Long long post.
I'm curious how you divined my view of spirituality from my criticism of Descartes' "perpetual dream argument". Do you not pay attention to which argument you are replying to?
Man alive, you like to talk a lot. Everything you said here can be condensed into a single sentence - "The transcendent spiritual reality, which I believe exists, would be fundamentally different from spacetime constrained physical reality that we know of".
Again, try to be a bit more concise. How about "Evidence from quantum mechanics suggests that there exists a non-physical, non-spacetime constrained reality that has a separate structure of its own".
So what? Non-physical does not automatically make it spiritual and having a structure does not make it information. For this reality to be considered "spiritual", it must have an element of consciousness separate (though not necessarily independent) from its structure, whatever the structure may be. Similarly, for a structure to be information, there must be a consciousness to perceive and identify it. Unless you are saying that "consciousness is the structure", which would simply be a different way of saying "pure consciousness exists" and I don't think you are, then the issue of primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness isn't resolved - only pushed back further. We still have to determine whether it is the structure that forms the basis for consciousness or vice-versa. And according to the evidence you presented, while we have found the structure, there is no evidence of consciousness - which supports the former conclusion.
Can you imagine a structure without consciousness? And once again, structure is not the same as information unless there is a consciousness to perceive it.
I don't care if this imagined reality of yours is bound by a framework of spacetime or not. The question still stands - if structure can exist without the consciousness - whatever the structure may be?
Are you attempting some sort of slight of hand. Or trying to build a strawman. In all the quoted text, I haven't mentioned spacetime constraints even once. Just because your spiritual reality would be independent of "spacetime", does not mean that it would be independent of the very nature of its own existence. Primary dependence upon existence is primacy of existence.
There you go again, building the "spacetime" strawman. It doesn't matter what the nature of structure is. Either consciousness is dependent upon it or it is not. There can be not third option.
No, by reality here I was referring to you "spiritual" reality.
Good, so we can establish that even in that spiritual reality, the structure (existence) holds primacy over consciousness.
More unsupported ranting. Once again, please point to the area within this argument where I said that reality is equivalent to spacetime. I do believe that, but for the scope of this argument. I'm not using that.
You don't see anything ridiculous about something which is non-existent to exist? Your belief is not in something that is seemingly impossible, but it is possible and impossible at the same time. We are not talking about your belief about the spirit world here, we are talking about your belief in the cause of the spirit world.
Why is our existence ridiculous or irrational?
The basis is reality. It is the standard by which we determine what is ridiculous and what is not within that reality.
Obviously as far as your imagination can throw it.
That is simply another way of saying that it is "pure consciousness".
The question still remains if whether the structure gave rise to the consciousness or vice-versa.
If that was true, then the insane would rule the world.
That is the mystical view.
So it is no harder for you to believe something you cannot perceive than something you can? How the hell do you retain any mental integrity? Oh, that's right. You don't.
One of them is - the second one.
Now you are devolving into typical fundamentalist territory. Whoever said anything about "something coming from nothing"?
So because you have comprehension issues, you turn to your imagination for answers. Objects have emergent properties all the time. Properties which the things they emerged from are not capable of. That is why we call them emergent properties and not inherent properties.
So basically, since you are incapable of making sense of what you can perceive (the very definition of rationality), you think that what you cannot perceive makes more sense? In your claims about absurdity of reality, I see a desire to evade reality. Well, you can evade reality if you want, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.
Well, since reality seems utterly ridiculous to you, I would take it as a compliment to be considered ridiculous by you. To you who considers the world we live in, the world we can perceive by our senses, to be absurd and by contrast, a world that is beyond perception, to make sense, no rationality is possible.
Reason is the human capacity to make sense of things within this reality. If you consider this reality itself absurd, you are not capable of making sense of things within it and therefore you are incapable of reason. You are the textbook definition of irrational.
From the excerpt from the Chandogya Upnishad ofcourse. When Uddakala asks Svetaketu to bring him a fruit. Then he asks him to break it apart and see what is left - the seeds. The he asks them to break them apart and see what is left and so on. In the end, Setaketu says nothing and then his father says "That nothing is the essence - the pure consciousness called Brahman from which everything else originates. The formless reality which is the source of all forms." Then he goes on to give a few more clever analogies about it and in the end says "That is you".
Clearly, the mystics think that the absolute consciousness is pure consciousness and is formless.
Further, in another form of mysticism
"In Advaita, the ultimate reality is expressed as Nirguna Brahman. Nirguna means formless, attributeless, mega-soul, or spirit-only."
A msytics words, not mine.
Oh, yes they do. Quite often, infact. They make quite a lot of claims about it being personal or impersonal, material or immaterial, immanent or ever-changing.
So when the mystics talk about the Brahman being Nirguna (formless, attributeless), they somehow magically knew what I would consider to be a form and came up with that word specifically to suit me? It simply couldn't possibly be that they actually think that the ultimate consciousness is pure consciousness without any structure whatsoever - whether limited by spacetime or not.
Nothing, obviously. There can be no experience without consciousness.
No, the structure cannot experience.
Any circularity disappears when you realize that a structure can exist without consciousness and the consciousness cannot exist without structure.
Actually, it is only through this approach a person can rationally explain or experience reality. The thing you refer to as the "dichotomist appraoch", is the law of identity.
That "premise" as you call it, was discovered rather than being preconceived.
And you need to get your eyes checked, since you keep seeing the word "spacetime" everywhere when it wasn't mentioned even once.
Yes, a model that has no basis in reality would not be restricted by reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, I'm ruling it out on the basis of logical impossibility,
No, we are not. I'm looking at the world around me. You are not looking at all.
Even without the fabric of spacetime, consciousness must arise from the structure because consciousness cannot exist without one.
Your model of reality is an insult to any rational person.
Even if a structure can exist without the fabric of spacetime, it would not give rise to any consciousness. Consciousness is a phenomenal process. Absent any form of spacetime to have phenomena, the consciousness cannot exist.
I'm well aware that you don't consider rationality to be a basis to rule out anything.
I think the following excerpt describes your philosophy accurately.
"What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.”
Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.
Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live—whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.
To the [mystic], as to an animal, the irreducible primary is the automatic phenomena of his own consciousness.
An animal has no critical faculty; he has no control over the function of his brain and no power to question its content. To an animal, whatever strikes his awareness is an absolute that corresponds to reality—or rather, it is a distinction he is incapable of making: reality, to him, is whatever he senses or feels. And this is the [mystic’s] epistemological ideal, the mode of consciousness he strives to induce in himself. To the [mystic], emotions are tools of cognition, and wishes take precedence over facts. He seeks to escape the risks of a quest for knowledge by obliterating the distinction between consciousness and reality, between the perceiver and the perceived, hoping that an automatic certainty and an infallible knowledge of the universe will be granted to him by the blind, unfocused stare of his eyes turned inward, contemplating the sensations, the feelings, the urgings, the muggy associational twistings projected by the rudderless mechanism of his undirected consciousness. Whatever his mechanism produces is an absolute not to be questioned; and whenever it clashes with reality, it is reality that he ignores.
Since the clash is constant, the [mystic’s] solution is to believe that what he perceives is another, “higher” reality—where his wishes are omnipotent, where contradictions are possible and A is non-A, where his assertions, which are false on earth, become true and acquire the status of a “superior” truth which he perceives by means of a special faculty denied to other, “inferior,” beings. The only validation of his consciousness he can obtain on earth is the belief and the obedience of others, when they accept his “truth” as superior to their own perception of reality."
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You are indeed making an error here. Especially if you're claiming not to rely on science. You keep limiting your epistemological resources to just what you believe to know about the "physical world" and the apparent consciousness of beings embedded in that particular physical world.
That's not how I view spirituality (or spirit). So since it's not the basis for my model of spirit, your arguments fail to apply. You're arguments are far too limited and restricted by your own demand that we only adhere to what we can know scientifically about the physical world (even though you apparently can't even see this restriction that you are demanding yourself.)
Hopefully after replying to all of your concerns in this post you may come to understand why I do not accept your limited views. They simply don't apply to my model of spirit.
I'm curious how you divined my view of spirituality from my criticism of Descartes' "perpetual dream argument". Do you not pay attention to which argument you are replying to?
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No. What you're demand here is simply false with respect to the model of spirit that I am considering.
You simply don't understand the model of spirit that I am considering. That's all.
Your very demand that there can only be two possibilities (i.e. it's either physical in the sense of spacetime physics
or it's non-physical) only applies to the limitations that you placed on this this concept of spirit.
Apparently your limitation is to consider anything that might be physical in terms of the scientific descriptions of a spacetime fabric.
Yet you claim that you aren't relying upon, or presuming scientific knowledge.
So this is an error in your own way of thinking.
You have evidently limited the term "Physical" to apply solely to what we consider to be the "fabric of spacetime".
And by that term I'm referring to everything that the physical sciences can describe in terms of particles, and structure.
So that would include all physical phenomenon that arises within this physical universe (i.e. the fabric of spacetime)
Now you might run out and grab a dictionary and attempt to argue semantics saying "But that's what the term physical means you moron!"
But that is precisely what I object to. My position is that there exists some sort of "spirit world" that is indeed "Real".
Well what do I mean by "real"?
Man alive, you like to talk a lot. Everything you said here can be condensed into a single sentence - "The transcendent spiritual reality, which I believe exists, would be fundamentally different from spacetime constrained physical reality that we know of".
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I mean that it has an existence, and therefore it must also have some sort of structure or defining characteristics that makes it what it is.
If that were not in place how could it even be said to be "real"?
I'm certainly in agreement with that line of thinking.
Therefore any concept of spirit must necessarily be a concept of some form of structure.
Thus if it has structure, then it must have rules and laws of how that structure behaves.
And if it has laws of how it behaves, then it has "physics" that explains it.
In other words, it has its own set of physical laws, (or physics)
Ultimately it must be "physical" in that sense. (albeit not in the same sense as the laws of physics of spacetime).
It other words, it isn't restricted by the same laws of physics as the fabric of spacetime.
Yet because it must have its own structure (i.e. laws of physics), so in that sense it too must be "physical".
But not in the same way that our bodies are "physical" or that the fabric of spacetime is "physical".
It's my hypothesis (if you want to get technical about it) that whatever this ultimate spiritual form is,
it is what gives rise to the fabric of spacetime (that we call "physical",
but spirit itself is not limited the physic of spacetime.
So when I speak about a physical spirit I'm not speaking about a spirit that is restricted by the fabric of spacetime as we experience it.
I'm speaking about something much deeper that actually gives rise to our physical experience.
And yes, I absolutely will point to the scientific observations and discoveries of things like quantum fields to support my hypothesis.
Precisely because they do loan it support.
The very concept of these quantum fields provides (or even demonstrates) that the very type of "non-physical" structure I'm proposing.
Not only can such structure exist, but evidently must exist based on scientific observations.
Many scientific theories assume the existence of "structure" or information that lies beneath the fabric of spacetime.
This mysterious and illusive "non-physical" physics lies at the heart of much of science.
Quantum Mechanics postulates the existence of such "non-physical" informational structure in the form of quantum fields.
The Big Bang theory postulates that "something must have banged".
In fact, the current scientific explanation there is that the universe began as a "quantum fluctuation" of a quantum field.
It goes right back to relying upon the axioms of Quantum Mechanics that premise the existence of these non-physical fields of information.
M-Theory postulates the preexistence of mysterious membranes that basically represent the same thing as an ocean of quantum fields.
The membrane itself is not what we consider to be the fabric of spacetime, but rather it is the mysterious substrate that lies beneath it.
And that presumed "non-physical" information or structure beneath the fabric of spacetime.
You act like I shouldn't be permitted to mention science at all when discussing "epistemological ideas". But that's utter nonsense.
If you are considering your supposedly "epistemological ideas" based solely on two concepts: (i.e. physics=spacetime versus consciousnss)
then you are restricting yourself to an extremely limited philosophical world. And you are ignoring potential underlying structure.
This is one reason why I don't even care to discuss things with people who claim to be pure epistemologists.
They basically piss me off by demanding far too limited and restricted thinking. I'm going there. That would be a step backwards for me.
Again, try to be a bit more concise. How about "Evidence from quantum mechanics suggests that there exists a non-physical, non-spacetime constrained reality that has a separate structure of its own".
So what? Non-physical does not automatically make it spiritual and having a structure does not make it information. For this reality to be considered "spiritual", it must have an element of consciousness separate (though not necessarily independent) from its structure, whatever the structure may be. Similarly, for a structure to be information, there must be a consciousness to perceive and identify it. Unless you are saying that "consciousness is the structure", which would simply be a different way of saying "pure consciousness exists" and I don't think you are, then the issue of primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness isn't resolved - only pushed back further. We still have to determine whether it is the structure that forms the basis for consciousness or vice-versa. And according to the evidence you presented, while we have found the structure, there is no evidence of consciousness - which supports the former conclusion.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Well at least we can agree on something.
I personally can't imagine a spiritual world that doesn't have some form of structure either.
How could something be said to "exist" if it has no structure (or information) associated with it at all?
Now that would be a really weird idea.
So at least we do seem to be in agreement on that point.
Can you imagine a structure without consciousness? And once again, structure is not the same as information unless there is a consciousness to perceive it.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No it's not a "missing point".
The problem I have is that you are attempting to restrict the "structure" in question to being solely the fabric of spacetime.
It is precisely on that point where I am disagreeing with your "hypothesis" and premises.
I don't care if this imagined reality of yours is bound by a framework of spacetime or not. The question still stands - if structure can exist without the consciousness - whatever the structure may be?
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I agree. Where I disagree on your restriction that this "structure" must be limited to the fabric of spacetime.
That is NOT the structure that I'm considering. Spacetime merely arises from the structure that I'm considering.
You're trying to consider that the fabric of spacetime is the structure in question completely. And that is where we part ways.
My position is that the fabric of spacetime is merely a facet that arises from the "ultimate structure" of spirit that lies beneath it.
Therefore your arguments simply don't apply to my model.
Are you attempting some sort of slight of hand. Or trying to build a strawman. In all the quoted text, I haven't mentioned spacetime constraints even once. Just because your spiritual reality would be independent of "spacetime", does not mean that it would be independent of the very nature of its own existence. Primary dependence upon existence is primacy of existence.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That argument is only valid if you view the fabric of spacetime as being the totality of 'structure'.
This is the point where I'm disagreeing with you.
I'm quite happy and convinced that 'structure' exists beneath the fabric of spacetime.
You don't even seem to be considering that possibility at all.
You keep speaking like consciousness must either give rise to structure (i.e. the fabric of spacetime),
or that structure (i.e. the fabric of spacetime) must give rise to consciousness.
I'm saying that such a philosophical model is extremely limited and doesn't take into consideration other possibilities.
I'm totally open to considering structures that lie beneath the fabric of spacetime and actually even give rise to it.
In fact, our best scientific theories to date all assume this to be the case via their postulates and axioms.
There you go again, building the "spacetime" strawman. It doesn't matter what the nature of structure is. Either consciousness is dependent upon it or it is not. There can be not third option.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Whoa. Hold it. Stop. Now you are talking about "reality"?
Consciousness is dependent upon "reality" and the "reality" is dependent upon consciousness?
Two things fall out of this.
The first being an impression that you view the fabric of spacetime as "reality"
since that was clearly the "structure" that you have been alluding to as being 'physical'
No, by reality here I was referring to you "spiritual" reality.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The second being that you are presuming that I'm suggesting that consciousness gives rise to THAT "reality".
No of course not. That model could never work. Obviously.
It's no wonder that you think I'm stupid if you are under the false impression that that's what I'm thinking.
I'm not considering that model. IMHO that kind of a model is behind the times as much as Newtonian Physics is behind Relativity.
Good, so we can establish that even in that spiritual reality, the structure (existence) holds primacy over consciousness.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I'm way beyond that simple model, as should be apparent to you by now after my previous explanations.
I simply have no reason to restrict the 'structure' of spirit to consisting solely of spacetime physics.
On the contrary, I have a myriad of reasons for believing that the fabric of spacetime cannot possibly be all that exists.
I've already given arguments associated with Quantum Mechanics, The Big Bang, and M-Theory for why I feel justified in considering structure beneath the fabric of spacetime.
And I've even given considerations concerning the very nature of time.
Not only do we have reasons to believe that the fabric of spacetime is not the only "structure" that exists,
but we even have reasons to believe that our sense of time within the fabric of spacetime is nothing more than an illusion associate with that fabric.
So if you are limiting your considerations of "reality" to an idea that the fabric of spacetime constitutes "reality" then I'm wasting my time even talking with you.
Clearly you have already made up your mind that the fabric of spacetime = reality.
I'm not going to consider that restriction. I've moved beyond that and I'm not about to go back there.
I see no reason to consider such a limited view of "reality"
More unsupported ranting. Once again, please point to the area within this argument where I said that reality is equivalent to spacetime. I do believe that, but for the scope of this argument. I'm not using that.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No, I don't see anything ridiculous about it at all.
On the contrary as far as I'm concerned this is precisely how things must be.
And besides, what do you even mean by 'ridiculous'?
The whole point to a belief in a spiritual world innately includes a belief in basically the unexplainable and seemingly impossible.
You don't see anything ridiculous about something which is non-existent to exist? Your belief is not in something that is seemingly impossible, but it is possible and impossible at the same time. We are not talking about your belief about the spirit world here, we are talking about your belief in the cause of the spirit world.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You ask me if something is "ridiculous"?
I can tell you a lot of things that I see as being utterly ridiculous yet they MUST BE TRUE.
It's ridiculous than anything can exist at all. For how could anything have ever come to be? Yet here we are. Now THAT's ridiculous!
Yet obviously it's blatantly true. So the very fact that we exist at all flies in the very face of anything we can even begin rationalize.
The very existence of the universe is proof positive that it's an irrational thing.
Why is our existence ridiculous or irrational?
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Your epistemological hopes and dreams that it could somehow be rationalized if you think hard enough about it is ultimately "ridiculous'".
Why should that even be the case?
Why do you keep demanding that reality must not be "ridiculous"?
What's your basis for that?
The basis is reality. It is the standard by which we determine what is ridiculous and what is not within that reality.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Again, that's only true if I accept your extremely limited view that everything must be thought of solely in terms of a dichotomy between a fabric of spacetime and consciousness.
My position is that the ultimate structure of spirit goes far beyond that.
You need to step back a moment and look at the big picture again with this new view of spiritual structure.
Obviously as far as your imagination can throw it.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The mystical philosophy goes like this,...
There exists a cosmic mind.
That mind exists as a structure that is underneath the fabric of the cosmos that we experience and it actually gives rise to it.
That doesn't meant that the this underlying mind has no structure of it's own.
That is simply another way of saying that it is "pure consciousness".
The question still remains if whether the structure gave rise to the consciousness or vice-versa.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Now this cosmic mind views its own spacetime creation via many different vantage points
(i.e. the POVs of ever sentient being that evolves within it).
That's not going to automatically permit it to totally control the spactime structure from any given vantage point.
But then again, maybe it can!
What if things that ancient sages said are TRUE?
"If only you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains"
So you look at a mountain and try to move it and you can't do it.
Big deal? Maybe your POV doesn't believe that you can move mountains and that's why you can't do it from that POV.
If that was true, then the insane would rule the world.
That is the mystical view.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You may say that from your POV that's utterly absurd and ridiculous. So?
That isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that this is how your POV of this experience appears to the cosmic mind.
Hey, does this seem far-fetched and hard to believe?
Sure it does. But for me, it's no harder to believe this than an idea that anything could have come to be in the first place.
So it is no harder for you to believe something you cannot perceive than something you can? How the hell do you retain any mental integrity? Oh, that's right. You don't.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: They are both equally absurd situations. And I feel that this is important. From my perspective either idea is equally absurd.
Yet one of them must be TRUE.
One of them is - the second one.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You may personally choose to accept the absurdity that something came into being from nothing as being not mysterious.
Fine.
But how does that equate to being able to rule out the another concept of equal absurdity?
It doesn't.
Either hypothesis is equally mysterious, thus they are both a hypothesis of mysticism.
Now you are devolving into typical fundamentalist territory. Whoever said anything about "something coming from nothing"?
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I have problems comprehending how an emergent property of a spacetime fabric would experience anything.
Talk about ridiculous?
That's just as ridiculous to me.
How could an emergent property have an experience if the thing that it is emerging from is not capable of having an experience?
That is just as absurd idea as anything else.
So because you have comprehension issues, you turn to your imagination for answers. Objects have emergent properties all the time. Properties which the things they emerged from are not capable of. That is why we call them emergent properties and not inherent properties.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: For me a deeper mystical hypothesis actually makes more SENSE.
But to each their own. Chose your own absurdity. Reality is equally ridiculous in all of these philosophies.
So basically, since you are incapable of making sense of what you can perceive (the very definition of rationality), you think that what you cannot perceive makes more sense? In your claims about absurdity of reality, I see a desire to evade reality. Well, you can evade reality if you want, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you're going to argue with me that you have a better explanation or that you believe you can rule these things out,
you'll have to excuse me whilst I have a deep satisfying belly laugh because that very proposal is utterly ridiculous to me.
(i.e. the very idea that you think you have ruled something out absolutely)
You're going to claim to have "ruled something out" just because you favor one absurdity over another?
That my friend, is a grand display of ridiculousness.
And please keep in mind it is YOU who has claimed to have "ruled things out".
Well, since reality seems utterly ridiculous to you, I would take it as a compliment to be considered ridiculous by you. To you who considers the world we live in, the world we can perceive by our senses, to be absurd and by contrast, a world that is beyond perception, to make sense, no rationality is possible.
Reason is the human capacity to make sense of things within this reality. If you consider this reality itself absurd, you are not capable of making sense of things within it and therefore you are incapable of reason. You are the textbook definition of irrational.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No, that's false. It does not argue that consciousness can and does exist without structure. Where did you ever get that idea?
From the excerpt from the Chandogya Upnishad ofcourse. When Uddakala asks Svetaketu to bring him a fruit. Then he asks him to break it apart and see what is left - the seeds. The he asks them to break them apart and see what is left and so on. In the end, Setaketu says nothing and then his father says "That nothing is the essence - the pure consciousness called Brahman from which everything else originates. The formless reality which is the source of all forms." Then he goes on to give a few more clever analogies about it and in the end says "That is you".
Clearly, the mystics think that the absolute consciousness is pure consciousness and is formless.
Further, in another form of mysticism
"In Advaita, the ultimate reality is expressed as Nirguna Brahman. Nirguna means formless, attributeless, mega-soul, or spirit-only."
A msytics words, not mine.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That is simply a misunderstanding on your part.
The Mystics do not claim, I repeat,... they do not claim to understand what spirit is or anything about its true nature.
In fact why do you think they call it "Mysticism"? It's a mystery how it can be like that.
They do not claim that a consciousness can and does exist without structure.
That's a totally false claim on your part about what mystics believe or insist upon.
In fact anyone who claims to know the true nature of spirit is themselves deluded.
The mystics are quite happy to confess that they do not understand the true nature of spirit.
They make no claims about what it must be or depend upon, or not depend upon.
Oh, yes they do. Quite often, infact. They make quite a lot of claims about it being personal or impersonal, material or immaterial, immanent or ever-changing.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: This misunderstanding arises from your limited views that structure must equate to the fabric of spacetime only.
I'm sure that most mystics do indeed believe that the cosmic mind transcends the fabric of spacetime,
but that in no way is a demand that it must have no structure at all.
Apparently this is the very concept that causes you to believe that you can rule out mysticism.
You are restricting "all possible structure" to necessarily being dependent upon the fabric of spacetime.
I can see where you would think you could rule things out from that POV.
It is that very POV that I do not accept as a foundational premise.
So when the mystics talk about the Brahman being Nirguna (formless, attributeless), they somehow magically knew what I would consider to be a form and came up with that word specifically to suit me? It simply couldn't possibly be that they actually think that the ultimate consciousness is pure consciousness without any structure whatsoever - whether limited by spacetime or not.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You say, "Primacy of consciousness and Primacy of existence are the only two possible axioms. Once you have ruled out one, the only one left is the other."
Think about this: If structure gives rise to consciousness, then what is it that is experiencing this consciousness?
Nothing, obviously. There can be no experience without consciousness.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Well, it must be the structure that is having this experience. So you're right back to square one again.
No, the structure cannot experience.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It's necessarily a circular situation no matter how much you try to reduce it or create an imagined dichotomy.
Any circularity disappears when you realize that a structure can exist without consciousness and the consciousness cannot exist without structure.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Attempting to apply a reductionist concept of "cause and effect" is a misguided notion to begin with.
Ultimately it would necessarily need to be the structure that is capable of having an experience of consciousness in the first place anyway.
So a reductionistic approach attempting to dichotomize reality in an effort to explain consciousness is a folly to being with.
Clearly you aren't even paying attention to what the mystics are saying.
They are saying that your reductionistic dichotomizing approach is your folly right there.
You're never going to explain your ability to experience reality rationally via a dichotomistic approach.
The truth is in wholeness, not in separation.
Actually, it is only through this approach a person can rationally explain or experience reality. The thing you refer to as the "dichotomist appraoch", is the law of identity.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Again this reveals your premise that the fabric of spacetime constitutes "reality".
How can you claim to be looking at 'reality' to gain knowledge about 'reality' whilst simultaneously placing all your preconceived restrictions on what you think 'reality' even means?
That "premise" as you call it, was discovered rather than being preconceived.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I just did, and nothing has changed. You're still making the same erroneous unsupportable assumptions you made the first time I looked.
And you need to get your eyes checked, since you keep seeing the word "spacetime" everywhere when it wasn't mentioned even once.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That would only be true in your model where spacetime equates to the only structure that exists.
But the model I'm considering is not bound by that restriction.
Yes, a model that has no basis in reality would not be restricted by reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You Genkaus, are demanding that you can rule out my model of spirituality based on restrictions of your limited model. Talk about ridiculous?
No, I'm ruling it out on the basis of logical impossibility,
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: We simply aren't considering the same philosophical picture at all.
No, we are not. I'm looking at the world around me. You are not looking at all.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You are apparently viewing the fabric of spacetime as being "reality", and arguing that given that premise, it necessarily follows that consciousness must have arisen from that structure, because it clearly cannot be the other way around.
Even without the fabric of spacetime, consciousness must arise from the structure because consciousness cannot exist without one.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I would actually agree with your conclusions based on your model of reality.
But that's not my model.
So you have no business telling me that you can "rule out" my model of reality based on your model.
You also have no basis for suggesting that I may not have thought deeply enough about my model.
On the contrary, I've already considered your model a very long time ago. That's past history for me.
IMHO, you're model ignores far too much about what we actually now about "reality",
and you fail to take into consideration many doors that are wide open in our understanding of "reality".
Am I asking you to accept my philosophical model of reality? No, not at all.
Your model of reality is an insult to any rational person.
Even if a structure can exist without the fabric of spacetime, it would not give rise to any consciousness. Consciousness is a phenomenal process. Absent any form of spacetime to have phenomena, the consciousness cannot exist.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All I'm doing is pointing out the fact that you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for claiming to be able to "rule out" my model.
I'm well aware that you don't consider rationality to be a basis to rule out anything.
(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Apparently you didn't even have a clue what my model entails.
You are thinking solely in a very restricted and limited sense that only the fabric of spacetime should be considered "real" or be representative of structure.
That's your model of reality, not mine.
There's simply no basis for your assumption and axioms, IMHO.
On the contrary we actually have a solid scientific basis for postulating otherwise.
In fact, all of the most profound theories of science begin with this very premise that structure lies beneath the fabric of spacetime.
So my philosophy is not only richer than yours, but it's also based more firmly in the roots of scientific knowledge.
I think the following excerpt describes your philosophy accurately.
"What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.”
Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.
Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live—whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.
To the [mystic], as to an animal, the irreducible primary is the automatic phenomena of his own consciousness.
An animal has no critical faculty; he has no control over the function of his brain and no power to question its content. To an animal, whatever strikes his awareness is an absolute that corresponds to reality—or rather, it is a distinction he is incapable of making: reality, to him, is whatever he senses or feels. And this is the [mystic’s] epistemological ideal, the mode of consciousness he strives to induce in himself. To the [mystic], emotions are tools of cognition, and wishes take precedence over facts. He seeks to escape the risks of a quest for knowledge by obliterating the distinction between consciousness and reality, between the perceiver and the perceived, hoping that an automatic certainty and an infallible knowledge of the universe will be granted to him by the blind, unfocused stare of his eyes turned inward, contemplating the sensations, the feelings, the urgings, the muggy associational twistings projected by the rudderless mechanism of his undirected consciousness. Whatever his mechanism produces is an absolute not to be questioned; and whenever it clashes with reality, it is reality that he ignores.
Since the clash is constant, the [mystic’s] solution is to believe that what he perceives is another, “higher” reality—where his wishes are omnipotent, where contradictions are possible and A is non-A, where his assertions, which are false on earth, become true and acquire the status of a “superior” truth which he perceives by means of a special faculty denied to other, “inferior,” beings. The only validation of his consciousness he can obtain on earth is the belief and the obedience of others, when they accept his “truth” as superior to their own perception of reality."
