Thelemic Materialism (Thelemic Philosophy)
-
@Legis said
"but matter/energy existing in what?"
Nobody knows. It’s quite possible that matter/energy doesn’t exist “in” anything at all. It might be all that exists.
"And I come to time and space too. And for me, those things are measurements. There's a sort of empty reality of pure-matrix-for-relationship that is no less real for being empty. And to me, these are qualities of consciousness."
Ah, the old “I don’t know what the answer is so I’ll randomly declare that it must be consciousness” argument.
Even if this conclusion of yours wasn’t a gross logical error, there would be another problem: if matter/energy exists in consciousness, then what does that consciousness exist in? Maybe more matter/energy. Hmm, but what would this more matter/energy exist in? Etc.
Maybe it’s matter all the way down. Either way, we’re back to “nobody knows,” which is the only honest answer.
"So, at the end of the day, I'm a monist because I can't think of any more fundamental aspect of the universe than consciousness"
This is a textbook argument from ignorance. “I can’t think of any answer but X, so it must be X” is a logical fallacy.
-
The Orch OR model has consciousness starting from energy,
navigating spacetime (writing and reading various bit's of 'qualia' as it goes)
then it hits the microtubules in your brain and body (hello gravity - bye bye super-position)
and voila - you have consciousness inside of a fleshy body (be that a man or paramecium).So consciousness is an emergent property of the universe rather than a causal property by this account.
If consciousness exists just as one of those things that pop up in the universe (most especially local to planets), then it has nothing else to do but observe the stars and get spaghettified by the odd black hole - except on earth where it found all the building blocks of life and gave itself a project.
Hello consciousness!
HELLO WORLD.
-
NO-body expects the Spanish Inquisition!
http://media.avclub.com/images/433/433015/16x9/627.jpg?6905
Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!
lol...
You say, "field," and I say, "mind."
I say, "consciousness," and you say, "time."
"Field," "Mind"
"Consciousness," "Time"
Let's call the whole thing o-off...You say, "energy," I say "vibration."
You say, "matter," ...I say "prima ...materia."
Let's call the whole thing o-off...But Oh..., if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part,
And Oh..., if we ever part
That would break my heart...I say "Thelema," you say "Thelema"
Sugar, what's the problem?
For we know we need each other so
We'd better call the calling off off...Oh let's call it off,
Oh let's call it off
Oh let's let's call the whole thing off -
hahaha Gold.
-
@Los said
"Either way, we’re back to “nobody knows,” which is the only honest answer."
There is this thing that exists that we try to use words to understand.
Your version serves to protect you and those who use it from getting lost in certain kinds of experience. I can respect that, as I've had to learn to put my holy foot down against certain kinds of experiences myself.
It worries me, though (and very honestly), that your version may eventually serve in an attempt disconnect you and others from the full experience of the Universe, which further worries me (and very honestly) that it may ultimately serve the function of building a large Black Tower, so to speak. That being said, I don't exist inside your full conception, and I can't actually see whether or not that is the case. That's just what the potential looks like to me from my outside perspective.
I've already had enough proof for myself that I am inexorably connected to everything else. Prove it to you? The proof isn't really of a nature that can be forced upon another. There seems to be somewhere a rather holy and inviolable set of "rules" against that kind of thing - protection of sanity and all that. And if I hadn't been through it all myself, I think your words might carry more weight with me.
But as it is, my experiences simply* require *a more Unified Theory of Everything that involves not only matter/energy and space/time but also consciousness at the most fundamental levels.
There simply is no way for me to go backward into a theory that does not include consciousness at a fundamental level, barring some damage to my own memory and the reintroduction of doubts that have already been shattered.
-
@Legis said
"I've already had enough proof for myself that I am inexorably connected to everything else."
I wonder if you’re talking about the one-with-everything feeling, which is, of course, extremely easy to generate (and is, at a deeper level, the none-with-everything-and-nothing feeling).
If that’s what you’re talking about, then you’re fundamentally confusing two things: just because you feel one with everything doesn’t mean you actually are one with everything.
It all depends on what we mean by the words. If you just mean that “I” emerge from the blind, purposeless, mechanical laws of the universe and that “I” and everything “I” do is all part of that system and that individuality is just an idea and that it’s actually impossible to draw a firm boundary between “I” and “not I” since the whole universe ultimately is probably nothing more than a lot of particles bumping up against each other…then sure, I’m “one with everything” in that sense.
But if you mean that “everything is consciousness” or that my mind is somehow “linked” to the universe or that if I think really hard I can make coincidences happen or that I can learn information about the universe by closing my eyes and murmuring a bunch of mantras or that rocks are really “conscious” and I’m “linked” to them and can “talk” to them…then no, nobody is “one with everything” in that sense.
I appreciate it really feels that way to you, but feelings alone can’t demonstrate to anybody – least of all you – that it’s actually the case.
-
-sings-
Feelings ...
Nothing more than feelings... -
Los,
At some point, I just can no longer accept the pure randomness that probability requires to justify itself as an explanation for some things in my life.
A theory of reality that involves consciousness at a fundamental level just begins to make more sense.
It's simpler, cleaner, more theoretically elegant.
And you can doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt, doubt, and think that I'm just interpreting events wrong or being tricked by my own brain. That's your right, and I respect that.
But you just don't get the final say.
-
@Legis said
"A theory of reality that involves consciousness at a fundamental level just begins to make more sense."
Except that, as our above conversation demonstrates, you’re incapable of explaining why it makes sense without tripping all over yourself in making logical error after logical error.
That means that nobody – including you – has any reason to think it does “make more sense” – or any kind of sense for that matter.
Obviously, you’re free to do whatever you’d like to do, even if what you’d like to do is believe a bunch of silly stuff for no better reason than that it appeals to you. But if you start having a conversation on a message board designed for having conversations (what a novel concept, eh?), then you have no right to complain when people ask you to explain your position and then point out exactly how you’ve failed to do so.
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"A theory of reality that involves consciousness at a fundamental level just begins to make more sense."Except that, as our above conversation demonstrates, you’re incapable of explaining why it makes sense without tripping all over yourself in making logical error after logical error.
That means that nobody – including you – has any reason to think it does “make more sense” – or any kind of sense for that matter.
Obviously, you’re free to do whatever you’d like to do, even if what you’d like to do is believe a bunch of silly stuff for no better reason than that it appeals to you. But if you start having a conversation on a message board designed for having conversations (what a novel concept, eh?), then you have no right to complain when people ask you to explain your position and then point out exactly how you’ve failed to do so."
A: Let's not pretend for one split second that you're able to be satisfied in this matter with anything but someone's complete submission to you own worldview.
B: I've already had this out with you - how you define "reason," "evidence," "proof..." It's all biased. It's all belief. It's all just what "appeals to you." I don't bow to the demands of Los. I refuse to try to justify my beliefs to your own self-reinforcing and purposefully exclusionary standards every single time I refer to them. And I'm not going to stop referring to them. I'm going to talk about what I think every damn day.
You don't get to demand that I either shut up *or *satisfy the demands of your personal worldview every time I open my mouth.
NEITHER IS GOING TO HAPPEN
EVER
-
You appear to be laboring under the delusion that I care one way or another what you do.
-
@Los said
"You appear to be laboring under the delusion that I care one way or another what you do."
Los, you show up here constantly for the self-stated purpose of presenting a divergent opinion. You care intensely what is done here. Indeed, if we are to believe you, your Will is to react to what is said here, so just save the rhetorical jabs. They're just empty words that don't match your actions and passion.
But just to get this part out of the way....
Scenario:
Empty Space and two particles.
The two particles are 1 centimeter apart. One second later, the particles are 1 meter apart.
In this scenario, a change occurs in space and time. No one is around to witness it, but the change occurs in Reality itself. Who knows it happened? No person. The Reality has simply changed. An event has happened, and it cannot un-happen. Something has happened.
Where was it recorded? Nowhere but in Reality itself. The fact exists in its history.
I call this one of the most simple examples of the Consciousness of the Universe. Reality "knows" it happened. Reality "knows" how far one particle moved. Reality "knows" how long it took.
How does it "know"? You tell me!! It happened. It cannot un-happen. It was a 1 meter change that occurred in the course of 1 second. It's a fact. That fact exists. Where does it exist? In Reality! In the flow of time that cannot go backward! In the history of Reality's existence.
I choose to understand that as a form of Consciousness - the Consciousness that is Reality. It helps things make sense down the road when we get into quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics asks, "How can consciousness affect whether light behaves as a particle or a wave - especially if consciousness is merely a phenomena of matter? How then can the two be connected so that expectation can alter the measurable reality?"
I answer, "Because Consciousness is really one of the most fundamental elements of Reality. That's why."
So, that makes sense to me.
I understand that it is a choice that I make.
But if you think that your philosophy isn't constructed from the same sort of axiomatic *choices *made at the very beginning, then you are the one who is completely, loopy delusional.
-
@Legis said
"Los, you show up here constantly for the self-stated purpose of presenting a divergent opinion. You care intensely what is done here."
I care what people say, certainly, and if you keep saying incorrect things in public spaces, there's a chance that I -- or any other person who can figure out that what you've said is incorrect -- may point that out in public.
What I don't care about is what you do in your private life, what you personally believe, and even whether or not you agree with me. Frankly, it's pretty useful for me to have a near-constant stream of bad arguments flowing out of you. I could probably never, on my own, think of arguments that are quite that awful, so you -- and to be fair, most of the posters here -- are doing me a great service by providing such material.
Please understand that all of the above is a comment on content, and nothing I say is intended as a personal attack or even a personal comment of any kind.
"Scenario:
Empty Space and two particles.
The two particles are 1 centimeter apart. One second later, the particles are 1 meter apart.
In this scenario, a change occurs in space and time. No one is around to witness it, but the change occurs in Reality itself. Who knows it happened? No person. The Reality has simply changed. An event has happened, and it cannot un-happen. Something has happened.
Where was it recorded? Nowhere but in Reality itself. The fact exists in its history.
I call this one of the most simple examples of the Consciousness of the Universe. Reality "knows" it happened."
Now you're begging the question. Honest to goodness, your posts belong in a textbook as examples of logical errors.
"Begging the question" is when a person assumes something that his argument is trying to prove. In this case, Legis is trying to demonstrate that the universe has a consciousness (or, more accurately, that matter/energy exists "in consciousness"). He begins his argument by declaring that the universe "knows" things that happen, and right out of the gate, he's defeated his own argument.
This kind of logical error is sometimes called a "circular argument," and we could rephrase this argument to make it clearer: Legis is essentially saying that the universe is conscious because the universe knows things. And how does he know the universe knows things? Because the universe is conscious. And around and around we go.
"How does [reality] "know"? You tell me!!"
Classic.
See? I gotta admit, I would never have thought to use that as an argument.
"It happened. It cannot un-happen. It was a 1 meter change that occurred in the course of 1 second. It's a fact. That fact exists. Where does it exist? In Reality! In the flow of time that cannot go backward!"
That an event happened doesn't necessitate the existence of a conscious mind to somehow "record" it. You're asserting that a conclusion is necessary, but it does not follow (“does not follow” is the literal meaning of non sequitur, yet another term you’ve excellently illustrated for us)
"I choose to understand that as a form of Consciousness."
Well, there’s your problem. You see this as an axiom, but it’s not: it’s a factual claim.
"But if you think that your philosophy isn't constructed from the same sort of axiomatic choices made at the very beginning, then you are the one who is completely, loopy delusional"
Well, now we’re sort of getting back to where we were in that other thread, when you claimed that I had “unspoken assumptions” or something behind my position, and then when I asked you to explain what you were talking about, you stamped your feet and ran off to tell your mom.
Now, you’re a little clearer: you think that my position – like all positions, you seem to think – begins from axiomatic statements that cannot be demonstrated and are simply a choice, the same as your choice to just believe that consciousness is at root in the universe.
As I said in that other thread, my position may well begin from an axiom or two, depending on how we’re defining an axiom. But I definitely don't think that "the universe is rooted in consciousness" qualifies as an axiom any more than "God exists" qualifies as one.
To me, an axiom is something more like "My senses more or less reliablely connect me to reality." But I don't think of that as something one chooses. In fact, I think hardly anyone formally sits down and articulates acceptance of that statement: when each of us begins life, we have no choice but to react to the stimuli presented to our senses, and that's the world that we are forced to deal with and come to grips with. The world to which our senses connect us is necessarily the one we talk about. I also don't see such a so-called "axiom" as undemonstrable. Insofar as "reality" can be considered "that which manifests in a detectable way," it's necessarily true that sensory experience -- which is a means of detection -- more or less reliably connects us to reality, except in very rare cases of an utter psychotic break from reality (which, to the person experiencing it, would be undetectable anyway, making the point moot).
So I'm unclear what axioms you think I'm starting from. Can you name an axiom that you think I begin from? While I might disagree with you, I might partially or fully agree, depending on what you say.
If you can refrain from stamping your feet and running away this time, our conversation might prove interesting to readers -- instead of simply instructional, as it usually is.
-
Again the tautology of defining reality as the detectable.
It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
-
In the threads that Los has graced the forum with his appearance and insight, I find an individual who can do nothing more but bait others for attention.
I wonder what sort of person this Los might actually be to spend so much of his time and energy trying to conjure some form of passive-aggressive attention from other members of the forum.
I'm not trying to instigate a fight, I'm simply pointing out what is painfully obvious.
-
From what i remember it originally started with some member, cant recall his name he changed it every time he came in..
He'd become a part of Los's collective fan base, i recall a section on another site where he'd gone complaining to Los that 'they' had banned him.. whoever "they" were.
The Admin of this site hadnt banned him because he merely disagreed (as Los's presence here bears that out) but because he was becoming hysterical.
Actually before that Los had stated that this forum's membership mainly consists of a bunch of complete fruitcakes and he'd informed his readers that he'd never post here, he believes though that forum is great food for his stand up routine that he offers his readers.. he's quite an upbeat guy actually.
Meh, as far as i'm concerned he's ok.. until he starts using bad testimony and pseudo science and expects to get away with it, when caught out he regresses to juvenile tactics to draw attention to himself.. the conversation then becomes rather amateur at best. -
In my opinion Los has a blind spot the size of the Himalayas as to his own intention of being here.
What can be said for him is that he seems to be honestly convinced that he has found "the truth" about ontological materialism and the philosophy of thelema - while, again imo, he has not understood either perspective beyond some very basic and superficial foundations.
I get the picture of someone who is very lonely - even when in a crowd - and have found myself asking if he has Aspergers (nothing against people who have it, but it would fit his style) when looking at his copy-and-paste way of debating issues.
Concerning the passive-agressive attention seeking, I guess that is his intention. Subconsciously.
Regards,
Sychological Simon
-
Come on, everybody posts for attention, no? Jesus. We're human. If we don't want responses, we can go write in a journal.
Attention is a basic biological and psychological need -- I'm glad the ubermensch (that doesn't need any attention) can let me know that oxytocin and vasopressin are terrible things...talk about a gaping hole in lack of self-realization AND epistemology rooted in materialism.
Attention-seeking seems to have negative connotations, when it is part of what makes us alive, human, animal, lovely, motivated, etc. Its value is probably best judged by the person seeking the emotional connection, if they care to examine themselves, and see what they take away from it and the effects it has on them. Also, it takes two to tango (sometimes more) - especially on the forum!
As far as the posts here -- I hate to break it to everyone, but Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer as well. And I don't think Rush takes himself that seriously. Whatever Los' motivations are, he's willing to put on that hat because some people find his brand of controversial opining extremely appealing. It's not like everybody is ignoring him...
Just look at the last three OT posts. They are leveled at Los' motivations...so it definitely seems like his posts are entertaining...so much that we see offerings aimed at his psychological and physiological constitution. To me, it's just as disturbing that people choose to profile someone's motivations with self-righteousness and extremely limited information.
THAT BOYS GOTTA DEMON I TELL YOU LETS GET EM.
Probably best to keep any psychological and physiological assessments about a given person confined to a clinical setting, and not just based on posts aimed at entertaining via the use of sensationalism and (sometimes) logical fallacies. I think Los' posts are wildly entertaining from a rhetorician's standpoint -- but, then again, I don't take rhetoric/semantic gymnastics personally or seriously.
How can I? I work in the public sector...
I think it's amazingly funny -- Los only seems to take the extreme divergent viewpoint when somebody else is just as passionate in the other direction. The world needs the skeptic as well as the idealist IMHO -- preferably in the same body...
Anyway, I apologize for the (mostly) OT post. I just abhor witchhunts -- probably has something to do with my opinion about Christist attitudes.
-
Hi,
Can only answer for my own motivation ...
@Frater 639 said
"Come on, everybody posts for attention, no? Jesus. We're human. If we don't want responses, we can go write in a journal.
Attention is a basic biological and psychological need -- I'm glad the ubermensch (that doesn't need any attention) can let me know that oxytocin and vasopressin are terrible things...talk about a gaping hole in lack of self-realization AND epistemology rooted in materialism."
I did not mention critically that he wants attention and responses (I want that too or wouldn't, for example, post here
), but that he doesn't seem to be aware of his own motivations. Don't know if you have to be superhuman to observe something like that.@Frater 639 said
"Attention-seeking seems to have negative connotations, when it is part of what makes us alive, human, animal, lovely, motivated, etc. Its value is probably best judged by the person seeking the emotional connection, if they care to examine themselves, and see what they take away from it and the effects it has on them. Also, it takes two to tango (sometimes more) - especially on the forum!"
Actually, agreed.
@Frater 639 said
"Whatever Los' motivations are, he's willing to put on that hat because some people find his brand of controversial opining extremely appealing. It's not like everybody is ignoring him..."
I found his reasoning interesting, even fascinating, though not entertaining, at first, until he began to turn himself into knots and his answers started to seem a copy-and-paste job from the sceptic's manual to me ...
@Frater 639 said
"Just look at the last three OT posts. They are leveled at Los' motivations...so it definitely seems like his posts are entertaining...so much that we see offerings aimed at his psychological and physiological constitution. To me, it's just as disturbing that people choose to profile someone's motivations with self-righteousness and extremely limited information."
So you have now taken it upon yourself to profile the profilers based on self-righteousness and extremely limited information, that'll teach them?
@Frater 639 said
"THAT BOYS GOTTA DEMON I TELL YOU LETS GET EM."
Nah. I at least never did want a witchhunt on Los. Even defended him when some people suggested he was just trolling. And, reaction begets counter-reaction, and when Los gives, he will have to be ready to take some, too, no?
@Frater 639 said
"Probably best to keep any psychological and physiological assessments about a given person confined to a clinical setting, and not just based on posts aimed at entertaining via the use of sensationalism and (sometimes) logical fallacies. I think Los' posts are wildly entertaining from a rhetorician's standpoint -- but, then again, I don't take rhetoric/semantic gymnastics personally or seriously."
Well, it's not as if he would have gotten a DSM diagnosis by his critics now. Though, as said, I am getting a whiff of Aspergers. Which does not have to be a bad thing at all. Did you know Einstein has been suspected to have been one due to his brain structure (analysed when dead) and personal mannerisms (when alive)? So.
@Frater 639 said
"I think it's amazingly funny -- Los only seems to take the extreme divergent viewpoint when somebody else is just as passionate in the other direction. The world needs the skeptic as well as the idealist IMHO -- preferably in the same body..."
He just doesn't argue his point of view very well when looked under the hood. Perhaps I would want to be entertained better.
@Frater 639 said
"Anyway, I apologize for the (mostly) OT post."
Apology graziously accepted.
@Frater 639 said
"I just abhor witchhunts -- probably has something to do with my opinion about Christist attitudes."
Concerning the witchhunts, agreed, but no one is starting any as far as I can see.
I have not often in my life been accused (?) / been attributed (!) "Christist attitudes". Actually, that's a first
Well, OK, if it sticks ...Regards,
Tongue-in-cheek Simon