• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
The entry Constance had you post did not address the flavor of monism I subscribe to, thus any problems identified would not be relevant. Besides, I'd rather one of you explain any problems you see.

A religious mindset? So are you the empiricist now? I can only hold a belief if it's been empirical lay proved, haha? Tsk tsk. I would think you would value logic and (phenomenal) experience above empiricism.

Is double-aspect theory the new monism? :)

Interesting to see Jung on the list!

And there's Mr. Sayres, haha. Incredible. I recall many, many posts ago when you first introduced Chalmers to me, saying that my views were closer to his than you thought. I just didn't have the language to express them.

I'm sure C. Langan would be on this list as well.

Not that it matters, but I'm not sure how you can express disappointment with my views when they obviously share the support of thinkers such as the above. I'm not implying that this makes them correct, only that any sins I might be committing must be applied to those above. Are the making this a "religious" issue too?

"religious mindset? So are you the empiricist now? I can only hold a belief if it's been empirical lay proved, haha? Tsk tsk. I would think you would value logic and (phenomenal) experience above empiricism"

I'm not sure I understand this? I get the tone - but I don't understand it? If monism makes claims that can be verified or falsified (the world is made of one substance) then yes, I want to see that proof. If someone can prove dualism I want to see that proof.

Religious claims can't be falsified so they are matters of belief. Monism and dualism as we are discussing them are philosophical positions not religions.

And you are right - it doesn't matter who takes a similar philosophical position - that's an appeal to authority.

I'm not sure where these authors may or may not be asserting belief ... But I can say Chalmers isnt defending a belief, he's arguing for a philosophical position while acknowledging unresolved problems and considering alternatives.

Constructing the World


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm not going to get you to examine monism critically and you're not going to get me to accept it uncritically ... So let's move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm not going to get you to examine monism critically...
What makes you think I haven't examined it critically? Huh?

I arrived at monism via life experience and my own logic. So I suppose it could be said that I examined my own life/existence critically, and as a result my belief is that monism is the best model of my reality.

I can't say exactly when I homed in on it as my preferred model, but it was before my introduction to Langan, Chalmers, Nagel, and Sayre. It was most likely due to my logical rejection of Substance Polyism.

I'm not trying to get you to examine monism at all. I'm not interested in getting anyone to share my views. I am interested in learning about other views and having people explain why my views are wrong and/or problimatic.

As it is, I think monism provides the best model for explaining reality, consciousness, the natural world, and the para-natural world.

Yes, let's move on from monism. I'm ready. I've been ready. :)
 
For instance, currently neither polyism nor monism can be proven. Thus they are both possibilities. However, logically and experientially, I believe that monism represents a better model of reality. While I grant that polyism could be the case, I believe monism is the case.

Okay, and you won't hear a nay from me. I am not out to convince you of anything. To be clear. (As it happens I don't think logic nor experience lead one to one or the other - they are just ideas).

As I've said/asked repeatedly, please show me - either logically or experientially - why monism is flawed or why dualism/polyism is a superior model. It's that simple.

You certainly delivered a post filled with questions for me - and I'm not sure why - since I am not, nor have I ever been, conversant on this thread in that way. I pursue my own way and I am definitely not interested in debates about superior models, nor the 'logic' that leads one to any one 'belief'. I don't think it's that simple. As with most this-or-that propositions - the answer is: both. Depends on where you start from, depends on where your mind is working from - depends.

In the ancient Sanskrit texts - wayyyyyyy back - the ancient philosophers would agree with you: all one, same stuff - until, differentiation occurred. Do I care one way or another? Not really, because my everyday experience requires me to deal with a highly differentiated universe.

Do I believe that any of us can do that conclusively? No. This is simply an interesting intellectual exercise. Well leave the heavy lifting to the philosophers and physicists, but we can certainly cite them as we reason through this stuff ourselves.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Can't tell if you're being sardonic.

Here is the post with all your questions for me particularly. From this I see that you assume a lot about what I 'believe' and all that. As I have stated a few times - not that you would know - I find some systems of thought more complete. They work in ways that light up the world with intriguing stories. That's all. I proceed with them as 'heuristic devices' - that work to an extent 'logically and experientially'. Logic is always a slippery son-of-a-gun, workable only within whatever defined universe of language and thinking one is applying the logic to. Experience is another matter - and in this context, I am not sure what constitutes 'experience' for you.

If by this question, you mean to capture the Hard Problem,

No. I'm not tracking on all that. I am much less savvy in that way than Constance and Steve. I've never been part of any 'hard problem' discussion on this or any other thread that I know of.

I've said that I agree that qualia are non-physical. Qualia thus cannot be explained in objective language. This isn't a limit of language, but a constraint of subjectivity. Qualia appear to be subjective. However, we do have language to capture these subjective objects. :p Thus, we all know what you mean by "annoyance."

'Annoyance' is communicated but when identified via language it is after the fact - not before. It also can be communicated because it is a shared experience and hence 'objective'. We can easily trip over our own words. My head spins when things are over-thought.

I would say annoyance is a function of something, just like a burp is a function of a physical body. A burp would not 'be' without the physical, mineral body. So, too, annoyance cannot exist without the activity of a 'body' - though that 'body' is not mineral (physical). Is that hypothesized 'body' made up of some 'thing' that is quantifiable and measurable by physical mineral-based instruments - hard to say. On first blush I would say not, but never say never they say for good reason.

However, that does not mean that the subjective experience/feeling of annoyance doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that it isn't constituted of something.

If by something you mean as a 'thing' as in substance, a la minerality, I think we can agree that 'annoyance' is not mineral. It is not a 'thing'.

@Tyger, could you please explain how dual substances might interact with one another, thus refuting Monism?

Nope. Why should I?

Or, could you at least explain why the spiritual realm you describe must be constituted of a dual substance?

I don't know - must it?

You're going to have to quote-me-to-me for me to understand what you are asking. :rolleyes: Sorry.

Could you explain how you know it is a dual substance?

What is a dual substance?

Could you explain how differentiated, complex objects such as gods, demons, and angels might exist but not be constituted of something such as a substance?

I hope you understand that I am not an apologist. I don't have a belief system I am trying to persuade you of. I just look at all the pretty ideas - all the pretty colors and subtle nuances. I am far from believing that 'logic' - as you seem to be using it - is ever helpful to arrive at 'truth'.

However, that said, as best as I understand what you are asking, I will say this: I believe you are looking at the physical universe and extrapolating it into the spiritual (Steve made a good point when he mentioned the 'ineffable'). You are in effect saying: what you see 'here' must be 'there' - not a bad thing, but this gets gnarly when you posit 'substance' as being mineral based when clearly such 'substance' would not be substance, but ethereal - not quantifiable and measurable by instruments out of the mineral, substantial universe.

I frankly don't see a problem with any of it being a 'substance' right up until we reach deconstruct. Why not? Generally what one reads in the texts are phrases like 'subtle substance' and 'stuff '. Whether such 'stuff ' can be measured with a physical, mineral-based scale - that I don't know. People have tried and made various claims.

And if you insist this is the case - though our language can't capture this case - can you explain why this must the case? Or is it a fact that can only be known through experience?

I've never insisted anything, nor have I insisted here, least of all have I insisted anything to do with substance.

This whole thing is a tricky business because chances are we are discussing at cross purposes. You 'read' one way, I 'write' another. There is not a shared view - a base-line that is accepted. With an accepted base-line we can engage in all sorts of logical loop-de-loops. Without it, we flounder. It is why oft-times - most times actually - such questions as you are asking of me portend no good outcome - just more grinding away at the supposed physical/spiritual rift. In the way of the materialist who is keen to deny anything beyond the material universe - though the spiritual stares them in the face every day of their lives.

For me the spiritual universe as a reality is obvious. I know it exists because I experience it on a daily basis. It is as real to me as is this table I am touching. It's details are open to exploration. There have been some explorers - philosophers/seers - who have written about it with great passion and clarity. Does it have weight and measure - substance - it appears not in physical terms. Does that mean it does not exist? I would say no. Does it have ethereal substance - the ancients say so, say it has 'substance' but not of the mineral kind.

Just ideas - for me - not beliefs. Ideas to play with.
 
Last edited:
It's two different approaches to what we are doing here:

What is important to you seems to be to have a position - and to defend it. You take pride in being a monist from the start of this discussion until now but it wouldn't be a failing if you weren't. There's no criticism on changing positions if you can explain why.

you seem to have less tolerance for ambiguity and more confidence that problems will be resolved or at least that they shouldn't keep one from the value of having a specific view on the world.

You tend to frame your assertions in terms of belief and assumptions ... and to identify yourself with those beliefs. "I am a monist." ( hear me roar! ;-)

This seems to result in classifying those who don't share your views together. You seem to try to fit the three if us into a world view I don't recognize possibly because those ideas were discussed or entertained (but not embraced).

You feel like your questions aren't answered - but they are often of the form:

Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

When you don't get an answer you take that as confirmation of your beliefs.

...

I tend to actively look for the problems in a position and first thing and to look for alternatives to that position, I don't feel a need to get everything in one umbrella ...

Chalmers scrutability project is appealing because it gets away from discrete positions and looks at the basic framework of accounting for the world. So one has a scrutability index ... Ones position is on a continuum or in a space ... That to me beats choosing flavors.

To you this may make it hard because you want to assign a stable position or identity to each person ...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm not trying to get you to examine monism at all.

What has all this been about? :confused:

I'm not interested in getting anyone to share my views. I am interested in learning about other views and having people explain why my views are wrong and/or problematic.

But there you go - they are 'your' views. It's your belief. You're in a dialectic, an either/or - and in the realm of ideas, I find, that is an unsatisfactory stance, because any dialog becomes a push-pull. We had a poster here recently who wanted to have a 'fight' about some of the ideas here. There is an old saying: 'The moment one has begun to feel anger [emotion] one has ceased to argue for the truth and begun to argue for oneself.'

As it is, I think monism provides the best model for explaining reality, consciousness, the natural world, and the para-natural world.

That's cool - and as one side of the posited dialectic you are guaranteed to be 50% right all of the time, or right 50% of the time. ;)
 
Last edited:
In the ancient Sanskrit texts - wayyyyyyy back - the ancient philosophers would agree with you: all one, same stuff - until, differentiation occurred. Do I care one way or another? Not really, because my everyday experience requires me to deal with a highly differentiated universe.

...

Does it have weight and measure - substance - it appears not in physical terms. Does that mean it does not exist? I would say no. Does it have ethereal substance - the ancients say so, say it has 'substance' but not of the mineral kind.
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. :)
 
But there you go - they are 'your' views. It's your belief. You're in a dialectic, an either/or - and in the realm of ideas, I find, that is an unsatisfactory stance, because any dialog becomes a push-pull.
So what's the alternative to either/or? All? Unbound potential?

I do believe that was the case at one point, but our reality now consists of either/ors.
 
@Tyger - a very good post that resonates with the way I tend to think. The difference in minds, types of minds - mindsets, maybe physical differences even ... Is fascinating. Soupie's last response to me shows why discussion will be difficult.


Tolerance of ambiguity, the degree of identification with ideas (to include emotional involvement) the weight assigned to problems versus the value of having a systematic way to think of the world, pragmatic view of ideas versus idealistic view ... Maps vs territory ... The role of authority, appreciation of paradox

Tolerance for ambiguity and how one handles fear may be most basic ... Or ... Maybe not! ;-)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Buddhist idea of conceptual proliferation makes philosophy a game of keeping up with the lies one has told about the universe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So what's the alternative to either/or? All? Unbound potential?

I do believe that was the case at one point, but our reality now consists of either/ors.

I believe she's talking about the way you think ... Conceptual and dualistic thinking - meditation helps. You mentioned an interest in meditation ... Have you started a practice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's two different approaches to what we are doing here:

What is important to you seems to be to have a position - and to defend it. You take pride in being a monist from the start of this discussion until now but it wouldn't be a failing if you weren't. There's no criticism on changing positions if you can explain why.

you seem to have less tolerance for ambiguity and more confidence that problems will be resolved or at least that they shouldn't keep one from the value of having a specific view on the world.

You tend to frame your assertions in terms of belief and assumptions ... and to identify yourself with those beliefs. "I am a monist." ( hear me roar! ;-)

This seems to result in classifying those who don't share your views together. You seem to try to fit the three if us into a world view I don't recognize possibly because those ideas were discussed or entertained (but not embraced).

You feel like your questions aren't answered - but they are often of the form:

Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

When you don't get an answer you take that as confirmation of your beliefs.


...

I tend to actively look for the problems in a position and first thing and to look for alternatives to that position, I don't feel a need to get everything under one umbrella ...

Chalmers scrutability project is appealing because it gets away from discrete positions and looks at the basic framework of accounting for the world. So one has a scrutability index ... Ones position is on a continuum or in a space ... That to me beats choosing flavors.

To you this may make it hard because you want to assign a stable position or identity to each person ...

Well said, especially: "What is important to you seems to be to have a position - and to defend it. [...] you seem to have less tolerance for ambiguity [...] you want to assign a stable position or identity to each person ..."

Further, it then becomes a push-pull - a matter of 'sides' and a 'fight' in the arena. Some people enjoy that. Our most recent drop-in (drive-by) poster clearly saw a 'fight' as a way of learning and sussing out the 'truth'. In his case, I think he was conflating a good intellectual debate with a courtroom inquisition. :cool:
 
So what's the alternative to either/or? All? Unbound potential?

Good question. Black or white, Good or evil, Democrat or Republican, Christian or Non-Christian, Muslim or Non-Muslim, Gay or Straight. The dialectic stance. One-way-or-another. Yes or No. The Digital Age demands it - 0 or 1. Two choices - the Lady or the Tiger.

In the world there are opposites for sure - up/down, in/out, hot/cold. There are also contrasts - a good way to understand conditions - alpine forest versus high desert, south sea isle versus arctic tundra. Even in cutting edge physics the absolutes fall away, enter ambiguity, light acts as both a wave and a particle, etc.

Very little is absolute. Being able to discern shades of grey in the world is the hallmark of subtle thinking and is demanded in the world we live in. I recall once hearing from someone very wise that everything has a little bit of truth in it - thing is, to find it, discern it. No one is completely evil - nor completely good. When we recognize that, then we start to be able to see who people really are.

I do believe that was the case at one point, but our reality now consists of either/ors.

Not for me. Maybe when I was quite young - but certainly not as an older adult, certainly not as a scientist.
 
The elephant in the room ... Or the Tyger by the tail?

Humor, ambiguity and curiosity!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Lady or the Tyger!

Both! :p

Which brings me to mind of our current fad for 'thinking outside the box'. What is that but not accepting the either/or set-up. I do innumerable brain teasers with students that rely on the mind's tendency to go down time-worn either/or pathways. The teasers get them every time until they learn the nuances - the ambiguities - of language and conditions.
 
The elephant in the room ... Or the Tyger by the tail?

I see you 'worked it in'. ;) I still want to know what the 'elephant in the room' was/is?

Humor, ambiguity and curiosity!

And which of the three is best? :) Or most important? Is there an absolute answer?

LINK: Laughing Buddha At Lingyin Temple Photo by jeansnlace_photos | Photobucket

LINK: Laughing Buddha Stock Photo - Image: 6723550

LINK: Buddha Stock Image - Image: 35476141

In the end, it all goes on whatever we think, not so? Though I do believe (yes) that what we think has consequences.
 
Is there an absolute answer?

To answer my own question: Love! :)

@Soupie I hope Steve and I agreeing doesn't feel off-putting. In a world of 'sides' it can feel that unless there are nods in my direction, I am not validated. I feel that way sometimes for sure. I hope you see that your point of view is embraced - if only as a partial 'yes' by some. It's the best we can hope for - small agreements reached in incremental ways.
 
To answer my own question: Love! :)

@Soupie I hope Steve and I agreeing doesn't feel off-putting. In a world of 'sides' it can feel that unless there are nods in my direction, I am not validated. I feel that way sometimes for sure. I hope you see that your point of view is embraced - if only as a partial 'yes' by some. It's the best we can hope for - small agreements reached in incremental ways.

Yes ... We love you Soupie!!

8eba9e3u.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Both! :p

Which brings me to mind of our current fad for 'thinking outside the box'. What is that but not accepting the either/or set-up. I do innumerable brain teasers with students that rely on the mind's tendency to go down time-worn either/or pathways. The teasers get them every time until they learn the nuances - the ambiguities - of language and conditions.

This might be of interest:

Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality - Jon Elster - Google Books



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top