Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, I don't know your point of view on that. You have never explained it in a way that made any sense. I understand that you've tried. You've failed.

Do you not agree that consciousness is universal? In that case, isn't everything alive in that sense? And that means even physicists and astronomers are studying a living world, not a dead one.

I explained that in the post above. Consciousness is universal; as some mystics say, it is everywhere equally present. But paradoxically, it also exists in and as individuals. That's the paradox that holism resolves. If you can't accept the role of paradox in reality, then my explanation will "make no sense." You can read my thoughts on that above again if you want to to get a clearer idea. There are levels of consciousness, applied to individuals as we define them, as well as universality. If I am asleep, I am not as conscious as when I'm awake. When I am a sloth watching TV while munching potato chips, I am less conscious than when meditating well. Same applies to different organisms; some are less conscious than others. The S/M pole is simply the level of consciousness, and the lowest level we call physical. That level is easiest to manipulate and fix regularities about, and thus makes possible human activities of making it into machines. So although the world is a living one, materialist scientists study it as if it were dead, and they deal with that aspect of the world that is on the lowest level of consciousness and ignore the higher levels. Life plays no role in their studies, unless they are more aware of the role of life and consciousness in their objects of study. These days, only scientists like Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra and certain quantum theorists can be counted among them.

OTOH, do you not agree that biology is a science dedicated to living organisms? And that's "life" by a more conventional definition.

I can only think of two things that you could possibly mean, and they both could be wrong. But here they are:

1) You want to bring back some version of vitalism, and posit a life force that living things have and inorganic things don't, and biologists don't want to go there.

2) You object to the entire enterprise of science applied to living organisms, because it treats living things as objects rather than as subjects.

Is your problem one of these, or both of them, or something else altogether? Perhaps you could clarify that.

Pretty much #1, and I've just outlined pretty-much the "version" I agree with. Levels of consciousness and holism, which means living things have more life and consciousness than non-living things (but not "one does and the other doesn't"). At one point I thought you might be going there, but that didn't happen I guess.

As for #2, I don't "object to science," but I disagree with interpretations based on the idea that living things are nothing but objects, and that therefore objective, materialist science is definitely the only possible knowledge about living things (or vice versa). I don't disagree if they study living organisms objectively, and use scientific methods of research. That's what scientists do, generally-speaking. Such knowledge is useful; just not comprehensive. I just disagree with the materialist interpretation. I've explained that many times to you.

See, this is where I think your model of philosophical positions falls apart. I'm not on your S/M scale at all. I'm taking a position that disregards that antipathy and doesn't recognize any conflict between the spiritual and the material. This leads me to reject certain propositional ideas that you have, and because I do, you lump me in with mechanistic materialists, who also reject those same ideas, but because I entertain certain other ideas that you do agree with, you plop me down somewhere in a muddy middle. But that doesn't describe my views at all

And that's why I say that your philosopher's wheel needs work. It only works with people who fall into your preconceived categories.

I think it works fine; my challenge now is to make it into readable literature. Most people agree with their placement on the circle. You are just below the middle, according to your only go-round on the questionnaire. That fits well with your statement that your view "doesn't recognize any conflict between the spiritual and the material." That's just where you are supposed to be, then. You plopped yourself there. A circle is an inclusive symbol. However, there is no way my wheel can totally represent anyone's views entirely, and I don't claim such; yes it's only a map based on categories and 33 questions. No amount of "work" will change that about any such map. It's good, but cannot be perfect. People in the middle of the S/M scale might be muddy thinkers, or expert thinkers. Quality of thought is not measured by the questionnaire; only views related to those 4 categories. Any such model depends on the axioms and assumptions it is based on, I agree. I am satisfied with my thesis that philosophical views range along the two axes and four directions, and I understand folks might disagree.

Okay, look. Here's where some nuanced critical thinking can come in. You have people who are reporting abduction experiences and say that they found out that aliens are here after our mineral resources. Now, we may not be in a good position to believe or disbelieve that these people were actually abducted by aliens, or that they were told that. But we are in an excellent position to know that, in fact, aliens are NOT here for our mineral resources. So regardless of whether these people were telling the truth, or lying, or suffering from delusions, what they're saying about why aliens are here is NOT true -- that much we DO know.

The reports I heard were aliens being observed mining on Earth, not abductions. So, if people observed it, that counts for something, regardless of any theory about why it could or could not occur. On the other hand, I have no basis for believing such reports.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I explained that in the post above.

No, you didn't, and you didn't explain it here, either. None of this has anything to do with addressing my confusion in regard to your statement that science studies mainly the "more dead parts" of the universe.

Pretty much #1, and I've just outlined pretty-much the "version" I agree with. Levels of consciousness and holism, which means living things have more life and consciousness than non-living things (but not "one does and the other doesn't"). At one point I thought you might be going there, but that didn't happen I guess.

Of course not. There are several things to be said in response to this. First, consciousness and the "life force" are not identical. The life force was an old scientific concept that there was some type of energy associated with living things that made them alive, compared to inorganic objects which aren't. This wasn't anything mystical. It was a hypothetical form of energy -- physical energy, like electricity or light or heat -- which biologists have discarded because there was no evidence for it and it wasn't needed to explain what they observed living things doing.

The second thing is that, as an occultist/magician, I know about a type of power that isn't actually a form of energy, but can be felt and manipulated by the mind, and it's possible that this is what you're terming the "life force" (along with consciousness). But that's not the life force, either; it's not limited to living things, and although the mind is adept at manipulating it, other things (including inorganic things) can do so as well. Also, it's not consciousness. Except in the sense that everything is consciousness, and, once again, that which is everything is nothing in particular -- you can't point up one thing as being consciousness, when it's no more (or less) consciousness than everything else in the universe. There are no specific, particular conclusions that can be drawn from this universal.

The third thing, regarding consciousness itself, and setting aside the idea of the life force (which, again, is something completely different), is that it's not necessary or particularly useful to speak of living things as being "more conscious" than non-living things. I know what you're talking about, but I refer you once more to the list of three things connected to consciousness: consciousness itself, subjective memory, and self-reference. Living things don't have more of consciousness itself, but they are able to remember conscious experience (at least, most animals can, because they have memories), and those with language or other ability to communicate can also affirm their consciousness. The ability to remember subjective experience and to communicate it are not trivial, but it's not really correct to speak of the addition of these abilities as adding more consciousness.

And finally, none of this is in the proper purview of biology, except the functions of memory and self-reference (which shades over into psychology). Consciousness itself is outside the scope not only of biology but of all science.

As for #2, I don't "object to science," but I disagree with interpretations based on the idea that living things are nothing but objects, and that therefore objective, materialist science is definitely the only possible knowledge about living things (or vice versa). I don't disagree if they study living organisms objectively, and use scientific methods of research. That's what scientists do, generally-speaking. Such knowledge is useful; just not comprehensive. I just disagree with the materialist interpretation. I've explained that many times to you.

Yes, you have, and I say, "fine, I agree," and then you come along and complain about science, apparently confusing science with materialist philosophy. Going by your actions instead of your words, I don't think you are fully self-aware of your own beliefs here. I would suggest that you think science itself should treat living things (or at least people and animals) as subjects as well as objects, when in fact it can't -- subjectivity is outside the scope of scientific method. What you stated in the paragraph quoted above is unexceptionable. I agree with it entirely. I now ask that you reflect on what it implies, and begin behaving accordingly.

I think it works fine; my challenge now is to make it into readable literature. Most people agree with their placement on the circle. You are just below the middle, according to your only go-round on the questionnaire. That fits well with your statement that your view "doesn't recognize any conflict between the spiritual and the material."

No, no, no. It does NOT put me in the middle. It puts me off in space, not on the line at all, not anywhere. God, this is downright Procrustean, Eric. Let me suggest that you need to add another dimension, for the degree to which people see a conflict between the material and the spiritual. You and I are on opposite ends of THAT scale. So are Vandal and I. You see a conflict and take the spiritual side. He sees the same conflict and takes the material side. I say you're both full of shit, that there's no conflict whatsoever. I have a really, really strong problem with your model because it affirms the importance of a conflict that I see as completely delusional, arising from a concept of the nature of the material world that bears little resemblance to the reality.

The reports I heard were aliens being observed mining on Earth, not abductions. So, if people observed it, that counts for something, regardless of any theory about why it could or could not occur. On the other hand, I have no basis for believing such reports.

Yeah, it counts for something: we are left with evidence that people observed something and interpreted it in a certain way. The way they interpreted it, however, is wrong. There's no way it can be right. There's nothing on Earth that can't be found out in space without disturbing any native populations or dealing with a problematic gravity well and atmosphere. Or rather, there's nothing mineral. Biology is another matter. Presumably our planet's DNA is unique.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

....First, consciousness and the "life force" are not identical. The life force was an old scientific concept that there was some type of energy associated with living things that made them alive, compared to inorganic objects which aren't. This wasn't anything mystical. It was a hypothetical form of energy -- physical energy, like electricity or light or heat -- which biologists have discarded because there was no evidence for it and it wasn't needed to explain what they observed living things doing.

Before Galilleo and Descartes, "matter" and "physical" were not separate from the mystical. Life force was not a physical energy in the sense modern science conceives of the 4 forces. Electricity was not even known.

The medieval view was similar to yours that there's no difference between spiritual and material. Prima materia in alchemy for example was not the matter of today; it was also mystical or spiritual. The "delusion" you mention below is largely a modern one.

The second thing is that, as an occultist/magician, I know about a type of power that isn't actually a form of energy, but can be felt and manipulated by the mind, and it's possible that this is what you're terming the "life force" (along with consciousness). But that's not the life force, either; it's not limited to living things, and although the mind is adept at manipulating it, other things (including inorganic things) can do so as well. Also, it's not consciousness. Except in the sense that everything is consciousness, and, once again, that which is everything is nothing in particular -- you can't point up one thing as being consciousness, when it's no more (or less) consciousness than everything else in the universe. There are no specific, particular conclusions that can be drawn from this universal.

The hermetic or holographic principle is that everything is also everything in particular. That is how I see it, and what I agree with. We're not going to agree on that, and you're going to say I'm wrong. And that's OK.

You get the "consciousness is universal" part. We both get it. Most people don't. You don't get the "consciousness is also individualized" part. We don't agree on that.

The third thing, regarding consciousness itself, and setting aside the idea of the life force (which, again, is something completely different), is that it's not necessary or particularly useful to speak of living things as being "more conscious" than non-living things. I know what you're talking about, but I refer you once more to the list of three things connected to consciousness: consciousness itself, subjective memory, and self-reference. Living things don't have more of consciousness itself, but they are able to remember conscious experience (at least, most animals can, because they have memories), and those with language or other ability to communicate can also affirm their consciousness. The ability to remember subjective experience and to communicate it are not trivial, but it's not really correct to speak of the addition of these abilities as adding more consciousness.

And finally, none of this is in the proper purview of biology, except the functions of memory and self-reference (which shades over into psychology). Consciousness itself is outside the scope not only of biology but of all science.

I don't agree with your conception of consciousness, so I can't discuss it. "I know what you're talking about." We can leave it there.

Yes, you have, and I say, "fine, I agree," and then you come along and complain about science, apparently confusing science with materialist philosophy. Going by your actions instead of your words, I don't think you are fully self-aware of your own beliefs here. I would suggest that you think science itself should treat living things (or at least people and animals) as subjects as well as objects, when in fact it can't -- subjectivity is outside the scope of scientific method. What you stated in the paragraph quoted above is unexceptionable. I agree with it entirely. I now ask that you reflect on what it implies, and begin behaving accordingly.

Rupert Sheldrake provides a good model for what I agree with. He observes protocols for empirical scientific research, yet recognizes life in living things. I stand by what I said before. I enjoy watching nature and biology shows, and learn from their observations (which at-least include rigorous objective observation), but when they insist on materialist philosophy, I tend to disagree.

As far as my behaving a certain way, we'll see. I'll do my best, as I see it I may never meet your standards or your definitions of the strict separation of methods. But I don't want to knock science per se. If you agree with my statement entirely, then that's a good place to start from.

No, no, no. It does NOT put me in the middle. It puts me off in space, not on the line at all, not anywhere. God, this is downright Procrustean, Eric. Let me suggest that you need to add another dimension, for the degree to which people see a conflict between the material and the spiritual. You and I are on opposite ends of THAT scale. So are Vandal and I. You see a conflict and take the spiritual side. He sees the same conflict and takes the material side. I say you're both full of shit, that there's no conflict whatsoever. I have a really, really strong problem with your model because it affirms the importance of a conflict that I see as completely delusional, arising from a concept of the nature of the material world that bears little resemblance to the reality.

It's quite true that my model does not distinguish between a monist and dualist view. In the middle between S&M, you can either see no difference between S&M, or see two principles of equal reality. You are free to have problems with my model; it is an inadequacy, but I have not found a good way to deal with it, except to recognize and mention the limits of the model.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Before Galilleo and Descartes, "matter" and "physical" were not separate from the mystical.

Vitalism in biology and medicine had its heydey well after Galileo's lifetime, and I think Descartes' as well.

The hermetic or holographic principle is that everything is also everything in particular.

"Everything in particular" and "nothing in particular" are functionally identical in meaning. Only the words differ. The point I have always been making in saying that, is that you can't point to anything in particular and say, "that's consciousness" or "that's God" or whatever, implying that this, and not something else -- or at least not something else to the same degree -- is whatever you're talking about.

That which is everything, isn't any more this thing than that thing. That's what I have always meant. You're objecting, I think, merely because of the feel of the word "nothing," which hits your emotions like a dismissal or discounting. So you substitute "everything in particular." But that which is everything in particular is also nothing in particular. Or rather, nothing CAN be "everything in particular," because "in particular" means "this -- not that." And if it's "this, not that," then it's not everything, because everything must include "that."

You get the "consciousness is universal" part. We both get it. Most people don't. You don't get the "consciousness is also individualized" part. We don't agree on that.

Why do you think that consciousness is individualized, aside from the fact that you want it to be?

Rupert Sheldrake provides a good model for what I agree with. He observes protocols for empirical scientific research, yet recognizes life in living things.

No, he doesn't. Not in the sense you mean.

As far as my behaving a certain way, we'll see. I'll do my best, as I see it I may never meet your standards or your definitions of the strict separation of methods. But I don't want to knock science per se. If you agree with my statement entirely, then that's a good place to start from.

Oh, I do agree with it. I just don't believe YOU do. If you did, you wouldn't take the attitudes that you do towards certain things.

It's quite true that my model does not distinguish between a monist and dualist view. In the middle between S&M, you can either see no difference between S&M, or see two principles of equal reality. You are free to have problems with my model; it is an inadequacy, but I have not found a good way to deal with it, except to recognize and mention the limits of the model.

If it doesn't distinguish between monism and dualism, then that's a really serious problem.

At one end of the S/M scale is the classical materialist who says that everything is matter. (The only such person who is really consistent is D.C. Dennett, who believes that functions are all that exist, consciousness isn't even real, and everything is in the third person only. Most don't take it that far.) At the other end is the classic idealist who believes that everything is mind. In the middle, properly considered, would be a dualist: someone who acknowledges both mind and matter and does not try to reduce one to the other.

But I'm none of those three things, which is why I say that I occupy a position, not in the middle of the line, but off it altogether somewhere in space. Not a classical materialist, not a dualist, and not an idealist. None of the above, and just plain not on your line, anywhere. When you run into something like that, you should acknowledge a flaw in the model. And don't just acknowledge it and move on. See that as a problem that needs correcting.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Vitalism in biology and medicine had its heydey well after Galileo's lifetime, and I think Descartes' as well.

Descartes took it out.

"Everything in particular" and "nothing in particular" are functionally identical in meaning. Only the words differ. The point I have always been making in saying that, is that you can't point to anything in particular and say, "that's consciousness" or "that's God" or whatever, implying that this, and not something else -- or at least not something else to the same degree -- is whatever you're talking about.

That which is everything, isn't any more this thing than that thing. That's what I have always meant. You're objecting, I think, merely because of the feel of the word "nothing," which hits your emotions like a dismissal or discounting. So you substitute "everything in particular." But that which is everything in particular is also nothing in particular. Or rather, nothing CAN be "everything in particular," because "in particular" means "this -- not that." And if it's "this, not that," then it's not everything, because everything must include "that."

The point is that you are mentioning what is said. I don't disagree. What it shows is the limits of language. Your point is a point of grammar. But reality, and philosophy, go beyond the words, which are only pointers.

When I was 17 I discovered "the great void" and wrote "the great void is upon us." So, it has not escaped my attention. In fact, "nothing" means "no - thing." As I have said, and you have disagreed; there are no things. As the Taoists say, "10,000 things; one suchness."

If I make emotional reactions the basis for my philosophy, then I am clearly on the wrong road. Nirvana is the opposite direction. We need to heal from our reactive minds.

Why do you think that consciousness is individualized, aside from the fact that you want it to be?

As I said, everything in the universe is individualized. Why should a human being be any different? That is how I experience myself. Both universal, and particular. I am a hologram of the universe, a microcosm of the macrocosm. There's a good tradition behind my position; many have explained "why" in this fashion, and it answers your question as best as it can be answered.

No, he doesn't. Not in the sense you mean.

In the sense I mean, yes, quite clearly, he does. We are on the same page.

Oh, I do agree with it. I just don't believe YOU do. If you did, you wouldn't take the attitudes that you do towards certain things.

You can believe what you want. But that has nothing to do with me.

We disagree philosophically. That's what's going on. It's nothing at all to be concerned about, and you don't need me to adopt aspects of your point of view that I have disagreed with. This is not a new age site. There are few if any people on this site who agree with me any more than you do philosophically; most people here agree with me less than you do. So be it; viva la difference. It's good to have different views and to share them, and learn from them what we can, or at least learn about them if we are willing to do so. Are you willing to learn from my point of view?

If it doesn't distinguish between monism and dualism, then that's a really serious problem.

At one end of the S/M scale is the classical materialist who says that everything is matter. (The only such person who is really consistent is D.C. Dennett, who believes that functions are all that exist, consciousness isn't even real, and everything is in the third person only. Most don't take it that far.) At the other end is the classic idealist who believes that everything is mind. In the middle, properly considered, would be a dualist: someone who acknowledges both mind and matter and does not try to reduce one to the other.

As I see your position, you are also not reducing one to the other; you just say there's no difference; that the difference is a delusion. In that, it seems, you also agree with both ends of the scale. That puts you in the middle. Yes it does

The two ends of the S&M scale are monists. The middle is either monist or dualist; the test cannot determine which. Spinoza and Descartes are close together.

I myself am not all the way up at the end of the S scale, but about 2/3 of the way up.

But I'm none of those three things, which is why I say that I occupy a position, not in the middle of the line, but off it altogether somewhere in space. Not a classical materialist, not a dualist, and not an idealist. None of the above, and just plain not on your line, anywhere. When you run into something like that, you should acknowledge a flaw in the model. And don't just acknowledge it and move on. See that as a problem that needs correcting.

No, no model is going to be any better. The middle is either a dualist or a monist. I explained why. The problem I see in your approach is that you cannot handle paradox. You go by either/or thinking.

You see dualism and monism as the crucial issue; for my thesis, it is not.

There's room for a lot more diversity of views in the middle of the wheel than at the edges, and somewhat more along the 4 direction lines than in the quadrants.

Why is it so important to you that I change my model?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

When I was 17 I discovered "the great void" and wrote "the great void is upon us." So, it has not escaped my attention. In fact, "nothing" means "no - thing." As I have said, and you have disagreed; there are no things.

Whether I disagree depends on what you mean. In an ultimate and absolute sense, there are no things. But we define things into being and that act is not without meaning, so I would certainly disagree that there are no things ever, under any circumstances. And I especially and emphatically disagree with obliterating inconvenient truths by reducing all of reality to a formless goo about which nothing definite can be said.

That there are no things is a good spiritual lesson. Having learned it, we continue to chop wood and carry water -- and wood and water are both things.

As I said, everything in the universe is individualized. Why should a human being be any different? That is how I experience myself. Both universal, and particular. I am a hologram of the universe, a microcosm of the macrocosm.

All right, here's the thing. All of the individuality that you experience can be fully accounted for in terms of memory. Again, there's that distinction between consciousness itself and subjective memory. Subjective memory is undeniably individual. But that doesn't mean that consciousness itself is. In order to have consciousness itself be individual, we have to do one of two things. Either we have to posit that consciousness arises like a froth from the functions of the brain in some fashion that isn't possible to articulate coherently (psychic materialism), or else we have to posit a non-physical source or vehicle for individual consciousness for which there is no direct evidence and which leaves us with a very messy metaphysics (dualism).

Needless to say, I don't find either of those options attractive. If there is one consciousness, that of the cosmos, but it is reflected and remembered by individual organisms, that accounts for everything we experience and observe, and that avoids all of the problems of psychic materialism and of dualism.

There's a good tradition behind my position

I don't care. Seriously, Eric, I don't care. There's a "good tradition" behind all kinds of nonsense. Everyone from a white supremacist to a religious fundamentalist to a mechanistic materialist can make exactly the same claim. Most "good traditions" are simply wrong. Pointing out that there is one means bugger-all.

As I see your position, you are also not reducing one to the other; you just say there's no difference

Actually, I say that neither one exists. There is experience, and then there are cognitive overlays that we place on experience to try to make sense out of it. Both "matter" and "spirit" are cognitive overlays. Neither one is real.

The two ends of the S&M scale are monists. The middle is either monist or dualist; the test cannot determine which.

Then that's a serious flaw.

No, no model is going to be any better.

Horseshit. You're giving up far too easily. Don't be so wedded to your neat constructions for aesthetic reasons. If it doesn't work, then revise it. You can do better.

Why is it so important to you that I change my model?

Well, it's not necessarily. I can just ignore it as utterly useless and a waste of time instead. I guess it's up to you.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Whether I disagree depends on what you mean. In an ultimate and absolute sense, there are no things. But we define things into being and that act is not without meaning, so I would certainly disagree that there are no things ever, under any circumstances. And I especially and emphatically disagree with obliterating inconvenient truths by reducing all of reality to a formless goo about which nothing definite can be said.

That there are no things is a good spiritual lesson. Having learned it, we continue to chop wood and carry water -- and wood and water are both things.

OK. I agree; as I would put it, there are not things; but there are things. First there's a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

I extend that to "souls," IOW to consciousness. Consciousness is not a formless goo, about which nothing definite can be said. It individualizes, and creates.

All right, here's the thing. All of the individuality that you experience can be fully accounted for in terms of memory. Again, there's that distinction between consciousness itself and subjective memory. Subjective memory is undeniably individual. But that doesn't mean that consciousness itself is. In order to have consciousness itself be individual, we have to do one of two things. Either we have to posit that consciousness arises like a froth from the functions of the brain in some fashion that isn't possible to articulate coherently (psychic materialism), or else we have to posit a non-physical source or vehicle for individual consciousness for which there is no direct evidence and which leaves us with a very messy metaphysics (dualism).

Needless to say, I don't find either of those options attractive. If there is one consciousness, that of the cosmos, but it is reflected and remembered by individual organisms, that accounts for everything we experience and observe, and that avoids all of the problems of psychic materialism and of dualism.

Either/or thinking. I don't go along with it, as you know. If you say "reflected," however, that is closer to what I agree with. Consciousness is "reflected" from the universal into the particular, as the holon; just as a single whole reflects the entire whole. I used the word "reflection" in the title of my masters paper (ancestor of the philosophers wheel), so I'm pretty OK with that word.

The either/or about brains and non-physical sources is irrelevant. If there is one consciousness, and no dualism, then consciousness is everything. "Everything" includes each and every being, in particular, or it isn't everything. Things, and no things; individuals, and non-individuals. Consciousness arises forth from the cosmos, IOW from itself; not from the functions of the brain; it IS the "non-physical source," because consciousness is non-physical, and yet is also physical. There is one being, one mind, one power, both manifest and non-manifest. And it is creative.

Memory is important; without memory, nothing new is created, according to the philosopher Bergson whose views I agree with a lot. His point is excellent. And phenomenologists like Husserl and Heidegger point out that memory is just a form of perception; perception of reality. I agree with them too. Memory is just greater consciousness than non-memory. It exists in non-humans too. Again, I accept the notion of levels of consciousness, within whatever we designate or experience as a being or a thing. Consciousness is also universal, and everywhere the same. That's when viewed beyond the individualized perspective. It is a paradox, but the divine consciousness includes everything, universal and particular, all things and no-thing, and all paradox.

I don't care. Seriously, Eric, I don't care. There's a "good tradition" behind all kinds of nonsense. Everyone from a white supremacist to a religious fundamentalist to a mechanistic materialist can make exactly the same claim. Most "good traditions" are simply wrong. Pointing out that there is one means bugger-all.

It not just me saying it; that's the point. I notice that it seems your position is yours alone; I don't know anyone else who holds the position philosophically that you do. But you insist on it as bedrock truth we should take note of as something that can clear up confusion. I agree with some of what you say, but not all; and that would be true of virtually everyone. Many people have come very close to my position, on the other hand. More to the point, truth is verifiable; others have had the same experience. Just like in science, knowledge is considered public, verifiable by any observer.

But, it looks like you have at least one fellow traveller

Actually, I say that neither one exists. There is experience, and then there are cognitive overlays that we place on experience to try to make sense out of it. Both "matter" and "spirit" are cognitive overlays. Neither one is real....
Then that's a serious flaw....
Horseshit. You're giving up far too easily. Don't be so wedded to your neat constructions for aesthetic reasons. If it doesn't work, then revise it. You can do better....
Well, it's not necessarily. I can just ignore it as utterly useless and a waste of time instead. I guess it's up to you.

Well not actually; it's up to you! And it's fine either way. Your critique has influenced me before, so you never know. The only reason I brought it up is to illustrate my point, with which you disagree. You claim that my disagreements with you are the result of my misunderstanding of science, and my emotional problems. I say our disagreements are over worldview; they are philosophical. I am predominantly spiritualist (or in the older terms, "idealist"); you are neither materialist nor spiritualist i.e. "neither spirit nor matter exists." I call that a difference along the S/M scale, but you don't have to call it that; nevertheless, we disagree on that subject.

I don't disagree that "spirit" and "matter" are just terms or "cognitive overlays;" I do think they point to aspects of our experience, and that's why those terms exist.

And I don't think we disagree so much about monism vs dualism, except maybe, each of us accuses the other of being a closet dualist.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Eric, if you haven't done so already, please check out this post from my blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.co...consciousness/

Pertinent to your back and forth with TnT:
[/LIST]

I think you and I have very similar ideas on the subject, Brian!