Are there any SIMPLE books refuting what Bernardo calls "The materialism of qualities"?
Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2021 6:09 pm
If you know of any books or videos, I'd love to know about them. I'd love to see something a teenager of average intelligence could understand!
Here's Bernardo's essay: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/01 ... mment-form
Meanwhile, here's something I wrote on another discussion thread last month. It's relevant to this question, so here it is:
1. Before an alternative ontology is proposed, it is necessary to establish as clearly as possible that empirical (as defined by present day science) data does not provide ANY evidence that establishes one ontology as superior to another.
2. Empirical evidence, as accepted among the majority of contemporary scientists, consists solely of the following:
(a) Registration of perception
(a1) By "perception," I mean cognitive/affective interpretation of the sensory images produced by stimulation of the brain (via the sense organs) by an unknown "X")
(b) reduction of perception to abstract mathematical values.
(c) Development of a theory to account for the quantified patterns that have been perceived.
3. In summary, scientific research as widely understood today, involves two things: (1) perception, and (2) abstracted, quantified concepts based on perception
4. At no point in this investigation is there any direct contact with the unknown "X" which is stimulating the sense organs.
****
I should hasten to add I don't agree with most of this. I'm attempting to write entirely from within a universally accepted understanding of what empirical research involves. There are a host of unsupported physicalist assumptions, as well as the assertion that "X" can't be known directly, with which I strongly disagree. Most important, gnostic intuition (what Sri Aurobindo calls "Knowledge by identity," or nondual knowledge) is not seen as having any role in this.
However, for the sake of THIS post, none of that matters, because I"m attempting to write from WITHIN the physicalist understanding of science.
I'm going to rephrase it, in case perhaps another wording of it might make it more accessible:
According to the widely accepted understanding of empirical research, science involves two things:
(a) perceiving (the result of cognitive/affective stimulation of the senses by an unknown X")
and
(b) abstract, quantified analysis of patterns of perceiving, following by theorizing and hypothesizing, leading to the identification of patterns (the so-called "laws of nature")
***
Notice that in this view, the unknown "X" could just as easily by consciousness as mind-independent "stuff" of some kind. But for talking to skeptics, I don't think anything needs to be said about "X" UNTIl these 2 simple points are established and understood. I think that Bernardo's philosophy would have many many more interested in it if they understood these points. I think Bernardo DOES make these points in places, but I've never seen it worked out in sufficient detail. At least, I've never seen it worked out in a way that I would not hesitate to refer skeptics to it.
Here's Bernardo's essay: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/01 ... mment-form
Meanwhile, here's something I wrote on another discussion thread last month. It's relevant to this question, so here it is:
1. Before an alternative ontology is proposed, it is necessary to establish as clearly as possible that empirical (as defined by present day science) data does not provide ANY evidence that establishes one ontology as superior to another.
2. Empirical evidence, as accepted among the majority of contemporary scientists, consists solely of the following:
(a) Registration of perception
(a1) By "perception," I mean cognitive/affective interpretation of the sensory images produced by stimulation of the brain (via the sense organs) by an unknown "X")
(b) reduction of perception to abstract mathematical values.
(c) Development of a theory to account for the quantified patterns that have been perceived.
3. In summary, scientific research as widely understood today, involves two things: (1) perception, and (2) abstracted, quantified concepts based on perception
4. At no point in this investigation is there any direct contact with the unknown "X" which is stimulating the sense organs.
****
I should hasten to add I don't agree with most of this. I'm attempting to write entirely from within a universally accepted understanding of what empirical research involves. There are a host of unsupported physicalist assumptions, as well as the assertion that "X" can't be known directly, with which I strongly disagree. Most important, gnostic intuition (what Sri Aurobindo calls "Knowledge by identity," or nondual knowledge) is not seen as having any role in this.
However, for the sake of THIS post, none of that matters, because I"m attempting to write from WITHIN the physicalist understanding of science.
I'm going to rephrase it, in case perhaps another wording of it might make it more accessible:
According to the widely accepted understanding of empirical research, science involves two things:
(a) perceiving (the result of cognitive/affective stimulation of the senses by an unknown X")
and
(b) abstract, quantified analysis of patterns of perceiving, following by theorizing and hypothesizing, leading to the identification of patterns (the so-called "laws of nature")
***
Notice that in this view, the unknown "X" could just as easily by consciousness as mind-independent "stuff" of some kind. But for talking to skeptics, I don't think anything needs to be said about "X" UNTIl these 2 simple points are established and understood. I think that Bernardo's philosophy would have many many more interested in it if they understood these points. I think Bernardo DOES make these points in places, but I've never seen it worked out in sufficient detail. At least, I've never seen it worked out in a way that I would not hesitate to refer skeptics to it.