Reality

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, surely you must be jesting.

Why, I oughtta' . . .

JLNobody wrote:

I'm trying to catch up with this dialog. I'm confused so far, to tell you the truth. I assume that "from top down" refers to deductive reasoning and "from bottom up" to inductive reasoning.

You and me both, JLN. I came late to this discussion too.

JLNobody wrote:

To jump the gun--before really considering what's been going on--I do feel that one cannot "prove" the existence of (the theoretical constructs) time, causality, and especially "objective reality" inductively. Objective reality is, to my mind, a metaphysical concept, a necessary concept for most intellectual purposes.

I'm not sure I'd call them "metaphysical" concepts, but I'd tend to agree that such concepts are "unknowable," at least in the Kantian sense that such concepts as time, causality, and space are the grounds of knowledge -- and thus "unknowable."

JLNobody wrote:

But ultimately (philosophically/metaphysically) it is problematical. Time and causality are "psychological" in so far as the EXPERIENCE of time varies with circumstance and mood.

Sure, the experience of time is psychological, just as any mental experience is psychological. But to say that the experience of time is all that time is strikes me as a bit too Berkeleyan.

JLNobody wrote:

Was it Hume who said that it is not an empirical fact that we observe, but rather than explanatory tool of our consciousness? He said, if I recall correctly, that when we see a cue ball move toward an object ball and push it forward upon collision, we have merely seen the cue stop at the point that it touches the object ball, and THEN we see the object ball move. We do not see some causal FORCE transferred from one ball to the other. Instead we THINK causal force in order to construct an explanation for the observation. In that sense, causality is a psychological phenomenon rather than an objective empirical one.

Yes, it was Hume who famously used the billiards example. But even though Hume showed that induction (there's my theme song) could not "prove" anything, he didn't descend completely into Berkeleyan idealism and reject the objective nature of those billiard balls.

0 Replies

Frank,

The para after Einstein was not mine - it was part of the quotation.

Joe,

I take on board your "two way theory mode" within the general overview of an "interactionist reality" that underlies my own philosophical stance. (That is another reason for quoting the QM para above). And if you think "no facts" is merely "a semantic quibble" I suggest you are do not understand the idea of a "reality paradigm". The "no facts" mode immediately replaces binary logic (fixed sets) with fuzzy logic and undermines traditional "logical discourse". It also suggests "predictivity" is not the only paradigm for "reality".

twyvel,

A tour de force as usual but and possibly sufficient to silence selective nit-picking ! (though I doubt it Smile

)

0 Replies

I'm having difficulty understanding fifty percent of the most recent posts, but find that it's been brought up to a very high level of discussion, and appreicate the efforts put forth by all of you. Thank you, and keep it up! Wink

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

O.K. Terry here's the deal.

If you first define "explain" and "origin" without recourse to the psychological constructs of "time" and "causality", I will comment on the "suffering in the world", which is admirably dealt with by holistic commentators such as Krishnamurti. (I won't need to deal with physical models such as "string theory" because if you understand my challenge you will have dealt with them yourself en passant)

I await your response !

Fresco, once again, you try to avoid explaining what you wrote by throwing out some red herrings and an appeal to authority. I have no idea why you cannot look up words for yourself, but FYI:

origin
2 a : rise, beginning, or derivation from a source b : the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives <the origin of the custom is forgotten>; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another <this spring is the origin of the brook>

explain
1 a : to make known b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>
2 : to give the reason for or cause of
3 : to show the logical development or relationships of
intransitive senses : to make something plain or understandable

I do not have time to search for Krishnamurti's writings to determine what you are talking about, so how about quoting, paraphrasing, or giving us a link to the passage which deals with suffering.

While you're at it, please tell us why you think that "dark material" and multidimensionality (presumably M-theory) have anything to do with observers, and what you mean by "quantum consciousness." You have a bad habit of tossing out random phrases that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and abandoning them when anyone calls you on it:

Terry wrote:

fresco wrote:
The current paradigm shifts are (a) at the level of cosmology involving "dark materal" (b) at the level of quanta and multidimensionality and (c) at the level of cognition and perception with models such as "quantum consciousness", and "second order cybernetics". (see Google). All of these seriously question a narrow epistemological viewpoint and take account of the mutuality between observer and observed.

(a) neither dark matter nor dark energy require interaction with an observer

(b) If by multidimensionality you mean string or M-theory, what role does an observer play?

(c) exactly what do you mean by "quantum consciousness"?

0 Replies

Twyvel, you do not have to physically look through someone else's eyes in order to observe their awareness. Their behavior demonstrates it. People who are aware are responsive to their environment. People whose brains are damaged are not.

I did not say that consciousness IS the brain, but that it is PRODUCED by the brain. Damage to certain areas prevents the brain from producing different kinds of consciousness. I have no idea why you claim that the biochemical basis for consciousness is unfounded, given the huge body of scientific evidence for how this occurs. Perhaps you are so determined to keep it a mystery that you simply ignore anything that might explain it.

Agreed that the hardest task is explaining the way we experience things, but I think you dwell too much on your insistence that we can never know our own minds.

Perhaps you cannot, but I don't know why you think that you know my mind better than I do. "I" don't seem to have the same problem with my mind that you have with yours.

twyvel wrote:

We cannot say consciousness has ?'qualities' if we cannot say what it is that has those qualities? That's the prolem.

Once again, there are several kinds of consciousness that we can clearly identify and describe: the proto-self, the core self, and the autobiographical self or extended consciousness. The only "problem" here is that you refuse to recognize their existence.

I wish you could understand that your oft-repeated statement that "observers are unobservable" reflects a personal belief, not a law of the universe.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

But whether Einstein is quoted as saying he "believes" or "us (not we) physicists believe" -- the fact is that he is stating a belief -- nothing more. And quite honestly, it sounded more like the kind of thing one would say to another person in the context of the circumstances in which he said it - as opposed to a scientific observation or approximation.

Thanks for making that point, Frank. It amazes me that anyone would try to pass off words of comfort to a grieving widow as a scientific theory. Especially since it was written in German, and there are alternate translations:

"And now he has preceded me briefly in bidding farewell to this strange world. This signifies nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one."

"n quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me by a little. That doesn't mean anything. For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however tenacious."

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

That consciousness cannot be observed can only be ?'know' subjectively, so how else can it be stated? That it cannot be known through a subject?-object relation is blantently obvious, expsecially to fresco, JLNobody and myself.

I think you are wrong about QM because I think you do not understand that observers are unobservable.

The point I was trying to make is that consciousness, like photons, is not limited to being either/or. It can be both a subject that looks at itself and an object that is observed, depending on your perspective.

I have great respect for JLN and always enjoy reading his posts. He has a wonderful way of explaining things that makes sense even when I don't agree with him. But twyvel, I get the feeling that you have never actually had a non-dual experience and are only parroting the blatently-obvious party line. And does anyone else suspect that the gibberish that fresco posts comes from a bot that simply strings together random buzz words? :wink:

0 Replies

Terry,

Since you have used the word "cause" in both definitions, I rest that particular case !

Since I also don't choose to "have time" and since you have problems understanding my "gibberish", Google will reveal numerous references to Krishnamurti (if you are interested Question

try "Krishnamurti suffering" or "Krishnamurti time") and also to quantum consciousness (Try "Hameroff Quantum Consciousness" - this guy should give you a few problems with your views about what "neurology seems to indicate")

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Joe,

I take on board your "two way theory mode" within the general overview of an "interactionist reality" that underlies my own philosophical stance. (That is another reason for quoting the QM para above).

I have no clue what you're attempting to say here.

fresco wrote:

And if you think "no facts" is merely "a semantic quibble" I suggest you are do not understand the idea of a "reality paradigm".

You got that right! I don't have the foggiest notion of what a "reality paradigm" is. Furthermore, since all you seem to do is respond with impenetrable jargon and demand that others Google the web to find the support that your arguments lack, I am rather confident that I'll never know what a "reality paradigm" is.

fresco wrote:

The "no facts" mode immediately replaces binary logic (fixed sets) with fuzzy logic and undermines traditional "logical discourse". It also suggests "predictivity" is not the only paradigm for "reality".

Yeah, a lot of people tell me that every day.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Very well expressed, i find that to be an excellent piece of writing.

Geez, Setanta, first Frank agrees with me, and now you. If this keeps up, I'm going to run out of people to piss off.

Thanks, Boss.

0 Replies

truth
Earlier, Terry noted that consciousness does not occur without operating brains and that brains produce consciousness, but consciousness does not produce brains. This is clearly a positivist position and at the crux of our division here. We observe, as a conventional wisdom, that without the objective existence of a functioning brain consciousness cannot occur. But for me the causality in this statement is problematical. I would rather phrase the phenomenon as such: brain functioning is a corollary of consciousness. To me, brain functioning and experiencing are two ways of saying the same thing. But what about Terry's notion that (the physical) brain produces (mental) consciousness while (mental) consciousness does not produce (physical) brain ? My answer is simply that consciousness DOES produce "brain." The phenomenon of "physical brain" IS an idea, an experience of consciousness. This is consistent, I believe, with Fresco's tenet that experiencing something brings it into existence or that existence requires being experienced. But I am not referring to theoretical physics; I am referring to philosophical idealism which is fundamentally in agreement with the epistemology of mystical traditions as I understand them. I must add, for clarification, that I would qualify this by owning that I do not KNOW that nothing exists without being experienced. I am no advocate of Berkeley's absolute idealism. As I have said before the cosmos is bigger than my mind; I would not try to shrink it to the size of my brain/mind. But MY knowledge of MY portion of whatever the total reality is is nothing other than EXPERIENCE. Outside of that experience the world does not exist FOR ME. This is my understanding of the meaning of Schopenhauer's dictum: The world is my idea (meaning that it is for me my representations of it). How could it be otherwise? How can there be an unrepresented world for me? This idealism/subjectivism/mentalism stands opposed to the philosophical naivete of the epistemology of positivism. I do not claim that I have declared some absolute truth about the nature of an objective reality; I have only described what is possible for me (and each of us). This is the truth of my life (and yours). If science or philosophy ever "frees" me from the limitations of this "reality" so be it, but at present it suits me at least as well as naive realism does for others..

0 Replies

JLN, I agree with your thesis that consciousness produces brain. I heard many years ago about the improved development of the brain of people who play musical instruments. I did a Google search, and found the following that confirms this proposition. http://web.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/music_training_and_brain.htm

0 Replies

Joe, (and all interested parties).

Try this as a simple example of a shift in a reality paradigm. Take that "I" of yours and replace it with "IT" for a short while in your thoughts.(Observe yourself saying "ITs thinking of a good reponse"... etc) This is a ploy sometimes used in esoteric philosophy. If you do this seriously the resulting experience gives some insight into what might be termed stepping away from an "egocentric paradigm". And by analogy you might get an idea of what it might mean to step away from an "anthropocentric paradigm" which is considered by some to be current and problematic.

Ah, but will you try it ..... Smile

Anthropocentric=centred on humans

0 Replies

truth
Thanks, C.I., I just sent you a fairly long response, but lost it. I havn't read the article yet, but I suspect that it does not refer to my point exactly. I was saying that "brain" is an idea in my phenomenological field, when it arises. I expect that the article is referring to ways the functioning of the brain can result in a feedback effect that alters the brain itself.
Fresco, I know a fellow who always refers to himself in the third person--most people think he's some type of schizophrenic (they may be right), but he is quite bright and may be onto something. I've always hesitated to ask him.

0 Replies

JLN

Is that third person "he" or third person "it" ? That might make a difference,

(BTW just read "The Cambridge Quintet and was favourably impressed. Thanks !)

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, it is always, as far as I've seen, the third person "he" or his name, which I find somewhat creepy. It has a ring of self-alienation rather than self-annihilation.

0 Replies

Fresco, you missed my point that demanding that I define "explain" and "origin" without recourse to time and causality is a red herring. It was an absurd request that was nothing but an attempt to weasel out of answering the questions I asked you. Of course time and causality are inherent to explaining the origin of most things, including consciousness unless you believe that it "magically" exists without ever having been caused. And consciousness is meaningless unless there is change over time for it to be aware of.

0 Replies

Terry

Quote:

Twyvel, you do not have to physically look through someone else's eyes in order to observe their awareness. Their behavior demonstrates it. People who are aware are responsive to their environment. People whose brains are damaged are not.

Their behavior may ?'demonstrate' or indicate that awareness is present Terry, but that demonstration or indication of awareness is "not" awareness. There is a significant distinction here. And a determination based on their behavior that they ?'are' aware is a guess. For all we know they could be an automaton.

Burt generally we say we can tell there is awareness present based on behavior, however that has nothing to do with observing ?'awareness', and everything to do with observing behavior and extrapolating from that observation.

We can observe behavior in another person but we cannot observe >that which is looking<. We cannot observe >the looking< of someone else, because >the looking< is immaterial and un-objectified.

Quote:

I did not say that consciousness IS the brain, but that it is PRODUCED by the brain. Damage to certain areas prevents the brain from producing different kinds of consciousness. I have no idea why you claim that the biochemical basis for consciousness is unfounded, given the huge body of scientific evidence for how this occurs. Perhaps you are so determined to keep it a mystery that you simply ignore anything that might explain it.

Chalmers, as a material determinist was/is trying to find a way of explaining and understanding how physical matter, physiological processes produces or give rise consciousness but I think he's barking up the wrong tree. It might be necessary to do so, as I think others have done before him; to show how material dualism cannot account for consciousness and thought, and thereby eliminate that position and move on. And perhaps that is his purpose, who knows.

But I think material dualism is flawed belief system, and one of the major flaws is that it cannot account for or explain how, physical/physiological brain processes or functions give rise to consciousness and thought.

There is a >gap< between the so called physical and nonphysical which has yet to be bridged. Many of course think this is a false problem because there is no ?'two' things(?) to be bridged , there just one element.

I don't think there are ?'different' kinds of consciousness. It is the "content" that is different not consciousness. (dualistically speaking). If consciousness uses the brain as a tool to work through, then the condition of that tool/brain will effects what that consciousness observes ?'not' what that consciousness IS.

Cats, mice, lions, bugs, humans, and all the animals on Noah's Ark may all have the ?'same' consciousness observing through their sense organs. Same consciousness (as entity) different, brains, different sense organs hence different content.

Quote:

Perhaps you cannot, but I don't know why you think that you know my mind better than I do. "I" don't seem to have the same problem with my mind that you have with yours.

I think it's universal. What's true in your case and my case is true in all cases. One of us is wrong and the one who is ?'right' is right universally.

Quote:

Once again, there are several kinds of consciousness that we can clearly identify and describe: the proto-self, the core self, and the autobiographical self or extended consciousness. The only "problem" here is that you refuse to recognize their existence.

I think you might be talking about psychological character identities or egos. However I don't see that as the issue.

I think the issue here is what is the true nature of this existence, consciousness and self etc.

And in that regard any ?'self' that can be observed is an object. It is an object to another ?'self that is observing it ad infinitum; the ?'self' is the observer, so the buck never stops, because no matter what ?'self' is being observed, it is ""being"" observed, by another ?'observer/self'.

No-self, as an unobserved observer, stops the infinite regress, right.... >here<....right ....>now<.... Smile

Quote:

I wish you could understand that your oft-repeated statement that "observers are unobservable" reflects a personal belief, not a law of the universe.

I think if it is true it's universal. If it false; if observers are observable, then that what be universal. But I think as fresco and JLNobody and many others do that it is obvious that consciousness is unobserable.

0 Replies

JLN, one would have to be extremely self-centered to proclaim that nothing exists unless they have personally experienced it. :wink:

I do not have to have direct experience of everything that I accept as part of my reality since I can rely on the reported experiences of others to improve my knowledge. By doing so, I can build a mental image of the universe that is far more complete and accurate than anything I could come up with on my own. We do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants.

While I cannot prove that anything exists that I have not personally experienced, neither can I prove that anything I believe I have experienced exists either. But it makes far more sense to accept the evidence of my senses than to reject such a detailed and coherent reality without good cause. And from what I have read of non-dualism, it cannot give us any cause or reason for the apparent existence of self and world.

IMO, the primary fault with non-dualism is that it fails to explain who created this alleged illusion, and why.

If consciousness could produce brain structures, my aunt would not be partially paralyzed from a recent stroke, and there would not be so many people warehoused in nursing homes because they could simply will new brains (and bodies) into existence. QED. I will be visiting her this weekend and will not have internet access, but will check back in Monday night.

0 Replies

c.i., there was a study that showed that London cabbies also experience brain development from extensive mental mapping of the city. But I am pretty sure that their brains already existed and were merely augmented by conscious exercise.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know