Cartesian dualism

[PeteJ]

I'm more optimistic because I think that everything will eventually be Explained some day. On the other hand I'm pessimistic because that will be a bad day for us because the Mystery is the Glory of our existence. When we do figure it all out we will have to do something to make us forget all the answers and start out on the journey again.

I'm even more optimistic and believe it's been explained already.

If there is a philosophical explanation then it's not plausible that nobody has stumbled on it yet.

Those who claim to know the explanation say that you're right. The part where we forget would be necessary for the world to appear, and retracing our steps through that process of forgetting would be the way to know this.

Its what they say.

[SteveKlinko]

I'm more optimistic because I think that everything will eventually be Explained some day. On the other hand I'm pessimistic because that will be a bad day for us because the Mystery is the Glory of our existence. When we do figure it all out we will have to do something to make us forget all the answers and start out on the journey again.

I'm even more optimistic and believe it's been explained already.

If there is a philosophical explanation then it's not plausible that nobody has stumbled on it yet.

Those who claim to know the explanation say that you're right. The part where we forget would be necessary for the world to appear, and retracing our steps through that process of forgetting would be the way to know this.

Its what they say.

They say some good stuff.

[Skepdick]

As my post makes perfectly clear, I reject both your forms of monism.

Then, I am sorry but you have to clarify. It seems to me you are rejecting existence.

Because what we are ultimately dealing with is this simple question: How many things exist?

And so far your answers are:
* Not 2 (rejection of dualism)
* Not 1 (rejection of existence monism)
* Not more than 2 (rejection of priority monism)

So now that you've rejected all possible answer in the domain of the positive integers, I can only conclude that you believe 0 (or less?) things exist.

My view of monads is the same as Schrodinger's. They don't work and are a bad idea.

Well, it depends on what you are using them for. They are just another tool for abstract thought.
They work if you know how to use them. Let a 15 year old explain it to you: https://blog.kabir.sh/posts/inventing-monads.html

I guess Schrodinger didn't know that wave functions can be modelled as Monads, where the apply() function means the same thing as measure() or sample_distribution().

[PeteJ]

Then, I am sorry but you have to clarify. It seems to me you are rejecting existence.

Not rejecting but re-defining or re-conceptualising. I endorse the non-dual philosophy, for which nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens.

Because what we are ultimately dealing with is this simple question: How many things exist?

Many things exist by our usual definition of 'standing out', but an ultimate or fully reductive view would say nothing really exists. Otherwise existence would be inexplicable and a fundamental theory would be impossible.

Well, it depends on what you are using them for. They are just another tool for abstract thought.
They work if you know how to use them. Let a 15 year old explain it to you: https://blog.kabir.sh/posts/inventing-monads.html

Thanks, but I think you underestimate me for the sake of a put-down. Perhaps you could send the link to Schrodinger.

I guess Schrodinger didn't know that wave functions can be modelled as Monads, where the apply() function means the same thing as measure() or sample_distribution().

Perhaps he didn't realise this was relevant to anything.

[Skepdick]

Not rejecting but re-defining or re-conceptualising. I endorse the non-dual philosophy, for which nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens.

So, you didn't say the sentence above?

Many things exist by our usual definition of 'standing out', but an ultimate or fully reductive view would say nothing really exists. Otherwise existence would be inexplicable and a fundamental theory would be impossible.

It sounds to me like you have a dualistic conception of existence...

One in which "many things exist" which is equivalent to the priority monism.
One in which "nothing really exists" which is equivalent to anti-realism.

This also corresponds to two different logics.

The conception in which "many things exist" corresponds to a logic in which: ¬ 2 ⇔ (2, ∞)
The conception in which "nothing really exists" corresponds to a logic in which: ¬2 is undefined.

[PeteJ]

The phrase 'Does not really exist' can be translated as 'Does not exist in the way we usually imagine'. The word 'really' would be important. It means that by reduction things do not exist. Analysis of their existence reveals nothing but Kant's 'thing-in-itself', the ineffable emptiness at the heart of phenomena.

No modification to logic is required. The point is just that dualism and monism do not exhaust the possibilities. The essential issue is the possibility that Reality outruns Existence. If it does not there can be no explanation for Existence. The reification of objects renders metaphysics incomprehensible.

We needn't argue and you needn't agree. I'm just pointing out that monism and dualism have an alternative that is widely endorsed and cannot be ignored in philosophy.

[Skepdick]

The phrase 'Does not really exist' can be translated as 'Does not exist in the way we usually imagine'. The word 'really' would be important. It means that by reduction things do not exist. Analysis of their existence reveals nothing but Kant's 'thing-in-itself', the ineffable emptiness at the heart of phenomena.

We know nothing about "things-in-themselves", and as Wittgenstein pointed out "That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent."

I am not convinced that the word "really" adds anything to the conversation.

Atoms exist.
Atoms are real.
Atoms really exist.

I think all three sentences equivalent.

The essential issue is the possibility that Reality outruns Existence.

Ehhh? So now you have a conception of the world where some things exist, some things are real and the two categories aren't synonymous?

That's dualism!

The reification of objects renders metaphysics incomprehensible.

To speak of reification is to speak of "things in themselves". We have no language capable of such feat.

We needn't argue and you needn't agree. I'm just pointing out that monism and dualism have an alternative that is widely endorsed and cannot be ignored in philosophy.

And I am pointing out that advaita is not an alternative to monism. It's functionally equivalent.

The distinction is in vocabulary, not in substance. The concepts of atman and brahman correspond to the concepts of "self" and "universe" in Monism.

[PeteJ]

We know nothing about "things-in-themselves", and as Wittgenstein pointed out "That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent."

I am not convinced that the word "really" adds anything to the conversation.

Atoms exist.
Atoms are real.
Atoms really exist.

I think all three sentences equivalent.

Okay. Believe what you like. I'm sure you know more about advaita than the people who endorse it.

[Dontaskme]

They say some good stuff.

Speaking is nothing more than just fleeting 'non-material sound' heard as 'material words' within the IMMATERIAL mind/body mechanism, it's a process that has only a temporal relationship with the MATERIAL shapes and forms described.

''Individuality'' the idea there is a 'thinking self' can only live in the world of material linguistic constructions born of non-material mind that isn't reality at all, rather it's a mimicked reality, a mere representation of what 'thought' artificially creates it to be by superimposing it upon reality mistaking that reality to be real.

When in truth, real realtime reality is an immediate direct presentation manifesting all at once right NOW
There is no thing making NOW happen or stopping NOW from happening.

Logical philosophers fail to grasp the nature of mind and consciousness being the eternal NOW relying on finite reasoning via the use of concepts which then create an artificial world born of NO THING but pure non-material 'sound' that cannot tell us anything about material things they represent. However, metaphysics does solve this conundrum by presupposing mind and consciousness to be non-matter.

.

[Skepdick]

Okay. Believe what you like. I'm sure you know more about advaita than the people who endorse it.

I guess you don't understand what functional equivalence means...

[SteveKlinko]

They say some good stuff.

Speaking is nothing more than just fleeting 'non-material sound' heard as 'material words' within the IMMATERIAL mind/body mechanism, it's a process that has only a temporal relationship with the MATERIAL shapes and forms described.

''Individuality'' the idea there is a 'thinking self' can only live in the world of material linguistic constructions born of non-material mind that isn't reality at all, rather it's a mimicked reality, a mere representation of what 'thought' artificially creates it to be by superimposing it upon reality mistaking that reality to be real.

When in truth, real realtime reality is an immediate direct presentation manifesting all at once right NOW
There is no thing making NOW happen or stopping NOW from happening.

Logical philosophers fail to grasp the nature of mind and consciousness being the eternal NOW relying on finite reasoning via the use of concepts which then create an artificial world born of NO THING but pure non-material 'sound' that cannot tell us anything about material things they represent. However, metaphysics does solve this conundrum by presupposing mind and consciousness to be non-matter.

.

It's becoming more and more obvious that Science is not going to figure out what the Mind and Consciousness are any time soon. Just by virtue of the inability of Science to figure it out after all this time we must consider the possibility, at least, that you are correct about the Non-Matter nature of something like the Experience of Redness in our Minds. But when we say Non-Matter it doesn't mean that it will be Non-Understandable. I think Science just needs to step out of its Materialist Box and consider that Science has not Explained all the Categories of Phenomena that are evident in the Universe. Conscious Experience is one such Category of Phenomena that is not Explained yet.

[Dontaskme]

Conscious Experience is one such Category of Phenomena that is not Explained yet.

Steve, let us try to explain it ourselves ok? The thing is, all I am ever doing here on this forum is attempting to explain it myself from my own direct subjective experience, it's all I ever do, I don't believe the answer can come from a source outside myself, because then it wouldn't be my experience would it? on the flip side, just who is going to believe my descriptive version born out of my own subjective experience from how I directly experience it? that wouldn't be the experience of another person would it?

Surely that would be a problem, expecting everyone to agree with my version. That would be like a never ending problem because how would every other thinking sentient living being in existence ever come to agree with one persons subject direct experience? obviously there are going to be mulitple versions of explanations.

If this phenomena is ever meant to be explained, then the explanation is going to happen somehow, one way or another eventually. So can it be explained right now within our own personal conscious thinking mind? or do we have to wait for someone else to explain it to us?

And then surely if someone else can explain it to us, then that would be the proof that an explanation is possible. And so if one conscious mind can explain it then so must all minds be able to explain it as well.

In my opinion, a Conscious Experience implies there is a 'someone' that knows it is conscious, and that this 'someone' knows it is having a Conscious Experience...right?

But then wouldn't that require the Consciousness that knows it is Conscious to split in two into the knower and the known causing a gap between the two? ..and does that gap actually exist?

.

[PeteJ]

But then wouldn't that require the Consciousness that knows it is Conscious to split in two into the knower and the known causing a gap between the two? ..and does that gap actually exist?

Great point. I would suggest the gap does not exist and that intentional consciousness is not all there is to consciousness.

[SteveKlinko]

Conscious Experience is one such Category of Phenomena that is not Explained yet.

Steve, let us try to explain it ourselves ok? The thing is, all I am ever doing here on this forum is attempting to explain it myself from my own direct subjective experience, it's all I ever do, I don't believe the answer can come from a source outside myself, because then it wouldn't be my experience would it? on the flip side, just who is going to believe my descriptive version born out of my own subjective experience from how I directly experience it? that wouldn't be the experience of another person would it?

Surely that would be a problem, expecting everyone to agree with my version. That would be like a never ending problem because how would every other thinking sentient living being in existence ever come to agree with one persons subject direct experience? obviously there are going to be mulitple versions of explanations.

If this phenomena is ever meant to be explained, then the explanation is going to happen somehow, one way or another eventually. So can it be explained right now within our own personal conscious thinking mind? or do we have to wait for someone else to explain it to us?

And then surely if someone else can explain it to us, then that would be the proof that an explanation is possible. And so if one conscious mind can explain it then so must all minds be able to explain it as well.

In my opinion, a Conscious Experience implies there is a 'someone' that knows it is conscious, and that this 'someone' knows it is having a Conscious Experience...right?

But then wouldn't that require the Consciousness that knows it is Conscious to split in two into the knower and the known causing a gap between the two? ..and does that gap actually exist?

.

Of course I think the Gap does exist. How can the Knower be the Known? It may very well be true, but I need Explanations. Just saying the words does not satisfy me. Like I always say I'm still thinking about this Oneness thing ...

[Dontaskme]

Of course I think the Gap does exist. How can the Knower be the Known? It may very well be true, but I need Explanations. Just saying the words does not satisfy me. Like I always say I'm still thinking about this Oneness thing ...

Thinking about oneness creates 'otherness' where there is none. Thinking creates a gulf between the knower and the known, but it's an imaginary split. So to close this illusory gap is to see that the knower and known are only ever one in the instantaneous moment because the thought is the thinker, and the thinker is the thought. It works both ways, it's a two way mirror and the mirror is ONE it has no gap or divide. Knower cannot exist without the known,they are mutually co-dependant, like conjoined twins, inseparable, ONLY appearing as if split ..the split is only a reflection of the one, of itself of course, in the same context there is no shadow without the sun. The shadow owes it's very existence to the sun, but the shadow has no existence of it's own because the shadow is the sun which does not require it's own shadow to be what it is, it's totally self shining.
What comes from one can only be one, not two. You cannot get two from what will always be one. One divided will always be divided by itself...so one is two and one is three and one is four...or one is this and that and the other metaphysically speaking.


Believing there is a gap is what creates the gap in the first place. Drop the belief and see there is no gap except the belief. Notice when all beliefs in this that and the other cease, you still exist whether you believe anything or not. Now all you've got to notice is that you exist even when you are not thinking about existing like in deep dreamless sleep when you exist without knowing you exist. There is no discontinuity in consciousness beingness aka the oneness that is all there is was and ever will be infinitely for eternity.

There is no you because there is no other than you.



.