Why Physicalism is Wrong

[Dontaskme]

It's not, it is the being of a body with senses, memory and language in an external world. Or if you prefer it is the idea of a body with senses, memory and language in an external world.

It's not being anything...The being - body - senses - memory - language - external world - ideas are all conceptual experiences of it, aka illusory appearances...appearing to Consciousness alone.

Consciousness is not an experience, neither does it appear. It's not-a- thing.

No thing is being a thing.

.

[Arising_uk]

It's not being anything...

Yes it is, it's being a body with senses, memory and language in an external world.

The being - body - senses - memory - language - external world - ideas are all conceptual experiences of it, aka illusory appearances...appearing to Consciousness alone. …

So the rest of the animal kingdom are not beings?

Consciousness is not an experience, neither does it appear. It's not-a- thing. ...

It sure is when one is self-conscious.

No thing is being a thing.

All things are being things.

[Ramu]

It's not being anything...

Yes it is, it's being a body with senses, memory and language in an external world.

The being - body - senses - memory - language - external world - ideas are all conceptual experiences of it, aka illusory appearances...appearing to Consciousness alone. …

So the rest of the animal kingdom are not beings?

Consciousness is not an experience, neither does it appear. It's not-a- thing. ...

It sure is when one is self-conscious.

No thing is being a thing.

All things are being things.

Are you the body or are you the witness of body?

[Arising_uk]

Depends what you mean by "witness"?

[RG1]

Consciousness is not an experience...

Incorrect. Consciousness is the experience of 'recognition' (made possible by memory).

[Dontaskme]

Consciousness is not an experience...

Incorrect. Consciousness is the experience of 'recognition' (made possible by memory).

Incorrect. An experience is an appearance in consciousness ...consciousness and the contents of consciousness are the same one. No thing is experiencing itself. The content recognition/memory...is a reflection, a mirage, a concept known by no thing...Concepts don’t experience anything, they are the experience no thing aka consciousness is having, consciousness and the contents of consciousness are inseparable one and the same just two sides of the same coin.

To experience consciousness would require an experiencer and there isn’t one.

The experiencer is knowledge...aka no thing knowing itself.


Knowledge informs the illusory nature of life ...in that life is living itself, there is no one living it. No one experiencing it.

.

[Atla]

They're talking about understanding the science of QM, not just articulating the measurement problem, on which I notice you've not rendered a differing description, however simplified.

The measurement problem is by definition impossible to properly describe. The best I can come up with is: why we always seem to be caught in "classical" states when reality is "superpositional".
A big issue I have with "the problem of how (or whether) wave function collapse occurs" is that it tends to ignore the fact that we / something about us / something about some of us is also part of the measurement problem. Plus the wave function is just an abstract mathematical tool, description, this quote suggests the idea too strongly that it's real. It also suggests an inherently dualistic interpretation of QM like there were two things, superpositions and collaspes, but the common sense position is that these are two manifestations of the same behaviour, especially when we consider decoherence.

MWI is a metaphysical theory, not a scientific one. They don't teach it in QM courses, or if they do, it gets a brief mention since it is irrelevant to the science being taught.

Another common objection from people who didn't really start to understand the measurement problem. All interpretations of QM are inherently metaphysical, even the most instrumentalist non-interpretations. However this fact isn't taught in QM courses and most physicists are completely unaware of it. (Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, since teaching this to them would mostly just interfere with what they are paid to do: using QM, "doing" physics.)

You are mixing a non-MWI interpretation of what you are with a MWI interpretation of what should be experienced by that you. MWI does not predict a different experience. None of them do.

Of course they try to predict the same experience. But the standard MWI doesn't actually explain why we see classical states in the first place. It just asserts that we do, because... we are in a "branch", or because universes "split" or whatever, in other words they have no idea why.

[Atla]

I can't make sense of something like "it's all and only phenomena". …

Simple really, one of the things I can't doubt is that there are phenomema.

For that I would have to split reality into noumena and phenomena first and then discard the noumena, which is a double error. …

Why? There is apparently phenomena.

need I haven't read Kant but he seems to be addressing a phenomena-noumena categorization, which doesn't exist. …

Not really, what he says is what Reason can say about phenomena and if one wished to be metaphysical and assume some substance which causes them then one cannot say anything about 'it' other than one thinks there is such a thing.

Yeah I haven't read much Western philosophy since it's all fundamentally defective since like Plato. …

There have been many philosophers since Plato and a few before and around his time but tell me what you think this 'fundamental defect' is?

Well, this above is the fundamental defect. Phenomena, noumena, substance. Projecting conceptual divisions/boundaries, conceptual boxes, categories onto reality, and then thinking about reality that way. But reality is actually indivisible, and we are it.
Imo this very framework is the problem and the main the reason why Western philosophy is a dead-end. Maybe not even to Kant did it occur that one can go "outside" this framework, cast it all away and see reality as nondual, in the other, "deeper" sense of nondual. It actually gives a picture of existence that is different from any Western monism.

But accepting that for 300+ or rather 2000+ years, Westerners were fundamentally wrong about everything, can lead to the realization that therefore existence can't be benevolent. It's not always an easy realization.

[RG1]

Consciousness is the experience of 'recognition' (made possible by memory).

An experience is an appearance in consciousness…

Close. An experience is a physical bodily reaction (e.g. sensory reactions, thoughts, feelings/urges). Consciousness is the (singular experience of) 'recognition' of said bodily reaction.

Many entities can experience (including billiard balls!), but not many can 'know' they experience. The ones that 'know' (recognize bodily reactions) are the ones that are considered "conscious' entities.

No thing is experiencing itself.

Close. Although the 'experiencer' cannot experience itself, it nonetheless exists with logical certainty.

Experiencing oneself is logically impossible.
1. One cannot be in two places (subject/object; perceiver/perceived) at one time.
2. One can only experience 'experiences' (sensations; bodily reactions), and not 'things' or 'selfs' themselves.
3. Therefore, true self-awareness is a myth.

Experiencing logically implies an 'experiencer'.
-- Without 'something' happening, 'nothing' happens, ...including experiencing. Without 'something' experiencing, 'nothing' is experienced. If 'experiencing' exists, then so must the 'experiencer'.

To experience consciousness would require an experiencer and there isn’t one.

Not so. Experiencer exists, otherwise experiencing (verb) could not be possible. Without 'something' experiencing, 'nothing' can be experienced.

To experience consciousness (recognition of bodily reactions), would require a reactive body (aka 'experiencer') with memory capability.

The experiencer is knowledge...aka no thing knowing itself.

Not so. "Knowledge" is just another experience; it is the 'experiencing' of thoughts (another bodily reaction). Without an 'experiencer', experiencing "knowledge" would be impossible.

[Dontaskme]

An experience is an appearance in consciousness…

Close. An experience is a physical bodily reaction (e.g. sensory reactions, thoughts, feelings/urges). Consciousness is the (singular experience of) 'recognition' of said bodily reaction.

The ''sensation'' is the experience ....NOT CONSCIOUSNESS.
Consciousness is not an experience FULL STOP.

Any reaction is a claim for identity, for example; I am the taster, the feeler, the thinker, the seer, etc etc...However,
The feeler is inseparable from the felt. The seer inseparable from the seen. The taster inseparable from the taste, the smeller inseparbale from the odour..there is no claimer here. No identity, no entity.

CONSCIOUSNESS is not an experience, it is the ''experiencing''
Consciousness cannot experience Consciousness ..there is only Nondual Consciousness.
Any recognition is on contact with a surface ( the dual mind of knowledge) an aspect of the Nondual. When awareness knows sensation consciousness is born. It is the same Nondual awareness appearing dual...albeit illusory. Awareness being aware of itself.

Consciousness is not the experience. It's that in which the experience is known, by consciousness only.

If consciousness could experience consciousness it would have to split in two..This is not the truth of consciousness. How does consciousness split?
It only appears to split via illusory conceptual language aka knowledge known by Consciousness alone...consciousness being like space..how does one divide up space into many spaces? the contents of space are inseparable from space itself. The contents of consciousness and consciousness are the same ONE.

Many entities can experience (including billiard balls!), but not many can 'know' they experience. The ones that 'know' (recognize bodily reactions) are the ones that are considered "conscious' entities.

Entities are not conscious...only consciousness is conscious...consciousness is not an entity, the concept ''entity'' is knowledge which is a fiction appearing in consciousness the only knowing there is. Consciousness knowing itself conceptually is knowledge known, AND that which is known cannot know anything...knowledge informs the illusory nature of REALITY.



.

[Dontaskme]

The experiencer is knowledge...aka no thing knowing itself.

Not so. "Knowledge" is just another experience; it is the 'experiencing' of thoughts (another bodily reaction). Without an 'experiencer', experiencing "knowledge" would be impossible.

That which knows knowledge (Consciousness) is not an experience. The experiencer is born of the knowledge and the knowledge is born of the experience in the experiencing the experiencer is having.
The knower and the known are one in the same moment, this is Consciousness one without a second...which is not an experience.

Knowledge is not experiencing anything, it is being experienced by the experiencer (Consciousness)..which is not an experience.

.

[RG1]

An experience is a physical bodily reaction (e.g. sensory reactions, thoughts, feelings/urges). Consciousness is the (singular experience of) 'recognition' of said bodily reaction.

The ''sensation'' is the experience ....NOT CONSCIOUSNESS.

How do you 'know' you had this sensation/experience? Mustn't you be CONSCIOUS to 'know' this?

Any reaction is a claim for identity, for example; I am the taster, the feeler, the thinker, the seer, etc etc...However,
The feeler is inseparable from the felt. The seer inseparable from the seen. The taster inseparable from the taste, the smeller inseparbale from the odour..there is no claimer here.

Agreed, these are logically linked ("inseparable"). For without 'something' smelling, then there is NO experience of smelling. Without an 'experiencer', there could be no 'experiencing'. One cannot exist without the other!

CONSCIOUSNESS is not an experience, it is the ''experiencing''.

Not quite. Consciousness is the 'knowing' of the experiencing! There is a big difference between "experiencing" and "consciously experiencing" (aka "consciousness"), ...true?

Consciousness cannot experience Consciousness

Agreed. Consciousness cannot experience 'consciousness' (itself). Consciousness can only experience bodily experiences/reactions. Consciousness is the 'knowing' ('recognizing') of bodily experiences. Consciousness is the singular experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory.

Consciousness is not the experience. It's that in which the experience is known, by consciousness only.

To put more accurately/succinctly -- Consciousness is the 'knowing' of bodily experiences. (Note: consciousness is itself also an experience; it is the experience of recognition).

Many entities can experience (including billiard balls!), but not many can 'know' they experience. The ones that 'know' (recognize bodily experiences) are the ones that are considered "conscious' entities.

Entities are not conscious…

I'm an entity. And I'm conscious. --- I'm an 'experiencer' entity that consciously experiences.

...consciousness is not an entity…

Agreed. Consciousness is not an entity, it is an 'experience', experienced by an entity (called "experiencer").

"Knowledge" is just another experience; it is the 'experiencing' of thoughts (another bodily reaction). Without an 'experiencer', experiencing "knowledge" would be impossible.

Knowledge is not experiencing anything, it is being experienced by the experiencer (Consciousness)..which is not an experience.

How can it be "not an experience"??? If it "is being experienced by the experiencer", then isn't it an experience? --- For isn't it logically impossible to experience a non-experience, ...right?

[jayjacobus]

The experiencer is knowledge...aka no thing knowing itself.

Not so. "Knowledge" is just another experience; it is the 'experiencing' of thoughts (another bodily reaction). Without an 'experiencer', experiencing "knowledge" would be impossible.

That which knows knowledge (Consciousness) is not an experience. The experiencer is born of the knowledge and the knowledge is born of the experience in the experiencing the experiencer is having.
The knower and the known are one in the same moment, this is Consciousness one without a second...which is not an experience.

Knowledge is not experiencing anything, it is being experienced by the experiencer (Consciousness)..which is not an experience.

.

It's possible to see things in a different way and gain insight into what we know. But if we don't gain insight, then what is the purpose of the new insight? Idealism is a different way of seeing things but it doesn't give insight. Neither does this way of seeing things.

[Arising_uk]

Well, this above is the fundamental defect. Phenomena, noumena, substance. …

You didn't read it correctly, there are Phenomena, the rest is metaphysics.

Projecting conceptual divisions/boundaries, conceptual boxes, categories onto reality, and then thinking about reality that way. …

Kant's point was exactly about our 'conceptual boxes' and what reason can and cannot say about 'reality'.

But reality is actually indivisible, and we are it. …

A clear application of a conceptual box surely?

Imo this very framework is the problem and the main the reason why Western philosophy is a dead-end. …

Well Western Philosophy is definitely a dead-end to those who wish to make-up metaphysical ontological explanations for 'reality' nowadays and the reason is that from Philosophy came the Natural Philosophers who had a better method for explaining how things work. But logic, reasoning and critical analysis are never bad tools to have even though they also seem out of fashion nowadays, so I think Philosophy will still muddle along into the future.

Maybe not even to Kant did it occur that one can go "outside" this framework, cast it all away and see reality as nondual, in the other, "deeper" sense of nondual. …

Kant's point was exactly that one cannot go 'outside'. If you are saying that accepting your metaphysic leads to some kind of psychological solution to something then fine but to claim your metaphysic as fact is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

It actually gives a picture of existence that is different from any Western monism.

Read the Greeks and Spinoza.

But accepting that for 300+ or rather 2000+ years, Westerners were fundamentally wrong about everything, can lead to the realization that therefore existence can't be benevolent. It's not always an easy realization.

Who the hell claimed in Philosophy that existence was benevolent?

I must admit it really bugs me to listen to people from the west claim western civilization(I presume that's what you mean) was and is fundamentally wrong about everything when it has actually changed the whole history of everything compared to the thousands of years that went before it. It also annoys me that they make this claim without bothering to actually read any western philosophy.

By-the-by, you didn't say what eastern 'philosophies' you were talking about nor how modern science(whatever this is?) can confirm anything when we ourselves cannot accurately perceive the world?

[Dontaskme]

An experience is a physical bodily reaction (e.g. sensory reactions, thoughts, feelings/urges). Consciousness is the (singular experience of) 'recognition' of said bodily reaction.

The ''sensation'' is the experience ....NOT CONSCIOUSNESS.

How do you 'know' you had this sensation/experience? Mustn't you be CONSCIOUS to 'know' this?

Lets be clear about how we context this subject into words.


The I doesn't know anything. The I is the known...by that which cannot be known by the known. The I already is the knowing one with itself (knowing) (this is a very important realisation)
There is here in reality only ''knowing'' and no one knows what that knowing is because they are it...that's all that can be known.

When awareness(latent) knows sensation consciousness is born(mind)
There is no mention of any avatar with a consciousness here. Avatars are ''thoughts'' within the mind, they have no substance or existence in and of themselves. It's not the avatar that is conscious. Avatars do not have consciousness, they are appearances of consciousness.
Awareness / consciousness / mind are different concepts for the same ONE SELF interchanging interfacing with itself alone, resulting in the illusion of empty fullness...aka reality.

Any reaction is a claim for identity, for example; I am the taster, the feeler, the thinker, the seer, etc etc...However,
The feeler is inseparable from the felt. The seer inseparable from the seen. The taster inseparable from the taste, the smeller inseparbale from the odour..there is no claimer here.

Agreed, these are logically linked ("inseparable"). For without 'something' smelling, then there is NO experience of smelling. Without an 'experiencer', there could be no 'experiencing'. One cannot exist without the other!

It is not a ''something'' smelling...the correct terminology is that which is without odour arises as all odour.
Smelling is not done by a ''someone'' ...you are the scent that cannot be smelt. Here, the smeller and the odour smelt arise in the same instant as one inseparable experience, in that there is no smeller and something to smell separate from the smeller.

Or that which is without sight sees.
And that which is without sensation is sensation.
Lets be clear about the way this is put into context.

CONSCIOUSNESS is not an experience, it is the ''experiencing''.

Not quite. Consciousness is the 'knowing' of the experiencing! There is a big difference between "experiencing" and "consciously experiencing" (aka "consciousness"), ...true?

Not really true in my experience. ''Consciously experiencing'' is identified consciousness aka the mind, the sense of a separate ''me''

This identified mind is a phanton, it has no existence in and of itself apart from that which is aware of it which is nondual unidentified consciousness.
Consciousness is not an experience for the sense of separate ''me'' ...the sense of separate ''me'' is an appearance of consciousness alone, an illuory character of no thing consciousness.The unknown known.

Consciousness cannot experience Consciousness

Agreed. Consciousness cannot experience 'consciousness' (itself). Consciousness can only experience bodily experiences/reactions. Consciousness is the 'knowing' ('recognizing') of bodily experiences. Consciousness is the singular experience of 'recognition', made possible by memory.

Consciousness does not recognise. Only the mind recognises when it comes online when sensation is known as and through the mind .., not by consciousness, consciousness is that in which the whole experience arises known as the mind, albeit illusory.

Consciousness is not the experience. It's that in which the experience is known, by consciousness only.

To put more accurately/succinctly -- Consciousness is the 'knowing' of bodily experiences. (Note: consciousness is itself also an experience; it is the experience of recognition).

Consciousness is not the experience of recognition, the mind is....consciousness looks on in detachment, it plays no part in the drama of 'otherness' brought about by the mind - (the world of opposites)...consciousness plays no part in that because it's ultimately Nondual.

Entities are not conscious…

I'm an entity. And I'm conscious. --- I'm an 'experiencer' entity that consciously experiences.

The I AM is consciousness unclaimed, unamed, unidentified,unconscious, a non-entity..it's nondual......''I Am an entity'' is on contact with itself, as and through the mind/body mechanism (a thought)...it's a mental construction,it has no separate existence in and of itself...it's a dream character, a phantom.

...consciousness is not an entity…

Agreed. Consciousness is not an entity, it is an 'experience', experienced by an entity (called "experiencer").

That which appears to experience itself as consciousness is a phantom, a mentally contructed avatar, it has no reality separate from consciousness alone which is not an experience, an experience is an artificially constructed idea that there is a separate 'me' having the experience of being conscious...there is no such entity.

Knowledge is not experiencing anything, it is being experienced by the experiencer (Consciousness)..which is not an experience.

How can it be "not an experience"??? If it "is being experienced by the experiencer", then isn't it an experience? --- For isn't it logically impossible to experience a non-experience, ...right?

Knowledge informs the mind that it is a phantom, for all knowledge is sourced in not-knowing no thing..aka consciousness.

An experiencer cannot experience itself, it is the experiencing one without a second.

to experience a non-experience

Experiences known are phantom ideas aka knowledge...all there is is non-knowing experiencing..any knowledge of an experience comes after it has already taken place, as a memory. There is no avatar alive in a memory, as a memory is the dead past ....the only real existence that exists is this immediate unoccupied instantanous now... anything of past or future is a phantom, a mentally constructed idea along for the free ride. It's the idea that there is an experiencer of an experience...when in truth the experience is a non-experience and is why experience cannot be experienced...there is no one to experience an experience, there is only this immediate unidentified experiencing ..life is a verb.. no one is living life, it is living itself.





.