AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:53 pmGrant,GrantHenderson wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:24 pm
As far as I can tell, your criticisms suggest that god cannot be empirically proven. No chance that would happen. Although empirics do inform my logical axioms, we cannot form inner concepts demonstrating how our sense perceptions pertain to “god”. I don’t think any of this negates the proposal that one cannot construct a truthful (or at least valid) proof procedure for “god”, but rather, highlights the limitations of logical proof in general— especially one of this nature. One problem with logical proofs, as you point out, is a problem of achieving consensus on definitions. Another problem is the reduction in epistemic certainty by abstracting away from inner concepts.
I can’t argue with these. They are all true.
For the longest time, I thought you were claiming that, contrary to my argument, the way to logically prove god was through inner concepts — I couldn’t understand why you thought that could make for a valid argument. Now I realize that you are claiming that inner concepts are the most epistemically certain conceptualizations we can engage in with regards to the structure and function of consciousness — more so than any logical proof of an abstract god. Additionally, they can inform us about attributes of a potential God that won’t be found in a proof procedure such as this one.
Can’t argue with that.
I apologize if my posts have been unclear on the nature of the criticism. There are four general points:
1) Even assuming a conceptual proof can be made for the Ontic Prime (I say this is a bad assumption), it seems to me that the one you presented is a tautology. I think you have embedded the conclusion within the definitions of Reality and God, by making the latter extremely broad.
For ex. - Axiom 1) Consciousness has a proposed definition -- “That which gives qualitative meaning to its properties” ---> this sounds to me like "Consciousness is Reality" because there is no experience of Reality without qualitative meaning.
2) We can empirically investigate the structure of Consciousness by looking at our own Thinking activity and how it is shaped by the currently invisible meaningful context. This comes through a combination of inner meditative practice and logical reasoning through first-person experience as it manifests (without assuming the "essence" of anything from the outset). We already know that what gives reality its conceptual meaning, whether the concepts of Being or Nothingness (absolute or otherwise), is our Thinking (see Steiner quote previously posted). So, naturally, that is the place to investigate the OP. It is here where we find the underlying activity (thinking) and the product of that activity (concepts) united, the noumenon and phenomenon, and therefore transparent to us.
3) If the practical aim is to recover the experience of ideal activity permeating the world around us, which was stripped away by materialist mindset, logical proofs for "mind=reality" are entirely inadequate. We can easily discern this by reflecting on how many times such proofs have been given and how little difference they have made to human experience of the world. What reason do we have to think logical proofs can alter the very cognitive perspective and experience of human beings? At best, they can only be the very first symbolic steps taken towards a more living understanding, and, more importantly, a means of strenghtening our logical thinking faculty (Logos).
4) (this is new) Even without inner work of the sort mentioned above, we can reason out how mind=reality in much greater resolution. For ex., we can reason out what relation there is between the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms we perceive and our own inner activity of willing, feeling, thinking. We can reason out how nested hierarchical Ideas actually structure our daily experience, or the entire human experience over long stretches of time. Many similar things can be reasoned out, relating ourselves and our inner activity to the meaningful World Content we perceive, including all other living organisms. Isn't this more of a fruitful path and satisfying explanation than the broad conclusion, "mind=reality"?
This is much more clear to me, thank you.
For ex. - Axiom 1) Consciousness has a proposed definition -- “That which gives qualitative meaning to its properties” ---> this sounds to me like "Consciousness is Reality" because there is no experience of Reality without qualitative meaning.
But like you say, that’s just the “experience of reality” -- Experience and consciousness are synonyms. While contrarily, the realist will always inquire about “that which could theoretically occur outside of the experience of reality”. In this post, I attempt to demonstrate that there is nothing “beyond” experience.
Of course, we know that there is a qualitative element posed upon reality because we experience it that way. This doesn’t mean that reality is fundamentally qualitative as opposed to quantitative, or whatever else could theoretically be “beyond” experience.
You didn’t mention this, but I’ll also note that I don’t think the proposition that “reality can be defined as x” presupposes consciousness or god either. Afterall, other logical models which assert propositions don’t presuppose consciousness or God within those propositions. Consciousness is only implied by this proposition under the condition that all axioms correspond to certain empirical truths which are defining of consciousness — consciousness is that which gives meaning to properties.
And this is an empirical truth as far as I can tell. Cleric basically spells it out as well in that passage you showed me.
This idea isn’t demonstrated well by my post. Hence why I stated that I will probably rewrite it to reflect this.
2) We can empirically investigate the structure of Consciousness by looking at our own Thinking activity and how it is shaped by the currently invisible meaningful context. This comes through a combination of inner meditative practice and logical reasoning through first-person experience as it manifests (without assuming the "essence" of anything from the outset). We already know that what gives reality its conceptual meaning, whether the concepts of Being or Nothingness (absolute or otherwise), is our Thinking (see Steiner quote previously posted). So, naturally, that is the place to investigate the OP. It is here where we find the underlying activity (thinking) and the product of that activity (concepts) united, the noumenon and phenomenon, and therefore transparent to us.
I absolutely agree.
3 and 4
You realize the importance of constructing inner concepts for explaining the underlying activity of mind, and that modern philosophical ideologies contradict that pursuit. As such, it seems like you make it your goal to help us get away from these modern ideologies. That’s a fair goal, because a paradigm shift is needed.
Believe it or not, I much prefer thinking in this manner as well. I have engaged in it for years, and it’s a breath of fresh air to see it done so frequently on this forum. This makes me wish I had instead shared something of such relevance.
It’s not like I've made it my life’s goal to prove god or anything like that. Not at all. This has been nothing more than an interesting exercise of logic. A step away from the normal thought patterns about the inner workings of mind, among other unrelated things. I don’t claim this post as having any application past that which can be posed by logical models.
With that said, while it would certainly be harmful if abstractions were replaced by concepts of inner experiences, I don't think this is the case here. I think logical models about reality can be useful for the construction of inner concepts.
Inner concepts are immensely useful for understanding the commonalities in the structure and function of living and perhaps even non-living things. Whereas, logical models are important for grounding these inner concepts in true laws. For example, the only reason we may justify thoughts as having “centers of gravity” is because of certain laws of reality (like general relativity) that inform us upon what variables to use when explaining inner concepts.
Even with regards to this post: If, hypothetically, you could construct a true logical theory which asserts that consciousness is fundamental to reality (if), it would just add merit to any insights produced by inner conceptualizations. So long as it’s consistent with that which is true by virtue of experience, it can only add positive value. The limitations of that positive value have certainly been illuminated within this exchange, but positive value still.
Additionally, there is in fact a meaningful message in this post that I didn't mention previously. This post literally demonstrates that reality is what you make of it. This isn’t just an interesting insight, but I would be hard pressed to think of something more essential to our eminent personal experience. The meaning of life is that life is the meaning you give it. We have this incredible ability to view even the saddest circumstances in positively meaningful or even beautiful ways.
But, despite that, I understand that my post is still quite pointless. Firstly, the meaning within my post isn’t something people would necessarily derive. Secondly, it has a very (too) broad application in meaning to be used for anything concrete. Thirdly, hardly anybody is going to read it anyways.
Yes, I’m in the camp that logical models about reality are pretty pointless. Any philosophy that doesn’t have direct utility to me is not something that I was hoping to waste as much time on in this thread that I already have…
Learning logic for the sake of logic contravenes what is taught by logic.
Man is an artist first and foremost. As in, man acts out of inspiration for the sake of meaning. Any inspiration to learn logic for logic's sake is thwarted once he learns its limits in utility to his life.
At the rudimentary level of universal mind is a crisis in meaning and identity. Indecision between the whole and its parts for the sake of refining the whole by its parts. When that in itself is emphasized and refined by the individual, his identity risks implosion. It's focusing only on the idea that there is only change, while letting change slip your perception.
Learning knowledge is an immersion that weighs against action on knowledge. It only has utility when to act would be unwise; que philosophy -- Philosophy is meant to be learned in order to refine our systems of knowledge when natural inclinations and inspirations become inadequate or null of meaning.
even more; philosophical thinking is driven by the fear of grounding observations in sense perceptions, to elucidate the nature of that fear, and to be overcome by bliss. This also means that the purpose of philosophical thinking is to learn to thrive in life free of the constraints posed by philosophical thinking. I am reaching that point. Philosophical thinking becomes more and more useless to me in day to day life — and this even includes the exploration of inner concepts.
I felt like that slight digression was necessary to affirm that stance with greater conviction, for it seems to have been in doubt.
Again, I don’t claim this post as having any application past that which can be posed by logical models. Yes, there is more practical utility to be derived from constructing inner concepts as opposed to ontological models such as the one I have presented. But I would also argue that The relative importance between these types of conceptualizing have different metrics for evaluation, as they attempt to do different things. Furthermore, there are utilitarian benefits to some logical proofs that should not be completely overlooked, of which may even apply to the construction of inner concepts (and vice versa of course). Thus, I don’t really see the point in evaluating the utilitarian importance of these approaches against one another while analyzing what they are attempting to do, respectively. Especially, when this isn’t even the object of the discussion.
Not to mention the fact that I already agree that we can learn more about consciousness through inner concepts rather than logical models about reality.
Hopefully that addresses points 3 and 4 on your list.
Edit:
On a personal-moral note -- Philosophy (including exploration of inner concepts) basically teaches us to engage in more hyper sensory creative activities. Instead of trying to penetrate god, and consequently undermining god, you get to co-create with god! Our life purpose isn't merely to fully understand reality, but to try and enhance reality by our understanding of it.
If there’s one thing I regret from this post, it’s bringing God into this. I should have just referenced “consciousness”.