Science vs. Mysticism

[numbersix]

There are two answers to every question, the rational and the irrational. Logic ultimately generates paradox; Spirit is born of an unknowable Mysterium Tremendum. The Alchemical Great Work is a unification of opposites, Science and Magic, squaring the circle, Heaven and Earth, Man and Woman, Spirit and Nature.

6

 

[acacian]

...Do you think it is plausible at all that consciousness could be an epiphenomenon of matter?

Awareness, responsiveness to stimuli, human memory, self-awareness, etc. are all obviously (?) products of the material world.

It is possible that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, but this is something that can’t be proven. We are “trapped” in consciousness – we can’t experience anything outside of it – so anything and everything outside of it is inferred. This fact makes a consciousness-related explanation of existence seem more plausible than a matter-related one.

My guess is that neither is correct. It seems likely that we don’t have the imagination, knowledge, or cognitive capacity to understand things as they actually are.

wow gibran you make great points!

 

[polytrip]

...Do you think it is plausible at all that consciousness could be an epiphenomenon of matter?

Awareness, responsiveness to stimuli, human memory, self-awareness, etc. are all obviously (?) products of the material world.

It is possible that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, but this is something that can’t be proven. We are “trapped” in consciousness – we can’t experience anything outside of it – so anything and everything outside of it is inferred. This fact makes a consciousness-related explanation of existence seem more plausible than a matter-related one.

My guess is that neither is correct. It seems likely that we don’t have the imagination, knowledge, or cognitive capacity to understand things as they actually are.

wow gibran you make great points!

Yeah, gibran has a habit of doing that

 

[DMT Psychonaut]

After reading this thread and watching the debate between the physical and immaterial paradigms of existence, I thought about how ideas or concepts (which are abstractions of or in consciousness) seemingly "move" through what we call the physical world.

For instance, when we're talking about concepts like; "the primacy of matter", "the primacy of consciousness", mysticism or science - these concepts don't exist in the physical world. We can't look out and observe them, they seem to only exist in the mind. So how does something like an idea translate into the physical world?

It starts with an individal conceiving of an idea like the primacy of consciousness for example, then that individual passes on that idea through vocalization or text to another individal. Yet that idea itself isn't being passed on, it's only the physical audible patterns or visual symbols, and meaning is then interpreted by another individual who is consciously perceiving those patterns or symbols. Yet somehow, this very subjective abstract idea, transfers from one physical being to another. If consciousness were only an epiphenomena of physical activity, could this idea somehow be traced atom for atom from person to person?

Also what can we say about ideas bringing about physical change? If you get an idea like freedom (or anything else) spreading through a population, it could direct the course of real physical events.

Again, just some thoughts I had after reading this.

 

[zapped17]

...Do you think it is plausible at all that consciousness could be an epiphenomenon of matter?

Awareness, responsiveness to stimuli, human memory, self-awareness, etc. are all obviously (?) products of the material world.

It is possible that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, but this is something that can’t be proven. We are “trapped” in consciousness – we can’t experience anything outside of it – so anything and everything outside of it is inferred. This fact makes a consciousness-related explanation of existence seem more plausible than a matter-related one.

My guess is that neither is correct. It seems likely that we don’t have the imagination, knowledge, or cognitive capacity to understand things as they actually are.

:!: I think we need to be cautious of how we apply the term "epiphenomenon" when discussing consciousness.

To say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter is equivalent to saying that consciousness is a emergent product of matter: i.e., Consciousness emerges from matter as an epiphenomenal byproduct when that matter is properly configured/ attains sufficient complexity. However, in analytic philosophy, there are two very distinct notions of "emergence" that should be distinguished: Weak emergence and radical/strong emergence. Above, I think it was clear that you had "weak emergence" in mind. Conversely, strong emergence is applied to phenomena whose existence is not deducible from the facts about matter (exact distribution of particles and fields throughout space and time, along with the laws of physics), suggesting that new fundamental laws of nature are needed to explain these phenomena. If consciousness is a "strongly emergent" phenomena, this still wouldn't necessarily lend credence to the primacy of consciousness, but it would mean that even emergent epiphenomenal consciousness cannot be epistemically and ontologically reduced to the matter that evokes it. Consciousness would be a fundament property of the universe, along side mass, charge, space/time, etc.

Another problem I have raised several times to you, but that I never got any answer to, is the following; place an object in a room, a place where I can't possibly know. Now exit the room and leave no observers there...

Citta: Not all views in which consciousness is taken as primary (in some sense) would disagree with you and your thought experiment here. Many neutral monist views, for instance, would NOT say that the object ceases to exist when it is unobserved by a thrid-party subject - quite the opposite actually.

However (and I do not want to press this too hard), are you aware of the Leggett-Garg Inequality, and how it has been experimentally violated in a recent host of mainstream physics investigations? (I figure you might be, given your aspirations in physics. If not, its very interesting stuff - almost as significant as the violation of Bell's Inequality.) This data does, disconcertingly, cast some doubt on the aforementioned thought experiment.