Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on December 08, 2018, 06:31:03 AM
-
Hi everyone,
It is generally agreed by philosophers and thinkers since ancient times, that our objective understanding of the world is limited by our senses, our brain configuration and so on. In recent times even some scientists are beginning to accept this as a fact of life.
In other words,our objective understanding of the world has natural boundaries and limitations that cannot be surmounted (even with the help of technology). Our 'understanding' of the world can therefore be seen as illusionary. There could be many hidden aspects of reality that are outside our capabilities and our view of the world could be like shadows on a wall.
However, contrary to scientific thinking (until recently) religious/spiritual people have long understood that while the objective world could be illusionary, we can access certain underlying aspects of reality through internal mechanisms such as introspection, mind control and so on. It has long been understood that delving into our inner world is more revealing and fulfilling than all the discoveries we make of the external world.
Some people of science however consider subjective aspects of life as mere imagination and mental imagery created by the brain, which are of no importance in understanding reality. This is a mistake.
No doubt, our imagination, instinctive impulses, desires and so on can create significant noise and clutter that can be an impediment to inner development. This is why exercises such as Yoga, meditations, rituals and prayers are prescribed so that the clutter and noise can be reduced and we can undertake the inner journey meaningfully.
That our subjective aspects can be important (in fact more important than objective aspects) is now beginning to be realized by some people of science. Please refer to my thread on panpsychism, the hard problem of Consciousness and IIT.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers
Sriram
-
Nice try, but we understand, more or less, how our view of the world is affected by the limitations of out senses, and scientists can allow for it. Whatever the limitations, if there not only is not nor even logically can be any way of proving a theory false, then that theory is useless and can be ignored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
-
It is generally agreed by philosophers and thinkers since ancient times, that our objective understanding of the world is limited by our senses, our brain configuration and so on. In recent times even some scientists are beginning to accept this as a fact of life.
What scientists and what exactly have they said?
Our 'understanding' of the world can therefore be seen as illusionary.
I don't think anybody would argue that it is complete but to claim that the understanding we do have is illusionary is absurd. The device you're reading this on is good evidence that it isn't.
However, contrary to scientific thinking (until recently) religious/spiritual people have long understood that while the objective world could be illusionary...
The thing about the objective world is that it is shared (intersubjective) and inescapable. If it isn't 'real', it might as well be.
...we can access certain underlying aspects of reality through internal mechanisms such as introspection, mind control and so on. It has long been understood that delving into our inner world is more revealing and fulfilling than all the discoveries we make of the external world.
Some people of science however consider subjective aspects of life as mere imagination and mental imagery created by the brain, which are of no importance in understanding reality. This is a mistake.
The problem with anything subjective, is that, even if it was a great insight into the nature of reality, we would have no way of knowing it was unless there was some way to objectively test it.
That our subjective aspects can be important (in fact more important than objective aspects) is now beginning to be realized by some people of science. Please refer to my thread on panpsychism, the hard problem of Consciousness and IIT.
I really don't know what you think this has to do with it. From what I've read about IIT, for example, it is a conjecture that consciousness is the result of integrated information, which has an exact, objective mathematical definition. Given an information processing system, you can (in principle at least) calculate it.
-
However, contrary to scientific thinking (until recently) religious/spiritual people have long understood that while the objective world could be illusionary, we can access certain underlying aspects of reality through internal mechanisms such as introspection, mind control and so on. It has long been understood that delving into our inner world is more revealing and fulfilling than all the discoveries we make of the external world.
That's complete nonsense. Firstly, when religious people do their "introspection and mind control" they all seem to come up with different answers.
Secondly, no amount of introspection and mind control will ever come up with something as useful as, say, a vaccine. What could be more fulfilling than saving the lives of millions of people through a medical advance. Can you point to anything a religionist has discovered through mind control and introspection that was as fulfilling as Dr John Snow's removal of the handle from a water pump in London in 1854?
-
You guys will have to remove your 'mundane hats' and wear a more philosophical one.
I am not saying that objective reality does not exist in some form to satisfy our requirements. I am saying that the deeper aspects of life cannot be understood through mere objective means. They can only be understood through inner reflection because the ultimate reality (as far as we are concerned) is Consciousness.
Higher levels of Consciousness cannot be understood objectively. It has to be realized subjectively. We are consciousness.
-
You guys will have to remove your 'mundane hats' and wear a more philosophical one.
Philosophy generally involves logic. Something your vague, hand-waving waffle seems to totally lack.
I am not saying that objective reality does not exist in some form to satisfy our requirements. I am saying that the deeper aspects of life cannot be understood through mere objective means. They can only be understood through inner reflection because the ultimate reality (as far as we are concerned) is Consciousness.
Higher levels of Consciousness cannot be understood objectively. It has to be realized subjectively. We are consciousness.
How about an actual example of what you mean?
Also, still waiting for you to say which scientists you were referring to in the OP and what they said.
-
Hi everyone,
A surprisingly relevant video from none other than......Richard Dawkins....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw
Cheers.
Sriram
-
A surprisingly relevant video from none other than......Richard Dawkins....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw
What's it got to do with subjectivity?
-
Hi everyone,
As Dawkins quotes....'the world is not just queerer than we think, it is queerer than we can think'.....which makes a point about our limitations. Secondly our 'understanding' of the external world of cosmology, subatomic world and so on are of very little significance to us in our day to day life and our death. While medical research could be of some importance, the Law of Diminishing Returns probably works here also.
Philosophically speaking, the idea of subjective experiences and motivations is important because it introduces the element of 'randomness' that is so important to life and our development. This so called 'randomness' works from within ourselves and our DNA. This is where the idea of Consciousness being independent of our body is important.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
As Dawkins quotes....'the world is not just queerer than we think, it is queerer than we can think'.....which makes a point about our limitations. Secondly our 'understanding' of the external world of cosmology, subatomic world and so on are of very little significance to us in our day to day life and our death. While medical research could be of some importance, the Law of Diminishing Returns probably works here also.
Quantum mechanics has endless applications including in semiconductor design. The whole of modern electronics depends on our understanding of the subatomic world. The GPS system also depends on special and general relativity (time dilation).
Philosophically speaking, the idea of subjective experiences and motivations is important because it introduces the element of 'randomness' that is so important to life and our development.
What element of randomness?
This so called 'randomness' works from within ourselves and our DNA.
What are you talking about? Do you mean mutations (random for practical purposes) and evolution?
This is where the idea of Consciousness being independent of our body is important.
There is no evidence that consciousness is independent of our brains and even if it was, what's it got to do with the the rest of what you said?
-
Hi everyone,
As Dawkins quotes....'the world is not just queerer than we think, it is queerer than we can think'.
Hi to you too. That was JBS Haldane, the geneticist and evolutionary biologist, who was much given to memorable quotes. His exact words were "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." He also came up with the memorable answer "rabbits in the pre-cambrian", when asked what would falsify the theory of evolution, and "an inordinate fondness for beetles", when asked what his study of biology indicated about the nature of God (he was an atheist).
-
You guys will have to remove your 'mundane hats' and wear a more philosophical one.
There's nothing mundane about saving people's lives.
I am saying that the deeper aspects of life cannot be understood through mere objective means. They can only be understood through inner reflection because the ultimate reality (as far as we are concerned) is Consciousness.
And I'm saying it's all bollocks because different people come up with different ultimate realities when they do their inner reflection thing.
Higher levels of Consciousness cannot be understood objectively. It has to be realized subjectively. We are consciousness.
That's the same as saying higher consciousness cannot be understood.
Maybe you'd like to start by defining higher consciousness in a non bullshit New Agey way.
-
Hi everyone,
As Dawkins quotes....'the world is not just queerer than we think, it is queerer than we can think'..
That's JBS Haldane.
...which makes a point about our limitations.
Which you seem determined to ignore.
-
You guys will have to remove your 'mundane hats' and wear a more philosophical one.
I am not saying that objective reality does not exist in some form to satisfy our requirements. I am saying that the deeper aspects of life cannot be understood through mere objective means. They can only be understood through inner reflection because the ultimate reality (as far as we are concerned) is Consciousness.
Higher levels of Consciousness cannot be understood objectively. It has to be realized subjectively. We are consciousness.
There was a time when I thought the discipline of phenomenology (the 'scientific' analysis of subjective states) might yield some positive results. If there were to be found throughout the world descriptions of unusual mental states which were practically identical in all important respects, then we might be on to something. But as Jeremy states, this investigation of inner states of mind reveals more differences than similarities. I can't begin to speculate how you would interpret the visions of Hildegard of Bingen in some universalist sense which would be meaningful to a Hindu.
-
That's JBS Haldane.
Beat you.
-
There was a time when I thought the discipline of phenomenology (the 'scientific' analysis of subjective states) might yield some positive results. If there were to be found throughout the world descriptions of unusual mental states which were practically identical in all important respects, then we might be on to something. But as Jeremy states, this investigation of inner states of mind reveals more differences than similarities. I can't begin to speculate how you would interpret the visions of Hildegard of Bingen in some universalist sense which would be meaningful to a Hindu.
As I have said....the mind is very complex and has many layers. Some layers are related to our basic instincts, some layers are related to our emotions and imagination. Some layers are related to our intellect. Some layers go beyond the intellect. It works like a operating system, application software, connects to the internet and many other things.
Only by controlling the various layers can we connect to the inner most layers that take us beyond the ego personality.
-
That's JBS Haldane.
Which you seem determined to ignore.
I know Dawkins was quoting Haldane. Why is that important?
The higher consciousness cannot be defined except as something that takes our mind outside the ego related personality.
-
I know Dawkins was quoting Haldane. Why is that important?
I think it is important to try to get attributions right for your quotes.
The higher consciousness cannot be defined except as something that takes our mind outside the ego related personality.
Meaningless nonsense.
-
I think it is important to try to get attributions right for your quotes.
Meaningless nonsense.
What we don't understand is always meaningless nonsense!
-
What we don't understand is always meaningless nonsense!
So the first step to understanding is defining "higher consciousness" properly.
-
So the first step to understanding is defining "higher consciousness" properly.
It is not about words, meanings and definitions. Its not about information. Its about perception.
-
It is not about words, meanings and definitions. Its not about information. Its about perception.
In that, case everyone can just get on with it - what is there to talk about?
In fact, without words, meanings, definitions how can anyone talk about it?
-
In that, case everyone can just get on with it - what is there to talk about?
In fact, without words, meanings, definitions how can anyone talk about it?
Get on with what? Changing ones perception?! That is the most difficult thing to do.
Taking in information is easy. Understanding science is easy. But changing ones perception is very difficult and often takes a lifetime.
-
Taking in information is easy. Understanding science is easy.
Why do you find both so difficult then?
Actually understanding much of science isn't easy. Spouting vague and apparently meaningless nonsense, and then not answering questions or properly explaining yourself, is easy.
-
Get on with what? Changing ones perception?! That is the most difficult thing to do.
Taking in information is easy. Understanding science is easy. But changing ones perception is very difficult and often takes a lifetime.
Do you understand QM?
Are you the only person on the planet that does?
-
It is not about words, meanings and definitions. Its not about information. Its about perception.
Not sure exactly how you are using the word 'perception' here. Do you mean the idea of becoming aware of something through the senses or do you mean the idea of how one regards something, one's attitude to something?
Actually both interpretations run the risk of believing something because it 'seems' right to the individual concerned, and this, on its own, is not necessarily any guide to how accurate it reflects any reality. Changing one's perception, even if it takes a lifetime, might simply lead down an error strewn path. I would suggest that absorbing information and attempting understanding, using all the available tools at our disposal, are necessary essentials to enlightened perception.
-
It is not about words, meanings and definitions. Its not about information. Its about perception.
What is perception if not information?
-
Not sure exactly how you are using the word 'perception' here. Do you mean the idea of becoming aware of something through the senses or do you mean the idea of how one regards something, one's attitude to something?
Actually both interpretations run the risk of believing something because it 'seems' right to the individual concerned, and this, on its own, is not necessarily any guide to how accurate it reflects any reality. Changing one's perception, even if it takes a lifetime, might simply lead down an error strewn path. I would suggest that absorbing information and attempting understanding, using all the available tools at our disposal, are necessary essentials to enlightened perception.
I'm not sure what Sriram means but there is a Sanskrit word used in Vedanta philosophy 'Satchitananda' which is the union of three words loosely translated as 'Being, consciousness, bliss' which is said to be the reality of the subject 'I', and the variety of yogas are to help reveal that 'reality'. It is not the objective 'reality' which our senses and their technological extensions examine, nor is it the subjective 'reality' formed by the mind as information, theories, models, concepts, emotions etc. as a means of understanding the objective.
-
Information is data. Perception is the software we use to process the data. The same data can be processed and analysed in different ways depending on the software we use. Similarly the same information can be understood differently depending on our perception.
Merely adding more and more data does not improve the quality of the output. Similarly, merely adding more and more information does not add to the quality of our understanding.
With added wisdom even very little information can make our understanding very profound. With limited wisdom even lots of information can be understood in a mundane manner.
-
I think that is broadly right, in so far as perception is a personal, subjective, interpretation of inbound information. There is no way to know if my perception of blue is the same experience as your perception of blue. Nicely exemplified by the dress that broke the internet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress) in 2015.
Perception is information processing and as every brain is unique, we all process the same data slightly differently.
-
In this thread I have tried to bring out the importance of subjective perceptions. All our understanding is subjective and dependent on our senses, brain structure and so on. If we had been like viruses or electrons our view of the world would be completely different.
What we call objective reality is nothing but a collective subjectivity.
It is Consciousness that forms the basis of our lives....and probably of the universe as a whole. Many modern ideas in science and philosophy (that I have indicated in 'the soul' thread) seem to point to that.
-
Hi everyone,
In another thread, torridon has linked an article that talks of 'Adequate Determinism'. He has quoted this article to make his point that the probabilistic nature of quantum reality does not affect the macroworld. Therefore for all practical purposes, (according to him) we can consider all macro phenomena as deterministic.
I am quoting from the article....
**************
"Adequate Determinism is the kind of determinism we have in the world. It is a statistical determinism, where the statistics are near to certainty for large macroscopic objects. Adequate Determinism also includes indeterminism, an irreducible property of the microscopic quantum world..
We are happy to agree with scientists and philosophers who feel that quantum effects are for the most part negligible in the macroscopic world. We particularly agree that they are negligible when considering the causally determined will and the causally determined actions set in motion by decisions of that will.
In particular, adequate or statistical determinism is all that determinist philosophers ever wanted or needed for moral responsibility.
Quantum chance is primarily needed to generate unpredictable and "free" alternative possibilities for action.
Adequate determinism gives compatibilists the kind of free will that they need and that they say they want, namely the causal connection between motives, feelings, reason, character, values, etc. and the actions chosen from freely generated possibilities.
However, quantum mechanics is not negligible in some important cases. We know that quantum indeterminacy exists in the world. Sometimes microsopic indeterminism is amplified to produce unpredictable and uncaused events that show up in the macroscopic world to break the causal chains we normally see in adequate or statistical determinism.
But it is random events that drive the creation of new species in biology and we can show that they underlie all creativity, all actions that bring new information into the universe, whether the formation of stars and galaxies or the writing of a new play.
Adequate determinism is one of the critical requirements for free will."
**************
The article seems to state clearly that random events (that I have discussed earlier) underlie all creativity including creating of new species and formation of stars.
I have argued that so called 'random' events (not truly random) could be the means by which some higher consciousness could be directing the course of events in the world.
The article also seems to state that ....."Adequate determinism gives compatibilists the kind of free will that they need and that they say they want, namely the causal connection between motives, feelings, reason, character, values, etc. and the actions chosen from freely generated possibilities".....which clearly favors free will.
Any comments or clarifications on that?
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I have argued that so called 'random' events (not truly random) could be the means by which some higher consciousness could be directing the course of events in the world.
I don't see how or why we would interpret something apparently random as being evidence of purpose. Random would suggest the opposite of purposefullness. To justify the claim of purpose, we would expect to see apparent organisation or pattern in unexplained events, not randomness.
-
I don't see how or why we would interpret something apparently random as being evidence of purpose. Random would suggest the opposite of purposefullness. To justify the claim of purpose, we would expect to see apparent organisation or pattern in unexplained events, not randomness.
You have agreed that randomness may not be truly random. Random is just a term scientists use to 'explain' what they don't understand. And because they are petrified of ascribing any purpose or intelligence behind such events....they like to call it 'random'.
Secondly, we do see organisation and pattern in nature that is far beyond randomness. That is obvious. The article above also talks of 'randomness' being responsible for creativity and formation of stars etc.
Any clarification about free will and the idea of adequate determination being a critical requirement for free will?
-
Sriram, you really should provide a link to sites you quote from: Adequate (or Statistical) Determinism (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/adequate_determinism.html)
Random is just a term scientists use to 'explain' what they don't understand. And because they are petrified of ascribing any purpose or intelligence behind such events....they like to call it 'random'.
This is untrue - and a silly, rather childish, misrepresentation.
Secondly, we do see organisation and pattern in nature that is far beyond randomness. That is obvious.
That's because of adequate determinism - or actual determinism. Whether there is genuine randomness in nature is an open question.
The article above also talks of 'randomness' being responsible for creativity and formation of stars etc.
I've only looked at a few pages but they seem to be suggesting that randomness is the source of new information. This is technically true. A truly random event generates new information (but not if it isn't actually random). Whether this is possible is debatable, it depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. I think they're in a minority in thinking it is necessary for anything we observe.
Any clarification about free will and the idea of adequate determination being a critical requirement for free will?
The site seems to be presenting a two stage model of free will, which requires adequate determination (which would be required for any purposeful thought at all) and true randomness to generate new information for a deterministic consideration/filtering process. Even if we were to accept the model, I can see no reason why the randomness would need to be true randomness, rather than simply random for practical purposes.
-
You have agreed that randomness may not be truly random. Random is just a term scientists use to 'explain' what they don't understand. And because they are petrified of ascribing any purpose or intelligence behind such events....they like to call it 'random'.
That's rather silly. If something appears to be random, that is the reason why we would say 'it appears to be random'. Your invention of being 'petrified' is spurious and bizarre. If we see unexplained patterns then that would call for an explanation, but random is the opposite. It is the antithesis of purpose.
-
That's rather silly. If something appears to be random, that is the reason why we would say 'it appears to be random'. Your invention of being 'petrified' is spurious and bizarre. If we see unexplained patterns then that would call for an explanation, but random is the opposite. It is the antithesis of purpose.
You don't see any pattern in Nature?! Survival instinct, reproduction instinct, parental instinct, complexity, billions of species, interdependent eco-system........!!!!?
-
You don't see any pattern in Nature?! Survival instinct, reproduction instinct, parental instinct, complexity, billions of species, interdependent eco-system........!!!!?
We have a good explanation for those things: they are the results of natural selection acting on (effectively) random variation.
-
You don't see any pattern in Nature?! Survival instinct, reproduction instinct, parental instinct, complexity, billions of species, interdependent eco-system........!!!!?
No I'm saying there is no pattern in random things. This is definitional. There are patterns in Nature, but not in any random or pseudo random input into Nature. The patterns in Nature are a consequence of determinism.
-
No I'm saying there is no pattern in random things. This is definitional. There are patterns in Nature, but not in any random or pseudo random input into Nature. The patterns in Nature are a consequence of determinism.
What?!! You are labeling something as random to begin with. Then you say random events cannot have a pattern and therefore there is no pattern?!! ::)
It should be the other way around. To being with do we see a pattern in nature? Yes! Can patterns be caused by random events? No! So wherever we find a pattern, there can be no random events at all. Even all those events for which we cannot find a cause, cannot be truly random. There has to be a cause that we don't currently understand.
-
It should be the other way around. To being with do we see a pattern in nature? Yes! Can patterns be caused by random events? No! So wherever we find a pattern, there can be no random events at all. Even all those events for which we cannot find a cause, cannot be truly random. There has to be a cause that we don't currently understand.
Wow - a glaring non sequitur for Xmas morning. That simply doesn't follow.
The standard formulation of quantum mechanics (and quantum field theory) assumes genuine randomness and yet describes the world with great accuracy. Even if they are wrong, they provide a mathematical model of a world that includes truly random events but still displays the patterns we observe in ours.