Reply to Whateverist:
You raise valid and interesting points. Rather than reply each of your points individually, I will attempt to address them together as a whole. In the end we will probably agree to disagree, but at least we will properly understand each others’ position. That way we will not have to waste everyone’s time in other threads repeating ourselves.
When I say physical reality I mean the all interactions of matter and energy that can be described by laws of physics and which are empirically subject to falsification. When I say transcendent reality I mean what cannot be objectively observed but can be known by means of deduction, direct experience or must be real a priori when physics depends upon it.
So for example, mathematics starts with the a priori and proceeds by deduction. I consider “oneness” a transcendent form that we apply to things and sets, but which nevertheless exists apart from those things. Likewise triangles. You can demonstrate an example of ones and examples of triangles but not a one or a triangle themselves. This neo-Platonic position can and is debated, but I do not believe it an unreasonable one.
From a philosophical point of view, I also consider ultimate truth transcendent. Ultimate truth is something real that in-itself is unknowable, but allows us to compare proximate truths. Qualia and subjective inner life would fall under direct experience. I do not consider any of these sources of knowledge authoritative on its own. They all work together as a whole. For example, NDE’s are consistent with my thoughts on transcendent things but I do not consider the veracity of those claims necessary to support my overall understanding.
Brains are a significant part of the conscious experience as we know it. The mind is not sober when the body is drunk. I’m not convinced that mind=brain is the whole story given interesting problems like other minds and solipsism, the lack of purpose for consciousness, and the vastly different types of felt experience related to similar neural correlates. In my opinion the theory of mind/brain identity is an incomplete theory that does not adequately account for all the phenomena.
I feel the above are reasonable positions, not conclusive ones. I am not dogmatic and I do not require certainty. I have no interest in convincing or converting anybody. I consider atheism a reasonable position as well and contribute so I can explore these interesting questions.
You raise valid and interesting points. Rather than reply each of your points individually, I will attempt to address them together as a whole. In the end we will probably agree to disagree, but at least we will properly understand each others’ position. That way we will not have to waste everyone’s time in other threads repeating ourselves.
When I say physical reality I mean the all interactions of matter and energy that can be described by laws of physics and which are empirically subject to falsification. When I say transcendent reality I mean what cannot be objectively observed but can be known by means of deduction, direct experience or must be real a priori when physics depends upon it.
So for example, mathematics starts with the a priori and proceeds by deduction. I consider “oneness” a transcendent form that we apply to things and sets, but which nevertheless exists apart from those things. Likewise triangles. You can demonstrate an example of ones and examples of triangles but not a one or a triangle themselves. This neo-Platonic position can and is debated, but I do not believe it an unreasonable one.
From a philosophical point of view, I also consider ultimate truth transcendent. Ultimate truth is something real that in-itself is unknowable, but allows us to compare proximate truths. Qualia and subjective inner life would fall under direct experience. I do not consider any of these sources of knowledge authoritative on its own. They all work together as a whole. For example, NDE’s are consistent with my thoughts on transcendent things but I do not consider the veracity of those claims necessary to support my overall understanding.
Brains are a significant part of the conscious experience as we know it. The mind is not sober when the body is drunk. I’m not convinced that mind=brain is the whole story given interesting problems like other minds and solipsism, the lack of purpose for consciousness, and the vastly different types of felt experience related to similar neural correlates. In my opinion the theory of mind/brain identity is an incomplete theory that does not adequately account for all the phenomena.
I feel the above are reasonable positions, not conclusive ones. I am not dogmatic and I do not require certainty. I have no interest in convincing or converting anybody. I consider atheism a reasonable position as well and contribute so I can explore these interesting questions.
