Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on March 01, 2024, 05:47:02 AM
-
Hi everyone,
An informative video speech by a Swami on Mind and Consciousness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9LCNHJEn0
I know most of you are generally skeptical of such persons and treat such ideas as religious nonsense.....but you could try listening to it.
It is philosophy and not religion.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
An informative video speech by a Swami on Mind and Consciousness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9LCNHJEn0
I know most of you are generally skeptical of such persons and treat such ideas as religious nonsense.....but you could try listening to it.
It is philosophy and not religion.
Cheers.
Sriram
Fascinating. I mostly agree with him though I think he packs a couple of leaps in terns of there being one consciousness, and all objects being that consciousness in without the same flow of thought as elsewhere. In addition, I think there's a false dichotomy that is in the main expressed by his David Chalmers story on panpsychism that if you don't think that consciousness can be explained that then you end up at some form of pansychism which I think as a concept is a bit of a mess anyway.
That then relates to calling consciousness a fundamental property of reality if it cannot be investigated. I think that you just call it something that cannot be investigated.
The split between mind and consciousness feels like a bit of linguistic legerdemain to me rather than anything that makes sense when you look at it.
I've said before that my god is Dunno. I don't think being unable to investigate or explain something fully gives it any power beyond that. I tjink to do so needs a conception of reality and humanity that is based on an assumption of mysteries to be discovered rather than just limitations.
I do like the Galen Strawson article that he refers tp, and had at one time meant to put it up here - so this gives me the reminder/chance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html
-
Sriram,
An informative video speech by a Swami on Mind and Consciousness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9LCNHJEn0
I know most of you are generally skeptical of such persons and treat such ideas as religious nonsense.....but you could try listening to it.
It is philosophy and not religion.
Only about 20 mins in, but so far it seems to be a long argument from incredulity together with some hints at least that he's going to try the old "method X can't explain it, therefore method Y can" switcheroo. Maybe "method Y" can explain consciousness but if it does it would need to justify that claim on its merits, not by relying on the inadequacy of method X. To be fair though, I'll try to get to the end to see what his conclusions are before further comment.
Maybe too a "don't know" is all we can say at this stage, and maybe the hard problem of consciousness will forever be intractable because we cannot step outside of it to examine the phenomenon objectively (I like the maxim "you can't cut butter with a knife made of butter" here).
On the plus side he seems like a nice chap, and I like his use of "promissary materialism" (a new one on me – and a phrase Vlad might want to deploy rather than continually tilting at his straw man windmill of "scientism").
-
Sriram,
Only about 20 mins in, but so far it seems to be a long argument from incredulity together with some hints at least that he's going to try the old "method X can't explain it, therefore method Y can" switcheroo. Maybe "method Y" can explain consciousness but if it does it would need to justify that claim on its merits, not by relying on the inadequacy of method X. To be fair though, I'll try to get to the end to see what his conclusions are before further comment.
Maybe too a "don't know" is all we can say at this stage, and maybe the hard problem of consciousness will forever be intractable because we cannot step outside of it to examine the phenomenon objectively (I like the maxim "you can't cut butter with a knife made of butter" here).
On the plus side he seems like a nice chap, and I like his use of "promissary materialism" (a new one on me – and a phrase Vlad might want to deploy rather than continually tilting at his straw man windmill of "scientism").
I used the term promissory materialism(as though it was a bad thing)on a thread called "WUMs for Jesus" back in 2015.
Not wanting to revisit your "greatest hits" Hillside, but I can't recall your response.
-
I used the term promissory materialism(as though it was a bad thing)on a thread called "WUMs for Jesus" back in 2015.
Not wanting to revisit your "greatest hits" Hillside, but I can't recall your response.
Link to thread
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10161.0
-
Sriram,
Only about 20 mins in, but so far it seems to be a long argument from incredulity together with some hints at least that he's going to try the old "method X can't explain it, therefore method Y can" switcheroo. Maybe "method Y" can explain consciousness but if it does it would need to justify that claim on its merits, not by relying on the inadequacy of method X. To be fair though, I'll try to get to the end to see what his conclusions are before further comment.
Maybe too a "don't know" is all we can say at this stage, and maybe the hard problem of consciousness will forever be intractable because we cannot step outside of it to examine the phenomenon objectively (I like the maxim "you can't cut butter with a knife made of butter" here).
On the plus side he seems like a nice chap, and I like his use of "promissary materialism" (a new one on me – and a phrase Vlad might want to deploy rather than continually tilting at his straw man windmill of "scientism").
I don't get it as an argument from incredulity at all. Can you lay out where you see that?
-
NS,
I don't get it as an argument from incredulity at all. Can you lay out where you see that?
As I mentioned, I've only watched the first 20 mins or so so I could be doing him a disservice for what follows. He did though seem to me to dismiss out of hand the materialist hypothesis because you can't see beauty or love or desire in an electrical signal - which is no more to the point than not seeing pictures or sound or ideas in the pile of bits my computer would be if I disassembled it.
-
NS,
As I mentioned, I've only watched the first 20 mins or so so I could be doing him a disservice for what follows. He did though seem to me to dismiss out of hand the materialist hypothesis because you can't see beauty or love or desire in an electrical signal - which is no more to the point than not seeing pictures or sound or ideas in the pile of bits my computer would be if I disassembled it.
I didn't get the impression either in the whole or in the first 20 minutes that that is the basis of the argument. Rather that the experience itself is central to what we are talking about in terms of consciousness, and that anything that essentially looks on that as just a feature but not explained will miss the point.
-
NS,
I didn't get the impression either in the whole or in the first 20 minutes that that is the basis of the argument. Rather that the experience itself is central to what we are talking about in terms of consciousness, and that anything that essentially looks on that as just a feature but not explained will miss the point.
You say tomayto, I say tomarto...
I'll have another look from the beginning when I get the chance though.
-
The same idea as the OP, explained in simpler terms from a different perspective..... What is God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nwcuz08UFE&t=4s
I think I have posted it here before many years ago.,,,but worth repeating.
-
Sriram,
The same idea as the OP, explained in simpler terms from a different perspective..... What is God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nwcuz08UFE&t=4s
I think I have posted it here before many years ago.,,,but worth repeating.
He opens with a basic Paley's watch error ("everything looks created, therefore.. a creator!") and proceeds from that false premise. Why is it worth repeating do you think?
-
You have missed the essence of what he is saying...
-
Sriram,
You have missed the essence of what he is saying...
No, I have noticed that he begins with a false premise. Why then should I care about whatever he builds on that false premise?
Rainbows exist. Therefore leprechauns are real. Now let me tell you all about leprechauns...
Can you see what's wrong with that?
-
The whole point, as in the OP, is about Consciousness being fundamental and the source of creation. The Consciousness that is within us.
Gods and deities are cultural creations.
-
The same idea as the OP, explained in simpler terms from a different perspective..... What is God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nwcuz08UFE&t=4s
I think I have posted it here before many years ago.,,,but worth repeating.
His delivery is reminiscent of Dave Allen.
As with the first link, I don't think that the difficulty in examining 'something' implies that the 'something' is fundamental.
-
NS,
As I mentioned, I've only watched the first 20 mins or so so I could be doing him a disservice for what follows. He did though seem to me to dismiss out of hand the materialist hypothesis because you can't see beauty or love or desire in an electrical signal - which is no more to the point than not seeing pictures or sound or ideas in the pile of bits my computer would be if I disassembled it.
I'll preface my remarks by admitting I haven't watched the video.
The argument is not an argument from incredulity, it's a straw man. I don't know any materialist who argues that an electric signal can experience beauty, love or desire. These are all properties that emerge from the "system".
Ironically, of course, if, like Sriram, you argue that consciousness flows through everything, and you argue, as this chap appears to, that the ability to experience beauty, love and desire are necessary properties of things that are conscious, then it follows that electric signals must experience beauty, love and desire.
-
I'll preface my remarks by admitting I haven't watched the video.
The argument is not an argument from incredulity, it's a straw man. I don't know any materialist who argues that an electric signal can experience beauty, love or desire. These are all properties that emerge from the "system".
Ironically, of course, if, like Sriram, you argue that consciousness flows through everything, and you argue, as this chap appears to, that the ability to experience beauty, love and desire are necessary properties of things that are conscious, then it follows that electric signals must experience beauty, love and desire.
He doesn't argue that.
-
There isn't an argument for a creator god in the video.
-
NS,
There isn't an argument for a creator god in the video.
Play the video from about 38 seconds on ("... so you thought, "obviously there must be a creator"" etc.)
-
NS,
Play the video from about 38 seconds on ("... so you thought, "obviously there must be a creator"" etc.)
Yes, I listened to it and watched it all the way through. It's not at any point an argument for a creator god. It's a point about consciousness being fundamental. The bit where he talks about the joke and using 'him'? You are making the same mistake and getting hung up on a specific word rather than what he's saying.
-
NS,
Yes, I listened to it and watched it all the way through. It's not at any point an argument for a creator god. It's a point about consciousness being fundamental. The bit where he talks about the joke and using 'him'? You are makung the same mistake and getying hung up on a specific word rather than what he's saying.
Except he makes the critique that we create god(s) in our own image and then says that we can therefore only experience the “creator god” by dissolving into it rather than by seeking to describe it. If you want to argue for how to experience a “creator god” though it seems to me that you have to establish the creation part first, not just assume it as axiomatic.
-
NS,
Except he makes the critique that we create god(s) in our own image and then says that we can therefore only experience the “creator god” by dissolving into it rather than by seeking to describe it. If you want to argue for how to experience a “creator god” though it seems to me that you have to establish the creation part first, not just assume it as axiomatic.
You're putting stuff in that he doesn't say. At no point does he say there is a creator god, or that you are 'dissolving into' god.
-
NS,
You're putting stuff in that he doesn't say. At no point does he say there is a creator god, or that you are 'dissolving into' god.
4.40 – 4.60. Are we looking at the same video - the second one?
-
NS,
4.40 – 4.60. Are we looking at the same video - the second one?
Yes. So he talks at 4.30 about not being able to define the self, and he then talks about that being a 'small piece of creation'. He doesn't say that there is a creator god, or that the thing you are dissolving into is a 'god'.
-
The word God is borrowed from the west. In the West the word God means Jehovah or a similar person or being. In India it does not mean that. 'God' is a very loose term that is used to mean anything from a personal deity to a celestial being to the Universal Spirit or Universal consciousness. There are many different words in Hinduism such as Brahman, Paramatman, prabhu, Ishwar, Bhagvan, deva etc. to refer to God, which refer to its different attributes.
In the second video he talks of the different deities that we worship or imagine. These are human creations based on cultural compulsions. This is well accepted in Hinduism. Devotion is a natural emotional impulse that we have and we need deities that we can identify with. People worship different deities in the form of a father, mother, protector, friend, child and even lover as per their needs. This is the devotional path (bhakti marga). This is one of the means to spiritual development.
The real 'God' or rather the highest level of God, if you can call it that, is believed to be the universal consciousness that pervades all creation. This is the highest level of consciousness within us. This is not easily understood by normal people and requires a certain level of spiritual development. Once a person reaches a certain level of spiritual development, he or she can follow the path of introspection and inner reflection. This is called the path of Wisdom (Gyana marga).
Once a person follows this path the person realizes that not only the body but the mind with all its instincts, emotions, intellect and ego are just objects and different from the subject (first video). This is when the person merges or dissolves into the supreme consciousness (second video)....like a river flowing into the ocean.
This Universal Consciousness obviously cannot be understood intellectually. It is he ultimate subject and is beyond our human capabilities.
This is what both the above videos are talking about.
-
Not convinced.
-
The word God is borrowed from the west. In the West the word God means Jehovah or a similar person or being. In India it does not mean that. 'God' is a very loose term that is used to mean anything from a personal deity to a celestial being to the Universal Spirit or Universal consciousness. There are many different words in Hinduism such as Brahman, Paramatman, prabhu, Ishwar, Bhagvan, deva etc. to refer to God, which refer to its different attributes.
In the second video he talks of the different deities that we worship or imagine. These are human creations based on cultural compulsions. This is well accepted in Hinduism. Devotion is a natural emotional impulse that we have and we need deities that we can identify with. People worship different deities in the form of a father, mother, protector, friend, child and even lover as per their needs. This is the devotional path (bhakti marga). This is one of the means to spiritual development.
The real 'God' or rather the highest level of God, if you can call it that, is believed to be the universal consciousness that pervades all creation. This is the highest level of consciousness within us. This is not easily understood by normal people and requires a certain level of spiritual development. Once a person reaches a certain level of spiritual development, he or she can follow the path of introspection and inner reflection. This is called the path of Wisdom (Gyana marga).
Once a person follows this path the person realizes that not only the body but the mind with all its instincts, emotions, intellect and ego are just objects and different from the subject (first video). This is when the person merges or dissolves into the supreme consciousness (second video)....like a river flowing into the ocean.
This Universal Consciousness obviously cannot be understood intellectually. It is he ultimate subject and is beyond our human capabilities.
This is what both the above videos are talking about.
In putting it that way, you've called the bloke in the first video a liar, since he says he's not doing what you"ve just said he is.
-
Can you tell me which part of his video you are referring to?!
-
Not convinced.
As expected...! :D
-
Can you tell me which part of his video you are referring to?!
Presuming you are asking me? He states the purpose of the talk at 1.23. It's a definition bound by the idea of science which is based around intellectual understanding. Of his aim is not within that definition, then he would be lying.
-
As expected...! :D
Didn't think it would come as a surprise. :)
-
Presuming you are asking me? He states the purpise of the talk at 1.23. It's a definition bound by the idea of science which is based around intellectual understanding. Of his aim is not within that definition, then he would be lying.
He never claims that the supreme consciousness will be scientifically understood. He is clear that the subject cannot be understood. Only objects can be understood which includes the mind and intellect.
-
He never claims that the supreme consciousness will be scientifically understood. He is clear that the subject cannot be understood. Only objects can be understood which includes the mind and intellect.
He outlines a purpose which is at odds with what you claimed his purpose was. Either you are wrong, or you are saying he didn't know what his purpose was, or you are saying he is lying about his purpose.
-
He outlines a purpose which is at odds with what you claimed his purpose was. Either you are wrong, or you are saying he didn't know what his purpose was, or you are saying he is lying about his purpose.
At 1.23 (and later) he talks of the insights that Vedanta can offer to neuroscience, OCD's and the assistance sought by scientists in building trust among patients. He is not talking about understanding the inner consciousness scientifically.
He clearly goes on to say later that only objects can be studied which includes the mind and intellect (he clearly separates the mind from consciousness). Mind is also experienced and therefore an object. But consciousness being the subject cannot be studied. It can only be, as in the second video, dissolved into.
-
At 1.23 (and later) he talks of the insights that Vedanta can offer to neuroscience, OCD's and the assistance sought by scientists in building trust among patients. He is not talking about understanding the inner consciousness scientifically.
He clearly goes on to say later that only objects can be studied which includes the mind and intellect (he clearly separates the mind from consciousness). Mind is also experienced and therefore an object. But consciousness being the subject cannot be studied. It can only be, as in the second video, dissolved into.
He's talking about offering insights to science which is an intellectual exercise if his insights can't be understood intellectually he is either wrong to offer them, or is lying about thrm. The problem you have is words matter, and you're trying a bait and switch here.
-
NS,
Yes. So he talks at 4.30 about not being able to define the self, and he then talks about that being a 'small piece of creation'. He doesn't say that there is a creator god, or that the thing you are dissolving into is a 'god'.
4.40 – 4.60: “And this (?) piece of creation is like this. The source of creation. How are you going to put a definition on it? You cannot define it. You cannot understand it. You can only dissolve into it.”
What “source of creation” or indeed “creation” at all to you think he’s assuming as his premise here?
-
NS,
4.40 – 4.60: “And this (?) piece of creation is like this. The source of creation. How are you going to put a definition on it? You cannot define it. You cannot understand it. You can only dissolve into it.”
What “source of creation” or indeed “creation” at all to you think he’s assuming as his premise here?
Consciousness, ehich I don't think is a claim to a creator god, or indeed a god. See my ongoing discussions with Sriram as regards this. I think both talks have issues woth either using analogies badly - in this case borrowing the terms god and creation, and not making clear that they are not being used in the 'western' sense, or using analogies wrongly i.e. this is like something that you think exists so it exists.
-
At 1.23 (and later) he talks of the insights that Vedanta can offer to neuroscience, OCD's and the assistance sought by scientists in building trust among patients. He is not talking about understanding the inner consciousness scientifically.
He clearly goes on to say later that only objects can be studied which includes the mind and intellect (he clearly separates the mind from consciousness). Mind is also experienced and therefore an object. But consciousness being the subject cannot be studied. It can only be, as in the second video, dissolved into.
Aside from the disagreement about his purpose, as I mentioned in Reply 2, I think the mind/consciousness distinction isn't made successfully, and is merely word wanking.
-
Sriram,
The real 'God' or rather the highest level of God, if you can call it that, is believed to be the universal consciousness that pervades all creation. This is the highest level of consciousness within us. This is not easily understood by normal people and requires a certain level of spiritual development. Once a person reaches a certain level of spiritual development, he or she can follow the path of introspection and inner reflection. This is called the path of Wisdom (Gyana marga).
Bullshit. History is full of delusionals who’ve decided that they have magic antennae that enable them to perceive special types of reality that are denied to “normal people”. And yet these same people – you included – are unable to justify their claims with logically cogent arguments. We just have to take their word for it it seems.
Well, OK then – if these are the rules, we can all play by them. You now have to take my word for it that I experience leprechauns on a deeply “spiritual”/”leprechaunal” level that’s denied to poor saps like you. You could of course embark on the long journey of internal contemplation and navel gazing that’s elevated me to my enhanced state of awareness, but frankly I doubt you have the special properties that I alone am blessed with that have brought me to this verdant plain of bliss and rainbows.
What’s that you say? “Why should I take your claims seriously?” Simple you silly goose you – I’m certain that my special spiritual/leprechaunal awareness justifies my beliefs, so it’s job done!
You’ll believe me I presume, what with my relying on the same (non-)method you claim for your magic beliefs too?
-
He doesn't argue that.
I've watched the first 20 minutes now and I'm not impressed so far. He seems to be arguing that consciousness can't be explained in terms of processes that go on inside the brain because he arbitrarily labels them as "objects" and then claims that consciousness is not an object.
-
NS,
Consciousness, ehich I don't think is a claim to a creator god, or indeed a god. See my ongoing discussions with Sriram as regards this. I think both talks have issues woth either using analogies badly - in this case borrowing the terms god and creation, and not making clear that they are not being used in the 'western' sense, or using analogies wrongly i.e. this is like something that you think exists so it exists.
You keep eliding the creator/creation part. I don’t think there’s a “Western” definition of that that’s non-applicable here. If the speaker wants to use the term “consciousness” as a passive claim that’s one thing, but when he extends the claim into a consciousness that “creates” (let alone uses the claim of creation as a justification for the claim of necessary consciousness) then he has a big job to justify his a priori premise.
-
NS,
You keep eliding the creator/creation part. I don’t think there’s a “Western” definition of that that’s non-applicable here. If the speaker wants to use the term “consciousness” as a passive claim that’s one thing, but when he extends the claim into a consciousness that “creates” (let alone uses the claim of creation as a justification for the claim of necessary consciousness) then he has a big job to justify his a priori premise.
I'm not eliding anything. You are adding in 'creatir god'. It doesn't really matter since it's essentially verbal bollocks from the speaker for reasons explained.
-
NS,
I'm not eliding anything. You are adding in 'creatir god'. It doesn't really matter since it's essentially verbal bollocks from the speaker for reasons explained.
Actually "creator consciousness" (or "creation, therefore a creating consciousness") but ok. Let's just agree that it's verbal bollocks then and leave it at that.
-
NS,
Actually "creator consciousness" (or "creation, therefore a creating consciousness") but ok. Let's just agree that it's verbal bollocks then and leave it at that.
Creator makes it personal, and effectively a god. He doesn't say that
-
I've watched the first 20 minutes now and I'm not impressed so far. He seems to be arguing that consciousness can't be explained in terms of processes that go on inside the brain because he arbitrarily labels them as "objects" and then claims that consciousness is not an object.
Pretty much, but in terms of the 'hard problem of consciousness' that's simply a way of phrasing it.
-
NS,
Creator makes it personal, and effectively a god. He doesn't say that
"Creator" merely implies that something was intentionally created, rather than just came about non-intentionally. I don't know what you mean by "personal" here, nor why a claim of a creator "makes it personal".
-
NS,
"Creator" merely implies that something was intentionally created, rather than just came about non-intentionally. I don't know what you mean by "personal" here, nor why a claim of a creator "makes it personal".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god
-
NS,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god
How did you get from that to "Creator makes it personal"?
As I understand it the schtick is that everything – including rocks for example - is somehow conscious. What's "personal" about that claim?
-
NS,
How did you get from that to "Creator makes it personal"?
As I understand it the schtick is that everything – including rocks for example - is somehow conscious. What's "personal" about that claim?
You were the one talking about a 'creator god'. That's a personal god. I've been saying that isn't what he says. You now seem to be agreeing with my point.
-
Moderator Notice
A number of posts that were discussing specifically the actions of a 'god' have been put into a seperate thread, and moved to Theism and Atheism board.
-
NS,
You were the one talking about a 'creator god'. That's a personal god. I've been saying that isn't what he says. You now seem to be agreeing with my point.
I still don't see why a creator god is thereby a "personal" god - what if all he'd created was rocks for example? – but there's no point in continuing a "you said, I said" exchange about a talk we agree to be nonsense in any case.
-
Typical of course....but its a pity you are unable to see the wisdom in both the videos....!
-
Sriram,
Typical of course....but its a pity you are unable to see the wisdom in both the videos....!
What wisdom do you think the videos contain, and - more importantly - why?
-
NS,
I still don't see why a creator god is thereby a "personal" god - what if all he'd created was rocks for example? – but there's no point in continuing a "you said, I said" exchange about a talk we agree to be nonsense in any case.
I think understanding terms is useful. A personal god is not 'personal' because it creates persons but because it is thought of/portrayed as a person.
-
NS,
I think understanding terms is useful. A personal god is not 'personal' because it creates persons but because it is thought of/portrayed as a person.
So do I, but you said “Creator makes it personal…” and “You were the one talking about a 'creator god'. That's a personal god.” No doubt some who believe there to be a creator god also think of it as a personal god, but many others don’t. The most you could say therefore is something like, “some who believe in a creator god also personify it, so for those people a creator god is therefore a personal god” but that’s all. In short, I think you overreached here.
-
NS,
So do I, but you said “Creator makes it personal…” and “You were the one talking about a 'creator god'. That's a personal god.” No doubt some who believe there to be a creator god also think of it as a personal god, but many others don’t. The most you could say therefore is something like, “some who believe in a creator god also personify it, so for those people a creator god is therefore a personal god” but that’s all. In short, I think you overreached here.
That's bollocks. When you were talking of a creator god, you were talking of the concept of a personal entity delibereately creating. You don't have to believe in a concept to be using it in those terms.
-
NS,
That's bollocks. When you were talking of a creator god, you were talking of the concept of a personal entity delibereately creating. You don't have to believe in a concept to be using it in those terms.
Thank you for telling me what it was that I was really talking about. And there was me thinking that by “creator god” I was actually referring to a god some personify and some don’t. Do you intend to provide this service of explaining what I really meant on a continuing basis or was that a one-off clarification?
Here’s Wiki on deism by the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
-
About Jesus....(less than 2 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UQm4uF3OW8
-
About Jesus....(less than 2 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UQm4uF3OW8
Has nothing to do with the thread.
-
Yeah...ok. I'll post it on the Christian board. Thanks.
-
https://theconversation.com/the-mystery-of-consciousness-shows-there-may-be-a-limit-to-what-science-alone-can-achieve-225034
-
Vlad,
https://theconversation.com/the-mystery-of-consciousness-shows-there-may-be-a-limit-to-what-science-alone-can-achieve-225034
What point do you think you're making?