Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 4:06 pm Actually I'll bow down before the person and worship him/her for a month who can point out just one inconsistency in the nondual version of indirect realism. It's perfectly internally consistent and also 100% compatible with scientific knowledge as far as I'm concerned, and is therefore the likely solution to the philosophy of mind. So it's kinda surprising to me that I've only ever seen maybe one other guy on 3 philosophy forums combined, who also subscribed to the nondualism + indirect realism combo (and I'm not even sure he did).

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 4:06 pm Actually I'll bow down before the person and worship him/her for a month who can point out just one inconsistency in the nondual version of indirect realism. It's perfectly internally consistent and also 100% compatible with scientific knowledge as far as I'm concerned, and is therefore the likely solution to the philosophy of mind. So it's kinda surprising to me that I've only ever seen maybe one other guy on 3 philosophy forums combined, who also subscribed to the nondualism + indirect realism combo (and I'm not even sure he did).

OK, I'll bite. why are their a diversity of minds all with partial knowledge?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:40 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:37 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 4:06 pm Actually I'll bow down before the person and worship him/her for a month who can point out just one inconsistency in the nondual version of indirect realism. It's perfectly internally consistent and also 100% compatible with scientific knowledge as far as I'm concerned, and is therefore the likely solution to the philosophy of mind. So it's kinda surprising to me that I've only ever seen maybe one other guy on 3 philosophy forums combined, who also subscribed to the nondualism + indirect realism combo (and I'm not even sure he did).

OK, I'll bite. why are their a diversity of minds all with partial knowledge?

I don't get what you're asking. There are many humans and none of them are omniscient.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:20 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:40 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:37 pm OK, I'll bite. why are their a diversity of minds all with partial knowledge?

I don't get what you're asking. There are many humans and none of them are omniscient.

In a sense, yes. I assume a non-dualism is also a non-pluralism. Why are there seeming separations? Why are these selves with boundaries keeping their knowledge apart?

And just to put this in context, I don't really know much about your non-dualism, so my questions are likely coming from the non-dualisms I am familiar with, for example, various Hindu versions.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:44 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:20 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 2:40 pm
I don't get what you're asking. There are many humans and none of them are omniscient.

In a sense, yes. I assume a non-dualism is also a non-pluralism. Why are there seeming separations? Why are these selves with boundaries keeping their knowledge apart?

And just to put this in context, I don't really know much about your non-dualism, so my questions are likely coming from the non-dualisms I am familiar with, for example, various Hindu versions.

Umm I call myself a nondualist because I subscribe to nondual thinking, and I've found that nondual thinking simply doesn't exist in Western philosophy. It's just a different school of thought altogether, one I didn't even know existed either. But then nondualists can disagree among each other to no end too.

My understing of nondualism is that it's not zero, not one, not two, not many. Most importantly not-two. Meaning, nondualism defies counting altogether, which is a dualistic approach. The multiplicity of the world all belongs to one and the same world, one and the same kind of world, and here numbers were just metaphors not actual numbers.

The biggest mischaracterization of nondualism is that everything is one homogeneous mush. That's entirely untrue.

Ugh so difficult to express in language. Point is there are no actual fundamental separations and dichotomies anywhere within the multiplicity of the world.

There are seeming separations because of our dualistic thinking: our thoughts appear to come in units, separations. My thought begins here and ends there. My other thought begins there and ends there. This is what my thought contains and this is what my thought doesn't contain.

But this is just a psychological illusion, and we project this psychological illusion into everything, and it makes the world seem to come in separate chunks. Now I lost this illusion.

My self and my knowledge is in my head, your self and your knowledge is in your head. The world is not one homogeneous mush, but a continuos world of multiplicity without fundamental separations, fundamental dichotomies. So we aren't "keeping" our knowledge apart, yours is simply there and mine is here.

It's almost the same picture as the world described by materialism, just heavily reinterpreted without dualistic thinking, and with the Hard problem of consciousness resolved and so on.

Maybe half or 2/3 of fundamental questions in the Western philosophy of mind are automatically solved in nondualism. It's also consistent with science while Western philosophy can't be.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:31 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:44 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 3:20 pm In a sense, yes. I assume a non-dualism is also a non-pluralism. Why are there seeming separations? Why are these selves with boundaries keeping their knowledge apart?

And just to put this in context, I don't really know much about your non-dualism, so my questions are likely coming from the non-dualisms I am familiar with, for example, various Hindu versions.

Umm I call myself a nondualist because I subscribe to nondual thinking, and I've found that nondual thinking simply doesn't exist in Western philosophy. It's just a different school of thought altogether, one I didn't even know existed either. But then nondualists can disagree among each other to no end too.

My understing of nondualism is that it's not zero, not one, not two, not many. Most importantly not-two. Meaning, nondualism defies counting altogether, which is a dualistic approach. The multiplicity of the world all belongs to one and the same world, one and the same kind of world, and here numbers were just metaphors not actual numbers.

The biggest mischaracterization of nondualism is that everything is one homogeneous mush. That's entirely untrue.

Ugh so difficult to express in language. Point is there are no actual fundamental separations and dichotomies anywhere within the multiplicity of the world.

There are seeming separations because of our dualistic thinking: our thoughts appear to come in units, separations. My thought begins here and ends there. My other thought begins there and ends there. This is what my thought contains and this is what my thought doesn't contain.

But this is just a psychological illusion, and we project this psychological illusion into everything, and it makes the world seem to come in separate chunks. Now I lost this illusion.

My self and my knowledge is in my head, your self and your knowledge is in your head. The world is not one homogeneous mush, but a continuos world of multiplicity without fundamental separations, fundamental dichotomies. So we aren't "keeping" our knowledge apart, yours is simply there and mine is here.

It's almost the same picture as the world described by materialism, just heavily reinterpreted without dualistic thinking, and with the Hard problem of consciousness resolved and so on.

Maybe half or 2/3 of fundamental questions in the Western philosophy of mind are automatically solved in nondualism. It's also consistent with science while Western philosophy can't be.

My knowledge is here and your knowledge is there seems like more than seeming separation.

(I read everything and it's helping give me a sense of your position. I may not ask questions, yet, about other parts. But it doesn't mean I'm just trying to peck holes in it whenI focus on one part. Just trying to get it)

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:52 pm Well you can think of every point in spacetime at Planck-scale as being separate from the other ones, but they are umm continuously separate. They aren't literally separate interacting systems, with magical made-up borders, which is the delusion that most physics uses today.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 7:06 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:52 pm Well you can think of every point in spacetime at Planck-scale as being separate from the other ones, but they are umm continuously separate. They aren't literally separate interacting systems, with magical made-up borders, which is the delusion that most physics uses today.

And yet some things contain and some areas do not contain. There are clumps where the inside stays inside (for periods of time) and clumps that are utterly porous and/or do not maintain patterns. Possibly related, some things are entangled with other things, but not with all things.

Minds/brains (what people refer to with these terms) are separate at least, also.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 7:06 pm Minds/brains (what people refer to with these terms) are separate at least, also.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 8:10 pm Depends. They are continuous with the external world, which includes other minds.

And there is only one first-person-view and we all "share" it.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 9:07 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 8:10 pm Depends. They are continuous with the external world, which includes other minds.

But seemingly separate from them. (I actually don't think this is the case), but I'll take a kind of common sense mixed with science approach to probing your non-dualism/indirect realism.

And there is only one first-person-view and we all "share" it.

How do we share it? How is it one first-person view? YOu see my tea mug`?