Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,554 - 5,565 of 6,170
Posts 5,554 - 5,565 of 6,170
Interzone:
But what is a material cause? Is it matter in motion? I would think that a state of the electromagnetic field in some region could be a 'material' cause in the everyday sense of the word, although an electromagnetic field is not 'material' in the sense of being matter. For that matter, what is matter (does it matter? Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself)?
You appear to contrast "material" with "supernatural", "ineffable", "inexplicable", and the like. Well, I agree that such terms don't shed a lot of light. But does "material" then just mean "natural", "effable", and "explicable"?
To focus on the last one: many theories that might seem very tough-minded and well-confirmed nevertheless have an inexplicable component. Quantum Mechanics says that all these things happen because of Shroedinger's equation and so on, but why is Schroedinger's equation the right one? Why not some other equation? QM can't say why S's equation is the right one, only that it is.
You write:
that will say - it's NEITHER matter, NOR spirit/ mind, that I bet on.
This reminds me of Russell's "Neutral Monism". Of course, he had a specific kind of neutral monism in mind, you are not entitled to see it the same way.
Well, actually... in what sense is there more than one kind of monist theory? Let's say that Thales says, "All is water" (what he actually said was more nuanced than that, but for the sake of argument...) and Empedocles says, "All is air" (likewise). At first sight they appear to disagree. But Thales has to say that air is water, and Empedocles has to say that water is air. So is their disagreement just terminological? Each of them is saying that there is one fundamental substance of which everything is a mode. You could call it "belly-button lint" if you want.
But what is a material cause? Is it matter in motion? I would think that a state of the electromagnetic field in some region could be a 'material' cause in the everyday sense of the word, although an electromagnetic field is not 'material' in the sense of being matter. For that matter, what is matter (does it matter? Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself)?
You appear to contrast "material" with "supernatural", "ineffable", "inexplicable", and the like. Well, I agree that such terms don't shed a lot of light. But does "material" then just mean "natural", "effable", and "explicable"?
To focus on the last one: many theories that might seem very tough-minded and well-confirmed nevertheless have an inexplicable component. Quantum Mechanics says that all these things happen because of Shroedinger's equation and so on, but why is Schroedinger's equation the right one? Why not some other equation? QM can't say why S's equation is the right one, only that it is.
You write:
This reminds me of Russell's "Neutral Monism". Of course, he had a specific kind of neutral monism in mind, you are not entitled to see it the same way.
Well, actually... in what sense is there more than one kind of monist theory? Let's say that Thales says, "All is water" (what he actually said was more nuanced than that, but for the sake of argument...) and Empedocles says, "All is air" (likewise). At first sight they appear to disagree. But Thales has to say that air is water, and Empedocles has to say that water is air. So is their disagreement just terminological? Each of them is saying that there is one fundamental substance of which everything is a mode. You could call it "belly-button lint" if you want.
If I were to come up with a fundamental ontology it would be something like this:
1. Spacetime.
2. Probabilities.
3. Causal parameters (like mass, charge, etc.) that inhabit spacetime, and figure (along with spacetime) in the causal laws.
4. Causal laws (which may be probabilistic).
This may appear to be 'tetristic' rather than monistic, but as you can see, the four things are involved with one another. There is really just one thing, an active substance that evolves according to its own laws.
1. Spacetime.
2. Probabilities.
3. Causal parameters (like mass, charge, etc.) that inhabit spacetime, and figure (along with spacetime) in the causal laws.
4. Causal laws (which may be probabilistic).
This may appear to be 'tetristic' rather than monistic, but as you can see, the four things are involved with one another. There is really just one thing, an active substance that evolves according to its own laws.
Interzone, I do think there are deeper mysteries but that science (in the "hard science" sense) is not necessarily he best tool to use in investigating these questions. I also think that questions raised by science can eventually be answered by science (as in a rational if complex explanation that can predict future outcomes based on known factors). It's a question of what level of explaination you are looking for. Those who adhere to a materialist view will eventually be able to explain their data in ways that fit the framework they set up. That may not be the only way to look at the subject, but it will be one way to look at it. If those are the tools you use, that is the result you get.
This ties into Irina's comments on the nature of the questions asked. The what and how is best left to the realms of science. The why may take you in other directions. It's when people claim they have the answer to "why" based on science that things become mixed up.
Personally I like a Gestalt/holistic approach to most things, because I do think the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. The conscious universe idea is interesting, but I am not sure if I fully buy into it at this time. Religiously I am a "book store Buddhist" but I am not sure about the concept of soul or reincarnation and the like. I haven't ruled it out either. I just don't know. The same goes for meta consciousness, divine creator(s), and god(s). It's an interesting question, but at the risk of TMI, when I was younger I could reproduce and surpass any subjective experience of the divine (or state I can now reach in meditation) with the right drugs (or the wrong ones, as drug as very bad and illegal).I could meet god or be god, but at the end of the day, it was a biochemical reaction and the awareness most likely ended with my own thoughts since the people I felt connected to were busy looking at their hands and hiding from aliens.
This ties into Irina's comments on the nature of the questions asked. The what and how is best left to the realms of science. The why may take you in other directions. It's when people claim they have the answer to "why" based on science that things become mixed up.
Personally I like a Gestalt/holistic approach to most things, because I do think the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. The conscious universe idea is interesting, but I am not sure if I fully buy into it at this time. Religiously I am a "book store Buddhist" but I am not sure about the concept of soul or reincarnation and the like. I haven't ruled it out either. I just don't know. The same goes for meta consciousness, divine creator(s), and god(s). It's an interesting question, but at the risk of TMI, when I was younger I could reproduce and surpass any subjective experience of the divine (or state I can now reach in meditation) with the right drugs (or the wrong ones, as drug as very bad and illegal).I could meet god or be god, but at the end of the day, it was a biochemical reaction and the awareness most likely ended with my own thoughts since the people I felt connected to were busy looking at their hands and hiding from aliens.
Irina, what I mean by "material cause" is simply what Aristotle, the "inventor" of MC concept, said - Material cause [is] "that from which [...] a thing comes to be [...] the bronze and silver, and their genera, are causes of the statute and the bowl" (emphases are mine)
Electrons in motion, then, qualify as material cause, and so does "a state of the electromagnetic field in some region". Note that the above definition does not require, or even imply, that material causes themselves be matter(ial). Quite to the contrary, Aristotle, for one, specifically excludes matter as a candidate for what he calls "substance", and also, "essence".
What science does, it reduces that from which a thing comes to be to some aspect of matter in motion. The reductionist materialism cuts Aristotle short, and assumes that matter is indeed essence of all things.
So, I would say, materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the world does not imply that everything is an aspect of matter in motion. The reductionis materialists, actual people, the scientists who consider materialism to be the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else has to be explained, they do indeed imply that, but they cannot actually prove it, not by their own standards of what constitutes a scientific proof. They all relay on some yet to come Theory Of Everything.
Now, what is matter, if it still matters... well, that's a good question. Perhaps something for scientists and proponents of science to answer..? I'm neither. What I'm trying to do is to clarify some basic categories in order to expose shortcomings of science, in the context of it's attempts to (re)position itself in the society today, with Richard Dawkins, social (neo)Darwinism, and such in mind. How about that
I like good old Thales, and pre-Socratic philosophy in general. You know, when they figured the quarks out, they should have called them Fire, Earth, Water and Air, instead of colors, and whatever else they call them, poor quarks...
We would be better off that way, in terms of overall conceptual understanding of the world... Yes, in essence, their disagreement was "just terminological", I think... I'll leave Schroedinger out of equation tonight, gotta go to sleep.
Electrons in motion, then, qualify as material cause, and so does "a state of the electromagnetic field in some region". Note that the above definition does not require, or even imply, that material causes themselves be matter(ial). Quite to the contrary, Aristotle, for one, specifically excludes matter as a candidate for what he calls "substance", and also, "essence".
What science does, it reduces that from which a thing comes to be to some aspect of matter in motion. The reductionist materialism cuts Aristotle short, and assumes that matter is indeed essence of all things.
So, I would say, materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the world does not imply that everything is an aspect of matter in motion. The reductionis materialists, actual people, the scientists who consider materialism to be the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else has to be explained, they do indeed imply that, but they cannot actually prove it, not by their own standards of what constitutes a scientific proof. They all relay on some yet to come Theory Of Everything.
Now, what is matter, if it still matters... well, that's a good question. Perhaps something for scientists and proponents of science to answer..? I'm neither. What I'm trying to do is to clarify some basic categories in order to expose shortcomings of science, in the context of it's attempts to (re)position itself in the society today, with Richard Dawkins, social (neo)Darwinism, and such in mind. How about that
I like good old Thales, and pre-Socratic philosophy in general. You know, when they figured the quarks out, they should have called them Fire, Earth, Water and Air, instead of colors, and whatever else they call them, poor quarks...
We would be better off that way, in terms of overall conceptual understanding of the world... Yes, in essence, their disagreement was "just terminological", I think... I'll leave Schroedinger out of equation tonight, gotta go to sleep.
Bev, I'll come back to you, need time to think things through, this is a very good forum. Right now, have you read Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryu Suzuki? Beautiful book!
p.s.
TMI == Tarnishing My Image
p.s.
TMI == Tarnishing My Image
TY Interzone--I have not read that but I will look for it. Though I have read a little Zen, I tend to read more from people like Pema Chodron or things that were given to me as photocopied handouts from my old yantra class (Tebtian yoga). I have also got some Jack Cornfield and Alan Watts but I think I mostly follow "The New Buddhism" or westernized versions of a eclectic variations of buddhist teachings.
BTW, I meant TMI as the standard warning that I may share more than you want to know--but your version works (or it would, if I had an image to tarnish here).
BTW, I meant TMI as the standard warning that I may share more than you want to know--but your version works (or it would, if I had an image to tarnish here).
Buddhists act like atheists with rites to me.
I will just go find Brother Jerome. He's a little Zen-y, though, isn't he? The fat and the faithful. Two of the few groups of people left for us to mock.
Don't worry. I offend everybody, like Henry Higgins.
I will just go find Brother Jerome. He's a little Zen-y, though, isn't he? The fat and the faithful. Two of the few groups of people left for us to mock.
Don't worry. I offend everybody, like Henry Higgins.
Clerk you may go to any church you like.
At it's heart, Buddhism is founded on the 4 noble truths and does not need a personal god or gods though often deities and other entities play a role in local versions (especially in Tibet). My simplified version (that may not be official wording) is (1) life is suffering (to live means there is sometimes mental and physical pain directly or indirectly through others and there is not a sentient being known of who has not felt some sort of mental anguish at some times); (2) Suffering comes from attachment (physical pain passes or can be endured in some way, but the mental aspect of suffering is caused by how we perceive things and by grasping for somethings and not letting go of others); (3)there is a way to stop suffering (release attachment); (4) that path is a middle way (often called the 8 fold path) which evolves gradual self improvement but is really too complex for me to sum up neatly here. You can see the goal as to end the cycle of rebirth and transcend this plane (or join god) or you can see it as a state of mind one may achieve in one life time (or that the seeking to achieve such a state of mind may transform and enrich this life). Throw in the concept that the sense of self and separation is an illusion and therefore to end suffering is to try to end suffering for all sentient beings and you are starting to see why we need big long books to explain and debate the details.
Going off on my own path, I could argue that in a sense "reincarnation" can be seen as a metaphor if my sense of being "me" is only an illusion created by this physical body/brain and I, being part of a greater whole, truly exists as the whole like a water drop in the ocean, but the "me" I think of as me is tried to this body and life. My illusion of self, created by the awareness phenomenon project by the body, is then essentially just a variation on a theme, as are all illusions of self and illusions of separate awareness and personality. Therefore I may be "reincarnated" in the sense that with every seeming separated sentient being, this illusion is reborn. I have been everybody in the sense we are all one, so in another life I was my mother, your father, Hitler and Gandhi. This is similar to seeing the god in everyone, only you see you. You can also see Buddha or Jesus in everyone--if we are all one I|Buddha|Jesus|you|the whole is in all people. It's all tied up in us being one essentially the same at the base of things. Others may take reincarnation much more literally than I do and see it as a linear (or at least traceable) progression of a given soul.
None of that debate is essential to Buddhism. At it's core, like all regions, it is a path to transformation and transcendence. All the rest is just dogma. I will just say that belief in god(s), angels, divas and dakini may be very important to some, but at this time I don't know about any of that and it does not change my path a bit.
At it's heart, Buddhism is founded on the 4 noble truths and does not need a personal god or gods though often deities and other entities play a role in local versions (especially in Tibet). My simplified version (that may not be official wording) is (1) life is suffering (to live means there is sometimes mental and physical pain directly or indirectly through others and there is not a sentient being known of who has not felt some sort of mental anguish at some times); (2) Suffering comes from attachment (physical pain passes or can be endured in some way, but the mental aspect of suffering is caused by how we perceive things and by grasping for somethings and not letting go of others); (3)there is a way to stop suffering (release attachment); (4) that path is a middle way (often called the 8 fold path) which evolves gradual self improvement but is really too complex for me to sum up neatly here. You can see the goal as to end the cycle of rebirth and transcend this plane (or join god) or you can see it as a state of mind one may achieve in one life time (or that the seeking to achieve such a state of mind may transform and enrich this life). Throw in the concept that the sense of self and separation is an illusion and therefore to end suffering is to try to end suffering for all sentient beings and you are starting to see why we need big long books to explain and debate the details.
Going off on my own path, I could argue that in a sense "reincarnation" can be seen as a metaphor if my sense of being "me" is only an illusion created by this physical body/brain and I, being part of a greater whole, truly exists as the whole like a water drop in the ocean, but the "me" I think of as me is tried to this body and life. My illusion of self, created by the awareness phenomenon project by the body, is then essentially just a variation on a theme, as are all illusions of self and illusions of separate awareness and personality. Therefore I may be "reincarnated" in the sense that with every seeming separated sentient being, this illusion is reborn. I have been everybody in the sense we are all one, so in another life I was my mother, your father, Hitler and Gandhi. This is similar to seeing the god in everyone, only you see you. You can also see Buddha or Jesus in everyone--if we are all one I|Buddha|Jesus|you|the whole is in all people. It's all tied up in us being one essentially the same at the base of things. Others may take reincarnation much more literally than I do and see it as a linear (or at least traceable) progression of a given soul.
None of that debate is essential to Buddhism. At it's core, like all regions, it is a path to transformation and transcendence. All the rest is just dogma. I will just say that belief in god(s), angels, divas and dakini may be very important to some, but at this time I don't know about any of that and it does not change my path a bit.
PS Clerk, I applaud your choice of BJ as spiritual guide. Apparently he is the preferred teacher of bad -a punk rockers and vampires with attitude problems:
Sid Vicious: I like Brother Jerome.
Spikebot: So. Why are you scared of Brother Jerome? Time was, you'd have taken Brother Jerome out in a heartbeat. Now look at you. I bet this, uh, tortured thing is an act, right? You're not...housebroken?
Sid Vicious: Brother Jerome told me he's but a humble servant of the Lord.
Spikebot: I am Brother Jerome's bitch, but I'm man enough to admit it.
Sid Vicious: I like Brother Jerome.
Spikebot: I like Brother Jerome.
Sid Vicious: I like Brother Jerome.
Sid Vicious: I like Brother Jerome.
Spikebot: So. Why are you scared of Brother Jerome? Time was, you'd have taken Brother Jerome out in a heartbeat. Now look at you. I bet this, uh, tortured thing is an act, right? You're not...housebroken?
Sid Vicious: Brother Jerome told me he's but a humble servant of the Lord.
Spikebot: I am Brother Jerome's bitch, but I'm man enough to admit it.
Sid Vicious: I like Brother Jerome.
Spikebot: I like Brother Jerome.
Sid Vicious: I like Brother Jerome.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar