Do you believe in the mystical?

[Gambit]

Only things that have been explained have explanations. Many things have not been explained, so the answer to your question is no.

I expect that we will develop explanations for more phenomena in the future. All of these explanations will be naturalistic, since the definition of "naturalistic" implies that if an explanation is not naturalistic, then it isn't valid, and is therefore not an explanation at all.

That's not the definition of "naturalistic." A naturalistic explanation is naturalistic. A nonnaturalistic (e.g. supernaturalistic or mystical) explanation is not naturalistic. (You might be able to argue that a supernaturalistic explanation does not qualify as a scientific explanation. But that's entirely a different matter whether a supernaturalistic or mystical explanation qualifies as an explanation.)

I don't expect that humanity will ever learn all there is to learn, simply because it seems that "all there is to learn" is infinite.

If you're talking about inherent limitations that stop us from learning about some particular aspect of things, I don't know. There may be... but all that lies in the unknown, so I'm not in a position to say.

It appears that you are agnostic on this matter. You don't know whether or not you believe every phenomenon has a naturalistic explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not the definition of "naturalistic." A naturalistic explanation is naturalistic. A nonnaturalistic (e.g. supernaturalistic or mystical) explanation is not naturalistic. (You might be able to argue that a supernaturalistic explanation does not qualify as a scientific explanation. But that's entirely a different matter whether a supernaturalistic or mystical explanation qualifies as an explanation.)

Since you defined "naturalistic" in terms of science, and since science is - in the broadest sense - rigorous logical inference of conclusions from evidence, they're very much the same question. If a supernatural explanation is non-scientific, it must be lacking in rigour, logic, or evidence, which would make not an explanation at all, just as I said.

It appears that you are agnostic on this matter. You don't know whether or not you believe every phenomenon has a naturalistic explanation.

It appears that you don't have the first clue about what I believe.

 

[lovemuffin]

Penguin: I think gambit is asking whether or not you think the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true. It's the difference between asking whether it's feasible for a human being to know the explanation for everything and asking whether or not it's certain that everything has an explanation which is in theory knowable, even if yet unknown.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin: I think gambit is asking whether or not you think the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true. It's the difference between asking whether it's feasible for a human being to know the explanation for everything and asking whether or not it's certain that everything has an explanation which is in theory knowable, even if yet unknown.

Well, hasn't said that yet himself, but I think it would be strange to ask that question.

First off, it expects me to know about not only the "known unknowns" (i.e. the identified gaps in our knowledge), but also the "unknown unknowns" (i.e. the things so far outside our sphere of knowledge that we don't even know that we don't know them yet). I can't speak to unknown unknowns, except to say that anyone who does try to speak to them is talking out of his butt.

Second, when it comes right down to it, we're really just limited meatsacks that have only been out of the trees for a few hundred thousand years. I'm not sure why anyone would ever assume that we're even capable of omniscience.

 

[lovemuffin]

I understand what you are saying. I think the principle is sort of an outgrowth of "rationalism" or logical positivism, although the terms are a bit anachronistic for the PSR, since it was formulated probably ahead of either movement. But the principle is arrived at in part logically from considering the nature of causation philosophically, and in part by induction from observation of the physical systems for which it seems to be specifically true. The PSR is a deterministic principle, and especially, at the height of the success of Newtonian physics, determinism looked very much like a reasonable hypothesis, human limitations notwithstanding. I should have probably asked whether you believed that everything has (in theory) an explanation, rather than if it is certain.

And yes, gambit didn't ask it in this way, but the PSR is central to the arguments in his other threads, and I think as a presupposition it helps explain why, when you said there is not a naturalistic explanation for everything, he asked whether it meant there was a non-natural explanation. Because he's proceeding from the belief that everything requires an explanation, which is the PSR.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand what you are saying. I think the principle is sort of an outgrowth of "rationalism" or logical positivism, although the terms are a bit anachronistic for the PSR, since it was formulated probably ahead of either movement. But the principle is arrived at in part logically from considering the nature of causation philosophically, and in part by induction from observation of the physical systems for which it seems to be specifically true. The PSR is a deterministic principle, and especially, at the height of the success of Newtonian physics, determinism looked very much like a reasonable hypothesis, human limitations notwithstanding. I should have probably asked whether you believed that everything has (in theory) an explanation, rather than if it is certain.

And yes, gambit didn't ask it in this way, but the PSR is central to the arguments in his other threads, and I think as a presupposition it helps explain why, when you said there is not a naturalistic explanation for everything, he asked whether it meant there was a non-natural explanation. Because he's proceeding from the belief that everything requires an explanation, which is the PSR.

As I touched on earlier, I think there may be a terminology issue here. It seems like you're using the term "explanation" to describe something that I think is better described by "cause". The way I understand the term, only things that are explained have explanations. A thing that is not explained has no explanations at all, whether naturalistic or non-naturalistic.

 

[Gambit]

Since you defined "naturalistic" in terms of science, and since science is - in the broadest sense - rigorous logical inference of conclusions from evidence, they're very much the same question. If a supernatural explanation is non-scientific, it must be lacking in rigour, logic, or evidence, which would make not an explanation at all, just as I said.

Let's briefly summarize some of our recent exchanges:

You: "Naturalism is the position that scientific laws are adequate to explain all phenomena."

Me: "Okay."

You: "Science is nothing more than the rigorous application of logical inference to evidence. Therefore, a non-naturalistic explanation for a phenomenon would be irrational in some way (e.g. not be rigorous, not be logical, or not be derived from evidence)... and therefore not be an explanation at all."

Me: "There is no naturalistic explanation for a random event. But we have compelling evidence that such events do in fact occur."

You: "As I said to well named, I don't think that every phenomenon necessarily has a naturalistic explanation, but I do think that all the valid explanations to be had are naturalistic."

Question(s): Do you believe we have compelling evidence that random events occur? If yes, do you believe random events have a naturalistic explanation? If yes, what exactly is it?

It appears that you don't have the first clue about what I believe.

Well, that would appear to make two of us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Question(s): Do you believe we have compelling evidence that random events occur?

That depends what you mean by "random".

If you mean "uncaused", I'm not sure it's even possible to differentiate between an event with no cause and an event with a cause that's non-random but unknown to us, so compelling evidence is likely impossible.

If you mean "statistically random" (i.e. an event that occurs with random frequency), then there are plenty of random events that have naturalistic causes. For instance, there's no need to invoke supernatural causation for the outcome of a dice roll even though the outcome is random.

If yes, do you believe random events have a naturalistic explanation? If yes, what exactly is it?

Depends what you mean by "random", and the explanation depends on the event.

Well, that would appear to make two of us.

I know full well what I believe. You just keep asking ambiguous questions.

 

[godnotgod]

The universality of salinity? Rather than just emptily asserting it, please demonstrate that salinity is universal.

It's obvious and needs no demonstration. Go taste for yourself.

Can you see it? It's called a storm cloud.

When we say: 'it is raining', we are not referring to some thing that rains; we are referring to the action of raining itself.

See it? It's the pool that is whirling. If it weren't whirling, it'd just be a pool.

No, it's water that's whirling. There is no thing called a 'whirlpool'; only whirling water. In fact, there is no such 'pool', as pool is simply a form that water is currently in.

See it? If it weren't flowing, it'd probably be a marsh.

Again, it's not a real thing called 'river', but just a way that water is flowing. It's just flowing water, and not some thing you can isolate.

See it? What would it be if it weren't waving? Still water?

There is no such wave here; 'wave' is what the ocean is doing. It's an action, not a thing you can call 'wave'. What you call 'wave' is actually the ocean.


More to follow....

 

[Gambit]

That depends what you mean by "random".

If you mean "uncaused", I'm not sure it's even possible to differentiate between an event with no cause and an event with a cause that's non-random but unknown to us, so compelling evidence is likely impossible.

Quantum fluctuations are inherently random (according the Copenhagen or standard interpretation that is most widely accepted amongst physicists).

The Copenhagen interpretation - due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr - remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists, some 75 years after its enunciation. According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered a final renunciation of the classical idea of "causality."

(source: Wikipedia: Quantum mechanics)

If you mean "statistically random" (i.e. an event that occurs with random frequency), then there are plenty of random events that have naturalistic causes. For instance, there's no need to invoke supernatural causation for the outcome of a dice roll even though the outcome is random.

Well, you have just learned that truly random (as opposed to pseudo-random) events really do occur.

 

[godnotgod]

Despite you claims to the contrary, these things do exist (which is why they can be photographed) ... and there is nothing at all mystical about them.

'Mystical' is not the point; the point is that there is no experiencer of the experience. There is no wave that waves; no it that rains; no pool that whirls; no river that flows. These are all illusions. What the photos show are not things called wave, whirlpool, or river that are in action; they show a snapshot of the action of water. You are being fooled by the way your mind conceptualizes reality.

Of course, people are free to mentally attribute whatever qualities that they like to them. Such flights of fancy have no impact on reality.

But that is precisely what you are unwittingly doing when you create concepts of some thing that is performing an action. There is no agent of the action; there is only the action itself.

Your conclusions are suspect. These things (whirlpools, rivers, waves, etc) are all very real and the qualities that you're apparently ascribing mystical qualities to are simply innate to the object in question. The "whirling" is inherent to the whirlpool, the "flowing" is inherent to the river, the "waving" is inherent to the wave. None of these things would be what they are without these innate (and demonstrable) qualities ... and those qualities manifest via these physical objects.

No. The whirling, waving, flowing are simply the actions of water, not a thing called whirlpool, wave, or river. Whirling, waving, and flowing are not inherent to whirlpool, wave, and river, but to water itself, due to some force behind the water. The force itself is energy, not a thing. I am afraid you are confusing forms with things.

Where do you jump to these actions being mystical? I am only using the metaphors as they relate to the common misconception of an 'experiencer of the experience'.

Until such time as you can demonstrate that thinking can occur without a brain (and hence, a thinker), I'm quite content to dismiss such a claim as hogwash.

That is not the claim. The claim is that there is no such imagined 'thinker of thoughts'. There is only thinking itself.

More to follow.....

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps. But is the conclusion accurate? Is it true?

Well, c'mon. Use the mind of Reason you so highly prize: the conclusion can only be true if the assumption that 'I' is already existent is true. It's a ridiculous, circular argument, which is only saying: 'I exist, therefore, I think; therefore I exist'. It says nothing.

You're wallowing in rigmarole. Why drag out all that superfluous philosophical block and tackle? Who needs placeholders? This soggy-brained example you've provided sounds quite like the sports cliché of the athlete that habitually refers to themselves in the third person. Why not simplify the equation?

"I think, therefore I am." It's much simpler. The conclusion is both self-evident and inescapable.

It may be much simpler, but hides the assumption of the existence of 'I' because of one's subjective involvement. It is perhaps more simplistic than simple. Neither you nor Descartes have established the existence of 'I'. The rationale behind the placeholder 'x' is that it sees 'I' objectively, allowing a clearer view of the inherent assumption in Descarte's flawed logic. BTW, here is a perfect example as to why Reason cannot be trusted, and why the mystic transcends it to gain higher ground.

Q: Descartes states that: 'I think, therefore, I exist'. So, using our cherished faculties of Reason and Logic, does that then mean that when not thinking, one does not exist?

...

 

[Nakosis]

We can experience things which are mystical to us. Modern day Druids are very good at creating mystical experiences.

Christmas time is kind of mystical, we all work together to make it mystical. If you examine things too closely they start to loose that mystical quality.

 

[godnotgod]

We can experience things which are mystical to us. Modern day Druids are very good at creating mystical experiences.

Christmas time is kind of mystical, we all work together to make it mystical. If you examine things too closely they start to loose that mystical quality.

Yes, that is true. We lose it when growing up via our social indoctrination.

I would have to say that everyone is always having a mystical experience all the time, but most do not realize it, as they see the world through conditioned mind. The mystical experience is the realization of divine union, but we are never separated from it; we only think we are, or that it is non-existent. The mundane world we call 'reality', is, in fact, the Miraculous itself, which we fail to notice, just as the fish born into the sea fails to notice the sea itself. His focus, like ours, is on the immediate foreground of existence, while ignoring the background. It is this background of existence out of which Everything is emerging, and to which Everything returns. To realize this, and our connection to it, is to realize the mystical.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Well, c'mon.

No. You c'mon.

Please demonstrate that it's possible for a thinking being to not exist.

In the meantime, let's remind ourselves that even if we discard Descartes altogether, we're still not one iota closer to proving that anything mystical actually exists.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

'Mystical' is not the point; the point is that there is no experiencer of the experience.

You've asserted that, but you've failed to demonstrate it.

There is no wave that waves; no it that rains; no pool that whirls; no river that flows. These are all illusions.

You're asserting that as well, but you've also failed to demonstrate it.

What the photos show are not things called wave, whirlpool, or river that are in action

Please demonstrate that a picture of a whirlpool does not show a whirlpool. Thanks.

they show a snapshot of the action of water.

And when water does these things, we use these words to describe them.

You are being fooled by the way your mind conceptualizes reality.

Please demonstrate that whirling can occur without the pool. Please demonstrate that flowing can occur without the river.

Until such a time arrives, you're obliging me to dismiss you as a woo-monger.

But that is precisely what you are unwittingly doing when you create concepts of some thing that is performing an action. There is no agent of the action; there is only the action itself.

You have failed repeatedly to demonstrate that an action can occur without an agent.

No. The whirling, waving, flowing are simply the actions of water, not a thing called whirlpool, wave, or river.

If it didn't whirl, what are the chances that we'd call it a whirlpool?

Whirling, waving, and flowing are not inherent to whirlpool, wave, and river, but to water itself, due to some force behind the water.

Yes they are. That's why the names for these things incorporate the action into the name. A whirlpool must whirl ... a wave must wave ... and a river must flow. Otherwise, they're something else: A mere pool ... still water ... or a marsh.

The force itself is energy, not a thing. I am afraid you are confusing forms with things.

As if things cannot be energized?

Where do you jump to these actions being mystical? I am only using the metaphors as they relate to the common misconception of an 'experiencer of the experience'.

Please demonstrate that an experience can exist without an agent to experience it. Thanks.

And again: Until such a time arrives, you're obliging me to dismiss you as a woo-monger.

That is not the claim. The claim is that there is no such imagined 'thinker of thoughts'. There is only thinking itself.

Please demonstrate that thinking can occur without a thinker.

And again: Until such a time arrives, you're obliging me to dismiss you as a woo-monger.

More to follow.....

Not at the rate you're going. Your arguments fail to impress in the slightest.

 

[nash8]

Merriam-Webster defines "mystical" as "having a spiritual meaning that is difficult to see or understand" or "mysterious."

Question:

Do you believe in the mystical? That is, do you believe there is something that has spiritual meaning that is difficult to see or understand? That there is something that is mysterious and defies any attempt at a complete explanation?

That's not the definition of "naturalistic." A naturalistic explanation is naturalistic. A nonnaturalistic (e.g. supernaturalistic or mystical) explanation is not naturalistic. (You might be able to argue that a supernaturalistic explanation does not qualify as a scientific explanation. But that's entirely a different matter whether a supernaturalistic or mystical explanation qualifies as an explanation.)

To tie all of these quotes in together, quantum physics/particles and the human brain are 2 things in everyday life that I would consider mystical and not mystical at the same time. Almost everyone can conceive the concept and basic mechanics and ideas of how they work but in actual application and the so called "finer details", we have no idea exactly how the brain functions, or how certain aspects of quantum mechanics work. So we can explain certain aspects of both of them naturalisticly, other parts not so much as of yet. And when you combine the two together, it becomes even more so. And I believe this will become more prevalent as science progresses in the study biophotonics, and the role that photons play in regulating body/brain function. I mean, quantum neuroscience, it just sounds mystically natural .

And to add a question of my own, is something naturalistic or mystical if we know that something works but not how and/or why it works?

"Mystical" means different things to different people. Some folks use the word to refer to paranormal stuff, like clairvoyance or remote viewing. Others use it to refer to the experience of the oneness of all things that apparently occurs when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while experiencing in some sense continues. And other folks mean other things by the term.

Interestingly enough, I have had that experience of oneness when subject/object perception abruptly cease while you continue to experience. And I have had that unique experience in 2 different ways, which is interesting in and of itself. In seeking to explain these experiences rationally, I came across 2 articles concerning particular areas of brain function, one was actually on a nordic berserker cite interestingly enough, and the other a scientific study seeking to describe the experience of oneness/union with the divine.

The berserker web cite sighted a specific area of the brain, I'll see if I can post the article, that controls the identification of self, visio-spatial recogniton of the body in space, and the hypothesis was that through concious (over)activation of this part of the brain the berserker was able to enter into a state of self oneness (lack of recgonition of anything but the self/emptiness).

The other article, which has some neuroimaging and scientific analysis, states that when the experienced meditator entered the state of oneness, that same area of the brain became almostly completely inactive, thus releasing the mind of the concept of bodily awareness, and by all acounts literally becoming one with the universe, as the brain is not percieveing any conception of self.

Now I can describe how both of these states felt in pretty good detail, and I could give you a pretty idea of why both of them happen in terms of brain function, but I have no clue as to how to tell you to induce these states in your own being. The experience of the states myself was definitely what I would qualify as mystical, as they were unlike anything I felt before or have felt since, but at the same time I can give you a (fairly) scientific explenation as to what causes them.

So at the end of the day, is an experience of oneness with the universe not mystical because it can be explained by a scientific proccess of specific brain function?

Yes, that is true. We lose it when growing up via our social indoctrination.

I would have to say that everyone is always having a mystical experience all the time, but most do not realize it, as they see the world through conditioned mind. The mystical experience is the realization of divine union, but we are never separated from it; we only think we are, or that it is non-existent. The mundane world we call 'reality', is, in fact, the Miraculous itself, which we fail to notice, just as the fish born into the sea fails to notice the sea itself. His focus, like ours, is on the immediate foreground of existence, while ignoring the background. It is this background of existence out of which Everything is emerging, and to which Everything returns. To realize this, and our connection to it, is to realize the mystical.

Well said!!!! When you shut up and listen the universe is the best conversationalist. And whoever said that comedy is divine hit the nail right on the head, cuz that guy is funny as hell, and he be joking about serious *** **** , and still make you laugh.

 

[godnotgod]

... whoever said that comedy is divine hit the nail right on the head, cuz that guy is funny as hell, and he be joking about serious *** **** , and still make you laugh.

Ya, it has been forgotten that the serous *** stuff is only a Big Act to begin with, hence the humor. The only religion I know of where play (lila) and illusion (maya) are primary keys to understanding the universe is Hinduism. Once we catch a glimpse of ourselves from the point of view of the universe, and experience what Gurdjieff called 'self remembering', there is nothing left to do but have a big belly laugh. Years spent in serious effort in trying to 'figure things out' when there is nothing to figure out can produce this finality.

 

[godnotgod]

No. You c'mon.

Please demonstrate that it's possible for a thinking being to not exist.

Which thinking being are you referring to? I fail to see one, though I see the thinking. Are you any better off than the child with his bogeyman or the believer with his Special Friend?

In the meantime, let's remind ourselves that even if we discard Descartes altogether, we're still not one iota closer to proving that anything mystical actually exists.

As it is an experience beyond the rational mind, it cannot be proven by any such means. It can only be experienced directly.

So you have doubts about Descartes, now, do you? You're coming along just fine.

 

[nash8]

You've asserted that, but you've failed to demonstrate it.

You're asserting that as well, but you've also failed to demonstrate it.

Please demonstrate that a picture of a whirlpool does not show a whirlpool. Thanks.

And when water does these things, we use these words to describe them.

Please demonstrate that whirling can occur without the pool. Please demonstrate that flowing can occur without the river.

Until such a time arrives, you're obliging me to dismiss you as a woo-monger.

You have failed repeatedly to demonstrate that an action can occur without an agent.

If it didn't whirl, what are the chances that we'd call it a whirlpool?

Yes they are. That's why the names for these things incorporate the action into the name. A whirlpool must whirl ... a wave must wave ... and a river must flow. Otherwise, they're something else: A mere pool ... still water ... or a marsh.

As if things cannot be energized?

Please demonstrate that an experience can exist without an agent to experience it. Thanks.

And again: Until such a time arrives, you're obliging me to dismiss you as a woo-monger.

Please demonstrate that thinking can occur without a thinker.

And again: Until such a time arrives, you're obliging me to dismiss you as a woo-monger.

Not at the rate you're going. Your arguments fail to impress in the slightest.

I understand where you are coming from, but I also understand where Godnotgod is coming from. Going back to the water vs. specific types of water argument.

Whirling water = whirlpool
waving water = wave
flowing water = river

What is the common theme in all of these? Water right.

You are classifying the specific actions of water as different types of water - whirlpool, wave, and river are all nouns that imply a specific action. Hence, they are all different "things".

What GodnotGod is saying is that instead of being three separate things, they are all one thing (water), that is completing different actions.

All in all, I would argue that the entire discussion is one of semantics, because no matter what word(s) you use the idea that water is completing an action is implicit in all of them. But at the same time I also recognize that GodnotGod is implying a deeper idea, that all things are of one substance at their basis. So from this standpoint, the argument that water is only one thing, no matter the action that it is taking is an important one. It implies that all things, no matte the action they are taking, are still just one "thing".

On that note, considering the progression in quantum physics, and the discovery of smaller and smaller particles, do you not think it possible or even probable that everything at the most basic level is only made of one "substance?"? Photons, gluons, neutrinos, and all of the other tiniest particles that we know of all composed of the same thing?