Posted on 12/07/2002 9:46:51 AM PST by beckett
Well....Maybe. Not sure what you intend to convey, however. Your use of the word, "meta-physical," is strange to me, because I use the word "metaphysics," to designate that branch or philosophy that deals with the ultimate nature of existense. One of the questions of metaphysics (philosophy), is whether material (perceiveable) existense is all there is (the view of the strict naturalists) or whether material existense is part of a larger existense (many worlds type theories) or a subset of a greater existense (the view of supernaturalists).
In an earlier discussion with Sabertooth, I was impressed by the assumption that seemed apparent that I only believed we could know what could be perceived, which is not the case. We are conscious, but consciousness itself cannot be perceived. The strict naturalist is mistaken because he must either ignore consciousness (which most do) or deny it (which behaviorists actually do).
Consciousness itself has none of the qualities of material existense and cannot therefore be defined by them. We know we are conscious the same way we know we can see. We cannot directly perceive our seeing, we know it because we do it. In the same way, we cannot directly perceive our consciousness (or that of any other being, either), we know our own consciousness because we are conscious, but must take the word of others about theirs, and assume it for other creatures from their behavior.
I do not particularly like the word, "supernatural," so do not use that word, but those who do, I think, refer to what seems apparent to me: material existense is not all there is, because there is at least also consciousness, which cannot be material existense or an aspect of it, if for no other reason (and there are actually many), since material existense is that we are directly conscious of (i.e. that which we perceive), it cannot itself be a material existent, because we cannot perceive it. (No behavior, by the way, is proof of consciousness, because all behavior can be simulated or otherwise explained without it.)
Of course, as soon as human (rational/volitional) consciousness is brought into the question, the fact that both volition (choice) and knowledge (cognition) exclude causation, in the material sense, the suggestion that consciousness is an aspect of material existense becomes absurd. If all conscious choice is nothing more than materially caused events, all of our behavior becomes nothing more than accidental events that happen to us, and, if all our ideas are just materially caused phenomena, then there is no more cognitive significance to an idea than to an itch.
This view is a strictly rational one, however, and there is no place in it for irrationality or mysticism.
(Please understand this treatment has been very informal and is only meant to express my viewpoint in a very general way.)
Hank
He might then devise one --devise a belief system heavy with conjecture and short on measurements-- and that new way of thinking about the oddity would be a 'meta-physical' conjecture.
Yes, but one must never forget that it is still conjecture. You have a hypothesis, not a proof. Isn't this the sort of thing we have with religious belief systems?... Has humankind, confronted with a series of events where greater realities have intersected our spacetime, devised a way to conceptualize this realm and the beings and forces of this realm?
Yes, and more than just religious systems. The problem is in verifying that there is anything that extends beyond our space time, since we cannot see out of our space time continuum, or mistaking what we see as not being something that is actually part and parcel of our space time continuum but in a manner we do not yet understand. Shouldn’t one rule out the latter before leaping to the conclusion of the former? With the above thought line offered, it is unreasonable to infer it is possible to form conjecture regarding that which is not bound by our 'laws of physics' as we presently understand them.
I think you mean it is ‘reasonable to infer’ not unreasonable here. Yes, it is reasonable to infer, if you have certain evidence, to form the conjecture. But is still just conjecture. Regarding the soul and spirit, such conjectures follow from the summing of events and experience where a greater dimensional being or system has repeatedly intersected our realm of understanding. I would suggest that the life lived on earth by one Jesus of Nazareth, is just such an event, and the entirety of the things people reported of Him and His acts. Such experience and the faith associated to the reporting leads to a meta-physical belief system, but to assume such a system is invalid is a bit dismissive, don't you think?
If you accept that as evidence then you accept that evidence. At this point, with what I have seen people conclude upon evidence today, I can’t blithely accept evidence from people 2000 years ago that were predisposed to a certain view. The accuracy of those reports can in no way be verified. It isn’t that I assume the system invalid, I don’t see the evidence it is valid. In point of fact, since the experiences and the belief system are not confined to the 'laws of physics', there is no way at present to 'know' in the sense of physical proofs, a massive body of physical data which can be measured and theorized over and experiments devised to 'falsify' for scientific purposes.
This is exactly the point, couldn’t have said it better myself, and you answered my question. No one can know, at this point. Unless we can find something we are overlooking. The placebo effect in medicine may be closely associated to the 'meta-physical' portion of our existence ... inferring, of course, that we have a component of our existence --the soul and spirit-- that is not bound solely by the 'laws of physics' as we understand them, presently.
See, I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion from the same data, that ‘soul and spirit’ are, in fact, part and parcel of this universe, not outside it. If we have evidence of something happening here, why assume it must be from outside here? Go with the evidence, it is here. The fact that 'prayer changes things', that miraculous healings can occur would seem to point heavily to reality as yet beyond our 'laws of physics'. I won't argue over miracles, since even medical science is coming to accept that there such healings that remian unexplanable in our current understanding.]
I have yet to see truly documented cases of these things. And I started in all this by believing and looking for them. That the human body has the power to heal itself, and that ‘believing’ is the key to the healing power is well documented. The problem here is that it doesn’t matter what you believe, only that you believe. If one believes in something strong enough, that belief can heal you.
I told this story before. There was a Chinese writer in Red China who was diagnosed with lung cancer. Two separate xrays and diagnoses. He was given 6 months to live. They wanted another set of xrays to determine the extent. As he was waiting for the xrays to develop he found himself praying to the Buddha. He wasn’t a Buddhist, had never prayed before, but found himself chanting over and over almost against his will. He didn’t even really know why he was doing this. When the doctor came out he said the xrays were clear. Based upon this he figured there was a reason he was being given a second chance at life and figured out how to leave China and now lives in France. I used to collect these stories, I can dig up dozens. And many have nothing to do with Jesus. So what is really happening here?
As for effecting reality outside the mind/body connection, statistically speaking, it never rises above the level of chance. Nobody has yet prayed a bridge into existence. There are plenty of examples of prayer failing. As long as we dwell in flatland, we cannot dwell in the greater universe where our soul and spirit may already have unmeasured connection.
And it may well be we already dwell in that greater universe and just don’t see it because we think it is separate from this one. I think the evidence is that this is actually the case, and we don’t have to leave this space time continuum to understand this. Just look at it in a different way. Maybe Flatland isn’t really all that flat.
I sense, we are not using ego in the same sense. The happiness you would express in laying down your life is the same ego. It is you knowing you exist. That you lay down your life for an eternal life is not a loss. It is just a matter of timing. A thousand years from now what will it matter if you lived to 30 or to 80? Assuming your friends and family all share the same faith, it is like going on a vacation for a couple years. Sooner or later you all end up together anyway.
i often suffer the same fate. no need to apologize. its not like you're trying to hurt my feelings.
The happiness you would express in laying down your life is the same ego.
In the scenario I used, the decision to end my life would be His alone. My happiness would be that His will shall be done. Self interest is not a factor at any point.
I guess you are right, that we do not using the word ego in the same sense. I use the term as a matter of will as compared to being.
Then why does it matter if you are happy or not?
You man want to read this.
There is one sure thing we can say about those things that we do not know--We don't know them.
To use your metaphor, what would a Flatland creature think if its plane intersected the branches of a tree? How would it ever determine that what appeared to be separate things were really part of one thing outside its plane. In offering the flatland analogy on previous occasions, I've posed the notion that for a three-variable being to introduce a flatlander to a pencil (a three variable thingy), the three-being would pass the pencil 'through' flatland and the residents therein would have to 'sum' the visible intersections over time to get a concept of the whole. [Kind of a borrowing from calculus.] I use this analogy to explain how it is that God can walk among men, 'Summing the totality of the experience of Jesus among us, we have a better notion of His fullness, yet we can never see His totality inside our limits.'
I'm sorry but this seems hopelessly confused to me. What can you possibly mean by "pure concept?" It sounds like some Hegelian or Kantian non-concept to me. Plato was a mystic whose contributions were more damaging than useful to understanding anything. I suggest you read Aristotle.
As for, "science has nothing to do with the knowledge of the material world," what knowledge does it have to do with. Is not the physics that discovers the nature of light enabling the creation of Lasers knowldge about the material world? Is not the chemistry the enables us to understand the nature of polymers enabling the creation of plastics knowledge about the material world?
I suspect you are a mathematician, or greatly influenced by that discipline. Numbers are not "pure" concepts. If there were never anything to count, there never would have been a concept of numbers. All of mathematics (which is nothing more than a method for dealing with one of the qualities of material existense, i.e. its measureability) could not possibly exist or have meaning.
All of mathematics and all of the concepts which comprise it are nothing more than abstractions from the identification of qualities of material existense. Without material existinse, there can be no mathematics.
Hank
And then you went off in a direction completely different than what I meant. That it insufficient to fulfill what I was driving at is ok. 'Nothing' is what is separate from our 'direct experiencing.'
But that's enough for one day, maybe for the rest of the week.
PMFJI, but consciousness and the mind have always been one of my fascinations. :)
It has been my understanding that the mind is kind of a neural thunderstorm that constantly flickers within the physical brain. Sequences captured by magnetic resonance imaging dance like cloud lightning in summer cumulous in response to external stimulus. The idea that "volition (choice) and knowledge (cognition) exclude causation, in the material sense," seems to deny the observed phenomena.
If all conscious choice is nothing more than materially caused events, all of our behavior becomes nothing more than accidental events that happen to us, and, if all our ideas are just materially caused phenomena, then there is no more cognitive significance to an idea than to an itch.
I've often wondered where ideas come from. Trying to dredge up AHA! moments is an exercise in frustration and, when they do occur, they seem to come from nowhere. The fact that you can generate new ideas seemingly at random (with, alas, random usefulness), with free association (scanning magazines, flipping through TV channels, surfing the internet, etc.) seems to indicate that internal neural communications are an inexact process, and those AHA! moments are fortuitous linkages caused by "short circuits."
Do you recall the sequence from the file "2001, A Space Odyssey," where Dave removed the memory blocks from HAL's "brain," one at a time? As HAL lost more and more of the physical repository of his mind, he regressed into his "childhood," and finally expired.
I had the unfortunate experience of watching my father die of Alzheimer's disease. It was like that film sequence, except that it was dragged out for a number of years. At the end, he knew no one, seemingly not even himself. He finally died when his autonomic systems failed.
I apologize for mentioning that, but it seems such an obvious example of the direct connection between the physical brain and the conscious mind, and the fact that the mind cannot exist without the brain.
Exactly! It doesn't matter - not a bit.
Thanks for your post!
I'm not a scientist, but I read voraciously on the things of science. I've spent decades pondering these concepts and writing around the edges. I do believe your father exists eternally and he will be in a body again, with consciousness. Perhaps that's as deep as I ought go in such an agnostic forum, but I will pose one last notion.
To this Christian, the Cross of Christ occurred thousands of years ago; Where/When that event occurred, it had meaning for all that had lived and all that would live ... the force of what He accomplished on that Cross and with His ressurection reaches as far back in our reckoning of time as it reaches forward. But in His reckoning, it is all of one time ... like that 'panoramic' plane. It is our understanding of the phenomenon of time that needs work, for faith's sake and for further scientific advance.
What I tell you is real, although unless you have been reborn of the Spirit this will seem as foolishness or may play into the hands of deception.
Man is body, soul and spirit. This is not merely some echo of jingoistic religion. It is a concise report of intuitive phenomena and understanding.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 1 Corinthians 15:53-54
I have no doubt at all that a physical brain is necessary to consciousness. Consciousness must be conscious of something, and there must be some actual (logical) relationship between consciousness and that which consciousness is conscious of.
However, I do not believe consciousness is and "emergent" quality of matter, but distinct from it. Though it is unlikely that you would have heard of it, all of existense can be described is levels of differentiation, from the simplest differentiation of "position," to " motion," to " accelleration" (and notice, differences of position are spatial, and differences of motion are temporal, and differences of accelleration are the qualities of mass and energy, if you are familiar with physics). The next level of differentiation of the same existense is no doubt consciousness, and rationa/volitional consciousness the last.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.