Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

An absolute idealist does not even believe in a "beginning", as beginning is a function of time. True, some experiencers experience beginnings , and I claim that experience itself is the only absolute.That there is absolute experience is not the same claim as that there is supernatural order of being,

The beginning is prior to manifestation, it is not the start of existence.

I do think Plotinus is more accurate here, he says the process is constantly going on not some event in the past.

Again though, the point is that we're speaking on the same things philosophy is really about.

If one is rational then all can be approached in the same way.

But what manifests is not physical existence ; it's a subjective experience, and cannot be otherwise. This that appears to manifest the experience of an experiencer is never the same in time, place, or that of any other subject of experience.
True, the discoveries of science are huge and significant. However these discoveries of science define , describe, and explain only insofar as the question is framed in a frame built from previous discoveries and according to man made rules of reason.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you want to know why the word spirituality is mostly associated with "God" ideas, it is because religion is the only discipline that actually studies emotion, so it has most of the interpretations to give emotion form. Science pretty much ignores emotion, and philosophy tries to turn emotion into knowledge, but emotion defies defining.

Gee

That is an interesting and useful insight whose relevance and use is not restricted to this topic. Thanks.

[Lagayascienza]

Science pretty much ignores emotion

Really? Are you serious?

Science studies the brain, the substrate wherein emotion arises. It studies consciousness through which we become aware of emotion. It studies disease - mental illnesses which are overwhelmingly about emotional stability/instability that so seriously affect peoples' lives. The comment that "science pretty much ignores emotion" is so misguided it's not even wrong!

[Sculptor1]

Why are you referencing the Bible?
It's odd given the thread subject.
If you think he is reflecting Platonic cosmology then please cite properly. I've never seen John used in any serious philosophical discussion.

Again, I was trying to show that what others consider supernatural is nothing of the sort...

You're too hung up on your ideas about religion to consider the point though...

You want to feel superior because you're above all that...

You have no clue about that.

I asked you to cite your claims.
You may say nothing whatever about what I do and do not "have a clue about" since we have barely scratched the surface of a topic which you, yourself have made spurious claims about.

[FrankSophia]

I asked you to cite your claims.
You may say nothing whatever about what I do and do not "have a clue about" since we have barely scratched the surface of a topic which you, yourself have made spurious claims about.

I assumed you had a clue about philosophy, but John 1 says everything was made by the Logos thus positioning Jesus as the demiurge... this is pretty basic stuff.

The only reason you think it's absurd is your own lack of understanding of what is intended.

[Gee]

Science pretty much ignores emotion

Really? Are you serious?

As a heart attack.

Science studies the brain,

This part is true.

the substrate wherein emotion arises.

This part is not even valid theory; although, you may be able to call it a hypothesis.

It studies consciousness through which we become aware of emotion.

More theory. My theory is that the brain makes us aware of these things in much the same way my TV antennae makes us aware of TV shows.

It studies disease - mental illnesses which are overwhelmingly about emotional stability/instability that so seriously affect peoples' lives.

Yes. A bad antennae can make a mess of a TV show.

The comment that "science pretty much ignores emotion" is so misguided it's not even wrong!

Well, this is true. "It is not even wrong."

What science does with emotion is that it mislabels it, so that it can dismiss it. It is much like what white people did with black people years ago. They determined that black people were not really human, they were just animals, so they did not have to treat them with human dignities.

Science has determined that emotion is just part of consciousness, actually, just a by-product of consciousness. The problem with this thinking is that it denies the power that emotion has, even the power over life and death -- consciousness (thought) does not have that kind of power.

Emotion is a force, you could even say it is a life force, but science is not even close to admitting that. Thousands of years ago, people realized that emotion was a force, so they wondered what caused this force, what directed this force, and what was the purpose of it. These kinds of questions helped lead us to interpretations of "God" ideas. Today, we know that we are soooo much smarter than the geniuses and brilliant minds that passed before us, so we can discount their thoughts.

I wonder; if science ever figures out that emotion is a force, then would that make emotion physical?

Gee

[chewybrian]

My theory is that the brain makes us aware of these things in much the same way my TV antennae makes us aware of TV shows.

It studies disease - mental illnesses which are overwhelmingly about emotional stability/instability that so seriously affect peoples' lives.

Yes. A bad antennae can make a mess of a TV show...Gee

I like the antenna idea, and it brings to mind Aldous Huxley. He said that we were all able to see everything around us at any given time, but it wouldn't make sense to us if we did. This was a little like his experiences on drugs, and it would be like the antenna giving us all the channels at the same time. Instead, we learn and are taught to filter out the noise and jam our experiences into models so that we can categorize and understand them and act quickly in sync with our goals. He says that this is one of the great attributes of man, and also one of his great failings.

The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main
eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever
happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function
of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of
largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or
remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be
practically useful...

Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which
he has been born - the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of
other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is
the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for
data, his words for actual things. That which, in the language of religion, is called "this world" is the
universe of reduced awareness, expressed, and, as it were, petrified by language. The various "other
worlds," with which human beings erratically make contact are so many elements in the totality of the
awareness belonging to Mind at Large. Most people, most of the time, know only what comes through
the reducing valve and is consecrated as genuinely real by the local language. Certain persons, however,
seem to be born with a kind of by-pass that circumvents the reducing valve. In others temporary
bypasses may be acquired either spontaneously, or as the result of deliberate "spiritual exercises," or
through hypnosis, or by means of drugs. Through these permanent or temporary by-passes there flows,
not indeed the perception "of everything that is happening everywhere in the universe" (for the by-pass
does not abolish the reducing valve, which still excludes the total content of Mind at Large), but
something more than, and above ah something different from, the carefully selected utilitarian material
which our narrowed, individual minds regard as a complete, or at least sufficient, picture of reality. Huxley, "The Doors of Perception"

[Sy Borg]

Agreed. People get confused about "spiritual". And that was the reason I posted this topic for discussion. In future, if anyone of wants to question my atheism in light of my meditation practice I shall refer back to this thread so I have some quick answers.

I don't think you need worry convincing anyone who is confused enough to believe that meditation and atheism are mutually exclusive. If they are unaware of of transcendental mediation, how seriously have they considered the topic? A true atheist is no more valid a notion than a true Scotsman.

I think Dawkins made a good point that everyone is an atheist, eg. Christians are atheist to Hinduism. Theists simply disbelieve one less deity than so-called atheists.

There is an exception to this, the generalised spiritualist who believes that all religions are correct in their own way and essentially point towards the same phenomena, eg. Gandhi.

[Sculptor1]

I asked you to cite your claims.
You may say nothing whatever about what I do and do not "have a clue about" since we have barely scratched the surface of a topic which you, yourself have made spurious claims about.

I assumed you had a clue about philosophy, but John 1 says everything was made by the Logos thus positioning Jesus as the demiurge... this is pretty basic stuff.

The only reason you think it's absurd is your own lack of understanding of what is intended.

I asked you to site.
Do you know what "cite" means?

[Sy Borg]

Frank, why would an ancient myth positing that its hero is a demiurge be philosophically important? How does that differ from, say, the Aboriginal rainbow serpent that created the world?

[FrankSophia]

I asked you to site.
Do you know what "cite" means?

Sure, but there's nothing to cite.

It's too basic, you're just this dumb.

[FrankSophia]

Frank, why would an ancient myth positing that its hero is a demiurge be philosophically important? How does that differ from, say, the Aboriginal rainbow serpent that created the world?

Does this pass for intellectual in your mind?

Do you even know what philosophy actually is, because I'm pointing at Plato who defined the term...

If you have nothing to do with this you're just not a philosopher at all.

[Sy Borg]

Frank, why would an ancient myth positing that its hero is a demiurge be philosophically important? How does that differ from, say, the Aboriginal rainbow serpent that created the world?

Does this pass for intellectual in your mind?

Do you even know what philosophy actually is, because I'm pointing at Plato who defined the term...

If you have nothing to do with this you're just not a philosopher at all.

Not tolerated on this forum!

[Lagayascienza]

I still don't understand how the bald assertion that "science pretty much ignores emotion" could be true.

The TV antenna idea of consciousness is interesting but I'm wondering what evidence there is to support it.

The assertion that "What science does with emotion is that it mislabels it, so that it can dismiss it", just seems wrong to me. I think it at least requires evidence to support it.

In the past there have been certain modes of inquiry such as behaviorism that were somewhat wrong headed in ignoring anything but observable behaviour (such as behaviour that reflected emotional states) and for not examining mental processes. But this approach was demonstrated by further science to be limited and as a result the science of psychology has progressed. Science is very much at the forefront in the study of consciousness and its attendant phenomena.

[Gee]

I still don't understand how the bald assertion that "science pretty much ignores emotion" could be true.

The TV antenna idea of consciousness is interesting but I'm wondering what evidence there is to support it.

The assertion that "What science does with emotion is that it mislabels it, so that it can dismiss it", just seems wrong to me. I think it at least requires evidence to support it.

In the past there have been certain modes of inquiry such as behaviorism that were somewhat wrong headed in ignoring anything but observable behaviour (such as behaviour that reflected emotional states) and for not examining mental processes. But this approach was demonstrated by further science to be limited and as a result the science of psychology has progressed. Science is very much at the forefront in the study of consciousness and its attendant phenomena.

It is late and I am going to bed, but I will try to address this post tomorrow.

Gee