“Is it wise to reference philosophers who did not have at their disposal all the things we know from physics and biology today?
After all, they can not interpret the situation as we can.
I am saying this with something in mind that BK said the other day, that QFT is the most successful theory ever, just as an example.
They did not know of QFT.”
It is. They were the foundations upon which are current knowledge of physics and biology rests and inform us of the current strengths and weaknesses of our understanding, which is far from the last word.
I would disagree that QFT is the most successful. It is the most elementary but still incomplete. I would say the QM is the most successful as our modern world is built on the electronics it enables, but nobody actually understands it.
“Does it make sense to say on the one hand that we can not know and on the other hand denounce ontological primitves like mind?
I think you said yourself physics seems to point at an ontological primitive. And then you said "if such a thing even exists". Does it not make sense to argue for "one", be it one universal mind, one garbage-universe, or whatever oneness?”
No, I don’t think we can make any meaningful objective declarations or definitions beyond the energy that enables us to be conscious. We can’t even meaningfully speak of the existence of ontological primitives because such a thing would be outside of and in accessible through our conditions of thought. Anything we might attempt to say would necessarily be formed according to space, time and causality, which doesn’t exist. An example of Kant’s Transcendental Illusion.
“And:
What reveals itself again is the error of metaphysics. It attempts to speak what we cannot say. To define the unknowable most elementary base of existence as consciousness is as meaningless as defining it as fairyland. Both are mere anthropomorphic projections from inside out locked cage of human representation.
One could hold against that that consciousness is not a projection, it is a fact, fairyland is not. And speculating this is what the universe is all about. Does that make it an antromorphic projection? and not for example an inference? I think an anthromorpic projection would be to say the universe is like us or a personal God. The idealistic argument is that experience is the only ontic category that we know to be really exist as a fact. Why is this speculation less valuable than to posit, as I think you said in your video, that maybe superpositional states result in al kinds of things including consciousness? "The error of metaphysics", as it stands, is just an assertion to me right now potentially begging the question of materialism. My personal speculation is that "one mind" does not get into some peoples heads. But there is nothing strange about it, at least to me.”
That there is nothing strange about it is the first clue it is false. It attempts to describe a reality so strange we cannot conceptualize it. Transcendental Illusion is almost always an inference from our experience, such as the question of finite/infinite universe, which infers from our spatial/temporal/causal experience to something where such conditions are absent.
I would like to understand more your suggestion that the error of metaphysics might be begging the question of materialism.
“Along the same lines: The fairyland-sentence: This seems to imply the belief that whatever we could possibly speculate always has to be meaningless. I dont see why you think its meaningless to begin with. To me, speculations could always be wrong. But to declare the wrong only because they could be wrong does not have much purchase for me.”
As I wrote above, because our speculations are conditioned by factors that don’t exist fundamentally. We simply aren’t equipped to conceptualize this. This brings up one of Kastrup’s false dichotomy: material/ideal. The only real demarcation is what we are able to grasp within the small band of existence in which we evolved and our inability to grasp the reality beyond that in any representational way.
“There
Its early here and I have to rush. But one thing I remember from your video but only vaguely. It was one X and one Y and you caid they can not be reconciled into "one". Can you remind me/us and elaborate on that, that was interesting. It made me doubt what you said but I also did not really unerstand it.”
I just don’t know what you are referring to here.
“There seem to be 2 conflicting definitions of metaphysics.
The one most here would presumably subscribe to is this one: Its just a way to analytically get behind the ontic nature of the world.
A part of philosophy.
You seem to say that we have to stick with German philosophers who dealt with the subject-matter first, meaning that the term is already
begging the question in favor of e.g. idealism, because a transcendent cause or first principle is already considered a given.
That about right?”
Not really. The German notion of metaphysics sticks closer to the original Greek meaning of transcendental reality of which the physical world is merely a shadow. The essential feature is it displaces reality and truth to an imaginary plane beyond the physical world. It happened at the time of Socrates when φύσις decayed into physics and metaphysics, blocking the grounding of truth in our reality.
“Do you self-identify as anything....are you a materialist or...”
Simple semi-literate biker who lives under a bridge.
“How do you solve materialisms main-problem, that, as many here would argue, materialists are trying to pull experience from an abstraction-space?”
I would say they misunderstand the question. Materialism, with its connotation of matter, is obsolete. I pull understanding from experience of the physical world esthetically in the original sense of φύσις and λόγος .
“What value do you grant to our human experience when potentially figuring things out, be it meditating on a mountain, taking certain substances etc?”
The entirety of whatever value can exist, and would include all esthetic experience such as music, art and poetry.
“Is it conceivable for you say you took whatever substance to change your world-view after the experience? Why or why not?”
I would say that psychedelic mushrooms facilitated the process by showing me how elastic and tenuous consciousness is.
“What also comes to mind you said that the way this world is can not even be grasped. There is this famous idea that scripture
is the "finger pointing at the moon", the moon indeed is the ineffable and can not be grasped so you need a story to illustrate
the ungraspable.”
Indeed. That is what poetic metaphor is for.
“Last but not least: You are saying that Schopenhauer was not an idealist? If so, why did he say what I posted under your video and why did he own a dog named Atman?
“
There is no laughing in philosophy.
