Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Soupie]

Holy shizznat. And you say I am having the emotional reaction! Settle down, yo!

Think of what I'm doing as pruning my narrative (a la Peterson). Y'all have "dull" blades, so I'm forced to back you into a corner to get a sharp edge. (Meaning you disagree with me, but never say why or what you believe instead.)

I am monist, hear (or here — I actually like that caveman grammar better) me roar! But you guys are saying: I'm agnostic, hear me roar!

I don't have a problem with that, except when it doesn't help me clarify my own view and when you assert that "having a view" is bad (for lack of a better word). I disagree that "defending" my view is a negative and/or "emotional" thing.

Do I have presuppositions, assumptions, biases, misconceptions, blindnesses, intellectual limitations, inexperience, ignorance, etc. Of course. However, I don't see how any of that should restrain me from saying that, currently, for me, monism offers the best model of what I know/believe about reality.

And I don't see what's wrong with saying/asking — if you're not a monist: Show/explain to me why monism is not the best model of reality.

If that's too confrontational or emotional, I apologize. But that may be yins problem, not mine. I'm not a Buddhist!

 

[smcder]

Holy shizznat. And you say I am having the emotional reaction! Settle down, yo!

Think of what I'm doing as pruning my narrative (a la Peterson). Y'all have "dull" blades, so I'm forced to back you into a corner to get a sharp edge. (Meaning you disagree with me, but never say why or what you believe instead.)

I am monist, hear (or here — I actually like that caveman grammar better) roar! But you guys are saying: I'm agnostic, hear me roar!

I don't have a problem with that, except when it doesn't help me clarify my own view and when you assert that "having a view" is bad (for lack of a better word). I disagree that "defending" my view is a negative and/or "emotional" thing.

Do I have presuppositions, assumptions, biases, misconceptions, blindnesses, intellectual limitations, inexperience, ignorance, etc. Of course. However, I don't see how any of that should restrain me from saying that, currently, for me, monism offers the best model of what I know/believe about reality.

And I don't see what's wrong with saying/asking — if you're not a monist: Show/explain to me why monism is not the best model of reality.

If that's too confrontational or emotional, I apologize. But that may be yins problem, not mine. I'm not a Buddhist!

What makes you say that this is too emotional or confrontational? I'm also not aware of having been backed up or being in a corner - I feel like I have as much space around me as always.

As an aside, Buddhism has one "turn into" difficult emotions - to stay with them, not try and escape out, in some meditational practices one raises difficult emotions from memory or generates scenarios in order to do this.

As another aside, I'm not a Buddhist any more than I'm a monist or dualist. I may have posted this before - but I like what the Dali Lama says "let Buddhism make you a better whatever you are." Or something like that. So, you could be a Monistic Buddhist.

We've answered your questions repeatedly, so perhaps there is a degree of intention in your not hearing the answers?

It's not a question of what do I believe instead of Monism. That's another example of what I call trying to force choice - trying to control the language in order to win an argument - no, in order to frame the discussion as an argument. I'm not going to engage with you on that so let's try to find another path.

The reason I'm not a dualist or monist is because all the facts aren't in, I don't have to be one or the other (.or anything else) and that's true even if you could show me it's the best current explanation for reality - because that's not the same as it's being true.

"don't have a problem with that, except when it doesn't help me clarify my own view and when you assert that "having a view" is bad (for lack of a better word). I disagree that "defending" my view is a negative and/or "emotional" thing."

I don't think defending your view is a negative or emotional thing either. But it makes it a belief not a temporary philosophical position. If you held the latter we could have a discussion, with the former all you can do is assert and defend - I'm not interested in that. In all of this you haven't responded to the questions I posed:

What are the short comings of monism? The unsolved problems and the rival conceptions? You posted something from Chalmers in which he acknowledged a considerable challenge to his view. Now, if that can be resolved - it promises great things... That is interesting to me - that is doing philosophy.

Do you think you could find that post and repost it for us to look at?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

By the way ... What does holy shizznat mean?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Thanks for your response.

I'm not suggesting that the spiritual realm is made of physical/mineral substance. Only that it is, indeed, made of "a" substance.

That's another example of controlling the language of the discussion by arbitrarily defining words. If monism has only one substance ... Then this is a bit ... Well, tricky. As is non physical material ... Tricky


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

The last few posts have employed various rhetorical devices that I've mostly seen when people are asserting religious or political beliefs.

You've actually said very little about monism itself - you've pointed to articles, you've not answered questions:

Quanta -> particles -> atoms


Doesn't answer how an ultimately simple thing, the one stuff of monism combines with itself to form a diversity ...

If we've pointed to specific critiques or posted articles you've said it's not the flavor you believe in - so it doesn't apply it you've just not responded ... Go back through the posts and look at how many you've not answered.

So why not write down, in your own words, what it is that you do believe? No links to other sites, if this is a belief you should have the material at your command. Would you be willing to do that and then answer any questions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

I arrive at monism via a simple path:

If there were two substances that were fundamentally different, on account of this fundamental difference, these substances wouldn't be able to interact. Ergo anything that can interact must be made of the same fudamental substance.

Regarding physics, chemistry, and biology and quarks, particles, compounds, and cells not being a sufficient example of a single, monistic unit interacting/differentiating to create variety and complexity, I disagree. And if that example doesn't suffice, I haven't got a better one.

Yes, you've posted links to critiques of models I don't subscribe to... Not much I can do about that. In response I posted links to models that do better capture my views:

Neutral Monism
Reflexive Monism
Double-Aspect Theory
Constitutive Russellian Panprotopsychism

As for me explaining in depth the critiques of these theories... Are you serious? If you want to critique them, go ahead. By all means, haha. If you want to post links to critiques, by all means — just as long as they actually critique my view/model, haha.

I don't deny that there are critiques and problems to be resolved. There are with any model.

The only critiques you — or anyone — has offered so far is 1) how can a monistic unit create variety (answer: psychics, chemistry, biology), and 2) monism might be wrong.

Those are great! Let's move on, shall we.

Shizznat is, I believe, Snoop Dogg-ese for "shit."

 

[smcder]

I arrive at monism via a simple path:

If there were two substances that were fundamentally different, on account of this fundamental difference, these substances wouldn't be able to interact. Ergo anything that can interact must be made of the same fudamental substance.

Regarding physics, chemistry, and biology and quarks, particles, compounds, and cells not being a sufficient example of a single, monistic unit interacting/differentiating to create variety and complexity, I disagree. And if that example doesn't suffice, I haven't got a better one.

Yes, you've posted links to critiques of models I don't subscribe to... Not much I can do about that. In response I posted links to models that do better capture my views:

Neutral Monism
Reflexive Monism
Double-Aspect Theory
Constitutive Russellian Panprotopsychism

As for me explaining in depth the critiques of these theories... Are you serious? If you want to critique them, go ahead. By all means, haha. If you want to post links to critiques, by all means — just as long as they actually critique my view/model, haha.

I don't deny that there are critiques and problems to be resolved. There are with any model.

The only critiques you — or anyone — has offered so far is 1) how can a monistic unit create variety (answer: psychics, chemistry, biology), and 2) monism might be wrong.

Those are great! Let's move on, shall we.

Shizznat is, I believe, Snoop Dogg-ese for "shit."

I was looking for something in your own words.

All four of the above models are compatible? These are complex systems requiring quite a bit of philosophical background to understand.

"As for me explaining in depth the critiques of these theories... Are you serious? If you want to critique them, go ahead. By all means, haha. If you want to post links to critiques, by all means — just as long as they actually critique my view/model, haha."

Yes I am serious. How do you believe something and not be aware of the challenges to that belief and possible answers to those challenges?

I think if I offer any critiques you will say it doesn't apply to your view/model. That's what has happened in the past.

"Regarding physics, chemistry, and biology and quarks, particles, compounds, and cells not being a sufficient example of a single, monistic unit interacting/differentiating to create variety and complexity, I disagree. And if that example doesn't suffice, I haven't got a better one."

You don't provide any detail - just proclaim this to be a single, monistic unit. It might be but I thought you could give more detail. That's where things get interesting.

We've discussed how it's not even known if certain particles are elementary ....

If you provide more detail in your own words that would be great - otherwise at this point I realize I don't know what you believe or why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Oh yeah ... And watch your language! ;-)

And What is a Snoop Dog??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

The guys at PEL did a show on monadology - another interesting option that deals with the mental and physical in a unique way:
Monadology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

I was looking for something in your own words.

My reason for believing reality is constituted of a single substance is in my own words.

Of for the example of quarks representing a single, monistic unit that interacts and self-organisms to create our physical reality, I'll admit I'm accepting Consensus Science on that one.

All four of the above models are compatible? These are complex systems requiring quite a bit of philosophical background to understand.

I don't believe they are. And I don't agree with nor know each in every detail. I have a lot of reading to do. I'm excited to learn more about double-aspect theory, particularly in regards to information theory.

How do you believe something and not be aware of the challenges to that belief and possible answers to those challenges?

I believe it because it's makes logical/common sense to me. I'm not aware of any challenges to my logic for monism.

I think if I offer any critiques you will say it doesn't apply to your view/model. That's what has happened in the past.

The first critique offered by @Constance was for monotheism, not monism.

The second was for a flavor of monism in which one believes all that exists is one thing, as opposed to being constituted of one monistic unit.

If you want to poke holes in my "logic statement" above, I'd appreciate it.

One thing one might say is there may be two fundamentally substances that exit, and indeed do not interact with one another at all. One might say that even though these substances can't "see" each other, they still exist, and thus everything that exists must constitute reality.

This is a possibility. However, as this dual substance would be incompatible with the substance we were made of, it would essentially "not exist."

"Regarding physics, chemistry, and biology and quarks, particles, compounds, and cells not being a sufficient example of a single, monistic unit interacting/differentiating to create variety and complexity, I disagree. And if that example doesn't suffice, I haven't got a better one."

You don't provide any detail - just proclaim this to be a single, monistic unit. It might be but I thought you could give more detail. That's where things get interesting.

As noted, I'm reporting the view of Consensus Science, that is, our physical world is constituted of quarks.

We've discussed how it's not even known if certain particles are elementary ....

I don't think quarks are fundamentally primal, but they seem to be in the physical realm.

 

[smcder]

smcder has mentioned "forces" many times as representing a dual substance. While it's not the appeal for me, one benefit of Quantum Space Theory - the idea that reality is a superfluid - is that forces - as they are understood in current (meta)physics - apparently no longer exist. I've tried to find an article that explains that in depth but no luck so far."

Did you find that post? I can't think of where I said something like this ... If I see it in context maybe I can sort it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

@Soupie:

From Constance

We've all read all the SEP entries you've listed. They all recognize philosophical and scientific issues to be resolved in both monistic and dualistic approaches to accounting for the nature of 'reality' -- the term awaiting a definition precisely because of the perennial philosophical problems of mind and world, subject and object. It's very nice that you have found an account (of 'neutral monism') that you find persuasive, but you have not yet persuaded us of the superiority of that approach. You seem to want us to talk you out of it, or to argue with you about its shortcomings, or to identify for you what they are. Why? The shortfalls of all monistic and dualistic theories are already laid out in the SEP articles we've referenced (and many related ones we have not yet referenced) not to mention in the works of philosophers we've variously cited and quoted. We're not here to argue about which approach is most valid, and we each find value in responsiveness to the issues in more than one of them. If it were clear that 'neutral monism' in general (or Tononi's IIT in particular) resolves all the issues relating to consciousness, mind, and world, philosophers and scientists would no longer be pursuing and discussing various perspectives and approaches. We have worlds of perspectives and approaches -- and data -- yet to cover. We're here to survey the options, the possibilities of finding a philosphical approach that satisfies all the questions raised about the nature of reality from a multitude of articulated perspectives expressed in our species' philosophical and experiential history and in current discussions in consciousness studies, philosophy of mind, and various disciplines of science. There's no reason to argue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

This is the last part of the article on monism that Constance sent:

"There is nothing intellectually superior or philosophically rigorous to this kind of thinking, nor is it any more “right” than any other possible viewpoint out there, especially since there is absolutely no factual or scientific proof that monism is true, outside of very bad and reductionistic readings of certain physicists done by (imagine that!) monistically-inclined individuals. Physics itself has not been able to narrow down the universal forces to any less than four distinct ones at this point (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces), and the attempts to bridge the quantum level with the macro-level in these forces to produce a “unified field theory” have thus far been totally impossible and mostly untestable; and on the subject of matter itself, there’s still six different quarks, not one or even two or three or four. Diversity, from the study of nature outside of notions of “illusion” or anything that can’t be understood only in the imagination, looks to be more the norm rather than the exception, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with accepting that as perfectly reasonable at this stage."

This appears to me to be a critique of substance monism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

This is the last part of the article on monism that Constance sent:

"There is nothing intellectually superior or philosophically rigorous to this kind of thinking, nor is it any more “right” than any other possible viewpoint out there, especially since there is absolutely no factual or scientific proof that monism is true, outside of very bad and reductionistic readings of certain physicists done by (imagine that!) monistically-inclined individuals. Physics itself has not been able to narrow down the universal forces to any less than four distinct ones at this point (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces), and the attempts to bridge the quantum level with the macro-level in these forces to produce a “unified field theory” have thus far been totally impossible and mostly untestable; and on the subject of matter itself, there’s still six different quarks, not one or even two or three or four. Diversity, from the study of nature outside of notions of “illusion” or anything that can’t {can} be understood only in the imagination, looks to be more the norm rather than the exception, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with accepting that as perfectly reasonable at this stage."

This appears to me to be a critique of substance monism.

It does indeed.

Magically, through the aid of a Rescue IT technician, I am at this moment again able to access the forum. This tech did so through Internet Explorer rather than through the Mozilla browser I usually use (and no longer will). Thank you, Steve, for posting responses for me during the period in which I was able to keep in touch here only through reading email notices of new posts.

(I've made a necessary editorial correction above in the last sentence of the paragraph you quoted from the SEP article on "Monism," which seems unreadable without the change to 'can'. It bothered me the first time I read it too, and I should probably send a note about it to SEP or the article's author.)

That SEP "Monism" article is, btw, well worth the effort of slogging through it and I suggest that Soupie might want to do so.

 

[Soupie]

smcder has mentioned "forces" many times as representing a dual substance. While it's not the appeal for me, one benefit of Quantum Space Theory - the idea that reality is a superfluid - is that forces - as they are understood in current (meta)physics - apparently no longer exist. I've tried to find an article that explains that in depth but no luck so far."

Did you find that post? I can't think of where I said something like this ... If I see it in context maybe I can sort it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've mentioned, I believe, at least two other times. I an find those if you'd like.

Consciousness and the Paranormal | Page 93 | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[smcder]

It does indeed.

Magically, through the aid of a Rescue IT technician, I am at this moment again able to access the forum. This tech did so through Internet Explorer rather than through the Mozilla browser I usually use (and no longer will). Thank you, Steve, for posting responses for me during the period in which I was able to keep in touch here only through reading email notices of new posts.

(I've made a necessary editorial correction above in the last sentence of the paragraph you quoted from the SEP article on "Monism," which seems unreadable without the change to 'can'. It bothered me the first time I read it too, and I should probably send a note about it to SEP or the article's author.)

That SEP "Monism" article is, btw, well worth the effort of slogging through it and I suggest that Soupie might want to do so.

Welcome back Constance! Hooray for good old IE.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

I arrive at monism via a simple path:

If there were two substances that were fundamentally different, on account of this fundamental difference, these substances wouldn't be able to interact. Ergo anything that can interact must be made of the same fudamental substance.

Regarding physics, chemistry, and biology and quarks, particles, compounds, and cells not being a sufficient example of a single, monistic unit interacting/differentiating to create variety and complexity, I disagree. And if that example doesn't suffice, I haven't got a better one.

Yes, you've posted links to critiques of models I don't subscribe to... Not much I can do about that. In response I posted links to models that do better capture my views:

Neutral Monism
Reflexive Monism
Double-Aspect Theory
Constitutive Russellian Panprotopsychism

As for me explaining in depth the critiques of these theories... Are you serious? If you want to critique them, go ahead. By all means, haha. If you want to post links to critiques, by all means — just as long as they actually critique my view/model, haha.

I don't deny that there are critiques and problems to be resolved. There are with any model.

The only critiques you — or anyone — has offered so far is 1) how can a monistic unit create variety (answer: psychics, chemistry, biology), and 2) monism might be wrong.

Those are great! Let's move on, shall we.

Shizznat is, I believe, Snoop Dogg-ese for "shit."

"If there were two substances that were fundamentally different, on account of this fundamental difference, these substances wouldn't be able to interact. Ergo anything that can interact must be made of the same fudamental substance."


"The simplest objection to interaction is that, in so far as mental properties, states or substances are of radically different kinds from each other, they lack that communality necessary for interaction. It is generally agreed that, in its most naive form, this objection to interactionism rests on a ‘billiard ball’ picture of causation: if all causation is by impact, how can the material and the immaterial impact upon each other? But if causation is either by a more ethereal force or energy or only a matter of constant conjunction, there would appear to be no problem in principle with the idea of interaction of mind and body."

And on determinism:

"The problem with closure of physics may be radically altered if physical laws are indeterministic, as quantum theory seems to assert"

3.1 interactionism from Determinism article at SEP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

You've mentioned, I believe, at least two other times. I an find those if you'd like.

Consciousness and the Paranormal | Page 93 | The Paracast Community Forums

What's the specific line in that post?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

You've mentioned, I believe, at least two other times. I an find those if you'd like.

Consciousness and the Paranormal | Page 93 | The Paracast Community Forums

Got it I remember now - no, the forces and fields aren't substances - I'm addressing the issue of parsimony. Goes back to Chalmers PQTI or QTPI or whatever.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

"If there were two substances that were fundamentally different, on account of this fundamental difference, these substances wouldn't be able to interact. Ergo anything that can interact must be made of the same fudamental substance."


"The simplest objection to interaction is that, in so far as mental properties, states or substances are of radically different kinds from each other, they lack that communality necessary for interaction. It is generally agreed that, in its most naive form, this objection to interactionism rests on a ‘billiard ball’ picture of causation: if all causation is by impact, how can the material and the immaterial impact upon each other? But if causation is either by a more ethereal force or energy or only a matter of constant conjunction, there would appear to be no problem in principle with the idea of interaction of mind and body."

Yes. An overly simple concept of 'causality' still hobbles many scientists in our time, decades after complex systems began to be understood and theorized by other scientists. Many scientists (and 'science writers', bloggers, etc.) remain unaware of major developments in scientific theory.

And on determinism:

"The problem with closure of physics may be radically altered if physical laws are indeterministic, as quantum theory seems to assert"

Yes again. The concept of the universe as a closed system is another inherited notion that continues to constrain scientific thinking in the form of a presupposition past its sell-by date.

3.1 interactionism from Determinism article at SEP[/QUOTE]