Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:22 pm**

Altered mental states providing philosophical "Truth"

Eat me...

Drink me...

and now we see why the Cheshire Cat grins...

-Imp

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:57 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:14 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:26 pm If you begin with a false premise (e.g. "the world came about,")
So you don't accept the findings of mathematics, reason or cosmology, and believe the Universe is eternal? Interesting. But not a great starting point.

Well, I do not, "accept," (gullibly believe) whatever any so-called, "authority," says. Mathematics convinces me there can be no, "beginning," to existence. As far as I know, cosmology does not say the, "big bang," was a beginning with nothing preceding it. It claims what it ought to claim about the whole of it, it just doesn't know what came before--not that there was nothing. [All of cosmology, like evolution, strictly speaking, is not science, but conjecture, hypothesis built on scant evidence.]

You don't believe in a, "beginning from nothing," either, unless you believe God is nothing.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:59 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:06 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 5:26 pm
seeds wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:04 pm First of all, Veritas, you could put this matter to rest - once and for all - if you simply provided proof as to how the universe came about ...
If you begin with a false premise (e.g. "the world came about,") you end with a false conclusion ("something had to cause it). Which is nonsense.
Very True.

Get rid of the ASSUMPTION that 'the world came about', with the connotation that 'the world was caused/created', then the nonsensical questions above, like; 'How did the Universe came about?' will NOT arise.

Thee Universe ALWAYS EXISTS. So, there was NO ACTUAL 'coming about', in the sense of BEGINNING, in relation to the Universe, Itself.

That's right.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:13 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:57 pm Mathematics convinces me there can be no, "beginning," to existence.

It should convince you that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Even empirically, you cannot write one.

You don't believe in a, "beginning from nothing," either, unless you believe God is nothing.

That's just an error in wording. "Beginning" refers to the universe, and to the material-causal chain it entails. God is not subject to causality.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:50 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:24 am The impulse that drive you to think God as real behind all of reality is merely psychological as a consonance to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonance.

And, likewise, the impulse that drives you to think that God isn't real is merely the result of you sleepwalking through life and not being conscious enough to realize that you are simply not conscious enough to understand what God actually is.

And that is a problem that I tried to demonstrate in the following two illustrations...

The captions...

"...Just as that fly, way down on a rung below ours, could land on our arm and never even begin to comprehend that it is walking on the living physical body of a being that so far and away above it in scope and consciousness that there is no comparison, so it is with us as we stand on the earth..."

"...in a higher metaphorical sense, we are walking on the "living physical body" of a being that is so far and away above us in scope and consciousness that we do not recognize what he is or the situation he has us in..."

"...It is almost impossible for us to comprehend that everything we are and that everything we see throughout the universe is all part of God's "spirit body." It is all completely alive, but it just does not present itself to us as a living being as we understand living beings to be..."

Therefore, by all means, Veritas, keep explaining to me how all of my assertions are simply the result of me being caught in the throes of a death-fearing, "existential crisis."

And while you are doing that, I will, in turn, keep explaining to you that because you are sleepwalking through life and are simply not conscious enough to realize the truth of what the universe actually is,...

...then the more passionate and articulate you are in presenting your materialistic vision of reality, then the more you demonstrate...

(in direct proportion to the degree in which you believe your assertions)

...the depth and degree of your somnambulism.
_______

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:04 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:13 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:57 pm Mathematics convinces me there can be no, "beginning," to existence.
It should convince you that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Even empirically, you cannot write one.

There is no such thing as a, "chain of causes," as imagined by Hume and any other idiot that believes events cause events. The, "cause," of all events is the nature of the entities, the behavior of which are the events.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:13 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:57 pm You don't believe in a, "beginning from nothing," either, unless you believe God is nothing.
That's just an error in wording. "Beginning" refers to the universe, and to the material-causal chain it entails. God is not subject to causality.

Well, I know that. Everything that actually exists has a nature which is the explanation of what it does which is the, "cause," of its behavior. That which has no cause, has no nature--that is, it does not exist.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:07 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:04 pm The, "cause," of all events is the nature of the entities, the behavior of which are the events.

You said there are no causes...then named a cause: "nature."

Well, since all science depends on causality, I guess you'll be denying science next.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:56 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:07 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:04 pm The, "cause," of all events is the nature of the entities, the behavior of which are the events.
You said there are no causes...then named a cause: "nature."

Well, since all science depends on causality, I guess you'll be denying science next.

I never said there are no causes. You have to learn to read more carefully. I said there is no such thing as, "a chain of causes." Events do not cause events.

I very definitely believe in, "cause." Nothing happens without an explanation. Nothing is spontaneous, magical, or miraculous. But the causes of all things are not events, but the nature of the entities that act and it is the acts and behavior of those entities which are the events. I know that's difficult for those who have swallowed the simple-minded Humean and Baconian views of cause to understand. Perhaps a simple illustration.

Hume used the example of one billiard ball striking another, "causing," the second billiard ball's motion. If you replace the second billiard ball with an egg it is obvious that the event, "striking an object," does not cause the event which is the struck object's behavior. It is the object's nature that determines how it will behave relative to other entities and their behavior, and it is that behavior which are the events.

All the events are the behavior of entities and the behavior of all entities, in any context (environment), is determined by the nature of the entities, not events.

If anyone is interested, this article, "The Nature Of Cause," addresses the true nature of cause and science.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:47 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:56 pm Events do not cause events.

Yeah. You said their "natures" do it. Of course, being a rock doesn't make a rock fall off a mountain. But that didn't stop you.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:05 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:47 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:56 pm Events do not cause events.
Yeah. You said their "natures" do it. Of course, being a rock doesn't make a rock fall off a mountain. But that didn't stop you.

Well, a rock only falls off a mountain, if it does, because it's a rock. If it were a helium balloon it wouldn't fall at all.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:14 am**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:47 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:56 pm Events do not cause events.
Yeah. You said their "natures" do it. Of course, being a rock doesn't make a rock fall off a mountain. But that didn't stop you.
Well, a rock only falls off a mountain, if it does, because it's a rock. If it were a helium balloon it wouldn't fall at all.

Sure. But that doesn't imply its "nature," its "rockness," caused it to fall. For that, you need to look to something like a tectonic shift, frost damage, gravity, an additional push from a guy with a lever, or some other such cause.

It has to be a rock to fall like a rock. But rocks don't make themselves fall.

"Its nature" is no plausible answer at all.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:40 am**

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:50 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 6:24 am The impulse that drive you to think God as real behind all of reality is merely psychological as a consonance to soothe the inherent cognitive dissonance.
And, likewise, the impulse that drives you to think that God isn't real is merely the result of you sleepwalking through life and not being conscious enough to realize that you are simply not conscious enough to understand what God actually is.

And that is a problem that I tried to demonstrate in the following two illustrations...

The captions...

"...Just as that fly, way down on a rung below ours, could land on our arm and never even begin to comprehend that it is walking on the living physical body of a being that so far and away above it in scope and consciousness that there is no comparison, so it is with us as we stand on the earth..."
"...in a higher metaphorical sense, we are walking on the "living physical body" of a being that is so far and away above us in scope and consciousness that we do not recognize what he is or the situation he has us in..."
"...It is almost impossible for us to comprehend that everything we are and that everything we see throughout the universe is all part of God's "spirit body." It is all completely alive, but it just does not present itself to us as a living being as we understand living beings to be..."
Therefore, by all means, Veritas, keep explaining to me how all of my assertions are simply the result of me being caught in the throes of a death-fearing, "existential crisis."

And while you are doing that, I will, in turn, keep explaining to you that because you are sleepwalking through life and are simply not conscious enough to realize the truth of what the universe actually is,...

...then the more passionate and articulate you are in presenting your materialistic vision of reality, then the more you demonstrate...

(in direct proportion to the degree in which you believe your assertions)

...the depth and degree of your somnambulism.
_______

You just keep throwing images at me.
I am aware via extensive literatures, certain people with mental illness, taken drugs, etc. are also drawing such pictures like yours.
It is likely you could be in the same set as theirs.

Can you prove what you experienced has nothing to do with some elements of a mental issue [mild, serious or one-off]?
E.g. St. Paul suffered a one-off trigger of epiphany due to Temporal Epilepsy [likely] that changed him into a serious religious person.

Btw, can you counter to dismiss the following point I raised earlier re Altered States of Consciousness, i.e.

Have you exhausted the subject of altered states of consciousness?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... sciousness
If you do extensive research into "altered states of consciousness" leaving no stones unturned you will note whatever "epiphanic experiences" you have had experienced are merely psychological and they happened in your brain.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:46 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:14 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:47 pm
Yeah. You said their "natures" do it. Of course, being a rock doesn't make a rock fall off a mountain. But that didn't stop you.
Well, a rock only falls off a mountain, if it does, because it's a rock. If it were a helium balloon it wouldn't fall at all.
Sure. But that doesn't imply its "nature," its "rockness," caused it to fall. For that, you need to look to something like a tectonic shift, frost damage, gravity, an additional push from a guy with a lever, or some other such cause.

It has to be a rock to fall like a rock. But rocks don't make themselves fall.

"Its nature" is no plausible answer at all.

The problem is you are attempting to use the common every-day naive meaning of cause as something that, "makes something happen," like making ice cubes by putting water in a tray in your freezer, (the ice cubes don't make themselves) as though that were the same idea being pushed as Hume's or Bacon's, "same cause, same effect," or any philosopher's absurd notion of, "cause," being, "that which makes something happen," or, "a chain of causes."

The existence of ice is not because something outside ice (the little ice-making demon) makes it ice, there is ice because it is the nature of water to expand into a solid at a certain temperature (which is also why it floats in water). It is water's own nature and how it behaves at different temperatures that makes ice. If water had a different nature (anything but water, like alcohol for example), it would not become a solid at the temperature water becomes solid and even when alcohol is cold enough to become a solid it does not expand but contracts, becomes heavier and does not float.

You can, like those who are not thinking in terms of science, say the, "cold," turns the water into ice, but that same, "cold," cannot turn mercury or oil into a solid, because their nature's are different, so the, "same cause," has a totally, "different effect,"--so much for, "same cause, same effect."

Your view of cause is like the child's view of something, "pushing him against the car door," when the car turns a corner. Nothing is pushing the child against the door, it is the child's own momentum (to go straight) he feels when the car is turning, the momentum that is due solely to his own mass--part of his own nature.

The naive and small-minded philosopher's view of cause makes it into some kind of agency that makes things happen. Wherever that view has taken hold it is a disaster, especially in those who attempt to explain science. If it were applied to chemistry or electronics it would be the end of those disciplines. Nothing, "makes," sulfur bind to oxygen in the ratio of one atom of sulfur for every two atoms of oxygen (sulfur dioxide). It is the natures of sulfur and oxygen that determines how each acts in relationship to the other. Nothing makes the current in a dc circuit increase in direct proportion to any increase in voltage and simultaneously decrease in direct proportion to any increase in resistance (I=E/R).

In your simple-minded view of cause, it would be the elements of an electric circuit, (conductors and resistors), that, "caused," the voltage and current, but it is the electricity itself that makes it a circuit. The same elements, without the electricity, do nothing and cause nothing. The elements of a circuit do not cause the current and voltage to be what they are, the electricity itself determines its own current and voltage relative to the circuit elements. Many circuits can also conduct heat, but the behavior of heat in that same circuit will be totally different from the behavior of electricity, because it's nature is totally different.

The real problem with your naive (philosophical) view of cause is that it places the explanation (and correct understanding) of the behavior of things, "outside," the entities whose behavior are the events being studied. In science, the ultimate explanation of all events is always the nature of the entities and how that nature determines their reaction in relationship to all other existents. It is never something, "outside of," or, "independent of the," existents themselves that determines their behavior. There is no. "agency," of cause.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:56 pm**

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:46 pm

IC: "Why did this rock fall off this cliff?"

RC: "Because it's the nature of rocks to fall off cliffs, of course."

IC: ??????

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:15 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:46 pm

IC: "Why did this rock fall off this cliff?"

RC: "Because it's the nature of rocks to fall off cliffs, of course."

IC: ??????
RC: "Why did this rock fall off this cliff?"

IC: "Because the rock-falling demon made it fall."

RC: ??????

Philosophy Now Forum

How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?

Re: How Are The Mind And Brain Related?