Everything comes and goes. Again, why are you so concerned with the longevity of our species? I've always seen our species as a pesky surface nuisance that the planet will deal with in its own time. — synthesis

Well then, that's where we differ. I see humankind as only the second qualitative addition to the universe in 15 billion years. We start with about 10 billion years of floating rocks, before life occurred, and in the last few thousand years, human intelligence - able to look back at reality, and experience it. I think that's special - and something that needs to play out. I think we have a duty to exist - a duty to our ability to know. If we are not intending to survive, then everything is absolutely trivial. In the absence of truth, human existence is just a nihilistic wank into the sports sock of oblivion - as opposed to a loving consummation for the purposes of reproduction.

What is your working definition of reality?

Well then, that's where we differ. I see humankind as only the second qualitative addition to the universe in 15 billion years. We start with about 10 billion years of floating rocks, before life occurred, and in the last few thousand years, human intelligence - able to look back at reality, and experience it. I think that's special - and something that needs to play out. — counterpunch

Nothing wrong with that. So many people have no idea what to believe in. You might want to balance that burden with something a bit lighter...nearly any distraction will do. :)

I think we have a duty to exist - a duty to our ability to know. If we are not intending to survive, then everything is absolutely trivial. In the absence of truth, human existence is just a nihilistic wank into the sports sock of oblivion - as opposed to a loving consummation for the purposes of reproduction. — counterpunch

Like I said above, good for you. Please keep in mind that there are many paths on which people have been able live wonderful lives. Not everybody can be the Captain of Star ship Earth! (I say this with admiration for your tenacity).

People are incredibly diverse in every way. The biggest mistake we can make is to assume that our personal truth is The Truth, the quickest way to alienate others is in implementing this assumption by attempting to impose your reality on others. Let people find their way in their own time.

In the meantime, enjoy the conversations! There are a lot of really nice people out there even if they don't quite agree with your assessment of things.

I see two types of reality. The first is Absolute Reality, unknowable intellectually, unchangeable, existent outside of time. The other is our personal reality, knowable [although barely] and constantly changing moment after moment.

Why does the word "reality" need a modifier like "absolute"?
Why can't reality be simply "all that exists"?
Why can't personal reality simply be an interpretation of reality?
Why must me muddy a stream that when left alone runs clear and clean?

Thanks for your response.
I was curious because you expressed something about reality being perception-altered.
So, I still don't have a clear story of what you were trying to communicate. No worries.

Nothing wrong with that. So many people have no idea what to believe in. You might want to balance that burden with something a bit lighter...nearly any distraction will do. — synthesis

Oh, then you mistake my intent. You are on a philosophy forum, making observations about truth, then you asked for it. Politics and economics - they too need to attend. But some little old lady been praying at the same Church all her life, I've no desire to disenchant her - even if I could. This is not about popular belief. It's about philosophy and political theory.

Like I said above, good for you. Please keep in mind that there are many paths on which people have been able live wonderful lives. Not everybody can be the Captain of Star ship Earth! (I say this with admiration for your tenacity). — synthesis

You didn't say 'good for you' above. I've no desire to disturb your life. If I have my way, I can save the world without ordinary people hardly noticing, but not you. The ideas you expressed above are part of a suite used extensively by the left; I actually don't know where you stand politically but you paint in their colours. The left are using the climate crisis an an anti-capitalist battering ram. They do want your wonderful life to change, for the worse.

People are incredibly diverse in every way. The biggest mistake we can make is to assume that our personal truth is The Truth, the quickest way to alienate others is in implementing this assumption by attempting to impose your reality on others. Let people find their way in their own time. — synthesis

I'm a philosopher; truth matters, and if you can't handle the truth - it's you that's alienating me. The normative value is with me here. Your attack on truth in the OP is why I responded to you - you need to stop that. Reality is NOT subjectively constructed, functional truth is possible - and it's important to the continued survival of humankind.

In the meantime, enjoy the conversations! There are a lot of really nice people out there even if they don't quite agree with your assessment of things. — synthesis

Not for long!

I'm a philosopher; truth matters, and if you can't handle the truth - it's you that's alienating me. The normative value is with me here. Your attack on truth in the OP is why I responded to you - you need to stop that. Reality is NOT subjectively constructed, functional truth is possible - and it's important to the continued survival of humankind. — counterpunch

Let me help you out a bit. I consider myself a philosophical anarchist (neither right nor left) and, as well, have been a dedicated Zen student for over 30 years.

Politically, I view the struggle between liberal and conservative as one where the former desires change (which is essential) whereas the latter seeks to preserve what still works (most for themselves but there's nothing wrong with that).

The truth of the political matter is in finding the proper balance between these forces. Nothing works politically in the West anymore (especially here in the U.S.) because both sides have become radicalized (particularly the left). This will work itself out in time although it might get quite ugly.

The Zen side of me is where you are having difficulties. You have to understand the relative and The Absolute from this perspective. You are an objective reality kind of guy but I ask you, what is objective reality when we can only perceive subjectively? Not only that, we can't get anywhere close to any kind of reality for all kinds of reasons paramount among them being that we have no access to the present.

What is referred to as Absolute Reality is that which is unknowable and unchangeable, e.g., Truth, God, Love, etc. These are things that can be sensed or perhaps felt inside but can never be subjected to empiricism.

As mentioned, I understand science and use it professionally every day. I will always maintain that science is simply a tool that points the way to the truth of the matter but can never be the truth itself (as truth only exists moment to moment to which we lack access).

Why does the word "reality" need a modifier like "absolute"? — Tres Bien

There are two types, Reality and reality.

Why can't reality be simply "all that exists"?

Then you are leaving out that which does not "exist."
— Tres Bien

Why can't personal reality simply be an interpretation of reality?

It is.
— Tres Bien

Why must we muddy a stream that when left alone runs clear and clean?

I'll let you answer that.
— Tres Bien

I was curious because you expressed something about reality being perception-altered. So, I still don't have a clear story of what you were trying to communicate. No worries. — Tres Bien

If we can agree ( for this conversation), Reality is things just as they truly are. The problem is that we have no access this Reality for all kinds of reasons you might be familiar with...such as the idea that we cannot access the present (perception time-lag among other things).

So if Reality is things as they truly are, what happens when we use our sense of sight? How close to Reality Is the image created in our visual cortex? Who knows, but we must assume that the processing creates a fair degree of alteration, Reality being transformed into our personal reality because who knows how different one observer's image is from another? Is your appreciation of a 542nm light wave the same as everybody else's? Seems unlikely.

So this is often referred to as relative reality, i.e., relative to what ever is changing it (essentially everything) and it changes constantly as do all things perceptual/intellectual.

Absolute Reality is that which is unknowable and is unchanging, e.g., Truth and God. It is that which we have no access intellectually but we can be in it's presence. This is quite different than the everyday reality we use to conduct the business of our lives.

You are an objective reality kind of guy but I ask you, what is objective reality when we can only perceive subjectively? — synthesis

When I use the term scientific truth, I refer to the body of knowledge, established through forming hypotheses and testing them in relation to empirical observation, and then refining those hypotheses, to better account for the observed results - and so on and so forth. Objective reality is the world at large, in contrast to subjective experience; the inner world. There's no great mystery to it. There are epistemic limitations I'm very well aware of, but science now constitutes a highly valid and coherent body of knowledge of the world we occupy, relevant to the sustainability of human existence.

The Zen side of me is where you are having difficulties. You have to understand the relative and The Absolute from this perspective. — synthesis

No, I don't. I positively eschew the absolute as superlativism. It's wrongheaded to race to the other end of the universe, look back at us - and tell us what's true. Truth begins at our fingertips - and is built from the bottom up. I'm not interested in speculations upon things I can't know anything about. If humankind lives long enough, maybe we'll find our way there eventually, but right now, it's simply irrelevant.

Not only that, we can't get anywhere close to any kind of reality for all kinds of reasons paramount among them being that we have no access to the present. — synthesis

That's a Zeno's paradox of an objection. Practically speaking, we have access to the present - if only because we can anticipate the future. Logically, the arrow will never reach the target. In reality it does.

What is referred to as Absolute Reality is that which is unknowable and unchangeable, e.g., Truth, God, Love, etc. These are things that can be sensed or perhaps felt inside but can never be subjected to empiricism. — synthesis

How do you know? I thought 'we' had no access? If it's unknowable, how do you know its unchangeable? Do you mean feelings? Why do you want to pull the esoteric wool over your own eyes? Is reality not special enough for you?

As mentioned, I understand science and use it professionally every day. I will always maintain that science is simply a tool that points the way to the truth of the matter but can never be the truth itself (as truth only exists moment to moment to which we lack access). — synthesis

Science is not just a tool. It's also an understanding of reality; one that's been decried as heresy since Galileo, forgotten and ignored. Even as we have raced ahead technologically - we remain ideologically primitive. Science as a tool of ideology gave us 70,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war. Science as as a tool gave us climate change - and the McRib sandwich! Science as a tool is a menace - because our purposes are not scientifically valid. We need to be responsible to a scientific understanding of reality - particularly in our application of technology, in particular, energy technology!

How do you know? I thought 'we' had no access? If it's unknowable, how do you know its unchangeable? — counterpunch

Now we have arrived at the heart of the matter. "How do you know?"

I don't know. But then again, I don't have to know. What you do know (getting back to the original point of this thread), you know before your critical thinking kicks-in so that's all you need to know.

All the rest is BS. Remember, people have lived for a long time and they made due with all kinds of explanations that were just as bizarre as the ones we spout today. All knowledge changes constantly. Nothing that is thought to be true today will be thought to be true tomorrow (literally, as some part of it [no matter how minuscule] has changed).

What is knowable to our intellect is fluid, so those who excel at life have figured out how to go with the change (and thrive because of it). Those who attach to this, that , and the other thing, suffer.

reality & Reality >?<

Is that another false dichotomy?
Could we not add re-ality, real tea, your reality, my reality, pseudo-reality, artificial reality, junk reality, trippy reality, real reality, really real reality, sorta reality, almost reality, and lastly, REALLLLY phoquing dumb erality?

I apologize. I really don't get it.

Now we have arrived at the heart of the matter. "How do you know?" I don't know. But then again, I don't have to know. What you do know (getting back to the original point of this thread), you know before your critical thinking kicks-in so that's all you need to know. — synthesis

In science, we can say we know x within the parameters of hypothesis, experiment and observation. It's not a claim to absolute knowledge. Its logical form is akin to "if y then x" - and any decent scientist knows this. You say you're a scientist, but also a student of Zen, and you're on a philosophy forum. I think you're confusing senses of the word 'know' and arguing inappropriately. In practice, there must be a great many things you know - and rely on knowing in your work. Not in an absolute manner, but with regard to the contingent nature of the theoretical underpinnings of the facts in question. Come on, be honest - this Zen act is wearing thin.

All the rest is BS. Remember, people have lived for a long time and they made due with all kinds of explanations that were just as bizarre as the ones we spout today. All knowledge changes constantly. Nothing that is thought to be true today will be thought to be true tomorrow (literally, as some part of it [no matter how minuscule] has changed). — synthesis

Why are you doing this? You cannot believe that. Do you really imagine the bacterial theory of disease, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, evolution etc - are going to be overturned? Who's interest do you think you're serving with such nonsense? Is it a religious thing? Is it a post modernist thing? Wanna fit in with the cool kids?

What is knowable to our intellect is fluid, so those who excel at life have figured out how to go with the change (and thrive because of it). Those who attach to this, that , and the other thing, suffer. — synthesis

So you would walk humankind into an avoidable climate and ecological crisis and say to your children - sink or swim, because you think humankind will be better for it? That's convenient for you. I bet that takes a load off. And all you have to do is close your eyes and pretend its not happening because nothing is true - and everything else is BS. Seems less Zen and more - me first, and devil take the hindmost! Is that it? Are you a self serving greedy bastard, hiding your irresponsibility and savage appetites behind a thin layer of eastern mysticism?

In science, we can say we know x within the parameters of hypothesis, experiment and observation. It's not a claim to absolute knowledge. Its logical form is akin to "if y then x" - and any decent scientist knows this. You say you're a scientist, but also a student of Zen, and you're on a philosophy forum. I think you're confusing senses of the word 'know' and arguing inappropriately. In practice, there must be a great many things you know - and rely on knowing in your work. Not in an absolute manner, but with regard to the contingent nature of the theoretical underpinnings of the facts in question. Come on, be honest - this Zen act is wearing thin. — counterpunch

Trying to explain Zen to somebody is like attempting to explain Love to somebody who has never experienced it. I apologize for doing a poor job.

I am actually a physician and I deal with very serious health issues. Although I understand the science of my specialty, the most important part of my understanding is what I cannot understand, that is, there is very little known about how the body actually works, so even what is "known," is not known well. But (again), even this knowledge is changing, changing, changing all the time.

Zen act? There are very few people who delve deeply into Zen (it is a very arduous practice), but those who do are well-compensated.

All the rest is BS. Remember, people have lived for a long time and they made due with all kinds of explanations that were just as bizarre as the ones we spout today. All knowledge changes constantly. Nothing that is thought to be true today will be thought to be true tomorrow (literally, as some part of it [no matter how minuscule] has changed).
— synthesis

Why are you doing this? You cannot believe that. Do you really imagine the bacterial theory of disease, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, evolution etc - are going to be overturned? Who's interest do you think you're serving with such nonsense? Is it a religious thing? Is it a post modernist thing? Wanna fit in with the cool kids?

Do you believe that people 200 years ago could have imagined what is thought to be true today? What do you believe it will be like 200 years from now? 500 years from now? 10,000 years from now?
— counterpunch

What is knowable to our intellect is fluid, so those who excel at life have figured out how to go with the change (and thrive because of it). Those who attach to this, that , and the other thing, suffer.
— synthesis

So you would walk humankind into an avoidable climate and ecological crisis and say to your children - sink or swim, because you think humankind will be better for it? That's convenient for you. I bet that takes a load off. And all you have to do is close your eyes and pretend its not happening because nothing is true - and everything else is BS. Seems less Zen and more - me first, and devil take the hindmost! Is that it? Are you a self serving greedy bastard, hiding your irresponsibility and savage appetites behind a thin layer of eastern mysticism? — counterpunch

cp, first you might want to try and really understand where I am coming from before you assume you know anything about me. I've found that most people are actual pretty darn nice regardless of their philosophy or politics. After all, most are just trying to get by the best they can.

Trying to explain Zen to somebody is like attempting to explain Love to somebody who has never experienced it. I apologize for doing a poor job. — synthesis

I didn't ask about Zen. I mentioned it only insofar as I'm trying to get past it to a place of honesty, and it seems to me - that Zen isn't honest. Admittedly, it's a behaviourist perspective - looking at the black box of Zen from the outside and implying thought from behaviour. I don't need to understand it because I see what it does to people. I find it immensely frustrating.

I am actually a physician and I deal with very serious health issues. Although I understand the science of my specialty, the most important part of my understanding is what I cannot understand, that is, there is very little known about how the body actually works, so even what is "known," is not known well. But (again), even this knowledge is changing, changing, changing all the time. — synthesis

Medical science seeks to achieve the impossible; that is, to defeat death - and it's only in that context you can assert very little is known. In fact, medicine has a very good understanding of how the human body works.

Zen act? There are very few people who delve deeply into Zen (it is a very arduous practice), but those who do are well-compensated. — synthesis

By becoming insufferable, dishonest, sidestepping, condescending apologists who are too "enlightened" to ever experience a genuine human moment? You're not the first practitioner of Zen I've encountered, so don't imagine this is directed solely at you - but what comes across is weird and creepy, like they have something to hide.

cp, first you might want to try and really understand where I am coming from before you assume you know anything about me. I've found that most people are actual pretty darn nice regardless of their philosophy or politics. After all, most are just trying to get by the best they can. — synthesis

I'm pretty damn nice too, but sometimes you've got to break things before they can be whole. That was far too Zen like for my liking, but it's true! So, what about it?

Do you really imagine the bacterial theory of disease, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, evolution etc - are going to be overturned? — counterpunch

would [you] walk humankind into an avoidable climate and ecological crisis and say to your children - sink or swim, because you think humankind will be better for it? — counterpunch

Let me answer your question, honestly:

Do you believe that people 200 years ago could have imagined what is thought to be true today? What do you believe it will be like 200 years from now? 500 years from now? 10,000 years from now? — synthesis

200 years ago - people couldn't have imagined an aeroplane. It is not honest to base your argument in the actual ignorance of ages past - and use the advance of knowledge over time, to imply that we still don't know anything. The aeroplane flying overhead is not flying on faith. It's science. A quick glance around your living room, at the electric lights, the TV, the telephone, the computer, the internet connection - should be sufficient evidence to prove we do know things.

Nonetheless, 200 years from now humankind may be extinct - because we have used science as a tool, and not acknowledged science as the means to establish valid knowledge of reality. 500 years from now, still extinct. 10,000 years from now, still extinct. This is our one shot to establish humankind as a long term presence in the universe, and recognising the truth value of science is our best bet - so why are you crapping on it?

By becoming insufferable, dishonest, sidestepping, condescending apologists who are too "enlightened" to ever experience a genuine human moment? You're not the first practitioner of Zen I've encountered, so don't imagine this is directed solely at you - but what comes across is weird and creepy, like they have something to hide. — counterpunch

So far, you have established that you are an expert in both Zen practice and medicine. I. OTOH, who have practiced Zen over three decades and medicine over four decades claim to know very little. What does this tell you?

cp, first you might want to try and really understand where I am coming from before you assume you know anything about me. I've found that most people are actual pretty darn nice regardless of their philosophy or politics. After all, most are just trying to get by the best they can.
— synthesis

I'm pretty damn nice too, but sometimes you've got to break things before they can be whole. That was far too Zen like for my liking, but it's true! So, what about it? — counterpunch

That's not Zen at all, but that's another story (it's barely what might be referred to as popular Zen). You have a lot of anger which is expected from someone who believes they know just about everything and confronts a world where (he believes that) nobody else seems to know much of anything.

Do you really imagine the bacterial theory of disease, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, evolution etc - are going to be overturned?
— counterpunch

would [you] walk humankind into an avoidable climate and ecological crisis and say to your children - sink or swim, because you think humankind will be better for it?
— counterpunch

Let me answer your question, honestly:

Do you believe that people 200 years ago could have imagined what is thought to be true today? What do you believe it will be like 200 years from now? 500 years from now? 10,000 years from now?
— synthesis

200 years ago - people couldn't have imagined an aeroplane. It is not honest to base your argument in the actual ignorance of ages past - and use the advance of knowledge over time, to imply that we still don't know anything. The aeroplane flying overhead is not flying on faith. It's science. A quick glance around your living room, at the electric lights, the TV, the telephone, the computer, the internet connection - should be sufficient evidence to prove we do know things. — counterpunch

cp, do you think it is a possibility that you just don't get what I am talking about?

Nonetheless, 200 years from now humankind may be extinct - because we have used science as a tool, and not acknowledged science as the means to establish valid knowledge of reality. 500 years from now, still extinct. 10,000 years from now, still extinct. This is our one shot to establish humankind as a long term presence in the universe, and recognizing the truth value of science is our best bet - so why are you crapping on it? — counterpunch

I realize that you feel as if this is a prescient moment in the history of mankind on this planet (and maybe it is), but chances are that things are going to keep on going on. I think it's great that you are trying to help out in your way, but what I would say to you is chat with a bunch of older folks that have been around a lot longer than you and see what they think (and why). Although things are pretty screwed-up at the moment, the sky is not falling, so relax a little bit. The world needs calm, not more hysterics.

So far, you have established that you are an expert in both Zen practice and medicine. I. OTOH, who have practiced Zen over three decades and medicine over four decades claim to know very little. What does this tell you? — synthesis

What this tells me, at last - is that you're evading the question again. You opened a thread specifically to cast doubt upon our ability to establish valid knowledge of reality. I explained why you're mistaken, remember; the evolutionary argument: the organism must be correct to reality or die out. The perceptual argument: we have traffic lights and art - and all sorts of objective, common meaningful signs symbols and experiences that refute utterly the idea of a subjectively constructed reality. The causal argument: scientific principles can be applied to create technologies that work within a causal reality, and so the principles on which the technology is based must be true to reality! So, what I'm asking is why you opened this thread - because I find it difficult to believe you can believe what you say you believe. I didn't ask you about Zen, and I didn't ask you about medicine. I asked you about what you wrote in the OP.

That's not Zen at all, but that's another story (it's barely what might be referred to as popular Zen). You have a lot of anger which is expected from someone who believes they know just about everything and confronts a world where (he believes that) nobody else seems to know much of anything. — synthesis

I do claim to know what I'm talking about with regard to this topic. I've been concerned with the question of the continued survival of the human species for a very long time, and have identified the causes of the threat we face - and what's necessary to address it. In short, our problem is that we have not recognised science as the ability to establish valid knowledge. We have used science as a tool, but our purposes are ideological, not scientific. We rejected science as truth in defence of primitive ideologies while science gave machine guns to monkeys! That can't end well. We need to recognise science as truth and act accordingly to survive. The 'you and I' of this, are irrelevant to me. I care as much about blowing my own horn as I do about hurting your feelings. There's so much more at stake.

I realize that you feel as if this is a prescient moment in the history of mankind on this planet (and maybe it is), but chances are that things are going to keep on going on. I think it's great that you are trying to help out in your way, but what I would say to you is chat with a bunch of older folks that have been around a lot longer than you and see what they think (and why). Although things are pretty screwed-up at the moment, the sky is not falling, so relax a little bit. The world needs calm, not more hysterics. — synthesis

The window of opportunity to address the climate and ecological crisis we face is closing fast. We seem to see progress on the issue, but sadly, Biden's approach is misconceived. It's an approach informed by left wing environmentalist - limits to growth theory, in turn informed by Malthus Essay on Population. Malthus was wrong. 200 years and 8 billion people better fed than ever before prove Malthus was wrong. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Yet Biden is about to spend $2 trillion on windmills and solar panels, that will not meet US demand for energy, less yet the rest of the world, that will barely take the edge off carbon emissions, and that will last 25 years - and then burn out, burying us in tech scrap.

Because the energy from wind and solar will be insufficient, it will be expensive, and because it won't reduce carbon emissions sufficiently, it will be necessary to reduce demand in other ways - by imposing taxes on food, energy, travel and so on. It will require increasingly authoritative governments to impose unequal burdens on society, and in the world - burdens that hardly touch the rich, who spend a relatively small proportion of their incomes on food, energy, travel, but that really hurt the poor - and seriously damage poorer countries. Poor people breed more, and so there will be ever less resources spread between more and more people by ever more dictatorial government. So yes, this is a prescient moment.

There is a better way - a way to secure a prosperous, high energy sustainable future for the human species. If only we saw ourselves as such - as a species evolved on this planet, with a common interest in survival. But because we ignored science as an understanding of reality to maintain religious, political and economic ideologies; even as we used science as a tool for military power and industrial profit - and have justified that by denying science as truth with all kinds of subjectivist anti-science, anti truth propaganda - it's very unlikely we will ever see beyond ourselves to the truth of reality, and agree to survive.

The energy is there, in the interior of the earth - endless amounts of high grade clean energy we could use to capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land - and so protect forests and natural water sources from over exploitation, we could produce hydrogen fuel to meet all our energy needs, recycle, farm fish - and our species could survive long into the future, maybe find out what this strange old universe is all about.

do you think it is a possibility that you just don't get what I am talking about? — synthesis

Do you think it's possible you don't?

The moment after Reality is perception-altered but before our critical thinking begins would seem to be the closest we can get to actual Reality. Although it has already become our personal reality (due to processing by our senses), it's must be considerably purer than what happens once the full monte of our intellect transforms it into some convoluted dystopia. — synthesis

I think it varies more widely between humans than most will admit, and maybe that's why we're so reluctant to get into the details. Deep, honest introspection gives a lot away, though it will probably be key for empowering disciplines such as neuroscience to truly progress rather than merely exploit.

So tell us in the most neutral, noncontroversial way possible, what is the mental content that presents itself to your mind, as a practiced meditator, before performing a cognitive act with resemblance to reasoned decision making or relatively intellectual problem solving?

I do claim to know what I'm talking about with regard to this topic. I've been concerned with the question of the continued survival of the human species for a very long time, and have identified the causes of the threat we face - and what's necessary to address it. In short, our problem is that we have not recognised science as the ability to establish valid knowledge. We have used science as a tool, but our purposes are ideological, not scientific. We rejected science as truth in defence of primitive ideologies while science gave machine guns to monkeys! That can't end well. We need to recognise science as truth and act accordingly to survive. The 'you and I' of this, are irrelevant to me. I care as much about blowing my own horn as I do about hurting your feelings. There's so much more at stake. — counterpunch

I don't know anybody who does not take science very seriously (even the devoutly religious). Perhaps it is you who has raised science above the gods, themselves, made mere mortals appears heretical. What you misunderstand is not what I believe, but how I believe it (the nature of its truth or existence).

If your belief system is considerably different than the vast majority, you are going to have to understand that you are flying solo. It's that way for all alternative thinkers. You have to figure out a way to make a difference despite the fact that you are not going to be able to convince anybody that your way is, "The Way" (even if it is!).

I realize that you feel as if this is a prescient moment in the history of mankind on this planet (and maybe it is), but chances are that things are going to keep on going on. I think it's great that you are trying to help out in your way, but what I would say to you is chat with a bunch of older folks that have been around a lot longer than you and see what they think (and why). Although things are pretty screwed-up at the moment, the sky is not falling, so relax a little bit. The world needs calm, not more hysterics.
— synthesis

The window of opportunity to address the climate and ecological crisis we face is closing fast. We seem to see progress on the issue, but sadly, Biden's approach is misconceived. It's an approach informed by left wing environmentalist - limits to growth theory, in turn informed by Malthus Essay on Population. Malthus was wrong. 200 years and 8 billion people better fed than ever before prove Malthus was wrong. Resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Yet Biden is about to spend $2 trillion on windmills and solar panels, that will not meet US demand for energy, less yet the rest of the world, that will barely take the edge off carbon emissions, and that will last 25 years - and then burn out, burying us in tech scrap.

Because the energy from wind and solar will be insufficient, it will be expensive, and because it won't reduce carbon emission sufficiently, it will be necessary to reduce demand in other ways - by imposing taxes on food, energy, travel and so on. It will require increasingly authoritative governments to impose unequal burdens on society, and in the world - burdens that hardly touch the rich, who spend a relatively small proportion of their incomes on food, energy, travel, but that really hurt the poor - and seriously damage poorer countries. Poor people breed more, and so there will be ever less resources spread between more and more people by ever more dictatorial government. So yes, this is a prescient moment. — counterpunch

If you buy what Einstein had to say, E =MCxC, then all matter is energy so this issue should be pretty low on the list of things to worry about. Technology should provide ways to extract energy (from everything) at a very low cost in the not so distant future.

cp, I get what you're saying but simply believe that your are doing a great deal of assuming. Prognostication is as difficult as it is because 99% of what determines future events has yet to take place. So that's why I tell you to relax. Things will work out like they will for an infinite number of reasons we are simply incapable of understanding. I know you believe that if humanity just does x, then y, then z, everybody lives happily ever after, but I don't see it that way.

You do the best you can to get your own act together after which you try to help others. What else can one do in this world (that was rhetorical :)?

The moment after Reality is perception-altered but before our critical thinking begins would seem to be the closest we can get to actual Reality. Although it has already become our personal reality (due to processing by our senses), it's must be considerably purer than what happens once the full monte of our intellect transforms it into some convoluted dystopia.
— synthesis

I think it varies more widely between humans than most will admit, and maybe that's why we're so reluctant to get into the details. Deep, honest introspection gives a lot away, though it will probably be key for empowering disciplines such as neuroscience to truly progress rather than merely exploit.

So tell us in the most neutral, noncontroversial way possible, what is the mental content that presents itself to your mind, as a practiced meditator, before performing a cognitive act with resemblance to reasoned decision making or relatively intellectual problem solving? — Enrique

I can only relate my own meditation experience (please keep in mind that I am not a Zen teacher and there are many types of meditation). In Zen, the object is to keep a clear mind. The beginning student is often confronted by a whirlwind of thoughts that arise during meditation. As s/he becomes more "accomplished," these thoughts begin to attenuate (the ideal being a completely quiet mind), allowing thoughts to come and go, without attachment.

A small percentage of students get to the point where their minds are very, very quiet or even still. I believe this is what you refer to in your question, that is, what is happening in the quiet mind? Here's the idea...

If you are able to perceive without allowing your critical thinking to kick-in, then you are seeing the truth as close as is possible, that is, your mind has not intellectually altered what you perceive. The value of this is many-fold of which I am incapable of explaining but what I will tell you is that it enables the practitioner to respond to all kinds of stimuli more accurately. This is the enormous benefit of mindfulness.

Here is a great example used by a wonderful Zen master who still teaches. (I'll paraphrase) He likens Life (or reality) to a train we are riding while staring out of the windows watching the world go by. As long as we keep watching, everything is fine, things come and things go, things come and things go. All of a sudden, we see something that we really like (maybe a very beautiful person, a wonderful idea, or perhaps something equally horrible) and we jump off the train. We have now attached to this person/idea as the train (reality) continues heading on down the track. The fact that we have created our own reality that is different from actual reality is what causes the suffering (as eventually the real reality comes crashing down on our heads).

So let's say I am with a patient and they are telling me their history. If I can keep a clear mind andreally hear what they are telling me (instead of my mind going a million miles an hour trying to figure everything out before they are able to finish), then I can apply my knowledge/experience to best help this patient.

Most people alter all perceptual stimuli in real time. They really never perceive without immediate intellectual alteration. The little voice in their minds never stops.

Have I been able to answer your question?

Have I been able to answer your question? — synthesis

That makes sense. I'm curious about this section:

The value of this is many-fold of which I am incapable of explaining but what I will tell you is that it enables the practitioner to respond to all kinds of stimuli more accurately — synthesis

Can you experience stimuli that weren't previously even entering into consciousness after you become a proficient meditator, or is it merely controlling your focus within the same cognitive context? Does awareness "expand" somehow? Can a Zen guru for instance induce hallucinations in a new, very specific way and then control them?

I don't know anybody who does not take science very seriously (even the devoutly religious). Perhaps it is you who has raised science above the gods, themselves, made mere mortals appears heretical. What you misunderstand is not what I believe, but how I believe it (the nature of its truth or existence). — synthesis

I claim simply, that truth matters. Religious, political and economic ideologies are not true. Science is true. You claim truth is not possible. You're wrong for the reasons stated.

If your belief system is considerably different than the vast majority, you are going to have to understand that you are flying solo. It's that way for all alternative thinkers. You have to figure out a way to make a difference despite the fact that you are not going to be able to convince anybody that your way is, "The Way" (even if it is!). — synthesis

My concern is not so much that I will fail, but that I will succeed in inflicting a disenchantment that casts man into a nihilistic, anomic abyss. Your resistance to obvious logical inferences, and truth as a norm frightens me. Your attempt to cast me as some kind of extremist - when it's you who believe things that are not true, does not bode well. You see, I thought it would matter. I thought identifying the problem - which I have, and showing it's possible to secure a better future - would matter. But it doesn't, because you can't admit you're wrong.

If you buy what Einstein had to say, E =MCxC, then all matter is energy so this issue should be pretty low on the list of things to worry about. Technology should provide ways to extract energy (from everything) at a very low cost in the not so distant future. — synthesis

This is incorrect. There are two ways to extract equivalent energy from matter - nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Fusion cannot work in earth gravity; at least, not in a way that produces more energy than it consumes. Fission is regular nuclear energy - with all the problems that entails. These are not solutions to our problems.

I get what you're saying but simply believe that your are doing a great deal of assuming. Prognostication is as difficult as it is because 99% of what determines future events has yet to take place. So that's why I tell you to relax. Things will work out like they will for an infinite number of reasons we are simply incapable of understanding. I know you believe that if humanity just does x, then y, then z, everybody lives happily ever after, but I don't see it that way. — synthesis

Don't pull that "I see what you're saying" bit now - because there's been no indication whatsoever that you do. According to you, EVERYTHING I've said has been wrong. There isn't one instance above, of you acknowledging a single point I've made. Which in itself is disconcerting. Either I'm completely delusional - or your resistance is unreasonable. And if your resistance is unreasonable, here, on a philosophy forum where discussing ideas like truth is our supposed purpose - how will I ever get through to anyone else?

What you don't get is that there's a mechanism; a causal relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. Acting on invalid knowledge, extinction is an inevitability. It's cause and effect. There's no way around it. The organism MUST be correct to reality to survive, and we're wrong. You insist on it!

The value of this is many-fold of which I am incapable of explaining but what I will tell you is that it enables the practitioner to respond to all kinds of stimuli more accurately
— synthesis

Can you experience stimuli that weren't previously even entering into consciousness after you become a proficient meditator, or is it merely controlling your focus within the same cognitive context? Does awareness "expand" somehow? Can a Zen guru for instance induce hallucinations in a new, very specific way and then control them? — Enrique

These would be questions best posed to a teacher, but...

Please understand that Zen is nothing special. The student is cultivating awareness and it is this clarity which allows for insight/wisdom. Meditation expands the students awareness (which is simply every day life and nothing more). I have heard stories of meditators who have developed usual "skills" but I can not speak to them.

As a student of Soto (Japanese) Zen going back to Dogen in the 13th century, he saw enlightenment as simply the ability to see things clearly, nothing more.

I don't know anybody who does not take science very seriously (even the devoutly religious). Perhaps it is you who has raised science above the gods, themselves, made mere mortals appears heretical. What you misunderstand is not what I believe, but how I believe it (the nature of its truth or existence).
— synthesis

I claim simply, that truth matters. Religious, political and economic ideologies are not true. Science is true. You claim truth is not possible. You're wrong for the reasons stated. — counterpunch

I didn't say that truth doesn't matter. I just said there are different versions of the truth (aren't you married? :) You only see one truth. I see two. I hold myself to very high ethical and moral standards so it is not like I do not live truth, I just see its ever changing nature. The truth which is knowable changes like everything else. The Absolute Truth does not change because it is not knowable and exists in moments outside of time. Do you understand this?

If your belief system is considerably different than the vast majority, you are going to have to understand that you are flying solo. It's that way for all alternative thinkers. You have to figure out a way to make a difference despite the fact that you are not going to be able to convince anybody that your way is, "The Way" (even if it is!).
— synthesis

My concern is not so much that I will fail, but that I will succeed in inflicting a disenchantment that casts man into a nihilistic, anomic abyss. Your resistance to obvious logical inferences, and truth as a norm frightens me. Your attempt to cast me as some kind of extremist - when it's you who believe things that are not true, does not bode well. You see, I thought it would matter. I thought identifying the problem - which I have, and showing it's possible to secure a better future - would matter. But it doesn't, because you can't admit you're wrong. — counterpunch

You won't find more than a handful of people who might agree with me, but that's ok. You are extreme only in that you have thought this out to a degree that few have. Most people (as you well know) don't spend a great deal of time thinking deep thoughts).

And I do understand that you are attempting to show me the light, and I appreciate it; but that doesn't mean I am going to buy your version of reality. Why would I? Although you believe that you have "figured it out," soon enough both of us will resume our roles as so much dust in the wind.

If you buy what Einstein had to say, E =MCxC, then all matter is energy so this issue should be pretty low on the list of things to worry about. Technology should provide ways to extract energy (from everything) at a very low cost in the not so distant future.
— synthesis

This is incorrect. There are two ways to extract equivalent energy from matter - nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Fusion cannot work in earth gravity; at least, not in a way that produces more energy than it consumes. Fission is regular nuclear energy - with all the problems that entails. These are not solutions to our problems. — counterpunch

So fission and fusion is the end of the energy conversation? Seems unlikely.

I get what you're saying but simply believe that your are doing a great deal of assuming. Prognostication is as difficult as it is because 99% of what determines future events has yet to take place. So that's why I tell you to relax. Things will work out like they will for an infinite number of reasons we are simply incapable of understanding. I know you believe that if humanity just does x, then y, then z, everybody lives happily ever after, but I don't see it that way.
— synthesis

Don't pull that "I see what you're saying" bit now - because there's been no indication whatsoever that you do. According to you, EVERYTHING I've said has been wrong. There isn't one instance above, of you acknowledging a single point I've made. Which in itself is disconcerting. Either I'm completely delusional - or your resistance is unreasonable. And if your resistance is unreasonable, here, on a philosophy forum where discussing ideas like truth is our supposed purpose - how will I ever get through to anyone else?

What you don't get is that there's a mechanism; a causal relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. Acting on invalid knowledge, extinction is an inevitability. It's cause and effect. There's no way around it. The organism MUST be correct to reality to survive, and we're wrong. You insist on it! — counterpunch

cp, you mistake words (thinking) for truth. The answers are not written down. Realization is non-intellectual. You know for reasons you will never understand.

And you have to consider that perhaps George Carlin was correct when he speculated that humanity's rason d'etre was to create plastic, that somehow Mother Earth needs plastic! :) Seems a likely as any of the other bizarre reasons people come up with (pick your poison).

I didn't say that truth doesn't matter. I just said there are different versions of the truth (aren't you married? :) You only see one truth. I see two. I hold myself to very high ethical and moral standards so it is not like I do not live truth, I just see its ever changing nature. The truth which is knowable changes like everything else. The Absolute Truth does not change because it is not knowable and exists in moments outside of time. Do you understand this? — synthesis

I have argued this thesis many times, and one of the regular objections I get is based in Hume's - is/ought divide. The 'is' are facts. The 'ought' are values. It is argued, regularly, that science 'is' facts. Facts don't tell us what we 'ought' to do. I disagree - because I understand the problem very well. But you simply disregard the distinction, and instead posit a distinction between knowable truth and absolute truth. Which one of these is it that you conflate with morality?

You won't find more than a handful of people who might agree with me, but that's ok. You are extreme only in that you have thought this out to a degree that few have. Most people (as you well know) don't spend a great deal of time thinking deep thoughts). And I do understand that you are attempting to show me the light, and I appreciate it; but that doesn't mean I am going to buy your version of reality. Why would I? Although you believe that you have "figured it out," soon enough both of us will resume our roles as so much dust in the wind. — synthesis

I can die content with having done my duty - even if I fail, and humankind blunders onward toward the abyss. It's not my fault. I prefer to belong to a species with a future in the universe, for then my existence would matter as part of an intergenerational chain - stretching back into the mists of history, via the evolution of life, unto the physics of the universe from which life springs. And stretching forward, into the future - following in the course of truth, to other stars? To other dimensions? Unto God? I don't know. What I cannot live with is being a willing member of a species that uses science for its own unscientific ends; a species that destroys its environment to pleasure itself, and so renders itself extinct. Such an existence is meaningless.

So fission and fusion is the end of the energy conversation? Seems unlikely. — synthesis

Fission and fusion are the beginning and end of the equivalent energy conversation. E=MC2. The equivalence of energy and matter. Fission or fusion; neither of which are the answer to our needs. The answer to our needs is the giant ball of molten rock upon which we stand. And, I think you'll like this - there's something spiritual about humankind intelligently employing the energy of the earth to maintain the balance of life upon its surface. Instead, it's very sad - that we decried science as heresy, shamed science to maintain religious, political and economic ideology, denied science any moral authority, even as we used science to drive industries that extract resources without regard to the balance of life.

you mistake words (thinking) for truth. The answers are not written down. Realization is non-intellectual. You know for reasons you will never understand. — synthesis

I don't claim to know what I don't know. I claim to know what I do.

Mark Carney: Climate crisis deaths 'will be worse than Covid'
By Sharanjit Leyl
BBC News

The world is heading for mortality rates equivalent to the Covid crisis every year by mid-century unless action is taken, according to Mark Carney. The former central banker said the investment needed to avert millions of deaths was double current rates. But with governments ploughing billions into keeping economies afloat, a question mark hangs over whether the recovery will be green enough.

The answer lies in smarter investment, Mr Carney said.

Mr Carney, who is tasked with persuading policymakers, chief executives, bankers and investors to focus on the environment, said: "The scale of investment in energy, sustainable energy and sustainable infrastructure needs to double."

"Every year, for the course of the next three decades, $3.5 trillion (£2.5tn) a year, for 30 years. It is an enormous investment opportunity."

He said the answer lies in a global pot of $170tn of private capital which, he says, "is looking for disclosure". Banks, investment funds and individuals increasingly want to know how their money will be used.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55944570

"Professor Brian Cox builds sandcastles in the Namib Desert to explain why time travels in one direction. It is a result of a phenomenon called entropy; a law of physics that tells us any system tends towards disorder."

https://youtu.be/uQSoaiubuA0

To maintain the ordered structure of anything, from a sandcastle to a civilisation - it is necessary to expend energy. To strike a balance between a civilisation worth having, and a viable natural ecosystem - we need limitless amounts of clean energy to spend to extract carbon from the air - and bury it, to desalinate water to irrigate land for agriculture and human habitation, and to recycle waste.

The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is estimated at 47 terawatts (TW). Current world energy demand is roughly 16 TW. The Earth naturally emits three times the world's energy demand as heat, and will continue to do so for a very long time to come. The limitless source of clean energy we need is right beneath our feet. That's the good news. The bad news is it's difficult to get to.

Drilling technologies developed by the fossil fuel industries, I believe, can be employed to tap into geothermal energy on a large scale, sufficient to meet and exceed global energy demand. This can only work at specific suitable geographic locations, and consequently, distributing this energy would require conversion of electrical energy to hydrogen, then piped as a gas, or shipped as a liquified fuel. Hydrogen fuel can be burnt in traditional power stations to produce electricity, thus utilizing the larger part of existing national energy infrastructures.

A lower energy "green" approach implies more disorder, and ultimately, the failure of human civilisation.

The moment after Reality is perception-altered but before our critical thinking begins would seem to be the closest we can get to actual Reality. Although it has already become our personal reality (due to processing by our senses), it's must be considerably purer than what happens once the full monte of our intellect transforms it into some convoluted dystopia.

Mediators concentrate on this moment and often find it to be a portal to another place altogether. What is happening in this moment and where does it lead? — synthesis

It leads to itself, after all, when you encounter a thing in the perceptual moment it is already taken up in thought. A glance is inherently interpretative, so talk about what it is that is separate from thought becomes an exercise in metaphysics: No one has ever witnessed a "thoughtless perceptual object".

On the other hand, there is "presence" there that is not thought (see Kierkegaard e.g.). That we can apprehend this as it is rather than AS something else, language and logic, is, I think, indicative of our own meta-self.

I didn't say that truth doesn't matter. I just said there are different versions of the truth (aren't you married? :) You only see one truth. I see two. I hold myself to very high ethical and moral standards so it is not like I do not live truth, I just see its ever changing nature. The truth which is knowable changes like everything else. The Absolute Truth does not change because it is not knowable and exists in moments outside of time. Do you understand this?
— synthesis

I have argued this thesis many times, and one of the regular objections I get is based in Hume's - is/ought divide. The 'is' are facts. The 'ought' are values. It is argued, regularly, that science 'is' facts. Facts don't tell us what we 'ought' to do. I disagree - because I understand the problem very well. But you simply disregard the distinction, and instead posit a distinction between knowable truth and absolute truth. Which one of these is it that you conflate with morality? — counterpunch

Facts only exist momentarily (as all things are changing). This means that by the time you are able to conceive of such, then process such into a fact-being, it is already gone. POOF. Of course, you really can't come anywhere close to ascertaining the information necessary to come up with your fact, but for most humans, close enough seems to be close enough.

You won't find more than a handful of people who might agree with me, but that's ok. You are extreme only in that you have thought this out to a degree that few have. Most people (as you well know) don't spend a great deal of time thinking deep thoughts). And I do understand that you are attempting to show me the light, and I appreciate it; but that doesn't mean I am going to buy your version of reality. Why would I? Although you believe that you have "figured it out," soon enough both of us will resume our roles as so much dust in the wind.
— synthesis

I prefer to belong to a species with a future in the universe, for then my existence would matter as part of an intergenerational chain - stretching back into the mists of history, via the evolution of life, unto the physics of the universe from which life springs. And stretching forward, into the future - following in the course of truth, to other stars? To other dimensions? Unto God? I don't know. — counterpunch

Well, perhaps you can lower your goals/expectations a bit and just hope for cleaner water or some such thing. When you bring time into the equation, things get much less clear.

What I cannot live with is being a willing member of a species that uses science for its own unscientific ends; a species that destroys its environment to pleasure itself, and so renders itself extinct. Such an existence is meaningless. — counterpunch

So you have decided for everybody else what is meaningful?

So fission and fusion is the end of the energy conversation? Seems unlikely.
— synthesis

Fission and fusion are the beginning and end of the equivalent energy conversation. E=MC2. The equivalence of energy and matter. Fission or fusion; neither of which are the answer to our needs. The answer to our needs is the giant ball of molten rock upon which we stand. And, I think you'll like this - there's something spiritual about humankind intelligently employing the energy of the earth to maintain the balance of life upon its surface. — counterpunch

I have no problem with geothermal but you really can't believe that all forms of energy have been discovered?

Instead, it's very sad - that we decried science as heresy, shamed science to maintain religious, political and economic ideology, denied science any moral authority, even as we used science to drive industries that extract resources without regard to the balance of life. — counterpunch

From where I sit, science IS religion. What exactly doesn't science control at this point?

you mistake words (thinking) for truth. The answers are not written down. Realization is non-intellectual. You know for reasons you will never understand.
— synthesis

I don't claim to know what I don't know. I claim to know what I do. — counterpunch

Well, so does everybody else. Problem is, understanding is dependent on clarity which few possess (and even then it is quite shallow for reasons I have suggested previously).

It leads to itself, after all, when you encounter a thing in the perceptual moment it is already taken up in thought. — Constance

Let's say you are driving down the freeway with thousands of other happy motorists. On this particular morning, traffic is moving quite rapidly (say 80mph), and because it is more or less bumper to bumper at such a high speed, you are having to concentrate a great deal because the guy behind you is texting his girlfriend, the woman on the left is putting on her makeup and the guy on the other side is stuffing a massive jelly doughnut down his gullet in one bite. Another day in Paradise (LA).

There are literally an infinite number of stimuli coming at you each moment. Do you believe that your brain is taking the time to "think" about all of these stimuli and then figure out what to do or are you just "doing it."

Facts only exist momentarily (as all things are changing). This means that by the time you are able to conceive of such, then process such into a fact-being, it is already gone. POOF. — synthesis

Then there's really no point reading the rest of your post. Poof. It's already gone.