Reality is subjective / comes from the mind? Really?

[Willamena]

Certainly.

So what is the "plateau"?

 

[Surya Deva]

Testimony is only valid to the person who had the experience. Surya, if you are brave enough to take one of those philosophy classes I apparently could not survive in, try Philosophy of Religion. This was covered prominently. If you have some mystical experience, that may validate it for you, but you cannot use your experience to show that mysticism is objectively true. Mystical experiences are induced by the brain to the best of our knowledge. So, your experience is no more or less valid that the guy on LSD who gets attacked by the troll. Are you willing to accept his testimony that trolls truly exist? (Well, you may, but most would not).

Indeed, this is why I said that I will not talk about my experiences because they are personal. Suffice it to say they are nothing like your troll strawman, they are lucid and verifiable experiences, including precognition of very specific events that were about to happen and then did indeed happen. In any case I know I cannot convince you, I am just sharing this to let you know why I am convinced.

As for consciousness being from the brain, there is no reason to believe it is not. We do not know either way, but if all the rest of human experience is in the brain (love, pain, happiness, sadness, addiction, etc etc etc) why should we believe consciousness (which relies on these) is free of the brain? The answer; we shouldn't.

There is indeed very good reason to believe consciousness is not produced in the brain:

1) The brain the vat thought experiment(lets not discuss it again, it obviously went way over your head)
2) The hard problem of consciousness
3) The holographic theory of the brain
4) Quantum physics
5) NDE and OBE research


What you indicate re love, pain, happiness and sorrow etc which all have neural correlates is known as the soft problem of consciousness We have no problem finding neural correlates for all phenomenological experiences but we cannot explain how any brain activity could produce conscious experience.

There is nothing within logic which could allow any kind of physical quantitative activity to produce qualitative experience. You cannot put inert matter and inert matter together and produce conscious matter. There is no reason why any quantity or complexity of physical processes could all of a sudden as if by pure miracle become conscious. To believe this happens is as logically as valid as believing God created the universe.

Moreover, it is impossible to put a gross object and another gross object together and produce from that a subtle object. It is like if I put a mountain and a mountain together they form an atom As intelligence and mind are incredibly subtle, so subtle in fact that we cannot even see them, it is impossible that they were created by a lump of grey matter. It is irrational in fact to maintain this, for it goes against every known phenomena which shows things always come into being from fine and subtle and then evolve into massive; not the other way around.

 

[1137]

Nope, faith is the opposite of reason

Great, they gave a BA to someone who does not even understand the difference between faith and fideism. Good job society.

Mystical experiences show correlations to brain activity, eeg activity, skin impendence and biochemical activity. They are corrleates, because they do not show us which is causing whic.

How come we can induce deep mystical experience?

I kind of know what I am talking about and I am familiar with many ancient, medieval and modern philosophers and the different perspectives they bring, which I am sorry I have seen any evidence you seem to be familiar with. You have a very absolutist perspective and are not aware of other perspectives on these subjects or can appreciate their arguments. In fact even when I show you clear empirical evidence from quantum physics that falsifies objective reality and reality, you still maintain your position, as if I did not present you the evidence at all. This is why I think you are not being rational, and not because you don't accept psychic teleportation

No, I am fine with your reasoning / evidence, it just has not proven anything. I and others have refuted all your arguments to this point from what I can tell. It terrifies me that you have a BA in philosophy but do not understand faith / versus fideism, closed-mindedness rather that holding a position that is not refuted, constantly contradict yourself, and do not realize your own hypocricy. By your reasoning, you are just as fundamentalist, closed-minded, and irrational as you claim I am. You have not changed or been willing to change your position despite clear logical evidence against it, you have shown that you will not ever do so no matter what either. Meanwhile, in the past 2 days I have had to reevaluate my positions due to these threads, which kind of proves your position against me useless. This is common, we assume people act the same way we do, so since you refuse to reevalute you think I do as well. False.

As for absolutes, yes. I do not believe you are a philosophy major when you do not accept the laws of thought (which are absolutist). I call BS, there is no way you are a philosophy major.

 

[1137]

1) The brain the vat thought experiment(lets not discuss it again, it obviously went way over your head)
2) The hard problem of consciousness
3) The holographic theory of the brain
4) Quantum physics
5) NDE and OBE research

You realize it makes your childish insults worse now that you claimed you have a BA in philosophy. Anyways, I explained why 1 does not cause trouble for the brain causing consciousness (which like a good fideist you ignored). Quantum physics definitely does not show that consciousness is not a product of the brain. NDE and OBE can be explained away. The hard problem of consciousness is simply a "we don't know, therefore magic" argument. This is like the colors thing, right? Well light objectively exists and causes color, there is no reason to believe the brain does not create color. We do not know that it does, but that does not imply it does not.

 

[1137]

The Hard Problems of Consciousness

• "How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"

Because we have experience, kind of obvious. We have senses and brains that interpret the information we take in, therefore we can experience. Things happen to us, therefore we have experiences. How is this a "problem"?

• "Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"

... Because we have a brain that takes in information, that is how the brain works. There is not necessarily a purpose to it, it's just how things are. Since it is how things are, just because we cannot fully explain it currently does not imply in any way that there is no non-magical explanation.

• "Why do qualia exist?"
• "Why is there a subjective component to experience?"

Same question pretty much. They exist because there are billions or trillions of processes going on in each brain, there is no way that all brains would react the exact same way at the exact same time to the same event. That is simply statistical, if the trillion of processes in two separate brains have to be working in the exact same way at the exact same time in reaction to the exact same event, the highest probability of that happening purely statistically is 1 in 2 trillion. The brain is more complex than simple statistics too.

• "Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"

Well, because we have subjective experience.

 

[Surya Deva]

Great, they gave a BA to someone who does not even understand the difference between faith and fideism. Good job society.

Umm, and what are your credentials again in philosophy? 5 classes?

You are rude, offensive and obviously bigoted. I see no possibility of any rational discussion ever developing with you, so I am going to cease further discussion with you. I would debate/discuss with somebody who is going to be rational, mature, engages with arguments and have some appreciation of the different perspectives in philosophy.

 

[1137]

Umm, and what are your credentials again in philosophy? 5 classes?

You are rude, offensive and obviously bigoted. I see no possibility of any rational discussion ever developing with you, so I am going to cease further discussion with you. I would debate/discuss with somebody who is going to be rational, mature, engages with arguments and have some appreciation of the different perspectives in philosophy.

Haha ok. I hope you realize you don't understand me at all. Not being open to 1 + 1 = 3 doesn't mean I am closed minded, bigoted, or not open to other possibilities. Also thanks for forcing a re evaluation of my beliefs, and I am sorry your fideism dictates you must cease contanct in the face of logical rebuttals against you position!

 

[Surya Deva]

Yet the human mind itself, even in its most impressive demonstrations of logic, still contains a certain degree of deficiency as per the human condition. This is the reason why I'm hesitant to proclaim any philosophy as "perfect", even my own.

I think that is a fair point. So I should say Advaita is the best logical description of reality that a human mind has conceived. It explains all states of consciousness(deep sleep, dream and waking) which no other philosophy has done. It is able to account for all perspectives of reality(empirical, phenomenological and absolute) It can account for all phenomenon we witness in reality generally, including psychic phenomenon. In a way is a ToE(theory of everything) the ultimate theory that science is looking for today.

I don't know how useful the "mental plane" is as a descriptive term. You may be aware that "materialism" isn't the same as "physicalism". Physics entails much more subtle and complex aspects of reality than just normal crude matter. I concur that there are more subtle dimensions than just the basic experience of materialism, but it could still be contained within a physical monism. I cannot claim to know this definitively, but it still seems to be consistent with the phenomenon in question.

It cannot be consistent with the phenomenon you mentioned because you experienced this mental telepathy with your friend in a dream - thus your dream state of consciousness is where this subtle plane resides. As your dream is produced in the mind, this is why we call it the mental plane
This cannot be consistent with physicialism, because it is taking place in your dream and therefore it is a form of idealism. To be precise it critical idealism. That means you the individual agent are not actually creating this reality: rather this reality is mind-stuff that you are accessing and participating in.

In Advaita we consider the entire continuum of the most subtle pure intelligence to the most gross physical to be one single continuum which is not really matter, but a field of consciousness that you the individual agent can access through different states of consciousness. The highest state of consciousness is pure intelligence and this is where samadhis states take place and the siddhis(psychic powers) become active. We routinely enter into this state in dreamless sleep. The subtle state referring to mind is a world or realm where individual agents can interact with one another in a shared imagined reality. Here thought-forms exist which have been inherited by the collective unconsciousness. This is the state one routinely enters during dream and after death. Finally the gross state refers to the 3D world of physical matter, the world of time, space, matter, energy.

Is this consistent with physicalism as you define it?

 

[idav]

It cannot be consistent with the phenomenon you mentioned because you experienced this mental telepathy with your friend in a dream - thus your dream state of consciousness is where this subtle plane resides. As your dream is produced in the mind, this is why we call it the mental plane
This cannot be consistent with physicialism, because it is taking place in your dream and therefore it is a form of idealism. To be precise it critical idealism. That means you the individual agent are not actually creating this reality: rather this reality is mind-stuff that you are accessing and participating in.

It would only be idealism if you think dreams are reality. Dreams are a product of your subconscious not some other realm.

 

[Willamena]

It would only be idealism if you think dreams are reality.

Or that the reality (that we know) is a dream.

 

[Surya Deva]

It would only be idealism if you think dreams are reality. Dreams are a product of your subconscious not some other realm.

Complicated. Advaita does not regard any part of the continuum of this field to be real. It is a holographic projection of the fundamental reality of consciousness. This is the absolute/transcendental truth.

But from the relative or empirical truth the existence of the dream plane is as real as the Himalyas or Effiel tower. The dream plane is where souls go in between lives carried by their karma and enter realms based on their level of attainment(virtue or vice) and then are projected back into the waking state when a new body is available for them(again by karma) The dream plane also has its own exotic life of advanced spiritual beings like (buddhas, angels, demigods) and inferior beings(like demons, ordinary spirits) Effectively, the dream plane is made up of thought-forms. It is this plane that OBErs and NDErs experience, or trippers.
Here whatever is in your subconscious will materialize immediately.

You can enter this plane through meditation, through dreaming and through death.

 

[Storm]

It would only be idealism if you think dreams are reality. Dreams are a product of your subconscious not some other realm.

I'm not so sure, actually. Well, not "another realm," but maybe... something.

Don't mind me. :sorry1:

 

[Koldo]

So what is the "plateau"?

The difference between them?

 

[idav]

You can enter this plane through meditation, through dreaming and through death.

To a physicalist all realities would be products of the brain even subconscious states.

Metaphysical naturalism also fits.

Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account.
Metaphysical naturalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idav]

I'm not so sure, actually. Well, not "another realm," but maybe... something.

Don't mind me. :sorry1:

Not to say I haven't given it any thought. "The Art of Dreaming" was a fascinating book that gets into those sort of ideas.

 

[Storm]

Not to say I haven't given it any thought. "The Art of Dreaming" was a fascinating book that gets into those sort of ideas.

Never heard of it.

 

[idav]

Never heard of it.

By Carlos Castaneda.

The Art of Dreaming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Storm]

By Carlos Castaneda.

The Art of Dreaming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ugh, that jack ***? Thanks, but no.

 

[idav]

Ugh, that jack ***? Thanks, but no.

Haha, yeah and it is labeled as non-fiction. But was a good book anyway like a fantasy story.

 

[Storm]

Haha, yeah and it is labeled as non-fiction. But was a good book anyway like a fantasy story.

Meh, I don't contribute to the coffers of frauds. Or, if I can help it, dignify them with the attention they so obviously crave.