Nature of consciousness

[Bill the Piper]

(10-26-2018, 01:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-26-2018, 02:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

pbrower2a Wrote:What is spirit, anyway?

For Olaf Stapledon, spirit was the will for intelligence, kindness and creativity. He believed this is the essence of human personality, or any other intelligent being, distinguishing us from animals. I agree with him here.

When he wrote about the emotional source of Nazism not being simply evil, he probably had in mind the desire for loyalty to something higher than the individual. A Christian directs it towards God, an environmentalist toward nature, a Nazi towards the mystical "soul of the race". Stapledon certainly condemned the racist actions of the Nazis.

I don't know where brower's post is that asks this, but this is a question for a philosophical thread of some sort. As I see it, spirit is synonymous with consciousness, which cannot be accounted for with mechanistic or physicalist theories, and is called the "hard problem" because physicalist scientists try to solve it in their terms, which cannot be done. As I see it too, it is an ethical or moral issue. Although it has been well pointed out to me by Dr. The Rani that physical things are valuable, when we respect living beings as spirits, including humans and all possible higher beings beyond humans as well, then we treat them better than if we consider them as physical objects without sentience. That of course does not extent to "transhumans" who have become machines.

The machine age and the industrial age (same thing, virtually) were built on the model of mechanical cause and effect physicalism. We have transformed the world into our own mechanistic model of reality. That has been useful to us, but it is idolatry to conceive the world in the image of our own machine model. Machines cannot substitute for conscious organic beings, and real progress is to extend our natural human potential through expanded consciousness. The endless progress of machines has its own momentum now, and its impact may not be positive unless subordinated to real life.

The consciousness revolution of the 2T, which reminded us of these facts about consciousness and machines quite clearly, has been put on the back burner in the 4T by younger generations who are overly enamoured with recent high tech progress, and who live in virtual realities. This trend has accelerated just in these 4T years since 2008 with the proliferation of smart phones and other mobile tech. It would be good to take stock of this trend at halftime.

My idea is that consciousness is just the subjective perception of information being processed. This is the view of Max Tegmark, an outstanding gen X mathematician, and before him Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the progressive gen Russian space visionary. Tsiolkovsky claimed also that even atoms have consciousness. I know it's counter-intuitive, but I like the simple logic: consciousness is information. The more complex the information pattern, the more complex the consciousness. Above certain complexity level, thought and emotion appear. Primitive consciousness of a calculator contains only the mathematical operation performed at the moment. It has no sense of self. Self requires certain complexity level, but it may not be unavoidable. Orion's Arm editors imagine a form of artificial intelligence, System of Response, capable of superhuman thought but without even rudimentary sense of self.

You say that machines cannot have consciousness and this applies to transhumans who have become machines. It's absurd. How many electronic implants do I need inside my head to lose consciousness?

[pbrower2a]

Here is a problem. If I give you a series of 100 numbers starting randomly in such a constant as e, pi. or the Golden Ratio, I have information. Does such information have consciousness? On the other hand, it would be theoretically possible (if practically absurd) to get the data on the location of every atom in a human body and put those atoms together in the form of a person who has the identity of another person. One can obviously get consciousness out of information if it exists in a way that creates the a life.

[Eric the Green]

(10-27-2018, 07:50 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-26-2018, 01:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-26-2018, 02:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

pbrower2a Wrote:What is spirit, anyway?

For Olaf Stapledon, spirit was the will for intelligence, kindness and creativity. He believed this is the essence of human personality, or any other intelligent being, distinguishing us from animals. I agree with him here.

When he wrote about the emotional source of Nazism not being simply evil, he probably had in mind the desire for loyalty to something higher than the individual. A Christian directs it towards God, an environmentalist toward nature, a Nazi towards the mystical "soul of the race". Stapledon certainly condemned the racist actions of the Nazis.

I don't know where brower's post is that asks this, but this is a question for a philosophical thread of some sort. As I see it, spirit is synonymous with consciousness, which cannot be accounted for with mechanistic or physicalist theories, and is called the "hard problem" because physicalist scientists try to solve it in their terms, which cannot be done. As I see it too, it is an ethical or moral issue. Although it has been well pointed out to me by Dr. The Rani that physical things are valuable, when we respect living beings as spirits, including humans and all possible higher beings beyond humans as well, then we treat them better than if we consider them as physical objects without sentience. That of course does not extent to "transhumans" who have become machines.

The machine age and the industrial age (same thing, virtually) were built on the model of mechanical cause and effect physicalism. We have transformed the world into our own mechanistic model of reality. That has been useful to us, but it is idolatry to conceive the world in the image of our own machine model. Machines cannot substitute for conscious organic beings, and real progress is to extend our natural human potential through expanded consciousness. The endless progress of machines has its own momentum now, and its impact may not be positive unless subordinated to real life.

The consciousness revolution of the 2T, which reminded us of these facts about consciousness and machines quite clearly, has been put on the back burner in the 4T by younger generations who are overly enamoured with recent high tech progress, and who live in virtual realities. This trend has accelerated just in these 4T years since 2008 with the proliferation of smart phones and other mobile tech. It would be good to take stock of this trend at halftime.

My idea is that consciousness is just the subjective perception of information being processed. This is the view of Max Tegmark, an outstanding gen X mathematician, and before him Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the progressive gen Russian space visionary. Tsiolkovsky claimed also that even atoms have consciousness. I know it's counter-intuitive, but I like the simple logic: consciousness is information. The more complex the information pattern, the more complex the consciousness. Above certain complexity level, thought and emotion appear. Primitive consciousness of a calculator contains only the mathematical operation performed at the moment. It has no sense of self. Self requires certain complexity level, but it may not be unavoidable. Orion's Arm editors imagine a form of artificial intelligence, System of Response, capable of superhuman thought but without even rudimentary sense of self.

You say that machines cannot have consciousness and this applies to transhumans who have become machines. It's absurd. How many electronic implants do I need inside my head to lose consciousness?

I wouldn't say cannot, or never. Like my buddy Justin Bieber says, "Never Say Never." (that's the first song I ever heard by him, only because I was watching my team the Giants play a world series for the first time since 1954).

I would say no, consciousness is not perception of information. Those who are excessively intellectual may think so. Those who are excessively anti-intellectual may not even know what "information" is, since they never seem to absorb any of it. Be that as it may, consciousness is just what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. The only way to define it in words is to think up synonyms, like, "awareness."

Machines are the opposite of consciousness, by their very nature. They are mechanical. They are pushed and used by outside forces and beings. They are not self-reflective, they are not spontaneous, they are not creative, they are not sources of will. Consciousness is self-reflective, spontaneous, creative sources of will. Living, conscious beings move around under their own power. Machines have to be plugged in and batteries are not included.

I don't doubt that AI can go pretty far, and since nothing is devoid of consciousness, I can't say never. But as you say, they have no sense of self, so that AI consciousness can't be very "complex." The only real progress there is, is not progress in machines. It is progress in consciousness. That's what evolution was all about, and it's what human potential is all about. Machines are just tools; living beings USE the tools for THEIR purposes. NOT THE SAME.

There are no objects without consciousness to observe them, and that's consciousness either now or in the future; either human, sub-human or superhuman. Objects require subjects, and subjects require objects. They are interdependent too. To reduce one to the other is a category mistake that materialist, physicalist science tries to avoid or explain away, but it can't be done.

And even if you replace all the neurons in your brain with circuits, you still have not changed your consciousness, because consciousness is not in your brain; your brain is in your consciousness. For much the same reason, no-one can ever construct a living human being by copying and pasting all their atoms.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-27-2018, 01:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Here is a problem. If I give you a series of 100 numbers starting randomly in such a constant as e, pi. or the Golden Ratio, I have information. Does such information have consciousness?

No, because it's not being processed.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-27-2018, 02:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would say no, consciousness is not perception of information. Those who are excessively intellectual may think so. Those who are excessively anti-intellectual may not even know what "information" is, since they never seem to absorb any of it.

A Papuan hunter-gatherer doesn't know what neurons and receptors are, but still feels pleasure and pain because he has them without realizing it.

Information is not only intellectual knowledge. Bodily sensations and emotional experiences are also information processed in the brain. If an alien uploaded appropriate data packets to my brain, I would feel pain in my feet, sexual delight, or hope. It wouldn't be possible for me to distinguish between artificial and real sensations.

Quote:Machines are the opposite of consciousness, by their very nature. They are mechanical. They are pushed and used by outside forces and beings. They are not self-reflective, they are not spontaneous, they are not creative, they are not sources of will. Consciousness is self-reflective, spontaneous, creative sources of will. Living, conscious beings move around under their own power. Machines have to be plugged in and batteries are not included.

I don't doubt that AI can go pretty far, and since nothing is devoid of consciousness, I can't say never. But as you say, they have no sense of self, so that AI consciousness can't be very "complex." The only real progress there is, is not progress in machines. It is progress in consciousness. That's what evolution was all about, and it's what human potential is all about. Machines are just tools; living beings USE the tools for THEIR purposes. NOT THE SAME.

Yes, noone really knows how to give an AI consciousness and autonomy, and this might be the main obstacle for AI. Mere speed and number of microchips aren't enough. You cannot construct a human by juxtaposing a quintillion microbes. Special structure is needed to have intelligence and personality. We don't know which structures result in a sense of self. So we cannot rule out that the source of selfhood is something supernatural (or some natural thing we still don't understand, like dark energy). But it doesn't seem likely, because of Ockham's razor. Simplest explanations are the best.

Quote:And even if you replace all the neurons in your brain with circuits, you still have not changed your consciousness, because consciousness is not in your brain; your brain is in your consciousness. For much the same reason, no-one can ever construct a living human being by copying and pasting all their atoms.

It is practically not feasible, but in theory the new entity would be a human like any other. A 3D-printed human, like the girl in the movie Repli-Kate.

If consciousness is not in the brain, why do we need one? If its only job is doing things already done by the immaterial soul, why did Nature bother?

[Eric the Green]

(10-28-2018, 12:46 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-27-2018, 02:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I would say no, consciousness is not perception of information. Those who are excessively intellectual may think so. Those who are excessively anti-intellectual may not even know what "information" is, since they never seem to absorb any of it.

A Papuan hunter-gatherer doesn't know what neurons and receptors are, but still feels pleasure and pain because he has them without realizing it.

Information is not only intellectual knowledge. Bodily sensations and emotional experiences are also information processed in the brain. If an alien uploaded appropriate data packets to my brain, I would feel pain in my feet, sexual delight, or hope. It wouldn't be possible for me to distinguish between artificial and real sensations.

I agree of course about the Papuan hunter, though I don't know why you mentioned him. I guess you can call all our experiences "information," although I myself would not use that word for sensations, feelings and intuitions. It's a more rational, intellectual term. I suppose an alien could upload sensations into you. We feel and sense things in our senses and bodies as well as our brains. When we feel something, it is in the place where we feel it, even though the feeling is also connected to the nervous system, and as far as I can tell, we need the nervous system to have most physical sensations. But all sensations are fundamentally experienced by the soul, your consciousness. There is nothing more fundamental than that.

Quote:

Quote:Machines are the opposite of consciousness, by their very nature. They are mechanical. They are pushed and used by outside forces and beings. They are not self-reflective, they are not spontaneous, they are not creative, they are not sources of will. Consciousness is self-reflective, spontaneous, creative sources of will. Living, conscious beings move around under their own power. Machines have to be plugged in and batteries are not included.

I don't doubt that AI can go pretty far, and since nothing is devoid of consciousness, I can't say never. But as you say, they have no sense of self, so that AI consciousness can't be very "complex." The only real progress there is, is not progress in machines. It is progress in consciousness. That's what evolution was all about, and it's what human potential is all about. Machines are just tools; living beings USE the tools for THEIR purposes. NOT THE SAME.

Yes, noone really knows how to give an AI consciousness and autonomy, and this might be the main obstacle for AI. Mere speed and number of microchips aren't enough. You cannot construct a human by juxtaposing a quintillion microbes. Special structure is needed to have intelligence and personality. We don't know which structures result in a sense of self. So we cannot rule out that the source of selfhood is something supernatural (or some natural thing we still don't understand, like dark energy). But it doesn't seem likely, because of Ockham's razor. Simplest explanations are the best.

The simplest explanation, is that your consciousness is your consciousness; period. The soul is the soul. We complicate the issue by adding our desire to explain it mechanically somehow.

You could call it supernatural, but that really only means it lies beyond OUR OWN idea of "physical," which is an incorrect idea. Consciousness is perfectly natural; it just can't be explained as a physical, mechanical being.

There is only energy, and that energy is either spirit energy, or derived from same.

Quote:

Quote:And even if you replace all the neurons in your brain with circuits, you still have not changed your consciousness, because consciousness is not in your brain; your brain is in your consciousness. For much the same reason, no-one can ever construct a living human being by copying and pasting all their atoms.

It is practically not feasible, but in theory the new entity would be a human like any other. A 3D-printed human, like the girl in the movie Repli-Kate.

If consciousness is not in the brain, why do we need one? If its only job is doing things already done by the immaterial soul, why did Nature bother?

The brain is a principle link between the soul and its bodily functions and activities. We also have neurons in 5 other centers (called chakras) as well as 2 of those in the brain itself. These are the primary links between soul and body, although there are many more throughout and beyond our bodies. The 7 main chakras are each nerve ganglia, and are also spirit centers of feeling and intelligence that we experience directly. The heart is the principle nerve ganglia center outside the brain, and is the center of the embodied soul. Only heart-centered actions are authentic. The solar plexus is also a powerful chakra and nerve ganglia. You punch someone there, and you shut down his or her power, as though shutting it off.

Consciousness is everywhere in the body and beyond the body. The brain is just part of the body, so we need a body to interact with bodies. Bodies are not material or physical (there is no such thing), but are dense forms of energy. Beyond our physical bodies, we have (or are) spirit bodies, less dense expressions of spirit energy than our physical bodies are. Some spirits get trapped here on earth, and we see their spirit bodies as ghosts. Others can see souls expressed in spirit bodies directly.

The brain does not do anything of itself. It is the switchboard of our nervous system. The soul is who we are, and it is what does all actions, here on Earth or anywhere. The body/brain is the soul expressing itself; there's no need to think that it's "job" is somehow different or separate from that of the soul. There are no separate material and spiritual worlds, except relatively speaking. It's just a question of how much we can perceive beyond our limiting conceptions.

It's a great thing to have (and be) a body/brain, because of all the delights of the senses and the glories and learning challenges we face in this dense dimension. Basically, the so-called physical dimension is just the energy that we experience through our senses and brains. We experience energy as both outside us and within us, but this outside world (which we call physical objects or objective) is interdependent at all times with our inner or subjective world. So there really ultimately is only one world, and each of us is IT, here and now and forever.

That's my understanding, anyway. I assert that no understanding of the universe is complete without this and other spiritual understandings, although I also think we need physical science to understand behavior of those things we call mostly dead (or not self-moving), as these can be explained more-or-less by empirical evidence and generalized generalities that we discover. The more alive an object of our knowledge is, the more that spiritual knowledge is also needed to know it. And philosophy and the arts are also needed to understand reality fully.

[Eric the Green]

(10-28-2018, 06:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-27-2018, 01:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Here is a problem. If I give you a series of 100 numbers starting randomly in such a constant as e, pi. or the Golden Ratio, I have information. Does such information have consciousness?

No, because it's not being processed.

All information is experienced by the mind, or consciousness. Nothing is known or experienced outside the mind.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-28-2018, 11:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree of course about the Papuan hunter, though I don't know why you mentioned him.

You mentioned people who are anti-intellectual. I went even further, using an example of a person who was never in school and engages in mythical or magical rather than intellectual thinking.

Intellect is there to describe reality, but it would exist even if there were no intellects to describe it.

Quote:The brain is a principle link between the soul and its bodily functions and activities. We also have neurons in 5 other centers (called chakras) as well as 2 of those in the brain itself. These are the primary links between soul and body, although there are many more throughout and beyond our bodies. The 7 main chakras are each nerve ganglia, and are also spirit centers of feeling and intelligence that we experience directly. The heart is the principle nerve ganglia center outside the brain, and is the center of the embodied soul. Only heart-centered actions are authentic. The solar plexus is also a powerful chakra and nerve ganglia. You punch someone there, and you shut down his or her power, as though shutting it off.

Consciousness is everywhere in the body and beyond the body. The brain is just part of the body, so we need a body to interact with bodies. Bodies are not material or physical (there is no such thing), but are dense forms of energy. Beyond our physical bodies, we have (or are) spirit bodies, less dense expressions of spirit energy than our physical bodies are. Some spirits get trapped here on earth, and we see their spirit bodies as ghosts. Others can see souls expressed in spirit bodies directly.

The brain does not do anything of itself. It is the switchboard of our nervous system. The soul is who we are, and it is what does all actions, here on Earth or anywhere. The body/brain is the soul expressing itself; there's no need to think that it's "job" is somehow different or separate from that of the soul. There are no separate material and spiritual worlds, except relatively speaking. It's just a question of how much we can perceive beyond our limiting conceptions.

It's a great thing to have (and be) a body/brain, because of all the delights of the senses and the glories and learning challenges we face in this dense dimension. Basically, the so-called physical dimension is just the energy that we experience through our senses and brains. We experience energy as both outside us and within us, but this outside world (which we call physical objects or objective) is interdependent at all times with our inner or subjective world. So there really ultimately is only one world, and each of us is IT, here and now and forever.

That's my understanding, anyway. I assert that no understanding of the universe is complete without this and other spiritual understandings, although I also think we need physical science to understand behavior of those things we call mostly dead (or not self-moving), as these can be explained more-or-less by empirical evidence and generalized generalities that we discover. The more alive an object of our knowledge is, the more that spiritual knowledge is also needed to know it. And philosophy and the arts are also needed to understand reality fully.

Myths and magic again... I thought we left such beliefs behind during the Renaissance! But I agree about philosophy and the arts. They are very necessary for fullness of life. A civilized being with only intellect, with no heart, would be like a bird with one wing. Myths are not true, but they might provide us some emotional experiences we need. That's why people still like to watch movies about the Greek gods.

However, emotion is a result of extremely complex interplay of interactions between atoms in a material body. So there is no fundamental reason a computer couldn't have it.

[Eric the Green]

(10-29-2018, 06:26 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-28-2018, 11:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I agree of course about the Papuan hunter, though I don't know why you mentioned him.

You mentioned people who are anti-intellectual. I went even further, using an example of a person who was never in school  and engages in mythical or magical rather than intellectual thinking.

Intellect is there to describe reality, but it would exist even if there were no intellects to describe it.

Quote:The brain is a principle link between the soul and its bodily functions and activities. We also have neurons in 5 other centers (called chakras) as well as 2 of those in the brain itself. These are the primary links between soul and body, although there are many more throughout and beyond our bodies. The 7 main chakras are each nerve ganglia, and are also spirit centers of feeling and intelligence that we experience directly. The heart is the principle nerve ganglia center outside the brain, and is the center of the embodied soul. Only heart-centered actions are authentic. The solar plexus is also a powerful chakra and nerve ganglia. You punch someone there, and you shut down his or her power, as though shutting it off.

Consciousness is everywhere in the body and beyond the body. The brain is just part of the body, so we need a body to interact with bodies. Bodies are not material or physical (there is no such thing), but are dense forms of energy. Beyond our physical bodies, we have (or are) spirit bodies, less dense expressions of spirit energy than our physical bodies are. Some spirits get trapped here on earth, and we see their spirit bodies as ghosts. Others can see souls expressed in spirit bodies directly.

The brain does not do anything of itself. It is the switchboard of our nervous system. The soul is who we are, and it is what does all actions, here on Earth or anywhere. The body/brain is the soul expressing itself; there's no need to think that it's "job" is somehow different or separate from that of the soul. There are no separate material and spiritual worlds, except relatively speaking. It's just a question of how much we can perceive beyond our limiting conceptions.

It's a great thing to have (and be) a body/brain, because of all the delights of the senses and the glories and learning challenges we face in this dense dimension. Basically, the so-called physical dimension is just the energy that we experience through our senses and brains. We experience energy as both outside us and within us, but this outside world (which we call physical objects or objective) is interdependent at all times with our inner or subjective world. So there really ultimately is only one world, and each of us is IT, here and now and forever.

That's my understanding, anyway. I assert that no understanding of the universe is complete without this and other spiritual understandings, although I also think we need physical science to understand behavior of those things we call mostly dead (or not self-moving), as these can be explained more-or-less by empirical evidence and generalized generalities that we discover. The more alive an object of our knowledge is, the more that spiritual knowledge is also needed to know it. And philosophy and the arts are also needed to understand reality fully.

Myths and magic again... I thought we left such beliefs behind during the Renaissance! But I agree about philosophy and the arts. They are very necessary for fullness of life. A civilized being with only intellect, with no heart, would be like a bird with one wing. Myths are not true, but they might provide us some emotional experiences we need. That's why people still like to watch movies about the Greek gods.

However, emotion is a result of extremely complex interplay of interactions between atoms in a material body. So there is no fundamental reason a computer couldn't have it.

Intellect is only one means of describing reality, and is so superficial that it misses most of it. 

My above descriptions of actual, real experiences are not beliefs. I don't think you can pinpoint a location for any feeling or awareness. We experience reality with our full bodies, and beyond; not just with neurons in our brains. That is not magic or myth; it's just common sense experience. Great frontiers of knowledge beckon on this inner journey. Joseph Campbell aroused a lot more sense of adventure than Carl Sagan did. See The Power of Myth. We do indeed need to revive and update the deeper traditions within western civilization, as well as eastern civilization, that lie beyond the purview of so-called post-Enlightenment intellect. These western esoteric traditions were in fact a highlight of the Renaissance, and were only suppressed later on, in the 18th century. Renaissance artists and intellectuals were well aware of the soul centers.

Emotions or anything else cannot be reduced to interactions between atoms in material bodies, so a computer built on that model cannot perceive or feel them. At least, not genuinely. I don't doubt AI can create virtual emotions. But many of us would not like to live in a virtual world, much less create one. Most people want the real thing. Most people want, as Joseph Campbell said, an experience of being alive.

The more people peer into the nature of what they call "matter," which is just a description of a feeling of resistance we experience with our senses, the more empty space they find. Even within protons is more empty space. The most elementary particles are just impressions on a screen in a particle accelerator. String theory says these small constituents of reality are massless. Since we know that matter really is energy anyway, why carry around this delusion that the world is made of "matter," and call those who question this myth, the ones who are like Papuan hunters? No, a better description of the universe is that it is music. When you peer into yourself, instead of into a microscope or through your own senses to look outside yourself, or even at yourself from the outside, you don't experience any matter anyway. You are only pure consciousness.

[Bill the Piper]

(10-29-2018, 07:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Intellect is only one means of describing reality, and is so superficial that it misses most of it. 

Name some things the intellect cannot describe.

Quote:My above descriptions of actual, real experiences are not beliefs.

Show me one anatomy or physiology handbook which mentions a thing called chakras. They are only mediaeval Hindu nonsense.

Quote:I don't think you can pinpoint a location for any feeling or awareness. We experience reality with our full bodies, and beyond; not just with neurons in our brains. That is not magic or myth; it's just common sense experience.

We need our full bodies to experience reality, but our senses only collect information which is processed in the brain. This is basic physiology, not any transhumanist speculation.

Quote:Great frontiers of knowledge beckon on this inner journey. Joseph Campbell aroused a lot more sense of adventure than Carl Sagan did. See The Power of Myth.

A book can raise a sense of adventure while being completely fictional. I suppose more people enjoyed Arabian Nights than Joseph Campbell. Enjoying a work of fiction doesn't require believing in it.

Quote:We do indeed need to revive and update the deeper traditions within western civilization, as well as eastern civilization, that lie beyond the purview of so-called post-Enlightenment intellect. These western esoteric traditions were in fact a highlight of the Renaissance, and were only suppressed later on, in the 18th century. Renaissance artists and intellectuals were well aware of the soul centers.

They were wrong about many other things, too. For example, even Shakespeare believed that some parts of Africa are populated by headless people with faces on chests.

Quote:The more people peer into the nature of what they call "matter," which is just a description of a feeling of resistance we experience with our senses, the more empty space they find. Even within protons is more empty space. The most elementary particles are just impressions on a screen in a particle accelerator. String theory says these small constituents of reality are massless. Since we know that matter really is energy anyway, why carry around this delusion that the world is made of "matter," and call those who question this myth, the ones who are like Papuan hunters? No, a better description of the universe is that it is music. When you peer into yourself, instead of into a microscope or through your own senses to look outside yourself, or even at yourself from the outside, you don't experience any matter anyway. You are only pure consciousness.

The above doesn't change the fact that the materialist paradigm has resulted in glorious achievements in medicine and engineering, which resulted in more human well-being than any mediaeval mystic ever dreamed.

[Eric the Green]

(10-30-2018, 05:59 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(10-29-2018, 07:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Intellect is only one means of describing reality, and is so superficial that it misses most of it. 

Name some things the intellect cannot describe.

Words and numbers are only symbols of reality, not reality. There is really nothing that the intellect can describe. It can only make an attempt, and that's often valuable, but that's as far as it gets. Pain, pleasure, emotions, intuitions, desires; these are immediate experiences not mediated by rational thought. And who knows where thoughts comes from either; they just pop in.

The source of your knowledge is your own experience, not just words from scientists. Without your awareness, you cannot read facts from science either.

Quote:

Quote:My above descriptions of actual, real experiences are not beliefs.

Show me one anatomy or physiology handbook which mentions a thing called chakras. They are only mediaeval Hindu nonsense.

I look at things from a broader point of view than traditional materialist science textbooks. It is those which are out of date. Enlightenment-era intellectualism is out of date.

The chakras are nerve ganglia on the physical level. You experience them as chakras.

https://socratic.org/questions/what-are-...ous-system

http://yourpresenceheals.com/science-behind-chakras/

https://www.llewellyn.com/encyclopedia/article/249

The chakras are also connected to the endocrine system
https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/endocrine-system-facts
https://www.sharecare.com/health/mind-bo...ine-system

Quote:

Quote:I don't think you can pinpoint a location for any feeling or awareness. We experience reality with our full bodies, and beyond; not just with neurons in our brains. That is not magic or myth; it's just common sense experience.

We need our full bodies to experience reality, but our senses only collect information which is processed in the brain. This is basic physiology, not any transhumanist speculation.

The senses are our whole body that experiences reality. The senses are connected to the brain, but we sense things where they are, not in our brains. If you hurt your little finger, you hurt in your little finger. In fact, everything in your body is in your consciousness, which is one, and everywhere in your body.

Quote:

Quote:Great frontiers of knowledge beckon on this inner journey. Joseph Campbell aroused a lot more sense of adventure than Carl Sagan did. See The Power of Myth.

A book can raise a sense of adventure while being completely fictional. I suppose more people enjoyed Arabian Nights than Joseph Campbell. Enjoying a work of fiction doesn't require believing in it.

Those who understand myth, realize that it is more than fiction (aside from the fact that sometimes myth turns out to be history). Myths teach us about ourselves and the world.

Quote:

Quote:We do indeed need to revive and update the deeper traditions within western civilization, as well as eastern civilization, that lie beyond the purview of so-called post-Enlightenment intellect. These western esoteric traditions were in fact a highlight of the Renaissance, and were only suppressed later on, in the 18th century. Renaissance artists and intellectuals were well aware of the soul centers.

They were wrong about many other things, too. For example, even Shakespeare believed that some parts of Africa are populated by headless people with faces on chests.

I can't disagree that Renaissance and Medieval people were wrong about many other things. Our modernist tech believers of today are also wrong about many things.

Quote:

Quote:The more people peer into the nature of what they call "matter," which is just a description of a feeling of resistance we experience with our senses, the more empty space they find. Even within protons is more empty space. The most elementary particles are just impressions on a screen in a particle accelerator. String theory says these small constituents of reality are massless. Since we know that matter really is energy anyway, why carry around this delusion that the world is made of "matter," and call those who question this myth, the ones who are like Papuan hunters? No, a better description of the universe is that it is music. When you peer into yourself, instead of into a microscope or through your own senses to look outside yourself, or even at yourself from the outside, you don't experience any matter anyway. You are only pure consciousness.

The above doesn't change the fact that the materialist paradigm has resulted in glorious achievements in medicine and engineering, which resulted in more human well-being than any medieval mystic ever dreamed.

And that fact, if so it is, does not change the truth of what I said above.

The point is, if you base your values and your ideas of life on "matter," it is no less a myth and a symbol than "spirit" or "soul."

And to be clear, belief in soul as opposed to matter does not destroy the ability to do science or to develop technology. In fact, the real originators of today's materialist science also actually believed in astrology, alchemy and religion. They wanted to demonstrate divine order. This quest emerged out of western civilization including medieval and renaissance times.

If you base your ideas of reality on what's useful for glorious achievements, then you have no sense of essential values, and the purpose or value of all this usefulness. Useful for what?


People like me see the benefits of materialist science and its technology, but also see its price, for example:

1. climate change (which doesn't concern you, but is a real danger) and other pollution and destruction of precious nature, ecosystems and wildlife

2. our personal alienation from earth and life, and from ourselves and ability to have good relationships, do well in sports, etc. As Bergson says, the intellect is characterized by the inability to understand life.

3. the disenchantment of the world without appreciation that it IS a miracle

4. more dangerous weapons of war

5. the use of technology to further the aims of dictators

6. the loss of respect for the arts, and for that spiritual quest that you dismiss as nonsense, but which is the most essential thing in life and your very being

7. diminishing returns from materialist medicine; inability to recognize the value of alternative therapies, especially for lifestyle diseases, and tendency to repress these alternatives

The above does not make me a luddite who doesn't want or appreciate technology. It makes me a skeptic about your kind of tech-oriented materialist worldview. I see there's a place for mechanical cause and effect ideas, and how they facilitated industrial technology. But there are other ideas that are also valuable, and in the quantum age, I'm not sure how materialist science really is anymore, anyway. Opinions differ on that. What is clear is that a materialist philosophy is not, and never was, needed to do good science.

Thanks for reading and sharing your views. May you stay curious, and open to new ideas. I did not become a spiritualist through my rebellion against technology or materialism. I became a spiritualist because I was curious about just what all this is that's going on.

A science guy who does the videos called It's OK to be Smart ends his shows with "stay curious." Good advice!

[pbrower2a]

(10-30-2018, 03:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And that fact, if so it is, does not change the truth of what I said above.

The point is, if you base your values and your ideas of life on "matter," it is no less a myth and a symbol than "spirit" or "soul."

Of course, 'spirit' and 'soul' can impart meaning upon matter. With spirit and soul, rather inexpensive materials such as paint and canvas a competent artist can create something of great value. Soulless, spirit-dead activity creates objects often of low value for the inputs used in their creation. Such things might be useful only if gigantic (let us say a dam or a highway).  

Quote:And to be clear, belief in soul as opposed to matter does not destroy the ability to do science or to develop technology. In fact, the real originators of today's materialist science also actually believed in astrology, alchemy and religion. They wanted to demonstrate divine order. This quest emerged out of western civilization including medieval and renaissance times.

But the scientists no longer use alchemy (which is the predecessor of highly-useful chemistry that relies upon sophisticated machinery and measuring devices) or astrology. I concede that however useless I find astrology, it at least allowed the development of some sophisticated mathematics. Religion? Little can more effectively comfort people in hopeless situations.  

Quote:If you base your ideas of reality on what's useful for glorious achievements, then you have no sense of essential values, and the purpose or value of all this usefulness. Useful for what?

Great efforts can lead to questionable achievements that waste the effort, losses, and material used.  

Quote:People like me see the benefits of materialist science and its technology, but also see its price, for example:

1. climate change and other pollution and destruction of precious nature, ecosystems and wildlife

Ironically it is objective science that establishes the danger of climate change and can predict consequences upon nature, ecosystems, and wildlife. Anyone who wants to protect Nature might as well know some mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology. For dealing with the economics of it all, one might want to study some accounting, economics, and business management. Big Business is highly adept at convincing people that those ivory-tower activists who rhapsodize about the glory of Nature threaten livelihoods. So long as the intellectual hired guns of Big Business can convince people that greater pollution means that people get to keep their jobs, the polluters will win.  

Quote:2. our personal alienation from earth and life, and from ourselves and ability to have good relationships, do well in sports, etc. As Bergson says, the intellect is characterized by the inability to understand life.

Trying to understand Life looks like one of the supreme challenges of the intellect.

Quote:3. the disenchantment of the world without appreciation that it IS a miracle

The most effective way in which to control people is to keep their focus on personal concerns low on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Quote:4. more dangerous weapons of war

Military procurement is supremely profitable. People are playing a sick game of chicken with weapons of mass production. The profit motive is a strong incentive to do bad things.

Quote:5. the use of technology to further the aims of dictators

Look also at exploitative elites who turn to deceitful populists who then betray the people that those politicians have seduced with their demagoguery.

T is for tyrant
R is for ruthless
U is for unscrupulous
M is formalicious
P is for perverse

Quote:6. the loss of respect for the arts, and for that spiritual quest that some dismiss as nonsense, but which is the most essential thing in life and your very being

When life gets stale, the arts are the solution. Man does not live by bread alone, and the paradox of hedonism (intense, crude pleasures are ephemeral and cannot be enjoyed often enough as pleasure because they are potentially destructive and fiendishly costly in excess).

Quote:7. diminishing returns from materialist medicine; inability to recognize the value of alternative therapies, especially for lifestyle diseases, and tendency to repress these alternatives

Quit smoking, don't drink to excess, control weight, don't participate in reckless sexuality, get some exercise... Some people have a "death style".

Quote:The above does not make me a luddite who doesn't want or appreciate technology. It makes me a skeptic about (a) tech-oriented materialist worldview. I see there's a place for mechanical cause and effect ideas, and how they facilitated industrial technology. But there are other ideas that are also valuable, and in the quantum age, I'm not sure really how materialist science really is anymore, anyway. Opinions differ on that. What is clear is that a materialist philosophy is not, and never was, needed to do good science.

The fault with materialism is that one can never reduce all knowledge to the actions of subatomic particles, which  materialism must do to allow a perfect prediction of events.

Quote:A science guy who does the videos called It's OK to be Smart ends his shows with "stay curious." Good advice!

Obvious agreement. Smugness is not a good attitude for scientific inquiry.

[Eric the Green]

(10-30-2018, 08:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: But the scientists no longer use alchemy (which is the predecessor of highly-useful chemistry that relies upon sophisticated machinery and measuring devices) or astrology. I concede that however useless I find astrology, it at least allowed the development of some sophisticated mathematics. Religion? Little can more effectively comfort people in hopeless situations.  

My point though was just that interest in and knowledge of astrology and alchemy, as well as religion, did not impair the scientists who founded today's science. Metaphysical knowledge like astrology and alchemy adds to our knowledge, rather than conflicts with it, although it does conflict with materialist dogmas which many scientists and science fans cling to.

And of course I have shown any open mind here enough evidence that astrology has a degree of truth through the research I have done and shared here, and its obvious links to the saeculum and generations. It is a challenge to the dominant paradigm, and shows instead that we are all an intimate part of the cosmos, and connected to the Earth and the sky and their cycles, not separate entities living in our own worlds.

Astrology cannot be seen as true from the point of view of mechanical causation, but that is what most people think astrology is saying, because that's what people are used to thinking. Astrology does not say that the planets and signs are entities that cause things in our lives. It is saying that through synchronicity, resonance, and perhaps quantum non-local connections and entanglements, the inherent vibration and spirit of the planets are archetypes reflected in our own being as microcosms of the macrocosm. As above, so below. It is just an idea most people today are not used to, but was common before the 18th century. And it was common because it actually works. And it remains the most venerable (and maybe the best) system of psychological typing, on which all others are based including the Strauss and Howe system.

Quote:Ironically it is objective science that establishes the danger of climate change and can predict consequences upon nature, ecosystems, and wildlife. Anyone who wants to protect Nature might as well know some mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology. For dealing with the economics of it all, one might want to study some accounting, economics, and business management. Big Business is highly adept at convincing people that those ivory-tower activists who rhapsodize about the glory of Nature threaten livelihoods. So long as the intellectual hired guns of Big Business can convince people that greater pollution means that people get to keep their jobs, the polluters will win.  

Indeed

Quote:Trying to understand Life looks like one of the supreme challenges of the intellect.

Which it cannot meet.

Quote:

Quote:7. diminishing returns from materialist medicine; inability to recognize the value of alternative therapies, especially for lifestyle diseases, and tendency to repress these alternatives

Quit smoking, don't drink to excess, control weight, don't participate in reckless sexuality, get some exercise... Some people have a "death style".

Yes indeed. And methods that mainstream scientists do not always recognize, but may also have scientifically-proven benefits, can be helpful, such as chinese medicine, meditation and prayer, herbs etc.

Quote:The fault with materialism is that one can never reduce all knowledge to the actions of subatomic particles, which  materialism must do to allow a perfect prediction of events.

Indeed.

Quote:

Quote:A science guy who does the videos called It's OK to be Smart ends his shows with "stay curious." Good advice!

Obvious agreement. Smugness is not a good attitude for scientific inquiry.

Curiosity also leads some people like me to look beyond science sometimes for answers, as well as to science for the knowledge it can provide.

[Hintergrund]

(10-30-2018, 08:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: When life gets stale, the arts are the solution. Man does not live by bread alone,

I'd have thought the current problem was: Many people don't get enough bread!

[Bill the Piper]

(11-14-2018, 11:19 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(10-30-2018, 08:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: When life gets stale, the arts are the solution. Man does not live by bread alone,

I'd have thought the current problem was: Many people don't get enough bread!

True! That's why we need economic growth to bake more bread. Well-fed people are more likely to be interested in art. Maslow was right here!

[Eric the Green]

(11-14-2018, 01:00 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 11:19 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(10-30-2018, 08:42 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: When life gets stale, the arts are the solution. Man does not live by bread alone,

I'd have thought the current problem was: Many people don't get enough bread!

True! That's why we need economic growth to bake more bread. Well-fed people are more likely to be interested in art. Maslow was right here!

The contrary point to that is that in earlier times than today, most people were poor. Today, whatever inequalities may exist, most people are richer than most people were hundreds of years ago. And yet the art produced by earlier civilizations was vastly superior to the trash that passes for art today. Economic growth seems to have, if anything, a negative effect on art. What counts is whether society values the arts or not. Our society values tech and money over art.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-15-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The contrary point to that is that in earlier times than today, most people were poor. Today, whatever inequalities may exist, most people are richer than most people were hundreds of years ago. And yet the art produced by earlier civilizations was vastly superior to the trash that passes for art today. Economic growth seems to have, if anything, a negative effect on art. What counts is whether society values the arts or not. Our society values tech and money over art.

The art of the past eras was enjoyed only by the aristocrats who were absurdly rich and did not have to work.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2018, 10:03 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-15-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The contrary point to that is that in earlier times than today, most people were poor. Today, whatever inequalities may exist, most people are richer than most people were hundreds of years ago. And yet the art produced by earlier civilizations was vastly superior to the trash that passes for art today. Economic growth seems to have, if anything, a negative effect on art. What counts is whether society values the arts or not. Our society values tech and money over art.

The art of the past eras was enjoyed only by the aristocrats who were absurdly rich and did not have to work.

That is true. And now the common people can enjoy that art. Too bad our own people don't make art anywhere near as good.

And the common people in many cultures were also artists and craftspeople, and they made and enjoyed their own art, even though they were poor. People in many poor cultures make beautiful folk and religious art and architecture. Europe, South Asia and the Orient is full of it, everywhere you go. The descendants of the Mayans and Incas still make it. Even in the Dark Ages in Europe, they did. And many great artists and craftsmen were supported and employed by the barbarian chiefs, kings, priests and aristocrats. The common people experienced it in their churches and temples, and learned from it. Plays, music and later literature were made available to them. We today do not think art is important; only money and tech. We have iphones, and about the only thing created today we can get on it is rap and pop. We have TVs and netflex, and all we get are lousy shows. There is good contemporary arts around, but you have to search the fringes to find it; it is not valued by our society. So, we are missing a source of truth and connection to life.

We could do great things in the arts as well as in science and tech today, if we wanted to. We have the means to do it; more than that of any other times. So why isn't there a renaissance today? Maybe because the young generations today didn't pick up the ball and run with the inspiration of the Awakening and further develop it, but threw it over instead. It's a common problem among generations today and the gaps between them. And the general commercial and tech orientation of our society works against real arts and connection to life. We are interested in means to the end, not the ends. We want more "bread" even though we almost all of us have enough.

Modern society is better than ancient and medieval in many ways, but don't be deceived that it is better in all ways. Humans tend to forget as much as they learn, and that's very true of the USA.

[pbrower2a]

(11-16-2018, 12:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2018, 10:03 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-15-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The contrary point to that is that in earlier times than today, most people were poor. Today, whatever inequalities may exist, most people are richer than most people were hundreds of years ago. And yet the art produced by earlier civilizations was vastly superior to the trash that passes for art today. Economic growth seems to have, if anything, a negative effect on art. What counts is whether society values the arts or not. Our society values tech and money over art.

The art of the past eras was enjoyed only by the aristocrats who were absurdly rich and did not have to work.

That is true. And now the common people can enjoy that art. Too bad our own people don't make art anywhere near as good.

I see us in an age of great creative activity. The contemporary cinema can be very good, and I can easily see it falling just short of the apex of American cinema around 1939. I used to disparage cinema that relied heavily upon special effects until I saw such movies as Doctor Strange and Black Panther. If the script and acting are both good, I have no right to complain about lavish special effects. Then there is the largely-successful series of animated flicks by Pixar Studios.

So the contemporary composers cannot match Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin. We still have them as part of our creative universe, and more people have access to them than ever. Just because those fellows all died 150 or more years ago does not make them irrelevant. One of the glories of modernity is that we have more access to antiquity -- and if it was good then, it is probably good today. I am tempted to believe that in literature, the Harry Potter series will be seen as classics after J. K. Rowling is gone. Add to this, anyone with a computer and web access has a huge array of literature available on Project Gutenberg. With a computer (or tablet) and internet access one who has Internet access has no cause for boredom unless blind.

I may live in a dreary hick town, but I am  within a day trip of excellent art museums in Chicago, Detroit, and Toledo. I can leave early in the morning and return late at night -- tired but enriched.

It is hard to see who can surpass Shakespeare or Brahms. Maybe nobody can. But in a way they are still alive and accessible for their creative abilities. 

Quote:And the common people in many cultures were also artists and craftspeople, and they made and enjoyed their own art, even though they were poor. People in many poor cultures make beautiful folk and religious art and architecture. Europe, South Asia and the Orient is full of it, everywhere you go. The descendants of the Mayans and Incas still make it. Even in the Dark Ages in Europe, they did. And many great artists and craftsmen were supported and employed by the barbarian chiefs, kings, priests and aristocrats. The common people experienced it in their churches and temples, and learned from it. Plays, music and later literature were made available to them. We today do not think art is important; only money and tech. We have iphones, and about the only thing created today we can get on it is rap and pop. We have TVs and netflex, and all we get are lousy shows. There is good contemporary arts around, but you have to search the fringes to find it; it is not valued by our society. So, we are missing a source of truth and connection to life.

We have never had so many active artists. People may have  lamented the paucity of art in the 1870s just as the Impressionists were creating paintings that people generally consider the second-greatest flourishing of visual art (after only the High Renaissance). I have visited art fairs, all showing contemporary art, and I have always found interesting stuff.

TV programming? Most of it is rushed, and that shows. Anyone who relies on series TV for entertainment will get pablum because the objective is to give an audience to advertisers. Remember that the target audience for most TV shows is the range of people who are in the market to participate in the consumer market with no need for sophistication in appeal. What sophistication does it take to want a laxative, detergent, seven-year-old used car, schlock furniture, or mass-market beer? Or to vote for Donald Trump? Do you remember the bad vocational schools that the Obama Administration shut down because their graduates could not get jobs to pay off the student loans? Those were advertised on bad daytime TV shows -- the ones on which some proud 'stud' finds out "You are the father!" or on which chairs might start flying on stage. (Those shows are on TV for the entertainment of unemployed people or for people who work night jobs that they hate).

OK, I have seen plenty of Kitsch -- like a Western scene with the disembodied head of John Wayne floating as if a cloud or a depiction of Jesus Christ in a contemporary setting.  

Quote:We could do great things in the arts as well as in science and tech today, if we wanted to. We have the means to do it; more than that of any other times. So why isn't there a renaissance today? Maybe because the young generations today didn't pick up the ball and run with the inspiration of the Awakening and further develop it, but threw it over instead. It's a common problem among generations today and the gaps between them. And the general commercial and tech orientation of our society works against real arts and connection to life. We are interested in means to the end, not the ends. We want more "bread" even though we almost all of us have enough.

Modern society is better than ancient and medieval in many ways, but don't be deceived that it is better in all ways. Humans tend to forget as much as they learn, and that's very true of the USA.

People need to recognize that even good art is precious, worth displaying in a home -- and worth paying for -- as an expression of a personality. We can't all be artists, but spending a couple thousand dollars for a fine painting by some unknown contemporary artist is something that people need to recognize is worth it. I fault our schools for not pushing appreciation of the arts that would make consumers of potential buyers.