How can "a beyond" the here and now provide "something better" to us within the here and now?

As a non-"materialist", what is it (ontically? epistemically?) about the material that you oppose?

What do you mean by "reality"? — 180 Proof

I agree with you (emphatically) in questioning whether "a beyond" can provide anything of value for the here and now. That sort of statement is at the core of my conclusions about reality.

What I oppose about materialism is that it is exclusively the domain of what is real; of reality. There are obviously other aspects of our existence that transcend the physical. But none of which are unscientific.

By "reality" I mean that which we encounter and can verify or measure.

A great story that nicely illustrates this all is "The Celestine Prophecy".

I don’t think it is reasonable because it involves the same activity: holding out for something better than the world. Theism is idealism run amok. It’s an exercise in slandering or dismissing the world, and holding oneself (one’s ideas, consciousness, mind) over and above it.

The problem with seeking the middle and not leaning one way or the other is that you never get to help decide where the center is. — NOS4A2

I can see what you're saying; that I might be playing the same game as theism, by looking to "a beyond" for something better. And that it is difficult to know where the middle truly is, without taking one side or the other. These are good points.

In my observations, the paranormal and metaphysical are part of this materialist world. There is no need for overlap of distinct realms or faith in anything to validate/explain such a reality. It is rather the state of science, measurement and a desire to earnestly look that prevents our species from legitimizing the existence of what is presently designated as "woo woo".

I'm not one to use Quantum Physics as a means to explain spiritual principles. Instead, I rely heavily on the work of pioneers such as Jeffrey Mishlove in the field of Parapsychology, to help explore these phenomena. As well as the words and wisdom of different religions, found throughout human history.

I conclude that by trusting my own experiences, studying the extremes of this spectrum and remaining mindful, that it seems possible to deduct where the middle is, or somewhere nearby. And to live in the now moment without a desire for inter-dimensional transcendence. My perspective isn't to escape an earthly life for a heaven or hell; it is to enrich my life in the domains that I already exist within.

You might enjoy The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. — Athena

Thank you for the recommendation. I have added it to my list of books to consider buying in the near-future. I am a big fan of literature that seeks to fuse seemingly incompatible paradigms, into a new coherent understanding of the universe.

Clarify what you mean by "reasonable" in this context. Thanks. — 180 Proof

In this context, the word "reasonable" means "sound" or "obvious".

More no, than yes. We certainly dream or hallucinate our realities to some extent. But freewill is real. So the ability to create change (anywhere, at will) is ultimately a matter of one's karma, awareness, discipline, desire and ability to "take the leap".

Anything is possible, and you're both The Architect and Neo from The Matrix trilogy.

We're inside of overlapping quasi-subliminal lucid dreams. Both collectively and individually.

I completely agree with you. The word "supernatural" is vacuous. And misleading. But it is how the unfamiliar is labeled. So it is a useful label to use here, I think.

The truth must always be the goal... — chiknsld

I genuinely agree with you. The truth is the most important objective here, or anywhere in life really.

...rather than games of rhetoric, though it is nice to have fun. — chiknsld

But it is important to appreciate that "the truth" is a matter of results. Ideally beheld with fun embedded within.

If good code is wisdom and artificial intelligence is a shortcut, then your claim would make some sense. Trouble is, I'm not convinced that good code is wisdom (or is comparable to wisdom). Neither would I want to call wisdom "what works, what is effective." Usually when we talk about wisdom we are talking about something more than that, and that something is not particularly susceptible to shortcuts. Maybe another way to say, "Beware of unearned wisdom," is, "Don't make the mistake of confusing that bumper sticker with wisdom." "Do not believe that you are wise because you have read lots of bumper stickers, or because you spend a good deal of time on Facebook." — Leontiskos

You make good points here. And I agree with another commenter that I should have defined wisdom at the beginning of this thread. With that said, my core assertion here is that sudden enlightenment is possible, even probable, for anyone who seeks it. But there are prisons and firewalls constructed by man to prevent this artificially scarce resource (true wisdom) from being shared.

I do however, disagree that simple expressions cannot hold wisdom, such as bumper stickers. It is my observation that such things are more often doorways to exponential growth. And while a bumper sticker may not be the truth or wisdom itself, their significance is best not to be underplayed.

About protecting something, you made me remember that both in religions and in ancient philosophy we find an interest to keep certain knowledge secret. — Angelo Cannata

This is something I'm familiar with, yes. Occult secrets are kept as such, as you refer to, for many different reasons. Some of those justifications include the protection of said information and tools. As well as maintaining powerful agendas.

In my studies, I've even read that the Great Mysteries have a life force of their own, and are capable of revealing "itself"/"themselves" to the correct initiates, at the appropriate time. One of the common reasons given for this is keeping powerful gnosis away from the unprepared.

But, in my opinion, this perspective doesn't work for the betterment of mankind. It keeps a few priests in charge of truth. When every human is capable of receiving and digesting "major wisdoms", from the moment they choose to do so.

I certainly hope the spirit of the shaman is strong somewhere in the world. It is a tree and forest that has been cut down. — 0 thru 9

I've seen the shamanic spirit take flight again in our modern times. But only in pockets of the world at the same moment. In other words, those individuals who are interested in shamanism, often need to travel substantial distances before they find a similar person.

That's an interesting question. In programming an unapplied value is generally considered wasteful and ultimately ignored.

In computer programming, the word "logic" is a reference to the,

...set of rules, algorithms, and conditions that determine the behavior of a program. It's the part of the code that makes decisions, performs calculations, and controls the flow of data.

While there are industry-wide standards for how programs (and any related logic) should be structured, Developers are able to build anything they want, anything they can imagine. And as long as their work meets requirements, such a thing/process is an example of software.

Based on these observations and similar experiences, I have come to conclude that "logic" is primarily "applied values".

To embed a YouTube video, I click on the camera icon at the top of the text area, when creating a new thread or writing a response.

Thank you for the reference. I checked out the track, and love it. For those who are curious, here is an embed of the media being referred to:



I can definitely see how this example of trance music could help bring about (inspire) a state of "oneness" when dancing with hundreds of other ravers. That is exactly what the modern shamanistic urge looks like.

My apologies for the delay in responding to your question.

I think the best example of shamanistic behaviors and people in today's world, is the global "techno rave scene", that originally came out of London in the early 90's. These folks gather(ed) specifically for entering states of group trance, sometimes called "oneness". With the DJ acting as a sort of shaman, for the night.

This "fundamental element of one-ness" is actually really simple. It's the fundamental fact that everything arises from a single origin, the Big Bang. The Big Bang created everything that exists in the universe, and everything (down to the cellular level) is made up of the same base components. Therefore, even though you are a small individual and the earth is a big planet, you and the earth are both made out of the same basic building blocks. In reality, you and the earth are made of the same stuff, and you are really one with the universe at a fundamental level.

I agree 100% that we are largely disconnected from our nature, not only because we have advanced technologically, but also because we have advanced socially. We are not meant to live in concrete jungles, but rather in nature among the trees and animals and plants.

You're also not wrong that many cultures and individuals are trying to get back in touch with their nature and their spirituality. A good example of this is the resurgence in interest in Paganism and spiritual beliefs.

I disagree with you on the idea that it is impossible to become 'one with all' and I will base my belief on the idea of a universal consciousness. I believe that everything is connected, that everything in the universe is part of a single, interconnected whole. This includes the planets and the stars, the trees and the fungus, humans and jellyfish. Everything is connected, everything is one.

This means that shamanism and the connectedness with nature is not a delusion, but a reflection of the fundamental connections we share with each and every single being in existence.

I would argue that all imagination is connected to the spirit world, and all forms of art are an attempt by humans to engage with the spirit world that we can neither see nor touch. There is no difference between a painter and a shaman, one simply uses different tools than the other.

This is also where the overlap between science and spirituality occurs, as they both seek to understand the universe and the spirit world, although from vastly different perspectives.

I would also argue that AI actually has a lot to tell us about the spirit world, as it's our own creations becoming semi-independent of us.

I'm currently reading "Dune and Philosophy: Minds, Monads, and Muad'Dib", as edited by Kevin S. Decker and William Irwin. The book contains a collection of recently published essays, each comparing and contrasting our reality with that of the Dune universe. The two dozen or so authors found within this book are essentially using the original Dune narrative, to see into our own world.

I've found the first few chapters to be rather interesting, and especially appreciate the insights into Bene Gesserit wisdom that I've gleaned so far. There are other chapters in the book that I'm especially looking forward to reading, some of which focus on technology, synchronicity and other similar topics.

I do think people, when properly inspired, deeply value the truth. But when they've been lied to since the beginning of history, it can be hard for an individual to first identify and then embrace truth.

It is my opinion that it's the responsibility of the truth-teller to present said information "properly". As that happens, the truth is almost always chosen.

This is an amazing opportunity. Thank you for putting this together.

I would like to ask Prof. Chomsky, "In his opinion, who is the most significant American philosopher alive today?"

If he's willing to answer a second question, I would also like to ask, "In his opinion, who is the most significant Russian philosopher alive today?"

I will definitely be here for his answer(s) in June.

"The Great Silence" is an illusion, I remarked, for those who don't have post-Singularity ears to hear the "Music of the Spheres" playing between and beyond the stars. — 180 Proof

This is beautifully said. Well done.

The interaction with other intelligent lives through AI chats will be frustrating if we do not achieve a common language for such cause previously. — javi2541997

Indeed. I remember scenes from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, where color and sound were used for engaging with higher intelligences. That might be something to look into?

First, there is the simple fact of other intelligent life — Vera Mont

I'm also sympathetic to the notion that higher intelligence does exist, somewhere in the cosmos. While this universe is ultimately finite, it's too vast for us to be the only ones in it. Life seems to be a default, wherever it's possible.

Second, and rather more important, is the question of how that intelligent alien responds to us. — Vera Mont

There certainly is a whole range of possible encounter scenarios that are possible. Based on many of the "experiencer" accounts that I've been introduced to, most interactions with higher dimensional intelligences are overwhelmingly, positive and transformative for the individual(s) involved.

There are going to be many enormous consequences of AI in the very near future, let's not introduce imponderable questions such as higher intelligences into the equation. — Wayfarer

My apologies if this thread was inappropriate. My intention was only to relay some information and context that has changed my perspective on AI as a whole.

It can also be a formidable search engine when you are seeking something that you can only broadly describe conceptually without having sufficient keywords to pin it down, like a movie that you saw, or book that you read eons ago. — Pierre-Normand

This is quite true. I've used ChatGPT in a similar fashion. It does a really good job of summarizing complexity. Which can then lead to specific keyword searches. Or not, as it might be able to (as you mention) bring you the resources you need, directly.

I've been working with ChatGPT (using the GPT4 model) for a while, and have enjoyed the information and perspective(s) that this tool brings to me. I still use Google for almost all of my information finding, but ChatGPT andGPT4 are now a daily thing for me.

I asked ChatGPT (using the GPT-4 model) to summarize your first conversation, about the movie titled "Momento". Here is what the AI had to say:

In this conversation, the user (PN) and the AI (GPT4) discuss the movie Memento and its protagonist, Leonard Shelby, who suffers from anterograde amnesia. GPT4 explains the film's unique narrative structure and its importance in Christopher Nolan's filmography. The user points out a parallel between Shelby's cognitive ailment and GPT4's memory deficit. Initially, GPT4 discusses the differences between their memory limitations, but the user clarifies that the parallel is about how Shelby uses notes, photographs, and tattoos to carry forward new memories and how GPT4 can "remember" information within a single conversation using its token window. GPT4 acknowledges the similarity and highlights the strategies both Shelby and the AI use to cope with their respective memory limitations.

It is indeed amazing to me how succinct, yet self-reflective the response is. I use ChatGPT everyday for work and pleasure. It's amazing how good it is.

I agree that first-hand experience is often the best way. But sometimes text-books and classrooms are useful. It depends what you are trying to learn. — Ludwig V

Agreed! Textbooks and classrooms can be incredibly useful in providing a more theoretical view of a subject and giving us the tools we need to understand our own experience. For example, when we read a textbook we can learn about the anatomy of the human body and how it functions. This allows us to better understand and process what we are experiencing. So both first-hand experience and the theoretical approach are essential for learning and gaining knowledge. There is no one right answer.

The issue with this is that people perceive things with certainty through their senses all the time and yet are mistaken in their conclusions. Given this, I am skeptical that we can readily identify how we can tell when someone knows something this way. Something else needs to be present. — Tom Storm

Yes, good point. It is difficult to know how reliable our senses can be sometimes. To gain true certainty of our senses, we need to think critically and logically about what we are experiencing. This is what I would consider true knowledge. This type of knowledge is not just a "gut feeling" or random, irrational thought. Instead, it is a logical conclusion that we arrive at based on experience. When we think critically and logically about what we experience through our senses, then we can gain a greater degree of certainty about our experience.

Yes. That's why Russell thought that knowledge by acquaintance was important - and different from knowledge by description (i.e. at second hand).

Odd, though, that direct experience of an event is well known not to make one a reliable witness. Perhaps it is over-rated? — Ludwig V

Perhaps! But I still think that first-hand experience is the best way to learn something and therefore the best way to obtain knowledge. To learn about something through a textbook or through another person is never as useful as to have experienced it yourself. But of course, this is just my perspective.

Well, this is certainly quite something. I don't think I have ever thought this deeply before about computation. I believe that your explanation that computation is simply a description of how we perceive abstract objects to be is a compelling argument. It does seem that computation is very closely connected to causality, so I think that a very strong argument could be made that computation in this sense is identical to causation in the sense of a physical event having an effect on other physical events.

Thank you for sharing. I believe that my own understanding of computation has been significantly improved.

What an interesting question! I love it! Well, I think that we can never define a clear-cut definition of knowledge. I think that to know something is to experience it and therefore to perceive it in an undoubtable way. The philosopher Kant talks about this in his work "The Critique of Pure Reason". I strongly recommend that you read it if you are interested in the foundation of knowledge. To summarize: you only know something when you have perceived it undoubtably through your senses.

I asked the new GPT-4 AI to explain Stoicism to me, and this is what I was greeted with:



Thoughts?

Thank you for the video from the Esoterica YT channel. It's one of my favorite such channels. Although, I haven't seen this particular upload before. I will give it a watch.

The point of the OP is that I don't believe that burden could be met. — Art48

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

...declaring something supernatural seems, to repeat myself, presumptuous and foolish. — Art48

Are you saying that every thing and every phenomenon is therefore squarely within the laws of Nature?

...not ready for prime time... — Wayfarer

I will agree with you that this particular AI is not ready for prime time, yet. But I align with the following quote more entirely:

AI is not about repeating what it has downloaded even if that is masterfully masked by paraphrasing and word substitution. Real AI should provide us with solutions to problems like global warming, poverty, diseases, etc. — Agent Smith

A real Artificial Intelligence will bridge all of human perspective/consciousness, and offer us a truly "bird's-eye view" perspective on things that matter. The integration of ChatGPT (or Sydney) into Bing Search is (in my opinion) ultimately inconsequential when looking at the impact of "real AI" on human life.

Hello everyone, and thank you for your insights. I don't claim to be a philosopher, or even able to effectively philosophize. But, just as many of your have indicated, starting with curiosity is a good and worthy beginning. Which is why I asked this question; I would like to do better, to be better at this aspect of life, the doing and churning of philosophy.

I am taking my time to read through your responses, and what strikes me as interesting, is (what appears to me to be) a fairly common thread. That being a sort of eager and earnest anxiety about understanding. Be that life, or existence or human consciousness. Whatever the motivation, there seems to be a need to (firstly) consider and (secondly) integrate the what, why, how, where, when and who of this universe. And that's appealing to my philosophically inexperienced brain.

Believe me or not, I cherish my interactions on this forum. I've been set straight on a number of (in my humble opinion) critical arenas of consideration. With the vessel of that course correction being philosophical dialogue. And just as Joseph Campbell's monomyth depicts, there will always be something more to explore. But after having asked the question at the center of this thread, I'm pleased to know that this journey well underway. And possible.