Criticism

[JeffreyW]

Well, since no-one is going to change their mind, how about let's all move over to your youtube channel and you can play us some tunes on your axe, instead of everyone just grinding an axe?

Why is the goal to change minds?

My goal is Mind's goal Notwithstanding JW's remark, I quote "Really, I don’t care about the opinions here"—apparently much like BK—I too value what he has to offer, while not agreeing with all of it, and if we were to sit down and share a beverage, perhaps with guitars in hand (even with these crippled hands), I suspect we'd find a lot more to agree about, and, who knows, perhaps even change each other in some meaningful way.

I play an ES 335

[Mark Tetzner]

I would still appreciate it if there was anyone here who understands a bit about physics. JW is charging BK with misrepresenting parts of physics, twisting it etc. I would like to inquire if that is true or not, for example in the case of realism which JW talks about. So to chose time-frames of his videos and then challenge that or argue for why it is at least legit to interpret things in a certain way (JW calls it twisiting), that would then finally get to the gist of it, after all he created 2 videos. The potential problem is two-fold, it will be rejected by JW since it will automatically a metaphysical discussion, which involves ontology and interpretation, but I think thats the only way to add another layer on top of the layers that have been unfolding here, as elegant as some arguments have been made in sometimes great prose by different participants. Another is that he says he does not care about any opinions here. We probably all agree that nobody can nail the idealistic argument so that someone has to "buy it", we can only argue for it as something we can leave the door open to through interpreatation. After all "twisted" seems to mean taking the truth and twisting it to be false. So thats just my idea. You know where to find his videos.
https://www.youtube.com/c/TooLateFortheGods/videos

So the problem is that we have a mysterian who wont have "any of it" and idealists on the other side ,,,,,,,who are probably not in the best position to have a convo at all, as I think we could see. JW does not argue for, neither does he defend anything, other than others being wrong. Thats what makes this odd. He does not want to watch the course by Bernardo and he does not like thee "5 criteria", it kind of leaves me shrugging my shoulders.

There are a few ideas for JW but he his closing the doors to all of them, a bit like Dennett maybe, wo referred to himself as "slayer of metaphysical fantasies". To find the true metaphysical postion simply is not what interests him, it does interest him, regrettably in my view, to just respond and like so be in the limelight a bit too much, which is also a way of positioning himself. Its difficult to have a discussion that is based on comments like "enjoy your fantasies" so my impression that he is "gracious" only because he posts in a forum like all of us do may not be on par with some of yours, but then again I could be wrong. I think JW thinks he is mainly swatting flies. Its kind of a pitty, but we could carve out a small space where like I said we can mine at least a few more interesting exchanges before maybe a new interesting thread will be opened by whoever.
So who will comment on the things he said about physics, who will have an in-depth look at his 2 vids so that we can tund up the quality of this thread?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I play an ES 335

Yeah, I saw that beauty in your video chat with Adrian ... Been a long time since I played electric, now limited to a made-in-Quebec acoustic Seagull Coastline, mostly stored in its case as of late, away from any excess humidity. Now and then, when the brothers-in-law show up, we jam a bit; as along as I keep the chord progression and finger-picking very basic, 12 bar blues is still manageable.

[ScottRoberts]

Appearances can be deceiving which, with some thought, can be corrected, for example, the sun appearing to revolve around the earth. For us (most of us), some energy appears to us as having no conscious aspect. But this was not necessarily always the case. As consciousness evolves, so do appearances. We are now naive dualists. A case has been made that once people were naive idealists. For more on this see my essay Idealism vs. Common Sense.

And those earlier mistakes were only resolved from further observations, not metaphysical speculation. If we ever have observable evidence to support consciousness in non-living things, I will then reconsider my view. Until then, I have no reason to seriously consider such speculation.

Just checking if you read my essay. The second half (addressing the 'why' question) does engage in metaphysical speculation, so feel free to ignore it, but the first half does not.

[AshvinP]

Well, since no-one is going to change their mind, how about let's all move over to your youtube channel and you can play us some tunes on your axe, instead of everyone just grinding an axe?

Why is the goal to change minds?

My goal is Mind's goal Notwithstanding JW's remark, I quote "Really, I don’t care about the opinions here"—apparently much like BK—I too value what he has to offer, while not agreeing with all of it, and if we were to sit down and share a beverage, perhaps with guitars in hand (even with these crippled hands), I suspect we'd find a lot more to agree about, and, who knows, perhaps even change each other in some meaningful way.

Let's be honest, none of us care too much for other's opinions of our arguments, or else our sense of Self-worth would be minimal to non-existent

It is the Spirit who really does the heavy lifting in changing hearts and minds, we just help prepare a bit of the soil where we can so the seeds planted may be fruitful. Mostly we should prioritizing preparing the soil within ourselves IMO, and holistic observation of the dialogical dynamics on the forum can be a great tool for that.

Let me know if you guys ever get the band together... I may be able to contribute an accompanying melody or two on my Yamaha electric keyboard

[Mark Tetzner]

Alternatively you can use the transcript.
https://toolateforthegods.com/2021/10/2 ... taphysics/
Bernardo is misspelled near the top.
So why not reference certain things and get into details?
He challenges BK, I think its time someone challenges him back or it gets so
boring that we all meet in a band.
I am really trying to avoid that.

[Eugene I]

I would still appreciate it if there was anyone here who understands a bit about physics. JW is charging BK with misrepresenting parts of physics, twisting it etc. I would like to inquire if that is true or not, for example in the case of realism which JW talks about. So to chose time-frames of his videos and then challenge that or argue for why it is at least legit to interpret things in a certain way (JW calls it twisiting), that would then finally get to the gist of it, after all he created 2 videos. The potential problem is two-fold, it will be rejected by JW since it will automatically a metaphysical discussion, which involves ontology and interpretation, but I think thats the only way to add another layer on top of the layers that have been unfolding here, as elegant as some arguments have been made in sometimes great prose by different participants. Another is that he says he does not care about any opinions here. We probably all agree that nobody can nail the idealistic argument so that someone has to "buy it", we can only argue for it as something we can leave the door open to through interpreatation. After all "twisted" seems to mean taking the truth and twisting it to be false. So thats just my idea. You know where to find his videos.
https://www.youtube.com/c/TooLateFortheGods/videos

So the problem is that we have a mysterian who wont have "any of it" and idealists on the other side ,,,,,,,who are probably not in the best position to have a convo at all, as I think we could see. JW does not argue for, neither does he defend anything, other than others being wrong. Thats what makes this odd. He does not want to watch the course by Bernardo and he does not like thee "5 criteria", it kind of leaves me shrugging my shoulders.

There are a few ideas for JW but he his closing the doors to all of them, a bit like Dennett maybe, wo referred to himself as "slayer of metaphysical fantasies". To find the true metaphysical postion simply is not what interests him, it does interest him, regrettably in my view, to just respond and like so be in the limelight a bit too much, which is also a way of positioning himself. Its difficult to have a discussion that is based on comments like "enjoy your fantasies" so my impression that he is "gracious" only because he posts in a forum like all of us do may not be on par with some of yours, but then again I could be wrong. I think JW thinks he is mainly swatting flies. Its kind of a pitty, but we could carve out a small space where like I said we can mine at least a few more interesting exchanges before maybe a new interesting thread will be opened by whoever.
So who will comment on the things he said about physics, who will have an in-depth look at his 2 vids so that we can tund up the quality of this thread?

wow, that's a heck a long philosophical definition of a jerk!

[AshvinP]

Alternatively you can use the transcript.
https://toolateforthegods.com/2021/10/2 ... taphysics/
Bernardo is misspelled near the top.
So why not reference certain things and get into details?
He challenges BK, I think its time someone challenges him back or it gets kind of so
boring that we all meet in a band.

I really don't want to pick on BK more than I already have recently, but it just so happens JW's arrival has helped showcase many shortcomings of BK's idealism. What's the point of "getting into the details"? There is nothing new in BK's philosophical framework past Kant, Schopenhauer, etc., except for terminology, and clearly JW is familiar with the former thinkers. I tend to agree with JW that the scientific interpretations of data BK has transposed from physicalism as support for idealism is shoddy work at best. That should be self-evident, because most of the interpretations presuppose rationalism or physicalism-dualism in one form or another, and therefore would only be relevant for an "idealism" which is itself just a disguised form of those thought-systems. At a certain point, if a thinker refuses to engage his informed critics whatsoever, I would think he himself does not necessarily deserve any benefit of the doubts.

[Mark Tetzner]

Alternatively you can use the transcript.
https://toolateforthegods.com/2021/10/2 ... taphysics/
Bernardo is misspelled near the top.
So why not reference certain things and get into details?
He challenges BK, I think its time someone challenges him back or it gets kind of so
boring that we all meet in a band.

I really don't want to pick on BK more than I already have recently, but it just so happens JW's arrival has helped showcase many shortcomings of BK's idealism. What's the point of "getting into the details"? There is nothing new in BK's philosophical framework past Kant, Schopenhauer, etc., except for terminology, and clearly JW is familiar with the former thinkers. I tend to agree with JW that the scientific interpretations of data BK has transposed from physicalism as support for idealism is shoddy work at best. That should be self-evident, because most of the interpretations presuppose rationalism or physicalism-dualism in one form or another, and therefore would only be relevant for an "idealism" which is itself just a disguised form of those thought-systems. At a certain point, if a thinker refuses to engage his informed critics whatsoever, I would think he himself does not necessarily deserve any benefit of the doubts.

I wanted you to pick on JW tho. It seems you agree with him though, but you said you are an idealist yourself?
He has debated quite a few people who dont share his point of view are you one of the hurt ones who feels he
is being "evaded" yourself?
I still think an author can just be an author and do not see an obligation to engage.
Aside from that, engaging is always interesting for those interested in the subject-matter, to see the back
and forth. In sofar its a pitty.

[AshvinP]

Alternatively you can use the transcript.
https://toolateforthegods.com/2021/10/2 ... taphysics/
Bernardo is misspelled near the top.
So why not reference certain things and get into details?
He challenges BK, I think its time someone challenges him back or it gets kind of so
boring that we all meet in a band.

I really don't want to pick on BK more than I already have recently, but it just so happens JW's arrival has helped showcase many shortcomings of BK's idealism. What's the point of "getting into the details"? There is nothing new in BK's philosophical framework past Kant, Schopenhauer, etc., except for terminology, and clearly JW is familiar with the former thinkers. I tend to agree with JW that the scientific interpretations of data BK has transposed from physicalism as support for idealism is shoddy work at best. That should be self-evident, because most of the interpretations presuppose rationalism or physicalism-dualism in one form or another, and therefore would only be relevant for an "idealism" which is itself just a disguised form of those thought-systems. At a certain point, if a thinker refuses to engage his informed critics whatsoever, I would think he himself does not necessarily deserve any benefit of the doubts.

I wanted you to pick on JW tho. It seems you agree with him though, but you said you are an idealist yourself?

Yes, and no personal offense intended, but your (and many others') confusion about how I could conclude idealism yet still completely disagree with BK and value JW's thought more is also the basis for JW's critique of BK. Basically, there is no value in convincing physicalists to adopt another form of physicalism called "idealism". How can I justify that equivalence? Because, when a system of thought gets so abstract, it practically becomes the same as physicalism. That is the entire reason for critiquing physicalism in the first place - it abstracts from concrete experience and then confuses the abstractions for the Ground from which all phenomena can be explained (or can be denied any possibility of explaining). That is exactly how "MAL", "alter", "dissociation", etc. have began functioning in BK's philosophy. I don't think it was necessarily always this way, but it is very clear to see now.

He has debated quite a few people who dont share his point of view are you one of the hurt ones who feels he is being "evaded" yourself?

No, he has responded to a lot of my comments and even said he would seriously consider reading Steiner's PoF. That's more than I can say for a lot of people here and certainly for BK. I am actually surprised at how much he has responded to here considering the quality and tone of some comments to him...