So, do you believe that if there were no minds in existence there would be no reality or actuality? I don't think Kant believed that— I think he would say the in itself would nonetheless be. — Janus

Well, accept it or not, he does actually say it:

If I removed the thinking subject then the whole corporeal world would have to go away, since this world is nothing but the appearance in sensibility of, and a kind of presentations of, ourselves as subject. — Critique of Pure Reason, A383

Bryan Magee says:

The point is, the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding, which apprehends all the objects of empirical knowledge within it as being in some part of that space and at some part of that time: and this is as true of the earth before there was life as it is of the pen I am now holding a few inches in front of my face and seeing slightly out of focus as it moves across the paper. This, incidentally, illustrates a difficulty in the way of understanding which transcendental idealism has permanently to contend with: the assumptions of 'the inborn realism which arises from the original disposition of the intellect' enter unawares into the way in which the statements of transcendental idealism are understood, so that these statements appear faulty in ways in which, properly understood, they are not. ...We have to raise almost impossibly deep levels of presupposition in our own thinking and imagination to the level of self-consciousness before we are able to achieve a critical awareness of all our realistic assumptions, and thus achieve an understanding of transcendental idealism which is untainted by them. This, of course, is one of the explanations for the almost unfathomably deep counterintuitiveness of transcendental idealism, and also for the general notion of 'depth' with which people associate Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy. — Schopenhauer's Philosophy, p107

As I understand the reason that empirical reality and transcendental ideality are compatible is because the transcendental can never be more than ideal, that is can never be more than ideas, for us. — Janus

If by that you mean ‘the transcendental’ is only ever a product of the mind, then I believe that is mistaken. It is better characterized as that which must be the case in order for us to think and reason as we do.

So, do you believe that if there were no minds in existence there would be no reality or actuality? — Janus

The idea that things ‘go out of existence’ when not perceived, is simply their ‘imagined non-existence’. In reality, the supposed ‘unperceived object’ neither exists nor does not exist. Nothing whatever can be said about it. — Wayfarer

Thanks for your comments. I don't want to repeat the entire OP, other than to refer to this paragraph:

there is no need for me to deny that the Universe is real independently of your mind or mine, or of any specific, individual mind. Put another way, it is empirically true that the Universe exists independently of any particular mind. But what we know of its existence is inextricably bound by and to the mind we have, and so, in that sense, reality is not straightforwardly objective. It is not solely constituted by objects and their relations. Reality has an inextricably mental aspect, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis. Whatever experience we have or knowledge we possess, it always occurs to a subject — a subject which only ever appears as us, as subject, not to us, as object. — Wayfarer

And I maintain that this is basically in conformity with Kant's philosophy, insofar as Kant maintained that empirical realism and transcendental idealism are not in conflict (per these excerpts.)

But the path to that divine perspective seems to require --- like all "true" religions --- a leap of blind faith : "true logic must come disguised as reason ; it must entail embracing the illusion fully". He seems to be suggesting that we voluntarily blind our rational minds in order to allow a divine "illusion" to dispel a mundane mirage. As Kastrup puts it, with no sign of irony : "transcending reason through reason". — Gnomon

None of which has much to do with blind faith, has it? Bernardo Kastrup has completed two doctorates and written a dozen books, containing a great deal of rational argumentation. He debates against all comers, religious, non-religious, scientists, philosophers.

He also makes the point of disagreeing with Kingsley' contention that Western culture has irredemiably failed (although also noting that this claim itself might be a gambit); he's not going all in on Kingsley.

Kastrup goes on to assert that "it is true that reality is constructed out of belief". — Gnomon

Right! And then immediately says that in isolation, this is bound to be misinterpreted and dismissed.

The full quotation is:

For instance, it is true that reality is constructed out of belief; pure belief, nothing else; if there is no belief, there is nothing. But if one is to make this statement and leave it at that, one is bound to be misinterpreted and dismissed. For we will fall and die if we jump off a building, even if we believe we can fly; the world doesn’t seem at all acquiescent to our beliefs. The point here, however, isn’t that reality is constituted by personal, egoic beliefs; the foundational beliefs in question aren’t accessible through introspection; they underly not only a person, not only a species, not only all living beings, but everything. They aren’t our beliefs, but the beliefs that bring us into being in the first place. — Science Ideated

But to try and contextualise what I see as a basic issue in this conversation: there's a piece of terminology I encountered in a scholarly article in Buddhist Studies, and which is also found in phenomenology - namely, 'egological'. It's not the same as 'egocentric', which is a personality disorder. Rather it pertains to the way the ego constitutes experience of the objective world into a coherent, subjective stream of consciousness related to the ego or self; it characterises what Husserl calls 'the natural attitude'. Husserl explores how conscious acts are related to the ego, which is not an object in the world but a central point of reference for all experience and meaning. But the usual state is unawareness, or taken-for-grantedness, of the ego's role in the way we construe the world. That is very closely related to this whole discussion. The Buddhist Studies article I mentioned is about the legendarily paradoxical Buddhist text, the Diamond Sutra, and says, in part:

...the material object, the object of external sensory perception and the object of mind are all egologically constituted, where I understand the term egological to mean an oppositional, discriminatory attitude issuing from the ego-consciousness of the subject that is driven by an unconscious desire. ...We will conclude, then, that because of this egological constitution, the `seizing’ and `attachment’ to the object of cognition occur. It is this egological constitution that the Sutra admonishes to negate and avoid, i.e. it encourages us to go beyond the egological constitution of internal and external objects which `foolish, ordinary people’ habitually `seize’ upon in their everyday standpoint. — The Logic of the Diamond Sutra

What Kastrup, and Kingsley, and such arcane texts as the Diamond Sutra are pointing to, is the necessity to transcend the mentality which invests the objective domain with an inherent reality which it doesn't possess. That is not at all easy (and something in which I don't claim any accomplishment whatever, save the insight that it is something real that I don't know.) And, of course, ego will resist, as it is subversive.

That sounds like extremely "submissive" behavior to me, turning egoistic self-conscious rational humans into egoless mechanical robot/slaves. Is that an unfair assessment? Would I be wise to transform into a "whirling dervish"? Would I then "know the mind of God"? — Gnomon

"egoless mechanical robot/slaves" would indeed be an unfair assessment. Would it be wise for you to engage with Sufism? Probably not, given your background. I only know anything of Sufism through readings, and am unlikely to ever encounter a Sufi master - but I don't hold it in such negative esteem; also noting that Sufism has often been a persecuted minority within Islam, as the mystical elements of religions have often been outcast by the majority.

The way I read it, Kastrup is not saying to 'mistrust our own senses', but to recognise, as I say in the OP, the way in which the mind creates (or generates, or manifests) the world, which is then accorded an intrinsic reality which it doesn't possess (thereby overlooking the role of the subject in the process). This has been subject of comment by many more notable scholars than myself: that the Western mindset has defined itself in such a way that there's no place in it for the Western mind! Which is pretty much what Kastrup is arguing. The fact that you can only interpret any of this as 'religious dogma' seems to me, and pardon me for saying, a consequence of the views you bring to it. (The long shadow of Reformed Theology, I would hazard. )

Don't forget, Joe told immigrants to "Surge the Border" — jgill

Whilst Trump only told the Proud Boys to storm the Capital building. Biden is obviously by far the greater miscreant.

It'll be interesting to see how the funding s***fight unspools on Saturday. 'Moscow Marge' is going all in for Putin. If she rolls Johnson there's a possiblity the house will end up with Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. That ought to learn 'em. :rofl:

...submissive behavior in the presence of great power.......I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever......I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty.... — Gnomon

:chin:

What, in this passage, suggests something like that?

Separateness and objectification is unfortunately the chosen stance of the small self. From this place we have a hard time thinking paradoxically or living in unity. Instead, we more readily take one side or the other in order to feel secure. The ego frames everything in a binary, dualistic way: for me or against me, totally right or totally wrong. That is the best the small egotistical self can do, but it is not anywhere close to adequate for God’s purposes. It might be an early level of dualistic comparison or intelligence, but it is never wisdom or spiritual intelligence, which is invariably nondual. — Centre for Action and Contemplation

Ain't that the truth.

In that final chapter (of Science Ideated) Kastrup seems to be advocating, not just philosophical Idealism, but also religious mysticism. — Gnomon

Actually I do have that book. I had started it, but I was irritated by the fact that many of the chapters are simply re-published essays from his blog site and other places. It is overly polemical in many places, and I am finding that reading too much of Kastrup is tiresome even though I’m basically in agreement with him. Agree that chapter on Peter Kingsley was weak (Kingsley’s book ‘Reality’ is on my shelf awaiting attention but it has not, as it were, drawn me in.)

I suppose her background was Catholic theology, — Gnomon

Underhill is described as ‘anglo-Catholic’. There’s a stream within English Anglicanism which incorporates many elements of Catholic mysticism. Dean Inge was another.

Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment? — Gnomon

Only when we talk about it. ‘The way that can be named is not the real way’.

//

At bottom the kind of idealism I’m advocating, if indeed idealism is what it is, is based on the realisation that the observer is inextricably foundational to reality. Whereas all our scientific knowledge is objective in nature - which not a flaw or a fault by any stretch but it has existential implications which are themselves not objective in nature. I think existentialist philosophers also recognise that, but then the whole issue becomes entangled with their cumbersome literature and varieties of opinion. But it is from that objective point-of-view that the Universe appears as a collection of objects obeying physical forces, as the subject has been deliberately excluded from it at the outset. And then that initial move, that starting position, is forgotten and neglected, and becomes baked in to our worldview, as if it is an ultimate fact. It’s like being confined to a locked compound, throwing the key over the wall and then declaring there’s no way out.

When discussing the ‘unitive vision’ I found an article from Father Richard Rohr. He’s a Franciscan friar who spoke at the Science and Non-duality Conference. So he’s quite radical and hip in his approach, a lot of Catholics complain about him but I believe he’s been judged orthodox by Catholic authorities. In any case, this snippet:

Living and thinking autonomously, separately, or cut off from the Vine (John 15:1-5) or Source is what Paul means by being foolish and unspiritual (1 Corinthians 1:20-2:16). Living in union is what I like to call “knowing by participation.” Spiritual things can only be known from the inside, never as an object outside ourselves, or we utterly distort the perception. We must know subject to subject (I-Thou), not subject to object (I-it).

Separateness and objectification is unfortunately the chosen stance of the small self. From this place we have a hard time thinking paradoxically or living in unity. Instead, we more readily take one side or the other in order to feel secure. The ego frames everything in a binary, dualistic way: for me or against me, totally right or totally wrong. That is the best the small egotistical self can do, but it is not anywhere close to adequate for God’s purposes. It might be an early level of dualistic comparison or intelligence, but it is never wisdom or spiritual intelligence, which is invariably nondual. — Centre for Action and Contemplation

But then, atheists will roll their eyes and say ‘that’s just religion’ - which is objectively true, but also completely beside the point. It is about transformation to a different way of being, a different cognitive mode. And what we understand and describe as religion often, in fact usually, completely fails to understand and convey that understanding, and then becomes part of the problem.

Well, for what it's worth, I think there's no end to things that can be discovered. We're more aware of that now than ever before, I would have thought, since we now have a realistic grasp of the immense scope of the Universe and the teeming complexity of organic life and the environment. It seems pretty clear will always be more to discover.

But perhaps there's distinction to be made between the limits of knowledge, and the limitations of knowledge, considered as the mastery of facts or as scientific expertise. There are cognitive modes or skillful actions, like those that might characterise artistic or athletic or aesthetic pursuits. Such proclitivities - consider for an example the uncanny abilities of musical prodigies - rely on something other than knowledge in the sense usually understood.They often rely very much on what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi described as 'flow'. His work focused on the state of intense focus and immersion in activities, which he described as being so absorbed in an activity that nothing else seems to exist. The state of flow, according to Csikszentmihalyi, is highly conducive to creativity and personal fulfilment. I suppose they involve a kind of knowledge, but more like know-how than symbolic or propositional knowledge (although obviously concert pianists often have extraordinary knowledge of the classical piano repertoire as well.)

There are several other themes and memes the OP brings to mind, but I'll leave it at that for now.

I don't know. The fact you think it's a religious argument says something. I've gotten hold of the ebook and will peruse it.

Sounds like Donald Trump to me — Gnomon

:rage:

And has been pointed out, ‘information’ is the logical master metaphor for our day, as ‘mechanism’ was previously.

I gather this had been exposited by 3Blue1Brown Youtube channel, — fishfry

It's from a channel now called Verisatium, although under an earlier name. The original video wasn't cited until the top of page 2, you can review it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMb00lz-IfE . (I've viewed quite a few Verasatium presentations and overall found them pretty good, but I'm very dubious about some of the claims in this one.) I can definitely see the relevance of the Kolmogorov complexity idea, the video would have been better if it had been informed by it.

Many people believe that humans have immortal souls which leave when the body dies and is either resurrected by God or reincarnated according to karma. I am not convinced that souls exist but I am open to examining any new evidence for the existence of souls. — Truth Seeker

Regrettably I can't vote for any of the options.

From the jacket copy of the attached book:

Rather than a single entity, the self is really a constellation of mechanisms and experiences that create the illusion of the internal you.

I don't much like the use of 'mechanism' as it's a hangover from mechanistic materialism. But otherwise, there's nothing too objectionable about it from a Buddhist perspective, although Buddhism sets this is in the context of continued existence (saṃsāra) rather than a single life. But it's important to understand that Buddhism generally rejects the idea of a soul that migrates from life to life and of a single unified self that continues to exist unchanged while all else changes (see for example the text Sati, the Fisherman's Son.)

One of the schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism ('Northern Buddhism' which developed historically later than the Theravada Buddhism of Sri Lanka and Thailand) developed ideas of the 'storehouse consciousness (ālāyavijñāna) in which 'karmic imprints' (vasanas) are imprinted and which then give rise to experiences in future lives. That said, the specific individual in this life is not the same as the individual who generated them in a previous life, but neither are they completely different. When asked if a person in one life is the same as a person in a previous life, the answer will usually be, are you the same person you were when you were a child? The answer being, you're neither the same person, nor a different person.

The store-house consciousness (ālāyavijñāna) receives impressions from all functions of the other consciousnesses (i.e. sensory and rational), and retains them as potential energy, bīja or "seeds", which manifest as, or 'perfume', one's attitudes and actions. Since this consciousness serves as the container for all experiential impressions it is also called the "seed consciousness" or "container consciousness".

According to Yogācāra teachings, the seeds stored in the store consciousness of sentient beings are not pure.

The store consciousness, while being originally immaculate in itself, contains a "mysterious mixture of purity and defilement, good and evil". Because of this mixture the transformation of consciousness from defilement to purity can take place and awakening is possible. — Wikipedia, Eight Consciousnesses

Allied with this, is the concept of the mind-stream, which is not quite the same as a soul (although to understand the distinction takes considerably more explanation):

Citta-santāna (Sanskrit), literally "the stream of mind", is the stream of succeeding moments of mind or awareness. It provides a continuity of the personality in the absence of a permanently abiding self (ātman), which Buddhism denies. The mindstream provides a continuity from one life to another and also moment to moment, akin to the flame of a candle which may be passed from one candle to another: William Waldron writes that "Indian Buddhists see the 'evolution' of mind in terms of the continuity of individual mind-streams from one lifetime to the next, with karma as the basic causal mechanism ( :angry: ) whereby transformations are transmitted from one life to the next." ¹

According to Waldron, "[T]he mind stream (santāna) increases gradually by the mental afflictions (kleśa) and by actions (karma), and goes again to the next world. In this way the circle of existence is without beginning."

The vāsanās or "karmic imprints" provide the continuity between lives and between moments of existence. According to Dan Lusthaus, these vāsanās determine how one "actually sees and experiences the world in certain ways, and one actually becomes a certain type of person, embodying certain theories which immediately shape the manner in which we experience."²

1.Waldron, William S. (n.d.). Buddhist Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Thinking about 'Thoughts without a Thinker

2. Lusthaus, Dan (2014) Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei-shih Lun. Routledge. — Wikipedia, Mindstream

Something to think about, anyway, as Buddhism neither accepts there is an immortal soul in the usual sense, nor the materialistic idea that humans are only physical beings.

The only other point I'd mention is the idea of 'possessing' a self. Usually a self is what has possessions - I have various property, computers, cars, books and so on. Whether I possess a body is a moot point, as I have no way of knowing whether I could exist in the absence of one. One might believe that there is a self, without believing that it is something one possesses. But I admit that is a pedantic distinction.

I'm not sure what 'saved' means however, once you articulate this in more sophisticated spiritual terms. Liberated? Moksha? Any thoughts? Saved seems so binary and one suspects a more nuanced vocabulary is required. — Tom Storm

I don't know for certain, but I'm sure that 'saved' does mean something. (That's what puts me on the religious side of the ledger. I had a kind of anamnesis of my own aged about 13, although such realisations are generally impossible to convey to others.) What does it mean? I still hark back to Alan Watts' title 'the Supreme Identity' even while acknowledging Watts' shortcomings. The idea that the being realises his/her true nature as something beyond death. (There's a Princeton philosopher who wrote a book on this, Surviving Death, Mark Johnston, which I personally couldn't relate to, but it's written in the mode of analytic philosophy to appeal to that audience.)

Here's one point. The Indian traditions have a much more expansive outlook. Hinduism can accomodate Christianity more easily than vice versa, as Jesus is seen as an avatar, without detracting from His divine nature. That is anathema to doctrinal Christianity, but figures such as the Venerable Bede Griffith presented a kind of integral path synthesising Vedanta and his native Christian faith. (I saw Father Bede lecture in Sydney towards the end of his very long life.) I suppose the kind of view I'm advocating is universalist, although I don't want to fall into a kind of one-size-fits-all syncretism. But related to that is the religious cosmology common to both Hinduism and Buddhism, of the eternal caravan of rebirth (saṃsāra) and liberation from it (mokṣa, Nirvāṇa). Once aware of that, the linear cosmology of traditional Christianity seems more difficult to entertain, although the longer I live, the less certain I become.

I'm sorry about the quality of my previous reply, it was off the cuff and not well thought out. I'll retrace my steps.

We were talking about Bernardo Kastrup's 'dissociated alters'. Kastrup's analytical idealism suggests that the ground of existence is experiential, rather than material, and that the universe is ultimately a single, universal mind. As discussed previously, there are convergences between that and schools of ancient Greek (nous in neoplatonism) and the Brahman of Vedanta (not to mention more recent schools of idealist philosophy). The model of the self as a "dissociated alter" originates from this. In this understanding, individuals are like "alters" (a term borrowed from dissociative identity disorder in psychology) of this larger consciousness. These alters are local 'dissociated' centers of awareness within a broader field of universal consciousness.

Kastrup uses this framework to account for individual subjectivity, as well as mental disorders, and even paranormal occurrences. He argues that what we consider our individual minds are in reality dissociated segments of a larger consciousness that encompasses all reality. This perspective places individual human experiences within a larger, interconnected framework of consciousness that transcends individual boundaries. It also provides an interpretive model whereby insight into the universal nature of consciousness provides the means of liberation from or transcendence of the limited ego-centred mind, which might be compared to what Richard M. Bucke called 'cosmic consciousness' in his 1901 book of that name.

Unfortunately, my sojourn with Western religious Piety makes it seem to be a case of Self-Deception. Is an attitude of open-minded Creedence necessary to experience "the Unitive Vision"? — Gnomon

The expression 'the unitive vision' is a catch-all for various diverse expressions of divine union or theosis in different cultures. As a matter of interest, the expression of an 'oceanic feeling' which you mention is associated with Freud's attempt to interpret mysticism, which however was vitiated by his overall 'scientism'.

Maybe the reason you associate that with credence and religious faith, is a consequence of the long association (or subordination!) of these ideas with ecclesiastical authority and downtown religion. (I recall a remark by British philosophical theologian Dean Inge, that were Christ to return, there would be some Christians who would be the first to crucify him again.) The case can be made that these ideas were coralled into the confines of religion as a means of social control in the first place (although that would be a massive thesis requiring voluminous argument). But I would venture that the influence of dogmatic religion in your earlier life has prejudiced you against these ideas, so that you tend to view them through those spectacles.

The key point is that popular religion cannot traffic in high-falluting ideas of cosmic consciousness and the unitive vision. 'Believe and be saved' is much nearer the mark. While I'm coming around to the understanding that those who really do practice charity, empathy, self-control and agapē really may be 'saved', I'm in complete agreement that much of what goes on in the name of religion is ignorance personified.

Some Buddhist monks have claimed to be able to control various sub-conscious bodily function via deep meditation. — Gnomon

This is quite well-documented, actually - and not only Buddhist monks, but yogis, generally. But those skills, that level of self-discipline, are practical impossibilities for most of us, they have been developed in seclusion under strict regimens and high levels of discipline. There's a lot of popular mythology about these kinds of yogic skills but its fruits are incredibly hard-won. (Hence the popularity of popular religion!)

Incidentally, here is a rather good presentation from Bernardo Kastrup, about ten years ago, differentiating his analytical idealism from panpsychism, among other matters. Again my understanding of idealist philosophy is very much convergent with what he says.

Kastrup argues that the human mind can split into two or more "alters". But I have no personal experience with that kind of "dissociation". So, I just have to take his word for it. I have never meditated to be point of dissolution of self into the cosmos. And never took psychedelic drugs to depress my self-identifying frontal lobes into an oceanic cosmic Self. — Gnomon

These are all pretty subversive ideas from a western cultural viewpoint. Not for nothing was Timothy Leary's first book called The Politics of Ecstacy, which I read around the time of the corresponding psychedelic experiences. But I can assure you the experience of 'the unitive vision' is a real thing (a great Aussie psychedilc rock song from those years was called The Real Thing). Not that I would ever encourage consumption of hallucinogens.)

In any case, Kastrup's dissociated alters theory, despite its eye-rolling reception, has a philosophical basis, rather similar to a popularised version of Advaita Vedanta (and I listened to a dialogue between him and the resident minister at Vedanta Society of New York, Swami Sarvapriyananda.) Recall that Kastrup is obliged to say that if matter is not the fundamental reality, then that role must be assigned to mind - not my mind, or yours, but to what he describes as 'mind-at-large'. And on that note, one of my Medium essays is a friendly critique of that concept.

However, tables etc can be subject - of pictures, investigations, conversations, etc. They can also, in ordinary language, do things like blocking fire exits, squashing fruit, supporting vases, etc. Equally, a human being can stand in the object-place in a sentence, being looked at, rather than looking, being pushed, rather than pushing and in general being objectified. — Ludwig V

Thanks for the clarification, but still not quite the point I'm seeking to make. Tables, or any objects, can be subjects of a sentence, or subjects of an investigation, or subjects in a catalog. But they are not subjects of experience. So there's there's an equivocation of the word 'subject' at work there. To be a subject of discussion is not necessarily to be a subject of experience.

Humans may indeed be objectified, or treated as objects, and even legitimately so, by, for example, demographers or statisticians or epidemiologists. Or, I suppose, a gunman, if the subject in question is a combatant or an intended victim. But we generally recognise that humans are subjects of experience by use of the honorific 'you' or personal pronouns, 'he or she', rather than 'it' (and leaving aside all of the politically-correct gender neutrality business.) I say that this is because we recognise humans as beings, and we recognise, at least tacitly, a distinction between beings and objects or beings and things.

I don't believe our world-view is unified, except possibly in the world-views of philosophers. — Ludwig V

On the contrary, I take the subjective unity of experience as apodictically certain as Descartes' cogito ergo sum. When I feel a pain, or an emotion, or a sight, I don't learn this at second-hand from organs of perception of sensation. Although I agree with Buddhism that no soveriegn unchangeable self can be identified, nevertheless I accept the basic tenets of Kant's transcendental unity of apperception. Also, I think the argument can be made that something like a 'principle of unity' can be discerned in Aristotle's description of the soul - again, like my criticism of Descartes, not a 'ghost' or 'ethereal spirit' but the organising principle of De Anima (granted I've never done the studies of De Anima to back that up, but it seems to be presented in many of the secondary sources.)

The thing I find with your posts is that you're such a long way down the path of your own syncretic combination of ideas, that I often feel we talk past each other. I see merit in some of what you say, and agree with you in the rejection of mainstream physicalism and in other ways. But then I also see that you interpret many of the things we both read in ways very different from my own. There's nothing I need to 'forgive' on that account, although there are some aspects which I think - how to say - could be refined. (Although doubless that is also true for me, which is what we're doing here, I hope.)

If God wills that one of his creatures commit a sin, then that creature must do so; if He wills that they refrain from sinning, they have no option but resist temptation. — Vera Mont

I don't identify as Christian, but I don't believe that is a fair characterisation of their principles. There's a diversity of views. Some denominations, especially Calvinism, insist on predestination and the sovereignty of God in a way that impacts the meaning of free will, no doubt. However, they also maintain that this divine sovereignty does not completely negate human accountability. (Don't ask me why that's not contradictory, but they might have an answer.)

But most other denominations emphasize free will. They argue that while God is omniscient and omnipotent, He has granted humans the freedom to choose or reject His grace. If we were simply "puppets on strings," completely controlled by divine will without any agency or choice, then the concept of salvation would be meaningless. So while many a criticism can be made, that's not a fair characterisation.

So this is how it is: this region contains the colourless, utterly formless, intangible being that actually is, with which the realm of true knowledge 247D is concerned, seen only by reason, the pilot of the soul. Now since the mind of a god is nourished by reason and unmixed knowledge, so too is every soul that cares to receive what is proper to it. Eventually, beholding what is, the soul is delighted, and contemplating the truth, it is nourished and gladdened, until the revolution carries it around in a circle to the same place. In the revolution, soul has sight of justice itself, sound-mindedness and knowledge; not knowledge to which becoming is added, this is knowledge different under different circumstances, 247E concerned with what we normally call ‘things that are’; no, it is the knowledge of that which really is. And once the soul has, in like manner, contemplated and feasted upon the other things that really are, it descends once more into the inner heaven and goes home. And when soul arrives there, its charioteer stations the horses at the feeding stall, sets ambrosia before them and gives them nectar to drink. — Phaedrus 247c

Some exegetical points:

Nature of the Higher Realm: Plato describes a transcendent realm that is "colourless, utterly formless, intangible" and accessible only to true knowledge (epistēmē). This description emphasizes the abstract and non-physical nature of the One beyond being and non-being. In this metaphysical domain, the only faculty capable of perceiving this is reason (nous). Plato often characterises reason as the pilot or charioteer of the soul, guiding it towards true knowledge. This underscores the idea that reason, rather than sensory perception, is what allows the soul to apprehend the true nature of reality.

Soul’s Nourishment and Delight: The passage suggests that a soul that engages with its proper objects of contemplation—true and unchanging knowledge—receives nourishment and delight. This engagement involves a direct encounter with the Forms, such as Justice, Temperance (sound-mindedness), and Knowledge itself. For Plato, this intellectual nourishment is vital for the well-being of the soul, elevating it beyond the transient and imperfect physical world.

The Concept of Revolution: The "revolution" likely refers to the cyclical journey of the soul as it moves through the higher realms and back to the material world. This cyclic motion is a recurring theme in Plato's work, reflecting the soul's eternal quest for knowledge and its periodic engagement with the world of Forms. Also reflects the 'myth of the eternal return' which characterised the archaic Indo-European mythology. (c.f. Mircea Eliade)

Knowledge and Being: Plato makes a distinction between the knowledge of things that "become" (the sensory and changing) and the knowledge of "what is" (the "always so"). The former is seen as inferior because it is subject to change and decay, unlike the latter.

Descent of the Soul: After feasting upon the truths of the higher realm, the soul descends "into the inner heaven" and returns to the mundane world. However, this is not merely a return to ignorance; the soul retains a higher understanding acquired from its communion with the Forms. This journey reflects the dual nature of the Platonic soul, caught between the world of eternal Forms and the physical world. (Hence the logic of anamnesis - the soul recalling what it has learned but forgotten in the descent into birth.)

Ambrosia and Nectar: The reference to ambrosia and nectar, foods of the gods in Greek mythology, symbolizes the divine and immortal nature of the nourishment that the soul receives from its engagement with the Forms. This not only sustains the soul but also prepares it for its continuous cycle of rebirths and intellectual engagements. 'Nectar' is related to the Sanskrit 'amṛta' which means literally un (a-) dying (mṛta, the indo-european root of 'mortal' and also 'murder') and which is often translated as 'the nectar of immortality'.

God has never revealed his will to me. — Art48

Obviously the Christian response is to say that, well, that is what the Bible is, including the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the revealed word of God. Of course, you choose not to accept that, and that choice is perfectly within your rights, and I wouldn't try to persuade you. You choose to believe that Catholic Priests are expressing their ideas, arising from their personal conviction, and that religion is all man-made, and not revealed truth at all. Again, perfectly within your rights to believe that, and if you challenged them to prove otherwise, and considering the attitude you bring to the table, they in all likelihood would never succeed. And they would say, well, God's will has indeed been revealed, but you chose not to believe it.

But for some reason I am reminded of an anecdote. A parish church is sorrounded by a once-in-a-lifetime flood, but the priest refuses to leave, saying, "God will save me."

The water keeps rising, and begins to lap at the door. A crew in a rubber dinghy comes by and offers him a ride to safety. The priest declines, repeating, "God will save me."

The water continues to rise, and after some time the priest has been forced into the bell-tower. A rescue helicopter arrives and the crew shout to him through a loud-hailer and offer to lower a rope. Again, the priest waves them off, insisting, "God will save me."

But a short while afterwards, the floodwaters overwhelm him and he drowns.

When he reaches heaven, the priest asks, "Why didn't you save me?" He gets the reply, "We sent a boat! We sent a helicopter! What more did you want?"

What we tend to forget is that every object can also be a subject, — Ludwig V

How so? Subjects are invariably sentient beings are they not? Tables and chairs and billiard balls are objects, but how are they subjects of experience? Isn’t saying that a version of panpsychism?

now we are facing a "hard problem" that appears to have no solution. The framework that establishes the problem has to go. — Ludwig V

Precisely!

I don't quite understand this — Ludwig V

What I meant was that Descartes, in dividing the two substances, material and mental, placed them side-by-side, as it were. And whilst any of us can see and interact with material substance, the existence of ‘res cogitans’ is conjectural, and the proposed ‘interaction’ between the two ‘substances’ problematic. It sets the stage for the elimination of the mental, which is basically what subsequently developed, most directly expressed by ‘eliminativism’.

This criticism is not novel to me, by the way. As I mentioned in another thread, it’s also related to what Husserl said about Descartes, even while crediting him as the founder of transcendental philosophy.

Not to create a physical world from scratch, but to create a metaphysical model of the world that we sense (feel) and make-sense of (comprehend). — Gnomon

Notice the duality you introduce between model and world.

The realization that prompted this essay is basically that of the primacy of experience - but unlike much empiricist philosophy, without bifurcating the domain of experience into subjective and objective. You and I have both read Charles Pinter’s book Mind and the Cosmic Order which I think supports a similar view.

I will add, two of my direct family owe their health and well-being to neuroscience. I’m not at all sceptical about its medical and therapeutic benefits. But I’m profoundly sceptical about its relevance to philosophy per se.

I find it interesting to find out about the insights of philosophers with regard to thinking, when those philosophers didn't have the advantage of modern neuroscience in making sense of what is going on. — wonderer1

Don’t you think that is just a tad ‘scientistic’?

Have you ever read anything about the well-known book The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, Bennett and Hacker?

It can be seen, but not demonstrated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What I get from this, is that this is something that can only be known first-person, as it were. Not that it’s personal in any sense, but (as Buddhists say) ‘only knowable by the wise’. The wise are like finely-tuned instruments which can detect what others do not. But then of course to those who don’t know it, it might well sound like ‘moonshine’, as Socrates also says.

it's less clear if man, hoping to "become like what is most divine," can ever reach that goal, which is why Aquinas has to add infused contemplation/grace into the equation in his commentary on the Ethics to allow the human being to actually achieve happiness in the beatific vision. — Count Timothy von Icarus

‘Through a glass, darkly’ is the Biblical expression. In the Christian faith, it is something that is only seen on the other side of death, although in the Christian mystics, death might be understood symbolically as representing the ‘death of self’. All of which belongs to another age of mankind altogether.

All I said was, she acknowledges it. The point being, to gesture towards ‘the atom’ as a purported physical fundamental unit fails to recognize the indeterminate nature of so-called sub-atomic particles. Anyway it’s off-topic.

Yes - at one point Lawson asks her what her interests are, aside from her ‘very successful YouTube career’ to which she demurs. She says she’s interested in a fundamental research program - something is missing or wrong with quantum physics, and the observer problem ought to be eliminated. (I’m not able to re-listen at the moment, but I know she said it.)

//around 16:30 “…which will do away with this measurement problem….”

Terrific post, thanks Count. I think that covers a lot of points that I have been struggling with, I’m on the road at the moment but will come back to it later.

It's a fact. I listened to Hillary Lawson interview Sabine Hossenfelder yesterday, and she says her main research interest, aside from her very successful youtube channel, is somehow eliminating 'the observer problem'. That, and the ontological status of the wave-function (which which it is intimately connected) are still outstanding issues in philosophy of physics. You are, of course, free to ignore or deny it but it doesn't negate it.

endlessly swirling atoms — 180 Proof

atoms which have no definite existence until they're observed, what's more.

No, not that. The problem of personal identity across time. — RogueAI

The article I linked to mentions perdurance. That has to do with anything - and it doesn't have to be a being - maintaining identity through time even as some or all of its component parts are changed (per Ship of Theseus).

I was lamenting that there's no way to test what is actually going on- to know if it is reincarnation, or some form of ESP. — Relativist

Stevenson acknowledges that. It's why he says his data doesn't prove that reincarnation has occured.

It's probably worth acknowledging the Buddhist view of rebirth. As a matter of dogma, Buddhism denies that there is an eternally-existing self that migrates life to life. However, and paradoxically, rebirth is still fundamental to the religion. Consider the selection of lamas in Tibetan Buddhism, where children are shown artifacts from a purported previous incarnation, if they recognise them it's taken as evidence of their identity - even though there is no self or soul that migrates! Many would say it's evidence of a contradiction in Buddhism, but they say that a rebirth is more like a recurring pattern of existence - there's actually a rather lovely Sanskrit term for it, 'citta-saṃtāna':

Citta-saṃtāna (Sanskrit), literally "the stream of mind",[3] is the stream of succeeding moments of mind or awareness. It provides a continuity of the personality in the absence of a permanently abiding "self" (ātman), which Buddhism denies. The mindstream provides a continuity from one life to another, akin to the flame of a candle which may be passed from one candle to another:[4][5][a] William Waldron writes that "Indian Buddhists see the 'evolution' of mind i[n] terms of the continuity of individual mind-streams from one lifetime to the next, with karma as the basic causal mechanism whereby transformations are transmitted from one life to the next."[6]

According to Waldron, "[T]he mind stream (santāna) increases gradually by the mental afflictions (kleśa) and by actions (karma), and goes again to the next world. In this way the circle of existence is without beginning."[7] — Wikipedia

So that actually dovetails rather well with 'perdurance' theory, which could be summarised as 'not the same, but also not different'.

(Incidentally, William Waldron is a go-to scholar in this area, when I did Buddhist Studies, I emailed him and got a nice reply, with some unpublished articles attached. His latest book is this one.)

Question: Further to this discussion one of the points I would make is that, in order for an AGI system to fully realise human capacities, it would need to be a subject of experience. And no current systems, including ChatGPT, are subjects of experience, as such. They emulate what a subject might say, but they're not actually subjects as such, right?


ChatGPT: That's a very astute point, and you're correct. Current AI systems, including ChatGPT, are not subjects of experience—they do not have subjective experiences, consciousness, or awareness. These systems are designed to process input data and generate responses based on patterns they have learned from large datasets. They can emulate human-like dialogue and even imitate styles of thinking or arguing, but this is fundamentally different from actually experiencing or understanding these processes.

The notion of an AI being a "subject of experience" involves concepts of consciousness and subjective experience that are, at present, beyond the capabilities of AI. The idea of subjective experience, often referred to philosophically as "qualia," is closely tied to consciousness—having personal perceptions, feelings, and experiences that are inherently private and firsthand.

For an AGI to truly realize human capacities as you've mentioned, it would need to not only process information and solve problems efficiently but also possess consciousness or some form of experiential understanding. This leap from a highly advanced computational tool to a being with subjective experiences raises profound questions about what consciousness is and whether it can be artificially created or replicated.

Philosophers, cognitive scientists, and AI researchers debate whether it is possible for artificial systems to ever truly achieve consciousness, or if it is a quality that will remain unique to biological organisms. Some argue that consciousness might emerge from sufficiently complex systems, while others believe it requires a specific kind of biological substrate or that it is fundamentally inexplicable and thus inimitable by machines.

In any case, the development of AI systems that can claim genuine subjectivity and consciousness would represent a monumental shift not only in technology but in our understanding of what it means to be 'alive' or 'aware.' This continues to be a fascinating area of inquiry at the intersection of technology, philosophy, and ethics.

And that sure sounds like a Hard Problem ;-)

Nirvana is the realization of impermanence, no absolutes, and emptiness through and through. — PoeticUniverse

But it's emphatically also not nihilism, that idea that nothing is real, which is always rejected as one of the 'extreme views' (and even though many Hindus accuse Buddhism of nihilism). So it's unwise to declare what Nirvāṇa is. Only a Buddha knows that.

The only way I can think of is to imbue it with a chronic angst or fear of death or suffering — Benj96

For it to fear death, it would have to be alive. It would have to be a being, not a simulcrum. But then you'd have to consider its rights as a being. And besides, if it were a being, what if it decided it couldn't bear this mode of being? It's more than a can of worms! Now we're in Blade Runner territory.

It's frustrating because there seems to be no way to test any theories. — Relativist

But if a child's alleged memories of a previous life can be validated against documentary records and witness testimony, that amounts to some form of verification. (I've discussed Ian Stevenson previously but it usually generates such hostility that I refrain.) However his activities spanned a 30 year period and many thousands of cases. He himself never claimed to have proved that cases of re-incarnation occur, but that the evidence 'suggests it'. My knowledge of it is limited to a book I read about him by a journalist who travelled with him, and one of his publications borrowed from a library. Seems legit to me, but to a lot of people, not only is it not true, but it can't be true. Whereas I'm open to the idea.

Do you think idealism solves it? Did you see the conversation with Kastrup and Koch yet? — RogueAI

I watched about half of it, but I didn't notice anything about this topic. Besides, I don't know if idealism 'solves' the question of re-incarnation. Perhaps Sheldrake's morphic resonance at least provides a candidate for a medium of transmission. He says, as you will recall, that nature forms habits, that memories are not merely encoded in brains but in morphic fields. One question I've got is this: science only discovered electromagnetic fields in the mid-19th century. Until then, we had no idea of such a phenomenon, now they're thought to be more fundamental than sub-atomic particles. So what if there are fields other than electro-magnetic? How would they be detected? Electromagnetic fields are detected using instruments that register electric current. Even if there were morphic fields, presumably they are not detectable by those instruments, so they might exist undetected. There have been ideas like this in esoteric and occult circles for millenia. Maybe they're on to something, but it's a taboo subject as far as the mainstream is concerned.

Right. But the error I think the Verasatium presentation makes is then to equate non-compressibility with information - that a completely random string carries the greatest amount of information, because it can't be compressed. Whereas I think a random string embodies no information whatever.

That said, I frequently watch that Youtube channel, he's a very good popular science commentator. But I think this was not one of his better efforts.

:lol:

Oh, sorry, I re-quoted a question originally posed by @180 Proof (but it doesn't change my response, such as it is.)

Oh yes, I perfectly agree. I'm a staunch advocate for one or another form of idealism on this forum, see The Mind-Created World which I think I posted before you joined (and most enjoying your contributions, by the way.)

The first of the Towards a Science of Consciousness, a bi-annual spielfest held at Uni of Arizona Tucson (next one is this month!). If you zoom in on that ‘album cover’ it comprises photos of many of the main attendees, with David Chalmers in the middle. (His ‘Facing up to the problem of Consciousness’ was one of the main motivators for the conference. To his right is Stuart Hameroff who is known for the OrchOR model co-developed with Roger Penrose. I can identify a few of the others also.) But the thing which grabbed me about that, is how hippies have now become part of the mainstream, hence the salute to Sgt Pepper's. There's another great book along those lines, How the Hippies Saved Physics, David Kaiser, which features this great photo of the Fundamental Fysiks Group


Standing, left to right: Jack Sarfatti, Saul-Paul Sirag, Nick Herbert;
Bottom right: Fred Alan Wolf.

Hence the mainstreaming of the counter-culture in physics and philosophy of mind.

Zombies be damned :flower: