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

[Gee]

Have you actually studied anything about reincarnation?

Enough to know that its probability status is exceedingly low.

I pose this question regularly, and no-one answers. <sigh> I'll try once more.

The above quotes, that you copied, are regarding reincarnation, but you have asked no question regarding reincarnation, so <sigh> what is your question?

You state here that the probability (of an afterlife) is "exceedingly low". Please describe the means you used to justify reaching this conclusion. What is it that convinced you that this probability is knowable, and known (by you, if no-one else), in a quantified form? Intuition? Statistics? Divine inspiration? What?

I find the probability of an "afterlife" to be exceedingly low for the same reasons that I find the idea that pink unicorns are running our government to be exceedingly low. There is no evidence of it and the logic of it is improbable.

You have stated, in language that leaves no room for flexibility or alternatives, that the probability status (?) of an afterlife is exceedingly low. Why did you do this? Do you seek to endow your words with greater authority, by making it seem as though you know what you're talking about? Do you simply 'exaggerate for effect'?

I did this because I believe that the probability of an afterlife is exceedingly low. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Do I think that I am wrong? No.

Denying an "afterlife" is not denying that consciousness can exist after death -- they are two different things.

Gee

[Count Lucanor]

I think that I am really tired of people, who deny that conscious experience exists after death. There is tons and tons of evidence that consciousness survives death. People who state there is no evidence obviously do not know what evidence is -- maybe they think that if they can not hold evidence in their hand it does not exist. Horsechit!

I am in complete agreement with what you say here, but it does seem reasonable to point out that, as well as evidence, there are standards of evidence. Thus, there are things that I might accept as evidence, and perhaps you might too, but a scientist would find them inadequate for their scientific use.

Isn't it ironic? I'm also tired, but of people who claim conscious experience exists after death and then present as evidence nothing testable, reliable. Pure nonsense.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am in complete agreement with what you say here, but it does seem reasonable to point out that, as well as evidence, there are standards of evidence. Thus, there are things that I might accept as evidence, and perhaps you might too, but a scientist would find them inadequate for their scientific use.

It has been my experience that people who consider themselves scientists sometimes reject claims of things paranormal because of their preconceived ideas of what is real.

Exactly. What we might accept as evidence just isn't adequate for the purposes of a working scientist. That isn't always the case, of course, but it is often so.

I also agree with your sentiment that a fixed perspective can sometimes make it difficult to see or appreciate novel discoveries.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think that I am really tired of people, who deny that conscious experience exists after death. There is tons and tons of evidence that consciousness survives death. People who state there is no evidence obviously do not know what evidence is -- maybe they think that if they can not hold evidence in their hand it does not exist. Horsechit!

I am in complete agreement with what you say here, but it does seem reasonable to point out that, as well as evidence, there are standards of evidence. Thus, there are things that I might accept as evidence, and perhaps you might too, but a scientist would find them inadequate for their scientific use.

No. That would only be reasonable in a science forum -- this is not a science forum. Science finds all evidence of consciousness inadequate, unless it can be reduced to the physical. That would be because science studies the physical.

Agreed. Thankfully, this is not a science forum. But I also stand by what I wrote, even if it applies to scientists, and not (necessarily) to philosophers. It is my view that science cannot adequately or meaningfully study consciousness ... or anything to do with human beings, once we stop thinking of them only as 'Newtonian' bio-machines for the purposes of analysis...

[Pattern-chaser]

You state here that the probability (of an afterlife) is "exceedingly low". Please describe the means you used to justify reaching this conclusion. What is it that convinced you that this probability is knowable, and known (by you, if no-one else), in a quantified form? Intuition? Statistics? Divine inspiration? What?

I find the probability of an "afterlife" to be exceedingly low for the same reasons that I find the idea that pink unicorns are running our government to be exceedingly low. There is no evidence of it and the logic of it is improbable.

But don't you see? I'm not asking *if* you find something unlikely, I'm asking for your justification for that judgement. I'm asking what are the statistics, or whatever, that justify your conclusion of "exceedingly low" probability?

It appears that you — and the rest of humanity! — are simply making judgements intuitively. Humans are very good at that, relatively speaking. We've had to acquire that ability, as best we can, because there are so very many things that we cannot and do not understand. I think that your judgement is wholly intuitive, lacking any specific justification.

I find it disappointing, as we all must, that I have no justification for my many intuitive judgements. But, given the necessity, I prefer to have my reasoning out in the open, and subject to conscious scrutiny. I prefer to know, and accept, when I'm guessing — for that's what intuitive judgements are, yes?

In the case of an afterlife, or unicorns, the likelihood of their actual existence is ... unknown. We consider it possible that both of these things could exist, but we have no means to proceed to a more precise judgement. There is no philosophical (or other) theory that would justify this. Specifically, we have no means to quantify the probability of unicorns existing. Either we admit this openly, or we guess. In the worst cases, we guess, but assume (pretend?) that our reasoning is sound, and underpinned; I suggest that it is not.



N.B. It is important to note that I am considering here things that we deem possible; if something can be shown, to our satisfaction, to be impossible, all bets are off, of course.

[Gee]

You state here that the probability (of an afterlife) is "exceedingly low". Please describe the means you used to justify reaching this conclusion. What is it that convinced you that this probability is knowable, and known (by you, if no-one else), in a quantified form? Intuition? Statistics? Divine inspiration? What?

I find the probability of an "afterlife" to be exceedingly low for the same reasons that I find the idea that pink unicorns are running our government to be exceedingly low. There is no evidence of it and the logic of it is improbable.

But don't you see? I'm not asking *if* you find something unlikely, I'm asking for your justification for that judgement. I'm asking what are the statistics, or whatever, that justify your conclusion of "exceedingly low" probability?

It appears that you — and the rest of humanity! — are simply making judgements intuitively. Humans are very good at that, relatively speaking. We've had to acquire that ability, as best we can, because there are so very many things that we cannot and do not understand. I think that your judgement is wholly intuitive, lacking any specific justification.

I find it disappointing, as we all must, that I have no justification for my many intuitive judgements. But, given the necessity, I prefer to have my reasoning out in the open, and subject to conscious scrutiny. I prefer to know, and accept, when I'm guessing — for that's what intuitive judgements are, yes?

In the case of an afterlife, or unicorns, the likelihood of their actual existence is ... unknown. We consider it possible that both of these things could exist, but we have no means to proceed to a more precise judgement. There is no philosophical (or other) theory that would justify this. Specifically, we have no means to quantify the probability of unicorns existing. Either we admit this openly, or we guess. In the worst cases, we guess, but assume (pretend?) that our reasoning is sound, and underpinned; I suggest that it is not.

N.B. It is important to note that I am considering here things that we deem possible; if something can be shown, to our satisfaction, to be impossible, all bets are off, of course.

Please note the sentence in your post that I highlighted in blue. I believe that one sentence displays the crux of our communication problem because you see science as giving us knowledge, whereas information that does not come from science is dubious and actually unknowable. Without the testing and validation of science, the information may be intuition, guessing, imagination, or another form of unvalidated, and possibly invalid, information -- therefore not reliable. This is problematic for you because information is either science, or it has no limits. Anything becomes possible, if you can imagine it, then it is possible, maybe even probable -- insanity becomes sane.

I like to use science also, but I understand that science is limited to the physical -- it is not the beginning and ending of knowledge. We have two other disciplines; philosophy, which studies the mental, knowledge, truth, etc.; and religion, which studies emotion. Science does not study consciousness, it studies the brain, so if you want information on consciousness, you will have to get it from the other disciplines.

So if you want to understand my justification regarding my statements, first we will have to settle some facts. What exactly do you think that the "afterlife" is? How would you describe it? I ask this because we will not be able to communicate well if we are talking past each other.

I await your response.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe that one sentence displays the crux of our communication problem because you see science as giving us knowledge, whereas information that does not come from science is dubious and actually unknowable.

...

I ask this because we will not be able to communicate well if we are talking past each other.

I've made the same point several times here (in this forum) recently, and I seem unable to find a comprehensible combination of words to describe it. Whatever I write, it seems, my point is missed. I'll try once again.

There are things that we believe to be possible, but otherwise wholly unknowable, such as (the possible existence of) an afterlife. We have no idea at all of how likely it is that there is an afterlife, and no way of obtaining that information. And yet we casually assert that "X is exceedingly unlikely" when we have no way of knowing if it is likely or unlikely. We quantify the unknowable in these assertions, and it is that act of unjustified and unjustifiable quantification, that claim to knowledge that we do not and cannot possess, that I comment on. We assert that the probability of being a brain-in-a-vat is "tiny" or "insignificant", when, for all we know, it is large and (thereby) highly significant.

When we come across novel ideas, especially those that are a bit different, we are subject to neophobic panic attacks. Our first response is often to dismiss it as unworthy of our attention, e.g. by asserting that it is 'vanishingly unlikely'. We seek to demean these ideas, so that we can dismiss them. But these assertions have no basis in logic or in reason. If we don't know, I think we should admit it clearly, and not pretend to knowledge that we don't and can't possess. That is my point.

I believe that one sentence displays the crux of our communication problem because you see science as giving us knowledge, whereas information that does not come from science is dubious and actually unknowable.

We are certainly talking past one another here, as you observe. I see science as a valuable tool that has proven its worth. It investigates apparent 'reality', and its results demonstrate its value. But it has limits too, as you are well aware, but many are not. For example, science is a poor and inappropriate tool for investigating the possibility of an afterlife. Science requires testable, repeatable, measurable, evidence, and there is none, so science cannot reach any useful or meaningful conclusions. How can/could it?

But this does not mean that information that does not come from science is "dubious and actually unknowable". In this topic, we know before we start that the subject is unknowable. That is a 'given', and nothing to do with whether it came via science or divine inspiration. And anything we glean during our speculations is not so much "dubious" as unjustifiable, due to its speculative nature and the lack of any evidence. The value of our speculations is not in our conclusions, for there are no justifiable conclusions to be had. The value lies in the journey, the points raised in our discussions, that often prove useful elsewhere, once we have been exposed to them. Or whatever.

It is my opinion that information gained from sources other than science is probably more valuable, as it is harder to obtain. Science treats the easy problems, the ones that come with plenty of evidence, along with repeatable and testable observations. The harder problems are left for philosophers, or they are dismissed without further consideration, and this dismissal often lacks justification, I think.

This is problematic for you because information is either science, or it has no limits. Anything becomes possible, if you can imagine it, then it is possible, maybe even probable -- insanity becomes sane.

This attitude is not one that I share. Any idea that we cannot show to be impossible remains a possibility, even if we can say no more about it than that. It is not the case, in my opinion, that anything is possible. Many things are impossible, and sometimes we are able to demonstrate that impossibility to our own satisfaction. In such cases, we dismiss the idea, because it is impossible. I.e. the justification for our dismissal is that it is impossible. This is a sound and reasonable justification, IMO.

But anything we cannot show to be impossible ... must be possible, yes? This applies until or unless new evidence comes to light. So, to use some of your words, if you can imagine it, and you cannot show it to be impossible, then it is possible. But we cannot comment on its probability, because we have no idea what that probability is. Thus, insanity is held at bay, and sanity is retained..

What exactly do you think that the "afterlife" is? How would you describe it?

Exactly? No idea. Inexactly, I think it is a possible successor to embodiment, a disembodied consciousness that continues differently from corporeal life. Is there much more to say?

[Tom Butler]

I like to use science also, but I understand that science is limited to the physical -- it is not the beginning and ending of knowledge. We have two other disciplines; philosophy, which studies the mental, knowledge, truth, etc.; and religion, which studies emotion. Science does not study consciousness, it studies the brain, so if you want information on consciousness, you will have to get it from the other disciplines.

Everything changed when it was shown that random physical processes can be changed with intention. For instance, research using Random Event Generators (REG) has shown that their output becomes more or less random in the presence of meditating people. Audio recorders use essentially the same electronic technology, as do most electronic scientific instruments. This is important because we see that (someone's) minds are capable of injecting unexpected order in random noise in the form of speech or images, depending on the frequency range.

If this is true, for scientists to study things physical, it is sometimes necessary for scientists to study the influence of thought on their equipment. I am not a scientist, but as an engineer, I have studied this machine-mind relationship in an effort to understand some of the phenomena we experience. Here is some of what I think is true:

> The principles organizing reality are knowable and can be studied like other principles. Cosmologies can be produced as "best practices" in metaphysics.

> I have become a reductionist, but my scope has moved from physicalism to dualism. If scientists are not considering dualistic principles, they may not be conducting science.

> As currently practiced, philosophy appears to be of an paradigm. The emerging paradigm is science as physical combined with consciousness studies

> Other than honoring nature, religion looks a lot like the rejection of personal responsibility.

[LuckyR]

I believe that one sentence displays the crux of our communication problem because you see science as giving us knowledge, whereas information that does not come from science is dubious and actually unknowable.

...

I ask this because we will not be able to communicate well if we are talking past each other.

I've made the same point several times here (in this forum) recently, and I seem unable to find a comprehensible combination of words to describe it. Whatever I write, it seems, my point is missed. I'll try once again.

There are things that we believe to be possible, but otherwise wholly unknowable, such as (the possible existence of) an afterlife. We have no idea at all of how likely it is that there is an afterlife, and no way of obtaining that information. And yet we casually assert that "X is exceedingly unlikely" when we have no way of knowing if it is likely or unlikely. We quantify the unknowable in these assertions, and it is that act of unjustified and unjustifiable quantification, that claim to knowledge that we do not and cannot possess, that I comment on. We assert that the probability of being a brain-in-a-vat is "tiny" or "insignificant", when, for all we know, it is large and (thereby) highly significant.

When we come across novel ideas, especially those that are a bit different, we are subject to neophobic panic attacks. Our first response is often to dismiss it as unworthy of our attention, e.g. by asserting that it is 'vanishingly unlikely'. We seek to demean these ideas, so that we can dismiss them. But these assertions have no basis in logic or in reason. If we don't know, I think we should admit it clearly, and not pretend to knowledge that we don't and can't possess. That is my point.

I believe that one sentence displays the crux of our communication problem because you see science as giving us knowledge, whereas information that does not come from science is dubious and actually unknowable.

We are certainly talking past one another here, as you observe. I see science as a valuable tool that has proven its worth. It investigates apparent 'reality', and its results demonstrate its value. But it has limits too, as you are well aware, but many are not. For example, science is a poor and inappropriate tool for investigating the possibility of an afterlife. Science requires testable, repeatable, measurable, evidence, and there is none, so science cannot reach any useful or meaningful conclusions. How can/could it?

But this does not mean that information that does not come from science is "dubious and actually unknowable". In this topic, we know before we start that the subject is unknowable. That is a 'given', and nothing to do with whether it came via science or divine inspiration. And anything we glean during our speculations is not so much "dubious" as unjustifiable, due to its speculative nature and the lack of any evidence. The value of our speculations is not in our conclusions, for there are no justifiable conclusions to be had. The value lies in the journey, the points raised in our discussions, that often prove useful elsewhere, once we have been exposed to them. Or whatever.

It is my opinion that information gained from sources other than science is probably more valuable, as it is harder to obtain. Science treats the easy problems, the ones that come with plenty of evidence, along with repeatable and testable observations. The harder problems are left for philosophers, or they are dismissed without further consideration, and this dismissal often lacks justification, I think.

This is problematic for you because information is either science, or it has no limits. Anything becomes possible, if you can imagine it, then it is possible, maybe even probable -- insanity becomes sane.

This attitude is not one that I share. Any idea that we cannot show to be impossible remains a possibility, even if we can say no more about it than that. It is not the case, in my opinion, that anything is possible. Many things are impossible, and sometimes we are able to demonstrate that impossibility to our own satisfaction. In such cases, we dismiss the idea, because it is impossible. I.e. the justification for our dismissal is that it is impossible. This is a sound and reasonable justification, IMO.

But anything we cannot show to be impossible ... must be possible, yes? This applies until or unless new evidence comes to light. So, to use some of your words, if you can imagine it, and you cannot show it to be impossible, then it is possible. But we cannot comment on its probability, because we have no idea what that probability is. Thus, insanity is held at bay, and sanity is retained..

What exactly do you think that the "afterlife" is? How would you describe it?

Exactly? No idea. Inexactly, I think it is a possible successor to embodiment, a disembodied consciousness that continues differently from corporeal life. Is there much more to say?

I (believe I) totally understand what you're saying. Though I personally look at the general topic differently. To me in the realm of the (at least currently) unknowable, which I would classify the presence or absence of an afterlife as, the use of terminology of probability of such existance is a description of the mindset of the author, not a description of the qualities of what is being attempted to be described. Thus asking for "proof" or "data" is misplaced in an area of opinion (due to a lack of data and proof).

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe that one sentence displays the crux of our communication problem because you see science as giving us knowledge, whereas information that does not come from science is dubious and actually unknowable.

...

I ask this because we will not be able to communicate well if we are talking past each other.

There are things that we believe to be possible, but otherwise wholly unknowable, such as (the possible existence of) an afterlife. We have no idea at all of how likely it is that there is an afterlife, and no way of obtaining that information. And yet we casually assert that "X is exceedingly unlikely" when we have no way of knowing if it is likely or unlikely. We quantify the unknowable in these assertions, and it is that act of unjustified and unjustifiable quantification, that claim to knowledge that we do not and cannot possess, that I comment on. We assert that the probability of being a brain-in-a-vat is "tiny" or "insignificant", when, for all we know, it is large and (thereby) highly significant.

When we come across novel ideas, especially those that are a bit different, we are subject to neophobic panic attacks. Our first response is often to dismiss it as unworthy of our attention, e.g. by asserting that it is 'vanishingly unlikely'. We seek to demean these ideas, so that we can dismiss them. But these assertions have no basis in logic or in reason. If we don't know, I think we should admit it clearly, and not pretend to knowledge that we don't and can't possess. That is my point.

I didn't write the above out of pedantry; that would be petty. I see a bigger issue here.

Some topics discuss things that science cannot; I call this Speculative Philosophy. [In general, philosophy that is not Analytic Philosophy.] These are topics that are not subject to testing or verification, because there is no evidence to allow this. They are difficult topics to consider, for these and other reasons.

But there is a strand of thought that says these things are too silly to be given serious consideration. Those who feel thus often try to avoid or suppress the discussion of such matters. One way to do this is to indulge in a sort of ad hominem attack, except it isn't quite that. The attack targets the message, not the messenger, but it uses the same tools that an ad hom might use: ridicule and humiliation, in an attempt to diminish, demean, or undermine the targeted idea.

Deeper still, we encounter the Sciencist meme that says that any problem that cannot be treated using the methods and techniques of science is not fit for serious consideration, and should not be permitted. [I had to leave an old forum after it became like this, and non-scientific ideas were no longer tolerated.]

Back at our starting point, to casual dismissals of ideas such as an afterlife, or God, or the possibility that we are simulations in a simulated 'reality'. We pretend, or at least assert, that these ideas are "vanishingly unlikely" when we have no means to quantify that probability. When we do this, we are simply fabricating a 'reason' for dismissing the ideas, when there really is no such reason.

This is the start of the path that leads to the banning of non-scientific topics, and that's why I often comment to oppose it. Considered overall, it constitutes an attack on Speculative Philosophy. So I write stuff like this in defence (as I see it) of Speculative Philosophy, and not for reasons as trivial as pedantry.

[Tom Butler]

Pattern-chaser I am glad you commented on this. I have "left" this board several times because I have felt unable to connect with others here at an intellectual level. Pattern-chaser, I will say that you are amongst the few who seemingly comprehend my point ... albeit without comment.

One of the most important means by which we are able to manage our comprehension is to guide our point of view. For instance, if everyone here agreed the world is flat, we might never explore the possibility that it at least has some characteristics of roundness. In the same sense, if we all accepted the assumptions that mind is the product of brain, it would be unlikely that duality would ever be explored.

I have the notion that reality from the physical perspective has characteristics of duality. My posts here have been designed to invite exploration of that notion. At this time, my assumption is that you all are religiously physicalists and are either incapable of imagining dualism or you can and deign communicating with someone who speaks of it as I do.

Two important characteristics of my point of view is that reality is a continuum (science and knowing are two sides of the same coin) and it is organized according to knowable principles. Somewhere I hope to find people who are intellectually able to explore those ideas.

[Pattern-chaser]

For instance, if everyone here agreed the world is flat, we might never explore the possibility that it at least has some characteristics of roundness. In the same sense, if we all accepted the assumptions that mind is the product of brain, it would be unlikely that duality would ever be explored.

I have the notion that reality from the physical perspective has characteristics of duality. My posts here have been designed to invite exploration of that notion. At this time, my assumption is that you all are religiously physicalists and are either incapable of imagining dualism or you can and deign communicating with someone who speaks of it as I do.

Dualism, as a perspective of convenience, is valid and useful, IMO. But, if dualism says that "there is A and there is B, and the two are distinct and independent", then I deem it a damaging concept, to be opposed.

[Tom Butler]

Dualism, as a perspective of convenience, is valid and useful, IMO. But, if dualism says that "there is A and there is B, and the two are distinct and independent", then I deem it a damaging concept, to be opposed.

For every term, there seems to be someone in the world who has an unexpected understanding.

The definition I have worked with for the pasty 50 years is that Physicalism is defined as that which has evolved out of the singularity popularly known as "The Big Bang." It is addressed by physical science: all that is, is physical; else it is imagination. For instance, the dominant group of editors I have previously encountered in Wikipedia hold that, if physical scientists (mainstream) do not specifically define something, it is not real and cannot be.

The simple alternative is that there are other aspects of reality of which the physical is well-considered an aspect. In parapsychology, a concept known as Psi is used to characterize thought - more correctly, the influence of thought. Parapsychologists further theorize that thought (Psi) is propagated in an aspect of reality they tentatively describe as the Psi Field. Characteristics of the Psi Field include apparent nonlocality (everywhere is here), ubiquity (unable to shield from Psi) and conceptual, meaning that thought is about ideas concerning the physical something.

(I have demonstrated all of these characteristics in my own work.)

While brain is physical. mind is often described as nonphysical. Therein is the physical-nonphysical dualism intended by "Dualism." Reality is considered continuous, but the nature of continuity between physical and nonphysical is not understood. Except to say that the physical appears to be an aspect of the etheric which the etheric is considered the greater reality or reality field.

So no, I do not intend an independence between physical and dualism. For the sake of discussion, I intend a difference which represent a difference in the way we model reality. Think fish view of reality and angle view of reality.

I am glad you commented. There cannot be communication without shared terminology.

[Tom Butler]

Thinking more about my previous post, it may be useful to elaborate a little. My concern is with the idea that if "there is A and there is B, and the two are distinct and independent" you think it is a damaging concept.

In principle, there is A and there is B. Consider quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics are not my field and you may be more familiar with the principles. For completeness, I will use them as a reference. Consider the lase function. When an atom is hit with a single photon, an electron "jumps" to a higher energy state. When it is hit with a second photon, the electron drops back to its original energy state and the atom emits two photons. In that sense, the energy state of the atom is either A or B.

Some scientists are proposing that reality is organized as quantum-like states, and argue that, in fact, quantum mechanics represents the operative principles organizing the difference between physical and nonphysical -- brain and mind.



The ancients modeled reality as a sort of "layer cake" composed of levels or planes of existence. The idea is that plants are a distinct level of existence from the mineral or animal kingdoms. The mental represents a distinct level from the emotional states of mind, and so on.

The Psi Field is decidedly not physical in the sense of atoms and physical forces. However, it is not clear if it emerges from the physical or if it is a precursor of the physical. That is an important question. Does the arrow of creation fly from some creative source "outside of the physical universe (nonphysical) or does it fly from the Big Bang? Is mind an emergent property of biological brain or is biological brain an emergent quality of mind? As with being in the same atom, these are all in a continuum, but there are decidedly different states.



While it does appear quantum mechanics are a useful model for some aspects of reality, I prefer comparing reality to fractal and chaos theory. For instance, the Mandelbrot Set is navigated by changing initial assumptions. https://ethericstudies.org/morphic-fields/ I also think reality is best modeled as fields. In fields, the relationship between states is not a quantum jump, but rather, a change in influence. That agrees with thought as an influence rather than a thing.

So you can see. I think the physical is a special case of reality and not the norm for reality.

[Pattern-chaser]

Thinking more about my previous post, it may be useful to elaborate a little. My concern is with the idea that if "there is A and there is B, and the two are distinct and independent" you think it is a damaging concept.

One thing that I believe about Life, the Universe, and Everything is that — sticking to the Douglas Adams theme — you can extrapolate the Universe from a piece of fairy cake. More seriously, Life, the Universe, and Everything is One Thing, one inextricably-internally-interconnected thing, not a collection of things, and definitely not a collection of independent and unconnected things. Holism.

It is for this reason that I am careful of dualism, what we mean by it, and how we use it. The Sun and the Moon are parts of the whole, as everything is, but it is convenient to distinguish between them so that we can, for example, refer easily in conversation to one or the other, but not to both. The same applies to the physical and the non-physical, or any pair of 'things' we might choose to consider. This is a useful convenience, so it has value.

But to consider the Moon (for example) in isolation, as an independent and unconnected thing, is incorrect, IMO, and therefore likely to lead to dubious or wrong conclusions. For that reason I oppose such reductionist attitudes; they are unhelpful and inconvenient, so they have no value.