Criticism

[Mark Tetzner]

Why should anybody accept coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy adequacy as the determinants of truth?

Not for truth, only fools rush in. Not now. But you need some criteria to go by to argue for the best model. And then the magic mushrooms and then more thinking, tossing words around to represent the problem to yourself, intuition-triggers and really getting clarity....and then starting to wonder... "what if?"

Then getting some sort of crisis because to go from materialism to idealism will seem unacceptable. Conspriacy-theory? Fringe-science? Wishful thinking? Am I going insane? All these doubts cloud the thinking-process.

The idea is if you pretty much score 100% on all 5 accounts at least for the time being...you win the argument for the best model.

Look at the screen in front of you: Its in your consciousness, in your world.

You are in your experience. Your experience is your world, so is your body.

Stuff like that.

[Mark Tetzner]

What about die Unsterblichkeit der Seele?
https://www.textlog.de/hoelderlin-gedichte.html
Only if it doesnt conflict with your value-system.
For your initiation this seems like the best fit.
Not sure if BK is still selling hoodies with
his logos on it, but that would be next.
C...c....c...cultish.
No sorry, meant to say: counting on you.

[JeffreyW]

Why should anybody accept coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy adequacy as the determinants of truth?

Not for truth, only fools rush in. Not now. But you need some criteria to go by to argue for the best model. And then the magic mushrooms and then more thinking, tossing words around to represent the problem to yourself, intuition-triggers and really getting clarity....and then starting to wonder... "what if?"

Then getting some sort of crisis because to go from materialism to idealism will seem unacceptable. Conspriacy-theory? Fringe-science? Wishful thinking? Am I going insane? All these doubts cloud the thinking-process.

The idea is if you pretty much score 100% on all 5 accounts at least for the time being...you win the argument for the best model.

Look at the screen in front of you: Its in your consciousness, in your world.

The question wasn’t if we need criteria, but why those particular ones. They aren’t as obviously fitting as some might think.

[Mark Tetzner]

The question wasn’t if we need criteria, but why those particular ones. They aren’t as obviously fitting as some might think.

I think these are called postenlightenment-criteria or something as mentioned above.
Maybe the Stanford dictionary can help to clarify this or someone else here knows
the history behind it. In any event, they seem obvious and pretty flawless to me and
cover the entire spectrum of what is needed here. Your objections?

[JeffreyW]

I think these are called postenlightenment-criteria or something as mentioned above.
Maybe the Stanford dictionary can help to clarify this or someone else here knows
the history behind it. In any event, they seem obvious and pretty flawless to me and
cover the entire spectrum of what is needed here. Your objections?

Once again, the question was why we should accept them, not their genesis. Let’s start with why you accept them. I will get to my objections afterward.

[Eugene I]

Because it cannot be answered and Metaphysics offers no valid explanations, just the beckoning of Syrens inviting to crash on the shores.

It cannot be answered because it is artificially created. You first invent some "thing" that is claimed to be non-conscious by using mental abstraction (and you can only do that by abstraction because in your direct experience you never encounter anything other than conscious phenomena). And then you run into an unresolvable cognitive dissonance - a problem of how to reconcile the alleged existence of a non-conscious "thing" with the obvious existence of conscious experiences. Of course this problem is unresolvable, the only usefulness of discovering this problem is to point to the original cognitive mistake of abstractly inventing something non-conscious. You can deny this problem or claim it unresolvable, but that would not make it go away.

It is like making up a self-inconsistent mathematical model, then discovering a contradiction between two statements in the model derived from the axioms, and then claiming that the model is still consistent, but the problem of reconciling the contradiction is unresolvable. No, the contradiction simply means that the model is inconsistent in the first place. Likewise, any philosophy that try to combine in one reality the conscious experience together with anything non-conscious is inherently inconsistent, because neither conscious experience can emerge from non-conscious "stuff", nor non-conscious stuff can emerge from conscious experience, as well as they can not possibly interact with each other.

‘Given that the soul of a human being is only a thinking substance, how can it affect the body in order to bring about voluntary actions?’
Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia to Descartes

[JeffreyW]

Because it cannot be answered and Metaphysics offers no valid explanations, just the beckoning of Syrens inviting to crash on the shores.

It cannot be answered because it is artificially created. You first invent some "thing" that is claimed to be non-conscious by using mental abstraction (and you can only do that by abstraction because in your direct experience you never encounter anything other than conscious phenomena). And then you run into an unresolvable cognitive dissonance - a problem of how to reconcile the alleged existence of a non-conscious "thing" with the obvious existence of conscious experiences. Of course this problem is unresolvable, the only usefulness of discovering this problem is to point to the original cognitive mistake of abstractly inventing something non-conscious. You can deny this problem or claim it unresolvable, but that would not make it go away.

It is like making up a self-inconsistent mathematical model, then discovering a contradiction between two statements in the model derived from the axioms, and then claiming that the model is still consistent, but the problem of reconciling the contradiction is unresolvable. No, the contradiction simply means that the model is inconsistent in the first place. Likewise, any philosophy that try to combine in one reality the conscious experience together with anything non-conscious is inherently inconsistent, because neither conscious experience can emerge from non-conscious "stuff", nor non-conscious stuff can emerge from conscious experience, as well as they can not possibly interact with each other.

‘Given that the soul of a human being is only a thinking substance, how can it affect the body in order to bring about voluntary actions?’
Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia to Descartes

You repeat the same mistake. I create no concept of fundamental reality at all because I can’t. It is people like Kastrup who reduce it by trying to define it as Consciousness, or god, or Ideas out of thin air.

[Eugene I]

Why should anybody accept coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy adequacy as the determinants of truth?

Sure. Then I claim that the ultimate truth is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's actually very beautiful and poetic as I picture it in my mind. And I do not accept any contra-arguments based on coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy as those are inadequate as determinants of truth. I only trust my sense of poetic beauty. End of philosophy.

[Eugene I]

You repeat the same mistake. I create no concept of fundamental reality at all because I can’t. It is people like Kastrup who reduce it by trying to define it as Consciousness, or god, or Ideas out of thin air.

As I said above, it has nothing to do with ontology and it does not matter what's fundamental and what's not. It's the interaction problem and brutal emergence problem - conscious experience and anything by nature non-conscious can not co-exist and interact in one reality (interaction problem (C) Princess Elisabeth), and they also cannot emerge from each other (brutal emergence problem (C) Chalmers).

[Mark Tetzner]

Once again, the question was why we should accept them, not their genesis. Let’s start with why you accept them. I will get to my objections afterward.

Its late. Watch the interview between Curt Jamungal and BK and he elaborates on it.
You can read Der Panther von Rilke, too, the best poem I have ever read.