The Democrat Party Hates America

[Gary Childress]

It has nothing at all to do with the supernatural, at the moment, Gary. It has to do with natural, non-physical phenomena, like consciousness, selfhood, morality, rationality, and so on.

Will and I are debating the nature of these natural but non-physical phenomena -- a task which, ironically, Will could not even execute if such things did not exist.

When I look at you and Will arguing, I don't see any conflicting statements, just each of you insisting that you are right about something that doesn't appear to conflict with the statement you each insist is true. I mean, there are hallucinations, there are sensations, there are perceptions, there are physical entities. That all seems obvious to me. I'm more interested in what you are trying to get agreement on? Or what does Will have wrong in his statements?

Will seems to be trying to argue something, but not doing it very well. If I took it literally, he would be arguing that anything one "experiences" as an illusion is "exactly the same" as if one experienced it in reality. But since that's obviously not the case, I'm waiting for some clarity from his argument, just as you are.

Yeah. I just live in my mind as far as I can tell, I don't know much else about it except what I'm told. And people seem to tell me somewhat different things depending on who I talk to. If there's a reality out there and I want to know it, then fine. If there's a reality out there and I don't want to know it, not so good.

[Will Bouwman]

Your experience is real. Your experience includes your interpretation and your evaluation of the phenomenon.

Some people believe there is a supernatural Experiencer who knows all experiences, even the experience of a sparrow as it falls in death.

And some people don't. As I understand it, IC believes in a supernatural experiencer. Does Will? Or what is the argument over?

Basic philosophy. If you have any sincere wish to understand the human condition you have to embrace the words 'I don't know.' As I have said, philosophy is essentially story telling. We are all confronted with experiences that we try to make sense of; that is true even of the most brilliant scientists with access to the most accurate and detailed information. Whatever you think of us as a species, we have a capacity to create pictures from the information available to us that I find beautiful. Others see alternatives to a position they happen to hold as a threat.
As to whether I believe in a supernatural experiencer, the simple answer is no. Mr Can takes this to mean I therefore believe that there is no supernatural experiencer, when in fact it just means I don't know.

[Belinda]

Will,here is the bit of what you wrote that made me quiz you :-

It is just a fact that there are many possibilities that could produce the exact same experiences that any one of us encounter. The differe

I mean there are always variables ; variables that have to be eliminated as far as possible when we are trying to establish effects of causes or causes of effects.

It's true that in real life, a medic for instance may prescribe hit or miss because of lack of knowledge ; when a group of signs and symptoms resist accurate diagnosis or perfect dosages. However we are talking about correlating with a view to effects and causes not random guesses.

[Will Bouwman]

Will,here is the bit of what you wrote that made me quiz you :-

It is just a fact that there are many possibilities that could produce the exact same experiences that any one of us encounter. The differe

I mean there are always variables ; variables that have to be eliminated as far as possible when we are trying to establish effects of causes or causes of effects.

Well, in that instance I was talking about the metaphysical cause of our experiences; ultimate reality if you like. I think you might have conflated that with a reference to my drug habits.

[Belinda]

Will,here is the bit of what you wrote that made me quiz you :-

It is just a fact that there are many possibilities that could produce the exact same experiences that any one of us encounter. The differe

I mean there are always variables ; variables that have to be eliminated as far as possible when we are trying to establish effects of causes or causes of effects.

Well, in that instance I was talking about the metaphysical cause of our experiences; ultimate reality if you like. I think you might have conflated that with a reference to my drug habits.

So the bit I quoted means that what happens (a phenomenon) happens notwithstanding the observer is an idealist, a materialist, a Cartesian dualist, or neutral monist. Is that a fair paraphrase?

If so, I'd contest it and claim the world would contain fewer bad phenomena if everyone in the world were a Spinozan monist.

[Gary Childress]

As to whether I believe in a supernatural experiencer, the simple answer is no. Mr Can takes this to mean I therefore believe that there is no supernatural experiencer, when in fact it just means I don't know.

So is it a provisional "no" subject to change if evidence were to somehow prove or suggest that there is a supernatural experiencer? And by saying you "believe that there is no supernatural experiencer", is that the same thing as saying, "I don't know"? Or are you alluding to the fact that the Abrahamic religions tend to demand that if you don't believe in God through faith, then you effectively "don't believe in God"

[Will Bouwman]

So the bit I quoted means that what happens (a phenomenon) happens notwithstanding the observer is an idealist, a materialist, a Cartesian dualist, or neutral monist. Is that a fair paraphrase?

Well, I'm pretty certain that what happens happens regardless of how it is interpreted.

If so, I'd contest it and claim the world would contain fewer bad phenomena if everyone in the world were a Spinozan monist.

Spinozan monism is an interpretation of phenomena. Don't know what you mean by "bad phenomena", but there probably would be less conflict if everyone was a Spinozan monist, which is true of most beliefs.

[Will Bouwman]

As to whether I believe in a supernatural experiencer, the simple answer is no. Mr Can takes this to mean I therefore believe that there is no supernatural experiencer, when in fact it just means I don't know.

So is it a provisional "no" subject to change if evidence were to somehow prove or suggest that there is a supernatural experiencer?

Or if I lose my mind. Yeah, there are circumstances that might sway me.

And by saying you "believe that there is no supernatural experiencer", is that the same thing as saying, "I don't know"?

No. Mr Can bangs on about Aristotle's law of the excluded middle. Up to a point, he has a point. Either there is a god or there isn't. Either I believe there is a god or I don't. Where he fucks up is that the fact that I don't believe there is a god does not mean I believe there isn't a god.

Or are you alluding to the fact that the Abrahamic religions tend to demand that if you don't believe in God through faith, then you effectively "don't believe in God"

No. It really is as simple as I don't know. I'm not hostile to the idea of a god, I just don't think the evidence is compelling. On the other hand, what I know about ancient Mediterranean and near east mythology, its history and the political manoeuvring of Rome and Athens, leads me to believe that the Abrahamic religions are almost certainly political in origin. You can only believe in an Abrahamic god through faith, because the only evidence is books written a very long time ago.

[Immanuel Can]

If there's a reality out there and I want to know it, then fine. If there's a reality out there and I don't want to know it, not so good.

Well, if there is no reality out there, Gary, you've got no problems: the problem's purely in your own mind. Change your mind, and eliminate your problem.

But it isn't like that, is it? You can't just change your mind and change reality. Reality forces things upon you, whether you want them or not, and regardless of any mental gymnastics a person does in order to defeat them. And unless I miss you point, Gary, it's against this forcing of things upon you that you, yourself are raising your many objections, is it not? I don't think you're merely trying to chastise your own mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Where he fucks up is that the fact that I don't believe there is a god does not mean I believe there isn't a god.

Think, Will, think: can that even possibly be my point? Of course not. I'm arguing the opposite, in fact: that you cannot "think away" realities.

Sheesh. Have you been reading at all?

I'm not hostile to the idea of a god, I just don't think the evidence is compelling.

Then the question is obvious: to what "evidence" are you referring? What is it you actually know about that?

[Gary Childress]

If there's a reality out there and I want to know it, then fine. If there's a reality out there and I don't want to know it, not so good.

Well, if there is no reality out there, Gary, you've got no problems: the problem's purely in your own mind. Change your mind, and eliminate your problem.

But it isn't like that, is it? You can't just change your mind and change reality. Reality forces things upon you, whether you want them or not, and regardless of any mental gymnastics a person does in order to defeat them. And unless I miss you point, Gary, it's against this forcing of things upon you that you, yourself are raising your many objections, is it not? I don't think you're merely trying to chastise your own mind.

For what it's worth, this is my take on spirituality:

I think Walter Stace makes a valid point that there is fair reason to believe that something unique is happening in or to the mind of a person who has a mystic experience.

Mystic experiences seem to differ in ways from culture to culture, according to Stace, however, he tried to pull out common themes from the writings of people who claimed to have such experiences from many periods of history and cultures up to the present, including Christian saints, Islamic saints, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, and Shamanism etc.

He thought he found some common themes, and he listed them. I can't recall the list right now, but he was a 'lumper', as opposed to a 'splitter'. He seemed to believe that something extraordinary could be happening in the mind of mystics, shared by all, something about the human mind that produced such experiences or that was in contact with some larger reality, but that it was difficult to pinpoint exactly what it was or who, if anyone, had it right or could be seen as the ultimate authority.

His book Mysticism and Philosophy changed me from atheism to agnosticism.

[Will Bouwman]

Where he fucks up is that the fact that I don't believe there is a god does not mean I believe there isn't a god.

Think, Will, think...

That's rich coming from you.

...can that even possibly be my point? Of course not.

I'm not suggesting it is; it's just a bit of historical context for our friend Gary. Still, your finally understanding that not asserting p is not to assert not p would be a result. You're welcome.

I'm arguing the opposite, in fact: that you cannot "think away" realities.

You are making ontological claims about things which can just as well be explained as states of mind.

Sheesh. Have you been reading at all?

Not only do I read, I have the supplementary skill of comprehension.

I'm not hostile to the idea of a god, I just don't think the evidence is compelling.

Then the question is obvious: to what "evidence" are you referring? What is it you actually know about that?

That it's not compelling. I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that is compelling.
(Gary, if you are reading, under normal circumstances, Mr Can would take this as his cue to ask me what evidence I would find compelling. His logic being that if I can't say what evidence I would find compelling, I therefore would not find any evidence compelling; again cocking up the law of the excluded middle.)

[Gary Childress]

That it's not compelling. I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that is compelling.
(Gary, if you are reading, under normal circumstances, Mr Can would take this as his cue to ask me what evidence I would find compelling. His logic being that if I can't say what evidence I would find compelling, I therefore would not find any evidence compelling; again cocking up the law of the excluded middle.)

Or he may say that you have no "evidence" that there "isn't" a God. He seems to say that to me quite a bit also. I agree with him to whatever extent that I don't have such evidence; however, I disagree that it's some kind of deficiency I possess. I feel like I approach things honestly and objectively, and I believe that it's a healthy way to approach such matters.

[Will Bouwman]

...he may say that you have no "evidence" that there "isn't" a God.

And he'd be right, but since i don't claim there isn't a god, there's no reason for me to provide any evidence.

He seems to say that to me quite a bit also. I agree with him to whatever extent that I don't have such evidence; however, I disagree that it's some kind of deficiency I possess.

Mr Can says all sorts of things to make anyone who disagrees with him feel deficient. Don't take it to heart, it's his problem, not yours.

I feel like I approach things honestly and objectively, and I believe that it's a healthy way to approach such matters.

That's how you come across to me, and I agree.

[Belinda]

So the bit I quoted means that what happens (a phenomenon) happens notwithstanding the observer is an idealist, a materialist, a Cartesian dualist, or neutral monist. Is that a fair paraphrase?

Well, I'm pretty certain that what happens happens regardless of how it is interpreted.

If so, I'd contest it and claim the world would contain fewer bad phenomena if everyone in the world were a Spinozan monist.

Spinozan monism is an interpretation of phenomena. Don't know what you mean by "bad phenomena", but there probably would be less conflict if everyone was a Spinozan monist, which is true of most beliefs.

By "bad phenomena" I mean,not earthquakes and lightning strikes, but such as wars and murders. Spinozan monism depends on reason. Reason is potentially available to everyone . Reason leads to understanding others and oneself. Understanding others and oneself conduces to political and psychological peace .