Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mustelafan t1_j36qpk0 wrote

Reply to comment by flynnwebdev in The Persistent Problem of Consciousness: an astronaut's epiphany by simsquatched

Okay, I feel "isolated" and I reject the "panpsychic nature of reality". Once again, where is the evidence that panpsychism is correct?

15

nymph-hunter t1_j36r5ye wrote

Nowhere, the same is true with any type of dualism like panpsychism, but it's also true with any type of monism like materialism or idealism. Ontology do be like that for now.

9

Protean_Protein t1_j373ixu wrote

No.

−7

throwaway12131214121 t1_j37irzd wrote

Yes? How’re you gonna gather evidence for something as impossible to measure as consciousness

5

Protean_Protein t1_j37ucyq wrote

The same way they’ve figured out how to measure all kinds of other things in medicine—from what happens when things go wrong, or from correlates. E.g., Ramachandran’s work on sensory illusions, or Sacks’ work, or, like, anesthesiology. It’s not simple or easy. It’s extremely difficult and confusing and basically a giant mess. But that doesn’t mean it’s mysterious.

−2

throwaway12131214121 t1_j3809r6 wrote

That research makes all sorts of philosophical assumptions about consciousness. For example, even the idea that other humans are conscious at all is an assumption.

That doesn’t make it invalid, they’re necessary for the field of medicine if you want to come to any type of conclusion about how to minimize human suffering, which is the whole point of medicine.

But we’re not talking about medicine, we’re talking about philosophy, and those assumptions don’t hold any water in this context.

5

Protean_Protein t1_j381olw wrote

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Someone get David Chalmers on the line… I’ll hold.

−1

kfpswf t1_j372byt wrote

The boring response to this is that you won't experience this oneness directly unless you have significant changes in the working of your mind. As long as your ego or identity is strong, you will run around in circles trying to grasp at that oneness. But in reality, the only thing needed is softening of that ego that wants to prove it wrong.

2

nymph-hunter t1_j374mpz wrote

An experiential insight of how the mind works can do wonders on how you live your life but it's just that, a better understanding of what you really are. It's super important imho, but even if you were the most accomplished monk, I don't see how you can draw from that ontological conclusions about the nature of reality.

9

kfpswf t1_j377b5l wrote

Everything is a subjective experience, so if the ontology of reality is inexorably changed for me, it still counts. Spiritual endeavour are about finding equanimity in your existence, and defining a purpose for yourself. Not postulating theories of science.

I love Advaita Vedanta for this. It separates the world into a transactional reality, which is the world we're all so familiar with, and a transcendental reality, that is completely subjective, indescribable. So all my spiritual realizations are placed in the bucket of transcendental reality. And scientists can happily go about making discoveries in the transactional reality without ever affecting my "beliefs".

2

nymph-hunter t1_j37a3j7 wrote

Thanks for the distinction, I use the terms 'conceptual' and 'nonconceptual' realities when talking about these matters and I'm pretty sure we are pointing to the same thing.

6

Mustelafan t1_j38lfga wrote

I'm probably operating with different definitions than all you panpsychists. For me mind means 'qualia' and 'oneness' or 'unity' would imply we all share qualia. I've done psychedelics before and I don't think any amount of them will ever make me start seeing through other people's eyes. Sure, we're all united in that we all experience qualia, we're all living beings, whatever, but that's a pretty meaningless statement. Furthermore, I don't see why everyone thinks having an ego is a bad thing. It's not synonymous with being selfish. I value independence and see no compelling reasons why I ought not.

I'm a dualist and a theist and to be totally honest panpsychism seems like hippie nonsense even to me. The intense feelings of love and unity and 'ego death' that people get from psychedlics - and being an astronaut, apparently - seems to me like a form of manic delusion caused by an overwhelming flood of emotion. It's like religious ecstasy and people thinking they've spoken to God. It's just, iunno, unbecoming. I mean absolutely no disrespect by my phrasing by the way, I'm just not sure how else to put it.

2

kfpswf t1_j38qu1n wrote

>I'm probably operating with different definitions than all you panpsychists.

I'm not a panpsychist.

>For me mind means 'qualia' and 'oneness' or 'unity' would imply we all share qualia.

And you'd be wrong. This is something that western philosophy and science are kind of behind on. The mind can be understood far more easily as a separate entity from consciousness.

> I've done psychedelics before and I don't think any amount of them will ever make me start seeing through other people's eyes.

That's a shame, isn't it? Empathy is how you remove differences between each other, not by simply stating a premise. It's not that psychedelics won't show you this, but you are so conditioned to not give any credence esoteric ideas.

>Sure, we're all united in that we all experience qualia, we're all living beings, whatever, but that's a pretty meaningless statement.

I find it ridiculously humorous that you just brush away the oneness as being a matter of fact, when in fact a direct experience of this oneness is what changed an astronaut forever. It isn't just a meaningless statement, it means that all the distinctions that we can draw up amongst humans, animals, or any living being for that matter, are completely subjective.

>Furthermore, I don't see why everyone thinks having an ego is a bad thing. It's not synonymous with being selfish.

Ego isn't bad, it is just unruly and often compels you to do things that are counterproductive to your life. What is recommended is that you grow out of your egoic habits/thought patterns.

>I'm a dualist and a theist and to be totally honest panpsychism seems like hippie nonsense even to me.

I'm not a panpsychist, so I don't know why you keep referring to it. What seems like hippie nonsense is the same nonsense Buddha spouted. I'm sure he was heck of a hippie. And it doesn't end there. Stoicism has a metaphysical aspect that sounds almost like the same hippie nonsense that offends you. Perhaps Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius should have taken notes from reddit. > I value independence and see no compelling reasons why I ought not.

You have no idea how encumbered you are by the weight of your ego. True independence is not being bogged down by the vagaries of your mind. And who ever told you that by giving up your ego, you are giving up your freedom of being an individual?! It is called liberation in spirituality for a reason. It is a liberating experience.

>The intense feelings of love and unity and 'ego death' that people get from psychedlics - and being an astronaut, apparently - seems to me like a form of manic delusion caused by an overwhelming flood of emotion.

There are instructions in Buddhism on how to cultivate this all encompassing love. it isn't a manic delusion I can assure you. It is a controlled practice where you can remove layers of your identity until you reach the same Oneness that psychedelics can induce. Samadhi is a very well know stage of deep meditation.

>It's like religious ecstasy and people thinking they've spoken to God. It's just, iunno, unbecoming. I mean absolutely no disrespect by my phrasing by the way, I'm just not sure how else to put it.

Unbecoming would be an excellent word to describe it. You undoing the knots of your identity until you stand face to face with what is in you.

3

Mustelafan t1_j38yejz wrote

>I'm not a panpsychist.

Apologies then, but you seem quite keen on defending it.

>The mind can be understood far more easily as a separate entity from consciousness.

Elaborate? I'm interested.

>That's a shame, isn't it? Empathy is how you remove differences between each other, not by simply stating a premise. It's not that psychedelics won't show you this, but you are so conditioned to not give any credence esoteric ideas.

I don't see it as a shame. My empathy works pretty well. And you frankly have no idea how 'esoteric' my beliefs are. I'm willing to entertain any idea; when I entertained panpsychism I found it incoherent and unconvincing.

>I find it ridiculously humorous that you just brush away the oneness as being a matter of fact, when in fact a direct experience of this oneness is what changed an astronaut forever.

People change constantly. Astronauts are people too. Why should I find this particularly compelling?

>It isn't just a meaningless statement, it means that all the distinctions that we can draw up amongst humans, animals, or any living being for that matter, are completely subjective.

I wouldn't say all distinctions, but even so I don't see this as any sort of major revelation. Perhaps for an anthropocentrist, which is something I'm very far from.

>Ego isn't bad, it is just unruly and often compels you to do things that are counterproductive to your life. What is recommended is that you grow out of your egoic habits/thought patterns.

I think a little unruliness makes life more interesting. Counterproductivity, chaos, suffering, a bit of destruction - all spices of life. The egoless and the egoed are perfect foils for each other. Alas, I prefer discussions of metaphysics and epistemology to axiology; more potential objectivity to work with. I was just expressing an aside.

>I'm not a panpsychist, so I don't know why you keep referring to it.

Er, this entire comment chain is about panpsychism.

>What seems like hippie nonsense is the same nonsense Buddha spouted. I'm sure he was heck of a hippie.

Probably.

>Stoicism has a metaphysical aspect that sounds almost like the same hippie nonsense that offends you.

I don't know enough about stoicism to comment, but sure, possibly.

>You have no idea how encumbered you are by the weight of your ego. True independence is not being bogged down by the vagaries of your mind. And who ever told you that by giving up your ego, you are giving up your freedom of being an individual?!

Evidently I don't even know what an ego is, but I don't feel any particular weight or encumbrance in my life beyond what's necessary to keep my feet on the ground and provide traction to keep moving forward. Floating isn't really my thing.

>It is called liberation in spirituality for a reason. It is a liberating experience.

I felt liberated enough saying I was no longer convinced of atheism. I don't think I can handle any more liberation.

>it isn't a manic delusion I can assure you.

Sorry but the deluded never believe they're deluded lol. It's part of the definition.

As fun as this is though I'm mostly just here to discuss panpsychism, not the values of unity and ego death and the Buddha etc. I'd be here all day otherwise.

2