Philosophy Now Forum

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:05 am



There are perspectives other than Hume’s radical empiricism. Consciousness ranging from waking and sleeping; subconsciousness, deep sleep or dreaming and altered states, and trance, conscious or unconscious. Sleep comes unaided except to insomniacs. Other states require aids, drumming, psychedelics, or yoga practices such as meditation, getting past sensory consciousness and thought through sound, hearing the primal sound OM which appears to be a conduit to superconscious states.

All sensory deprived states with the exception of, maybe, coma or unconscious trance provide extra-sensory information. The senses are limited to the immediate environment which intelligence is not so the intellect and abstract thought can also have a wider range. Physicists no longer define a “body” as matter but as an electro-magnetic wave. Which inspires a humorous thought of a physicist giving a eulogy.

There is likely a spectrum of energy, as all is energy, with matter and what is visible at the lower end with slow rates of vibration to the higher end and subtle non perceptible vibrations, such as sound of which we have access to in a limited range. Consciousness is likely at the higher end of the spectrum.

WOW, delightful post! Perhaps as Jung entertained the collective subconscious, all these elements you underline belong to a collective consciousness; all part of one condition or one field. This is what perhaps you are taking for granted, yes? It is my thought that there is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction; all organisms are reactive creatures. The fact that one must be motivated in order to move spells reaction, not action. In entertaining this, however, it becomes obvious that the cause for all reactive creatures is the physical world itself, or rather the energy fields that surround us. This is the new frontier, where we learn to manipulate the energy fields that govern our own biological processes in their abilities and limitations. You are obviously more well-versed in this topic than I but one thing pops up to me. In understanding the world as fields of energy we could work toward altering to our use of both the fields governing our biologizes and the field of our own consciousness. I am afraid most of the people here consider such talk mysticism, a full transition to a new frame of reference will take a little time. As you have already experienced in this thread-----lol!! "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:35 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:05 am



There are perspectives other than Hume’s radical empiricism. Consciousness ranging from waking and sleeping; subconsciousness, deep sleep or dreaming and altered states, and trance, conscious or unconscious. Sleep comes unaided except to insomniacs. Other states require aids, drumming, psychedelics, or yoga practices such as meditation, getting past sensory consciousness and thought through sound, hearing the primal sound OM which appears to be a conduit to superconscious states.

All sensory deprived states with the exception of, maybe, coma or unconscious trance provide extra-sensory information. The senses are limited to the immediate environment which intelligence is not so the intellect and abstract thought can also have a wider range. Physicists no longer define a “body” as matter but as an electro-magnetic wave. Which inspires a humorous thought of a physicist giving a eulogy.

There is likely a spectrum of energy, as all is energy, with matter and what is visible at the lower end with slow rates of vibration to the higher end and subtle non perceptible vibrations, such as sound of which we have access to in a limited range. Consciousness is likely at the higher end of the spectrum.

WOW, delightful post! Perhaps as Jung entertained the collective subconscious, all these elements you underline belong to a collective consciousness; all part of one condition or one field. This is what perhaps you are taking for granted, yes? It is my thought that there is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction; all organisms are reactive creatures. The fact that one must be motivated in order to move spells reaction, not action. In entertaining this, however, it becomes obvious that the cause for all reactive creatures is the physical world itself, or rather the energy fields that surround us. This is the new frontier, where we learn to manipulate the energy fields that govern our own biological processes in their abilities and limitations. You are obviously more well-versed in this topic than I but one thing pops up to me. In understanding the world as fields of energy we could work toward altering to our use of both the fields governing our biologizes and the field of our own consciousness. I am afraid most of the people here consider such talk mysticism, a full transition to a new frame of reference will take a little time. As you have already experienced in this thread-----lol!! "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E

I do not disagree with most of your assessments. I also favor Jung’s collective unconscious. Much of philosophy has been focused between intelligence and intellect and its polar opposite the sense mind that apprehends and coordinates sense experience. Much focus has been placed on promoting the supremacy of one or the other.

In a dualistic system it is easier to think either/or rather than and/both, the monism of the latter is difficult to comprehend. Things work, or should work, in tandem, not at war with each other which happens when philosophers come down on the side of one or the other, It may be a struggle but it should be the task of philosophy to get past it.

We are in a situation from this side at least, where we did not agree be in an environment, a seeming matrix already present which we have to negotiate our way through. Our feelings, thoughts, success and failures result from how we deal with it. The religious posit that God’s thoughts are things and we are in a reactive mode, for good or ill, in relation to it. The secular posit a matrix.

Yes, we have to get past cells and molecules and wondering about the origin of life which in a material age was the only option. Physics is the foremost of the sciences as it goes back to origins with its study of forces, their relationship to each other, underlying the whole, the question is in what way are they causal to the dualism that plagues us.

This is not mysticism, it is still physical; fine, rather then dense matter. It takes a combination of both to have a physical world. Which of course was not known in the Dark Age of materialism. Although known through perception, not through empirical research, in higher ages past. Even in Classical Greek philosophy, especially the latter part, the perceptions of prior eras, from what survived in stone or written form, was mostly incomprehensible.

As for governing the laws, I don’t think so, we are capable of imitating but is best not to try controlling, adapting to would be a better option. Some things are meant, although they have, necessarily, dual outcomes as in splitting the atom. There are two modes here, humanity having the freedom to do what it can do until arriving at a point in evolution where our freedom from laws takes us beyond the necessity for imitation, manipulation, or the desire to control.

We may wonder why we are not there yet and there may be a point to why we are not. A seeker asked a wise man “If those who are awake do the will of God what about those who are not awake?” The answer was: They also do the will of God. So that is something to think about.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:12 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:35 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:05 am



There are perspectives other than Hume’s radical empiricism. Consciousness ranging from waking and sleeping; subconsciousness, deep sleep or dreaming and altered states, and trance, conscious or unconscious. Sleep comes unaided except to insomniacs. Other states require aids, drumming, psychedelics, or yoga practices such as meditation, getting past sensory consciousness and thought through sound, hearing the primal sound OM which appears to be a conduit to superconscious states.

All sensory deprived states with the exception of, maybe, coma or unconscious trance provide extra-sensory information. The senses are limited to the immediate environment which intelligence is not so the intellect and abstract thought can also have a wider range. Physicists no longer define a “body” as matter but as an electro-magnetic wave. Which inspires a humorous thought of a physicist giving a eulogy.

There is likely a spectrum of energy, as all is energy, with matter and what is visible at the lower end with slow rates of vibration to the higher end and subtle non perceptible vibrations, such as sound of which we have access to in a limited range. Consciousness is likely at the higher end of the spectrum.

WOW, delightful post! Perhaps as Jung entertained the collective subconscious, all these elements you underline belong to a collective consciousness; all part of one condition or one field. This is what perhaps you are taking for granted, yes? It is my thought that there is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction; all organisms are reactive creatures. The fact that one must be motivated in order to move spells reaction, not action. In entertaining this, however, it becomes obvious that the cause for all reactive creatures is the physical world itself, or rather the energy fields that surround us. This is the new frontier, where we learn to manipulate the energy fields that govern our own biological processes in their abilities and limitations. You are obviously more well-versed in this topic than I but one thing pops up to me. In understanding the world as fields of energy we could work toward altering to our use of both the fields governing our biologizes and the field of our own consciousness. I am afraid most of the people here consider such talk mysticism, a full transition to a new frame of reference will take a little time. As you have already experienced in this thread-----lol!! "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E

I do not disagree with most of your assessments. I also favor Jung’s collective unconscious. Much of philosophy has been focused between intelligence and intellect and its polar opposite the sense mind that apprehends and coordinates sense experience. Much focus has been placed on promoting the supremacy of one or the other.
In a dualistic system it is easier to think either/or rather than and/both, the monism of the latter is difficult to comprehend. Things work, or should work, in tandem, not at war with each other which happens when philosophers come down on the side of one or the other, It may be a struggle but it should be the task of philosophy to get past it.
We are in a situation from this side at least, where we do not agree to be in an environment, a seeming matrix already present which we have to negotiate our way through. Our feelings, thoughts, success and failures result from how we deal with it. The religious posit that God’s thoughts are things and we are in a reactive mode, for good or ill, in relation to it. The secular posits a matrix.

Well, when we are born into the world we are born without identity and acquire an identity through our experiences both positive and negative within the context of our environment. The matrix is of our own making. Spinoza explained how we come to know the physical world by the way objects alter our bodies. I tend to take it a step further, in that the object itself is created through the way the surrounding energies alter our bodies creating objects, our apparent reality. All organisms are reactive organisms, and the matrix is this energy processed through biology to then manifest as object/s.

Yes, we have to get past cells and molecules and wonder about the origin of life which in a material age was the only option. Physics is the foremost of the sciences as it goes back to its origins with its study of forces, their relationship to each other, underlying the whole, the question is in what way are they causal to the dualism that plagues us.
This is not mysticism, it is still physical; fine, rather than dense matter. It takes a combination of both to have a physical world. Which of course was not known in the Dark Age of materialism. Although known through perception, not through empirical research, in higher ages past. Even in Classical Greek philosophy, especially the latter part, the perceptions of prior eras, from what survived in stone or written form, was mostly incomprehensible. [/quote]

I tend to believe we must enter another way of thinking; the concept of wholeness works quite well in our everyday/apparent reality but is inadequate to understanding reality in the form of energy frequencies and forms. We know in this apparent reality there is no such thing as a closed system, if one is created artificially its endurance is limited to an energy source in cased within it. I suggest we abandon for the purpose of forging ahead the concept of the whole and embrace a concept of non-totality, which would state there is no independent existent. I do believe this too would do away with the concept of duality.

As for governing the laws, I don’t think so, we are capable of imitating but it is best not to try controlling, adapting to would be a better option. Some things are meant, although they have, necessarily, dual outcomes as in splitting the atom. There are two modes here, humanity having the freedom to do what it can do until arriving at a point in evolution where our freedom from laws takes us beyond the necessity for imitation, manipulation, or the desire to control.
We may wonder why we are not there yet and there may be a point to why we are not. A seeker asked a wise man “If those who are awake do the will of God what about those who are not awake?” The answer was: They also do the will of God. So that is something to think about.
[/quote]

Our basic framework needs to be reworked in order to make any progress in understanding a world that is in its essence energy. To Spinoza god was substance and from substance all things/objects arise; we can now replace substance with energy and progress from there. One must know the nature of what one is dealing with to be able to adapt to a reality once removed from commonsense. In a very real sense adaptation is control, self control, without which there is no control.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:22 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:12 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:35 pm

WOW, delightful post! Perhaps as Jung entertained the collective subconscious, all these elements you underline belong to a collective consciousness; all part of one condition or one field. This is what perhaps you are taking for granted, yes? It is my thought that there is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction; all organisms are reactive creatures. The fact that one must be motivated in order to move spells reaction, not action. In entertaining this, however, it becomes obvious that the cause for all reactive creatures is the physical world itself, or rather the energy fields that surround us. This is the new frontier, where we learn to manipulate the energy fields that govern our own biological processes in their abilities and limitations. You are obviously more well-versed in this topic than I but one thing pops up to me. In understanding the world as fields of energy we could work toward altering to our use of both the fields governing our biologizes and the field of our own consciousness. I am afraid most of the people here consider such talk mysticism, a full transition to a new frame of reference will take a little time. As you have already experienced in this thread-----lol!! "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert E

I do not disagree with most of your assessments. I also favor Jung’s collective unconscious. Much of philosophy has been focused between intelligence and intellect and its polar opposite the sense mind that apprehends and coordinates sense experience. Much focus has been placed on promoting the supremacy of one or the other.
In a dualistic system it is easier to think either/or rather than and/both, the monism of the latter is difficult to comprehend. Things work, or should work, in tandem, not at war with each other which happens when philosophers come down on the side of one or the other, It may be a struggle but it should be the task of philosophy to get past it.
We are in a situation from this side at least, where we do not agree to be in an environment, a seeming matrix already present which we have to negotiate our way through. Our feelings, thoughts, success and failures result from how we deal with it. The religious posit that God’s thoughts are things and we are in a reactive mode, for good or ill, in relation to it. The secular posits a matrix.

Well, when we are born into the world we are born without identity and acquire an identity through our experiences both positive and negative within the context of our environment. The matrix is of our own making. Spinoza explained how we come to know the physical world by the way objects alter our bodies. I tend to take it a step further, in that the object itself is created through the way the surrounding energies alter our bodies creating objects, our apparent reality. All organisms are reactive organisms, and the matrix is this energy processed through biology to then manifest as object/s.

Yes, we have to get past cells and molecules and wonder about the origin of life which in a material age was the only option. Physics is the foremost of the sciences as it goes back to its origins with its study of forces, their relationship to each other, underlying the whole, the question is in what way are they causal to the dualism that plagues us.
This is not mysticism, it is still physical; fine, rather than dense matter. It takes a combination of both to have a physical world. Which of course was not known in the Dark Age of materialism. Although known through perception, not through empirical research, in higher ages past. Even in Classical Greek philosophy, especially the latter part, the perceptions of prior eras, from what survived in stone or written form, was mostly incomprehensible.

I tend to believe we must enter another way of thinking; the concept of wholeness works quite well in our everyday/apparent reality but is inadequate to understanding reality in the form of energy frequencies and forms. We know in this apparent reality there is no such thing as a closed system, if one is created artificially its endurance is limited to an energy source in cased within it. I suggest we abandon for the purpose of forging ahead the concept of the whole and embrace a concept of non-totality, which would state there is no independent existent. I do believe this too would do away with the concept of duality.

As for governing the laws, I don’t think so, we are capable of imitating but it is best not to try controlling, adapting to would be a better option. Some things are meant, although they have, necessarily, dual outcomes as in splitting the atom. There are two modes here, humanity having the freedom to do what it can do until arriving at a point in evolution where our freedom from laws takes us beyond the necessity for imitation, manipulation, or the desire to control.
We may wonder why we are not there yet and there may be a point to why we are not. A seeker asked a wise man “If those who are awake do the will of God what about those who are not awake?” The answer was: They also do the will of God. So that is something to think about.
[/quote]

Our basic framework needs to be reworked in order to make any progress in understanding a world that is in its essence energy. To Spinoza god was substance and from substance all things/objects arise; we can now replace substance with energy and progress from there. One must know the nature of what one is dealing with to be able to adapt to a reality once removed from commonsense. In a very real sense adaptation is control, self control, without which there is no control.
[/quote]

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Owl of Minerva response to Popeye 1945:

I would not disagree with the possibility, a concept of the whole, that there is no independent existence. Or that this view would do away with the concept of duality, which is after all just a concept, a way of perceiving based on what is presented to us as actuality. Is what is visible all there is? From research we know that it is not, there is also the quantum puzzle.

Either Spinoza was misunderstood or he did believe that what was manifested and visible was the Deity, rather than an indication, expression or projection of a transcendent underlying Ultimate Reality. This to his community was heresy. They saw the manifested, the light that fell from heaven as the Adversary, misleading and therefore diabolical, the cause of all their suffering. Christ also confirmed this view. It was as if Spinoza saw the moon reflected in a lake and took it to be the actual moon.

Energy whether it is gross or fine, low or high vibration, is still matter. Matter is perceived as all there is and materialism is seen as the reality. Our empirical knowledge at this stage of evolution of consciousness is inadequate to state with conviction that this perspective is actually valid.

So how to get past the conflict of two opposing views? Empirical research will, likely in the quantum field, give some answers, as virtual particles pop in and out of existence, and the cause of vibration; what is it that vibrates, will likely provide some answers.

In all traditions mystics have, at least from their personal experience perspective, been represented as understanding the concept of all being One and One being all. If by withdrawing projections, as psychologists know, we would not recognize what we project unless it was also within ourselves. Hence monism if projections are withdrawn. So maybe it is: ‘as within, so without’ and ‘as above so below.’ Time will tell and ultimately the nature of reality and of consciousness will be known.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 2:29 pm

Owl of Minerva response to Popeye 1945:

I would not disagree with the possibility, a concept of the whole, that there is no independent existence. Or that this view would do away with the concept of duality, which is after all just a concept, a way of perceiving based on what is presented to us as actuality. Is what is visible all there is? From research we know that it is not, there is also the quantum puzzle.

Well, the concept of un-totality is consistent with the understanding that there are no naturally closed systems, and as far as we know this includes the universe. Quantum entanglement might be a hint also, of this endless field of connective tissue called space, connected unclosed not quite things/objects; but energies processed through biology that become said objects/things to the subject biology. As below so above, are our cells, organelles and organs open systems, open to that larger open system of the community of the body? Actually, an independent existent, closed system should be more difficult to imagine than the concept of un-totality; a living connected pulsing field of energy out of which things arise and dissolve back into this living tissue, the field of space.


Either Spinoza was misunderstood or he did believe that what was manifested and visible was the Deity, rather than an indication, expression or projection of a transcendent underlying Ultimate Reality. This to his community was heresy. They saw the manifested, the light that fell from heaven as the Adversary, misleading and therefore diabolical, the cause of all their suffering. Christ also confirmed this view. It was as if Spinoza saw the moon reflected in a lake and took it to be the actual moon. [/quote]

Spinoza, as brilliant as he was, was a product of his time, definitely not a closed system. Your first statement above might be true, though when reading him I assumed differently, but perhaps there is a bit of projection of my own time playing through. I remember a quote from Plato, paraphrasing, never mistake the object for reality. Nevertheless, they are the shoulders we stand upon today.

Energy whether it is gross or fine, low or high vibration, it still matter. Matter is perceived as all there is and materialism is seen as the reality. Our empirical knowledge at this stage of evolution of consciousness is inadequate to state with conviction that this perspective is actually valid.
So how to get past the conflict of two opposing views? Empirical research will, likely in the quantum field, give some answers, as virtual particles pop in and out of existence, and the cause of vibration; what is it that vibrates, will likely provide some answers. [/quote]

As the differing states of water so the differing states of energy, the level of energy present determines the states of water and no doubt water itself. Perhaps the cause of vibrational energy is simply the intensity of itself or the intensity of its surrounding energy fields; for as stated, there is no independent existence.


In all traditions mystics have, at least from their personal experience perspective, been represented as understanding the concept of all being One and One being all. If by withdrawing projections, as psychologists know, we would not recognize what we project unless it was also within ourselves. Hence monism if projections are withdrawn. So maybe it is: ‘as within, so without’ and ‘as above so below.’ Time will tell and ultimately the nature of reality and of consciousness will be known.
[/quote]

In a connected field of energy, the un-totality, there can be a sense of one with, one with that which is un-endling, un-closed eternal. It's a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the object/illusion is the grasp of the ring. If all things are open then we are all part of anything we might project including the objects we take as independent.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:05 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 2:29 pm

Owl of Minerva response to Popeye 1945:

I would not disagree with the possibility, a concept of the whole, that there is no independent existence. Or that this view would do away with the concept of duality, which is after all just a concept, a way of perceiving based on what is presented to us as actuality. Is what is visible all there is? From research we know that it is not, there is also the quantum puzzle.

Well, the concept of un-totality is consistent with the understanding that there are no naturally closed systems, and as far as we know this includes the universe. Quantum entanglement might be a hint also, of this endless field of connective tissue called space, connected unclosed not quite things/objects; but energies processed through biology that become said objects/things to the subject biology. As below so above, are our cells, organelles and organs open systems, open to that larger open system of the community of the body? Actually, an independent existent, closed system should be more difficult to imagine than the concept of un-totality; a living connected pulsing field of energy out of which things arise and dissolve back into this living tissue, the field of space.


Either Spinoza was misunderstood or he did believe that what was manifested and visible was the Deity, rather than an indication, expression or projection of a transcendent underlying Ultimate Reality. This to his community was heresy. They saw the manifested, the light that fell from heaven as the Adversary, misleading and therefore diabolical, the cause of all their suffering. Christ also confirmed this view. It was as if Spinoza saw the moon reflected in a lake and took it to be the actual moon.

Spinoza, as brilliant as he was, was a product of his time, definitely not a closed system. Your first statement above might be true, through when reading him I assumed differently, but perhaps there is a bit of projection of my own time playing through. I remember a quote from Plato, paraphrasing, never mistake the object for reality. Nevertheless, they are the shoulders we stand upon today.

Energy whether it is gross or fine, low or high vibration, it still matter. Matter is perceived as all there is and materialism is seen as the reality. Our empirical knowledge at this stage of evolution of consciousness is inadequate to state with conviction that this perspective is actually valid.
So how to get past the conflict of two opposing views? Empirical research will, likely in the quantum field, give some answers, as virtual particles pop in and out of existence, and the cause of vibration; what is it that vibrates, will likely provide some answers. [/quote]

As the differing states of water so the differing states of energy, the level of energy present determines the states of water and no doubt water itself. Perhaps the cause of vibrational energy is simply the intensity of itself or the intensity of its surrounding energy fields; for as stated, there is no independent existence.


In all traditions mystics have, at least from their personal experience perspective, been represented as understanding the concept of all being One and One being all. If by withdrawing projections, as psychologists know, we would not recognize what we project unless it was also within ourselves. Hence monism if projections are withdrawn. So maybe it is: ‘as within, so without’ and ‘as above so below.’ Time will tell and ultimately the nature of reality and of consciousness will be known.
[/quote]

In a connected field of energy, the un-totality, there can be a sense of one with, one with that which is un-endling, un-closed eternal. It's a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the object/illusion is the grasp of the ring. If all things are open then we are all part of anything we might project including the objects we take as independent.
[/quote]

I agreed with your assessment summed up in your last paragraph. And it has already been proven that closed systems do not survive. I recall reading about a biosphere experiment done, it may have been in the 1960s or 70s. The biosphere did not survive.

Yet, as evidenced in the article under discussion, in which the biological sphere concept is tantamount, foundational, to the nature of, not just the biological, but of all of reality. The author concludes that consciousness is seen as a biological process explained by neurobiological and other cognitive mechanisms which can be accounted for on evolutionary grounds.

In opposition is ‘Tallis in Wonderland’ also in this issue who “rightly lances a metaphysical boil” which is what he, rightly, considers this sociobiological perspective to be.

The sociobiological perspective appears to have begun with Edward O. Wilson who studied insects and postulated that all human behavior has a biological basis, as if closed and instinctively determined as it is in the animal kingdom.

Subscribing to this view it is not surprising that today’s headlines raised the issue of an ‘out of control addition situation’ in the U.S. and there are similar problems elsewhere, although not as fueled by Big Pharma.

In ancient India the cast system was benign, those who were not capable of seeing beyond the physical were assigned to the servant class where they could serve and learn and hopefully advance to a higher state of consciousness. Their perspective was seen as temporary not a life, or even a many lives, sentence.

Today in the West materialists, now physicalists, are strident and dogmatic, well received, and even write articles for philosophical journals.

Correction ‘addiction situation’ not ‘addition.’ Although the latter could have some applicability where maths is challenging, but it is not the topic here.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:07 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:05 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 2:29 pm
In a connected field of energy, the un-totality, there can be a sense of one with, one with that which is un-endling, un-closed eternal. It's a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the object/illusion is the grasp of the ring. If all things are open then we are all part of anything we might project including the objects we take as independent.

I agree with your assessment summed up in your last paragraph. And it has already been proven that closed systems do not survive. I recall reading about a biosphere experiment done, it may have been in the 1960s or 70s. The biosphere did not survive.
Yet, as evidenced in the article under discussion, in which the biological sphere concept is tantamount, foundational, to the nature of, not just the biological, but of all of reality. The author concludes that consciousness is seen as a biological process explained by neurobiological and other cognitive mechanisms which can be accounted for on evolutionary grounds.

What article are you speaking of? All organisms are reactive organisms in the sense they are plastic, and governed in their development by the larger reality of the physical world and cosmos. Consciousness is like you say neurobiological in that as a multicellular organism, we don't have or have not consciousness, consciousness is the organism. It is through the biological sphere that apparent reality is created out of the experiences of organisms the meanings of said experiences are projected upon the world, for biology is the measure and meaning of all things.

In opposition is ‘Tallis in Wonderland’ also in this issue who “rightly lances a metaphysical boil” which is what he, rightly, considers this sociobiological perspective to be.

Ok, I can't speak to this, as I have not read the said article.

The sociobiological perspective appears to have begun with Edward O. Wilson who studied insects and postulated that all human behavior has a biological basis, as if closed and instinctively determined as it is in the animal kingdom.
Subscribing to this view it is not surprising that today’s headlines raised the issue of an ‘out of control addition situation’ in the U.S. and there are similar problems elsewhere, although not as fueled by Big Pharma. [/quote]

The sociobiological perspective that behaviors are closed and labeled instinctive is true of the organisms of the day, but plastic through the chain of beings of evolutionary adaptation. Once a successful pattern of structure and form has been adapted the creature of the day is still being worked on in some degree by the environment as its focal point in the chain of beings. That human behavior is instinctive to the creature of the day I would quite agree. Humanity's larger brain allows for a wider range of reactions to any given circumstance than the animal with less cognitive abilities. You lose me when you bring in Big Pharma into the discussion.



In ancient India the caste system was benign, those who were not capable of seeing beyond the physical were assigned to the servant class where they could serve and learn and hopefully advance to a higher state of consciousness. Their perspective was seen as temporary not a life, or even a many lives, sentence. Today in the West materialists, now physicalists, are strident and dogmatic, well received, and even write articles for philosophical journals.
[/quote]

I don't believe the caste system of India was benign, it is my understanding that one can be born into a given caste and be stuck there and so are your children. It is an oppressive system. Its foundation in Hinduism might have been based originally upon one's occupation, but it's really not clear. I think it might have its origin in the Hindu chakra system, just a shot in the dark. I think materialists should be locked up for their own safety--lol!

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 7:22 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:07 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:05 pm

I agree with your assessment summed up in your last paragraph. And it has already been proven that closed systems do not survive. I recall reading about a biosphere experiment done, it may have been in the 1960s or 70s. The biosphere did not survive.
Yet, as evidenced in the article under discussion, in which the biological sphere concept is tantamount, foundational, to the nature of, not just the biological, but of all of reality. The author concludes that consciousness is seen as a biological process explained by neurobiological and other cognitive mechanisms which can be accounted for on evolutionary grounds.

What article are you speaking of? All organisms are reactive organisms in the sense they are plastic, and governed in their development by the larger reality of the physical world and cosmos. Consciousness is like you say neurobiological in that as a multicellular organism, we don't have or have not consciousness, consciousness is the organism. It is through the biological sphere that apparent reality is created out of the experiences of organisms the meanings of said experiences are projected upon the world, for biology is the measure and meaning of all things.


We are on difference pages if you think that biology is primary.


In opposition is ‘Tallis in Wonderland’ also in this issue who “rightly lances a metaphysical boil” which is what he, rightly, considers this sociobiological perspective to be.

Ok, I can't speak to this, as I have not read the said article.


You should read it. Tallis is always interesting to read.


The sociobiological perspective appears to have begun with Edward O. Wilson who studied insects and postulated that all human behavior has a biological basis, as if closed and instinctively determined as it is in the animal kingdom.
Subscribing to this view it is not surprising that today’s headlines raised the issue of an ‘out of control addition situation’ in the U.S. and there are similar problems elsewhere, although not as fueled by Big Pharma.

The sociobiological perspective that behaviors are closed and labeled instinctive is true of the organisms of the day, but plastic through the chain of beings of evolutionary adaptation. Once a successful pattern of structure and form has been adapted the creature of the day is still being worked on in some degree by the environment as its focal point in the chain of beings. That human behavior is instinctive to the creature of the day I would quite agree. Humanity's larger brain allows for a wider range of reactions to any given circumstance than the animal with less cognitive abilities. You lose me when you bring in Big Pharma into the discussion.


My Big Pharma reference is likely due to the drug industries ability to now mess with biology as is the case where there is ‘an out of control addiction situation. I incorrectly typed ‘addition’ instead of ‘addiction.’



In ancient India the caste system was benign, those who were not capable of seeing beyond the physical were assigned to the servant class where they could serve and learn and hopefully advance to a higher state of consciousness. Their perspective was seen as temporary not a life, or even a many lives, sentence. Today in the West materialists, now physicalists, are strident and dogmatic, well received, and even write articles for philosophical journals.
[/quote]

I don't believe the caste system of India was benign, it is my understanding that one can be born into a given caste and be stuck there and so are your children. It is an oppressive system. Its foundation in Hinduism might have been based originally upon one's occupation, but it's really not clear. I think it might have its origin in the Hindu chakra system, just a shot in the dark. I think materialists should be locked up for their own safety--lol!
[/quote]


It was benign in relation to where it is today. There is a caste system everywhere based on education, wealth, ancestors etc. In some cultures with special gifts in sports, the arts, etc. people can rise above it. There was the idea that civilizations were sunk by mixing castes. It was a case of the lower bringing the higher down not the higher raising the lower up. At least that was the theory.

Physicists are been saying now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math shows that the universe is not fundamental unto itself.

This leads to the hard problem of finding out what is fundamental to the existence of the universe, and some are wondering if the two hard problems are related.

Therefore we cannot be certain that the universe is definitely a closed system as the idea that the universe is not a closed system is still a possibility and has not been ruled out by current scientific understanding. While the concept of a closed system, where the universe contains all the matter and energy that exists, is widely accepted, there is still much that we do not know about the universe and its underlying structure.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 9:18 pm Physicists are been saying now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math shows that the universe is not fundamental unto itself.

This leads to the hard problem of finding out what is fundamental to the existence of the universe, and some are wondering if the two hard problems are related.

Therefore we cannot be certain that the universe is definitely a closed system as the idea that the universe is not a closed system is still a possibility and has not been ruled out by current scientific understanding. While the concept of a closed system, where the universe contains all the matter and energy that exists, is widely accepted, there is still much that we do not know about the universe and its underlying structure.

This is the sort of stuff that's really not helpful. It's systems all the way down! Or up; or whatever.

Is the system which contains our univese open or closed?
Is the system which contains the system which contains the system which contains our universe open or closed?

It's so much easier to just cut the bullshit. The Universe is everything; and everything has no choice but to be closed; otherwise it's everything inside more everything inside more everything ad infinitum.

Which basically means that any given "everything" is not everything. A misnomer.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 9:18 pm Physicists are been saying now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math shows that the universe is not fundamental unto itself.

What does this mean? Can you cite a source?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:23 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 9:18 pm Physicists are been saying now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math shows that the universe is not fundamental unto itself.

What does this mean? Can you cite a source?

I think what is meant is objects are conscious subject dependent, thus the universe of objects is a non-stater, there is but energy and nothing else. The object is experience, just as color and sound is, with no reality accept energy.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:51 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 7:22 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:07 pm

What article are you speaking of? All organisms are reactive organisms in the sense they are plastic, and governed in their development by the larger reality of the physical world and cosmos. Consciousness is like you say neurobiological in that as a multicellular organism, we don't have or have not consciousness, consciousness is the organism. It is through the biological sphere that apparent reality is created out of the experiences of organisms the meanings of said experiences are projected upon the world, for biology is the measure and meaning of all things.


We are on different pages if you think that biology is primary.
In opposition is ‘Tallis in Wonderland’ also in this issue who “rightly lances a metaphysical boil” which is what he, rightly, considers this sociobiological perspective to be.

Please expand upon the denial of my statement, that biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

Ok, I can't speak to this, as I have not read the said article.

You should read it. Tallis is always interesting to read.

I shall, thanks for the heads up.


The sociobiological perspective appears to have begun with Edward O. Wilson who studied insects and postulated that all human behavior has a biological basis, as if closed and instinctively determined as it is in the animal kingdom.
Subscribing to this view it is not surprising that today’s headlines raised the issue of an ‘out of control addition situation’ in the U.S. and there are similar problems elsewhere, although not as fueled by Big Pharma.

The sociobiological perspective that behaviors are closed and labeled instinctive is true of the organisms of the day, but plastic through the chain of beings of evolutionary adaptation. Once a successful pattern of structure and form has been adapted the creature of the day is still being worked on to some degree by the environment as its focal point in the chain of beings. That human behavior is instinctive to the creature of the day I would quite agree. Humanity's larger brain allows for a wider range of reactions to any given circumstance than the animal with less cognitive abilities. You lose me when you bring in Big Pharma into the discussion.


My Big Pharma reference is likely due to the drug industry's ability to now mess with biology as is the case where there is ‘an out-of-control addiction situation. I incorrectly typed ‘addition’ instead of ‘addiction.’



In ancient India the caste system was benign, those who were not capable of seeing beyond the physical were assigned to the servant class where they could serve and learn and hopefully advance to a higher state of consciousness. Their perspective was seen as temporary not a life, or even a many lives, sentence. Today in the West materialists, now physicalists, are strident and dogmatic, well received, and even write articles for philosophical journals.
[/quote]

I don't believe the caste system of India was benign, it is my understanding that one can be born into a given caste and be stuck there and so are your children. It is an oppressive system. Its foundation in Hinduism might have been based originally upon one's occupation, but it's really not clear. I think it might have its origin in the Hindu chakra system, just a shot in the dark. I think materialists should be locked up for their own safety--lol!
[/quote]


It was benign in relation to where it is today. There is a caste system everywhere based on education, wealth, ancestors etc. In some cultures, with special gifts in sports, the arts, etc. people can rise above it. There was the idea that civilizations were sunk by mixing castes. It was a case of the lower bringing the higher down not the higher raising the lower up. At least that was the theory.
[/quote]

I never thought of it that way.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 10:06 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 9:18 pm Physicists are been saying now that Spacetime is Doomed because the math shows that the universe is not fundamental unto itself.

This leads to the hard problem of finding out what is fundamental to the existence of the universe, and some are wondering if the two hard problems are related.

Therefore we cannot be certain that the universe is definitely a closed system as the idea that the universe is not a closed system is still a possibility and has not been ruled out by current scientific understanding. While the concept of a closed system, where the universe contains all the matter and energy that exists, is widely accepted, there is still much that we do not know about the universe and its underlying structure.

This is the sort of stuff that's really not helpful. It's systems all the way down! Or up; or whatever.

Is the system which contains our univese open or closed?
Is the system which contains the system which contains the system which contains our universe open or closed?

It's so much easier to just cut the bullshit. The Universe is everything; and everything has no choice but to be closed; otherwise it's everything inside more everything inside more everything ad infinitum.

Which basically means that any given "everything" is not everything. A misnomer.

This is the sort of stuff that's really not helpful. It's systems all the way down! Or up; or whatever.

Systems in every direction.
The information itself is helpful.

Is the system which contains our univese open or closed?

It would likely be open. More discussion would be necessary.

Is the system which contains the system which contains the system which contains our universe open or closed?

I would say that it is likely any system which can be shown to have a beginning, should be considered open.

It's so much easier to just cut the bullshit. The Universe is everything; and everything has no choice but to be closed; otherwise it's everything inside more everything inside more everything ad infinitum.

One can 'cut the BS' if it does not fit into belief-based bias. However, the math shows the physicist that this universe is not fundamental to itself, therefore belief that our universe is "everything" as a means of not having to deal with the likelihood that it isn't, is besides the point.
The best we can say is that everything in our universe is simply everything in our universe.

Which basically means that any given "everything" is not everything. A misnomer.

The post I made and you quoted does not mention the word "everything'. You just brought it into your argument - perhaps as a means to attempt to give your belief some legs.