Will idealism ever become part of the mainstream?

[AshvinP]

Well, I wouldn't say I'm not interested in spriitual musings. I actually have had a deep interest in esotercism, name Hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, and other things of that vein as well as more eastern things. I've read the Corpus, Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreuz, much of the Nag Hammadi library, a litany of Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist texts plus various occult writings. I probably would've considered myself to be an esoteric Christian up until recently when I began really feeling like I had no answer to materialism. Until I discovered things like the hard problem of consciousness and the realization that the jury is still out I felt a lot of despair. I just don't want to feel like I'm only trying to find a justification for my beliefs instead of just believing empirical evidence. I'm not trying to delude myself.

That's very interesting. If I am understanding correctly, apart from the hard problem of consciousness, you feel like most of the science stacks up in favor of materialism? And that also caused you to question/abandon esoteric Christian theology?

Yes pretty much. Besides the problem of consciousness I really don't see what would create too many flaws with materialism. I also don't see why like gravity, evolution, or electro-magnetic waves we should discount the idea that materialism can one day answer it even if it can't right now. I guess I'm looking for something that materialism has no answer for and so far that only thing is consciousness. It's pretty much the last frontier and if it ever gets explained/proven how consciousness arises in the brain through physical processes then that's pretty much the final nail in the coffin.

Have you looked into the QM experiments which have disproved "local realism", i.e. showing that quanta can influence each other faster than the speed of light and/or quantitative properties do not exist independently of mind? There is also the work by Nima Arkani-Hamed suggesting that "space-time is doomed" (admittedly much of his math is beyond me, but the basic concept he describes is pretty simple). And Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception, an evolutionary argument against materialism. I find all of that rather convincing evidence against materialism, but I assume you have considered most of that and disagree?

[AshvinP]

That's very interesting. If I am understanding correctly, apart from the hard problem of consciousness, you feel like most of the science stacks up in favor of materialism? And that also caused you to question/abandon esoteric Christian theology?

Yes pretty much. Besides the problem of consciousness I really don't see what would create too many flaws with materialism. I also don't see why like gravity, evolution, or electro-magnetic waves we should discount the idea that materialism can one day answer it even if it can't right now. I guess I'm looking for something that materialism has no answer for and so far that only thing is consciousness. It's pretty much the last frontier and if it ever gets explained/proven how consciousness arises in the brain through physical processes then that's pretty much the final nail in the coffin.

Have you looked into the QM experiments which have disproved "local realism", i.e. showing that quanta can influence each other faster than the speed of light and/or quantitative properties do not exist independently of mind? There is also the work by Nima Arkani-Hamed suggesting that "space-time is doomed" (admittedly much of his math is beyond me, but the basic concept he describes is pretty simple). And Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception, an evolutionary argument against materialism. I find all of that rather convincing evidence against materialism, but I assume you have considered most of that and disagree?

re: the inability of materialism to explain consciousness - that's a massive unexplained frontier, since it's the only aspect of the world whose existence we cannot reasonably doubt. And it's not simply that materialism cannot yet explain it, like 'physical' interactions, but that no one can even imagine what a materialist explanation would look like.

[Astra052]

That's very interesting. If I am understanding correctly, apart from the hard problem of consciousness, you feel like most of the science stacks up in favor of materialism? And that also caused you to question/abandon esoteric Christian theology?

Yes pretty much. Besides the problem of consciousness I really don't see what would create too many flaws with materialism. I also don't see why like gravity, evolution, or electro-magnetic waves we should discount the idea that materialism can one day answer it even if it can't right now. I guess I'm looking for something that materialism has no answer for and so far that only thing is consciousness. It's pretty much the last frontier and if it ever gets explained/proven how consciousness arises in the brain through physical processes then that's pretty much the final nail in the coffin.

Have you looked into the QM experiments which have disproved "local realism", i.e. showing that quanta can influence each other faster than the speed of light and/or quantitative properties do not exist independently of mind? There is also the work by Nima Arkani-Hamed suggesting that "space-time is doomed" (admittedly much of his math is beyond me, but the basic concept he describes is pretty simple). And Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception, an evolutionary argument against materialism. I find all of that rather convincing evidence against materialism, but I assume you have considered most of that and disagree?

I have taken these into consideration but it doesn't quell my doubt honestly. Hoffman is great and I really like him and his theory but like, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He would be the first to admit this and often prefaces what he says with "I'm probably wrong". It's definitely engaging but the idea that I don't have a brain because I'm not looking at it? Not sure if I'm ready to hop on to that yet. I do agree that space-time is not fundamental and physics will bear that out however that doesn't mean consciousness is either. Perhaps I really need a psychedelic trip or something that just blows my conceptions away and shoves it all into my face. I want[ to believe, I'm just having a hard time making the leap after it feels like materialism broadly convinced me. It's just a tough place to be.

[AshvinP]

Yes pretty much. Besides the problem of consciousness I really don't see what would create too many flaws with materialism. I also don't see why like gravity, evolution, or electro-magnetic waves we should discount the idea that materialism can one day answer it even if it can't right now. I guess I'm looking for something that materialism has no answer for and so far that only thing is consciousness. It's pretty much the last frontier and if it ever gets explained/proven how consciousness arises in the brain through physical processes then that's pretty much the final nail in the coffin.

Have you looked into the QM experiments which have disproved "local realism", i.e. showing that quanta can influence each other faster than the speed of light and/or quantitative properties do not exist independently of mind? There is also the work by Nima Arkani-Hamed suggesting that "space-time is doomed" (admittedly much of his math is beyond me, but the basic concept he describes is pretty simple). And Hoffman's Interface Theory of Perception, an evolutionary argument against materialism. I find all of that rather convincing evidence against materialism, but I assume you have considered most of that and disagree?

I have taken these into consideration but it doesn't quell my doubt honestly. Hoffman is great and I really like him and his theory but like, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He would be the first to admit this and often prefaces what he says with "I'm probably wrong". It's definitely engaging but the idea that I don't have a brain because I'm not looking at it? Not sure if I'm ready to hop on to that yet. I do agree that space-time is not fundamental and physics will bear that out however that doesn't mean consciousness is either. Perhaps I really need a psychedelic trip or something that just blows my conceptions away and shoves it all into my face. I want[ to believe, I'm just having a hard time making the leap after it feels like materialism broadly convinced me. It's just a tough place to be.

Hoffman says he is "probably wrong" about his team's specific models of conscious agent networks, but not about ITP. If space-time is not fundamental, then what are we left with? Only materialist formulations that are just as speculative as any spiritual explanation for why we exist rather than nothing. Trust me, you don't need a psychedelic trip, just some more time and critical thought. You will get plenty of both here. I think it's safe to say most people here were at one point (and perhaps still) deeply concerned about making the leap out of a materialist-dualist paradigm into the idealist one. Yet we continue to push forward in the direction which makes the most sense and relates to our experience, because that is where the most satisfaction and meaning will be found.

[Cleric K]

Astro,
I wouldn't advice you to take advice from random people on the Internet but I'll nevertheless say something, just food for thought.

The first thing is, as Ashvin said, that things take time. I can see that you've really overgrown your age but there are still processes that take time. A child can form some idea about what puberty is but these ideas find their reality only when the right time has come. This holds true for other processes as well. For example, you are already in a position to form an intellectual picture of most things but some of these pictures will attain reality only gradually. It's just that there's difference between abstract, theoretical knowledge and living experience that comes with time.

You are entering a phase of your life where it's completely natural to become emancipated from family, friends, society, nation. By this I don't mean becoming anti-family, anti-society but only that you'll begin to feel yourself more and more as an independent "I" that is related and must live in harmony with the outer world but without being dragged unconsciously by it. These things come gradually. For some people they never happen but I'm pretty sure you'll get there. Patience is key.

Your interest in science is natural and actually a very good sign that you're not merely interested in wishy-washy mystical stories but you feel the need to understand. It's my opinion that you should explore the sciences even further. But if there's one thing to remember is that the sciences don't force you to lock yourself in any one system of thought - including materialism. Think about it: at the deepest level of your consciousness you have a sum of perceptions and you experience thoughts about them. Through thinking you seek some logic, some unity and explanation of the perceptions. Currently it seems plausible to you that behind the perceptions stands an objective reality and this is a completely healthy feeling. It becomes unhealthy only if you close the door for the possibility that at some point something of this objective reality can be found within your consciousness. If you believe that there's impenetrable wall between your consciousness and objective reality, that's just that - a belief. How can you ever be sure that something fully independent of consciousness exists if by definition it is inaccessible to experience?

The get the most of the sciences it's needed to be clear what they really tell and what people add of themselves. The sciences most commonly make mappings, correlations between mathematical thoughts and perceptions. Take the classical law of gravitational attraction for example. It's pure mathematical expression F = G m1 m2 / r^2. When you explore this mathematical expression you explore the dynamics of your own thinking, completely independent of any other perceptions. Science begins when we say "Look, the perceptions of these two bodies move in a similar way as my thoughts when I think about the law of gravity." If you understand this you'll be in a healthier position than many scientist who don't really make the distinction. If you make the distinction between the mathematical thoughts and mapping them to perceptions, you'll find how clear headed you'll feel. You'll understand both quantum mechanics and relativity better. At the same time you'll be able to support an attitude of healthy openness. That's the key - the mathematical descriptions of science themselves don't tell anything about how they should be interpreted. The interpretations are something that people choose to lock themselves into. You can perfectly well understand everything that science has to say (as facts of experiments and mathematical tools) while keeping an open mind about the interpretations.

I agree with Ashvin - psychedelics won't help you in any way. You've already gone further through thinking, than many people have gone in a lifetime of psychedelics. In the best case you'll simply not find anything revealing except some shiny visuals and patterns of thought. In the worst cast you'll be entranced by the experience and you'll keep looking for answers in a direction from which these answers can never come.

It is practically inevitable that you'll pass through a small 'dark age' now. By this I mean that you'll feel utterly alone - just you and your thoughts confronting the World of perceptions. Nothing will seem certain except your own thoughts - even the idea of a material world. And this will be a trial in your life - what decisions will you make in this period of darkness? Will you reach and take something while you believe that no one is looking?

There are old people who say "I don't know if there's God, I don't put my belief in him but I live morally as if there's a God". If you pass through the dark age without being lured by the temptations, then after the darkest of night, the Sun always rises. Then things that you've now read will reemerge from a completely different direction. Now you read Rosicrucian Wisdom and wonder if it's true or fantasy. Then you'll find that Wisdom as if you speak it forth like a description of your own inner experience. But patience is needed. At least up to your 21st year.

[Cleric K]

It's often said that Oedipus is the founding myth of Western ethos (Freud etc.), and there's wonderful ecopsychology take on that story, which compares scientism to King Oedipus who is asking Teiresias for the cause for the plague in the city. But there's also third act of the narrative, Oedipus in Kolonos, the return to home part of Hero's Journey...

Yes, myths are pictorial descriptions of events (spanning past and future) and beings in the Spiritual realms.

The myth of Prometheus is also very important, as it pictures the descent of the spirit into matter and how matter is at first being transformed mechanically. Yet this comes at a price. We can't transform matter without first becoming chained to it - the rock. The liver of Prometheus is constantly being eaten by the eagle. The liver is connected with the astral body in such a way that it's a seat of very personal emotions, very often related to egoism. These emotions are in conflict with the higher world of air, of the eagle, of the spirit. So there's suffering.

[Martin_]

There are old people who say "I don't know if there's God, I don't put my belief in him but I live morally as if there's a God".

Hey! I came up with that rule when I was 30 the most. How old are you if i may ask.

[Cleric K]

Hey! I came up with that rule when I was 30 the most.

The sooner the better. One can't undo much harm if comes to that rule only at old age. Point was that it's still preferable to reach old age by living honest moral life, even if the experience of the Spirit remains out of reach.

If we place our bets on "It's all mindless stuff. Take whatever you can from life!" we are making investments, we are signing a bond. Then we by definition will stay as far as possible from any spiritual realizations because our whole investment depends on the belief that the bond is void. Any possible experience that may cast some reality on the bond is consciously or subconsciously avoided.

Hey! I came up with that rule when I was 30 the most. How old are you if i may ask.

I'm towards the end of the decade where you came up with the rule

[Soul_of_Shu]

Astra ... It's simply not true that the only question left for materialism to answer is the 'problem' of consciousness. Physics has no answer for quite a few questions, e.g. the phenomena of entanglement, i.e. instantaneous, apparently acausal interaction at a distance (no matter how great the distance) between particles, which has been confirmed but not explained with any definitive physicalist explication. Also, as of yet there is still the unexplained gap between QM and General Relativity. And then there's the question of the apparent need for some 'stuff' of so-called dark matter and/or dark energy to account for the vast 'missing' amounts that the equations predict must somehow be factored in. And the list goes on. Again, some scientists are beginning to question that a dogmatic adherence to materialism can provide a way out of these dead ends. So the positing of the primacy of consciousness just opens up another avenue of investigation into such questions, even if there's no guarantee that it will resolve the questions.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Cleric wrote:

I agree with Ashvin - psychedelics won't help you in any way. You've already gone further through thinking, than many people have gone in a lifetime of psychedelics. In the best case you'll simply not find anything revealing except some shiny visuals and patterns of thought.

Cleric ... Out of curiosity, what ongoing experimental exploration/experience have you had with the broad array of psychedelics available ~ which have been named 'entheogens' for good reason ~ that would lead you to this conclusion, given that incisive minds such as Stan Grof, Chistopher Bache, Rick Strassman, etc, would apparently disagree, not to mention BK himself if the explorations he depicts in Dreamed Up Reality are any indication? My own experience is not that extensive, but certainly played a significant part in grokking the primacy of consciousness, albeit far from being the sole factor. Not that I'm advising this route, as it's not to be undertaken without due diligence, but to dismiss it as totally inadvisable and non-revelatory seems cursory, to say the least.