Imposing their views

[Enki]

I was referring to spiritual philosophy (metaphysics) such as in Samkhya, Jainism, Buddhism, Kabbala, Sufism etc.

And, even though you now restrict your comments to one of the accepted branches of philosophy, it seems you are still happy to miss out great swathes of metaphysical philosophy, including  that of ancient/classical Greece or the rational and empirical approaches of the 17th and 18th centuries. Even contemporary analytical approaches don't seem to get a look in in your view of metaphysical philosophy. As I suggested, you seem to be simply limited to your own cultural approach.

[Sriram]

Yes indeed. Just as you are restricting yourselves to western philosophies. Philosophies that I refer to are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material and these form the theoretical basis for the creation of methods and techniques that could help other aspirants experience the same realities. That is the way it works in spirituality and that is the way yoga and other meditative methods have been developed. 

It is true that philosophical speculation is perfectly valid and could reflect reality.  Scientism on the other hand is not a valid approach. Science should restrict itself to those areas where it has the tools and scope to investigate. 

[Enki]

Yes indeed.

Glad you agree. Don't you think then that it would be a good idea to not limit your idea of what metaphysical philosophy entails to eastern philosophies?

Just as you are restricting yourselves to western philosophies.

Except I aren't. I happily accept that there are many different types of philosophy which are all worthy of consideration for those who are interested in such matters.

Philosophies that I refer to are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material and these form the theoretical basis for the creation of methods and techniques that could help other aspirants experience the same realities. That is the way it works in spirituality and that is the way yoga and other meditative methods have been developed.

And yet, valuable and useful as some people find them to be, they are a subset of a whole range of experiences and attitudes, where feelings of spirituality(vague though it is) are not limited to your ideas and attitudes.

It is true that philosophical speculation is perfectly valid and could reflect reality.

Indeed it could. The only problem is that this approach, on its own, tends to become subjective and therefore it is hard to evaluate such speculations without involving some other more objective discipline.

Scientism on the other hand is not a valid approach.

Couldn't agree more and as I have already suggested in post 56.

Science should restrict itself to those areas where it has the tools and scope to investigate.

It will, by its very nature, not involve itself in any area where it will be impossible to produce evidence. I see no problem with this whatever, but you or I are not arbiters of where such restrictions lie. If science, using its ever evolving methods, can produce evidence in any area you care to mention, then it has every right to do so.

[Gordon]

Yes indeed. Just as you are restricting yourselves to western philosophies. Philosophies that I refer to are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material and these form the theoretical basis for the creation of methods and techniques that could help other aspirants experience the same realities. That is the way it works in spirituality and that is the way yoga and other meditative methods have been developed. 

Have to say that I think this idea of things that "are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material" is a contradiction in terms: however 'spiritual' these experiences may feel they are nonetheless material, in that they are a consequence of material biology doing what it does.

[Free Willy]

Have to say that I think this idea of things that "are born of personal experience of realities beyond the material" is a contradiction in terms: however 'spiritual' these experiences may feel they are nonetheless material, in that they are a consequence of material biology doing what it does.

What like doing what comes naturally, like material did it? So what since religion recognises that we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.

You seem to be reducing the phenomenon in order to big up some mighty truth you feel you have about the cosmos.

[ProfessorDavey]

So what since religion recognises that we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.

I think you'll find that is some religions, not religion.

But even for Judeo-christianity it isn't really true is it as one of the belief of those religions is that an individual continues to exist after death where there is judgement and reward/punishment. So it isn't really dust to dust and ashes to ashes and that's it, is it Vlad. So when you don't selectively quote, you get:

"ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself"

There is, of course, no evidence for this conjecture, but christianity certainly doesn't believe that it is ashes to ashes, dust to dust and that's the end.

[Sriram]

Glad you agree. Don't you think then that it would be a good idea to not limit your idea of what metaphysical philosophy entails to eastern philosophies?

Except I aren't. I happily accept that there are many different types of philosophy which are all worthy of consideration for those who are interested in such matters.

And yet, valuable and useful as some people find them to be, they are a subset of a whole range of experiences and attitudes, where feelings of spirituality(vague though it is) are not limited to your ideas and attitudes.

Indeed it could. The only problem is that this approach, on its own, tends to become subjective and therefore it is hard to evaluate such speculations without involving some other more objective discipline.

Couldn't agree more and as I have already suggested in post 56.

It will, by its very nature, not involve itself in any area where it will be impossible to produce evidence. I see no problem with this whatever, but you or I are not arbiters of where such restrictions lie. If science, using its ever evolving methods, can produce evidence in any area you care to mention, then it has every right to do so.

Objective evidence need not mean only measurable through physical instruments. Even experiences that are similar among various people across the globe and  which lead to similar conclusions, can be regarded as objective. Experiences that can be replicated using standard methods that can be taught to others, are also objective.

Though I don't have any expertise on western philosophies....most western metaphysical philosophies are largely seen as intellectual exercises and attempts to reduce metaphysical matters to a rational framework.   They rarely if at all involve personal exercises and experiences. That is why most of them are dry and tedious texts relegated to library bookshelves.

On the other hand, the philosophies such as Samkhya, Yoga, Jainism and Buddhism (also western ones such as Kabbala and sufism) are 'living' philosophies that are integrated with religious teachings and inspire millions of people everyday. The Bhagavad Gita for example, is largely a philosophical text in the guise of a religious scriptural discourse. It is one of the most popular religious text among Hindus in spite of being a metaphysical text dealing with ontology. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Even experiences that are similar among various people across the globe and  which lead to similar conclusions, can be regarded as objective.

Nope - those experiences are subjective (obviously), but they can be studied objectively. But that isn't the same as suggesting that the experiences themselves are objective.

[Gordon]

What like doing what comes naturally, like material did it?

Yes: as far as is known any mental processes, such as experiencing whatever, requires material in the form of functioning biology.

So what since religion recognises that we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.

Then they spoil it all by adding supernatural bollocks/woo into the mix.

You seem to be reducing the phenomenon in order to big up some mighty truth you feel you have about the cosmos.

Nope - as far as I can seen experiences, and all other mental processes -thoughts, feelings and emotions etc, are dependent on material that is biologically active. That seems rather obvious ,and not at all a "mighty truth".

[Free Willy]

Yes: as far as is known any mental processes, such as experiencing whatever, requires material in the form of functioning biology.

Then they spoil it all by adding supernatural bollocks/woo into the mix.

Nope - as far as I can seen experiences, and all other mental processes -thoughts, feelings and emotions etc, are dependent on material that is biologically active. That seems rather obvious ,and not at all a "mighty truth".

And some go on and say how wonderful science and nature are and then swear blind they are not adding something or finding something in it.

We know what scientific truth is without being evangelical about it.
What you still don’t get is that human experiences aren’t adequately described by your atomistic approach. Neither is consciousness etc.

[Enki]

Objective evidence need not mean only measurable through physical instruments. Even experiences that are similar among various people across the globe and  which lead to similar conclusions, can be regarded as objective. Experiences that can be replicated using standard methods that can be taught to others, are also objective.

Though I don't have any expertise on western philosophies....most western metaphysical philosophies are largely seen as intellectual exercises and attempts to reduce metaphysical matters to a rational framework.   They rarely if at all involve personal exercises and experiences. That is why most of them are dry and tedious texts relegated to library bookshelves.

On the other hand, the philosophies such as Samkhya, Yoga, Jainism and Buddhism (also western ones such as Kabbala and sufism) are 'living' philosophies that are integrated with religious teachings and inspire millions of people everyday. The Bhagavad Gita for example, is largely a philosophical text in the guise of a religious scriptural discourse. It is one of the most popular religious text among Hindus in spite of being a metaphysical text dealing with ontology.

I'm going to assume that by 'experiences' you mean mystical experiences. Hood's 32 point 'M' Scale does indeed seem to show that mystical experiences of, for instance, American Christians, Buddhists and Iranian Muslims are more alike than different. Historically,also, such experiences are described from as wide a variety of sources as the Upanishads, Plotinus and Meister Eckhart.

Where I disagree with you is that such experiences lead to similar conclusions. They seem to be interpreted in a variety of different ways usually in keeping with the cultural progression of a person's particular grouping. Hence, Buddhists tend to recognize the Buddha mind as ultimate reality, Vedantists recognize Brahmin as ultimate reality, Christians recognize Jesus as Ultimate reality and Muslims recognize Allah as ultimate reality.

Now this is where I come back to my original point as regards explanation which I attempted to make in reply 56, when I said:

Explanation, on the other hand, demands checks and balances to enable it to be the best possible explanation, and, for it to have substance, this should be, as far as possible, least coloured by the proponent's subjective views. Science method, as regards reality, scores heavily, as there seems to be no comparable current discipline which seeks to produce information in as objective a way as possible.

I quite accept that personal exercises, disciplines and meditative methods may well recreate such mystical experiences, but what they do not do is explain them. All you seem to have is your personal interpretation, which is fair enough, but remember so do very many other people who may well interpret them very differently.

So, finally, my take on such experiences is that the universality of same, and the fact that they can be replicated and taught to others emphasises that they are a part of the human condition but says nothing objectively about why they occur.

[Gordon]

And some go on and say how wonderful science and nature are and then swear blind they are not adding something or finding something in it.

We know what scientific truth is without being evangelical about it.
What you still don’t get is that human experiences aren’t adequately described by your atomistic approach. Neither is consciousness etc.

Try describing consciousness without reference to active biology, and if you are going for a non-biological explanation of consciousness please tell us what method you've used to identify any non-biological aspects.

[Free Willy]

Try describing consciousness without reference to active biology, and if you are going for a non-biological explanation of consciousness please tell us what method you've used to identify any non-biological aspects.

But describing consciousness is not the same as experiencing it.
Describe consciousness to someone who is conscious.
Was there consciousness before the formal study of biology?
I can try to explain it biologically but how do I distinguish that from intelligence?
I find then that I can only partly describe it with biology.
What makes you think therefore that I am reluctant to describe it as far as biology can take us?
Sounds like epic straw manning on your part.

And by the way laddies on this forum who try to describe consciousness purely scientifically tend to end up using metaphor e.g the orchestra tuning up metaphor. Nice, but hardly biology.

[Gordon]

But describing consciousness is not the same as experiencing it.
Describe consciousness to someone who is conscious.
Was there consciousness before the formal study of biology?
I can try to explain it biologically but how do I distinguish that from intelligence?
I find then that I can only partly describe it with biology.
What makes you think therefore that I am reluctant to describe it as far as biology can take us?
Sounds like epic straw manning on your part.

So, cutting to the chase and ignoring your usual rambling silliness, since you say you can only partly describe consciousness by referring to biology, on what basis have you decided that their is another, and presumably non-biological, aspect of consciousness and how have you identified this?

And by the way laddies on this forum who try to describe consciousness purely scientifically tend to end up using metaphor e.g the orchestra tuning up metaphor. Nice, but hardly biology.

I'm not doing that: you and your straw men eh!

[Steve H]

But describing consciousness is not the same as experiencing it.
Describe consciousness to someone who is conscious.
Was there consciousness before the formal study of biology?
I can try to explain it biologically but how do I distinguish that from intelligence?
I find then that I can only partly describe it with biology.
What makes you think therefore that I am reluctant to describe it as far as biology can take us?
Sounds like epic straw manning on your part.

And by the way laddies on this forum who try to describe consciousness purely scientifically tend to end up using metaphor e.g the orchestra tuning up metaphor. Nice, but hardly biology.

CS Lewis once said that studying consciousness by introspection was a bit like taking out your eyes to have a look at them.

[Sriram]

I'm going to assume that by 'experiences' you mean mystical experiences. Hood's 32 point 'M' Scale does indeed seem to show that mystical experiences of, for instance, American Christians, Buddhists and Iranian Muslims are more alike than different. Historically,also, such experiences are described from as wide a variety of sources as the Upanishads, Plotinus and Meister Eckhart.

Where I disagree with you is that such experiences lead to similar conclusions. They seem to be interpreted in a variety of different ways usually in keeping with the cultural progression of a person's particular grouping. Hence, Buddhists tend to recognize the Buddha mind as ultimate reality, Vedantists recognize Brahmin as ultimate reality, Christians recognize Jesus as Ultimate reality and Muslims recognize Allah as ultimate reality.

Now this is where I come back to my original point as regards explanation which I attempted to make in reply 56, when I said:

I quite accept that personal exercises, disciplines and meditative methods may well recreate such mystical experiences, but what they do not do is explain them. All you seem to have is your personal interpretation, which is fair enough, but remember so do very many other people who may well interpret them very differently.

So, finally, my take on such experiences is that the universality of same, and the fact that they can be replicated and taught to others emphasises that they are a part of the human condition but says nothing objectively about why they occur.

Yes...I agree  that interpretations could be different but not really as different as you suggest. The Buddha mind (Dharmakaya) for example, is very similar to the Brahman of Vedanta. The Tao of Taoism is also similar. The Ein Soph of Kabbala is also similar as is the Monad of Gnosticism and the Wahdat  UL Wujood of Sufi.

No doubt there could be differences in the way they are imagined and explained but the essence is the same.

I agree that we have no definite or comprehensive explanations on why and how life occurs. There are however speculative philosophical explanations that are similar across the world....which is the point I am making. 

[ProfessorDavey]

But describing consciousness is not the same as experiencing it.
Describe consciousness to someone who is conscious.

Biology helps explain what consciousness is an how it works - just as in other fields science is about understanding phenomena.

Was there consciousness before the formal study of biology?

Of course there was, just as the earth went around the sun before science helped us to understand this to be the case and why this happens.

You might as well ask some other non-sense question such as whether consciousness existed before humans had developed this philosophy or that philosophy.

[Free Willy]

So, cutting to the chase and ignoring your usual rambling silliness, since you say you can only partly describe consciousness by referring to biology, on what basis have you decided that their is another, and presumably non-biological, aspect of consciousness and how have you identified this?

I'm not doing that: you and your straw men eh!

Stop throwing it on me. If you think there is a complete scientific answer to consciousness then you are committing science to finishing the job.

Will science achieve that or not?

[Gordon]

Stop throwing it on me. If you think there is a complete scientific answer to consciousness then you are committing science to finishing the job.

Will science achieve that or not?

You must have an army of straw men in reserve, Vlad: I have never claimed that science has a complete answer to consciousness but that, to date, it does appear to be a function of functioning biology and that further understandings via science may yet emerge.

You, in an earlier reply, opined that you accepted that science may offer some explanations but that there may be non-material explanations, and asked by what means you know this.

[Free Willy]

You must have an army of straw men in reserve, Vlad: I have never claimed that science has a complete answer to consciousness but that, to date, it does appear to be a function of functioning biology and that further understandings via science may yet emerge.

You, in an earlier reply, opined that you accepted that science may offer some explanations but that there may be non-material explanations, and asked by what means you know this.

Look, either Consciousness is a completely empirical phenomena or it isn't. If not there is a gap.

You are right not to commit because that spares you the charge of scientism.

Of course Darling Dennett thought he had a completely material explanation for consciousness but has been criticised for doing so.

I am of course waiting to see what science comes up with and am  not bothered whether consciousness is completely exposed as mere mechanism or if there is a not material emergent component to it. If the latter then that jeopardises empiricism if the former then so what?

[Gordon]

Look, either Consciousness is a completely empirical phenomena or it isn't. If not there is a gap.

No - not a 'gap': just that current understanding is acknowledged as being incomplete.

You are right not to commit because that spares you the charge of scientism.

I'd have pleaded innocent.

Of course Darling Dennett thought he had a completely material explanation for consciousness but has been criticised for doing so.

Do tell.

I am of course waiting to see what science comes up with...

Me too.

...and am  not bothered whether consciousness is completely exposed as mere mechanism or if there is a not material emergent component to it. If the latter then that jeopardises empiricism if the former then so what?

And here we see your underlying confusion: if there were some "non-material element" then you would need a specific "mere mechanism" to identify this element, and this would then fall under the description of empiricism.

Asserting the possibility of a "non-material element" simply isn't enough.

[jeremyp]

What like doing what comes naturally, like material did it? So what since religion recognises that we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.

Humans aren't made of dust, so that's a fail.

[jeremyp]

Look, either Consciousness is a completely empirical phenomena or it isn't. If not there is a gap.

But if we assume it is not, then we can never know what it is or how it works. It seems to me that it would be much more interesting to assume the explanation of consciousness is within the reach of science and, so far, I have seen no evidence that it is not.

You are right not to commit because that spares you the charge of scientism.

Not if it turns out that consciousness is amenable to being explained by science. It's not as if religion has anything helpful to say on the matter.

[Steve H]

we are just dust to dust and ashes to ashes to ashes.

"Ashes to ashes and dust to dust -
If the women don't get you, the whiskey must."
Jelly-Roll Morton

[jeremyp]

"Ashes to ashes and dust to dust -
If the women don't get you, the whiskey must."
Jelly-Roll Morton

Ashes to ashes, funk to funky
We know Major Tom's a junkie