Criticism

[AshvinP]

Why would reason be applicable to the most elemental layer of reality we know, which is arational, chaotic, and without space and time? I’m not saying we can know nothing of it - that is what esthetic experience is for, but I see no possibility of grasping it with our primitive objectification.

Here I think we need to become very precise with the terms. I am using "Reason" in the sense of Aquinas and later Goethe (I think the latter used Vernuft in German). Since I hold that cognition evolves (along with everything else in our experience), I conclude there was a time when Reason was not as abstract, deadened process that it is for most people today. Reason has been mineralized into mere abstract intellect, endless horizontal thinking.

Goethe, however, was a clear exception in the modern age. He studied individual plants and perceived with his Reason the living archetypal plant which explains all of their particular manifestations and growth. When he explained this proto-plant archetype he saw to Schiller, the latter said "but that is just an idea", to which Goethe responded, "then I perceive ideas with my eyes!".

This sort of Reason does not extend our perception "to the most elemental layer of reality we know". Not even close. It simply brings some initial life back into our Thinking, so we don't feel compelled to objectify and reduce every perception and associated concepts. The next stage of metamorphosis is Imaginative cognition, which is what you are referring to as esthetic experience or knowledge. That requires much more patient and discplined exercise of our atrophied Thinking muscles - none of this will come easy (which also explains why so few people have developed it, even though it is accessible to all).

We should also notice here that, precisely becuase we don't actually know what underlies our deepest experiences (layers of reality), we cannot simply assume it is "arational and chaotic". That is definitely true from our current perspective, but as our knowing perspective deepens and changes, we must be open to the possibility that these layers beyond the threshold of normal space-time cognition are quite logical and structured. That is what mythic traditions have referred to as realms of the "Spirit" or "Soul", "etheric", "astral", "celestial", etc.

[JeffreyW]

I’m more of the opinion that reason, which as I use it is a unifying process according to the principle of sufficient reason and the identity principle, loses all explanatory power the more we know and the wider our frame of reference. Poincare, Wigner, Rovelli, and Penrose have solidly convinced me of that.
Instead, I see a shift of what we consider to be knowledge, which will be less about about facts and more about esthetic exploration of who we are in the world, and how we live. This is the exact opposite of now, when we are lost as humans but very successful in objectification of the world in order to dominate the environment. It has gotten us certain material gains, which is fine, but we lost so much more in the process. It’s about finding a balance through this new thinking of knowledge.

[AshvinP]

I’m more of the opinion that reason, which as I use it is a unifying process according to the principle of sufficient reason and the identity principle, loses all explanatory power the more we know and the wider our frame of reference. Poincare, Wigner, Rovelli, and Penrose have solidly convinced me of that.
Instead, I see a shift of what we consider to be knowledge, which will be less about about facts and more about esthetic exploration of who we are in the world, and how we live. This is the exact opposite of now, when we are lost as humans but very successful in objectification of the world in order to dominate the environment. It has gotten us certain material gains, which is fine, but we lost so much more in the process. It’s about finding a balance through this new thinking of knowledge.

Yeah, I think we are just arguing over whether there is at least some ability for Reason to bring us to the doorsteps of esthetic exploration (imaginative cognition), which I feel is absolutely necessary because the reasoned conceptual foundation will be like a map when entering into unexplored territory. What I really want to know is about after you get a chance to read Steiner (or maybe you already have), and how you feel about the possibility that others have already developed esthetic cognition to the extent that they can give us very concrete and precise illustrations (remembering they are always mere analogies for a Reality which cannot be repreesnted in spatiotemporal concepts) of what is found in this unexplored territory of our subconscious. One such person participates on this forum (Cleric), but you guys haven't had a chance to interact yet. You may want to a browse a few of his essays here, like Beyond the Flat MAL (critique of BK's idealism which also puts forth another idealist perspective).

[JeffreyW]

I’m more of the opinion that reason, which as I use it is a unifying process according to the principle of sufficient reason and the identity principle, loses all explanatory power the more we know and the wider our frame of reference. Poincare, Wigner, Rovelli, and Penrose have solidly convinced me of that.
Instead, I see a shift of what we consider to be knowledge, which will be less about about facts and more about esthetic exploration of who we are in the world, and how we live. This is the exact opposite of now, when we are lost as humans but very successful in objectification of the world in order to dominate the environment. It has gotten us certain material gains, which is fine, but we lost so much more in the process. It’s about finding a balance through this new thinking of knowledge.

Yeah, I think we are just arguing over whether there is at least some ability for Reason to bring us to the doorsteps of esthetic exploration (imaginative cognition), which I feel is absolutely necessary because the reasoned conceptual foundation will be like a map when entering into unexplored territory. What I really want to know is about after you get a chance to read Steiner (or maybe you already have), and how you feel about the possibility that others have already developed esthetic cognition to the extent that they can give us very concrete and precise illustrations (remembering they are always mere analogies for a Reality which cannot be repreesnted in spatiotemporal concepts) of what is found in this unexplored territory of our subconscious. One such person participates on this forum (Cleric), but you guys haven't had a chance to interact yet. You may want to a browse a few of his essays here, like Beyond the Flat MAL (critique of BK's idealism which also puts forth another idealist perspective).

I have evaded Steiner, but perhaps I should look into him. One of my graduate advisors, Saul Bellow, was almost obsessed with him. There might be something to the notion that the preconscious mind works prior to our sensibilities of space and time and is directly entangled with the elemental universe. That would allow for such things.

[Eugene I]

I’m more of the opinion that reason, which as I use it is a unifying process according to the principle of sufficient reason and the identity principle, loses all explanatory power the more we know and the wider our frame of reference. Poincare, Wigner, Rovelli, and Penrose have solidly convinced me of that.
Instead, I see a shift of what we consider to be knowledge, which will be less about about facts and more about esthetic exploration of who we are in the world, and how we live. This is the exact opposite of now, when we are lost as humans but very successful in objectification of the world in order to dominate the environment. It has gotten us certain material gains, which is fine, but we lost so much more in the process. It’s about finding a balance through this new thinking of knowledge.

The quick answer is I let Kastrup do it for me. In an argument he had with somebody on Twitter over the possibility of computers developing consciousness, he dismissed the possibility (as do I) on the basis that only life can support consciousness (which he does not substantiate but it does accord with experience), and that the marker to distinguish conscious beings from non-consciousness is the production of ATP. ATP is the molecule that distributes energy throughout the brain. Therefore, no energy from ATP, no consciousness. That necessarily implies that Energy is more elemental than consciousness.

I can see a total inconsistency here. You use very concrete arguments of reason to defend your thesis about the primacy of energy over consciousness, but refuse to accept arguments of reason from your critics by saying "Why should anybody accept coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy adequacy as the determinants of truth?"

Second, "no energy from ATP, no consciousness. That necessarily implies that Energy is more elemental than consciousness." - you are making a mistake here. Correlation does not mean causation.

Third, you ought to explain how exactly the ATP molecule gives rise to actual conscious experiences (per "hard problem"). If you cannot demonstrate how this happens, you can not use correlation between ATP and the presence of conscious experiences as a proof to support your argument for causation, it is insufficient. Again, correlation does not mean causation.

[JeffreyW]

I’m more of the opinion that reason, which as I use it is a unifying process according to the principle of sufficient reason and the identity principle, loses all explanatory power the more we know and the wider our frame of reference. Poincare, Wigner, Rovelli, and Penrose have solidly convinced me of that.
Instead, I see a shift of what we consider to be knowledge, which will be less about about facts and more about esthetic exploration of who we are in the world, and how we live. This is the exact opposite of now, when we are lost as humans but very successful in objectification of the world in order to dominate the environment. It has gotten us certain material gains, which is fine, but we lost so much more in the process. It’s about finding a balance through this new thinking of knowledge.

The quick answer is I let Kastrup do it for me. In an argument he had with somebody on Twitter over the possibility of computers developing consciousness, he dismissed the possibility (as do I) on the basis that only life can support consciousness (which he does not substantiate but it does accord with experience), and that the marker to distinguish conscious beings from non-consciousness is the production of ATP. ATP is the molecule that distributes energy throughout the brain. Therefore, no energy from ATP, no consciousness. That necessarily implies that Energy is more elemental than consciousness.

I can see a total inconsistency here. You use very concrete arguments of reason to defend your thesis about the primacy of energy over consciousness, but refuse to accept arguments of reason from your critics by saying "Why should anybody accept coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy adequacy as the determinants of truth?"

Second, "no energy from ATP, no consciousness. That necessarily implies that Energy is more elemental than consciousness." - you are making a mistake here. Correlation does not mean causation.

Third, you ought to explain how exactly the ATP molecule gives rise to actual conscious experiences (per "hard problem"). If you cannot demonstrate how this happens, you can not use correlation between ATP and the presence of conscious experiences as a proof to support your argument for causation, it is insufficient. Again, correlation does not mean causation.

You are showing signs of desperation. First, I never once argued from parsimony or mere explanatory power. All I needed was to point to our possibility of knowing anything at all and the measurability of energy impacting our bodies. No metaphysical leaps at all. Second, you might want to look into causality and correlation, which have nothing to do with this issue. What you evade this time is that energy provides the possibility of consciousness, therefore it is elementary. I say nothing at all about causation. Third, I have no need to explain how ATP creates consciousness, which Kastrup also did not do. The only salient point is that it is a necessary condition, which makes makes it prior to consciousness.

[Eugene I]

You are showing signs of desperation. First, I never once argued from parsimony or mere explanatory power. All I needed was to point to our possibility of knowing anything at all and the measurability of energy impacting our bodies. No metaphysical leaps at all. Second, you might want to look into causality and correlation, which have nothing to do with this issue. What you evade this time is that energy provides the possibility of consciousness, therefore it is elementary. I say nothing at all about causation. Third, I have no need to explain how ATP creates consciousness, which Kastrup also did not do. The only salient point is that it is a necessary condition, which makes makes it prior to consciousness.

Kastrup has no need to explain how ATP creates consciousness because in idealism nothing creates consciousness (because in idealism consciousness is all there is) and so there is no such thing as "hard problem of consciousness" in idealism.

The only thing that is observed in ATP vs. consciousness observations is correlations between the presence of observables of ATP and observables of conscious phenomena - these observables only exist together (=correlation). Remove the observables of ATP - and the observables of consciousness disappear. Remove the observables of consciousness - and the observables of ATP also disappear. So it could be argued the other way around - if there would be no consciousness, no observation of ATP molecules would ever be possible, which means that consciousness is prior to ATP.

[JeffreyW]

You are showing signs of desperation. First, I never once argued from parsimony or mere explanatory power. All I needed was to point to our possibility of knowing anything at all and the measurability of energy impacting our bodies. No metaphysical leaps at all. Second, you might want to look into causality and correlation, which have nothing to do with this issue. What you evade this time is that energy provides the possibility of consciousness, therefore it is elementary. I say nothing at all about causation. Third, I have no need to explain how ATP creates consciousness, which Kastrup also did not do. The only salient point is that it is a necessary condition, which makes makes it prior to consciousness.

Kastrup has no need to explain how ATP creates consciousness because in idealism nothing creates consciousness (because in idealism consciousness is all there is) and so there is no such thing as "hard problem of consciousness" in idealism.

The only thing that is observed in ATP vs. consciousness observations is correlations between the presence of observables of ATP and observables of conscious phenomena - these observables only exist together (=correlation). Remove the observables of ATP - and the observables of consciousness disappear. Remove the observables of consciousness - and the observables of ATP also disappear. So it could be argued the other way around - if there would be no consciousness, no observation of ATP molecules would ever be possible, which means that consciousness is prior to ATP.

You have reached the point of ridiculousness that I don’t have enough respect for you to respond. Enjoy your fantasy.

[ScottRoberts]

We do know things about energy, including we can reduce everything to it, including consciousness.

How do you reduce consciousness to energy?

The quick answer is I let Kastrup do it for me. In an argument he had with somebody on Twitter over the possibility of computers developing consciousness, he dismissed the possibility (as do I) on the basis that only life can support consciousness (which he does not substantiate but it does accord with experience), and that the marker to distinguish conscious beings from non-consciousness is the production of ATP. ATP is the molecule that distributes energy throughout the brain. Therefore, no energy from ATP, no consciousness. That necessarily implies that Energy is more elemental than consciousness.

This doesn't show how consciousness is reducible to (presumably, non-conscious) energy. To show it, you would also need to show how the ATP molecule distributing energy to the brain generates consciousness. (By the way, I don't agree with BK on the ATP business, but that's a separate discussion.)

I agree that where there is consciousness there is energy, but that could be because energy is a facet of consciousness. It seems to me to be a metaphysical choice either way.

[JeffreyW]

How do you reduce consciousness to energy?

The quick answer is I let Kastrup do it for me. In an argument he had with somebody on Twitter over the possibility of computers developing consciousness, he dismissed the possibility (as do I) on the basis that only life can support consciousness (which he does not substantiate but it does accord with experience), and that the marker to distinguish conscious beings from non-consciousness is the production of ATP. ATP is the molecule that distributes energy throughout the brain. Therefore, no energy from ATP, no consciousness. That necessarily implies that Energy is more elemental than consciousness.

This doesn't show how consciousness is reducible to (presumably, non-conscious) energy. To show it, you would also need to show how the ATP molecule distributing energy to the brain generates consciousness. (By the way, I don't agree with BK on the ATP business, but that's a separate discussion.)

I agree that where there is consciousness there is energy, but that could be because energy is a facet of consciousness. It seems to me to be a metaphysical choice either way.

No, we wouldn’t need to show that, just that energy is a necessary condition for consciousness, which shows energy to be more fundamental. There can be energy with no consciousness, but no consciousness without energy.