Point well taken. As the video suggested, the part of metaphysics that's intriguing is that it uses logic to arrive at illogical conclusions which in turn, comprise consciousness and Being (itself), which is another reason why I posited the analogy to the concept of a God. In other words, using logic, we can't even explain our own conscious existence, so how are to explain a cosmological God's(?). — 3017amen

There is much confusion about logic. The view I'm endorsing is perfectly (!) in accord with logic. What logic proves is that Reality outruns the categories of thought, but this is easy enough to think about.

A God cannot be logically explained because the idea is not logically coherent. It only becomes coherent when we equate 'God' with the 'Brahman',of the Upanishads and non-dualism. but almost all theists would rather give up thinking logically than do this.

It is true that many people conclude that the non-dual doctrine requires a modification to ordinary logic, but this is only because of a widespread misunderstanding of Aristotle's rules It is generally assumed that metaphysical questions take the form 'A/not-A', but the mystics deny this. . .
. , . ' , . .

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, — 3017amen

How is religion a natural/physical science? When did it become one?

Fifth time asking.

Mr. Wood,

Thanks again for your question(s). I would suggest you, at the very least, start here (that way you might find you'll have to reformulate most of your questions): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science ↪3017amen And you found a reference to religion there where exactly? ....under life science.
— 3017amen

Fifth time asking. — tim wood

Third time answering?

Try answering a first time. The references you cited were a waste of my time. And we've played this game before. I do not think you want to play it again. You made a claim, I'm calling you on it.

Here is your reference; no "religion" in it:

"Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. Mechanisms such as peer review and repeatability of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances.
The natural sciences seek to understand how the world and universe around us works. There are five major branches (top left to bottom right): Chemistry, astronomy, Earth science, physics, and biology.
Natural science can be divided into two main branches: life science and physical science. Life science is alternatively known as biology, and physical science is subdivided into branches: physics, chemistry, Earth science, and astronomy. These branches of natural science may be further divided into more specialized branches (also known as fields). As empirical sciences, natural sciences use tools from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, converting information about nature into measurements which can be explained as clear statements of the "laws of nature".[1]

Modern natural science succeeded more classical approaches to natural philosophy, usually traced to Taoists traditions in Asia and in the Occident to ancient Greece. Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, and Newton debated the benefits of using approaches which were more mathematical and more experimental in a methodical way. Still, philosophical perspectives, conjectures, and presuppositions, often overlooked, remain necessary in natural science.[2] Systematic data collection, including discovery science, succeeded natural history, which emerged in the 16th century by describing and classifying plants, animals, minerals, and so on.[3] Today, "natural history" suggests observational descriptions aimed at popular audiences."

It is generally assumed that metaphysical questions take the form 'A/not-A', but the mystics deny this. . . — FrancisRay

Good point, I wonder why?

If logic cannot explain existence ex-nihilo, could it be that he universe is absurd and meaningless, or is understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought? In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole nother metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed... .

Otherwise, mysticism seems to have some popularity in Physics:

...mystical thought lies at the opposite extreme to rational thought, which is the basis of the scientific method. Also, mysticism tends to be confused with the occult, the paranormal, and other fringe beliefs. In fact, many of the world's finest thinkers, including some notable thinkers such as Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, Eddington, and Jeans, have also espoused mysticism...some scientists and mathematicians claim to have had sudden revelatory insights akin to such mystical experiences...Roger Penrose...Gödel...-Paul Davies

Perhaps one consistent theme there is revelation and Kantian intuition. Thoughts?

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion,
— 3017amen

How is religion a natural/physical science? When did it become one? — tim wood

Please answer, Seventh time asking.

Mr Wood,

Sorry, I've hit the pass and go button. Not sure what else to tell you....

Be well my friend!

You made a claim in your OP,here:

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, — 3017amen

I have asked you repeatedly about your linkage of religion and "natural/physical sciences" in your OP and you refuse substantive response. And you've done this before. I am now going to ask that you be banned.

Good point, I wonder why? — 3017amen

If you pursue this question you will unlock metaphysics.

It is because all 'this or that' conclusions about the world-as-a-whole would be wrong. Metaphysical antinomies take the form of a choice between just two options both of which are absurd. Thus they are undecidable. The mystics say these questions are undecidable because both answers are wrong and our intellect is able to calculate this. They say that these questions are false dichotomies. Our intellect is able to calculate that their dualistic answers are absurd, but only if we study mysticism can we make sense of their falsity since this is the only description of reality that explains it.

Most people can work out that these questions are undecidable, but few ever see the reason why. This requires a study of nondualism.(or a lot of meditation). . .

If logic cannot explain existence ex-nihilo, could it be that he universe is absurd and meaningless....

. ,

Not at all, If ex nihilo creation was the case then the universe would be absurd and meaningless, and we could never know much about it.

o...or is understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?

A subtle issue. The Truth would be beyond thought, much as Kant surmises, but this is not to say we cannot usefully think about it. An intellectual understanding would be possible, but only for those who have explored what lies beyond the intellect. The crucial component of this understanding has to be an grasp of the principle of nonduality, and this cannot be meaningfully grasped without first-hand experience. . .

In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole other metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed.

I think not. But we have to be much more careful than usual with our use of logic. ... .

Otherwise, mysticism seems to have some popularity in Physics.

:

I've long believed that physicists are deeper and braver thinkers than academic philosophers. Many of the quantum pioneers immediately realised that their discoveries implied the truth of the mystic teachings. Erwin Schrodinger is something of a hero of mine for his insight. Regrettably, modern physicists are generally less well educated and more ideologically hide-bound. . .

...mystical thought lies at the opposite extreme to rational thought, which is the basis of the scientific method.

A misperception.. Rational thought is rational thought, and the methods of mysticism are scientific. They depend entirely on experiment and empiricism, albeit that here the latter would extend beyond sensory data. This is why mysticism makes no claims that contradict science or logic. There's no chance of it doing so since it proceeds by the methods of science and logic Our ordinary brain is quite up to the task. . . .

Also, mysticism tends to be confused with the occult, the paranormal, and other fringe beliefs.

Amen to that. Few people bother to study it seriously. Metaphysics and mysticism are the two worst taught subjects in academia, and this is no coincidence. Both represent an immediate threat to the status quo.

many of the world's finest thinkers, including some notable thinkers such as Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, Eddington, and Jeans, have also espoused mysticism...some scientists and mathematicians claim to have had sudden revelatory insights akin to such mystical experiences...Roger Penrose...Gödel...-Paul Davies

Paul Davies' book The Mind of God' is an excellent introduction to metaphysics. It got me started and led me immediately to mysticism. Schrodinger is the most eloquent of them, since he wrote about this for forty years and knew the Upanishads well.

I;m utterly baffled as to why, somewhere around the 1960's, physicists suddenly became deaf to the Perennial philosophy. I suspect it might have been a reaction to hippy culture, and the baby went out with the bathwater. . .

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim — 3017amen

Well said. My apologies. A trap I often fall into indeed. Be well.

Paul Davies' book The Mind of God' is an excellent introduction to metaphysics. — FrancisRay

Agreed. I have the book and find it an indispensable reference!

Just curious as to your take on this. Do you think Kantian intuition, noumenon, etc. is closely related to Christian Revelation (revelatory knowledge about a novel thing)?

Not at all, If ex nihilo creation was the case then the universe would be absurd and meaningless, and we could never know much about it. — FrancisRay

I'm not sure I'm following that. If we could create something from nothing, to posit meaninglessness, frankly, would not even be an issue or concern. There would be no human need to posit same. In other words, we would already know the nature of reality (time, matter, etc..). But it's precisely that we cannot create a universe (Paul talks about mini universes) that is at the heart of the mystery. And even if there was always something (think eternity) we still do not have the tools to create same... .

...or is understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?

A subtle issue. The Truth would be beyond thought, much as Kant surmises, but this is not to say we cannot usefully think about it. An intellectual understanding would be possible, but only for those who have explored what lies beyond the intellect — FrancisRay

Sure, no exceptions taken. But that assumes other 'logically' possible worlds existing. Thus the point that Paul makes about the fact that our sense of logic and math may not suffice here.

In that sense, the theories of multiverse and other possible worlds come into play. Meaning, there may be a whole other metaphysical language (mathematics, logic, etc.) that is needed.

I think not. But we have to be much more careful than usual with our use of logic. ... . — FrancisRay

That would be in conflict with the interpretation of the [Paul's] aforementioned proposition... .

Well said. My apologies. A trap I often fall into indeed. Be well. — Xtrix

Apology accepted!

Ahhh, could not be further from the truth! Much like time itself, metaphysics is not so neet and tidy. ☺ You may want to review the video... — 3017amen

Apparently you missed the point of my post. I said Tim Wood's Physical worldview was "neat & tidy". So the implication was that your Metaphysical view is just the opposite : complex & messy. Most scientists, including Einstein & Heisenberg, were at first appalled at the strange worldview presented by Quantum "Mechanics". Because it's actually not very mechanical at all.

Nevertheless, some of then learned to accommodate "quantum queerness" by viewing it from the metaphysical perspective of Eastern philosophies. Unfortunately, many New Agers preferred the traditional religious physical practices (Yoga Tai Chi, candles, incense), over the metaphysical philosophical insights. Apparently most people prefer neat & tidy physical routines over the complexities & ambiguities of Metaphysics --- and of Quantum uncertainties & weirdness. :joke:

Gotcha, I get it now, thanks for the clarification! FYI- there is very little Mr. Wood and I agree on, but that's ok!! If we didn't have differences, it would not provide for the actual practice of discourse itself... .

But to your point, and at the risk of redundancy, to me, Metaphysical world views are no less challenging than that of 'consciousness explained' :joke: It's fun to take the basic tools of exploration in order to see where it leads us or what the possibilities could be...

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion,
— 3017amen

How is religion a natural/physical science? When did it become one?
— tim wood

Please answer, seventh eighth time asking. — tim wood

Hah. Yeah, for sure. I call these the easy problems, just to highlight how easy they are. Utterly trivial really. :joke:

So tell me, do you think that non-mental being exists? That is existence that has no mental properties whatsoever?

Does science tell us about things in themselves generally? Can we have an idea of what they could be?

This last question torments me.

Does science tell us about things in themselves generally? Can we have an idea of what they could be?

This last question torments me. — Manuel

Can you expand on this?

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion,
— 3017amen

How is religion a natural/physical science? When did it become one?
— tim wood

Please answer, seventh eighth ninth time asking.
— tim wood

By things in themselves, I take to mean the ground of objects which are not a representation. I don't have in mind Kant, per se, just the general topic.

To illustrate the example in a way I find intuitive and useful: consider any object. Take a book and put it in front of you. You see it, there's a book there. Fine. Now close your eyes. Is there still a book there? Sure. You can touch it, hear it as when you drop it on a table, etc. But now remove your tactile sensations. Do you still have a book in front of you?

You could probably still hear it, maybe smell it. But now lose your sensation of hearing and smell and all other sensations. Assume this happens all at once and automatically. Do you still have an object in front of you?

I think you do, at least as an idea of sorts.

This is more or less what I have in mind when I speak of things in themselves. I think things have a nature which are not reducible to sensations and not dependent on the way objects affect us.

Maybe it leads nowhere, but I find it interesting.

You must have missed this link I provided in my previous post – Autopoiesis. It's a physical topic and not metaphysical except, maybe, analogously. Thoughts? — 180 Proof

Sorry, I did miss that. @Pantagruel put me onto Autopoisis some time ago, and I am was very grateful to learn of the embodied movement. Matera, Thompson, Capra etc, are all biologists come philosophers, and it is easy to see why this would arise. Anybody with an interest in microbiology, or cellular biology can plainly see that what is happening at that level is far beyond the capability of dumb chemical reactions. They use a systems logic to arrive at self organization, but as originators of an embodied world view ( in the late 70s ) they are reluctant to call it self organization, preferring the term Autopoiesis. :smile: It seems politically expedient, as their world view is quite a challenge to the prevailing Cartesian dualism of the seventies. In the last ten years or so, other biologists come Philosophers like Neil Theise have been more forthright in the statements they make: The self organizing universe.

I think an interest in, and the study of microbiology, and cellular biology leads to a monistic understanding inevitably!

Are you familiar with Stephen Wolfram's
computational-complexity theses and book exploring them A New Kind of Science?

Metaphysics and mysticism are the two worst taught subjects in academia, and this is no coincidence. Both represent an immediate threat to the status quo. — FrancisRay

In what ways do they "represent a threat to the status quo"? By "status quo" do you mean 'of any historical era' or only 'of the current era'?

Why are they so badly "taught in academia"? Is it better to learn them outside the academy? With (a) teacher(s) or in a small, dialectical, circle of seekers or autodidactally?

In a sentence or two – describe metaphysics.
In a sentence or two – describe mysticism.

(I wonder how convergent with or divergent from your conceptions of metaphysics & mysticism my conceptions are (to be provided for comparison) – and both of our conceptions may seem in comparison to the Platonic-Aristotlean (i.e. "onto-theological") tradition – in order to better understand the points you're making.)

Got ya. Thanks. My mind doesn't process the notion of a thing in itself. For me there are physical objects and my senses and that's about it.

This isn't intended to argue in favor of anything, just getting your perspective on similar topics:

So these physical objects you have in mind, do they exist mind-independetly, as in, before people existed there were trees, but only after we arose is that the notion or idea of a tree got articulated?

In other words, there are physical objects which have objective properties and we discover these objective properties when we interact with such objects.

Perhaps consciousness is only as convoluted as the myriad of metaphysical systems under which it is viewed. Favor a system, find consciousness in it, define its parameters or its logical relations......done deal. — Mww

I wonder what your definition of metaphysics is? The difficulty is that any definition of consciousness has to work for all instances of consciousness regardless of the underlying belief system, and it has to trump competing definitions.

What I was really getting at is that consciousness need not be logical. It is free to incorporate fantasy alongside facts to construct a world view. And I don't think anybody's consciousness is totally immune to this - given the weight of beliefs composing consciousness.

Self-organization carries the implication that consciousness is some sort of cognitive faculty susceptible to reason, but I rather think consciousness is the quality of the manifold of that which is reasoned about, which makes consciousness passive rather than the active self-organization implies. — Mww

:up: Self Organization is the constituent attribute of consciousness for all lifeforms, and maybe beyond.. It fits absolutely all instances of consciousness, as an explanation of what is being observed - as far as I can see. It need not be about facts and logic. Much of social life is beyond facts and logic. :smile:

Much as red-ness is the quality of the state of being red, fit-ness is the quality of the state of being fit, so too consciousness is the quality of the state of being conscious. — Mww

But this is not very useful knowledge, whereas you can insert self organization into any sentence containing consciousness, and avail yourself of a slightly different take on what is being said, whilst not disturbing the logical consistency of the sentence.

for otherwise I must have as many-coloured and various a self as are the representations of which I am conscious....” — Mww

Yeah, it doesn't really work does it? So I prefer the embodied approach - it makes more sense -
and then these momentary evolving manifestations are instances of self organization, which will evolve and progress as more information becomes available.

Given this (favored) rendition of what consciousness is, the rest of your comment can be seen as otherwise, re: we have no consciousness at birth, consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with perceived truth, consciousness does evolve over the course of a life time, it does remain faithful to the established self, because it is the established self — Mww

We have self organization all the way through - what guides a sperm and egg, and their subsequent development?

Consciousness is self organization - it organizes the self! At all levels of what constitutes the self. And the self as a whole is conscious! - in a self organizing non hierarchical loop.
Now we get to the really interesting nitty gritty, because whilst consciousness / self organization creates the self, it cannot initiate this itself, it must be initially caused. Then in pondering this we start to look at consciousness beyond life. :smile:

do you think that non-mental being exists? That is existence that has no mental properties whatsoever? — Manuel

In a word no. Of course that assumes we're referring to metaphysical ontology (see video). The theory closest to I think what you're referring to that I embrace is something known as panentheism (not pantheism although I do like Spinoza's versions). In the former instance the universe is thought of being a part of God's cosmological body, as it were. To me, these ideas aren't any more absurd than a platonic reality (Demiurge).

Does science tell us about things in themselves generally? Can we have an idea of what they could be? — Manuel

Great question Manuel. This is the crux of the issue at least for cosmology and theoretical physics anyway. And in trying to make a consistent cogent argument, the easiest answer goes back to a Platonic reality and how unbelievably effective mathematical structures explain the universe.

Once again behind (unseen) the pyramid, the skyscraper, the superstructure of a building, lies obvious mathematical formulas that allow designers to create material beams, trusses, xcetera. Speaking of that, one question could be, can a bridge be built between the existence of abstract mathematical structures and an abstract cosmological God, from which abstract consciousness produces innate Kantian sense of wonderment and causation ?

One common theme or take away there is that the foregoing has one thing in common; metaphysics. Consciousness, wonderment, the will (the world as will-schopenhauer) mathematics... .

I wonder what your definition of metaphysics is? — Pop

Not a definition, per se, more an understanding, found on page three.

To me, these ideas aren't any more absurd than a platonic reality (Demiurge). — 3017amen

Which is not so bad. How we can cash out Platonic reality, is difficult.

Speaking of that, one question could be, can a bridge be built between the existence of abstract mathematical structures and an abstract cosmological God, from which abstract consciousness produces innate Kantian sense of wonderment and causation ? — 3017amen

Well, to speak of God, I'd need to know what kind of entity you have in mind. Is it an all powerful being, supremely good or is it something else? To me, God can be interesting metaphorically, such as the way Mainländer discusses the topic. But literally speaking, I don't find the idea convincing.

Consciousness seems to me to be concrete actually: the most concretely existing thing we can know, as we have it. This of course raises question of what concreteness is, but if what I say is correct (and I could be very wrong) then we need to reconsider our notion of "concrete." The awe is there, no doubt about it. :)

I do think that Schopenhauer's Will is the most promising of these ideas, which perhaps brings us closest to the "thing in itself" that I can think of. Perhaps it needs a slight reformulation, but I find it persuasive.

So these physical objects you have in mind, do they exist mind-independetly, as in, before people existed there were trees, but only after we arose is that the notion or idea of a tree got articulated? — Manuel

Well, we all know the various theories we can adopt here. But the matter or realism versus idealism doesn't interest me much. I'll take quantum waves even though I have no idea what these are. I hold the view that speculative theories about the reality of things in themselves doesn't bring me anything useful.

Well, we all know the various theories we can adopt here. But the matter or realism versus idealism doesn't interest me much. I'll take quantum waves even though I have no idea what these are. I hold the view that speculative theories about the reality of things in themselves doesn't bring me anything useful. — Tom Storm

Interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

nteresting. — Manuel

I dontl think it is interesting. But thanks for your politeness.