Speculation About the Discovery of Ideal Forms

[AshvinP]

Well fair enough Eugene but the natural question that would arise for me from this 'That is how we live in our fantasy worlds instead of living in reality.' would be 'Which reality?' Doesn't it depend on context and perspective?

So yes, we do all live in a fantasy world, a construct if you will, without exception, because that is the illusion from across the boundary of a 'dissociated alter' isn't it?

The DID with dissociation boundaries is just another abstract model. It seems to be a nice and useful one, yet we don't know how accurately it actually describes the reality.

The only reality we actually know is the reality of the flow of qualia of our conscious experience. But that reality is lacking completeness in terms of explanatory ability: the qualia we experience by themselves do not present any rational explanations about why and how this flow of qualia happens. Science (ideally) only describes consistent patterns of qualia and does not provide any insights into what the reality actually is. Philosophy takes the ambition to close this explanatory gap, yet, with the abundance of metaphysical schemes/models and lacking any means to verify or falsify them, it is powerless to provide definite answers and close the explanatory gap with any certainty. Many, out of desperation from such uncertainly, use their thinking power to create interesting and fascinating metaphysical models and structures abut what the reality "out there" is, and then start to believe in them religiously (based on certain psychological motivations). It takes a fair amount of courage to admit to ourselves that we do not actually know with certainty what the reality "out there" is on the fundamental level, yet that should not stop us from guessing, thinking, exploring, pushing the boundaries and creating these possible explanatory models. Idealism is one of these models, it is (IMO) practically useful/beneficial, parsimonious and elegant, yet still having explanatory gaps and having plenty of variants that are not entirely consistent with each other. My approach is "possibilianism": I do not believe that our mental fantasies by default represent any actual realities (apart form them being pure but real ideas), but always open to accept them provisionally as useful hypotheses.

As discussed in this essay, and of course many times before, qualia flow is never perceived without idea, i.e. perception and thinking are inseparable. That inseparability is what we truly experience, while "qualia by themselves" is an added assumption which cannot be traced back to experience.

[Eugene I]

As discussed in this essay, and of course many times before, qualia flow is never perceived without idea, i.e. perception and thinking are inseparable. That inseparability is what we truly experience, while "qualia by themselves" is an added assumption which cannot be traced back to experience.

Thinking is also all qualia of experience - we experience all imaginations and all thoughts with their ideas always as qualia, so there is really no difference. Whatever we experience - perceptions or thoughts, they are all only qualia.

[AshvinP]

As discussed in this essay, and of course many times before, qualia flow is never perceived without idea, i.e. perception and thinking are inseparable. That inseparability is what we truly experience, while "qualia by themselves" is an added assumption which cannot be traced back to experience.

Thinking is also all qualia of experience - we experience all imaginations and all thoughts with their ideas always as qualia, so there is really no difference. Whatever we experience - perceptions or thoughts, they are all only qualia.

True, and the thought-qualia are precisely what provide the meaningful content to the perception-qualia and therefore bring some level of completeness to them. Any 'hard limits' to what can be known about the nature of the qualia before death, via methods of philosophy-science reasoning from experience, are nothing more than the fruits of bad mental habits we have not yet overcome. They are not limits of Reality but only of our own imagination.

But I know you have been over this before with others and myself many times. All I can say which may not have been said yet is that, when I read your posts such as the latest one, I get a sense of ease which comes from a burden being lifted from my shoulders - the burden of being responsible for learning who I truly am in relation to the Cosmos. It is the opposite sense that I get from, "straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it".

I know that is no small part of your motivation for commenting in the first place, but generally, from my perspective, claims which serve to lower individual responsibility should be viewed with suspicion. Which is not to say I have no reasons for that suspicion, but that it does not fit well with spiritual traditions which focus a great deal on sacrifice and voluntary adoption of responsibility.

[Eugene I]

I know that is no small part of your motivation for commenting in the first place, but generally, from my perspective, claims which serve to lower individual responsibility should be viewed with suspicion. Which is not to say I have no reasons for that suspicion, but that it does not fit well with spiritual traditions which focus a great deal on sacrifice and voluntary adoption of responsibility.

OK, if you have no hard limits of knowledge, can you explain why and how exactly the patterns of qualia precisely follow the laws of physics?
(The answer "God made them so" does not count )

[AshvinP]

I know that is no small part of your motivation for commenting in the first place, but generally, from my perspective, claims which serve to lower individual responsibility should be viewed with suspicion. Which is not to say I have no reasons for that suspicion, but that it does not fit well with spiritual traditions which focus a great deal on sacrifice and voluntary adoption of responsibility.

OK, if you have no hard limits of knowledge, can you explain why and how exactly the patterns of qualia precisely follow the laws of physics?
(The answer "God made them so" does not count )

No, because I am not arrogant enough to think my knowledge = the highest possible knowledge which can be achieved by humans presently and indefinitely into the future.
.

[Eugene I]

No, because I am not arrogant enough to think my knowledge = the highest possible knowledge which can be achieved by humans presently and indefinitely into the future.

Right, but so there are limits to your knowledge, at least at this point in time.

[AshvinP]

No, because I am not arrogant enough to think my knowledge = the highest possible knowledge which can be achieved by humans presently and indefinitely into the future.

Right, but so there are limits to your knowledge, at least at this point in time.

The limit to my knowledge is my own lack of knowledge which only persists for lack of effort and wisdom. Just as I can see a professional basketball player who is vastly more knowledgeable than me about the game we both play, I can see spiritual seekers by the same light.

[Eugene I]

The limit to my knowledge is my own lack of knowledge which only persists for lack of effort and wisdom. Just as I can see a professional basketball player who is vastly more knowledgeable than me about the game we both play, I can see spiritual seekers by the same light.

OK, so can you ask then your spiritual seekers "why and how exactly the patterns of qualia precisely follow the laws of physics?"

[AshvinP]

The limit to my knowledge is my own lack of knowledge which only persists for lack of effort and wisdom. Just as I can see a professional basketball player who is vastly more knowledgeable than me about the game we both play, I can see spiritual seekers by the same light.

OK, so can you ask then your spiritual seekers "why and how exactly the patterns of qualia precisely follow the laws of physics?"

The 'laws of physics' are mathematical expressions of the necessary relations between qualia, i.e. qualia A,B,C are necessary for there to be qualia D (with understanding "qualia" includes percepts and concepts). Of course they are only partial expressions and no 'laws' are set in stone (even under the materialist-dualist paradigm). Beyond that, I am sure spiritual science has many insights on that question I am not yet aware of. It is concerned with what actually exists/occurs rather than "why" in the way we usually mean that question, i.e. why is it this way instead of another way.

Why is this relevant? Do you think the question of why/how physical laws exist is an example of fundamentally limited capacity for knowledge?

[Eugene I]

Why is this relevant? Do you think the question of why/how physical laws exist is an example of fundamentally limited capacity for knowledge?

No, it is just an evidence of the fact that your current knowledge is limited. And not only yours but other spiritual scientists too (unless you can show me where Hagel or Steiner or anyone else have an answer to that question).