Nondualism vs Dualism

[The Grand Nudger]

Bit of a misstep, anyway...what -nothing- has "explained" is experience.  The subjectivity of experience, though, is trivially easy to explain by reference to physicalism, in that a discrete body necessarily limits POV regardless of how the body produces experience.  

It becomes far less explicable why experience would be or should be subjective at all in the absence of that. We have to start positing that non physical things haves states that can remain relatively static and are limited to interaction with a single body and only manifest as a specific pov...and..and...and....in short, non physical things that act just like physical ones.

[Alan V]

Bit of a misstep, anyway...what -nothing- has "explained" is experience.  The subjectivity of experience, though, is trivially easy to explain by reference to physicalism, in that a discrete body necessarily limits POV regardless of how the body produces experience.  

It becomes far less explicable why experience would be or should be subjective at all in the absence of that.  We have to start positing that non physical things haves states that can remain relatively static and are limited to interaction with a single body and only manifest as a specific pov...and..and...and....in short, non physical things that act just like physical ones.

Exactly.

[Amarok]

physicalism can't explain subjective experience which means that consciousness is generated somewhere else

Nope sorry none of that follows and i'm afraid it's dualism that fails at this task. Do I really need to bring the cartoon again showing how dualism is a non starter . Whatever it is the mind is mono.

[Jehanne]

Even if you think I'm full of shit, I'm curious what y'all believe concerning dualism vs nondualism. I say both

Problem with dualism is that it violates all of the Conservation Laws (energy, momentum, and angular momentum).  As I type this, muscles in my hand and body are contracting due to neurons firing in my brain.  What caused those neurons to fire, which are the atomic transitions of electrons from one state to another?

[Pat Mustard]

there are so many paradoxes in science

I'd like you to point out a single one of these.

Just because you get notions when you're stoned, it doesn't simply follow that those notions are right. In actuality, because you are stoned, it is more likely that your notions are wrong.

[Jehanne]

there are so many paradoxes in science

I'd like you to point out a single one of these.

Just because you get notions when you're stoned, it doesn't simply follow that those notions are right.  In actuality, because you are stoned, it is more likely that your notions are wrong.

All the paradoxes in Science (such as quantum tunneling) are empirically testable.  In fact, GPS would not work correctly without the relativistic corrections supplied by both special and general relativity.

[Simon Moon]

I have taken Ayahuasca (long before it became a 'shamanistic tourist' thing), 'heroic' doses of mushrooms, LSD when it still had some strength and purity, San Pedro cactus (same chemical makeup as Peyote, grows wildly all over Los Angeles), and DMT.

I had similar experiences as you had, 'one with the universe' perceptions, part of a cosmic whole, a divine all, etc. On DMT, I had experiences that we were part of a single organism before the big bang, etc. I even met the DMT entities and elves, that communicated this to me.  

These were all incredibly important and profound experiences for me, and probably changed my life for the better. But here's the thing, why should I believe they actually pointed to some underlying reality (as that clown, Jordan Peterson would say, the metaphysical substrate)? Just because they felt real at the time? Because other people report similar experiences? They were powerful and positive? They were life changing? They have a shamanistic history, with archeological rock carvings and 1000's of year old rituals?

Please support your contention that your experiences, not matter how powerful they were, actually reflect some underlying reality?

Why would you trust your drastically altered perceptions while on Ayahuasca, more than when when in your normal brain state? Alcoholics, heroin addicts, meth addicts, crack addicts all hallucinate. They all have experiences that feel real at the time. How are am I able to discern that your Ayahuasca experiences reflect some existing 'metaphysical substrate', but those with hallucinatory experiences from these other drugs, do not?

For that matter, how am I able to differentiate my powerful and positive Ayahuasca experiences, that I understand are most likely caused by my altered brain state, but don't reflect and underlying reality, from your positive and powerful experiences that you claim do point to some underlying reality? Which one of us is most likely adding unsupported claims to our experiences?


This short phrase, as far as I can tell, is absolute nonsense.

We don't all have our own 'personal truth', if by "truth", you mean, that which best reflects reality. Truth, using this definition, can be demonstrated. Can you demonstrate your 'personal truth'? If you can't demonstrate it, how are you able to differentiate it from the 'personal truth' of a schizophrenic?

If you are using a different definition, please tell me.

I would say that the schizophrenic is experiencing something real and based in reality, but it is being relayed and translated incorrectly. That's why the schizophrenic distrusts most people, because they do not understand the reality of the schizophrenics experience.

You are not correct, schizophrenics do not experience something real and based on reality. They are experiencing things that only appear in their minds. They see and hear people and things that do not exist in consensus reality.

If you are trying to say, that we don't all experience that same reality, which we are able to show it exists using evidence, then I am not sure this is a useful conversation.

I believe the opening of consciousness through psychedelics would benefit mankind. I hear your experience and feel like we came to many of the same conclusions with different words used to explain how. I believe this history of creation lies insides our DNA and it gives us real comfort to know that history as far back as possible.

No, we didn't come to the same conclusion. You seem to have concluded that your Ayahuasca experience points to some underlying reality, beyond what is evidently true. I concluded that my experiences are a product of my mind being drastically chemically altered for a period of time.

And IMHO, I believe that if an atheist were to cut off the ego that disallows even a shred of faith in God, they could experience the divine in a way that will give them comfort that a higher consciousness is watching over us, even if it isn't able stop wicked humans from being wicked

I do not believe faith, in the way I think you are defining it here, is a good thing. To me, religious faith is no different than gullibility. If one had good reasons to believe that a god exists, they wouldn't need to rely on faith.

Couldn't faith be used as a justification to believe ANYTHING? Even conflicting conclusions?

Faith is not a reliable path to truth. How could it be, when faith can be used as justification to have mutually exclusive god beliefs, believe in crystal healing, Chakras, Tarot, etc, etc, etc.

All I require to believe a god exists, is to be provided with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument. Got any?

And no, you subjective experiences with Ayahuasca don't count.

[Jehanne]

Another reason to be a materialist -- materialism is, unlike dualism, falsifiable.

[brewer]

I would say that the schizophrenic is experiencing something real and based in reality, but it is being relayed and translated incorrectly. That's why the schizophrenic distrusts most people, because they do not understand the reality of the schizophrenics experience.

I believe the opening of consciousness through psychedelics would benefit mankind. I hear your experience and feel like we came to many of the same conclusions with different words used to explain how. I believe this history of creation lies insides our DNA and it gives us real comfort to know that history as far back as possible. And IMHO, I believe that if an atheist were to cut off the ego that disallows even a shred of faith in God, they could experience the divine in a way that will give them comfort that a higher consciousness is watching over us, even if it isn't able stop wicked humans from being wicked

You've totally missed the mark with schizophrenia. Some handle parts of daily life just fine. They react to some aspects of reality the same as nonschizophrenics. Not all their "experience" is reality with bad transmission and interpretation. How would you explain auditory command hallucinations in the absence of anyone speaking? Or grandiose delusions? Or catatonia? There is much more to the condition that has little/nothing to do with reality perception. 

Apparently you haven't experienced a "freak out" trip or you might have a different opinion on psychedelics, god and the universe. You should probably read about "set and setting".

[Amarok]

Dualism in a nutshell