What knowledge mysticism provides?

[Canute]

Whether or not NA is the subject depends on whether or not it is mysticism.

That's true. Until someone defines NAM I wouldn't know whether it is mysticism proper or not. I can only take my cue from the article someone posted earlier, and that was not about mysticism. This discussion is first time I've heard any reference to New Age mysticism.

To me the term 'New Age' spells old age superstitions and the idea that we should deny the findings of science except where it is convenient to accept them. This is not my position at all. Note that the Dalai Lama is introducing more physics into the curriculum of the Buddhist universities and is calling for physicists to delve more deeply into the mystical cosmology with a view to bridging the gap between the two disciplines. Physicists and mystics are both studying the same universe and we should expect their findings to agree in all cases. As far as it is possible to tell they do. In this case, as William James suggests in that earlier quote, we might wonder how this is possible given their different methodologies, and what this says for mystical knowledge.

 

[Tournesol]

That's true. Until someone defines NAM I wouldn't know whether it is mysticism proper or not.

"The term New Age describes a broad movement of late 20th century and contemporary Western culture, characterised by an individual eclectic approach to spiritual exploration." -- wiki

To me the term 'New Age' spells old age superstitions and the idea that we should deny the findings of science except where it is convenient to accept them. This is not my position at all.

Most of the disagreements I have had with you have been over just that
point.

 

[Canute]

I hope I've not given the impression of picking and choosing from among the scientific facts, for I accept them all unreservedly. The mystical cosmology/perennial philosophy contradicts no scientific facts. (The metaphysical speculations of many scientists, however, are another matter). Where we've disagreed I think you'll find that it's not been on matters of scientific fact. In my view the esoteric teachings do not contradict the findings of modern science, they makes sense of them.

On the New Age thing that definition helps. If all New Age means in this context is that a person explores the mystical teachings eclectically, by reference to a variety of traditions, then I have no problem with the term. In this case it concerns methodology rather than the formulation of a new philosophy. (All the same, from common usage it seems to me a perjorative term, associated with much nonsense, so personally I'd rather avoid it. I grew up in Glastonbury, so have much first-hand experience of the various excesses of new age wishful thinking).

 

[Tournesol]

I hope I've not given the impression of picking and choosing from among the scientific facts, for I accept them all unreservedly.

Even that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos ?

 

[Mickey]

In this case it concerns methodology rather than the formulation of a new philosophy.

Methodologies are philosophies.

(All the same, from common usage it seems to me a perjorative term, associated with much nonsense, so personally I'd rather avoid it. I grew up in Glastonbury, so have much first-hand experience of the various excesses of new age wishful thinking).

Well, the New Agers are actually the ones who emphasized the notion of a new age. I have firsthand experience with the New Age myself.

Extremely high levels of wishful thinking are nothing new. When it gets to such high levels, it's called things like prayer or faith.

It's just that now, in a post-Enlightenment world, we've recognized that other approaches are far more successful.

 

[Canute]

Even that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos ?

I'm talking about scientific facts not guesswork.

I agree (Mickey) that methodologies are often philosophies. All I meant was that to take an eclectic approach to a study of mysticism is not to invent a new philosophy but just to make a choice of approach. In the end however eclectic we are we end up studying the same doctrine and the same phenomenon.

It's just that now, in a post-Enlightenment world, we've recognized that other approaches are far more successful.

More successful in what way?

 

[Tournesol]

Ha ha ha!

 

[Tournesol]

So it is OK to pick and choose your science, provding you
use the magic word "guesswork"!

 

[Canute]

No, of course not. If you consider what you are claiming here you'll see that this is the tactic you have inadvertently adopted. Your claim is not scientific.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos. It is this fact that has allowed a number of physicists, some at the peak of their profession, to speculate in public that it is not a late arrival, and in some cases to state that it is not. They cannot all have misunderstood the scientific evidence.

You are proposing that it is a scientific fact that consciousness appears late in the evolution of the universe. (By 'late' here I asume we might mean ontologically later, emergent rather than fundamental, or later in temporal terms, not present from the start, not necessary to the existence of the universe).

Is this a scientific claim? It seems to me to be a guess, a metaphysical conjecture. It may be right to say that it is the prevailing opinion among people who think mysticism is nonsense, but this would have nothing to do with whether the claim is true or false nor whether it is scientific. My feeling is that most scientists would say is that your claim is not remotely scientific let alone factual.

The other problem here is that if mysticism is nonsense, as you are arguing, (and of course you're right to argue against a view you believe is nonsense), then there would be no means by which you could ever know whether consciousness was a late arrival or not. So I know that you don't know that your claim is true regardless of whether or not it's scientific. I can respect it as your opinion, but it is no more scientific than the opposing claim.

To confuse the isssue further the mystics make neither claim. According to the esoteric literature there is a sense in which consciousness is a late arrival in the universe and a sense in which it is not. That is, there are two ways of looking at this question. So I'm not arguing that consciousness is not a late arrival. That is, it doesn't follow from my argument that your claim is not scientific that I think there is no truth in it.

But it is a guess. Colin McGinn, self-professedly one the most 'western' or 'analytical' of philosophers around, has speculated that consciousness may originate in a 'pre-spatial' reality 'prior' to the initial singularity. (I assume that by 'prior' he means ontologically prior and not prior in time). I find this idea muddled and clearly it is a guess, but that doesn't really matter. From the fact that he even considers this a possibility it follows that either there is no scientific evidence or logical argument that rules it out or he is incompetent.

The mystical literature has consciousness (def. pending) as a late arrival in the universe in the sense that it is not ontologically fundamental, not what is Absolute, but not as late in time, for it is what brings time into being.

This goes back the the earlier question of how mystical knowledge can include a knowledge of the process of cosmogenesis. This bringing of spacetime into being would be an early part of the process of symmetry-breaking by which cosmogenesis occurs. The process would unfold according to the laws described by Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form, which he claims are the same in all universes. How does he know this? If consciousness is as old as the universe and this can be verified empirically in practice then this would be the answer.

Note that the universe described here is not 'unscientific'. If it is what is the case then the world would be just as it appears to you and me and professional physicists and philosophers right now. Not a single observation or measurement would be any different than it is. If this were not the case then this description would be demonstrably false.

Regards
Canute

 

[Tournesol]

No, of course not. If you consider what you are claiming here you'll see that this is the tactic you have inadvertently adopted. Your claim is not scientific.

My "claim" was sarcastic.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos.

There is as much evidence against incorporeal consciousness
as there is against invisible fairires.

It is this fact that has allowed a number of physicists, some at the peak of their profession, to speculate in public that it is not a late arrival, and in some cases to state that it is not. They cannot all have misunderstood the scientific evidence.

The majority of scientists is on my side (and where did
"phsyicsists" come into it ? Consciousness is a topic of psychology,
not physics).

You are proposing that it is a scientific fact that consciousness appears late in the evolution of the universe. (By 'late' here I asume we might mean ontologically later, emergent rather than fundamental, or later in temporal terms, not present from the start, not necessary to the existence of the universe).

Both.

Is this a scientific claim?

Yes. There is no evidence of consciousness except in biological life.
Life arrived late in the universe.

It seems to me to be a guess, a metaphysical conjecture.

In science, we operate on occam's razor.

If there is no evidene for something we say it doesn't exist.

No evidence for invisible fairies: no invisible fairies.

No evidence for incorporeal consciousness: no incorporeal consciousness.

It may be right to say that it is the prevailing opinion among people who think mysticism is nonsense, but this would have nothing to do with whether the claim is true or false nor whether it is scientific.

Scientists think incoporeal consicousness is non-existent
becasue there is no evidence for it. In may cases hey think
mysticism is nonsense because mystics believe in things
for which there is no evidence.

My feeling is that most scientists would say is that your claim is not remotely scientific let alone factual.

Well, they wouldn't, whatever you feel.

The other problem here is that if mysticism is nonsense, as you are arguing, (and of course you're right to argue against a view you believe is nonsense), then there would be no means by which you could ever know whether consciousness was a late arrival or not.

What do you mean by that? Rocks and clouds
of gas are not cosncious. They ae not aware, they
do not respond to the environment.
And that's all there was for
billions of years.

(Or do you mean that there consciousness might
be present but indetecable ? Well, there is
a reason why I have been talking about *invisible*
fairies. Invisible and undetectable entities
are unnecessary entities, and fall
to the Razor).

So I know that you don't know that your claim is true regardless of whether or not it's scientific. I can respect it as your opinion, but it is no more scientific than the opposing claim.

Occams' razor is on my side, therefore science is.
Science is about the minimal hypothesis that supports
the evidence.

To confuse the isssue further the mystics make neither claim. According to the esoteric literature there is a sense in which consciousness is a late arrival in the universe and a sense in which it is not. That is, there are two ways of looking at this question. So I'm not arguing that consciousness is not a late arrival. That is, it doesn't follow from my argument that your claim is not scientific that I think there is no truth in it.

My claim is scientific becasue it is in line with O's R.

But it is a guess. Colin McGinn, self-professedly one the most 'western' or 'analytical' of philosophers around, has speculated that consciousness may originate in a 'pre-spatial' reality 'prior' to the initial singularity. (I assume that by 'prior' he means ontologically prior and not prior in time). I find this idea muddled and clearly it is a guess, but that doesn't really matter. From the fact that he even considers this a possibility it follows that either there is no scientific evidence or logical argument that rules it out or he is incompetent.

You are confusing decisive evidence with the minimal
hypthesis that supposts the evidence.

The mystical literature has consciousness (def. pending) as a late arrival in the universe in the sense that it is not ontologically fundamental, not what is Absolute, but not as late in time, for it is what brings time into being.

And there's evidence for that, is there ?

This goes back the the earlier question of how mystical knowledge can include a knowledge of the process of cosmogenesis. This bringing of spacetime into being would be an early part of the process of symmetry-breaking by which cosmogenesis occurs. The process would unfold according to the laws described by Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form, which he claims are the same in all universes. How does he know this? If consciousness is as old as the universe and this can be verified empirically in practice then this would be the answer.

So all you have to do is assume your conclusion ?

Note that the universe described here is not 'unscientific'. If it is what is the case then the world would be just as it appears to you and me and professional physicists and philosophers right now. Not a single observation or measurement would be any different than it is. If this were not the case then this description would be demonstrably false.

Obviously. If you add some non-functional bell or whistle
to a theory, everything stays the same. That's why
we have Occam's razor...to cut a theory down to what
is useful.

 

[Tournesol]

No, of course not. If you consider what you are claiming here you'll see that this is the tactic you have inadvertently adopted. Your claim is not scientific.

My "claim" was sarcastic.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos.

There is as much evidence against incorporeal consciousness
as there is against invisible fairires.

It is this fact that has allowed a number of physicists, some at the peak of their profession, to speculate in public that it is not a late arrival, and in some cases to state that it is not. They cannot all have misunderstood the scientific evidence.

The majority of scientists is on my side (and where did
"phsyicsists" come into it ? Consciousness is a topic of psychology,
not physics).

You are proposing that it is a scientific fact that consciousness appears late in the evolution of the universe. (By 'late' here I asume we might mean ontologically later, emergent rather than fundamental, or later in temporal terms, not present from the start, not necessary to the existence of the universe).

Both.

Is this a scientific claim?

Yes. There is no evidence of consciousness except in biological life.
Life arrived late in the universe.

It seems to me to be a guess, a metaphysical conjecture.

In science, we operate on occam's razor.

If there is no evidene for something we say it doesn't exist.

No evidence for invisible fairies: no invisible fairies.

No evidence for incorporeal consciousness: no incorporeal consciousness.

It may be right to say that it is the prevailing opinion among people who think mysticism is nonsense, but this would have nothing to do with whether the claim is true or false nor whether it is scientific.

Scientists think incoporeal consicousness is non-existent
becasue there is no evidence for it. In may cases hey think
mysticism is nonsense because mystics believe in things
for which there is no evidence.

My feeling is that most scientists would say is that your claim is not remotely scientific let alone factual.

Well, they wouldn't, whatever you feel.

The other problem here is that if mysticism is nonsense, as you are arguing, (and of course you're right to argue against a view you believe is nonsense), then there would be no means by which you could ever know whether consciousness was a late arrival or not.

What do you mean by that? Rocks and clouds
of gas are not cosncious. They ae not aware, they
do not respond to the environment.
And that's all there was for
billions of years.

(Or do you mean that there consciousness might
be present but indetecable ? Well, there is
a reason why I have been talking about *invisible*
fairies. Invisible and undetectable entities
are unnecessary entities, and fall
to the Razor).

So I know that you don't know that your claim is true regardless of whether or not it's scientific. I can respect it as your opinion, but it is no more scientific than the opposing claim.

Occams' razor is on my side, therefore science is.
Science is about the minimal hypothesis that supports
the evidence.

To confuse the isssue further the mystics make neither claim. According to the esoteric literature there is a sense in which consciousness is a late arrival in the universe and a sense in which it is not. That is, there are two ways of looking at this question. So I'm not arguing that consciousness is not a late arrival. That is, it doesn't follow from my argument that your claim is not scientific that I think there is no truth in it.

My claim is scientific becasue it is in line with O's R.

But it is a guess. Colin McGinn, self-professedly one the most 'western' or 'analytical' of philosophers around, has speculated that consciousness may originate in a 'pre-spatial' reality 'prior' to the initial singularity. (I assume that by 'prior' he means ontologically prior and not prior in time). I find this idea muddled and clearly it is a guess, but that doesn't really matter. From the fact that he even considers this a possibility it follows that either there is no scientific evidence or logical argument that rules it out or he is incompetent.

You are confusing decisive evidence with the minimal
hypthesis that supposts the evidence.

The mystical literature has consciousness (def. pending) as a late arrival in the universe in the sense that it is not ontologically fundamental, not what is Absolute, but not as late in time, for it is what brings time into being.

And there's evidence for that, is there ?

This goes back the the earlier question of how mystical knowledge can include a knowledge of the process of cosmogenesis. This bringing of spacetime into being would be an early part of the process of symmetry-breaking by which cosmogenesis occurs. The process would unfold according to the laws described by Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form, which he claims are the same in all universes. How does he know this? If consciousness is as old as the universe and this can be verified empirically in practice then this would be the answer.

So all you have to do is assume your conclusion ?

Note that the universe described here is not 'unscientific'. If it is what is the case then the world would be just as it appears to you and me and professional physicists and philosophers right now. Not a single observation or measurement would be any different than it is. If this were not the case then this description would be demonstrably false.

Obviously. If you add some non-functional bell or whistle
to a theory, everything stays the same. That's why
we have Occam's razor...to cut a theory down to what
is useful.

 

[Tournesol]

No, of course not. If you consider what you are claiming here you'll see that this is the tactic you have inadvertently adopted. Your claim is not scientific.

My "claim" was sarcastic.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos.

There is as much evidence against incorporeal consciousness
as there is against invisible fairires.

It is this fact that has allowed a number of physicists, some at the peak of their profession, to speculate in public that it is not a late arrival, and in some cases to state that it is not. They cannot all have misunderstood the scientific evidence.

The majority of scientists is on my side (and where did
"phsyicsists" come into it ? Consciousness is a topic of psychology,
not physics).

You are proposing that it is a scientific fact that consciousness appears late in the evolution of the universe. (By 'late' here I asume we might mean ontologically later, emergent rather than fundamental, or later in temporal terms, not present from the start, not necessary to the existence of the universe).

Both.

Is this a scientific claim?

Yes. There is no evidence of consciousness except in biological life.
Life arrived late in the universe.

It seems to me to be a guess, a metaphysical conjecture.

In science, we operate on occam's razor.

If there is no evidene for something we say it doesn't exist.

No evidence for invisible fairies: no invisible fairies.

No evidence for incorporeal consciousness: no incorporeal consciousness.

It may be right to say that it is the prevailing opinion among people who think mysticism is nonsense, but this would have nothing to do with whether the claim is true or false nor whether it is scientific.

Scientists think incoporeal consicousness is non-existent
becasue there is no evidence for it. In may cases hey think
mysticism is nonsense because mystics believe in things
for which there is no evidence.

My feeling is that most scientists would say is that your claim is not remotely scientific let alone factual.

Well, they wouldn't, whatever you feel.

The other problem here is that if mysticism is nonsense, as you are arguing, (and of course you're right to argue against a view you believe is nonsense), then there would be no means by which you could ever know whether consciousness was a late arrival or not.

What do you mean by that? Rocks and clouds
of gas are not cosncious. They ae not aware, they
do not respond to the environment.
And that's all there was for
billions of years.

(Or do you mean that there consciousness might
be present but indetecable ? Well, there is
a reason why I have been talking about *invisible*
fairies. Invisible and undetectable entities
are unnecessary entities, and fall
to the Razor).

So I know that you don't know that your claim is true regardless of whether or not it's scientific. I can respect it as your opinion, but it is no more scientific than the opposing claim.

Occams' razor is on my side, therefore science is.
Science is about the minimal hypothesis that supports
the evidence.

To confuse the isssue further the mystics make neither claim. According to the esoteric literature there is a sense in which consciousness is a late arrival in the universe and a sense in which it is not. That is, there are two ways of looking at this question. So I'm not arguing that consciousness is not a late arrival. That is, it doesn't follow from my argument that your claim is not scientific that I think there is no truth in it.

My claim is scientific becasue it is in line with O's R.

But it is a guess. Colin McGinn, self-professedly one the most 'western' or 'analytical' of philosophers around, has speculated that consciousness may originate in a 'pre-spatial' reality 'prior' to the initial singularity. (I assume that by 'prior' he means ontologically prior and not prior in time). I find this idea muddled and clearly it is a guess, but that doesn't really matter. From the fact that he even considers this a possibility it follows that either there is no scientific evidence or logical argument that rules it out or he is incompetent.

You are confusing decisive evidence with the minimal
hypthesis that supposts the evidence.

The mystical literature has consciousness (def. pending) as a late arrival in the universe in the sense that it is not ontologically fundamental, not what is Absolute, but not as late in time, for it is what brings time into being.

And there's evidence for that, is there ?

This goes back the the earlier question of how mystical knowledge can include a knowledge of the process of cosmogenesis. This bringing of spacetime into being would be an early part of the process of symmetry-breaking by which cosmogenesis occurs. The process would unfold according to the laws described by Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form, which he claims are the same in all universes. How does he know this? If consciousness is as old as the universe and this can be verified empirically in practice then this would be the answer.

So all you have to do is assume your conclusion ?

Note that the universe described here is not 'unscientific'. If it is what is the case then the world would be just as it appears to you and me and professional physicists and philosophers right now. Not a single observation or measurement would be any different than it is. If this were not the case then this description would be demonstrably false.

Obviously. If you add some non-functional bell or whistle
to a theory, everything stays the same. That's why
we have Occam's razor...to cut a theory down to what
is useful.

 

[Pythagorean]

A lot of mysticism/religion is in response to suffering, and is just as valid as occupying yourself with science, as far as I'm concerned.

I do not practice mysticism, personally, but if you accept scientific method, then you probably don't expect there to be some grandiose meaning to life, and therefore, can accept that your work as a scientist isn't anymore important than the work of mystics.

If you want to be altruistic and science is your avenue to help the human race, then I think you might be delluding yourself.

Mostly, the practice of mysticism entails rejecting material obsession. It's basically a mechanism for adapting to 'not having'. By desiring things you can never have, you waste time and energy (both physical and emotional). By having vanity over your rotting body (which will eventually be dust anyway) you are deluding yourself.

I disagree with the majority of scientists who are skeptics that think mysticism is useless. That's not to say I think the mystics have an idea of the real truth of the universe, I just think that the universe is very open to enterpretation, and each individual interacts with it in their own way.

My way is science, but I have no reason to criticize the ways of the mystic, because it is not my realm. I think any scientist that does criticize mysticism is doing so because they've been told by their mentors and peers, not based on any scientific evidence.

Edit: and occam's razor isn't scientific evidence, it is a convenient tool for scientific method. There's times when it seems Occam's razor is used as a blind (literally) assertion: "I never saw it, so it doesn't exist."

 

[Canute]

Tournesol

I genuinely do not understand how you reach your conclusions. The process seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with evidence or reasoning. The only argument you make in support of your idea is that Occam's razor suggests that you're right. I'd argue that it suggests the mystics are, so where does that leave us? Do you have any objection of substance? There's no point in us arguing over your opinions.

You know as well as I do that you don't have the faintest idea when consciousness appears in the history of the universe. So why not just say you don't know, but on balance you prefer the idea that it arrived late?

 

[Tournesol]

Tournesol

I genuinely do not understand how you reach your conclusions.

Have you studied science ?

The process seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with evidence or reasoning.

Have you studied logic ?

The only argument you make in support of your idea is that Occam's razor suggests that you're right.

Yes. saying it is the "only" explanation does not make it false.
And remember, the question is whether "consciousness is a late
arrival" is a scientific truth. So it boils down
to
1) whether "consciousness is a late
arrival" justified by occam's razor.

and

2) whether science works on occam's razor.

You have suggested nothing that refutes either of these,
so my case stands

(YOu seem to be under the impression sicne
works on the basis that everything is true untill
proven fals with complete certainty -- at least
your only argument fo incorporeal consicousness
is that it isn't *necessarilly* false. But
science doesn't work that way.)

I'd argue that it suggests the mystics are, so where does that leave us? Do you have any objection of substance? There's no point in us arguing over your opinions.

Nothing I have said is mere opinion.

You know as well as I do that you don't have the faintest idea when consciousness appears in the history of the universe.

Consicousness appeared when organsims became aware of their
environment, as I have said.

So why not just say you don't know, but on balance you prefer the idea that it arrived late?

sighh...the point you have been missing all along is that *all*
scientific knowledge operates on the "on balance" principle.

And you haven't got anything better!

Using the word "know" to mean "be absolutely certain" doesn't imply
that you do in fact have absolute certainty.

In fact, no one has absolute certainty about anything substantial.

So the only options are to adopt the "on balance" approach,
or to go for a level playing field...e.g. the existence of invisible
fairies is just as likely as the non-existence.

But no-one wants to do that *consistently*. The "no-one
knows either way argument" is always special pleading for the speaker's pet theory.

 

[Canute]

I'm afraid I have no interest in this sort of argument. It is perfectly obvious that you do not know whether consciousness is a late arrival in the universe or whether it is not. It is also perfectly obvious that there is no 'scientific' (naturalistic) way to test whether it is or not. What experiment would you perform to determine the answer?

Why not just accept you don't know? This is all I'm suggesting.

 

[PIT2]

Consicousness appeared when organsims became aware of their
environment, as I have said.

I think canute has already pointed out that this is a metaphysical assumption. Saying that consciousness arose first in organisms, is simply saying that from A came B. It does not explain or prove that it actually happened. One might as well say that jesus walked on water - there is no explanation or evidence that this happened.

 

[Psykostx]

Ok, my 2 cents...

Mysticism and psychadelic drugs have a similar effect on the mind. Both create a resistance to accepting other people's version of reality. Have you ever tried to convince a hippy they were wrong?? Impossible. Both of these things reconfigure the brains use of REASON to "render" emotion into 3d space. So as far as getting in touch with and visualising emotion and understanding ones own inner workings and their relationship to the outside world, knowledge can be found. As far as manipulating matter and energy, well you won't receive much knowledge in physics or increase your sense of logic! Both of these things (including dreaming) are the brains interpretations of the unknown.

You may find yourself more scatterbrained with math and science (Due to your short term memory being converted into a rendering field for emotion), but as far as being a human being, you won't wonder so much, you are more likely to simply accept the fact that you exist, rather than worry about why or how.

If you want to see the face of impossibility then continue to meditate (or try ingesting one of the many tryptamines available through nature). However you may not like the fact that your brain was programmed by other people and that some of your beliefs are incredibly silly and detrimental to your well being and the well being of others.

 

[Psykostx]

Also...who's to say the universe isn't conscious of itself and your magnificent mind isn't a model of it? That would explain man being created in gods image rather well.

 

[Tournesol]

I think canute has already pointed out that this is a metaphysical assumption. Saying that consciousness arose first in organisms, is simply saying that from A came B. It does not explain or prove that it actually happened.

There is no mystery how and why organism became
capable or perceiving and responding to their environments.
You guys keep taking "consiousness" to mean "phenomenal
consciousness". There is an Easy Problem as well.

 

[Tournesol]

I'm afraid I have no interest in this sort of argument. It is perfectly obvious that you do not know whether consciousness is a late arrival in the universe or whether it is not.

Do I know whether or not here are
invisble fairies ? Do you ? The same
epistemology is involved either way.

It is also perfectly obvious that there is no 'scientific' (naturalistic) way to test whether it is or not. What experiment would you perform to determine the answer?

The answer to what ? To whether rocks and clouds
of gas respond to their environment ? That one's
pretty easy.

Or an answer to whether there are invisible fairies.
Well, you can't test that ...because they're invisible.

Is that a good reason fo believing in them ?

Why not just accept you don't know? This is all I'm suggesting.

I have already accepted I'm not certain. Why don't you accept
that I can have a overwhelming weight of evidence that fall
shsort of complete certainty ? Why don't you accept that such
a weight of evidence is all you ever have in sceince,
so there is no more of a case for asserting incorporeal
consciousness than for denying evolution.

 

[Pythagorean]

As far as manipulating matter and energy, well you won't receive much knowledge in physics or increase your sense of logic! Both of these things (including dreaming) are the brains interpretations of the unknown.

I think manipulating matter and energy can be done easily without a physics education.

For example, if you hear a hippie (mystic) martial artist say his punch come up through Earth through his foot into his waste, and explodes out of the end of his arm with his fist, then you may very well laugh,

Physcially however, it has been shown that that's exactly where a martial artist's power and energy come from. (They actually hooked a whole bunch of karateka's up to sensors and ran a series of tests to monitor muscle use.

When they punch, the push first with their heel, into the ground, and as the muscle tension travels up your leg and into their waist, they twist their hip into the punch and the arm flies out explosively; they've put their whole body into, pushing off of the normal force of the ground.

I think it's silly when Physicists try and tell a martial artist that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Even though the martial artist is using a different dialect to explain what he's experiencing, he still has an idea of force and acceleration, and torque, just not mathematically.

I would imagine it's no different for the relationship between mystics and scientists.

 

[PIT2]

You guys keep taking "consiousness" to mean "phenomenal consciousness". There is an Easy Problem as well.

Yes we are talking about phenomenal consciousness and the hard problem. If I've understood the mystical view correctly, they agree with science on the easy problems. That is: all the other aspects of our mind that separate us from other conscious animals can be traced back to our bodies.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes we are talking about phenomenal consciousness and the hard problem. If I've understood the mystical view correctly, they agree with science on the easy problems, that is: all the other aspects of our mind which separate us from other conscious animals can be traced back to our bodies.

I agree. Even Bruce Li (who held a philosophy doctorate, believe it or not) claimed that you must be physically healthy and fit to become mentally healthy and fit.

 

[Tournesol]

Yes we are talking about phenomenal consciousness and the hard problem. If I've understood the mystical view correctly, they agree with science on the easy problems. That is: all the other aspects of our mind that separate us from other conscious animals can be traced back to our bodies.

So the "guess" that scientists are illegitimately making is
that the HP aspects of consc. stand or fall with
the EP aspects. Just because all the subjective and
objective evidence suggests exactly that.

 

[Mickey]

More successful in what way?

More successful in letting us succeed at the things we want to do, like curing diseases, for example. One might argue that mystically driven alternative medecine also cures diseases, but no where near the success rate of other approaches.

 

[Psykostx]

In response to pythagorean,

I sure do agree with you. But, martial artists don't learn martial arts from mysticism. They actually learned from ancient "physics" passed down from generation to generation. Like I said, you can really use mysticism to explore how your body relates to its environment and vice versa, but that's not neccessarily knowlegde. You can't learn calculus by meditation or psychadelic drugs. You can however develop emotional concentration and determination, as well as diminish anxiety. These things may help you acquire a thirst for knowledge, but they certainly don't insert it into your brain. As a matter of fact, evidence and personal experience suggest quite the opposite! Tryptamines can turn a computer science major into a burger flipper in less than a year (not me but a few genius friends of mine). I'd imagine being on a mountaintop with no social interaction for the same amount of time could equally dull your cognitive abilities.

 

[Pythagorean]

In response to pythagorean,

I sure do agree with you. But, martial artists don't learn martial arts from mysticism. They actually learned from ancient "physics" passed down from generation to generation. Like I said, you can really use mysticism to explore how your body relates to its environment and vice versa, but that's not neccessarily knowlegde. You can't learn calculus by meditation or psychadelic drugs. You can however develop emotional concentration and determination, as well as diminish anxiety. These things may help you acquire a thirst for knowledge, but they certainly don't insert it into your brain. As a matter of fact, evidence and personal experience suggest quite the opposite! Tryptamines can turn a computer science major into a burger flipper in less than a year (not me but a few genius friends of mine). I'd imagine being on a mountaintop with no social interaction for the same amount of time could equally dull your cognitive abilities.

But that's the different between mysticism and academic physics. Mysticism is about directly experiencing life, through a purely intuitive state of mind, physicists check themselves against their intuition

I'll admit that the later generations of karateka's perhaps learned most of their knowledge through rote (by what they're told and shown) but so are the majority of physicists nowadays. The actual pioneers of both physics and martial arts, however, differed greatly in their techniques for discovery.

 

[PIT2]

So the "guess" that scientists are illegitimately making is
that the HP aspects of consc. stand or fall with
the EP aspects. Just because all the subjective and
objective evidence suggests exactly that.

Mystical experiences do not suggest exactly that. All that mainstream scientists do is believe that their metaphysical assumtion is a fact (yes there are plenty exceptions, but the prevailing view is as uve described it), and then dismiss or ignore the bucketloads of evidence that directly challenges this view.

However, I am glad u agree that the mainstream science view is a guess, many would not even consider this.

 

[Canute]

PIT2 - Yes, you're right about the esoteric view of functional consciousness. It is this form of consciousness which by analysis and meditative practice is shown to have only a dependent existence, much as neuroscientists conclude. In this view the world has three aspects, the physical, the psychological and the phenomenal.

 

[PIT2]

PIT2 - Yes, you're right about the esoteric view of functional consciousness. It is this form of consciousness which by analysis and meditative practice is shown to have only a dependent existence, much as neuroscientists conclude. In this view the world has three aspects, the physical, the psychological and the phenomenal.

Im confused about one thing now though, u spoke of that some individuals will escape the cycle of life/death, while others wont. Doesnt this mean that after death there is still something left of a persons organism-ego as it existed during their life?

After all, there needs to be something that separates one persons fate(escape cycle) from the others(stay in life/death cycle) according to that idea.

 

[Tournesol]

The question is how many bucketloads of evidence
the bucketloads actually are. How many feet of shelf-space
are actually occupied by the evidence for incorporeal consciosuness ?

 

[PIT2]

The question is how many bucketloads of evidence
the bucketloads actually are. How many feet of shelf-space
are actually occupied by the evidence for incorporeal consciosuness ?

It would be useless to start discussing this evidence here, because it would end in a discussion over the theories science uses to explain them. But we can agree that any theory on phenomenal consciousness arising from the brain is speculative. The theories do not touch the core assumption, but reason from it.

 

[Tournesol]

But we can agree that any theory on phenomenal consciousness arising from the brain is speculative.

Any theory on phenomenal consciousness not arising from the brain is speculative.

Labouring mightily to estabish that your oponents theory
is less than certain does nothing to establish that yours is any
better.

 

[Canute]

Im confused about one thing now though, u spoke of that some individuals will escape the cycle of life/death, while others wont. Doesnt this mean that after death there is still something left of a persons organism-ego as it existed during their life?

After all, there needs to be something that separates one persons fate(escape cycle) from the others(stay in life/death cycle) according to that idea.

I'm not qualified to answer this but can say a couple of things. First, it is said that what passes from one life to another is not our self or ego. That would die along with our body or, rather, it never existed in the first place. Second, what is at work here are purely deterministic forces or principles (there is no great Judge in the Sky making decisions about where we end up).

When the sages advise us to die before our death this means, I think, that we should die to the part of ourself that dies on our death and by doing so awaken to the part that does not. The part that does not die would be not an individual 'soul' of which ours is one particular instance. It would be singular, a single phenomenon in which we all partake.

Thus when Schrodinger writes that the plurality of souls is an incoherent idea he is not suggesting that death is a full stop, he is suggesting that the part we all share is singular as opposed to plural. To put it theistically, as he does in places, he is proposing that we are God and God is One. However, this is only true for us if we realize it. If we do not then we will miss the boat when we die and (in some sense) return to have another go.

Buddhist writers say that there is a sense in which what returns is the same person but in a sense it is not. Along with all writers on this subject they say that this is something that can only be understood in practice. If it is not known in practice then we are speculating, which they regard as rather a waste of time. My faltering waste-of-time speculation is that what passes from one life to the next is a set of impressions made on an underlying continuum of consciousness/Being. This is a guess, but it seems to be close to what is usually said about this.

 

[Pythagorean]

\
When the sages advise us to die before our death this means, I think, that we should die to the part of ourself that dies on our death and by doing so awaken to the part that does not. The part that does not die would be not an individual 'soul' of which ours is one particular instance. It would be singular, a single phenomenon in which we all partake.

That's one of the better ways I've ever heard it worded. "A single phenomenon in which we all partake".

Good post, Canute.

I think it's important for people to remember that we're physically made out of stuff that has been around longer than our self-consciousness has. Since matter/energy is neither created or destroyed, it is recycled.

 

[Canute]

Thanks. Good point about energy. It appears that the net energy contained in the universe is zero, so score one to the mystics again.

I expect the moderators are getting restless so I'm going to drop out of this one before they strike. When I get around to it I'm going to request a new category for such discussions. You never know. The problem here is that it is (quite rightly) impossible to speak freely on the topic.

Bye for now
Canute