a non-physical thing

[wynn]

hence holding the mind as the fundamental substance of reality poses dire consequences

But what choice is there?

the choice to accept that one's mind is not the ultimate authority.

No need to get terribly esoteric about this. Everyone has the experience of being pushed to the hilt to fulfill the desires of one's mind and then being dragged over the coals by the very same entity for doing so.

To someone who holds the mind as fundamental, the choice to hold something else as fundamental still lays in the realm of holding the mind as fundamental - and so for such a person, nothing has changed.

much like a person wearing red glasses sees everything as red

It appears one would actually have to surpass one's mind to get beyond that problem! That one would have to get well beyond mano-maya.

It seems to me that one also has to have some faith that there is another reality, one where one's mind is not or does not try to be the ruler of one's life; faith that one's life will not fall apart if one doesn't presume to have full control over it. And that that reality is worth more than the current one.

Actually one tends to finish with pranomaya when one realizes that there is no scope for security or enjoyment within the realm of matter

Which is why people serious about philosophy don't mind being poor?

Young people nowadays in schools sooner learn about "critical thinking" than having their physical survival ensured.

I think there is a wider social context of industrial consumerism which places absurd requirements for the procurement of a little food and shelter

That too. I meant that some intellectual sophistication is necessary to be eligible for even very simple jobs. In many countries, one has to have at least a high-school diploma to be eligible to get any kind of job. One has to go to school, do homework, pass exams and so on for years - even just to be eligible for a job that one's illiterate grand-grandfather was eligible for.

Many people who are unemployed or otherwise struggle materially, venture into investigating spirituality and philosophy.
Would you say that this is backwards, that an investigation of spirituality in such a context of material strife is likely going to lead to unsatisfactory results?

If you look at the four types of people who begin spiritual life (as mentioned as the four pious types in the gita), you see that material strife can catalyze a persons spiritual initiative.

Sure. But given their material strife, there is no guarantee that they will be able to keep up with their spiritual pursuits. So one might wonder whether it is worth it to even try to begin with those pursuits.

You didn't say anything to my reply to you in the thread on the Vedic refutation of solipsism.

sorry

almost slipped me

Thank you for replying!

 

[swarm]

o...k...

You think theists have the market on introspection? I'm by nature introspective and have had to work on balencing that out. I'm the sort who actually enjoys long silent meditation retreats. What of it?

well, what are you working with then (since you have lots of experience on the subject)?

I approach the topic with nothing. All compound objects are empty inherant suchness. I accept the universe, and myself, as it is without further need for justification by anything "beyond" this.

Now might be a good opportunity to explain how you hold an impersonal view of consciousness yet don't subscribe to a reductionist paradigm of life .....

I hold what is sometimes refered to as a "soft dualist" or connectionist stance. I.e. there are inherantly irreducible properties which arrise from the complex interactions (patterns) of the physical substrate. Thus no matter how well you understand particle physics, there are aspects to the Mona Lisa which cannot be explaned in a particle physics model or even from any understanding of any particular physical instance of the Mona Lisa as an object in and of itself.

However I find no evidence of hard dualism as might be proposed by your averaged theist making claims about non physical substances like souls which are supposed to have existence in and of themselves.

I guess that leaves you with the question of "what is desire?"

No. I have direct experience of it just fine.

what specific means do you adopt to deal with the mind and senses?

Understanding/insight, learning/knowledge, compassion/love, focus and attention, depending on the specific aspect which needs to be dealt with.

leaves one with the question of what is the self

Who is asking?

what is the phenomena of its knowing

Did you eat today?

why do gross materialists place eternal values on a temporary object?

Maybe you should ask one?

conditioned life tends to ...

Oh please! "Tends?"

Could you make your objections weaker and more vague?

If you didn't have some theoretical understanding of...

But since I do, that is a non issue.

So far you offer nothing but snobbery for your failure.

 

[swarm]

the choice to accept that one's mind is not the ultimate authority.

The religious are always on about authority and "ultimate authority" is soooo sexy. No ultimate authority is so boringly actual.

much like a person wearing red glasses sees everything as red

funny thing that. the mind compensates and eventually you don't see everything as red. Also if you wear glasses that flip everything, your mind will flip it back after a while.

Actually one tends to finish with pranomaya when one realizes that there is no scope for security or enjoyment within the realm of matter

How unfortunate! Look deeper.

 

[swarm]

There is no requirement for rationality

I'm willing to grant that rationality isn't always employed, but that is different than saying it isn't required.

Remember the premise here: "If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god."

This ignores the "power" or impact on behavior of ideas/concepts.

I don't see the relevance here.

The "actuality" of a thing is simply irrelevant to one who believes it real.

I have found actuallity trumps belief time and time again, often with the actuallity of death for those who are abstinant in wrong beliefs about things which matter..

As such, a person believing in something does not need compelled by rationality or proof in any other terms that those they have already settled upon.

Sure delusional people will believe any old thing for any old "reason," but I'm not discussing such people.

again: "If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god."

 

[Hapsburg]

Non physical things have no physical evidence and therefor cannot be said to exist.

Not necessarily. It depends on one's point of view.

 

[wesmorris]

I'm willing to grant that rationality isn't always employed, but that is different than saying it isn't required.

Remember the premise here: "If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god."

Understood, but saying it and the reality of it are two different things entirely. I simply mean that you can say "hey if you want to convince me be rational." a thousand times to someone - but if their conceptual framework doesn't allow it as you or I might see it - they'll resort to what they know. Further, the "actual" part is where it gets very grey as god is easily 'an idea pointing to other ideas' - which could be said to be as 'actual' as this conversation depending on your perspective.

I don't see the relevance here.

The point is that the actuality of an idea has a direct impact on behavior and as such, is manifest in actuality.

I have found actuallity trumps belief time and time again, often with the actuallity of death for those who are abstinant in wrong beliefs about things which matter..

Things like standing in traffic or believing one can fly? True, but interestingly (at least as I see it), that doesn't necessarily negate the subjective validity of the belief. (though the rest of us may chortle)

Sure delusional people will believe any old thing for any old "reason," but I'm not discussing such people.

I think it's much more subtle than that. In fact, I'd argue that every human indulges some amount of delusion at least some of the time.

again: "If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god."

Well I think this is somewhat circular in the opposite manner that "god" is circular. "god" is a faith thing and can't be proven to one who doesn't accept it (obviously circular, but practical for some, dogma to many). Further I think "actual" is less concrete if you consider the reality of the exchange of ideas as part of what is "actual".

God is an idea.

It can be a very powerful idea, a real idea. Some center the framework of their mind about it as a tool to focus them (at least that's how it seems in utilitarian terms to me). Some are drunk with its power, some respect and cherish it, some scoff at it. Regardless of the perspective, the reality of the idea is unquestionable. There are actual consequences to acceptance and utilization of 'god', one of which is generally to appearing 'irrational' to one who does not accept or utilize it.

*shrug*

 

[Doreen]

Non physical things have no physical evidence and therefor cannot be said to exist.

1) Is perception physical evidence and if so, what does this mean?
2) As opposed to what kind of evidence? IOW the category seems to undermine itself since it implies there is evidence that his not physical, which, actually, seems rather true to me, since we accept perceptions as evidence. Not all the interpretations of them, but nevertheless.

I mean, how can we avoid that?

It seems to me what we call physical is some amassing of perceptions or sense data or experiences that are repeatable. Are experiences physical? I do not mean: are they separate from brains? I do mean that we begin with phenomena and then we refer to portions of repeating phenomena as physical, which must be a metaphor.

And when we refer to - reduce to - 'brains', we are actually referring to a great many experiences.

And then there is the whole there, not there quantum foam thing.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Signal

Everyone has the experience of being pushed to the hilt to fulfill the desires of one's mind and then being dragged over the coals by the very same entity for doing so.

much like a person wearing red glasses sees everything as red

No. Not everyone. Maybe you should just speak for yourself.


“ Originally Posted by swarm
Non physical things have no physical evidence and therefor cannot be said to exist. ”

Not necessarily. It depends on one's point of view.

No. It doesn't. Either there is evidence or there isn't.

In fact, I'd argue that every human indulges some amount of delusion at least some of the time.

Then I'm not human.

 

[Doreen]

In fact, I'd argue that every human indulges some amount of delusion at least some of the time.

Of course. And there's the near universal overestimation of one's own ability to know when one is being rational and when one is not.

 

[wesmorris]

Then I'm not human.

Uhm..

You see what you did there?

Thanks.

 

[wesmorris]

Of course. And there's the near universal overestimation of one's own ability to know when one is being rational and when one is not.

Damned near, indeed. I try to be cautious but honestly, it's hard to know eh?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Uhm..

You see what you did there?

Thanks.

I'd be deluded if I didn't.
I see what you did.

 

[Doreen]

Damned near, indeed. I try to be cautious but honestly, it's hard to know eh?

Yup. If you have an image of yourself as cautious, then you have a motive not to notice when you are a tad reckless. Or more than a tad.

 

[wesmorris]

Yup. If you have an image of yourself as cautious, then you have a motive not to notice when you are a tad reckless. Or more than a tad.

It's a sticky little logical trap.

 

[swarm]

Not necessarily. It depends on one's point of view.

Point of view is irrelevant in existencial matters.

 

[swarm]

but if their conceptual framework doesn't allow it ...

Granted but I'm not trying to cover all cases here, just the rational one.

'an idea pointing to other ideas' - which could be said to be as 'actual' as this conversation depending on your perspective.

An actual or factual phrase or concept is one which truly and accurately depicts a real referent. Example: "I have a cup." When in fact I do have a cup.

I have no problems with god as just a fantasy, idea or concept.

the subjective validity of the belief.

Subjective "validity" is irrelevant in this case.

"god" is a faith thing

As long as it is not asserted that god is actual then who cares? People believe in all manner of whack crap. As long is it is known to be superstition and it can be dismissed from rational consideration along with lucky pennies and pixie dust.

I think "actual" is less concrete if you consider the reality of the exchange of ideas as part of what is "actual".

The point of "actual" is that it is as concrete as it gets. As long as the idea is actually an idea and is not misrepresented as something else, I have no problems.

God is an idea.

So? I've no issues with that per se.

 

[swarm]

Of course. And there's the near universal overestimation of one's own ability to know when one is being rational and when one is not.

Which is why you double check and get external verification.

 

[swarm]

1) Is perception physical evidence and if so, what does this mean?

It is the start of acceptable evidence. Add replication, falsification and verification and you have a reasonable basis for establishing physical evidence as being true and valid. It is a method which has an establish track record for arriving at reasonable conclusions and for being self correcting when it is in error.

2) As opposed to what kind of evidence?

False evidence. Fanciful evidence. Unsupportable and irreproducible conclusions.

there is evidence that is not physical

That claim is often made by theists, but it has yet to be substantiated.

It seems to me what we call physical is some amassing of perceptions or sense data or experiences that are repeatable.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Do you have trouble distinguishing dream time from wake time? They are both "amassing of perceptions or sense data or experiences that are repeatable" and yet you manage to figure out which is backed by reality and which is not.

What we call physical reality has its own substance independent of our perception of it and we are able to reasonably distinguish its perception from perceptions which are not based in reality.

 

[Enmos]

Have our senses evolved to notice non physical things? There doesn't seem to be a reason for that to have happened so I'm thinking no. If there are non physical things then we have no way to detect them. This could open a door for theists' god to exist as non physical but at the same time it closes any avenue open to us to sense it.

If that's true then theists cannot in any way experience god and so have no reason whatsoever to believe in god.

 

[Enmos]

I think this is a key point which causes a lot of difficulty where it need not if we can come to a simple and reasonable acceptance of the normal meaning of the words used.

Non physical things have no physical evidence and therefor cannot be said to exist.

The nature of an existent thing qua thing is that it has physical extension and therefor there is physical evidence of its existence. No physical evidence = no physical existence. So gos is not a thing in and of itself.

Now we generally admit a secondary form of existence, that of identifiable patterns or distinct organizations of things. For example, the pattern we call the Mona Lisa is recognizable as a distinct entity independent of the substrate which forms the pattern, be it paint or elections or ink.

In this case the concepts of god, while vague and varied from group to group, are distinguishable as a particular set of concepts. I don't think an atheist would take exception to god existing as a concept which finds instances in the various believers and writings.

Now the actual point of contention is whether or not this concept of god has any extension outside the beliefs of those who form it.

When a believer says there god is "real" that is the essence of the claim they are making. They are saying that in spite of not having any actual physical extension or existence, their god has some extraordinary existence outside their concept of it.

It is hardly a remarkable request on the part of the atheist to be shown proof of this existence more substantial that "I just believe" or "its in my book of Jewish myths."

Mere concepts are a dime a dozen and human history is littered with myths of gods which turned out just to be stories. If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god.

Anything less is a waste of time no matter how you feel or believe.

Very good post Swarm !