What knowledge mysticism provides?

[PIT2]

But the sole means of justification availabble to New-Age mystics
is "this is an ancient teaching". The only new thing about the New
Age is its attempt to revive the pre-Casaubon situation.

Often the sole means of discrediting new age mystics, is claiming that it is "new age".
Of course the opposing argument will then be that it is not new at all.

 

[PIT2]

Btw, I'm having trouble finding any detailed writings on death that are short enough to post, but I'm still looking. The best book on the topic I've come across is Sogyal Rinpoche's The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, but there are no brief summaries in it so it's no good here.

Some time ago i did read through the Tibetan book of the dead, well actually a summary of it (this is probably not the one u speak of?), but i didnt think it was a proper picture of what might happen after death(at least it didnt satisfy my curiousity). It seemed more like it was a story with a message in it. For instance i remember a paragraph talking about coming into a place where horrible demons(?) on horses with swords will attack u, but as soon as u realize they are a figment of ur imagination, they will dissappear and u will enter another realm. In that realm something else happens, but as soon as u realize... etc.

A fully enlightened person is free of the forces of karma in both life and death. Hopefully this issue will become a bit more clear if I post some more detailed descriptions of the process. (Of course, this is beyond what I know, but I know what is said).

What strikes me about this, is that it still reasons the purpose of existence from a persons ego, ie. the point is apparently to personally escape the cycle of life/death. But the question remains, why does this cycle exist in the first place? Why, if we are one cosmic consciousness, does this one thing create different subjects into a realm of life/death cycles, only then to have the purpose of these subjects to escape it again?

 

[Canute]

But the sole means of justification availabble to New-Age mystics is "this is an ancient teaching". The only new thing about the New Age is its attempt to revive the pre-Casaubon situation.

The trouble here is that I don't know how you are defining 'New Age mysticism'. I looked at the article that was cited earlier and can assure you that it was not about mysticism but about paranormal phenomena, faith healing and such stuff. My feeling is that anyone who calls themselves a 'New Age' mystic would be deliberately distinguishing themselves from mysticism in its traditional form. This form of mysticism has never gone away so there would seem to be little point in talking of revivals.

Some time ago i did read through the Tibetan book of the dead, well actually a summary of it (this is probably not the one u speak of?), but i didnt think it was a proper picture of what might happen after death(at least it didnt satisfy my curiousity). It seemed more like it was a story with a message in it. For instance i remember a paragraph talking about coming into a place where horrible demons(?) on horses with swords will attack u, but as soon as u realize they are a figment of ur imagination, they will dissappear and u will enter another realm. In that realm something else happens, but as soon as u realize... etc.

Yeah, that's a difficult book, expressed in terms which are inaccessible to us without a lot of study. I read it and could make little sense of it. The book I mentioned (The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche) is much easier, and is a long standing best-seller. I've just whizzed through this to pick out a quote or two, but all the meaningful sections are too long. Because of this I'll try to come at the death issue from a different angle.

What strikes me about this, is that it still reasons the purpose of existence from a persons ego, ie. the point is apparently to personally escape the cycle of life/death. But the question remains, why does this cycle exist in the first place? Why, if we are one cosmic consciousness, does this one thing create different subjects into a realm of life/death cycles, only then to have the purpose of these subjects to escape it again?

Good question. On another thread recently someone gave a link to an article just published in the New Scientist by physicist Victor Stenger. I've checked him out and think his ideas are very exciting. He provides the ideas which would link physics with mysticism (the perennial philosophy, not any New Age version). According to his ideas the answer would be this.

The Universe consists of Atoms and the Void, as Democritus suggested. This idea does not work unmodified because of what we know of quantum mechanics. However, with the addition of time-reversal we can explain all the avalaible experimental data.

He makes precisely the same argument as George Spencer Brown does in his Laws of Form but in more physical terms. Thus, the universe arises through a process of symmetry-breaking, and ontologically prior to this is the Void. (Alternatively, at a deeper level of analysis it is a Void). The Void becomes the universe because it is inherently unstable, and symmetries are spontanously broken.

Below are two links for him. The first is an article on Creationism and Intelligent Design which is excellent imo. The second gives five chapters of his recent book and is more specifically about physics. As far as I can tell everything he says in both places is precisely consistent with the mystical account of cosmogenesis, the evolution of the universe and sentient beings.

Anyone who thinks the mystical description of the cosmos is anti-scientific in some way might like to check these out, since if he is right then I cannot see how the mystics can be wrong. This is relevant to the topic of mystical knowledge because if Stenger is right (in these extracts at least) then this raises the question of how a three thousand year old doctrine could turn out to be consistent with the cosmology he proposes, which as far as I can tell is consistent with everything we know about the universe from doing physics.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

 

[Tournesol]

Victor Stenger. I've checked him out and think his ideas are very exciting. He provides the ideas which would link physics with mysticism (the perennial philosophy, not any New Age version).

Stenger hates that sort of thing.

 

[Tournesol]

My feeling is that anyone who calls themselves a 'New Age' mystic would be deliberately distinguishing themselves from mysticism in its traditional form.

Well, they're not.

There are 2 differences btween New Age and the traditional approach.

New Age is highly eclectic and cross-cultural.

New Age includes some aspects of science, which suit their puposes (whilst having no overall commitment to scientific scepticism).

Of course, you have both those tendencies in buckedtloads...

 

[Mickey]

Canute, it's not mystical doctrine that people see as unreasonable as much as the mystical approach.

Mystics, in any era, can't stand mystery. Scientists aren't apt to leave mystery alone either, but they approach it in a much more careful and patient way. Scientists accept conclusions very slowly, so slowly that there's a good chance they may not see the fruits of their labor in their own lifetime. It took many generations of science for people to understand Bruno and Copernicus, and even more generations for people to use the Chinese equatorial system to see how the stars don't control our lives.

Scientists are much more tolerant of mystery in the short term. Mystics are too eager to look for a shortcut.

 

[PIT2]

Scientists aren't apt to leave mystery alone either, but they approach it in a much more careful and patient way. Scientists accept conclusions very slowly, so slowly that there's a good chance they may not see the fruits of their labor in their own lifetime. It took many generations of science for people to understand Bruno and Copernicus, and even more generations for people to use the Chinese equatorial system to see how the stars don't control our lives.

Scientists are much more tolerant of mystery in the short term. Mystics are too eager to look for a shortcut.

I don't think this is true at all. Compared to spending 40 years in a cave meditating, lab experiments can seem like an extreme shortcut. Besides, I don't think the hardship undergone to acquire knowledge is really a criteria to judge whether that knowledge is true anyway.

 

[Mickey]

I don't think this is true at all. Compared to spending 40 years in a cave meditating, lab experiments can seem like an extreme shortcut.

If you're sitting around doing nothing looking for a shortcut for 40 years, lab experiments can seem like an extremely laborious route.

Besides, I don't think the hardship undergone to acquire knowledge is really a criteria to judge whether that knowledge is true anyway.

Of course not. But history shows us that worthwhile fruits, shared not just by the self but by everyone, come from doing something. Some find the labor of lab experiments to be eminently fruitful.

Count myself in the category of people who find meditating in a cave for 40 years to be eminently fruitless. I've done a few years worth.

 

[PIT2]

Good question. On another thread recently someone gave a link to an article just published in the New Scientist by physicist Victor Stenger. I've checked him out and think his ideas are very exciting. He provides the ideas which would link physics with mysticism (the perennial philosophy, not any New Age version). According to his ideas the answer would be this.

That would be me i think, i mentioned Stenger in another topic
Though i hadnt read through his ideas thoroughly. When i looked him up in google it popped up with all kinds of sites arguing against the existence of a universe creator ("the uni has no beginning, so no one created it").

I read his article in newscientist magazine and it was interesting.

The Void becomes the universe because it is inherently unstable, and symmetries are spontanously broken.

I don't understand how a void can be unstable, unless it isn't really a void.

As far as I can tell everything he says in both places is precisely consistent with the mystical account of cosmogenesis, the evolution of the universe and sentient beings.

Could u elaborate on this a little bit more? I am not familiar with the mystical account of cosmogenesis, the evolution of the universe and sentient beings. Just a brief description would do, u don't have to look up quotes from mystics. Btw i just read both links of stenger u gave.

Today i decided to see if there was any video of metzingers view on consciousness on google video, since he's mentioned here often, and it turned out there was. I was surprised to see that it was titled "the immortality of the soul". I watched the thing and am now wondering if his view is also consistent with the mystical account of consciousness.

Heres the video, and a quote from him:

"Given all this, isn't it true that the self is an illusion? I think it is not true, because it contains a logical mistake. On the level on which we are talking, there is no such thing as truth or falsity yet. There is no body/nobody which could have an illusion in this system. If you really wanted to stay with the idea that the self is an illusion, you would have to say that it is noone's illusion. The immortality of the soul: if it is true that the self is not a thing but a process (as I've described it), then it is also true that the tragedy of the ego dissolves. Because strictly speaking, nobody is ever born, and nobody ever dies."
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-3658963188758918426

What do u think?

 

[Mickey]

That's exactly what the Buddhist's believe, PIT2. "There is enlightenment, but no one who is enlightened," at least according to Alan Watts.

That's how you know it's not even wrong.

 

[Canute]

Stenger hates that sort of thing.

Does he? I know he argues against theism, but then mysticism is not theism. In any case, what he hates hardly matters. His proposed cosmology is the consistent with that of the mystics whether he likes it or not.

There are 2 differences btween New Age and the traditional approach. New Age is highly eclectic and cross-cultural.

New Age includes some aspects of science, which suit their puposes (whilst having no overall commitment to scientific scepticism).

Of course, you have both those tendencies in buckedtloads...

I don't what this means. All I can say is that New Age mysticism is not the topic here. If it becomes the topic then I'll drop out of the discussion.

Canute, it's not mystical doctrine that people see as unreasonable as much as the mystical approach. Mystics, in any era, can't stand mystery.

Yes, this point is often missed. Mystics do not say that the universe is mysterious, at least not in the sense that the truth about it is unknowable or incomprehensible. In fact they say quite the opposite.

But you're right about people seeing the mystical approach as unreasonable. If it is examined closely, however, it is not unreasonable. This is why nobody can show that it is unreasonable. The approach is to acquire knowledge by a process of identity, by empiricism rather than by speculation.

 

[Canute]

That would be me i think, i mentioned Stenger in another topic

Ah. Thanks then. I find his ideas fascinating.

Though i hadnt read through his ideas thoroughly. When i looked him up in google it popped up with all kinds of sites arguing against the existence of a universe creator ("the uni has no beginning, so no one created it").

Yes, this is one of the reasons his view is consistent with that of the mystics.

I don't understand how a void can be unstable, unless it isn't really a void.

Exactly. It cannot actually be Nothing.

Could u elaborate on this a little bit more? I am not familiar with the mystical account of cosmogenesis, the evolution of the universe and sentient beings. Just a brief description would do, u don't have to look up quotes from mystics. Btw i just read both links of stenger u gave.

In this description the universe arises from the Void, but this Void should not be confused with Nothing. It arises by a process of symmetry-breaking as described by Stenger and Brown. Time and space are examples of broken symmetries and are not fundamental (although they would be fundamental in Kant's sense, as minimum conditions for human experience). Thus, in a sense, the perennial cosmology is an account of how some-thing comes from no-thing. However, this 'something' is not really real and the 'nothing' is not really nothing. Try Googling for Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness, which is one clear philosophical expression of this view.

Today i decided to see if there was any video of metzingers view on consciousness on google video, since he's mentioned here often, and it turned out there was. I was surprised to see that it was titled "the immortality of the soul". I watched the thing and am now wondering if his view is also consistent with the mystical account of consciousness.

In the view I'm defending here there is no self and no soul. As far as the self goes the mystics agree with Dan Dennett, it is an illusion. And as Schrodinger argues, the idea of individual souls is incoherent. Thus, as your quote suggests, from an absolute perspective nobody is ever born and nobody ever dies. The full realisation of this is said to be the transcendence of life and death.

Of course, conventionally there is life and death, selfs, spacetime etc. However, for Nagarjuna, who speaks from the absolute perspective, nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens. All phenomena reduce to 'emptiness', which is to all appearances a Void but which is not Nothing. It could be thought of as the information space within which information appears, where 'information' is defined as in Chalmer's double-aspect theory of consciousness, as the psycho-physical features of the universe.

 

[PIT2]

In the view I'm defending here there is no self and no soul. As far as the self goes the mystics agree with Dan Dennett, it is an illusion.

But Dennett (and i think Metzinger too) go a step further and claim that when the 'brain-self' (or metzingers phenomenal-self) ends, then all conscious experience for that subject ends. Doesnt this conflict with the mystic idea that after death ones phenomenal-self may dissolve into the cosmic consciousness, and thus experiencing goes on? Schrodinger says there is never a loss of personal existence to deplore, Dennett may say this is true only because one can't deplore anything anymore.

Also, do u think neardeath accounts, in which there is apparently a continuity of consciousness, are consistent with the mystic view on death?

 

[Tournesol]

I don't what this means. All I can say is that New Age mysticism is not the topic here. If it becomes the topic then I'll drop out of the discussion.

Whether or not NA is the subject depends on whether or not it is
mysticism.

 

[Canute]

But Dennett (and i think Metzinger too) go a step further and claim that when the 'brain-self' (or metzingers phenomenal-self) ends, then all conscious experience for that subject ends. Doesnt this conflict with the mystic idea that after death ones phenomenal-self may dissolve into the cosmic consciousness, and thus experiencing goes on? Schrodinger says there is never a loss of personal existence to deplore, Dennett may say this is true only because one can't deplore anything anymore.

Yes, and Dennett would have a point in a roundabout sort of way. Schrodinger chooses his words very carefully, as one would expect from a good physicist, and perhaps more carefully that it seems. He does not say that there is no loss of personal existence. The illusory nature of the self is said to be the very reason why the loss of it is not to be deplored. Our true nature lies buried beneath the self, and it is knowledge of and identity with this true nature that is sought by the mystics. (Consider Les Sleeth's descriptions of 'samhadi'). Thus in all traditions of practice one principle goal is to abandon all ideas of self, to 'die before our death'.

The point here is that our self dies on our biological death, so to discover whether we are in some sense immortal we must look beyond this self to that which underlies it, to what Huxley calls the Ground of Being. Once this is found there is no loss of personal existence to deplore not because there is no loss of personal existence, but because its loss is our gain.

Also, do u think neardeath accounts, in which there is apparently a continuity of consciousness, are consistent with the mystic view on death?

I don't know what to make of NDE's other than that they suggest there is more to all this than meets the eye. One idea is that someone who is brain-dead is not necessarily heart-dead, and the heart contains exactly the same sort of neural circuitry as the brain, although less complex. But I'm not suggesting this is an explanation, just that it might be relevant.

 

[Canute]

Whether or not NA is the subject depends on whether or not it is mysticism.

That's true. Until someone defines NAM I wouldn't know whether it is mysticism proper or not. I can only take my cue from the article someone posted earlier, and that was not about mysticism. This discussion is first time I've heard any reference to New Age mysticism.

To me the term 'New Age' spells old age superstitions and the idea that we should deny the findings of science except where it is convenient to accept them. This is not my position at all. Note that the Dalai Lama is introducing more physics into the curriculum of the Buddhist universities and is calling for physicists to delve more deeply into the mystical cosmology with a view to bridging the gap between the two disciplines. Physicists and mystics are both studying the same universe and we should expect their findings to agree in all cases. As far as it is possible to tell they do. In this case, as William James suggests in that earlier quote, we might wonder how this is possible given their different methodologies, and what this says for mystical knowledge.

 

[Tournesol]

That's true. Until someone defines NAM I wouldn't know whether it is mysticism proper or not.

"The term New Age describes a broad movement of late 20th century and contemporary Western culture, characterised by an individual eclectic approach to spiritual exploration." -- wiki

To me the term 'New Age' spells old age superstitions and the idea that we should deny the findings of science except where it is convenient to accept them. This is not my position at all.

Most of the disagreements I have had with you have been over just that
point.

 

[Canute]

I hope I've not given the impression of picking and choosing from among the scientific facts, for I accept them all unreservedly. The mystical cosmology/perennial philosophy contradicts no scientific facts. (The metaphysical speculations of many scientists, however, are another matter). Where we've disagreed I think you'll find that it's not been on matters of scientific fact. In my view the esoteric teachings do not contradict the findings of modern science, they makes sense of them.

On the New Age thing that definition helps. If all New Age means in this context is that a person explores the mystical teachings eclectically, by reference to a variety of traditions, then I have no problem with the term. In this case it concerns methodology rather than the formulation of a new philosophy. (All the same, from common usage it seems to me a perjorative term, associated with much nonsense, so personally I'd rather avoid it. I grew up in Glastonbury, so have much first-hand experience of the various excesses of new age wishful thinking).

 

[Tournesol]

I hope I've not given the impression of picking and choosing from among the scientific facts, for I accept them all unreservedly.

Even that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos ?

 

[Mickey]

In this case it concerns methodology rather than the formulation of a new philosophy.

Methodologies are philosophies.

(All the same, from common usage it seems to me a perjorative term, associated with much nonsense, so personally I'd rather avoid it. I grew up in Glastonbury, so have much first-hand experience of the various excesses of new age wishful thinking).

Well, the New Agers are actually the ones who emphasized the notion of a new age. I have firsthand experience with the New Age myself.

Extremely high levels of wishful thinking are nothing new. When it gets to such high levels, it's called things like prayer or faith.

It's just that now, in a post-Enlightenment world, we've recognized that other approaches are far more successful.

 

[Canute]

Even that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos ?

I'm talking about scientific facts not guesswork.

I agree (Mickey) that methodologies are often philosophies. All I meant was that to take an eclectic approach to a study of mysticism is not to invent a new philosophy but just to make a choice of approach. In the end however eclectic we are we end up studying the same doctrine and the same phenomenon.

It's just that now, in a post-Enlightenment world, we've recognized that other approaches are far more successful.

More successful in what way?

 

[Tournesol]

Ha ha ha!

 

[Tournesol]

So it is OK to pick and choose your science, provding you
use the magic word "guesswork"!

 

[Canute]

No, of course not. If you consider what you are claiming here you'll see that this is the tactic you have inadvertently adopted. Your claim is not scientific.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos. It is this fact that has allowed a number of physicists, some at the peak of their profession, to speculate in public that it is not a late arrival, and in some cases to state that it is not. They cannot all have misunderstood the scientific evidence.

You are proposing that it is a scientific fact that consciousness appears late in the evolution of the universe. (By 'late' here I asume we might mean ontologically later, emergent rather than fundamental, or later in temporal terms, not present from the start, not necessary to the existence of the universe).

Is this a scientific claim? It seems to me to be a guess, a metaphysical conjecture. It may be right to say that it is the prevailing opinion among people who think mysticism is nonsense, but this would have nothing to do with whether the claim is true or false nor whether it is scientific. My feeling is that most scientists would say is that your claim is not remotely scientific let alone factual.

The other problem here is that if mysticism is nonsense, as you are arguing, (and of course you're right to argue against a view you believe is nonsense), then there would be no means by which you could ever know whether consciousness was a late arrival or not. So I know that you don't know that your claim is true regardless of whether or not it's scientific. I can respect it as your opinion, but it is no more scientific than the opposing claim.

To confuse the isssue further the mystics make neither claim. According to the esoteric literature there is a sense in which consciousness is a late arrival in the universe and a sense in which it is not. That is, there are two ways of looking at this question. So I'm not arguing that consciousness is not a late arrival. That is, it doesn't follow from my argument that your claim is not scientific that I think there is no truth in it.

But it is a guess. Colin McGinn, self-professedly one the most 'western' or 'analytical' of philosophers around, has speculated that consciousness may originate in a 'pre-spatial' reality 'prior' to the initial singularity. (I assume that by 'prior' he means ontologically prior and not prior in time). I find this idea muddled and clearly it is a guess, but that doesn't really matter. From the fact that he even considers this a possibility it follows that either there is no scientific evidence or logical argument that rules it out or he is incompetent.

The mystical literature has consciousness (def. pending) as a late arrival in the universe in the sense that it is not ontologically fundamental, not what is Absolute, but not as late in time, for it is what brings time into being.

This goes back the the earlier question of how mystical knowledge can include a knowledge of the process of cosmogenesis. This bringing of spacetime into being would be an early part of the process of symmetry-breaking by which cosmogenesis occurs. The process would unfold according to the laws described by Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form, which he claims are the same in all universes. How does he know this? If consciousness is as old as the universe and this can be verified empirically in practice then this would be the answer.

Note that the universe described here is not 'unscientific'. If it is what is the case then the world would be just as it appears to you and me and professional physicists and philosophers right now. Not a single observation or measurement would be any different than it is. If this were not the case then this description would be demonstrably false.

Regards
Canute

 

[Tournesol]

No, of course not. If you consider what you are claiming here you'll see that this is the tactic you have inadvertently adopted. Your claim is not scientific.

My "claim" was sarcastic.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos.

There is as much evidence against incorporeal consciousness
as there is against invisible fairires.

It is this fact that has allowed a number of physicists, some at the peak of their profession, to speculate in public that it is not a late arrival, and in some cases to state that it is not. They cannot all have misunderstood the scientific evidence.

The majority of scientists is on my side (and where did
"phsyicsists" come into it ? Consciousness is a topic of psychology,
not physics).

You are proposing that it is a scientific fact that consciousness appears late in the evolution of the universe. (By 'late' here I asume we might mean ontologically later, emergent rather than fundamental, or later in temporal terms, not present from the start, not necessary to the existence of the universe).

Both.

Is this a scientific claim?

Yes. There is no evidence of consciousness except in biological life.
Life arrived late in the universe.

It seems to me to be a guess, a metaphysical conjecture.

In science, we operate on occam's razor.

If there is no evidene for something we say it doesn't exist.

No evidence for invisible fairies: no invisible fairies.

No evidence for incorporeal consciousness: no incorporeal consciousness.

It may be right to say that it is the prevailing opinion among people who think mysticism is nonsense, but this would have nothing to do with whether the claim is true or false nor whether it is scientific.

Scientists think incoporeal consicousness is non-existent
becasue there is no evidence for it. In may cases hey think
mysticism is nonsense because mystics believe in things
for which there is no evidence.

My feeling is that most scientists would say is that your claim is not remotely scientific let alone factual.

Well, they wouldn't, whatever you feel.

The other problem here is that if mysticism is nonsense, as you are arguing, (and of course you're right to argue against a view you believe is nonsense), then there would be no means by which you could ever know whether consciousness was a late arrival or not.

What do you mean by that? Rocks and clouds
of gas are not cosncious. They ae not aware, they
do not respond to the environment.
And that's all there was for
billions of years.

(Or do you mean that there consciousness might
be present but indetecable ? Well, there is
a reason why I have been talking about *invisible*
fairies. Invisible and undetectable entities
are unnecessary entities, and fall
to the Razor).

So I know that you don't know that your claim is true regardless of whether or not it's scientific. I can respect it as your opinion, but it is no more scientific than the opposing claim.

Occams' razor is on my side, therefore science is.
Science is about the minimal hypothesis that supports
the evidence.

To confuse the isssue further the mystics make neither claim. According to the esoteric literature there is a sense in which consciousness is a late arrival in the universe and a sense in which it is not. That is, there are two ways of looking at this question. So I'm not arguing that consciousness is not a late arrival. That is, it doesn't follow from my argument that your claim is not scientific that I think there is no truth in it.

My claim is scientific becasue it is in line with O's R.

But it is a guess. Colin McGinn, self-professedly one the most 'western' or 'analytical' of philosophers around, has speculated that consciousness may originate in a 'pre-spatial' reality 'prior' to the initial singularity. (I assume that by 'prior' he means ontologically prior and not prior in time). I find this idea muddled and clearly it is a guess, but that doesn't really matter. From the fact that he even considers this a possibility it follows that either there is no scientific evidence or logical argument that rules it out or he is incompetent.

You are confusing decisive evidence with the minimal
hypthesis that supposts the evidence.

The mystical literature has consciousness (def. pending) as a late arrival in the universe in the sense that it is not ontologically fundamental, not what is Absolute, but not as late in time, for it is what brings time into being.

And there's evidence for that, is there ?

This goes back the the earlier question of how mystical knowledge can include a knowledge of the process of cosmogenesis. This bringing of spacetime into being would be an early part of the process of symmetry-breaking by which cosmogenesis occurs. The process would unfold according to the laws described by Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form, which he claims are the same in all universes. How does he know this? If consciousness is as old as the universe and this can be verified empirically in practice then this would be the answer.

So all you have to do is assume your conclusion ?

Note that the universe described here is not 'unscientific'. If it is what is the case then the world would be just as it appears to you and me and professional physicists and philosophers right now. Not a single observation or measurement would be any different than it is. If this were not the case then this description would be demonstrably false.

Obviously. If you add some non-functional bell or whistle
to a theory, everything stays the same. That's why
we have Occam's razor...to cut a theory down to what
is useful.

 

[Tournesol]

No, of course not. If you consider what you are claiming here you'll see that this is the tactic you have inadvertently adopted. Your claim is not scientific.

My "claim" was sarcastic.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos.

There is as much evidence against incorporeal consciousness
as there is against invisible fairires.

It is this fact that has allowed a number of physicists, some at the peak of their profession, to speculate in public that it is not a late arrival, and in some cases to state that it is not. They cannot all have misunderstood the scientific evidence.

The majority of scientists is on my side (and where did
"phsyicsists" come into it ? Consciousness is a topic of psychology,
not physics).

You are proposing that it is a scientific fact that consciousness appears late in the evolution of the universe. (By 'late' here I asume we might mean ontologically later, emergent rather than fundamental, or later in temporal terms, not present from the start, not necessary to the existence of the universe).

Both.

Is this a scientific claim?

Yes. There is no evidence of consciousness except in biological life.
Life arrived late in the universe.

It seems to me to be a guess, a metaphysical conjecture.

In science, we operate on occam's razor.

If there is no evidene for something we say it doesn't exist.

No evidence for invisible fairies: no invisible fairies.

No evidence for incorporeal consciousness: no incorporeal consciousness.

It may be right to say that it is the prevailing opinion among people who think mysticism is nonsense, but this would have nothing to do with whether the claim is true or false nor whether it is scientific.

Scientists think incoporeal consicousness is non-existent
becasue there is no evidence for it. In may cases hey think
mysticism is nonsense because mystics believe in things
for which there is no evidence.

My feeling is that most scientists would say is that your claim is not remotely scientific let alone factual.

Well, they wouldn't, whatever you feel.

The other problem here is that if mysticism is nonsense, as you are arguing, (and of course you're right to argue against a view you believe is nonsense), then there would be no means by which you could ever know whether consciousness was a late arrival or not.

What do you mean by that? Rocks and clouds
of gas are not cosncious. They ae not aware, they
do not respond to the environment.
And that's all there was for
billions of years.

(Or do you mean that there consciousness might
be present but indetecable ? Well, there is
a reason why I have been talking about *invisible*
fairies. Invisible and undetectable entities
are unnecessary entities, and fall
to the Razor).

So I know that you don't know that your claim is true regardless of whether or not it's scientific. I can respect it as your opinion, but it is no more scientific than the opposing claim.

Occams' razor is on my side, therefore science is.
Science is about the minimal hypothesis that supports
the evidence.

To confuse the isssue further the mystics make neither claim. According to the esoteric literature there is a sense in which consciousness is a late arrival in the universe and a sense in which it is not. That is, there are two ways of looking at this question. So I'm not arguing that consciousness is not a late arrival. That is, it doesn't follow from my argument that your claim is not scientific that I think there is no truth in it.

My claim is scientific becasue it is in line with O's R.

But it is a guess. Colin McGinn, self-professedly one the most 'western' or 'analytical' of philosophers around, has speculated that consciousness may originate in a 'pre-spatial' reality 'prior' to the initial singularity. (I assume that by 'prior' he means ontologically prior and not prior in time). I find this idea muddled and clearly it is a guess, but that doesn't really matter. From the fact that he even considers this a possibility it follows that either there is no scientific evidence or logical argument that rules it out or he is incompetent.

You are confusing decisive evidence with the minimal
hypthesis that supposts the evidence.

The mystical literature has consciousness (def. pending) as a late arrival in the universe in the sense that it is not ontologically fundamental, not what is Absolute, but not as late in time, for it is what brings time into being.

And there's evidence for that, is there ?

This goes back the the earlier question of how mystical knowledge can include a knowledge of the process of cosmogenesis. This bringing of spacetime into being would be an early part of the process of symmetry-breaking by which cosmogenesis occurs. The process would unfold according to the laws described by Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form, which he claims are the same in all universes. How does he know this? If consciousness is as old as the universe and this can be verified empirically in practice then this would be the answer.

So all you have to do is assume your conclusion ?

Note that the universe described here is not 'unscientific'. If it is what is the case then the world would be just as it appears to you and me and professional physicists and philosophers right now. Not a single observation or measurement would be any different than it is. If this were not the case then this description would be demonstrably false.

Obviously. If you add some non-functional bell or whistle
to a theory, everything stays the same. That's why
we have Occam's razor...to cut a theory down to what
is useful.

 

[Tournesol]

No, of course not. If you consider what you are claiming here you'll see that this is the tactic you have inadvertently adopted. Your claim is not scientific.

My "claim" was sarcastic.

There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to suggest that consciousness is a late arrival in the cosmos.

There is as much evidence against incorporeal consciousness
as there is against invisible fairires.

It is this fact that has allowed a number of physicists, some at the peak of their profession, to speculate in public that it is not a late arrival, and in some cases to state that it is not. They cannot all have misunderstood the scientific evidence.

The majority of scientists is on my side (and where did
"phsyicsists" come into it ? Consciousness is a topic of psychology,
not physics).

You are proposing that it is a scientific fact that consciousness appears late in the evolution of the universe. (By 'late' here I asume we might mean ontologically later, emergent rather than fundamental, or later in temporal terms, not present from the start, not necessary to the existence of the universe).

Both.

Is this a scientific claim?

Yes. There is no evidence of consciousness except in biological life.
Life arrived late in the universe.

It seems to me to be a guess, a metaphysical conjecture.

In science, we operate on occam's razor.

If there is no evidene for something we say it doesn't exist.

No evidence for invisible fairies: no invisible fairies.

No evidence for incorporeal consciousness: no incorporeal consciousness.

It may be right to say that it is the prevailing opinion among people who think mysticism is nonsense, but this would have nothing to do with whether the claim is true or false nor whether it is scientific.

Scientists think incoporeal consicousness is non-existent
becasue there is no evidence for it. In may cases hey think
mysticism is nonsense because mystics believe in things
for which there is no evidence.

My feeling is that most scientists would say is that your claim is not remotely scientific let alone factual.

Well, they wouldn't, whatever you feel.

The other problem here is that if mysticism is nonsense, as you are arguing, (and of course you're right to argue against a view you believe is nonsense), then there would be no means by which you could ever know whether consciousness was a late arrival or not.

What do you mean by that? Rocks and clouds
of gas are not cosncious. They ae not aware, they
do not respond to the environment.
And that's all there was for
billions of years.

(Or do you mean that there consciousness might
be present but indetecable ? Well, there is
a reason why I have been talking about *invisible*
fairies. Invisible and undetectable entities
are unnecessary entities, and fall
to the Razor).

So I know that you don't know that your claim is true regardless of whether or not it's scientific. I can respect it as your opinion, but it is no more scientific than the opposing claim.

Occams' razor is on my side, therefore science is.
Science is about the minimal hypothesis that supports
the evidence.

To confuse the isssue further the mystics make neither claim. According to the esoteric literature there is a sense in which consciousness is a late arrival in the universe and a sense in which it is not. That is, there are two ways of looking at this question. So I'm not arguing that consciousness is not a late arrival. That is, it doesn't follow from my argument that your claim is not scientific that I think there is no truth in it.

My claim is scientific becasue it is in line with O's R.

But it is a guess. Colin McGinn, self-professedly one the most 'western' or 'analytical' of philosophers around, has speculated that consciousness may originate in a 'pre-spatial' reality 'prior' to the initial singularity. (I assume that by 'prior' he means ontologically prior and not prior in time). I find this idea muddled and clearly it is a guess, but that doesn't really matter. From the fact that he even considers this a possibility it follows that either there is no scientific evidence or logical argument that rules it out or he is incompetent.

You are confusing decisive evidence with the minimal
hypthesis that supposts the evidence.

The mystical literature has consciousness (def. pending) as a late arrival in the universe in the sense that it is not ontologically fundamental, not what is Absolute, but not as late in time, for it is what brings time into being.

And there's evidence for that, is there ?

This goes back the the earlier question of how mystical knowledge can include a knowledge of the process of cosmogenesis. This bringing of spacetime into being would be an early part of the process of symmetry-breaking by which cosmogenesis occurs. The process would unfold according to the laws described by Spencer Brown in his Laws of Form, which he claims are the same in all universes. How does he know this? If consciousness is as old as the universe and this can be verified empirically in practice then this would be the answer.

So all you have to do is assume your conclusion ?

Note that the universe described here is not 'unscientific'. If it is what is the case then the world would be just as it appears to you and me and professional physicists and philosophers right now. Not a single observation or measurement would be any different than it is. If this were not the case then this description would be demonstrably false.

Obviously. If you add some non-functional bell or whistle
to a theory, everything stays the same. That's why
we have Occam's razor...to cut a theory down to what
is useful.

 

[Pythagorean]

A lot of mysticism/religion is in response to suffering, and is just as valid as occupying yourself with science, as far as I'm concerned.

I do not practice mysticism, personally, but if you accept scientific method, then you probably don't expect there to be some grandiose meaning to life, and therefore, can accept that your work as a scientist isn't anymore important than the work of mystics.

If you want to be altruistic and science is your avenue to help the human race, then I think you might be delluding yourself.

Mostly, the practice of mysticism entails rejecting material obsession. It's basically a mechanism for adapting to 'not having'. By desiring things you can never have, you waste time and energy (both physical and emotional). By having vanity over your rotting body (which will eventually be dust anyway) you are deluding yourself.

I disagree with the majority of scientists who are skeptics that think mysticism is useless. That's not to say I think the mystics have an idea of the real truth of the universe, I just think that the universe is very open to enterpretation, and each individual interacts with it in their own way.

My way is science, but I have no reason to criticize the ways of the mystic, because it is not my realm. I think any scientist that does criticize mysticism is doing so because they've been told by their mentors and peers, not based on any scientific evidence.

Edit: and occam's razor isn't scientific evidence, it is a convenient tool for scientific method. There's times when it seems Occam's razor is used as a blind (literally) assertion: "I never saw it, so it doesn't exist."

 

[Canute]

Tournesol

I genuinely do not understand how you reach your conclusions. The process seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with evidence or reasoning. The only argument you make in support of your idea is that Occam's razor suggests that you're right. I'd argue that it suggests the mystics are, so where does that leave us? Do you have any objection of substance? There's no point in us arguing over your opinions.

You know as well as I do that you don't have the faintest idea when consciousness appears in the history of the universe. So why not just say you don't know, but on balance you prefer the idea that it arrived late?

 

[Tournesol]

Tournesol

I genuinely do not understand how you reach your conclusions.

Have you studied science ?

The process seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with evidence or reasoning.

Have you studied logic ?

The only argument you make in support of your idea is that Occam's razor suggests that you're right.

Yes. saying it is the "only" explanation does not make it false.
And remember, the question is whether "consciousness is a late
arrival" is a scientific truth. So it boils down
to
1) whether "consciousness is a late
arrival" justified by occam's razor.

and

2) whether science works on occam's razor.

You have suggested nothing that refutes either of these,
so my case stands

(YOu seem to be under the impression sicne
works on the basis that everything is true untill
proven fals with complete certainty -- at least
your only argument fo incorporeal consicousness
is that it isn't *necessarilly* false. But
science doesn't work that way.)

I'd argue that it suggests the mystics are, so where does that leave us? Do you have any objection of substance? There's no point in us arguing over your opinions.

Nothing I have said is mere opinion.

You know as well as I do that you don't have the faintest idea when consciousness appears in the history of the universe.

Consicousness appeared when organsims became aware of their
environment, as I have said.

So why not just say you don't know, but on balance you prefer the idea that it arrived late?

sighh...the point you have been missing all along is that *all*
scientific knowledge operates on the "on balance" principle.

And you haven't got anything better!

Using the word "know" to mean "be absolutely certain" doesn't imply
that you do in fact have absolute certainty.

In fact, no one has absolute certainty about anything substantial.

So the only options are to adopt the "on balance" approach,
or to go for a level playing field...e.g. the existence of invisible
fairies is just as likely as the non-existence.

But no-one wants to do that *consistently*. The "no-one
knows either way argument" is always special pleading for the speaker's pet theory.

 

[Canute]

I'm afraid I have no interest in this sort of argument. It is perfectly obvious that you do not know whether consciousness is a late arrival in the universe or whether it is not. It is also perfectly obvious that there is no 'scientific' (naturalistic) way to test whether it is or not. What experiment would you perform to determine the answer?

Why not just accept you don't know? This is all I'm suggesting.

 

[PIT2]

Consicousness appeared when organsims became aware of their
environment, as I have said.

I think canute has already pointed out that this is a metaphysical assumption. Saying that consciousness arose first in organisms, is simply saying that from A came B. It does not explain or prove that it actually happened. One might as well say that jesus walked on water - there is no explanation or evidence that this happened.

 

[Psykostx]

Ok, my 2 cents...

Mysticism and psychadelic drugs have a similar effect on the mind. Both create a resistance to accepting other people's version of reality. Have you ever tried to convince a hippy they were wrong?? Impossible. Both of these things reconfigure the brains use of REASON to "render" emotion into 3d space. So as far as getting in touch with and visualising emotion and understanding ones own inner workings and their relationship to the outside world, knowledge can be found. As far as manipulating matter and energy, well you won't receive much knowledge in physics or increase your sense of logic! Both of these things (including dreaming) are the brains interpretations of the unknown.

You may find yourself more scatterbrained with math and science (Due to your short term memory being converted into a rendering field for emotion), but as far as being a human being, you won't wonder so much, you are more likely to simply accept the fact that you exist, rather than worry about why or how.

If you want to see the face of impossibility then continue to meditate (or try ingesting one of the many tryptamines available through nature). However you may not like the fact that your brain was programmed by other people and that some of your beliefs are incredibly silly and detrimental to your well being and the well being of others.

 

[Psykostx]

Also...who's to say the universe isn't conscious of itself and your magnificent mind isn't a model of it? That would explain man being created in gods image rather well.

 

[Tournesol]

I think canute has already pointed out that this is a metaphysical assumption. Saying that consciousness arose first in organisms, is simply saying that from A came B. It does not explain or prove that it actually happened.

There is no mystery how and why organism became
capable or perceiving and responding to their environments.
You guys keep taking "consiousness" to mean "phenomenal
consciousness". There is an Easy Problem as well.