Outside of "thought"

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Outside of "thought"

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:19 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:How something came from nothing?

In the above statement your are assuming 'something' pre-existed without any proof that it exists.
If something-A came from something-B, then from what did something-B came from?
If you can present a source for something-B, i.e. something-C, then from what did something-C came from? and on it goes ..
In that case you are caught with the problem of infinite regression - which is a useless answer.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against. The proposition is how consciousness came from unconsciousness (ie something from nothing).

What I am arguing against is; one cannot insist things must come from something ultimate.

Note I am not claiming consciousness came from unconsciousness.
What I am insisting is we must stick to the empirical facts and possibilities and nothing else.

Human consciousness is an empirical fact which can be proven empirically.
Human consciousness emerges from a living human brain and its properties.
We can only insist on the above empirical facts and nothing else.

To insist Human consciousness emerges from more than a living human brain, its properties within an empirical environment, example a universal consciousness independent of the human brain, is a falsehood.

So you're saying atoms arranged into a human brain = consciousness. So, junk + magic = consciousness.

Pantheism is not the easiest way out because it is still subjected to infinite regression and existential psychological impulses in a way?

It's the only way to explain the origin of life without requiring magic.

Nope!

Yep!

Are we schoolyard kids now?

The most optimal option to explain the origin of life is to restrict to what is empirical and the empirical possible.
Pantheism speculates on the empirical impossible, i.e. an ultimate being.

That is not an explanation, but an assertion.

The more practical is that of Buddhism, i.e. focus on the 'NOW' and act positively towards the well being of oneself and others.
Buddhist philosophy do take into account the past and the future as secondary but the primary focus is on the 'NOW.'

Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export.

Hinduism generally refers to whatever spiritual philosophies and religions that are East of the Hindu river within India. In that sense, yes Buddhism is a part of Hinduism in the most general sense.

But to be more precise,
The majority of Hinduism comprised of spiritual philosophies that entail a belief in Brahman and atman.
Buddhism is anti-atman, i.e. anatman and anti-Brahman.
In this specific sense in terms of core principles, Buddhism is significantly different from the majority of Hindu philosophies.

Buddhism's philosophy of anti-Brahman and anatman do not entertain any proposition, there must be ultimately something for something to exists.

The atman in Hinduism is just a manifestation of the Brahman which is precisely the same with Buddhism's anatman being a manifestation of the universe as an organism. Neither religion asserts that you exist as a you. Buddhism says you're part of the larger organism and hinduism says you're a character in a play. Either way, you don't exist except as part of something bigger.

If you want to exist as a you, you'll need an Abrahamic religion where a god creates you as a spirit.

The theories of the universe can be categorized into 4:

1) The ceramic model: created by god.
2) The fully-automatic model: the creation minus the god: atheism.
3) The organic model: the universe is an organism: Buddhism.
4) The dramatic model: the universe is a play: Hinduism.

1) God always existed.
2) The quantum foam always existed.
3) The organism always existed.
4) The Brahman always existed.

#2 asserts consciousness came from nothing because complexly arranged junk cannot explain the emergence of consciousness from unconsciousness. #1,3,4 assert consciousness always existed.

Since 1 and 2 are silly and since 3 is a subset of 4, then 4 is the best explanation so far.

I'm open to a #5 if you can think of one.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Outside of "thought"

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:21 am

Guide wrote:Not sure why people thought this thread was about "God", I take that word as a synonym for Rationality, as it is in the medieval Catholic tradition (and also the Jewish and Islamic). Most of the answers are a sign of the mental illness of the respondents, which I in some way encouraged, wishing to be conciliatory. The issue, as always, is what subject matter is in play. Namely, Thinking.

I addressed the essence of this thread here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194724#p2719003

Outside of thought = agnosticism.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Outside of "thought"

Postby Gloominary » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:04 am

Sound is a perception, it's something your ears hear, like sights or images are something your eyes see, or smells are something your nose smells, and so on.
Strictly speaking, you can't have a perception without a perceiver, an organism, but you can have chemicals in and vibrations of air, light and water, which would produce perceptions in whatever organisms happened to be around, if any.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Outside of "thought"

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:04 am

Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:What I am arguing against is; one cannot insist things must come from something ultimate.

Note I am not claiming consciousness came from unconsciousness.
What I am insisting is we must stick to the empirical facts and possibilities and nothing else.

Human consciousness is an empirical fact which can be proven empirically.
Human consciousness emerges from a living human brain and its properties.
We can only insist on the above empirical facts and nothing else.

To insist Human consciousness emerges from more than a living human brain, its properties within an empirical environment, example a universal consciousness independent of the human brain, is a falsehood.

So you're saying atoms arranged into a human brain = consciousness. So, junk + magic = consciousness.

That sounds like Cathy Newman's 'so you're saying' ... trap.
You are putting words into the mouth of the other.

I have stated very clearly above.
We must start from what we know, i.e. we, human beings has evolved with 'consciousness' which can be verified empirically.
Thus we start with what is knowable empirically, i.e. that human has consciousness.
Then we search backward to determine what is this consciousness and how it emerges in relation to the human brain and its interactions with its environment.

The point here is we can only go back as far as what is empirically justificable plus rationally explainable plus philosophically rational.

You cannot claim and insist beyond the above.

Pantheism is not the easiest way out because it is still subjected to infinite regression and existential psychological impulses in a way?

It's the only way to explain the origin of life without requiring magic.

Nope!

Yep!
Are we schoolyard kids now?

Point is you have to prove pantheism is a tenable theory.

The most optimal option to explain the origin of life is to restrict to what is empirical and the empirical possible.
Pantheism speculates on the empirical impossible, i.e. an ultimate being.

That is not an explanation, but an assertion.

As above, you are making the positive claim.
Thus you have to prove pantheism is a tenable theory, not me.

Hinduism generally refers to whatever spiritual philosophies and religions that are East of the Hindu river within India. In that sense, yes Buddhism is a part of Hinduism in the most general sense.

But to be more precise,
The majority of Hinduism comprised of spiritual philosophies that entail a belief in Brahman and atman.
Buddhism is anti-atman, i.e. anatman and anti-Brahman.
In this specific sense in terms of core principles, Buddhism is significantly different from the majority of Hindu philosophies.

Buddhism's philosophy of anti-Brahman and anatman do not entertain any proposition, there must be ultimately something for something to exists.

The atman in Hinduism is just a manifestation of the Brahman which is precisely the same with Buddhism's anatman being a manifestation of the universe as an organism. Neither religion asserts that you exist as a you. Buddhism says you're part of the larger organism and hinduism says you're a character in a play. Either way, you don't exist except as part of something bigger.

Where did you get the idea 'anatman is a manifestation of the universe as an organism?

Buddhists believe that there is no permanent underlying substance called self or soul (Atman) in human beings.[8][9][10]
They believe that anattā/anātman (non-self), impermanence and dukkha (suffering) are the three characteristics (trilakkhana) of all existence, and understanding of these three constitutes right understanding. "The anātman doctrine was in no sense an addendum, since it was fundamental to the other two doctrines; that is, because there is no real human self, there is no duration in human experience; and because there is no duration in human experience, there is no genuine happiness."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatman_(Hinduism)#Buddhist_concept_of_Anatman_or_Anatta



If you want to exist as a you, you'll need an Abrahamic religion where a god creates you as a spirit.

There are idea of 'you' in certain philosophy of Hinduism.

The theories of the universe can be categorized into 4:

1) The ceramic model: created by god.
2) The fully-automatic model: the creation minus the god: atheism.
3) The organic model: the universe is an organism: Buddhism.
4) The dramatic model: the universe is a play: Hinduism.

1) God always existed.
2) The quantum foam always existed.
3) The organism always existed.
4) The Brahman always existed.

#2 asserts consciousness came from nothing because complexly arranged junk cannot explain the emergence of consciousness from unconsciousness. #1,3,4 assert consciousness always existed.

Since 1 and 2 are silly and since 3 is a subset of 4, then 4 is the best explanation so far.

I'm open to a #5 if you can think of one.

Certain of your models are wrong.

[A]theism = totally indifferent to a deity or God.
Non-theists believe in creations but that has nothing to do with atheism but rather it is based on Science, and other rational justifications.

Buddhism do not assert the Universe an organism as a core principle.
The core principles of Buddhism are;
    1. Impermanence
    2. Anatta or anatman
    3. Dependent origination
    4. The four noble truths
    5. The noble eightfold paths
    6. The five precepts

The core principles of Hinduism are;

    Truth is eternal. Hindus pursue knowledge and understanding of the Truth: the very essence of the universe and the only Reality. ...
      Brahman is Truth and Reality. ...
      The Vedas are the ultimate authority. ...
      Everyone should strive to achieve dharma. ...
      Individual souls [atman] are immortal. ...
      The goal of the individual soul is moksha.
    https://www.dummies.com/religion/hindui ... of-hindus/
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Outside of "thought"

Postby Serendipper » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:35 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:What I am arguing against is; one cannot insist things must come from something ultimate.

Note I am not claiming consciousness came from unconsciousness.
What I am insisting is we must stick to the empirical facts and possibilities and nothing else.

Human consciousness is an empirical fact which can be proven empirically.
Human consciousness emerges from a living human brain and its properties.
We can only insist on the above empirical facts and nothing else.

To insist Human consciousness emerges from more than a living human brain, its properties within an empirical environment, example a universal consciousness independent of the human brain, is a falsehood.

So you're saying atoms arranged into a human brain = consciousness. So, junk + magic = consciousness.

That sounds like Cathy Newman's 'so you're saying' ... trap.
You are putting words into the mouth of the other.

I'm trying to summarize what you're saying because whatever it is that you are saying is buried in a word salad.

Either consciousness emerged from unconsciousness or it did not. If it did, then it's something from nothing. If it did not, then consciousness didn't emerge at all, but was always.

I have stated very clearly above.
We must start from what we know, i.e. we, human beings has evolved with 'consciousness' which can be verified empirically.
Thus we start with what is knowable empirically, i.e. that human has consciousness.
Then we search backward to determine what is this consciousness and how it emerges in relation to the human brain and its interactions with its environment.

The point here is we can only go back as far as what is empirically justificable plus rationally explainable plus philosophically rational.

You cannot claim and insist beyond the above.

Humans have consciousness, but what about monkeys? Dogs? Cats? Birds? Fish? Plants? Bacteria? Virus? Molecules? Atoms? Where is the line?

If you say there is a line, then you are saying consciousness came from unconsciousness.

Point is you have to prove pantheism is a tenable theory.

I don't have to prove it, but I have demonstrated it. You're free to believe in magic if you want.

The most optimal option to explain the origin of life is to restrict to what is empirical and the empirical possible.
Pantheism speculates on the empirical impossible, i.e. an ultimate being.

That is not an explanation, but an assertion.

As above, you are making the positive claim.
Thus you have to prove pantheism is a tenable theory, not me.

That's another assertion. That's not proof, demonstration, nor rationale.

Where did you get the idea 'anatman is a manifestation of the universe as an organism?

Alan Watts

There are idea of 'you' in certain philosophy of Hinduism.

Just like in Christianity, I'm sure there are different ways to practice Hinduism.

The theories of the universe can be categorized into 4:

1) The ceramic model: created by god.
2) The fully-automatic model: the creation minus the god: atheism.
3) The organic model: the universe is an organism: Buddhism.
4) The dramatic model: the universe is a play: Hinduism.

1) God always existed.
2) The quantum foam always existed.
3) The organism always existed.
4) The Brahman always existed.

#2 asserts consciousness came from nothing because complexly arranged junk cannot explain the emergence of consciousness from unconsciousness. #1,3,4 assert consciousness always existed.

Since 1 and 2 are silly and since 3 is a subset of 4, then 4 is the best explanation so far.

I'm open to a #5 if you can think of one.

Certain of your models are wrong.

[A]theism = totally indifferent to a deity or God.
Non-theists believe in creations but that has nothing to do with atheism but rather it is based on Science, and other rational justifications.

Buddhism do not assert the Universe an organism as a core principle.
The core principles of Buddhism are;
    1. Impermanence
    2. Anatta or anatman
    3. Dependent origination
    4. The four noble truths
    5. The noble eightfold paths
    6. The five precepts

The core principles of Hinduism are;

    Truth is eternal. Hindus pursue knowledge and understanding of the Truth: the very essence of the universe and the only Reality. ...
      Brahman is Truth and Reality. ...
      The Vedas are the ultimate authority. ...
      Everyone should strive to achieve dharma. ...
      Individual souls [atman] are immortal. ...
      The goal of the individual soul is moksha.
    https://www.dummies.com/religion/hindui ... of-hindus/

Well, I guess Alan Watts was an idiot who wrote a bunch of books and hours of audio recordings only to display his total ignorance on religion. At least Dummies.com cleared it up.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Outside of "thought"

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:07 am

Serendipper wrote:I'm trying to summarize what you're saying because whatever it is that you are saying is buried in a word salad.
This is an important issue. When are we getting word salad and when do we have an innovative thinker putting new or subtle concepts in the best language they can find? And, of course, this isn't binary, there can be mixtures of word salad and uniquely presented insight. I think some people present things in what seems kinda cool - a very niche form of cool - to them, because it is dynamic, abstract, not quite clear, etc. And this of course creates a kevlar around them when people misunderstand their word salad posing as deep. I don't think it is always easy to know what one is dealing with. In some weak philosophy forum like this, the heuristic that it is unbelievably likely to be word salad is probably a good one. But then one might miss something interesting. Good that you keep trying to make it through the haze.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users