I had some pretty momentous acid trips, which were revelatory in their own right….. — Wayfarer

Oh, man, the stories to be told, but only significant to those that already know them. (Sigh)

.

I found kind of a bridge to Catholicism through the Christian mystics and ecumenicals, like Thomas Merton. There's actually a thriving albeit small sub-cultural grouping of Zen Catholicism. The Sermons of Meister Eckhardt are a perennial favourite. I like Richard Rohr. — Wayfarer

I suppose my boring non-Catholic, non-mystical Fundamentalist Protestant upbringing didn't prepare me for mystical experiences. The Bible was not taken as fantasy or mystery, but a literal history & prophecy of mundane events in the past, and things to come. We didn't do any of the fun stuff, like speaking in tongues of angels, or preaching "words of knowledge", or faith healing by laying-on of hands.

In Fire In The Mind, by George Johnson, he reviewed the history of Quantum Physics in Los Alamos & Santa Fe, New Mexico. The subtitle is Science, Faith, and the Search For Order. So he compared & contrasted the rational faith of the scientists, with the ancient mystical beliefs of local Indians (indigenous people). He also noted that the converted Indians found compatible expressions for their traditional mystical experiences in their own local brand of Catholicism.

In the final chapter, A Leap Into The Unknown, the author made this comment : "As we learn from the particle physicists, if we ascend to a higher level of abstraction, things that seem different on the surface suddenly appear as manifestations of a deeper unity". Could that "unity" be the same Monism that we are discussing in this thread? :smile:

I suppose my boring non-Catholic, non-mystical Fundamentalist Protestant upbringing didn't prepare me for mystical experiences. — Gnomon

I had no prep, and at the time, and for many decades later, I never associated that experience with religion. I thought it was about the nature of reality.

"As we learn from the particle physicists, if we ascend to a higher level of abstraction, things that seem different on the surface suddenly appear as manifestations of a deeper unity". Could that "unity" be the same Monism that we are discussing in this thread? :smile: — Gnomon

100%. I think that's the thrust of the book I mentioned at the beginning of the thread (here). I'm endeavouring, once again, to read up on neoplatonism, which provides a metaphysical basis for these ideas, and which Heinrich Pas refers to.

Monism is an odd word in a way, ambiguous by itself. Not contrary to parallel universes, though.

Say, relativity will have spacetime being one whole, if you will, yet with dual aspects, space and time (perhaps more, depending). And, on a simplistic view, energy and mass relate by a constant factor, E=mc².

On another angle, I suppose Princess Elisabeth of the Palatinate and parsimony together suggest monism. After all, what we learn is all connected/related in one way or other, a kind of unity of the reality we know, or (non-hierarchical) holistic "whole" maybe. By that account, the numinous "wholly other" doesn't seem reachable, but an idea alone.

If that makes any sense.

It appears to me that Pas is seriously underrepresenting the work of David Bohm in the Aeon piece.

Bohm, a quantum theorist, had interests in philosophy and Eastern thought. He believed that the whole is fundamental, the pieces are fragments. Anti-reductionism. He wrote about it in a book “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”. It seems to me that Bohm had it worked out far more completely than Pas. You can get a sense of Bohm’s thinking by checking out “Implicate and Explicate Order” in Wikipedia.

Bohm used the notion of holographic film, which has the characteristic that each fragment of film contains the image of the entire hologram. Mysteries such as entanglement become less mysterious with some of Bohm’s ideas.

Bohmian mechanics is an unpopular understanding of quantum behavior, but it makes the exact same experimental predictions as wave mechanics and matrix mechanics. And it is essentially deterministic. It’s probably unpopular because physicists not named Einstein seem to not prefer hidden variables theories. Physicists seem to forget that John Bell studied Bohm’s work which was in part the inspiration for Bell’s Inequality, which indeed demonstrated the viability of Bohm’s non-local hidden variables theory.

Seems to me that Pas is standing on Bohm’s shoulders to a fair extent and should more fully acknowledge such in places such as the Aeon piece.

Fair point. I got that book when it came out, having read his dialogues with Krishnamurti. I haven’t read Pas’ book yet beyond the first few pages but I thought it worth mentioning. (I also understand that Bohm supported pilot wave theory which is basically a realist theory.)

Yes, the Bohm interpretation doesn’t require wave-particle duality. It makes the quantum world causal. For people who don’t like the weirdness of the collapsing wave function (or multi-worlds) it’s an empirically-supportable alternative.

Except that it has been empirically falsified: Famous Experiment Dooms Alternative to Quantum Weirdness

Since monism and theories of physical matter are being discussed, my question is how can our brains ability to perceive time be explained by physical matter that only exists momentarily, instant to instant.

If you can't explain this then your theory of monism has failed. I think it can be done but some thought needs to go into how our brains existing in a physical present have this ability to hold subject matter outside of the physical present as well as endless other subject matter.

Actually, it seems that people who use their brains productively have better instincts about this than the philosophers who fail to explain it.

I've always appreciated Bohmian ontological holism (à la Spinoza?) as a climb up from (and tossing away the ladder) above monism aka "reductionism" which I suspect has contributed during Bohm's lifetime to the unpopularity of his (ontological) interpretation of quantum theory.

In the section, A Matter of Taste, we see that de Broglie did local hidden variables. Von Neumann propagated the notion that hidden variables theories are false, and the notion stuck for decades. Bell got the Nobel for showing that Von Neumann was wrong: Local hidden variables theories may not be able to account for phenomena but non-local hidden variables theories are viable. Bohm’s mechanics is not only a non-local hidden variables theory, it makes exactly the same (correct) predictions as wave/matrix mechanics. One interpretation is as good as another when it gives the right answers and when nobody understands physically what’s going on inside the black box. So we are free to pick the weirdness that we prefer, popular or not - a matter of taste.

Again, my only point was that Pas is seriously short-changing Bohm’s contributions. I don’t mean to disrupt the flow so I’ll bow out.

I'd question that - it is because it is interpreted through the subject-object perspective that we fail to grasp its import. This interpretation subjectivizes or relativizes insight, making it a personal matter, whereas its import is precisely that it is transpersonal. Many will say that there is 'no intersubjective validation' available for such insights, but that is because today's criteria are generally empirical, recognising only what can be observed and validated by sense-perception. — Wayfarer

I just started reading an internet article on the topic of Quantum Theology. Disclosure : Theos Think Tank is a Christian organization "researching the relationship between religion, politics and society". Since I have no religion to defend, my interest in Quantum Theology is related to Phillip Ball's recent book on the philosophy of Quantum Physics : "Beyond Weird".

In the article, what caught my eye was the phrase : "using language to describe things that can’t really be described". In my experience, philosophers have always used specialized language (metaphors, symbols, allegories, etc) to describe concepts that can't be described in physical terms. Ironically. the pioneers of Quantum Physics were forced to describe the objects of their study in unconventional meta-physical language : "non-locality ; "entanglement" ; "superposition", etc. I suspect that the "weirdness" of many of those queer notions derives from the difference between Monistic (metaphysical) and Pluralistic (material) worldviews.

I suppose that ancient mystics were faced with the same problem : how to describe their metaphysical experiences (feelings & imagery) in common subject-object language. Since I have had no experience with "extra-sensory" phenomena, I'm in a similar position with the Mystical realm as to the Quantum realm. I have to try to interpret the esoteric metaphors into concepts that I can relate to. Some people may take their analogies -- e.g. an atom as a miniature solar system --- too literally, because of the limitations of their experience and vocabulary.

I'm not trying to become a mystic --- too old and set in my real-world ways. But I've been led down the meta-physical road by my Information & Quantum based thesis : Enformationism. So, on TPF, I'm just trying to understand what some serious thinkers on this forum are talking about. And why other posters react emotionally/politically to the foreign language of "woo". Other than immersing myself in mystical literature, do you have any suggestions? :smile:


Quotes from essay :
"First, this essay draws from Philip Ball’s recent book Beyond Weird: Why everything you thought you knew about quantum physics is different. Ball is Britain’s leading popular science writer"

"I suspect there are implications in quantum physics for the kind of universe in which believers think they live,if only by casting shadows over the allegedly closed and deterministic Newtonian universe in which, for centuries, we were told we lived. As we will see, it is easy to see why so many philosophically–minded believers, whether religious, spiritual, new agey or secular, make this move."
https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2018/09/14/quantum-theology

Quantum Weirdness : Blog post
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

So, on TPF, I'm just trying to understand what some serious thinkers on this forum are talking about. And why other posters react emotionally/politically to the foreign language of "woo". Other than immersing myself in mystical literature, do you have any suggestions? :smile: — Gnomon

The argot of mysticism has crept into the modern lexicon through various routes. Have a look at a NY Times opinion piece by David Brooks, The Neural Buddhists.

Then there's the mystical element in 'the new physics'. It is certainly true that there's a lot of third-rate content written about the subject but there's a serious core of ideas too (as your reference notes). I read Tao of Physics not long after it was published, and I still regard it. I know many of the mainstream commentators rubbish it, but Capra interviewed Heisenberg extensively for that book, and he does after all hold a doctorate in physics. I interpreted that book in part as the attempt to find an alternative to Aristotelian metaphysics. And I'm sure a lot of the discussion of 'consciousness' is influenced by Eastern philosophy - the Vedanta Society was established in New York in 1894 (see American Veda.) //Oh, and I've always found Paul Davies a congenial science communicator.//

As to the culture wars and woo - I'm often accused of that myself so whatever I say is going to annoy someone. My take is that there really is a battle going on between the materialist worldview and its opponents, but I think that hardcore materialism is loosing that battle. Science itself has become considerably 'greener' in the last few generations, partially because of the growing social consciousness of scientists and the awareness they have of the power science provides and partially because the philosophical model of materialism is seriously challenged by the emergence of new philosophical paradigms. To quote the article you linked to:

The result of all this [i.e. the observer problem], according to the mainstream Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (although note, again, that there is no settled orthodoxy here), is that “the act of measurement actively constructs the reality that is measured.” In the words of Bohr’s colleague Pascual Jordan, “we ourselves produce the results of measurement.”

He goes on:

You can see the religious appeal here. If science has allegedly been the extended story of sidelining humanity as Freud famously thought – first from the centre of the universe (Copernicus), then from the centre of life (Darwin) and then from the centre of ourselves (Freud, of course) – quantum mechanics has done our pride a whole load of good by rediscovering the reality and significance of human subjectivity right at the deepest most intimate level of all creation. “We turned the world inside out”, Bohr tells Heisenberg in Michael Frayn’s play Copenhagen. “Throughout history we keep finding ourselves displaced. We keep exiling ourselves to the periphery of things”:

“Until we come to beginning of the twentieth century, and we’re suddenly forced to rise from our knees again… here in Copenhagen…we discover that there is no precisely determinable objective universe. That the universe exists only as a series of approximations. Only within the limits determined by our relationship with it. Only through the understanding lodged inside the human head.”

(I found the film version of that play recently, with Heisenberg played by Daniel Craig, I think on Amazon Prime.)

Anyway - I'm rambling. But there's some grist for the mill.

As to the culture wars and woo - I'm often accused of that myself so whatever I say is going to annoy someone. My take is that there really is a battle going on between the materialist worldview and its opponents, but I think that hardcore materialism is loosing that battle. — Wayfarer

Although I don't practice any formal religion, including New Age beliefs & practices, I'm often accused of pushing "woo" whenever I mention "Metaphysics". That's ironic, because -- for me -- metaphysical inquiries are all that remain for "feckless" philosophers to do ; since Empirical Science became the dominant practice of rational thinkers, by producing tangible money-making products instead of debatable worthless theories. Until, that is, Quantum Physics pulled the material rug out from under the axioms & assumptions of Classical Physics.

From my superficial study of Aristotle, I concluded that he deliberately divided his encyclopedia of Nature into Material Physics (observations of natural phenomena) and Mental Meta-Physics (ideas about ideas). The former is what later became the focus of Modern Physics & Chemistry & Mechanics. But the latter was eventually adopted by early Catholic theologians as the rules for their philosophical studies.

Those unquestionable authoritative concepts & rules, from "The Philosopher", served them well for the purpose of justifying some counter-intuitive (mystical) notions, such as the Trinity (three persons in one god). A time-honored authority figure wouldn't have been necessary though, if the plebeian Jesus cult hadn't evolved into a world empire, modeled on the official polytheistic state religions of Imperial Rome. Christian theologians were tasked with distinguishing the "True Religion" from both Polytheism and from competing Monotheisms. Their "woo-woo" inter-faith arguments were mostly about un-provable metaphysical beliefs, instead of empirical facts*1.

It's those non-sensical notions that were intellectually offensive to some of the early empiricists, such as Galileo. So, materialistic science could be construed as a protestant movement away from theological "woo". But today, the spiritual authority of ancient theologians & philosophers was undermined by the flood of empirical gadgets to make this mundane life materially better. Until that is, conventional Physics eroded its own material foundation with the discovery of immaterial & non-mechanical Quantum mathematics, where spooky-action-at-a-distance must be accepted as a real thing, and sub-atomic Quanta are no longer deterministic or quantifiable, and hard little atoms have evaporated into ethereal Quantum Fields of inter-relationships*2.

Many of the quantum pioneers began to engage in woo-ish philosophy, as they struggled to understand the real-world implications of mystifying quantum experiments. Yet, more pragmatic scientists decided to ignore the Ideal meanings, and to focus on the Real material products : to "shut-up and calculate". Consequently, Materialism has survived & thrived based on its effectiveness in producing technological tools & marvels. Meanwhile, the philosophy of Quantum reality languishes on opinion-swapping forums.

I have no problem with the Materialism embodied in my cell-phone. But I do take issue with ignoring the philosophical questions raised by the spooky foundations of the material world. If we can't discuss the intellectual products of modern science on a philosophy forum, what's the point of having a theory only forum? The woo-boo-birds don't see a problem with ignoring metaphysics, but I agree with you that the separation of Science (Realism) & Philosophy (Idealism) is a "culture war". And the materialists have the Atomic Bomb on their side (the ethics of power). However, since there is no actual engagement ---between Materialistic Pluralism and Idealistic Monism --- how can we tell who's winning? :smile:



*1. Theological Woo :
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is a phrase that, when used in modern contexts, can be used as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or on questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence, while more urgent concerns accumulate. ___Wikipedia

*2. Quantum Particles are now Continuous Fields :
In the end, we’ve learned that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed on its own. That’s not because of anything weird or spooky that it brought along with it, but because it wasn’t quite weird enough to account for the physical phenomena that actually occur in reality.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-fields-quantum-particles/

A request to either of you gentlemen: (A) please explain why you claim that a metaphysics of materialism (e.g. classical atomism) is "anti-metaphysical" and also, more broadly, (B) explain why, particularly in philosophy, you prioritize 'arguments with non-propositional premises' (re: mental-states (i.e. ideals)) over above 'arguments with propositional premises' (re: more-than-mental-states (i.e. concepts)). :chin:

please explain why you claim that a metaphysics of materialism is "anti-metaphysical" — 180 Proof

The term "metaphysical" refers to concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality (bearing in mind that the Greek-derived 'metaphysical' is a synonym for the Latin-derived 'supernatural'). Metaphysics posits the reality of immaterial or non-physical factors that are not necessarily amenable to empirical observation or scientific investigation. Accordingly, philosophical materialism is considered anti-metaphysical because it rejects such principles. Materialists argue that all phenomena, including consciousness, mental states, and abstract concepts, can ultimately be explained in terms of physical processes and interactions between material entities and that that there is no need to invoke metaphysical explanations when accounting for the nature of reality.

why, particularly in philosophy, you prioritize 'arguments with non-propositional premises' — 180 Proof

I think this is based on the premise that a key characteristic of philosophy is insight. Insight provides an avenue of interpretation which may not be generally available to any and all observers; it is grounded in the judgements of meaning. Buddhologist Edward Conze refers to what he designates 'the perennial philosophy' (which he says includes aspects of classical Western and Eastern philosophhy) which holds (1) that as far as worth-while knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise have found a "wisdom" which is true even though it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on.'

I know you're likely to reject all the above, but as you asked.....

//ps - incidentally, you can see how profoundly non-politically-correct the traditionalist/perennialist attitude is. This surfaces in the link between the perennial school and fascism, e.g. Julian Evola in particular, although he was rather an extreme and eccentric example. But those who hold to the perennialist ideals are generally very ant-modernity - see Mark Sedgewick's book on them, Against All Modernity.

I was drawn to the perennial schools as a consequence of my overall philosophical orientation. I don't feel that sense of profound hostility to the modern world that they do, although I do understand the idea that modern culture is basically deranged in some fundamental way.//

I have no problem with the Materialism embodied in my cell-phone. But I do take issue with ignoring the philosophical questions raised by the spooky foundations of the material world. — Gnomon

Materialism is perfectly sound basis for engineering material outcomes. The issues start when these same principles are applied to the problems of philosophy. In fact that is all that philosophical materialism amounts to. But as you note physics itself has begun to throw physicalism into question (irony of ironies).

Aristotle is enjoying a renaissance, particularly in life sciences, and because of the principles of formal and final causes, on the one side, and aspects of his matter-form (hylomorphic) dualism on the other. See Aristotle's Revenge, Edward Feser.

please explain why you claim that a metaphysics of materialism is "anti-metaphysical" — 180 Proof
The term "metaphysical" refers to concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality (bearing in mind that the Greek-derived 'metaphysical' is a synonym for the Latin-derived 'supernatural'). — Wayfarer

I don't remember ever making such an assertion about "anti-metaphysics". What I usually say, when challenged for evidence, is the obvious fact that metaphysical topics are not amenable to empirical Science*1. Hence, Metaphysics is not provable ; not subject to physical/material evidence. As you noted, such topics "transcend" the classical physics of Newton, and cross-over the invisible line between modern Science and ancient Religion, into a no-man's land of quantum mysticism*2.

Instead, it's usually the Materialists who deny or denigrate traditional metaphysical arguments, on topics such as Consciousness. They seem to be requiring physical evidence of Consciousness, in all the wrong places, such as Neural Substrates. Personally, I don't know what the causal "substrate of Consciousness" is. Only that it is typically associated with Brains & Nerves. So, my discussions usually assume that "C" is not a material object, but a holistic function of material substrates.

On TPF, in posts by presumptive Materialists, the notion of Holism is typically rejected as mystical "woo". Even though the only mysterious feature in question is something like, "what is it like?" (i.e. what does it feel like; what is the form of personal experience?) Yet, when I point out that the term "holism" was actually coined in the 20th century by a Western-trained thinker, they still remain convinced (prejudiced) that it is a nutty New Age notion. Moreover, the basic concept --- although originally presented in terms of Evolutionary theory --- is amenable to Quantum Physics*3, if not to Classical Physics. That may be why several of the quantum pioneers turned to Eastern philosophy for insights into the non-classical, non-mechanical,immaterial aspects of quantum science*2.

As I said before, I have no problem with the pragmatic physical products of material science. It's only the non-physical philosophical mis-interpretations that I take issue with. And I don't substitute Spiritual theories for Mechanical explanations. I try to remain as close to the established physics as possible. Yet, any non-classical physics is quickly dismissed as spiritualistic "woo". So, I have learned the hard way to avoid getting into red-faced Political arguments with hard-line believers (defenders of classical Truth) in the ancient doctrine of Materialism. :smile:

*1.Metaphysics :
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject-matter.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Note -- Ironically, the term "subject-matter" is biased toward Materialism, and seems to exclude immaterial ideas about the material world. For me though, the subject of Meta-Physics is the non-physical aspects of the world. Specifically the mental Ideality of the human mind.

*2. Quantum Mysticism :
Pauli favored a hypothesis of “lucid mysticism,” a synthesis between rationality and religion.
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html
Note -- Wolfgang Pauli was a one of several quantum pioneers who acknowledged the limits of classical mechanical matter-based physics to make sense of the sub-atomic foundation of the real world.

*3. Quantum Holism :
A composite quantum system has properties that are incompatible with every property of its parts.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01438

Aristotle is enjoying a renaissance ... — Wayfarer

A good time for you to actually study his First Philosophy which has come down to us as metaphysics. :smirk:

The term "metaphysical" refers to concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality (bearing in mind that the Greek-derived 'metaphysical' is a synonym for the Latin-derived 'supernatural'). — Wayfarer

Well, at least we agree that materialism (e.g. classical atomism) is anti-"supernatural" (i.e. anti-woo). I prefer the Greek conception of tà metà tà physikà biblía which I'd summarized recently:

... First Philosophy with respect to his Physics. The word 'metaphysics' literally means 'the book after the book on physics'. It is meant to consist of categorical generalizations about nature derived from studying the many domains and particularities of nature. In other words, one must know nature (i.e. physics) in order to understand the principles / limits of physics (i.e. metaphysics). — 180 Proof

Also, an older post ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/667780

To equate the metaphysical with "the supernatural", as you do, Wayfarer, is both contrary to Aristotle's first philosophy (i.e. reflective thinking on what can be known of nature) and a species of irrationalism (i.e. magical thinking ... that transcends nature) which, IMO, is why our disagreements are so intractable – my positions and arguments are mostly grounded in (a version of) first philosophy whereas yours are mostly committed to (perennialist / dharmic) magic, miracles & mysteries. And perversely, you (and like-minded others) frequently make use of modern physical sciences in ad hoc attempts to justify anti-physical ideas, or ideals, about "reality" which you believe in.

I don't remember ever making such an assertion about "anti-metaphysics". — Gnomon

Well, here's a post in which you use "anti-metaphysical prejudice" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781277
... and elsewhere "opposes / blocks philosophical speculation" (i.e. metaphysics) and "anti-philosophical". Remember now? :smirk:

All tip and no iceberg, man — Wayfarer

At last, a confession. They say it's good for the anatta. :up:

The term "metaphysical" refers to concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality (bearing in mind that the Greek-derived 'metaphysical' is a synonym for the Latin-derived 'supernatural'). Metaphysics posits the reality of immaterial or non-physical factors that are not necessarily amenable to empirical observation or scientific investigation. — Wayfarer

Materialism is a metaphysical standpoint. Metaphysics is not restricted to "concepts or principles that transcend the physical or empirical realm and are typically associated with supernatural aspects of reality". Also 'metaphysics' is not synonymous with 'supernatural'; the former term, in its "popular" sense may share some associations with 'supernatural', but not so in its philosophical sense. There is no 'philosophy of the supernatural'.

Why posit monism? Because that is the truth. Monism is true and when the time comes everyone will acknowledge monism. The one supreme reality that is held by monism goes under many names. Many people along with I call it God. It is relatively easy to prove monism. Here we go. You first acknowledge that there is one existence, then you acknowledge that such existence exists. You then acknowledge that everything is a derivation of Existence, and nothing else. Even nothing is a derivation of Existence. Existence is Infinity, and that does mean Existence is both finite and infinite at the same time. When we look at Existence, we can use logic and laws to reason about Existence, but if we look inside of Existence, then we shall know that even logic and law is a derivation of Existence and not a supreme reality.

Why posit monism? — IP060903

My guess is that it's much easier to cope with – much more intuitive – than voidism (Democritean / Buddhist).

What's voidism?

I don't remember ever making such an assertion about "anti-metaphysics". — Gnomon
Well, here's a post in which you use "anti-metaphysical prejudice" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781277
... and elsewhere "opposes / blocks philosophical speculation" (i.e. metaphysics) and "anti-philosophical". Remember now? :smirk: — 180 Proof

FYI, the reference to "anti-metaphysical prejudice" was about the "pro-science, anti-philosophy" attitude common to devotees of Materialism*1. Not to anything that could be interpreted as "anti-metaphysics" on my part. Ooops! apparently, your "anti-metaphysical prejudice" did cause you to make that reversal of my intention. This is just another instance of the reason I tried to stop giving you fodder for exercising your preconceptions against non-empirical philosophical Meta-physics*2. Which you smirkingly interpret as "super-natural"*3. Oooops! I did it again -- trying to reason with a shuttered mind. It's like looking into a warped fun-house mirror.

As I have explained repeatedly though, I am not aware of anything supernatural in the natural world*4. The Meta-Physics I talk about is simply the products of a human mind : Ideas. Apparently, Materialists are forced by their dogma to assume that Ideas are material objects, that can be probed by the tools of physical science. By the same presumption, Consciousness would not be a debatable metaphysical notion, but a provable empirical physical object --- or collection of objects such as the Neural net.

FWIW, I don't think Consciousness is a super-natural phenomenon. It's a mundane feature of the real world, inhabited by thinking & sensing creatures. But Consciousness per se is a holistic Function of the neural net, not something physical. A Function is not a thing, but a relationship between things in a holistic system. For example, the function of the eye is Vision. You could destroy Vision by removing the eye. But unless you could reattach all the rest of the occular system, that eye alone would be blind. Vision is not in the eye, but in the system of interrelationships. BTW, the practical scientific application of Holism is known as "Systems Theory". :smile:

PS__ I use the term "Materialism" -- descriptively, not derogatorily -- to describe your standpoint in contrast to my own personal worldview. Yet, I could also use "Physicalism" or "Naturalism" or "Realism". Your criticism of my posts seems to indicate an antipathy to what you imagine to be "Spiritualism". But I labeled my personal worldview as Enformationism, because Quantum science & Information theory have discovered that Information plays two different roles in reality : both Matter and Mind. You may not agree with that interpretation, but it's my personal opinion, not a formal religion --- no spooky ghosts or supernatural magic --- just spooky "action at a distance", and the mundane mystery of Consciousness. Hence, no reason for hostility. Unless, you are afraid it is an aggressive challenge to your own personal belief system. It's not intended that way. For all Practical purposes, I am also a Materialist. It's only in impractical Philosophical purposes that I feel free to look at reality from a different perspective. :cool:


*1. Gnomon reply to Universeness on the Emergence thread :
No. I'm merely trying to untie the ropes of anti-metaphysical prejudice that dump all non-physical notions into the anti-science (religious) waste-bin.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/781277

*2. Ironically, you keep trying to re-open a dead-end dialog. If you think Gnomon is such an idiot, why bother? Yet "blind faith" can be defined as doing the same thing, while expecting different results. Dialoging is not about winning.

*3. Smirk : one of your favorite smilies : :smirk:
to smile in an irritatingly smug, conceited, or silly way.
Note -- a smirk usually is a sign of a supercilious attitude :
behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others.

*4. Super-natural :
When a philosophical dialogue goes beyond the limits of the Natural universe, we are treading on Super-Natural turf. You may imagine the hypothetical Multiverse or Many Worlds theories as-if they are natural things, but they are definitely not subject to empirical proving. Hence, by my definition, they are just as super-natural as a Heavenly World. Or perhaps, since those theories exist in human minds. they must be natural. Be careful how you use that notion. It could work both ways.

More (disingenous) word-salad. :lol:

Nirvana?

"... voidism (Democritean / Buddhist)." ~180 Proof

Voidism= Nirvana gives rise to Nevermind (also an album reference).

Now your "never mind" has disappeared into the eternal ether....never mind. :wink:

Another question: "Why Monism why not moremonism". Apologies...I'm losing the serious...