JeffreyW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:06 am
AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:24 pm
JeffreyW wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:57 pm
I think you have misread me. First, I do not posit energy as what Kastrup calls the ontological primitive. In fact I have gone out of my way to emphasize that no such thing is even possible. I do say that energy is the lowest element in our experience, at least so far, but that in no way implies energy is the lowest element, or even that such a lowest exists. I do not “assume” this, but observe it. Without energy there is no consciousness. At the quantum field level, which is the lowest level of reality we yet know, energy is all there is.
We know through observation that evolution is a process that brought us as a species to where we are, That would be the most likely explanation for consciousness. We only encounter consciousness in life,
and to attribute it to non-life would be the sort of metaphysical leap I refuse.
Life is also composed of elements that themselves are not alive,
and it is no great leap to assume the same for consciousness.
I’ve not given them any food. Perhaps they are biting at lures.
Maybe I am misreading too, but how are you reconciling the bold with the underlined? You say you refuse to make the metaphysical leap of attributing consciousness to non-life, and then immediately say it is
not a great leap to assume consciousness can be "composed" of [presumably non-conscious] elements.
I think you are misusing the term “metaphysical leap”. A metaphysical leap would be a claim not observable in this world. It is easily observable that living beings are made up of protein, water, polypeptides, etc, which alone do not display life. The same can be said of consciousness, which has never been observed outside a living being. Even Kastrup conceded that much with his ATP marker.
Let me ask this way - do you acknowledge what you write above about livings beings is naive realism? That you are assuming you already know the essence of those "components" just from your
immediate perception and understanding of them? I have pointed out to you why modern science flatly rejects this naive realist understanding, IF we approach the results without any prejudices, but you failed to provide any counter-argument to a processual understanding of biology. If you think naive realism is a perfectly valid philosophical approach, then that's fine... I just want to know if that is actually your position here.
JW wrote:What you call a “cessation of reason” is what I call remaining silent before what cannot be spoken. That consciousness exists outside of life is the real baseless speculation for the 3rd person perspective. Even if it were true, we don’t know that. More importantly, there is no good reason to accept it.
In addition to “metaphysical”, I also see “naive realism” misused almost every time in this thread. As I explained above, naive realism pertains the attitude most commonly seen among scientists and analytic philosophers, that the world is exactly as it appears to us and we live in an orderly universe amenable to our rational understanding. I couldn’t be more different.
I should also clarify my position that we innately have two modes of understanding: rational/objective understanding which enables our practical survival within a small band of reality; and esthetic non-objective knowledge, without which we do revert to naive realism.
OK, well I wrote the above question before reading this... so I think it's clear you are applying "naive realism" only to the positions
you don't agree with, but not to your own. This is exactly what BK does when challenging materialism but also relying on concepts like "alters" and "dissociation" and "life corresponding to metabolic processes". I disagree with BK that any of those concepts are epistemically useful and your concept of "energy", "ATP", "life", etc. are functioning in the
exact same way. This is why I keep referencing that Schop quote - it was a brilliant observation and his philosophy was a great example of it at the same time, just as BK's and your own.
The rational/objective vs. esthetic/non-objective "modes of understanding" philosophy you are putting forth here is simply a reformulation of the
object/subject dualism of Cartesian rationalism and Kantian idealism. It is very clear for anyone to see this from the 'outside looking in', so to speak. The concepts match up almost perfectly and they certainly function in the exact same way. What is "objective-rational" (matter) can be spoken about and investigated publicly, what is "subjective" remains a perpetual mystery for each "private" mind to contemplate and nothing else. It is when people are intellectually invested in their own thought-system, which can occur for reasons quite independent of finances, reputation, etc., that they inevitably fail to perceive this dualism in their own thought.
We have seen it happen on this forum in so many different ways at this point, and each person who ignores this aspect of their own thought will project it onto everyone they disagree with like clockwork. The subconscious does not go away when we ignore it, but manifests as something which feels "oppressive" to us in some way within the world and people surrounding us, including their beliefs and philosophies. It's a fascinating dynamic to observe.
FYI - I do not hold consciousness exists outside of life, because I do not think there is any logical warrant to posit "non-life" in the Cosmos. That is only possible under the sway of naive realism which leads to dualism and reductionism. Life is reduced to abstract components and then people begin confusing the abstractions for "real things" which are non-living. BK and yourself share that one exactly in common.