Simple question: What is an object?

[plumjam]

It's like you just tried to prove biology was false by saying biologists can't account for how unicorns can fly...

Explain, please, a) how consciousness is "anomalous" in the framework of materialism (as you claimed), b) what "universal consciousness" is and c) how "universal consciousness" fixes this perceived anomaly with materialism.

I could spend 20 minutes doing that for you. However, I think I won't bother. You don't seem of a mindset for whom my effort would be worthwhile.

 

[plumjam]

Argument from authority, argument from personal incredulity, argumentum ad populum and false dichotomy.

BINGO!

Well done. You just confirmed my prediction about you.
Sometimes this is just too easy.

(btw, just because you have learned the definitions of some fallacies, and feel you can apply them to a particular claim, that in no way means that the claim is necessarily false. In your own mind, as I see here a lot, it will probably mean you feel you can dismiss it. That, however, would be more fallacious reasoning on your part)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It is typically described as ineffable.. in other words indescribable. However, some inadequate descriptive words have been applied, such as Sat-Chit-Ananda (existence-consciousness-bliss).

OK, that's fine. I see no difference between that and my stated position of "I haven't the slightest idea what it is" or Anaxogoras' "undefined".

Probably so you can ridicule it, no?

If you haven't noticed I don't generally resort to ridicule unless I cannot get a coherent answer. If you wish to discuss things rationally, then there is no reason to ridicule.

I take it on faith from reputable individuals who claim to have experienced universal consciousness. There are quite a few of them in the great religions. Go and take your pick of any that might appeal to you personally.

On the other hand not even a single person claims to have experienced 'matter' as the ultimate substance.
That's one difference among many.

You can certainly decide to take it on faith, but would you be willing to examine honestly what that means, because I'm not sure that it actually makes sense? I'm willing to bet that property or substance dualism sits at the heart of those claims.

 

[volatile]

I could spend 20 minutes doing that for you. However, I think I won't bother. You don't seem of a mindset for whom my effort would be worthwhile.

So in other words you'll only back up your case in the company of those who already agree with you? That must make your life quite easy, and your social circle quite limited.

Please, I'd like a response. Personally, I don't think you can muster a coherent one, but I'm willing to be surprised.

 

[plumjam]

So in other words you'll only back up your case in the company of those who already agree with you? That must make your life quite easy, and your social circle quite limited.

Please, I'd like a response. Personally, I don't think you can muster a coherent one, but I'm willing to be surprised.

In case you missed it I have been backing up my case in the company of half a dozen people who very much disagree with me.
Sorry, but I am not your slave, and your closed-minded attitude here means I see no reason to waste my time and effort on you.
Good luck.

 

[volatile]

Well done. You just confirmed my prediction about you.
Sometimes this is just too easy.

(btw, just because you have learned the definitions of some fallacies, and feel you can apply them to a particular claim, that in no way means that the claim is necessarily false. In your own mind, as I see here a lot, it will probably mean you feel you can dismiss it. That, however, would be more fallacious reasoning on your part)

If you make a fallacious claim, then your claim is fallacious.

If you affirm the consequent, for example ("If there is a universal consciousness, then it is perceived as consciousness. I experience consciousness. Thus universal consciousness exists."), then you don't have an argument.

Sorry about that.

 

[volatile]

In case you missed it I have been backing up my case in the company of half a dozen people who very much disagree with me.
Sorry, but I am not your slave, and your closed-minded attitude here means I see no reason to waste my time and effort on you.
Good luck.

I can thus only conclude, Plumjam, that you have no case to make.

Despite affirming quite strongly that a) materialism is incompatible with consciousness, b) universal consciousness exists and c) universal consciousness is not incompatible with consciousness, you have utterly failed to support this with any argument, let alone any evidence.

Please, other than (and I paraphrase) "some people told me universal consciousness exists, so it does", as you did above, I'd like a reasoned rebuttal. This is, after all, a discussion board, and you can hardly have a discussion if only one party is talking.

So - you stated that consciousness and materialism are incompatible. I suggested a number of materialist philosophers and thinkers who see no such incompatibility, and gave one brief reason why this is so. Your response, such that it was, was to incoherently mention an undefined solution ("universal consciousness") to an undefined problem (why is materialism incompatible with consciousness?), and make no attempt to actually rebut my points. Hey, I might be wronger than anyone has ever been before, but unless you're willing to show me where I'm going wrong, I'll never learn, will I?

This is a discussion, and you're holding the conch. Go ahead, make your case.

 

[plumjam]

You can certainly decide to take it on faith, but would you be willing to examine honestly what that means, because I'm not sure that it actually makes sense? I'm willing to bet that property or substance dualism sits at the heart of those claims.

To me at least, it is no different from the kind of leap of faith needed to escape from the solipsism/circularity which I discussed with Phaedrus. Which, let's face it, all of us have already taken.
Spiritual growth takes place in the consciousness of the individual, and is therefore, by definition, not inter-subjectively verifiable. So if I'm to escape from my current situation (much like from solipsism) I need to be able to have some faith in what some particular individuals are reporting to me.

If OTOH I refuse, and demand inter-subjective verification for absolutely everything (as many people here do), then I have no hope whatsoever of making any progress in that regard.
I'll just be stuck in a skeptical materialist dead-end for evermore.

 

[Jimbo07]

If OTOH I refuse, and demand inter-subjective verification for absolutely everything (as many people here do),

What else is there?

then I have no hope whatsoever of making any progress in that regard.

What can contribute to any sense of progress which can't be verified? Without verification, you're reduced to storytelling (which, in different contexts, has great value).

I'll just be stuck in a skeptical materialist dead-end for evermore.

I don't understand this. Everything that has been done, has been done in the physical world. Where is the dead-end?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, we know consciousness is a word – perhaps a meme of some sort?

Universal consciousness is a more sophisticated designer meme for the New-Age-Quantum-Heeling crowd.

Proponents of that belief seem to have the ability for critical thinking in some areas, but when asked to define what they actually mean with that particular notion, the answer resembles the output from a computer’s memory dump. On other occasions, there’s just an unresponsive blue screen.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

To me at least, it is no different from the kind of leap of faith needed to escape from the solipsism/circularity which I discussed with Phaedrus. Which, let's face it, all of us have already taken.
Spiritual growth takes place in the consciousness of the individual, and is therefore, by definition, not inter-subjectively verifiable. So if I'm to escape from my current situation (much like from solipsism) I need to be able to have some faith in what some particular individuals are reporting to me.

If OTOH I refuse, and demand inter-subjective verification for absolutely everything (as many people here do), then I have no hope whatsoever of making any progress in that regard.
I'll just be stuck in a skeptical materialist dead-end for evermore.

I'm not sure how that follows or how it answers my question.

I don't think Robin, who is a committed materialist, for instance, would ever say that inter-subjective verification is necessary for absolutely everything, but only for those 'things' that we label 'objective'. There are plenty of subjective experiences that do not fit under that label. Absolute inter-subjectivity is not a requirement of materialist monism. There is simply a difference in the number of observers.

The issue that I asked about was the claim that exeriences of 'universal consciousness' demonstrate idealist monism. If everything is universal consciousness and if this is a single substance with a single property, then it follows that everything that we see and experience *is* that universal consciousness. The same rules that apply to chairs apply to us. We cannot have, therefore, some independent quality of 'consciousness' that is some primary property of the universal consciousness if tables and chairs also demonstrate a completely different property of that same consciousness. Either the brain produces what we experience as consciousness through the same rules that produce chairs and tables or you engage in property dualism.

All that *is* could easily be the result of universal consciousness. But if monism is correct, then it would look exactly the same if the substance was consciousness or matter or bawana. We simply afix a label on that substance.

 

[plumjam]

What else is there?

Are you being serious, Jimbo?
What were the most meaningful experiences of your life to date? Was there any inter-subjective verification of them in order to confirm that they were real and valuable?
Did any lack of verification mean they could not be admitted as real and meaningful?

What can contribute to any sense of progress which can't be verified? Without verification, you're reduced to storytelling (which, in different contexts, has great value).

It can be verified, but only in your own consciousness. Not inter-subjectively.
Like the Buddha said, test it in your own experience.

I don't understand this. Everything that has been done, has been done in the physical world. Where is the dead-end?

The dead end, for example, is when a skeptical materialist dismisses out of hand what a spiritual teacher is talking about in regard to, among many other things, the development of spiritual consciousness... this because it is not inter-subjectively verifiable.
Well, logically, due to it being a kind of progress which works on the individual consciousness, that, by definition, excludes it from the possibility of inter-subjective verification.

So the objection is kind of perverse.

 

[plumjam]

I'm not sure how that follows or how it answers my question.

I don't think Robin, who is a committed materialist, for instance, would ever say that inter-subjective verification is necessary for absolutely everything, but only for those 'things' that we label 'objective'. There are plenty of subjective experiences that do not fit under that label. Absolute inter-subjectivity is not a requirement of materialist monism. There is simply a difference in the number of observers.

The issue that I asked about was the claim that exeriences of 'universal consciousness' demonstrate idealist monism. If everything is universal consciousness and if this is a single substance with a single property, then it follows that everything that we see and experience *is* that universal consciousness. The same rules that apply to chairs apply to us. We cannot have, therefore, some independent quality of 'consciousness' that is some primary property of the universal consciousness if tables and chairs also demonstrate a completely different property of that same consciousness. Either the brain produces what we experience as consciousness through the same rules that produce chairs and tables or you engage in property dualism.

All that *is* could easily be the result of universal consciousness. But if monism is correct, then it would look exactly the same if the substance was consciousness or matter or bawana. We simply afix a label on that substance.

Let's imagine a materialist monism, say in some parallel universe.
Though no-one could ever know it, it would have physical laws, stars, planets, animals, people. Just no consciousness.
It's entirely possible to imagine such a state of affairs.
The fact that we are conscious means that our monism cannot and should not be materialism.

On the chair thing. Universal consciousness is equally present, but not equally manifest. It is more manifest in a human being than in a chair or a rock or a blade of grass. The higher up the phylogenetic scale we go (i.e. in the direction of the higher mammals) the more this universal consciousness is manifest. Within the human population it is more manifest in a saint than a serial murderer.
The purpose of creation is to manifest universal consciousness in the individual, sometimes described as enlightenment, God-realisation etc...

 

[volatile]

The fact that we are conscious means that our monism cannot and should not be materialism.

How?

This is another unsupported statement, and does not follow from your analogy at all, particularly as I've shown you one specific way in which consciousness can be shown to be material. I'm confused as to what your point is. Honestly.

It seems to be some weird misunderstanding of the p-zombie question, right?

Universal consciousness is equally present, but not equally manifest.

Again: how? Wasp is right - how can this "universal consciousness" be "universal" whilst at the same time possessing an additional occasional property of manifestation? The two are incompatible.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Let's imagine a materialist monism, say in some parallel universe.
Though no-one could ever know it, it would have physical laws, stars, planets, animals, people. Just no consciousness.
It's entirely possible to imagine such a state of affairs.
The fact that we are conscious means that our monism cannot and should not be materialism.

Sorry, doesn't follow. Since we can interfere with human consciousness by interfering with brain function, it is certainly possible that brains produce consciousness. It is not wise to suggest that consciousness is not possible by material means. It used to be the case that rational thought was considered the sine qua non of 'being human', but since the invention of computers this idea has fallen away. Now consciousness has replaced that earlier idea. But, I am forced to ask again, "what is consciousness" then? An answer such as "ineffable" puts it right out of any possibility for useful conversation.

On the chair thing. Universal consciousness is equally present, but not equally manifest. It is more manifest in a human being than in a chair or a rock or a blade of grass. The higher up the phylogenetic scale we go (i.e. in the direction of the higher mammals) the more this universal consciousness is manifest. Within the human population it is more manifest in a saint than a serial murderer.
The purpose of creation is to manifest universal consciousness in the individual, sometimes described as enlightenment, God-realisation etc...

I don't see how that can constitute an answer. Are you suggesting that the amount of consciousness present in some object constitutes its make-up? How do you account for what we experience as atomic theory then?

We see a material world. If consciousness is responsible for that material world -- that is the property of universal consciousness -- how can our consciousness constitute a different property of that universal consciousness without committing property dualism?

 

[plumjam]

Sorry, doesn't follow. Since we can interfere with human consciousness by interfering with brain function, it is certainly possible that brains produce consciousness. It is not wise to suggest that consciousness is not possible by material means. It used to be the case that rational thought was considered the sine qua non of 'being human', but since the invention of computers this idea has fallen away. Now consciousness has replaced that earlier idea. But, I am forced to ask again, "what is consciousness" then? An answer such as "ineffable" puts it right out of any possibility for useful conversation.

You know what consciousness is. It's what you are now.

I don't see how that can constitute an answer. Are you suggesting that the amount of consciousness present in some object constitutes its make-up?

I said manifest, not present. Universal consciousness manifests itself to differing degrees in the many and varied 'forms' we see in the universe. The forms follow the consciousness (I.D. plus reincarnation), rather than the consciousness following the forms (Darwinist materialism)

How do you account for what we experience as atomic theory then?

What do you mean?

We see a material world.

You don't.
You never ever see "matter". It's just an idea in your head. A very popular idea, but false.
All you see are conscious perceptions of various kinds.

If consciousness is responsible for that material world -- that is the property of universal consciousness -- how can our consciousness constitute a different property of that universal consciousness without committing property dualism?

You like this property dualism thing, don't you Is it some sort of crime you get frowned at for in the phil. departments these days?
The answer may well lie in (from the POV of universal consciousness) the 'material' world being an illusion.
See maya in hinduism and buddhism.

Anyway Wasp, t'was a pleasure. I'm leaving this thread for now. I'm off to have a couple of beers and do some lurking. All the best.

 

[Jimbo07]

Are you being serious, Jimbo?

Yes.

What were the most meaningful experiences of your life to date?

Not for discussion on teh internets . Seriously though, who cares about some meaning that I might ascribe to an event (besides, say, me and my wife)?

Was there any inter-subjective verification of them in order to confirm that they were real and valuable?

The events, or the feelings I derived from them? If the events, many, if the feelings, who cares?

Did any lack of verification mean they could not be admitted as real and meaningful?

Feelings are meaningful, but only real in terms of themselves.

Jimbo: I felt at one with the world...
Anyone else: Good for you... *pat pat*

It can be verified, but only in your own consciousness.

Then besides personal meaning, what else does it have?

The dead end, for example, is when a skeptical materialist dismisses out of hand what a spiritual teacher is talking about in regard to, among many other things, the development of spiritual consciousness...

It would really depend what the teacher is talking about. Peace of mind? Fair enough. Supernatural hobgoblins? I'm less confident.

this because it is not inter-subjectively verifiable.

I remember reading an 'Introductory Beginner's Guide to the Kabbalah for Dummies In 21 Days' sort of book. It talked about altered states of consciousness, and things you'd see. Sure enough. I tried it and saw one of the things. Of course, the whole exercise began with visualization, and was to be performed in a state similar to near sleep, so I have trouble distinguishing it from something I may have simply imagined.

Without independent verification, how can I be sure I didn't simply imagine it? In fact, with no discernable impact on the real world, and a post exercise feeling similar to waking up, I'm inclined to believe it was imaginary.

Well, logically, due to it being a kind of progress which works on the individual consciousness, that, by definition, excludes it from the possibility of inter-subjective verification.

I'm certainly willing to concede some kind of personal growth, in terms of emotional maturity, or general tranquility, but invoking a universal consciousness underlying physical reality is going to raise some of the questions we've seen here.

 

[Phaedrus74]

In post 72 you said:
"If you do not therefore treat either your theory of knowledge or your ontology as given you end up with the following:" -->(circularity)

In this context taking either one's epistemology or ontology as 'given' is an act of faith. No more, no less.
So, from that point onward, all the systems of thought, and statements you make regarding reality which this act of faith enable, would fall apart if the initial act of faith were taken away.

Sorry, missed this post....

My response is:

Not an act of faith, but an act of reason. It does not require faith, it merely requires the capacity to evaluate alternatives rationally, quite the opposite of faith.

Also note:
Treating something as given does not imply uncritically assuming it to be the absolute and final word of Truth.
Again, not faith, reason.

I strongly suggest you catchup on some reading, you are approximately 300 years behind...

 

[schlitt]

Plumjam, you said this in response to Volatile.

I could spend 20 minutes doing that for you. However, I think I won't bother. You don't seem of a mindset for whom my effort would be worthwhile.

I'm sure many others on this board would also be interested in reading your, no doubt illuminating, 20 minutes of work.

Go on. Do it! Do it!

 

[Robin]

Epistemology and ontology have to be mixed.
To know we have to be.

On the contrary you have to keep them separated and never confuse the two.

Otherwise you end up saying silly things like "because everything we know is consciousness therefore everything must be consciousness"

It is useless to talk of the being of supposed aspects of reality unless we can know about said supposed aspects of reality.. or unless we have faith.

And that is exactly why you shouldn't mix your epistemology with your ontology.

Like hammegk you are saying that since all we know is consciousness, therefore everything is consciousness. That is the worst kind of assumption.

Especially when there is a perfectly good way to test if things we observe persist outside our our consciousnesses.