Idealism is Hardly Ideal.
Offline I think "external material world" is a dualistic habit we continue to carry from religious language. It presupposes that there is some homunculus that is presented the external world in a mental theatre inside our head. But it serves our syntax well . The use of a subject and predicate places the I in the brain by tradition. Our language almost insures it. But if we posit a monism would not the only difference between a physical monisim and a mental one be semantics? What would be the means of comparison? What is internal to that spiritual/mental "external world." What is internal to an external world?
If thought or consciousness is a terminate of a causal chain then it is simply a physical effect of a whole neural correlate of interacting physical events. They find their nexus as a symbolic effect of that which is sensed. The real issue is a causal one when dualism is set aside. Does a person's thought effect what occurs or does what occurs effect what one experiences? Obviously we mean the latter.
Solipsism, the antithesis, is rare and seems to be held only by contrary philosophers. We mistake the Eastern view of claiming the world is an illusion as meaning it is unreal. An illusion is quite real. "Illusion" simply means the experience of something real other than it is. That something is experienced but misinterpreted. Illusion is that which deludes us. The Eastern mystic ( esp. Buddhists) ask one not to be attached to sensory experience (in other words not to make biased judgements of an experience). This leads to better analysis of a real world. So I am uncertain as to what religion idealism would actually be valid.
Panentheism and pantheism have a monism. Buddhism has no real internality in that it posits the ego as a symbolic construct mistaken as the self or the experiences occurring. The "within" means direction...toward the self. Hinduism posits that the internal and external are one. The Atman is but a manifestation of Brahmin. Brahmin is all. Atman is but its objectification. It is similar to the use of Logos as the relative image or form of God who is boundless or absolute.
So external and internal would be more of a linguistic device so that the narrative world as analog to the real world is distinguished. I really do not know of many idealists save those of philosophical history. Ultimately and practically those philosophers can not practice their belief consistently or legitimately.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
My biggest beef would be with the obsession with the "material/immaterial" distinction as the ultimate dualism.
Associated with that would be the always implied or explicit denigration of "matter" as 'mere' matter, or of the barren-ness of a conceived world of 'nothing but' matter. Whereas 'matter' is what allows some kind of persistence of 'form' or structure, and of the evolution of progressively more complex and subtle structure which in turn are essential to provide a template, a substrate, a context, for complex processes, such as life and consciousness, among other things.
"Internal/external" is a reasonable definition of the perspective attached to some particular context: inward toward our own thoughts and feelings, outward to other centers of consciousness and on to the broader universe.
My 2c anyway....
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Have you read anything by Douglas Hofstadter? He is currently "College of Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science" at Indiana University, according to Wikipedia.
I have his "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid", and also "The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul (co-edited with Daniel Dennett)", both very stimulating reads on this area, which came to mind when reading your response.
In particular I remember a significant consideration of the problem of 'recursion', which comes up when you start thinking about thinking, then thinking about that sort of thinking, etc. And in many other variations when you get into this topic.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Figures. If you have been into this stuff that long, those books would have been 'must read's when you came across them.
I must pick up "I am a Strange Loop'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Victor-J-Stenger/dp/1616144432
I know that is up your alley. I'm gonna find one for Father's Day or Birthday.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I am a proponent of extraordinary materialism. I support this by practical and theoretical research of Dr. Philip Benjamin, James DeMeo, Dr. Henry Oldfield and others. Also, I've dug deeply into my perception and layers of consciousness and experienced transcendental things, I mean, experiences of extraordinary, benevolent conscious presence, to which my mind stood pale in comparison. AFAIK, neurology did not even begin to study such experiences.
I think that common neurology and ordinary materialistic model are sufficient to explain our daily brain workings. So I focus on the extraordinary experiences, where the current models are insufficient. Or aren't they? Is there any book on the topic which deals with such fringe experiences?
This whole mechanistic concept of thinking relies on interaction through collision, better said, through weak nuclear force. Which is not viable, when it comes to considering biologic dark matter as our link between consciousness and the body. There must be other ways of interaction. Yeah, mind is material, but what kind of matter? It may actually be made of light-like sub-atomic particles organized by a field of some sort, into an orderly circulation roughly in shape of people's body, or aura. Not an actual atomic matter, much less neurons. Such a "body of light" is not something that can interact by collision, it will rather behave like a wave, it will influence others due to mutual resonance through closeness of vibration, for example. There are phenomena of influencing people's mind at a distance, for example we perceive a "tense atmosphere" in a room, or don't feel comfortably with people in a bus, or feel someone's gaze upon our back, or we see shoals of fish or birds all reacting in unison. With mechanistic thinking, we must seek lame and over-complicated explanations for such phenomena.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Luminon,
no internal experiences need anything outside 'conventional' science to explain, at least based on their perceived nature, no matter how strange to the person involved.
Unless you can show some empirical phenomenon that can be observed or detected in some fairly consistent way that is inconsistent with known science, not just your own limited understanding of science, you have nothing. Or perhaps some consistent ability to predict non-trivial and low-probability future events which are similarly externally and empirically recordable and verifiable, and not known to be associated with forces which might have affected the brain directly, such EM radiation. Or perhaps gain consistent knowledge of something well beyond any possible 'normal' means of detection, such as something a long distance away, and/or inside some impenetrable barriers, when tested by someone familiar with all the ways such apparently 'magical' abilities can be achieved.
There have been so many claims of woo that have been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked, or simply faded over time when they never manifested outside the imagination of their proponent, that the bar has to be set pretty high before we can justify spending time and resources investigating them.
'Dark matter' is known through its physical effects, it is not outside science in any 'non-physical' or 'non-natural' way, just that its interactions with other matter are very weak. There is zero logical justification for seizing on the concept for the world of 'woo'.
Auras have been shown to be non-existent, when people claiming to be able to see them have been subject to simple test situations.
The flocking behaviour of swarms is understood and been accurately simulated on computers without proposing or assuming any 'extra' communications.
Complex and subtle behaviour is an emergent phenomenon of complex processes, which only require sufficiently complex structures, not new forms of basic matter or energy.
Our minds and intuitions, and thoughts arising from internal experiences, have long been surpassed as viable sources of new understanding in themselves, that only comes from the deep study of reality outside our internal world, which continues to surprise us with deeply counter-intuitive phenomena. Just as our unassisted senses much earlier became inadequate for gaining new data, while our measuring instruments become ever more sensitive and accurate as technology progresses.
That really became blindingly obvious with Relativity and Quantum Theory, which both arose from trying to comprehend results from empirical research into physical reality. We still don't quite 'get' either concept outside their mathematical descriptions, but they are thoroughly established and proven. Our math and the growing ability of our computers to model complex ideas are what allow us to continue to make progress now.
Sorry, the result of an accumulation of avoiding responding to this kind of post from you.
Although I should say that away from these topics, you often make quite good responses, such as to typical theist nonsense.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Sorry to back pedal here, I was thinking about this very thing today. Specifically the T.A.G. as proposed by Matt Slick.
I can see how historically, with a primitive understanding of natural processes such as brain function and it's physiology's influence on personality/cognitive ability, one can come to a dualistic understanding from simple speculation. However, if the philosophical mumbo jumbo is considered only after a healthy dose of a contemporary understanding of science, it is difficult to understand why anyone would hold to such primitive notions as 'immaterial'.
To consider anything other than 'material' one must first define a state that this immaterial is, rather then defining it as what it is not. In my opinion, if you define anything as non material, or non physical, it is the same as calling it non-existent, and therefore completely irrelevant. Unless one can show what this non physical quality is, the whole TAG argument is really nonsense.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
That reminds me of the oh-so-common response from a Theist when we query why we should believe in something totally undetectable, not ( 'physically' ) perceivable, as 'God'.
"You can't see air!".... As though only sight confirmed physical existence, ignoring touch and feel, as of wind and breath. I wonder what they think is in an inflated balloon, that they can physically handle and feel the contents of...
IOW, the primitive idea that something that can be sensed and detected in so many ways apart from direct vision is the essence of an 'immaterial substance'.
Exhaled breath. Expiration. Inspiration. Spirit. => Soul.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mag/TSmgenB1.html
Wind is always connected in some way with the appearance or the action of God, but indicates, however, a reality that is always in motion. In Psalm 18:11 it says: “He mounted a cherub and flew, borne on the wings of the wind”. God appears to Ezekiel in a stormwind (Ezekiel 1:4). God speaks to Job “from the midst of the storm” (Job 38:1). The encounter of the prophet Elijah with the Lord is manifested as a gentle breeze, “the whisper of a gentle breeze” (1 Kings 19:12). Still, there is need to pay be attentive to all this in way as not to be misunderstood. The fire, the stormwind, the earthquake are only manifestations. God “was not in the wind ... in the earthquake ... in the fire” (1 Kings 19:11-12). E.g. “The Lord swept the sea with a strong east wind” (Exodus 14:21), and so the people were able to cross the Red Sea. In the Book of Jonah, God sent “a burning east wind, and the sun beat upon Jonah’s head” (Jonah 4:
. “In hurricane and tempest is his path” (Nahum 1:3). Briefly then, whether it is a question of a gentle breeze (Job 4:15) or of a mighty wind (Job 8:2), or even a violent storm (Psalm 55:9), it is always God who is moving it. And it is always God who is the source of the action sustained by ruah.
The prophecy of Isaiah 32:15-20 is very interesting: the ruah will transform the desert into a garden bringing forth peace and justice. Here, it is not possible to translate the Hebrew word as wind. Ruah expressly signifies spirit, understood as a power capable of transforming not only natural phenomena, but also the hearts of men. The wind is as if always the object of the action of God; man observes it (2 Kings 3:17), but is never able to control it (Ecclesiastes 8:
. The power present in the wind, and no one knows where it comes from, are elements which make it possible to see in them the mysterious presence of God. The wind does not come from God when it indicates a reality, carnal or futile, which perishes: “Ah, all of them are nothing, their works are nought, their idols are empty wind!” (Isaiah 4:29). “The prophets (false) have become wind, and the word is not in them” (Jeremiah 5:13).
As in the preceding images, ruah is able to give life, but also destroy it. In Isaiah, the drunkards of Ephraim are destroyed in a violent storm (Isaiah 28:2). In Ezekiel, God lets loose his anger in the wind: “I will let loose the stormwinds; because of my anger there shall be a flooding rain ...” (Ezekiel 13:13). In other passages, the wind is likewise understood as the breath of God wich gives life to the dead (Ezekiel 37, 2 Samuel 22:16; Psalm 18:16). And breath is indeed the other important meaning for ruah. Still, it is not easy to distinguish between the two meanings as we have previously stated. The famous passage from Genesis 1:2 in which it says that the “breath of God hovered over the waters” is able to be understood as wind, or simply as the breath of the Creator.
“When you sent forth your spirit (or wind), they are created, and you renew the face of the earth” (Psalm 104:30). The excerpts in which ruah is clearly understood as breath or breathing are most numerous, and almost always signify the ongoing revelation of the Holy Spirit. In many cases, the “concrete” meanings of wind and breath are not as noticeable from a visible perspective. That is, it is not possible to have a precise idea of the real stability of the images of wind and breath. In many of these passages the meanings “fluctuate”.
When they had the meaning of breath or breathing, the word ruah often becomes associated with another word which is like a synonym: neshamah.
“Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spreads out the earth with its crops, Who gives breath (neshamah) to its people and spirit (ruah) to those who walk on it” (Isaiah 42:5). [ the Lord who ... forms the spirit within the intimacy of man” (Zechariah 12:1). During the flood “everything on dry land with the faintest breath of life in its nostrils died out” (Genesis 7:21). Not only in man, but also in animals, therefore, there is a “breath of life” (Genesis 1:30), even though it is well distinguished from that of man, to whom all the animals are subservient. God is the same who blows the breath of life into man: “the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7). The Lord is “God of the spirits of all mankind” (Numbers 16:22), and “in his hand is the life breath (ruah) of all mankind” (Job 12:10). It is necessary to be attentive and not confuse these meanings of ruah with those which indicate, on the contrary, simply psychological conditions of the soul. (In the morning, her spirit (ruah) was disturbed” 1 Samuel 1:15.)
Considering what has been said, we are already able to draw some important considerations. The spirit is never an autonomous entity of man or of the universe, nor even a superior quality that would distinguish man from animal. But it is always, and exclusively, a reality that proceeds from God. He it is that gives the vital breath to all living things, and He it is who makes and helps his people grow. He it is who stirs up the wind, the fire, the water to bring every change. It is necessary to add, moreover, that the spirit is always opposite to the flesh (Isaiah 31:3) which is the sole reality which is subject to the will of man. God gives the spirit. In fact, whenever He wishes, He takes it back. The presence of the spirit gives life to the world and to man, and without it (without, that is, the presence of God), the flesh perishes.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Fascinating stuff.
It seems that, to that way of thought, 'air' only 'manifests' when it is motion, as wind or breath. Which reflects the physical reality that in the open environment, ie when it is not trapped in a container of some sort, it really does not impinge on our senses unless it is in motion.
One can see how those attributions of wind, storm, and breath, as being manifestations of 'God' in some way, do indeed follow. 'Air' in the sense we understand it, is either not something people are aware of, or is just an 'element', but wind and breath are something different. They have some 'force', or 'action'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The article I did on Sophisticated Theology which is a newer fad will be a bit more difficult to argue because will will be dealing with moderates and liberal Christians. They embrace an Open Theism which I encountered in the 80's at Emory but seems to be just trickling down to general laity. These theologians admit that the criticisms of the attributes of god are contradictory. They define god in humanistic terms and use the Bible passages that show where god changes his mind. The notes that I asked you to look at is setting Open Theism against the logical arguments of classical theism. One or both are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism
I think that without the defense of god as a logical necessity the Open Theism can be defeated with plain Biblical Criticism for they have no where else to derive there construct of god apart from taking atheistic criticisms and incorporating them into there definitions!!!!
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
I think that the supposed "braindidit" explanation will not hold forever, not with increasing evidence that we are an open system to the subtle material worlds around.
I don't say I understand how it interacts with living cells, I just say who has theory, skills or technology to prove it. If you ever travel near Ashland, Oregon, you can have a look for yourself in James DeMeo's lab. You should have more patience with him, apparently, he does proper experiments, has published in peer-reviewed journal and disbelieves in chemtrails.
If there is any energetic or non-chemical basis to the consciousness, I don't believe that showing a normal apple to normal people will make the brain kneel in awe and show what's beyond it. We need to study fringe phenomena, occult or mystical anomalies and crackpots. Most of all, people who use their nerve system in most unusual and innovative ways possible and yet remain sane and sober. Hence, they are virtually invisible in the society, have their mundane jobs (or need not to care about money) and value their privacy and freedom way too high over the 1 million dollars offered by J. Randi.
Occult literature is quite clear on which brain parts, organs and etheric centers are interconnected and how they enter into modes of activity, which distinguishes savage tribesmen from a developed man of today and even more from geniuses and visionaries. It is practically a complex theory, ready to be tested. If scientists need a preliminary evidence, see my sources.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
TGBaker: I could posit a scenario that I keep in dialogue with some other theories. There is no internality in that that which we call consciousness is an emergent spike, peak or point where even thoughts are processes that come from the unconscious to the conscious. Consciousness then is a responsive message to associated areas of the brain that they share one thought, idea or context. Consciousness is then a loop in which hearing, seeing, feeling, emotions, seeing and language linking are combined into a syntax called experience.
If there is any energetic or non-chemical basis to the consciousness, I don't believe that showing a normal apple to normal people will make the brain kneel in awe and show what's beyond it. We need to study fringe phenomena, occult or mystical anomalies and crackpots. Most of all, people who use their nerve system in most unusual and innovative ways possible and yet remain sane and sober. Hence, they are virtually invisible in the society, have their mundane jobs (or need not to care about money) and value their privacy and freedom way too high over the 1 million dollars offered by J. Randi.
Occult literature is quite clear on which brain parts, organs and etheric centers are interconnected and how they enter into modes of activity, which distinguishes savage tribesmen from a developed man of today and even more from geniuses and visionaries. It is practically a complex theory, ready to be tested. If scientists need a preliminary evidence, see my sources.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism