and equally sceptical of all of them, regardless of who makes them. Thank you, Walter. Already explained this at the top of the response. There's no perception of anything below the smallest scale we can look at. And even then, anything that we look at is a representation, not the thing in itself, and not the true Nature of Reality. Our perceptive abilities are not evolved to perceive the raw truth of actually exists "out there." We're actually shielded from direct perception. The idea is that we'd go into sensory overload if we did have a direct look at it. At the very end of you post you seem to think that you are the one telling me that these Math's are indirect perceptions and not the reality itself, when the philosophical platform I'm speaking from posits that from the outset. That's critical to even launching the first into this kind of inquiry. It was confusing, but that's because there's apparently been a misunderstanding all along. The true underlying non-dual reality takes us way down beyond any sort of visible forms, images of any type, and represents potential if anything. The field of core subjectivity is the potential for form and images to come into existence. The thing in itself is more like a blank screen of potential. 5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: 1) We have awareness of experience as our starting point. As to what we're experiencing, it could be anything. All we know in terms of an absolute truth is that experience is happening. 2) It looks as though separately existing objects which are not visibly interconnected exist within a vast "space." Centuries of science have shown us that evolution by natural selection doesn't work towards seeing the truth, it works toward fitness. And in cognitive science (the video I cited in my last post) it's well known that we do not perceive reality "out there" as it actually is. Nobel prize for non-locality has gone out. Entangled particles. Particle-wave duality are all game changers towards the perception of separate unconnected things existing within a void space. Please cite your sources for these claims, Josh. And they must be properly peer-reviewed science papers that are not just mathematics, but which also contain empirical evidence. What do non-locality, particle-wave duality, and Entanglement mean to you? This seems like an extension of the misunderstanding I've already addressed. 5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: 3) The Hard Problem of Consciousness enters the arena behind a lot of science that points to Reality being more interconnected than it appears by taking a face value approach. The separate particles in space theory presents no explanation for the one certainty we have in the absolute sense. The interconnected Idealist metaphysics flow through without a break in the explanatory model. And gels with what science has been steadily discovering about reality as not what it appears to be. Please do the same again here. 4) I have no better reason to reach back towards materialist metaphysics after seeing its futility, then it would be to try and return to christinity after learning everything I have about Genesis and the non-literal content of the Bible. Once I know it's suspect, the gigs up. In my thinking, truth is out ahead not behind us at this point in time. Both dualistic religion and materialist metaphysics are basically 'dead men walking' from this perspective. Which wasn't too surprising when I realized this more fully. Thank you, Walter. You have already acknowledged the Hard problem of Consciousness. It was reframed and became famous in the late 90's, I believe. The point being is that we have been steadily seeing the materialist paradigm winding down. Those 4 points are my reasons for letting go of the materialist paradigm, in the first place. Materialism isn't going any further than religion. I'm glad to have been able to see that for myself and understand the surrounding implications. I'm happy to let go of it. I saw @midniterider posting about materialism being dead but didn't get it at first. And didn't look into it much. Until one day I did look into it. And then saw what's going on for myself. The problem is that some christian apologists like Rupert Sheldrake have gotten involved in it. To which I rejected. Until I saw some non-theistic philosophy like Bernardo Kastrups which I understand much better. If this post is still not understood, then Ok. It goes no further. Thanks for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 Yes, I think there are big areas of disconnect and misunderstanding between us Josh and so perhaps we need to bring this dialogue to a close. If you want to pursue things further for yourself then I recommend this article. https://philarchive.org/archive/ALLHCR Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Weezer ◊ Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 15 hours ago, Krowb said: I'll take Plato's theory of forms for $200 Alex. This is just a hit and run, but I can't help myself being a bit cheeky this morning. For a guy like me, who barely passed basic algebra, and science classes, it all sounds schizophrenic. Sometimes I can follow a few sentences, but then it gets completely out of my league. But before you shut down this discussion I would like to offer this. I do understand basic electrical theory, and kinda understand radio waves. My understanding is that our thoughts (consciousness) are electrochemical reactions. Could some kind of "electrical" related activty carry these "thoughts", "consciousness" or information beyond our physical lives? Or in our physical lives be "telepathically" transmitted between certain beings?? Perhaps working similar to radio waves?? And even be "stored" and passed on in some manner?? Perhaps there is a storage system "cloud" somewhere that has stored every thought we have ever had?? Or am I getting completely out of the ballpark of the game you are playing? I have said this many times. There is something "out there" we have yet to understand! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted March 23, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 23, 2023 On 3/22/2023 at 11:20 PM, Weezer said: For a guy like me, who barely passed basic algebra, and science classes, it all sounds schizophrenic. Sometimes I can follow a few sentences, but then it gets completely out of my league. But before you shut down this discussion I would like to offer this. I do understand basic electrical theory, and kinda understand radio waves. My understanding is that our thoughts (consciousness) are electrochemical reactions. Could some kind of "electrical" related activty carry these "thoughts", "consciousness" or information beyond our physical lives? Or in our physical lives be "telepathically" transmitted between certain beings?? Perhaps working similar to radio waves?? And even be "stored" and passed on in some manner?? Perhaps there is a storage system "cloud" somewhere that has stored every thought we have ever had?? Or am I getting completely out of the ballpark of the game you are playing? I have said this many times. There is something "out there" we have yet to understand! 1) Walt's over on the science path. That represents a type of path for seeking truths. It's ultimately confined by the natural limits of our human perceptual ability. It can do what it can do which is to try and map out the territory, but it cannot pull the territory out of the map. So, ultimately it isn't capable of nearly as much as most people assume where truth and the Nature of Reality is concerned. Those who aren't aware of that, simply aren't aware yet. People wants Math's, but at some point, even those lose luster where ultimate reality is concerned. And Hoffman's Math will suffer the same fate of any Math's. But what he has going for him is that it at least points in the right direction. It points back to the One. That's the conclusion. 2) Bernardo Kastrup is on the Philosophical Path. It can work with Math's too in various ways but is ultimately not tied to any of it. This is the logical path of intellectual / conceptual mind which can get beyond the constraints of the strictly scientific path. It has very specific argumentation. It's still confined to concepts, words, language, and thoughts. It can deduce back to what I've mentioned, "raw experience" as the only certain truth we have 'direct access' to. But we get there through the conceptual mind. And it points towards the truth of the One but doesn't touch on it from an experiential sense. Both of these paths can point to the One. 3) Rupert Spira is on the "Experiential Path." This is the level of mystics that may utilize the scientific and philosophical paths of logic and reason, but ultimately can bypass those to "raw experience" itself that doesn't depend on logic pointing the way. Instead of only being known intellectually, it's known both intellectually and experientially. This is the spiritual / mystical path. The main point starts up around 1:11:00 of this video: They thought that they had a slight disagreement about the Universal Mind or the Infinite, from its own perspective. Which was just a misunderstanding of terminology. Once the misunderstanding of terminology was fixed, they landed on agreement. I did RS's experiential suggestion given starting around 1:16:00. I blocked out all content of past memories or anything tied to what is essentially the content of the human ego consciousness. Thoughts, memories, any active content of mind. What remains is personal experience of fundamental "raw experience" itself. But this practice of "raw experience" of core subjectivity takes place through the perspective of a finite mind. Kastrup simply answered the question with the logic of his own philosophical model. The model calls for Mind at Large - a spatially unbound field of core subjectivity - to be "Consciousness devoid of content." That's primary Consciousness. Universal Consciousness. MAL in Kastrup's model. Which matches up to what 'direct experience' reveals, at least from what a finite perspective can see of it while alive. So, they landed in agreement. In a non-dual reality, all paths can only point to the same destination. There's nowhere else to point. The only "confusion" comes from not pursuing any of these paths all the way through and getting stopped up short somewhere along the way. And it has next to nothing to do with the christian god! It has nothing to do with any dualistic thinking whatsoever. Which is what christianity is. Universal Mind is not something that preplans, or deliberates, or "thinks" anything. It just basically witnesses all of its own conscious inner workings through the medium of finite minds. As "the observer of thoughts." There's no big win for christianity through either science, philosophy, or spirituality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 Yes, I am over on the science path Josh. But I have a question for you concerning not just science, but also metaphysics and philosophy. If a theory or a model in any one of those disciplines were shown to be self-refuting, what would that mean? Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 On 3/22/2023 at 8:20 PM, Weezer said: For a guy like me, who barely passed basic algebra, and science classes, it all sounds schizophrenic. Sometimes I can follow a few sentences, but then it gets completely out of my league. But before you shut down this discussion I would like to offer this. I do understand basic electrical theory, and kinda understand radio waves. My understanding is that our thoughts (consciousness) are electrochemical reactions. Could some kind of "electrical" related activty carry these "thoughts", "consciousness" or information beyond our physical lives? Or in our physical lives be "telepathically" transmitted between certain beings?? Perhaps working similar to radio waves?? And even be "stored" and passed on in some manner?? Perhaps there is a storage system "cloud" somewhere that has stored every thought we have ever had?? Or am I getting completely out of the ballpark of the game you are playing? I have said this many times. There is something "out there" we have yet to understand! It sounds like you can allow yourself to wonder about things that don't have peer reviewed , replicated studies and tons of evidence. I suspect one reason why science has been so successful is because there have been visionaries who weren't afraid to ask questions like yours, and then delve into discovering if they were true or could be made true. What if the Wright Bros said, "Yeah people keep saying this is impossible...fuck it." Or Marconi or Hertz or Maxwell said, "Radio waves? Never seen one...no evidence...they don't exist." These people enjoyed thinking outside the box. They liked thinking these things that had little to no current evidence actually were real. Radio waves operate at a variety of frequencies. Brain waves are electromagnetic and can be detected on an EEG. I'm guessing brainwaves have to travel through your skull to be detected on the EEG pad. Could be wrong, but if that's the case, they could also propagate through space, to a certain extent. Radio waves between 3 and 30Mhz require very little power to travel worldwide via the ionosphere, especially during high sunspot activity like we have now. I've sent radio signals around the world on 5 watts. Others have used milliwatts to achieve the same. https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/digitalisation/interview-henning-beck.html If the brain consumes 20 watts, then how much power is being transmitted in those brainwaves? The brain runs on a much lower range of frequencies than shortwave radio, of course, but I think short range telepathy might be a possibility, just considering the electromagnetic waves it uses. Another possibility is quantum entanglement of every particle of existence due to all of matter being squished together at the time of the Big Bang. Telepathy and some of those other things you mentioned might be possible that way as well. Without the need for supernatural woo. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Weezer ◊ Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 1 hour ago, midniterider said: It sounds like you can allow yourself to wonder about things I wish my wife was as understanding! She is very traditional minded, and my curosity drives her "up the wall". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: Yes, I am over on the science path Josh. But I have a question for you concerning not just science, but also metaphysics and philosophy. If a theory or a model in any one of those disciplines were shown to be self-refuting, what would that mean? Thank you, Walter. Just for the sake of clarification Josh, this question doesn't derive from our dialogue. We were misunderstanding each other and so agreed to draw that to a close. The question above derives from my own research into Hoffman's work. However, if you don't want to tackle, that's fine and not a problem either. I leave it up to you. Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 6 hours ago, midniterider said: It sounds like you can allow yourself to wonder about things that don't have peer reviewed , replicated studies and tons of evidence. I suspect one reason why science has been so successful is because there have been visionaries who weren't afraid to ask questions like yours, and then delve into discovering if they were true or could be made true. What if the Wright Bros said, "Yeah people keep saying this is impossible...fuck it." Or Marconi or Hertz or Maxwell said, "Radio waves? Never seen one...no evidence...they don't exist." These people enjoyed thinking outside the box. They liked thinking these things that had little to no current evidence actually were real. Radio waves operate at a variety of frequencies. Brain waves are electromagnetic and can be detected on an EEG. I'm guessing brainwaves have to travel through your skull to be detected on the EEG pad. Could be wrong, but if that's the case, they could also propagate through space, to a certain extent. Radio waves between 3 and 30Mhz require very little power to travel worldwide via the ionosphere, especially during high sunspot activity like we have now. I've sent radio signals around the world on 5 watts. Others have used milliwatts to achieve the same. https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/digitalisation/interview-henning-beck.html If the brain consumes 20 watts, then how much power is being transmitted in those brainwaves? The brain runs on a much lower range of frequencies than shortwave radio, of course, but I think short range telepathy might be a possibility, just considering the electromagnetic waves it uses. Another possibility is quantum entanglement of every particle of existence due to all of matter being squished together at the time of the Big Bang. Telepathy and some of those other things you mentioned might be possible that way as well. Without the need for supernatural woo. Good post there, midniterider. This quote from Hamlet comes to mind. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio!" Uttered by Hamlet after he Horatio and the palace guards had just seen the ghost of Hamlet's father. For myself, I try to keep an open a mind as possible, while using the formal processes of science to test what can be tested. Those things the lie outside of testing I do not dismiss out of hand, but I do treat them with due caution. And I counsel others to do the same and to also be mindful of the waiting traps of confirmation bias and over-attachment to beautiful-looking theories and persuasive models that are unsupported by sufficiently good evidence. Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 10 hours ago, Weezer said: I wish my wife was as understanding! She is very traditional minded, and my curosity drives her "up the wall". My wife wonders why I spend my time debating stuff that is a big waste of time..:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: Good post there, midniterider. This quote from Hamlet comes to mind. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio!" Uttered by Hamlet after he Horatio and the palace guards had just seen the ghost of Hamlet's father. For myself, I try to keep an open a mind as possible, while using the formal processes of science to test what can be tested. Those things the lie outside of testing I do not dismiss out of hand, but I do treat them with due caution. And I counsel others to do the same and to also be mindful of the waiting traps of confirmation bias and over-attachment to beautiful-looking theories and persuasive models that are unsupported by sufficiently good evidence. Thank you, Walter. We all accept or deny different things for varying reasons. It's good to have a healthy skepticism...I just don't prefer universal skepticism. I'm glad you don't dismiss everything out of hand...I talk to people on other forums that treat anything without evidence the same as unicorns and fairys. Why I want someone to believe my silliness is probably just ego. I could easily go somewhere else where everyone agrees with me. Not like there is a great commission for idealism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Weezer ◊ Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 5 hours ago, midniterider said: We all accept or deny different things for varying reasons. It's good to have a healthy skepticism...I just don't prefer universal skepticism. Are you skeptical of what I just posted in the "Ex-christian Life" forum. Am I looney?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted March 25, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2023 On 3/23/2023 at 1:09 PM, walterpthefirst said: Yes, I am over on the science path Josh. But I have a question for you concerning not just science, but also metaphysics and philosophy. If a theory or a model in any one of those disciplines were shown to be self-refuting, what would that mean? Thank you, Walter. Most people involved in theorizing in each of the fields mentioned, are usually very careful to keep repeating that all models are subject to change and cannot be literally true. So much so, that it can get annoying seeing that ground covered over and over again in interviews, it's like beating a dead horse. Hoffman does it too much repeating over and over that there can never be a TOE and no one has modeled absolute truth. Kastrup does it when pressed up against absolute truth questions, but doesn't harp on and on about it. And I don't know of any physicists who don't do the same. It's basic practice to position their platforms that way to where no one has actually claimed to have modeled absolute truth. The thing about refuting any model is that someone is setting out to refute something which has been publicly acknowledged as less than absolute. And expected to change over time. If someone finds something damming enough to warrant trashing a model, back to the drawing board. What else would we expect? We don't have literal truth in the form of models in the first place, so that's never possible to begin with. What we have is not truth in modeling anything, we have consensus. And consensus, obviously, doesn't mean that a model is literally true in any absolute sense. How could it? That's rhetorical, again, of course. So, the deeper question I've asked myself and others, is why bother with any of it? And the answer keeps coming back around to seeing the effort of trying as necessary towards human advancement. What if we all just stopped trying to figure out Reality? Not much discovery, not much advancement. And I've been persuaded by that general sentiment. Why not keep trying? Knowing full well that the deck is strongly, or absolutely, stacked against you. So what, why not keep trying to tighten it up and learn more and more. It's just good sporting fun to try and imagine better ideas that can explain more things. Materialism is at big loss to explain PSI phenomenon, for instance. These apologists come at us with various unexplained mysteries of science and other PSI type issues as "proof" (their words) that their personal, dualistic oriented god, exists. That's what drew me into this discussion. What an absolute bluff game that is on their part. Combined with a great deal of lack of knowledge about the broader spiritual world, especially the esoteric communities East and West. Zero comprehension of non-duality, omnipresence, Wholeness, Interconnection, and Unitary Reality in general. We can experience existence as pure awareness. That's the closest thing I've witnessed to anything that could be ultimately true and unquestionable. We can't say there is no truth, because it's absolutely true that we are 'aware and experiencing.' This could be the one and only, unitary, singular, non-dual truth that exists. And anything that diverges from that, which is what dualistic thinking does, is ultimately not true. And if so, that just outlines how clueless we are again. It doesn't give a theory of everything. We couldn't know any more than that we are aware of experiencing existence through a finite perspective. Where science and cosmology are concerned, the idealist movement sticks with the BBT. They don't deny it, or even try to deny it. The BBT and evolution by Natural Selection stays as is. And I'm trying to navigate how that gels with the theory of a spatially unbound field of core subjectivity, which is necessarily "Eternal." I suppose no differently than the current paradigm that would have a unitary Quantum Field that isn't viewed as an Aware Experiential field, springing fourth the Big Bang. It's like a collective dream that had a beginning to the dream-like experience, within an eternal field. For evolution, from what I'm looking at, it involves material bodies of living beings, metabolizing life forms, as something like an avatar body made of the components or contents of the MAL field itself. It's the medium out of which the appearances of components arise. And experiences are taking place on various levels throughout. The whole thing is an "Experiential Based Reality" (EBR). All with various levels of awareness and experience. What if none of this is literally true in terms of the exact details of any given model??? Whether it is or it isn't, I'm still standing here 'experiencing awareness' with no fixed or absolute explanation as to why or how? From anyone. 1) Materialism is off the table and bowed out to even trying to answer the question. 2) Religion can't answer the question with a dual answer, because the true experience of awareness in the current moment, devoid of active content (dual thinking), is "non-dual" in nature. 3) Idealism CAN answer the question, but only through the limits of philosophy which are logic and reason oriented, not specifically or directly "experiential." Just in ways which are indirect, but which point to the experiential as true. 4) Experiential Mysticism CAN answer the question without any model or conceptualization whatsoever. And because this goes beyond conceptual awareness, it's not going to be a fixed or absolute explanation as to why or how the existence of experiential awareness IS existing in the current moment. It's pure experience, beyond conceptual mind, which shut off when memory, projection of the future, and all active content where set aside. I've chosen to stick with Idealism in terms of philosophy, tempered with placing the Experiential Path ahead of it where absolute truth is concerned. I want the spiritual community to realize that I understand the "non-dual" transcendent mystery. I'm not suckered in by the conceptual philosophy. It's not fooling me away from the non-dual transcendent. They want to warm me about being suckered in by logical mind. Like materialists want to warn me about getting suckered into philosophy, metaphysics, and mysticism. This to me represents an error in judgement to disregard either logical / intellectual mind or emotional mind. Especially to come off trying to "warn" someone of the dangers of either. Our experience is filtered through dual hemispheres. Logical mind and Emotional mind. The Math's over here, the Arts and Music over there. The Pineal Gland in between. The idea is to fully develop both types of mind. Not have one conquer the other. It's not about eliminating what exists. It's about taking what exists, as it exists, and balancing what exists into non-dual understanding. And that non-dual understanding is what is considered, "spiritual intelligence," or SQ. IQ balanced with EQ = SQ. I could live any number of ways under any number of worldviews. I prefer this one. Naturalist based Idealist Philosophy balanced with naturalist based experiential spirituality. It's the best fit so far in life out of any previous worldviews I've tried on after leaving the church. Materialism not withstanding.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 2 hours ago, Joshpantera said: I could live any number of ways under any number of worldviews. I prefer this one. Naturalist based Idealist Philosophy balanced with naturalist based experiential spirituality. It's the best fit so far in life out of any previous worldviews I've tried on after leaving the church. Materialism not withstanding.... Live the world view that works for you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 2 hours ago, Joshpantera said: Philosophy balanced with naturalist based experiential spirituality. The right side of your brain says thank you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Weezer ◊ Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 My world view is hoping to stay out of the nursing home until they scatter my ashes! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 11 hours ago, Weezer said: My world view is hoping to stay out of the nursing home until they scatter my ashes! I'm getting started with old age: 61 now. Take up a positive hobby, sir. Not politics or keyboard warrior-ing. haha. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now