Philosophical Speculations

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:35 am

What you are describing above is the "naïve realist" view (in modern philosophy and science) - "things" continue to exist with all their properties when there is no agency observing them. It is not just me who rejects that view,

There is really no big difference I can see in BK or Adur's view since there is always the mind at large observing. So "things" continue to exist anyway with the only difference being whether observation is happening or not. Since the mind at large isn't metacognitive (so it isn't aware it is observing), there becomes almost a distinction without a difference between the two views.

There is a major difference - MAL is not a 'thing' which observes, it is observation itself. It is life; it is willing, feeling, thinking. As in classical theology, God is Love, Power, Goodness, and so on. Under idealism of this sort (or any consistent sort), there is no possibility of non-observation, non-life, etc.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:57 am
Simon, it almost seems to me as if you are now questioning the very tenets of philosophical idealism. Is that the case? Because, under idealism, there cannot ever exist non-ideal events, or "non-living" entities that just behaved mechanically before life emerged.

So why is the world so consistent then? Every time I go up into my loft, everything is exactly as it was when I left it, except if the roof has developed a leak. What I see and feel and touch when I go up there is clearly what is represented to my senses and not a true insight into the reality. Nonetheless it has a substance which represents in exactly the same way each time, no matter who goes up there, or what instruments you use. We know from QM that the way in which it represents at the particle level is a kind of fuzzy mapping that is only defined as part of an interaction, but equally we know from basic experience that at the macro level there is undeniable consistency.

I do pass some blame to BK on this confusion, because he speaks as though time progresses in a linear fashion and MAL goes from mere "phenomenal consciousness" (instinctive animal) to "meta-consciousness" (living organism), and therefore life emerged within MAL at some point in time by dissociation process.

Every once in awhile, though, he makes clear that linear time is simply a representation of certain living beings and that "meta-consciousness" is dependent on from what perspective we are viewing the world processes, i.e. from MAL perspective or 'alter' perspective? From perspective of limited capacity of perception-thought, meta-consciousness did arise at some time. From perspective of infinite capacity (MAL), nothing is ever meta-conscious because such representational thinking is unnecessary.

So I cannot really figure out what position he really holds to in this regard. And I agree with a lot of findingblanks' posts which have pointed out these inconsistencies.

I think there is a genuine reason why he insists on the inanimate universe having substance and essence, which is that it’s a common sense assumption and fundamental to us doing any science at all. I agree there are inconsistencies, such as him claiming M@L timeless, but also evolving over time. In fact I think many idealists have this problem because they confuse the the screen of perception with M@L. One is timeless, the other is not. If the attention is focused purely on itself, then time can fall away to reveal the screen of perception. But if M@L’s attention was purely directed on itself, there would be no universe.

Leaving BK's position aside, even though he prompted your original post, we must be careful in our terms. You now switched from "life" to "anything corporeal". There is a big difference there, because non-corporeal life can still experience and reflect on the world-content. Instead of just responding to points I am not even sure you are making anymore, let me just ask - what is your position on all of this? Do you think simple, non-living, non-reflective mental states existed for billions of years and then "non-reflective life" emerged 3+ billion years ago, and then "reflective life" a few hundred thousand years ago?

If you’re talking about ‘biological’ life, then yes.

What you are describing above is the "naïve realist" view (in modern philosophy and science) - "things" continue to exist with all their properties when there is no agency observing them. It is not just me who rejects that view, but pretty much all idealist philosophers back to Plato all the way through to Aquinas. That is why, to me, it seems like you are now critiquing the entire foundation of philosophical idealism. And I once again ask - what is your evidence for reaching the bolded conclusion? It can only be the assumption (not evidence) of a 3rd person spectator perspective which simply does not exist.

No I’m not talking about Naive realism because I see physical properties as emerging as part of an interaction. However there is something that exists which causes the same physical properties to represent each time, for any observer.

I don’t see why you think Plato or Aquinas etc didn’t accept that there was a “thing in itself”, as Kant called it. For Plato the properties are the shadows on the wall, but there is still the form that causes the shadow. For Aquinas what do you think he was referring to by “essence”?

Simon Adams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:47 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:57 am
Simon, it almost seems to me as if you are now questioning the very tenets of philosophical idealism. Is that the case? Because, under idealism, there cannot ever exist non-ideal events, or "non-living" entities that just behaved mechanically before life emerged.

So why is the world so consistent then? Every time I go up into my loft, everything is exactly as it was when I left it, except if the roof has developed a leak. What I see and feel and touch when I go up there is clearly what is represented to my senses and not a true insight into the reality. Nonetheless it has a substance which represents in exactly the same way each time, no matter who goes up there, or what instruments you use. We know from QM that the way in which it represents at the particle level is a kind of fuzzy mapping that is only defined as part of an interaction, but equally we know from basic experience that at the macro level there is undeniable consistency.

I do pass some blame to BK on this confusion, because he speaks as though time progresses in a linear fashion and MAL goes from mere "phenomenal consciousness" (instinctive animal) to "meta-consciousness" (living organism), and therefore life emerged within MAL at some point in time by dissociation process.

Every once in awhile, though, he makes clear that linear time is simply a representation of certain living beings and that "meta-consciousness" is dependent on from what perspective we are viewing the world processes, i.e. from MAL perspective or 'alter' perspective? From perspective of limited capacity of perception-thought, meta-consciousness did arise at some time. From perspective of infinite capacity (MAL), nothing is ever meta-conscious because such representational thinking is unnecessary.

So I cannot really figure out what position he really holds to in this regard. And I agree with a lot of findingblanks' posts which have pointed out these inconsistencies.

I think there is a genuine reason why he insists on the inanimate universe having substance and essence, which is that it’s a common sense assumption and fundamental to us doing any science at all. I agree there are inconsistencies, such as him claiming M@L timeless, but also evolving over time. In fact I think many idealists have this problem because they confuse the the screen of perception with M@L. One is timeless, the other is not. If the attention is focused purely on itself, then time can fall away to reveal the screen of perception. But if M@L’s attention was purely directed on itself, there would be no universe.

Leaving BK's position aside, even though he prompted your original post, we must be careful in our terms. You now switched from "life" to "anything corporeal". There is a big difference there, because non-corporeal life can still experience and reflect on the world-content. Instead of just responding to points I am not even sure you are making anymore, let me just ask - what is your position on all of this? Do you think simple, non-living, non-reflective mental states existed for billions of years and then "non-reflective life" emerged 3+ billion years ago, and then "reflective life" a few hundred thousand years ago?

If you’re talking about ‘biological’ life, then yes.

What you are describing above is the "naïve realist" view (in modern philosophy and science) - "things" continue to exist with all their properties when there is no agency observing them. It is not just me who rejects that view, but pretty much all idealist philosophers back to Plato all the way through to Aquinas. That is why, to me, it seems like you are now critiquing the entire foundation of philosophical idealism. And I once again ask - what is your evidence for reaching the bolded conclusion? It can only be the assumption (not evidence) of a 3rd person spectator perspective which simply does not exist.

No I’m not talking about Naive realism because I see physical properties as emerging as part of an interaction. However there is something that exists which causes the same physical properties to represent each time, for any observer.

I don’t see why you think Plato or Aquinas etc didn’t accept that there was a “thing in itself”, as Kant called it. For Plato the properties are the shadows on the wall, but there is still the form that causes the shadow. For Aquinas what do you think he was referring to by “essence”?

For all of those people, the supersensible world was a realm of living archetypal beings. And they were directly responsible for all phenomenonal appearances in Nature. So the question of "what happens if two rocks collide and there is no living being observing it?" is meaningless. It would have never occurred for them to ask such a question. Only in the modern era do such questions become possible, but they are still equally meaningless as they were before. That's the basic point I am making here. Humans participate in co-creation of the phenomenonal world and, although we have forgotten our essential role in this unfolding drama, we have that role nevertheless and must take it seriously.

Adur Alkain wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:06 am
To answer your question about the double-slit experiment, what I mean is this: entanglement means a correlation between measurement probabilities. If we say "particles A and B are entangled", what we mean is that the probabilities of measuring A in certain states are correlated with the probabilitites of measuring B in corresponding states. So, in the double-slit experiment, if we don't put a detector at the double slit, then there is no correlation between the photons going through the left slit or the right slit and the state of our sensory system. But if we introduce that detector, to figure out through which slit the photons are going, we are creating an entanglement between the location of the photons as they go through one slit or the other, and the state of our sensory system. Without the detector, our sensory system is only entangled with the location of the photons when they reach the screen (where we see the interference pattern). With the detector in place, our sensory system is entangled with the location of the photons both when they reach the screen and when they pass through the double slit (and in this case we don't see an interference pattern). Do you see what I mean?

I do, but if you have self destructing detectors, the ‘collapse’ still happens. So you are saying that the photon is entangled as a result of our intention to measure? How do you explain the experiments where the detectors are randomly added and removed by a computer?

I find your Platonic model quite interesting and suggestive. Am I correct in thinking that it's a kind of panpsychism? In my view, panpsychism is the only valid alternative to idealism.

No, not at all. I find panpsychism to be a very materialist way of seeing things. It adds problems but doesn’t provide any real explanatory power. There is a way in which things form from parts that I guess could be something like panpsychism, but I think it’s a misunderstanding of what consciousness is.

I’m very much a theist (catholic), but see the universe / M@L / world soul as fundamentally more like what we call mind than anything else we have words for. It’s a space created inside god, a kind of void of potential, with it’s own telos.

What you say gave me the idea, which had never occured to me before, that particles like photons can be understood as waves or clouds of probabilities that, when they interact with each other, collapse into definite states. And that collapse gives rise to physical properties, and to physical reality, as you say. I think it's an idea worth exploring!

I suspect it’s both simpler than we think and beyond our ability to conceptualise. My best guess is that space and time ‘fold out’ from a substrate that itself has space-like and time-like dimensions. This sub-space is mental, so things can be associated/joined/entangled with each other in this ‘realm’, even when they are separated in representational space/time. It’s a bit like in your mind, when certain smells or music are entangled with a certain experience.

The question, I guess, is what is the difference between observations/interactions that collect information, and those that don’t. There seems to be a fundamental law of nature that one substantial form/essence obtaining information from another during an interaction fixes the ‘Shroedinger mapping’ between sub-space and representational-space. But at another level it’s fairly simple, the material in the slit captures no information from the photon, the detector does.

Still who knows, it’s all a great big mystery, and when we understand it properly, all of us will probably be proven wrong.

Simon Adams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:47 pm So why is the world so consistent then? Every time I go up into my loft, everything is exactly as it was when I left it, except if the roof has developed a leak. What I see and feel and touch when I go up there is clearly what is represented to my senses and not a true insight into the reality. Nonetheless it has a substance which represents in exactly the same way each time, no matter who goes up there, or what instruments you use. We know from QM that the way in which it represents at the particle level is a kind of fuzzy mapping that is only defined as part of an interaction, but equally we know from basic experience that at the macro level there is undeniable consistency.

What you are referring as "consistent" is neither "world" or even sensing, just how linguistic etc. conditioning of your beliefs and expectations is guiding your attention and metacognitive narration.

As for 'consistent', I don't know what you mean and are trying to say by that word. I does not seem that your are referring to the logical meaning, but just make a list of certain phenomena and aspects that appear as having some degree of continuity or permanence. "Exactly" cannot refer to any absolute identity, only to certain degree of similarities under some metric resolution.

When I visit the summer place of our extended family, I first make a round to see how the plant people are growing and doing, to get acquainted and rooted in the current duration of the general flux.

So, why are there some highly mechanized and predictable continuities? Because of our volition and choice to create and make so.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:43 pm
For all of those people, the supersensible world was a realm of living archetypal beings. And they were directly responsible for all phenomenonal appearances in Nature.

I would say that instead, they claimed that all things originated from, and had their being in, the good, the one, god. So their being is sustained by Being, but that being gives them independent existence from each other (even if not independent from Being).

The archetypes are the ideas that shape them, that define their essence and their telos, rather than “archetypal beings”.

So the question of "what happens if two rocks collide and there is no living being observing it?" is meaningless. It would have never occurred for them to ask such a question.

Perhaps, but only because they had not discovered quantum physics. Nonetheless it would be wrong to say they had no insight into this, as it’s very much a question of when potential turns into actual in their terms.

Only in the modern era do such questions become possible, but they are still equally meaningless as they were before. That's the basic point I am making here. Humans participate in co-creation of the phenomenonal world and, although we have forgotten our essential role in this unfolding drama, we have that role nevertheless and must take it seriously.

No I don’t agree. If mankind decides to start a nuclear WW3, obliterating all life in a nuclear winter, and all life becomes incorporeal, there will still be “things in themselves” that previously represented to us as earth, the moon, the sun etc. I do think that as we are, we are far more than we could possibly imagine in this life. In some ways that’s why we are so constrained behind ‘the veil’, why there is a need for suffering, for us to experience feeling weak and helpless etc.

Nonetheless, it’s only our experience of the world that we co-create, as well as others experience of the world. The cherry tree outside my window has it’s own being. It may have been planted by someone, and in that sense it was co-created by a human. When I look at it, or smell it, or touch it, I am co-creating that experience. But I am not co-creating the tree. Nothing I can do in my observation of that tree will change the way another person observes the tree (unless I communicate with them).

For the physical world of representation, it is only ever an “us” experience, never a “them” or “I” experience. But “things in themselves” are always “I”, and to deny their individual being separate from our observation of them is like a kind of physicalism, in that you’re treating the ‘only “us”’ representation as being the same as the “I” of the “thing in itself”.

The universe was ‘something’ for the billions of years before we existed, and I can’t imagine any philosophy that denies that ever being more than a fringe belief (even if all philosophers end up holding that belief!).

SanteriSatama wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:39 pm
What you are referring as "consistent" is neither "world" or even sensing, just how linguistic etc. conditioning of your beliefs and expectations is guiding your attention and metacognitive narration.

As for 'consistent', I don't know what you mean and are trying to say by that word. I does not seem that your are referring to the logical meaning, but just make a list of certain phenomena and aspects that appear as having some degree of continuity or permanence. "Exactly" cannot refer to any absolute identity, only to certain degree of similarities under some metric resolution.

When I visit the summer place of our extended family, I first make a round to see how the plant people are growing and doing, to get acquainted and rooted in the current duration of the general flux.

So, why are there some highly mechanized and predictable continuities? Because of our volition and choice to create and make so.

The sun and moon were there yesterday, and they will be there tomorrow. They won’t be there for ever, and they are not in essence the same as that which our 5 (/21) evolved human senses describe. However they exist, and their existence is consistent for all observers.

Simon Adams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:51 pm The sun and moon were there yesterday, and they will be there tomorrow. They won’t be there for ever, and they are not in essence the same as that which our 5 (/21) evolved human senses describe. However they exist, and their existence is consistent for all observers.

But are sun and moon really same from yesterday to tomorrow? And is it really "consistent" if some observers observe them primarily as spiritual beings, and others as material objects?

SanteriSatama wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 10:32 pm But are sun and moon really same from yesterday to tomorrow?

All ‘things’ are always changing, but for a time they are things. They have no being, then they have being, then they have no being.

And is it really "consistent" if some observers observe them primarily as spiritual beings, and others as material objects?

In representation they are not consistent, but in being they are. You may think I’m an idiot, Ashvin may think I’m crazy, but to me I’m always just me (which includes crazy and idiot sometimes!).

Simon Adams wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:45 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:43 pm
For all of those people, the supersensible world was a realm of living archetypal beings. And they were directly responsible for all phenomenonal appearances in Nature.

I would say that instead, they claimed that all things originated from, and had their being in, the good, the one, god. So their being is sustained by Being, but that being gives them independent existence from each other (even if not independent from Being).

The archetypes are the ideas that shape them, that define their essence and their telos, rather than “archetypal beings”.

What are "archetypal ideas that shape [phenomenal world]" if not living beings? Are they blobs of 'mental stuff' floating around in spiritual dimension?

Simon wrote:

Ashvin wrote:So the question of "what happens if two rocks collide and there is no living being observing it?" is meaningless. It would have never occurred for them to ask such a question.

Perhaps, but only because they had not discovered quantum physics. Nonetheless it would be wrong to say they had no insight into this, as it’s very much a question of when potential turns into actual in their terms.

I think you are forgetting the entire reason idealist philosophy is so important in the modern world - it's because the materialist thinks they are gaining insight into the true essence of Reality by learning the dynamics of abstractions in fields such as QM. But that is false! That is entirely a product of the Cartesian-Kantian divides in modernity, where it is simply assumed that are at least two separate realms and the realm of 'matter' is what discloses to us the essential working of the world we see, while the realm of 'mind' is limited to each individual being (and perhaps some transcendent God in another dimension).

Yes, these 20th century scientific developments can provide us with insights about Reality, but only if they are illuminated by the Spirit (Mind) from within. Otherwise, we are just studying the dynamics of exterior surfaces with no interiority. QM results do not provide any meaning to the question of what happens to two rocks colliding in the absence of any observation... if anything those results make the question even more meaningless than it was before, because they show human participation in the process is critical to what we can say comes out of that process.

Simon wrote:

Ashvin wrote:Only in the modern era do such questions become possible, but they are still equally meaningless as they were before. That's the basic point I am making here. Humans participate in co-creation of the phenomenonal world and, although we have forgotten our essential role in this unfolding drama, we have that role nevertheless and must take it seriously.

No I don’t agree. If mankind decides to start a nuclear WW3, obliterating all life in a nuclear winter, and all life becomes incorporeal, there will still be “things in themselves” that previously represented to us as earth, the moon, the sun etc. I do think that as we are, we are far more than we could possibly imagine in this life. In some ways that’s why we are so constrained behind ‘the veil’, why there is a need for suffering, for us to experience feeling weak and helpless etc.

Nonetheless, it’s only our experience of the world that we co-create, as well as others experience of the world. The cherry tree outside my window has it’s own being. It may have been planted by someone, and in that sense it was co-created by a human. When I look at it, or smell it, or touch it, I am co-creating that experience. But I am not co-creating the tree. Nothing I can do in my observation of that tree will change the way another person observes the tree (unless I communicate with them).

For the physical world of representation, it is only ever an “us” experience, never a “them” or “I” experience. But “things in themselves” are always “I”, and to deny their individual being separate from our observation of them is like a kind of physicalism, in that you’re treating the ‘only “us”’ representation as being the same as the “I” of the “thing in itself”.

The universe was ‘something’ for the billions of years before we existed, and I can’t imagine any philosophy that denies that ever being more than a fringe belief (even if all philosophers end up holding that belief!).

You are deep into the Flat MAL paradigm here, Simon (as opposed to Deep MAL; if you remember Cleric's essay I am sure you remember the pictures he used). You are imagining a bunch of 'things' existing in a big space, so one 'thing' can disappear or even an entire set of 'things' (like "humanity" or "all life") and the big space continues existing like it did before. It's actually closer to total materialism-dualism than Flat MAL idealism. There has always been 'something' existing and that something is us and other living beings. We are the 'big space' in our essence.

From the Christian perspective, there is verse after verse after verse speaking of our Unity in Christ. And that was taken seriously for a long time, even if it remained at a low resolution of detail. It was only after the dawn of modernity that it was completely reversed and now the divide in essence between God and man (or Flat MAL and 'alters' from secular view) makes more "common sense" to us. Most of these basic errors within Western idealism come from the failure to grasp the metamorphic process of Spirit. I quoted a bunch of medieval theologians who held to the essential Unity in Christ view in Transfiguring Our Thinking Part II essay and I am posting them again below.

Dionysius the Areopagite (5th to 6th Century A.D.)

It is no mistake then to speak of God and to honor him as known through all being… But the way of knowing God that is most worthy of Him is to know Him through unknowing, in a union that rises above all intellect. The intellect is first detached from all beings, then it goes out of itself and is united to rays more luminous than light itself. Thanks to these rays it shines in the unfathomable depths of Wisdom. It is no less true, however, as I have said, that this Wisdom can be known from every reality.

Meister Eckhart (1260-1328 A.D.)

Some people want to look upon God with their eyes, as they look upon a cow, and want to love God as they love a cow. Thus they love God for the sake of external riches and of internal solace; but these people do not love God aright... Foolish people deem that they should look upon God as though He stood there and they here. It is not thus. God and I are one in the act of knowing.

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464 A.D.)

I made many attempts to unite my thoughts about God and the world, about Christ and the Church in one fundamental idea, but of them all none satisfied me until finally, during the return from Greece by sea, the gaze of my spirit lifted itself, as if through an inspiration from on high, to the view in which God appeared to me as the highest unity of all contrasts.

Paracelsus (1493-1541 A.D.)

This is something great you should consider. Nothing is in heaven and on earth that is not also in the human being, and God who is in heaven and on earth is also in the human being.

Jacob Boehme (1575-1624 A.D.)

The whole birth or geniture, which is the heaven of all heavens, as also this world, which is in the body of the whole, as also the place of the earth and of all creatures, and whatever thou canst think on, all that together is God the Father, who hath neither beginning nor end; and wheresoever and upon whatsoever thou thinkest, even in the smallest circle that can be imagined, is the whole birth or geniture of God, perfectly, incessantly and irresistibly.

Angelus Silesius (1624-1677 A.D.)

When I leave time,
I myself am eternity.
Then I am one with God
And God is one with me.