Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Consul]

An ontological nondualism as a philosophy of absolute indistinction is either nihilistic by denying the world's existence or minimalistic by positing one world which is a mereologically and ontologically structureless "blob", i.e. an absolutely simple thing that hasn't any spatial, temporal, or modal parts, such that it doesn't exhibit any internal differentiation or local variation.

(A "modal part" of a thing is an attribute/property/quality instantiated or possessed by it . "Modal" is derived from "mode", meaning "way of being".)

[Felix]

Consul: "The limits of biology are the limits of life."

Thing is, there are practically no limits to biology here on Earth, we've found organisms that can survive under the most extreme environmental conditions. For example, the microscopic tardigrade, or water bear, can survive heat, cold, desiccation, lack of oxygen and radiation. This tiny animal has even been shown to survive a 10-day trip into space.

What's more, the line between living and non-living terrestrial organisms is blurry, e.g., two-dimensional "living" crystals, viruses, you name it.

Consul: "All forms of life we know are carbon-based, and whether non-carbon-based forms are possible is an open question."

Yes, non-carbon-based life forms were considered in the debate I mentioned, and authorities from disciplines besides biology participated in the conversation, e.g., astrophysicists.

Consul: "As for communication as the exchange of signs or messages, it always requires some kind of stimulus-receiving sense organ and some information-encoding and -transmitting physical medium such as sound waves; so extraterrestrial organisms couldn't communicate telepathically, no matter how highly developed they are."

A wide variety of physical mediums are possible, including electromagnetic and electrochemical mediums, e.g., the rather primitive chemical messaging system of ants, not to mention visual and auditory frequencies well beyond the range of human sight and hearing. And what physical medium would extrasensory communication involve?

[BigBango]

An ontological nondualism as a philosophy of absolute indistinction is either nihilistic by denying the world's existence or minimalistic by positing one world which is a mereologically and ontologically structureless "blob", i.e. an absolutely simple thing that hasn't any spatial, temporal, or modal parts, such that it doesn't exhibit any internal differentiation or local variation.

(A "modal part" of a thing is an attribute/property/quality instantiated or possessed by it . "Modal" is derived from "mode", meaning "way of being".)

Well said Consul. You hit the "oneness" of Tamminen's subjective consciousness on the head. You also slayed Felix's diversion into mysticism. There may be much truth in both Tamminen's and Felix's positions but their exposition of what they believe is not based on a tool kit that exemplifies a Western Philosophical understanding of reality. Management should boot them to the religious forums.

[Karpel Tunnel]

what they believe is not based on a tool kit that exemplifies a Western Philosophical understanding of reality. Management should boot them to the religious forums.

Western Philosophical understanding of reality includes Heraclitus, Spinoza, Plato - with the Forms, realists, Berkley's subjective idealis,, Rationalists of various kinds and now includes things that were not Western before in the globalization of memes.....it's all over the place.

[Felix]

BigBango: "Management should boot them to the religious forums."

This is the metaphysics forum, you seem to think that the term refers strictly to empirical speculations.

Metaphysics: The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

You could take your posts to the Science forum but they would be ridiculed there.

[BigBango]

BigBango: "Management should boot them to the religious forums."

This is the metaphysics forum, you seem to think that the term refers strictly to empirical speculations.

Metaphysics: The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

You could take your posts to the Science forum but they would be ridiculed there.

Felix you have a misconception about what metaphysics is in the Western Philosophical paradigm. The term "Metaphysics" just refers to what Aristotle wrote "after/meta" his treatise on physics. In contemporary philosophy it means one's exposition about the nature of objects in one's philosophy.

Kant made it clear for Western Philosophers in his "Prolegomena for any Future Metaphysics" what was acceptable metaphysics, that with an empirical hook, rather than the infinitely debatable ramblings of his contemporary philosophers.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Felix you have a misconception about what metaphysics is in the Western Philosophical paradigm. The term "Metaphysics" just refers to what Aristotle wrote "after/meta" his treatise on physics. In contemporary philosophy it means one's exposition about the nature of objects in one's philosophy.

Kant made it clear for Western Philosophers in his "Prolegomena for any Future Metaphysics" what was acceptable metaphysics, that with an empirical hook, rather than the infinitely debatable ramblings of his contemporary philosophers.

There are a couple of issues here. Sloppy rambling is a problem, sure. On the other hand, we don't have to listen to Kant's idea that 'our' metaphysics must have an empirical hook. Or what particular people think qualifies as that. Neither one must we do.

[BigBango]

Felix you have a misconception about what metaphysics is in the Western Philosophical paradigm. The term "Metaphysics" just refers to what Aristotle wrote "after/meta" his treatise on physics. In contemporary philosophy it means one's exposition about the nature of objects in one's philosophy.

Kant made it clear for Western Philosophers in his "Prolegomena for any Future Metaphysics" what was acceptable metaphysics, that with an empirical hook, rather than the infinitely debatable ramblings of his contemporary philosophers.

There are a couple of issues here. Sloppy rambling is a problem, sure. On the other hand, we don't have to listen to Kant's idea that 'our' metaphysics must have an empirical hook. Or what particular people think qualifies as that. Neither one must we do.

Sure, KT, you are exactly correct. "Neither one must we do". There is an "upside" to that, KT, and that upside unleashes our imagination. I am all for that. There is also a downside. The downside is how do we convince other thinkers that what our "unleashed" imagination has produced has any credibility?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Sure, KT, you are exactly correct. "Neither one must we do". There is an "upside" to that, KT, and that upside unleashes our imagination. I am all for that. There is also a downside. The downside is how do we convince other thinkers that what our "unleashed" imagination has produced has any credibility?

I think convincing, in the abstract, happens rarely. IOW I might be able to convince a roomate I didn't eat the sandwich they left in the fridge or at least present some other likely scenarios. Concrete convincing can happen quite a bit between people who know each other. But convincing people that this or that paradigm is true or even potentially true is a very different kind of challenge. You can present the ideas...and see if interest is arroused. Empirical results of course can help. Most religions and spiritualities, and certainly for example shamanistic ones, require long term practices. To get someone without interest to try this is nearly impossible. The practices leads to the person finding or not that the model leads to experiencing everyday life differently. Which in not to say that the arguments need an empirical hook. But beliefs and trying them on will generally have empirical consequences, just as everyone's metaphysical beliefs affect how they filter interpret focus on life and its parts. Which is different from saying one needs to produce observations of God or ghosts or whatever in a lab. Another approach is to focus on their metaphysics. A lot of people think they do not have metaphysical beliefs, but they do. If those can be undermied, well that might lead to an openness about something else. One might also notice that on already has beliefs that were not acquired via the epistemology one expects others to demonstrate. But at some point the interest curiosity willingness to exploration, heck even desperation, needs to be engaged. And that you can't control. I think it is generally pointless to try to convince, except in that it might halp one understand oneself how one arribed at beliefs what they entail how it is consistant with other beliefs and more. IOW the other person is unlikly to change their minds but thay may help you streamline yours.

[Consul]

On the other hand, we don't have to listen to Kant's idea that 'our' metaphysics must have an empirical hook. Or what particular people think qualifies as that. Neither one must we do.

Metaphysical theorizing ought to be consistent with, informed and constrained by our empirical knowledge! Antiscientific metaphysics ought to be "committed to the flames"!

[Karpel Tunnel]

On the other hand, we don't have to listen to Kant's idea that 'our' metaphysics must have an empirical hook. Or what particular people think qualifies as that. Neither one must we do.

Metaphysical theorizing ought to be consistent with, informed and constrained by our empirical knowledge! Antiscientific metaphysics ought to be "committed to the flames"!

And presumably this ought - for example that we would be better off consigning to the flames metaphysical ideas that you think are anti-scientific to the flames is demonstrated by scientific research. IOW we know through empirical research that if we threw out ideas you dislike thing would be better. Or is it only ok when you speculate.

Further there is implicit binary thinking in your 'antiscientific' metaphysics. The metaphysics in the various scientific models, including in physics is not monolothic. There is a lot of metaphysics that does not contradict scientific models but is presumed to because it doesn't seem deducable from current models - some of which do not fit with each other already. So people want to burn and aim their rage at things because they think they contradict, when they often do not. This is in part the conflating of not matching the most commonly accepted model with being disproven. Though it goes often beyond even that.

[Felix]

Consul: Metaphysical theorizing ought to be consistent with, informed and constrained by our empirical knowledge! Antiscientific metaphysics ought to be "committed to the flames"!

You'll have to also dispense with much of the metaphysical theorizing of modern physics on subjects such as particle physics, quantum mechanics, and cosmology, that have not been empirically substantiated.

[Atla]

No, it doesn't. I guess you could say from a Western perspective that Eastern nondualism is basically "monistic" or looks "monistic", however it also has no actual separations, no divisions.

If you want something that is absurd, you call everything the same thing. So black is white, white is black. Beware next time you cross the road.

You totally missed the point as usual. I didn't say that everything is the same, just that there are no known separations, divisions. Human thinking makes it seem like there are.

[Atla]

An ontological nondualism as a philosophy of absolute indistinction is either nihilistic by denying the world's existence or minimalistic by positing one world which is a mereologically and ontologically structureless "blob", i.e. an absolutely simple thing that hasn't any spatial, temporal, or modal parts, such that it doesn't exhibit any internal differentiation or local variation.

(A "modal part" of a thing is an attribute/property/quality instantiated or possessed by it . "Modal" is derived from "mode", meaning "way of being".)

Ontological nondualism has nothing to do with absolute indistinction.

Carry on..

[Atla]

But even to say that rocks experience "chaotic flashes of light and dark or whatever" is to say that they are capable of conscious vision, that they see things through undergoing or "enjoying" visual appearances/impressions of them. But how can an eyeless&nerveless&brainless thing such as a rock possibly receive&process any optical signals and turn them into subjective color-impressions?

In other words you as a materialist argued that in human heads, something goes beyond the physical. There is this mental subject there, capable of conscious vision, of undergoing subjective color-impressions.