A rather philosophical thread

[EdmundJohnstone]

As you probably are aware there are 2 major school of thoughts in Philosophy namely, Monism(that there is only 1 substance) and Dualism(that there are 2 substances, mind and body existing separately). The former has several branches, i.e: physicalism/materialism (i.e there is just matter, that mind=brain, that death of brain = death of mind= end, and yes, I know materialism and physicalism differ), idealism (total opposite of materialism, i.e: there is just spirit and physical is just an illusion) and neutral monism(1 substance, neither physical nor mental). While the latter is represented by Caretsian Dualism (Rene Descartes)

Just my point of view that Dualism is flawed in terms of Physics and Neuroscience

-Dualism can violate physical laws. How can a non-physical thing give cause to a physical action without completely rupturing the law of conservation of energy??

-The only explanation Descartes gave for exactly how this non-physical thing reacts with the physical is left up to faith/belief, claiming it’s God’s design. How is material bridged to non-material?

Materialism/Physicalism seem to be preferred by "rational people" because we live in a physical world, and most of our proof comes from the physical, everything else being wishful thinking/hoax.

So this leaves the discussion between idealism and materialism/naturalism(i.e what most atheists and "rational people" believe, a.k.a Dawkins and Co - the future Fertilizers)

But there is also panpsychism, a.k.a consciousness may be a fundamental property of reality in the same way as space and time, everywhere present in the Universe, sounds spiritual but it isn't. As Chalmers would say the only downside would be that it can't be tested, but sort of relates to what Sir Roger Penrose and Hameroff postulated about Quantum capable microtubules in the neurons, the brain just filtering consciousness

What do you guys think? Which seems to make the most sense and why?

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

.
What do you guys think?

With all due respect, what anyone else thinks is not that important imo. Would you rather some thinly held belief (no matter how strongly believed) or direct experience?

The former are philosophers and theorists, the latter are the happier ones imo.

Jl

[Miss Hepburn]

I don't hear many talk about 'direct experience'. ..except me.
It is far superior than intellectual speculation.
Yes, I am much more content now with direct exp.

But, the intellect wants what it wants ..it is also a path to some answers.
So, I hope a nice discussion happens for you, Edmund.
I'm more of a right brainer, that's all.

[Gem]

I like the Cartesian method, doubt everything you know, but I don't entirely agree that he concluded I am a thinking thing. It seems he was saying something far more nuanced. Yes he said as much during the Meditations discourse, but I don't think it was his conclusion. He is famed for concluding I think therefore I am, but the context of that was him saying, That I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me or conceived of in my mind. This doesn't necessarily imply an immortal soul as such, but alludes a self dependent on thought and/or self expression.

It's also true that he did not make any conclusion regarding the self per-se - he really only postulated the soul, or mind/body duality, but admittedly could not explain it.

It's important to understand that Descartes did not differentiate between the mind and the soul. To him they were one and the same and basically defined that as that which thinks.

Clearly Descartes concluded that there is something which precedes thought, or something that generates thought, and that he regards as 'myself', but at times when there is no self-referential thought, a conception of self, he lost all certainty; and that was precisely the essence of his method.

[Gem]

Then there is Chalmers, who has no interest in the soul at all, an athiest who believes mostly in philosophical reason and scientific method, yet I would classify Chalmers not as a materialist, because his zombie argument was designed to show that consciousness can't be explained via physical mechanisms. He's along the pan-psychist lines which integrate consciousness with the universe.



His TED talk is worth a look if you've not seen it.

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

As you probably are aware there are 2 major school of thoughts in Philosophy namely, Monism(that there is only 1 substance) and Dualism(that there are 2 substances, mind and body existing separately). The former has several branches, i.e: physicalism/materialism (i.e there is just matter, that mind=brain, that death of brain = death of mind= end, and yes, I know materialism and physicalism differ), idealism (total opposite of materialism, i.e: there is just spirit and physical is just an illusion) and neutral monism(1 substance, neither physical nor mental). While the latter is represented by Caretsian Dualism (Rene Descartes)

Just my point of view that Dualism is flawed in terms of Physics and Neuroscience

The pre-Taoist alchemists believed in Triplex Unity, where there is 'this', there is 'that' and there is 'both'. This is best envisioned by the Vesica Pisces of Sacred Geometry and puts things into a relationship rather than opposition. For instance, one circle is mind, the other circle is body and in the overlap you have Spirit - which makes every sense of Spirituality. One circle is you/your inner world, the other circle is your environment/outer world and in the overlap comes your reality. Instead of Spiritual vs non-Spiritual you have Spiritual, non-Spiritual and both.

In Paradoxical Thinking you have 'this, your have 'that', you have 'both' and you have 'neither'. You have Spiritual, you have non-Spiritual and the relationship between the two and if there is nothing that is not of Spirit then Spirituality is a conjuration of the mind and not something that actually exists.

It's all about 'generating' and 'processing' reality and consciousness. Spirituality and science are aspects of reality and neither of them are exclusively reality itself.

[EdmundJohnstone]

This sounds a bit like dualism/neutral monism?

Originally Posted by Greenslade

The pre-Taoist alchemists believed in Triplex Unity, where there is 'this', there is 'that' and there is 'both'. This is best envisioned by the Vesica Pisces of Sacred Geometry and puts things into a relationship rather than opposition. For instance, one circle is mind, the other circle is body and in the overlap you have Spirit - which makes every sense of Spirituality. One circle is you/your inner world, the other circle is your environment/outer world and in the overlap comes your reality. Instead of Spiritual vs non-Spiritual you have Spiritual, non-Spiritual and both.

In Paradoxical Thinking you have 'this, your have 'that', you have 'both' and you have 'neither'. You have Spiritual, you have non-Spiritual and the relationship between the two and if there is nothing that is not of Spirit then Spirituality is a conjuration of the mind and not something that actually exists.

It's all about 'generating' and 'processing' reality and consciousness. Spirituality and science are aspects of reality and neither of them are exclusively reality itself.

[EnlightenedPursuits]

Idealism, especially the George Berkleley type, fell out of favor during the early 20th century with the analytic philosophy of G.E. Moore and Bertrand Russell; and the great technological advances of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Great scientific discoveries are very convincing of a materialist universe, but it does not refute the idea of every one of us ascertaining the world through our own senses and therefore not being certain that it is the same experience of someone else's.

I think that reality is not created by contusness but by unconsciousness and a Echo/example of this can be found in the human body because the "person " the one that's conscious right now is extremely Limited you can only do about two to three things at the same time and remain conscious of them however your body is doing thousands and thousands of different little intricate things that you are totally unaware of so out of everything that you and your body do throughout the day only maybe 1% of it is you the Observer consciousness while the glue that holds everything together and keeps it running is unconscious. I think we give too much credit and praise to Consciousness It's actually an extremely Limited tool at our disposal