Solipsism Redefined: Unfalsifiable No More

[philly]

You guys ARE thinking! Kudos! It's becoming clear now that solipsism is actually a rather narrow minded concept bolstered by egotism (and there are a lot of egotistical people in this world). For me this is a bit of a "flash" of truth that I can fully grasp for only seconds at a time until my ego sneeks back onto the scene. Given that I have been a very deep thinker for many, many years and I'm just getting it now, it explains why the idea of solipsism still lingers in modern society where "it's all about me...". Great one-liners Jonny and complex, and great expansion Ghostfaith... This is quite an aerial perspective of the issue.

 

[verty]

I suppose it is true that solipsists don't doubt all that they say they do. They take things for granted just like anyone else; perhaps it is a game. Can you extend that to philosophising in general? I would hate to think that I think as much as I do because I am pompous. Perhaps I am deluding myself but it feels to me like I choose that route because I seem to be good at it, it is something that perhaps I can do better than most others.

If you wish to call that pompous then so be it. Perhaps some people gravitate towards what makes them unique while others congregate together. Perhaps we can distinguish between those who seek uniqueness and those who seek conformity. Unfortunately, those who seek uniqueness don't seem to dedicate themselves to it generally. It's like one need only be unique enough. Perhaps we might compare it to how most Christians are only well-behaved on Sundays.

 

[Ghostfaith]

Hi Philly - Hi Verty...

I don't think it is pompous to think about stuff - why would it be? It's just exercise for the brain, like running is exercise for the body.

I think, anyone who is interested in this debate so far would really enjoy a bit of Heidegger! A couple of relavent aspects of it are Heideggers concept of *The Others* - or The They... effectively everyone else, and how THEY kind of crush everything down to its lowest common denominator - say, like thoughts can have many levels of sophistication, but the THEY level it out at the lowest level of sophistication...

Linked to this is the very subtly brilliant concept of Dasein. For Heidegger, solipsism is negated by understanding that *being* for a human being, involves all of these mental states which aren't *engaging* the world, as the solipsist thinks, they are IN the world - part of it. Imagine yourself not just as mono-being viewing the world from *inside* your head - but as a being that is also *spread* out into the world via moods and emotional states that are IN the world.

Are those emotional states perceived by the *I* or do they help to generate a sense of the *I* later on? Again, it can be said like the dream comes first, and the dreamer second.

Dasein is a difficult concept to grasp at first, but is worth checking out, becauseit helps to see that subjectivity is a construct - we *be* in the world, not in our heads.

PArt of that is that we find conformity to be comforatable. Part of the *I* exists with the THEY. Allthos emeotions, states of mind, ways of seeing - they are conencted to the world directly, not indirectly via sense organs.

Science is an ideological structure. It works by observing. Consequently, the THEY are infected with that ideology because it is a modern episteme. As a result, we ar eled to use that episteme in the way that we examine our own relationship to the world - and we see an observer, observing - what we don't don't see is that is an ideological necessity for science and also for many of our philosophical ways of looking at the world - we don't even notice that it is a foreing installation - an ideological installation, and think of it as a *given*. To observe,t her must be an observer. But we don't observe, we ENGAGE with the world and are IN a relationship with it.

Anyway - I'm not doing the man justice (Which can be said of the Nazi trials as well I guess) but he is worth checking out for anyone interested in this area. And also for anyone intereste dinthe what is time issue.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Heigel's philosophy is extremely deep and rich with really abstract concepts. I haven't gotten to read much by him yet except for his dialectal reasoning and breifly his dialogue regarding the "World Spirit" or as I consider it, The Collective Consciousness (not that I necessarily embrace that concept, I just prefer that description).

I thought it was a very different approach to philosophy than I was used to, so I had to read him a little slower than usual. I need to pick up some stuff by him.

EDIT: For some reason I thought you had written about Heigel, but I realize you were talkinga bout Heideggar! I shall revise this later.

 

[vanesch]

Yes, i deny it!

So you deny that you have subjective experiences ? Well, that can very well be. You are then (in my solipsist dream) just one of those imaginations which do not behave entirely as if they have subjective experiences, in the same way as the (also in my solipsist dream) stove in the kitchen. Which doesn't indicate in one way or another whether you actually HAVE them.

I'm not denying anything - I'm saying that in your sentence you haven't considered that you are not narrowing down the existence of self, you are just widening the meaning of *existence* - in other words, if I ask you what youmean be *exist* you can't really say, except, that you experience self, so itmust exist. But, some people experience that Maddona loves them, or that they are Napoleon - the experience doesn't self-prove.

Well, if they experience that Madonna loves them, then this doesn't prove that there exists such a thing as the love of Madonna for them, but there MUST exist *something* (call it a certain brain configuration) which corresponds to the EXPERIENCE of them being loved by Madonna.

Let's get out of the solipsist world, and enter the materialist vision for a moment. Even there, the *subjective experience* exists in a certain way, and must correspond to a certain brain state of the being that undergoes the experience. Even "love" has a material existence, as a certain configuration of chemicals in the brain of the one "experiencing love", in the materialist view. So experiences DO HAVE an existence in the most down-to-earth sense. For a materialist, they have a material existence (configuration of the brain and its chemicals and potentials and all that).

So, if we start out from a materialist viewpoint, in which there is a spacetime continuum with matter in it, a brain with states etc... Ultimately, this comes down to one very big mathematical structure, right ? Whether it be quantum-mechanical, or classical, or relativistic, in the end we'd have a description of nature (in the "theory of everything") which gives to every particle, field, ... in the universe a complete mathematical description which leaves NOTHING out ; in other words, the universe IS that mathematical structure.

And why did we invent that hugely complicated mathematical structure ? Ultimately, to explain our subjective experiences. To explain what we SAW, or what we READ that "others" saw, or what we heard, or ...
A mathematical theory that can explain all and every detail of ONLY our subjective experiences, is a "theory of everything" as far as we can verify it. If that mathematical theory tells us that we will have a visual impression of the moon rising over the horizon, even if there is no moon, and we actually HAVE THAT IMPRESSION of seeing a moon rise, then that theory is not falsified. Because what counts is not what "is" there, but what we can subjectively experience.

Well, the solipsist "theory of everything" is JUST the list of our experiences. If it is a full list of what I experience, then I cannot falsify it.

Well now, do a set of subjective experiences equal a self?

Well, call it something else, if the word "self" annoys you. I'm talking about "a set of subjective experiences". I called it "self" but I can call it anything. *the existence of this set* is, IMO, undeniable.

WHO experienced these if THEY came first to form into a self?

Doesn't matter. The set of experiences, by itself. It is hard to deny that there exists such a set. If you hit me, it hurts. And the "feeling of hurt" exists. Now what I'm saying, is that that is maybe ALL that exists. But AT LEAST, *this* exists.

*Subjective* pre-supposes some *one thing* experiencing them.

No, not really. The set itself is sufficient. That said, it is nice to give a name to the set, and I called it "self". You can say that a conglomerate of "subjective experiences" is what experiences them. But it is funny to talk about this. Because either you are in one way or another NOT concerned by these "subjective feelings", but *I* am, which would somehow re-inforce the idea that I'm the only one having these subjective feelings (= solipsism!). It is impossible to "show" an entity that doesn't have subjective experiences, what it means to have subjective experiences. Maybe you don't have them. But for *ME*, at least, I know that I have subjective experiences. Heck, I *AM* subjective experiences.

This is so ingrained on our cultural episteme that we rarely notice it

I do not think that subjective experiences are absent in the absence of any cultural environment which promotes it. I think that "pain" is experienced, independently of any cultural environment, at least, in those cases where it can be part of subjective experiences. I have a hard time believing that if I grew up differently, I wouldn't feel pain, for instance.

You PRE-SUPPOSE the existence of the self by using the word subjective, and generate MEANING for subjective by pre-supposing the existence of the self. It's just a tautology, V.

No, not really. I want to describe that my subjective experiences have some existence to them which I cannot deny. For others, of course, I cannot know. But for me, I'm in the absolute impossibility to deny that I have some form of subjective experience (one of the raw manifestations which is pain, but there are more subtle forms of it too).

In fact, the cells are *aware* of the pain, the cold - and they send information to the brain - a brain pre-installed conceptual self - BEFORE any linguisitc concepts are installed to generate a self the brain has a different function to being the *house of the self* - it's a processing unit, with no identity, no self whatsoever.

Yes, but at least, in this materialist viewpoint, you pre-suppose the existence of a brain, and a body, and all that. What makes you think that your body exists ?

See, *subjective* requires a *subject* - a *self* experiencing - but that is just a way of looking generated by the word subjective itself. You're just mixing up the human form - the ape - with the conceptual system - the self.

No, not really. Tell me what makes you think that ANYTHING exists, in particular, your body, your brain, or the Earth ? Why can't we simply say that NOTHING exists, no self, no experiences, nothing ? What's the difficulty with the "theory of everything" which simply says that nothing exists ?

I will tell you what that difficulty is: the difficulty is that you *make observations*. Now, what is it, "to make observations" ? Ultimately, it comes down to having subjective experiences. You cannot get around that. If you can, tell me. If it weren't for these silly observations, we could simplify our view on nature quite a lot, and simply say that nothing is there. Period. What forces us to consider that there ARE things, in the first place ?

*Know* is a concept. What does it really mean? I don't experience anything subjectively - my *self* works with conceptual information - my human mass experiences, and my self is wired into that human mass. My self doesn't experience at all - it processes. Big difference. Now, my human mass can experience the self, and feed that information back into the self...

But what makes you even think that such a thing as "human" exists ?

Experiencing something doesn't mean that it exists.

Well, that's what I say. Let's go for "super-solipsism" which tells us that nothing exists. No you, no me, no earth, no universe, nothing. Is that a good view of the world then ? Any problem anywhere ?

Well, how do you know?

I do not know much, I only experience. So if *something* exists, it must explain these experiences - because without it, the simplest hypothesis would be that nothing exists. But, the very next step is: the theory which ONLY explains my experiences by listing them. Beyond that, I can only make hypotheses. But it is difficult to say that *even that* doesn't exist. Somewhere, something must be able to explain my observations, experiences, ... Without it, I don't see any utility in postulating ANYTHING to exist.

I know that that is an illusion of meaning – I’ve been infected by a conceptual set that causes me to see its self-evidence in the world around me. But, being very smart, lol, I know that it’s an illusion.

Ok, but why don't you go then for the simplest of all views, which simply says that NOTHING exists, and that you don't exist, and that you don't have experiences, observations, anything ?

 

[vanesch]

An interesting aspect of Solipsisim is that if reality is purely the subjective projection of an individuals mind, then that individual is responsible for the works of Shakespeare, Einstein, Russel, Godel, Beethoven, Mozart, Escher, mathematics, religion, science, constructivist realities, etc, the list continues indefinitely.

Not really. Those works only exist to the extend in which you "know about them". And if you "know about them" they are not "out of reach".

The point is, that this is still LESS than postulating that all of them exist in all of their detail, which is what non-solipsist views maintain. In a solipsist view, the only stuff that has to exist, is what you experience. In a non-solipsist view, MUCH MORE is postulated to exist (an entire universe).

So, solipsism is the application of Occam's razor with a turbo charger on it

It is the *minimalist* necessarily "theory of everything", because it can leave out most of the universe, and it only cannot leave out your individual observations and experiences. Because if they were left out, you'd falsify it (you'd make an observation which is NOT in agreement with "what is postulated to exist"). So the MINIMUM view needed to explain all your observations, is the solipsist one. All the rest postulates the existence of myriads of things which are not STRICTLY necessary and which could be left out without a falsification being possible.

 

[vanesch]

Hm, I should maybe add here that I'm not adhering to solipsism... However, I find it an interesting starting point to explore any ontological considerations one might have, because it puts into a relative perspective any form of certainty one might have concerning "what exists".

The reason that the "minimalist" ontology of solipsism is not the most satisfying one, is that it doesn't give any structure to the regularities of our observations/subjective experiences. The main reason of scientific activity is to try to find regularities in our sensations/observations: to *summarise* many observations as repetitions of a similar kind of pattern. Assuming that there might be something "real" to these repetitions and regularities, makes us make the hypothesis of the existence of extra stuff beyond our sensations, because that very hypothesis of existence allows us to give some consistence to these regularities. The hypothesis of an external world is hence driven by the consistency of the "picture" it presents ; consistency which is nothing else but the regularities and the repetitions of patterns.
It is because we have (memories of) repeated visual sensations of "other bodies" that we give some status of external existence to it, for instance. And the similarity between the visual sensations of other bodies, and our own, makes us make the hypothesis that we're somehow similar to those external bodies. And so on. And each time we do this, the picture seems to fit together. So all in all, there's too much regularity and repetition and pattern in our observations/sensations for us to lay down the hypothesis that "there is something to it" - which we have to do if we go for solipsism.

In other words, even for a solipsist, there's something to gain by making the working hypothesis of the existence of an external world.

 

[heusdens]

How could a solipsist explain there is a world in the first place (even if that world ony exists in the mindly experience of oneself)?

Since he cannot answer that question, his worldview would need to break down, or he would have to admit something like that the world came from nowhere/nothing all of it self.

 

[whatta]

No, that's the point. Take our "material" universe. We take it that the matter in it doesn't come alive because "someone is watching it". In the same way, you could conceive that the "character" comes to life just by its abstract Platonic existence.

to push it further. why do we need a map (a number)? there can be a number, even many of them, right? and that's enough, basically; with nothing at hand, we have just exploded your world by infinite amount of such a characters. then, add to that different kinds of numbers we do not even know yet but that can make all new sorts of maps, that again can be used to describe miriads of worlds. all within nothing. too bad such a mind gymnastics isn't practical :(

 

[whatta]

How could a solipsist explain there is a world in the first place (even if that world ony exists in the mindly experience of oneself)?

Since he cannot answer that question, his worldview would need to break down, or he would have to admit something like that the world came from nowhere/nothing all of it self.

solipsists must be real pros in imagineing uncaused events ;) maybe it's because me and you can't imagine them we aren't solipsists?

 

[mosassam]

Just trying to be Devil's Advocate. Doesn't the collapse of a wave function strengthen the case for solipsism. Shrodinger 'causes' reality by opening the box - prior to this it exists in a 'maybe' or uncertain state. Does Wheeler's observer-created universe also strengthen the case?
How do solipsists view each other? That each is a figment of the others imagination? How can they have functional relationships with members of the opposite sex or is it because they can't that they are solipsists in the first place?
Qow many solipsists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Duude, there is no light bulb.

 

[whatta]

and there is no spoon, too.

 

[AnssiH]

Why would anyone believing in solipsism ever try to convince "the others" that such is the case? Considering solipsism is a waste of thought regardless of what the truth might be.

Assume solipsism is false -> this thread is moot.
Assume solipsism is true. The thread is still moot! :)

-Anssi

 

[mosassam]

Good point. How did solipsism even take off. It would require at least one person trying to convince a figment of his imagination that he was a figment of his imagination. Surely after a few 'figments' have boxed you round the ears a couple of times you'd give up.

 

[Ghostfaith]

Ok, but why don't you go then for the simplest of all views, which simply says that NOTHING exists, and that you don't exist, and that you don't have experiences, observations, anything ?

No thing doesn't exist. No thing... no thing is nothing that is on the table. I do say this V. But if there is no thing, then there is no self as well. What you have to come to terms with, in your own philosophy, is why you have assumed that no thing would mean total void. It doesn't. *Things* are a product of meaning. Beyond that, stuff still goes on, it's just that there is *no thing*... *En Sof* *Nagual* - no thing. Mystical traditions have talked about this for millenia.

 

[mosassam]

Just to expand on Ghostfaith's point. Reality may well be a unified whole and, if so, no "things" exist, not even the unified whole itself. Rational Mind fragments this unified whole and in doing so creates "things" including the Self. The nature of Rational Mind demands that it separate, label, classify and categorise 'reality'. In reality, this separation doesn't actually exist, but this is incredibly difficult to see as we use our Rational Mind to try and see it. When Rational Mind disappears everything doesn't disappear with it, everything simply assumes its true nature (ie: not separate, unified)
I've just made all this up!
(I think)

 

[AnssiH]

Just to expand on Ghostfaith's point. Reality may well be a unified whole and, if so, no "things" exist, not even the unified whole itself. Rational Mind fragments this unified whole and in doing so creates "things" including the Self. The nature of Rational Mind demands that it separate, label, classify and categorise 'reality'. In reality, this separation doesn't actually exist, but this is incredibly difficult to see as we use our Rational Mind to try and see it. When Rational Mind disappears everything doesn't disappear with it, everything simply assumes its true nature (ie: not separate, unified)
I've just made all this up!
(I think)

Well done, you worded my view exactly, but much clearer than I think I ever have :)

"Fallacy of identity" (of things & self) it could be called.

-Anssi

 

[mosassam]

Well done, you worded my view exactly, but much clearer than I think I ever have

The 'unified whole/fallacy of identity' view expressed above has directly evolved from an initial conundrum I had concerning Time when I first joined this thread about 3 months. I had the great fortune of bumping into yourself on the "Is time an illusion thread". Your patience and insight have been inspiring. Many thanks Anssi, keep helping me and others like me.

 

[AnssiH]

The 'unified whole/fallacy of identity' view expressed above has directly evolved from an initial conundrum I had concerning Time when I first joined this thread about 3 months. I had the great fortune of bumping into yourself on the "Is time an illusion thread". Your patience and insight have been inspiring. Many thanks Anssi, keep helping me and others like me.

Well I'll be quoting your succint explanation of the identity fallacy from now on so thanks to you ;)

 

[Paul Martin]

Reality may well be a unified whole and, if so, no "things" exist, not even the unified whole itself. Rational Mind fragments this unified whole and in doing so creates "things" including the Self.

Does the Rational Mind exist? If so, is it the unified whole (it can't be part of it otherwise the unified whole wouldn't be a unified whole without parts)? Or, is it outside of, and separate from Reality? If that is the case, we would have to conclude that the Rational Mind is not real but nonetheless exists, wouldn't we?

The nature of Rational Mind demands that it separate, label, classify and categorise 'reality'.

Since we each seem to "have", or "experience" a Rational Mind, it seems as though we are somewhat familiar with at least part of its nature. On that basis, I tend to agree with your statement here. Do you think that by similar introspection we can come to even greater understanding of this Rational Mind and its relationship with the rest of Reality, or to Reality itself, whichever is the case?

Warm regards,

Paul

 

[AnssiH]

Does the Rational Mind exist? If so, is it the unified whole (it can't be part of it otherwise the unified whole wouldn't be a unified whole without parts)? Or, is it outside of, and separate from Reality? If that is the case, we would have to conclude that the Rational Mind is not real but nonetheless exists, wouldn't we?

If I may butt in a bit...

"Rational Mind" is referring to "subjective experience", not to a physical "thing" having an experience.

Like Mosassam mentioned, it is hard to see all this because it is intrinsic to our mind (brain) that reality is classified into things.

It is not possible to understand or even to think about any system without breaking it into sensible "things" (that then can be thought of being in interaction with each others). Rational mind is based on this kind of classification process. (Another way to put it, the system is broken into semantical components, which make up the mental model we are aware of... Because of having a mental model of reality, we can make predictions about its behaviour. And all our rational behaviour is based on this capability of making predictions)

So, the subjective experience definitely exists, but if we want to understand the real nature of the subjective experience, it can be erroneous to assume identity to one's own mind. As if you are metaphysically the same person today that you were yesterday. What you have is memories of yesterday; existing by the virtue of physical configuration of the brain. What is there that persists in a person metaphysically? Well, there is absolutely no need to assume anything else persists from moment to moment, but the memories. It is part of our semantical worldview that we assume there is an objective "self"

This is not the most complicated philosophy but it is not the most intuitive one either... Still it comes as a kind of a natural revelation to many people at some point during their lives. At least to those who are inclined towards materialism.

For a deeper look, check out:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262633086/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

All he did was posit the existence of a process ontology, something already constructed from eastern philosophical and religious paradigms. The Dao or Tao being the most famous example.

The concept that reality can't be defined or classified, is really really ancient. Substance ontology, what most of embrace, emerged out of the west.

Explain how we would have made the advancements we have made, had we not assumed the universe is built upon constituent parts?

 

[AnssiH]

Explain how we would have made the advancements we have made, had we not assumed the universe is built upon constituent parts?

We would not have. That is the way we make "valid models". Valid as in yielding valid predictions. There is nothing wrong in understanding a system in any way that we find useful, but the difference between scientific models and ontological considerations must be kept firmly in mind here.

I'll just refer to myself:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1256285&postcount=297

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

We would not have. That is the way we make "valid models". Valid as in yielding valid predictions. There is nothing wrong in understanding a system in any way that we find useful, but the difference between scientific models and ontological considerations must be kept firmly in mind here.

I'll just refer to myself:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1256285&postcount=297

I have read lots of Kuhn and Popper what do they have to do with ontology? They are philosophers of science.

Kuhn's distinction of paradigms between normal science and revolutionary science, do not correlate to what you are saying.

Also, again, you both seem to be presenting a slightly modified process ontology, which I already stated, is nothing new. Not to say it shouldn't be discussed but I feel as if some people here think they are being original.

 

[AnssiH]

I have read lots of Kuhn and Popper what do they have to do with ontology? They are philosophers of science.

Kuhn's distinction of paradigms between normal science and revolutionary science, do not correlate to what you are saying..

Well granted there are many ways to interpret Kuhn, but to me his observations speak volumes about hpw physical theories really are just models of reality. A model as in something that can yield valid predictions without capturing the real nature of the system it is predicting.

Also, again, you both seem to be presenting a slightly modified process ontology, which I already stated, is nothing new. Not to say it shouldn't be discussed but I feel as if some people here think they are being original.

Don't worry, I know many people have written books voicing the same ideas hundreds of years ago, and I think it goes without saying we can take any given philosophy today, and trace someone else who's had the same idea thousands of years back. When I think of something that is new to me, I usually find some writings about it pretty quickly. Oh the joy of internet. :)

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Well granted there are many ways to interpret Kuhn, but to me his observations speak volumes about hpw physical theories really are just models of reality. A model as in something that can yield valid predictions without capturing the real nature of the system it is predicting.



Don't worry, I know many people have written books voicing the same ideas hundreds of years ago, and I think it goes without saying we can take any given philosophy today, and trace someone else who's had the same idea thousands of years back. When I think of something that is new to me, I usually find some writings about it pretty quickly. Oh the joy of internet. :)

You are quite correct with your last paragraph. Perhaps it is to abrupt of me to conclude that your idea has nothing to do with Kuhn. I will read into it a bit deeper.

Regards,
-cP

 

[mosassam]

Does the Rational Mind exist? If so, is it the unified whole (it can't be part of it otherwise the unified whole wouldn't be a unified whole without parts)? Or, is it outside of, and separate from Reality? If that is the case, we would have to conclude that the Rational Mind is not real but nonetheless exists, wouldn't we?

I would like to go through this slowly, if I may, as I'm on new ground myself.
Nothing can be separate or "outside" the unified whole but what does "unified whole" mean? Obviously, one sense must be the inclusion of everything known (and unknown) into a single grouping, but, to me at least, this gives the impression of a "thing" (the unified whole) in which everything else exists. I find that I cannot agree with this view. At this moment I am inclined to view the unified whole, not as an 'entity', but as a 'state of being' (please remember, I'm flying by the seat of my pants here).
I am reminded that, in Quantum Theory, "things" have been replaced by "waves of probability patterns".
Although it may not be possible to speak validly of "parts" of the unified whole, it may be possible to speak of aspects of it without shattering its "wholeness". Day to day reality consists of separate parts and the Rational Mind reflects this aspect of the unified whole. However, human consciousness also experiences moments of 'wholeness' (the "Eureka moment" for the scientist, "being in the groove" for a musician, "being in the zone" for an athlete and so on). The problem arises when these deeply personal moments have to be communicated, they have to be "broken down" into their constituent parts and once this occurs we have moved from the realm of "wholeness" back into the realm of "separateness" (the Rational Mind.)
Can we even discuss the unified whole/fallacy of identity through the lens of the Rational Mind?

 

[mosassam]

All he did was posit the existence of a process ontology, something already constructed from eastern philosophical and religious paradigms. The Dao or Tao being the most famous example.

The view expressed of the unified whole/identity of fallacy posted above occurred as a personal comprehension or "revelation" (if I want to be dramatic). Whilst being vaguely aware of the paradigms you mention they had minimal impact on the above view. I first came to this forum after I comprehended that Time doesn't objectively exist. No doubt this must old news to you guys but it certainly wasn't to me and I was quite shocked to discover this, but to say "Oh, this has already been discovered" in no way invalidates my personal experience. (I must also confess that I don't know what 'process ontology' means).

The concept that reality can't be defined or classified, is really really ancient. Substance ontology, what most of embrace, emerged out of the west.

Through the view of the unified whole I must agree that reality can't be classifed (I'm not sure about 'defined'). Does this reflect a shortcoming that science will always have (has had) when trying to describe reality or can it be possible, with this great constraint still in place, that science has the flexibility to "make a bridge" from the 'separate' to the 'whole'? One of the main influences I had regarding the unified whole/fallacy of identity view was David Bohm's Implicate Order (As well as Fritjof Capra's "The Web of Life" and Robert Anton Wilson's "Quantum Psychology")

 

[AnssiH]

Can we even discuss the unified whole/fallacy of identity through the lens of the Rational Mind?

Not properly no. Any discussion and even any thoughts about some systems work by us having classified the system into parts. This is the most serious problem when trying to communicate this idea to someone else. You can only use improper words to describe it :P (i.e. it requires little bit of effort from the other party... not something people are too willing to do in 'net forums :)

-Anssi

 

[mosassam]

Any discussion and even any thoughts about some systems work by us having classified the system into parts. This is the most serious problem when trying to communicate this idea to someone else. You can only use improper words to describe it :P (i.e. it requires little bit of effort from the other party... not something people are too willing to do in 'net forums :)

1000% Amen
In my last post I spoke of the 'flexibility' science (physics) needs to reach beyond the obvious limitations of the Rational Mind. Definitions must be required but there seems to be a tendency for many people to want to define things "out of existence". Like-minded people must find a language that transcends the traditional limitations, unfortunately it will be one that must be based on trust, or even faith, in each other - a most unscientific principle. Criticism and scepticism will still be vital necessities but not for their own sake, and certainly not to be used as a sheild to protect oneself from the vague terror of uncertainty - the genuine fear of the unknown. In this respect, science and religion have been twins for too long.