You can't use DMT and other psychedelics as a proof against other dimensions but then say that you have to enter it with materialist mindset in order not to get fooled into thinking its real.
Have you considered that we know alot more about how things work now as compared to what Plato knew ? Have you considered that people's experiences of another dimension could just be brain states, and nothing more ?
Have you considered that they knew more about the mind? While its possible that they are "brain states and nothing more,' it's also possible that what you see every day with your eyes is a virtual reality. But that isn't a reasonable assumption; we don't live like that. It's rich that anyone who hasn't experienced what thousands of (the brightest) people in history claimed to have, this encounter with a reality that they say only comes only after years of hard work, and they all report astoundingly similar accounts, *which are not at all vague*, and those who are living in the initial 'Point A' state just deny it flat out.
Incidentally, what we know more of is specifically about the physical world. I am saying that hey knew more about the non-physical. Coming in 2023 and saying its all brain function is a clear indication that one has no cue what consciousness is.
Honestly, my point in this post was just to explain Plato to eventually get the the Rambam, and only afterward return to the facts of the matter, but for the atheists I guess we need to talk now...
Thousands of Christians have claimed to have had contact in some sense with Jesus: This includes NDE, Spiritual Awakenings, Dream Like States, Apparitions. I believe many of them are sincere. For them Jesus is real, should I also embrace Jesus ?
For the most part Jesus is actually just the term they use for their spiritual feeling; they call it feeling Jesus. They are wrong about their interpretation. Separate the good from the chaff.
And last, if they are claiming anything physical like an apparition, that is not our discussion at all. For the most part, don't mind anyone who says they saw an actual image.
"They are wrong about their interpretation." Says you. I have spoken to some and read some of the literature and they feel they are unmistaken. For example - Jesus spoke to them and they are convinced. But I suppose you think the Lord actually spoke to Moshe. Or was that also a term for spiritual feeling;
I'm enjoying this btw, thanks for the helpful insights. Most of this stuff was going to be covered down the line, but I'd way rather dialogue!! so tx.
Again, there are many levels and those who have hallucinations are not in this discussion. But experiencing 'non-physical' or 'the mind', that we have good evidence from very, very smart and wise, and NOT gullible people.
When I talk about spiritual feeling, I refer to the vague feeling people experience when they stand in the beginning of their journey (though many of them aren't setting out toward anything and they experience this from music or thinking about Jesus or whatever) and also, we should all be skeptical of any physical vision stories. But after a certain point of specific training, things get real and clear and undeniable. Moshe was the clearest of them all, no vague spiritual feeling.
consciousness- Come on. ACJA "Consider a rock. It is probably uncontroversial that rock has no or very limited consciousness. Now consider a single cell. These appear to follow the rule Stimulus -----> Response and seems like they would have perhaps more consciousness than a rock. Consider a more complex organism say a worm. These seem to follow Stimulus -----> Response. At any rate - they may have more consciousness than a single cell. As organism complexity increases however, it seems that consciousness makes it's appearance more and more. So perhaps there is a range of consciousness from rock to Humans. Consciousness as an emergent property of complex organisms of a certain type."
That is a non-argument. It is just an observation of facts that some more complex organisms end up with consciousness. First of all, are we actually more chemically or physically complex than a lion? Second, you are explaining nothing about what consciousness is.
And it is a reasonable conclusion based on observing the real world. PLEASE ANSWER: Do you think a rock has consciousness ? Does an individual cell have consciousness ? What about fungi ? Plants ? What about a worm ? An insect, dog, chimp ? What about a severely brain damaged person ? When does a person get consciousness ? When does he lose it ? Does some entity give consciousness to a thing ? Does the entity take it away ? Are there a limited number of consciousnesses ? Can they be recycled ? Thanks
Come on you! Which scientific tools have helped explain the mind even a bit? Modern science is a basket case when it comes to consciousness and the mind. They admit it openly. Being able to watch neurons firing in the brain has very, very little to do with understanding consciousness.
The God of the gaps is a word game, or really a straw man. It goes as follows: You believe in God because His existence explains a lot of things (false assumption). But Science now explains them and there is no reason for God as an explanation. But what about the things science doesn't explain? Those gaps are where we still have proof for God, hence, God of the gaps. But how is that proof? What if those gaps get closed up as well? And we are always getting closer. One can even add that given the world is billions of years old (claims you) and God is unnecessary for all of it except for like three things along the way (how something comes from nothing, how life began, how communication began), these are "small" gaps which we have yet to uncover and understand, or maybe we never will, but that doesn't prove any God. That is the argument of the God of the gaps.
But this is all backwards. Besides for the less important rebuttals: the fact that those three things are like the most major arguments (design was mostly used once we know God exists, to say "look how wondrous He is," but even more recently when used a as proof, it was never the strongest proof ever, unlike the other three. And those that thought it was a strong proof *still think so* because unless this world is entirely meaningless evolution is nothing more than a mechanism), and the fact that science figured out the physical gives a completely false confidence that they will figure out the immaterial etc. - besides all these 'philosophical' arguments which can be argued ad nauseam, more important than that - the whole entire arguments is fallacious, resting on absolutely nothing, as we will now explain:
Here is my FULL world view (which I planned to cover throughout many posts bl'n, maybe now I'll be saved on a trip...) in really, really short: I don't believe in God as *a hypothesis* to explain a lot of things. I believe in God because, believe it or not, He appeared before my ancestors and undeniably showed Himself (we'll get to if that's a true story). Of course, now that there is a God, it is true that we are not bothered by the how and why questions because God's existence does answer them (better than the alternative pure randomness theory), and we're glad to find out the scientific 'how,' but that is not *the reason* for believing in Him, and I understand that if I would have no other proof, the Godless alternative would probably be viable whether I like it or not (although I'd first strongly consider a more deistic approach or something like that because the world is too perfect, but that's just me; for all practical purposes I'd probably end up near or right with you).
Now what is this God my ancestors saw? And probably more importantly, why haven't we seen Him recently? Sounds fishy - the atheist's best argument. But the answer is *not* because they were a bunch of fools who made things up (as you will *prove* from the fact that they didn't know science, from the fact that they believed in what you think are silly things, from the fact of evolution); rather, because He is purely immaterial. The world of the minds is the world where God 'resides.' The physical perception which we are so tightly conjoined with completely blinds us from the conception of the mind, see post, an idea they explained waaaaay before the scientific method was discovered (as we'll see, from Plato to Aristotle to Avveroes to Al Farabi to Maimonidies to Aquinas to hundreds of major Jewish leaders (my particular expertise) and same with all of the eastern 'religions' as shall all be discussed), and therefore, our physicality blinds us from God. Our job is to become less physical (through the commandments, see Moreh part 3, see also any of the other philosophers mentioned above).
Back then, when they were more in touch with their immaterial side, God was naturally more accessible. Now we are so distracted by all the physicality amongst other similar reasons (see Plato's strict censorship rules for example) and it's really, really hard to break out of our prisons of physicality (a fact we can attest to ourselves from just how hard it is for us to just not to eat that stupid looking potato chip).
This is the sacred concept of the decline of the generations which we base our entire world view on, that the ancients were far greater than us, no, not in science but in this reality, which is true knowledge and wisdom, way more important than science (not that science is not important) - as opposed to you guys who think we are growing smarter and wiser from an evolutionary perspective. And in this distinction lies our only difference. You think they were all silly people (primitive, ignorant, gullible, use whatever terminology you'd like); we think they were way wiser and smarter and closer to the truth. The 'proof' to my worldview is from examining the ancient wisdoms and history really well and seeing an obvious, undeniable pattern, which we will discuss.
We are just better historians is all.
Back to the story, we (later generations), in our thick physicality, have a hard time conceiving of God, which obviously leads to doubt. People have resorted to outside proofs and they are either heavily debated or completely debunked. Throughout the constant decline, philosophical ideas have changed from generation to generation, and now as God is totally unclear even amongst the smarter of the generations, and atheism is henceforth becoming the rampant ideology. Everyone knows that only the 'silly' people believe in this ancient stuff. (Prisoner talk.)
Now comes along science and explains a whole bunch of cool things, all of them are completely physical realizations, because physicality is the world of cause and effect, which is where science does its thing. (You can check out my post https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-acceptance-of-creation for further analysis, but it's speaking to a Jewish and Yeshivish crowd who are mostly aware of these ideas, so you'll have to read it as an academic and phrase it to your liking - happy to discuss, we'll probably get there eventually) but science advanced us absolutely nowhere in terms of the stuff the ancients were discussing. Nothing new has been introduced by science as far as my beliefs should go - *all that changed in any way* is that the outside world lost sight of what consciousness, the mind, immaterial really is, that's IT - and got more involved in the physical as a result and which is exactly what led to the scientific revolution we know and love (because as the immaterial is less accessible the physical mattered more as questions of how and why have new meaning, and when we began to explore the physical, we humans are unbelievably smart, and we set up the tools and figure it out rather quickly!)
Not to mention that our tradition specifically speaks of this decline as its core message; we even say it three times a day, for those who understand Judaism for real.
I am saying a lot of things here, but mostly, to answer your question, God of the gaps is only applicable when we are hypothesizing and evoke God as the explainer - we lose our hold as science takes over, though the God idea, if true, is a better explainer, it cannot be accepted if God is a teapot or a dragon. But from my POV, science has always stayed within its boundary, as it only could, and our knowledge of the non-physical is as elusive as ever scientifically. The only way to understand the immaterial is how they did, which is not as unreasonable as you decided to convince yourself it is.
There is no gap because God is not a hypothesis, He is a perceivable Reality.
(That was too long, I'll bl'n try to put it into post after Shabbos and we can continue the convo there)
Gootta Vach. Thanks for patiently conversing with me. You make numerous assertions both here and in other comments (including extraordinary claims), which I will have a hard time accepting without good evidence or at least compelling logic and reason. So in order to reduce time I will focus on what you wrote "I believe in God because, believe it or not, He appeared before my ancestors and undeniably showed Himself (we'll get to if that's a true story)." This is an important admission. It is not because of Plato, or Science, or Prophecies or Consciousness-Mind-Body problem or any of a number of supposed proofs ! Thus, it seems that we are back to some sort of Kuzari argument. Now, ACJA has written extensively on challenging this style of argument. Many religious Jews do not accept the validity of the Kuzari style argument. Maybe you have a new twist on the Kuzari style argument.
I don't buy the God of the gaps in this case - when science only explained *one thing* so far, the *one thing* science is expected to explain: the physical. The fact that they've never explained anything related to the mind, which is precisely what the ancients were claiming to understand - that is not a gap; that is the only thing we ever thought we had a hold on. If I'm not being clear, I'll try again later. G'night.
Read the Wiki link. For example "A study in 2016 looked at lesions in specific areas of the brainstem that were associated with coma and vegetative states. A small region of the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum in the brainstem was suggested to drive consciousness through functional connectivity with two cortical regions, the left ventral anterior insular cortex, and the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex. These three regions may work together as a triad to maintain consciousness." DOES science have all the answers yet ? No. But it is making progress.
"While its possible that they are "brain states and nothing more,' it's also possible that what you see every day with your eyes is a virtual reality." I think that is the fallacy of Grey.
I don't thinks so. I'm not sure how, if you understood what I was saying. What I was just saying was that the same way we assume our world is real, as we should, so too Plato was able to assume his world was real, because it was actually just as real as what the five senses tell us about ours. Where is the fallacy in that?
You, I think, are assuming his experience to not be so real and therefore all it does is cast doubts on reality, and if so you'd be right, but that isn't what Plato was claiming.
I have written before it was real to Plato (he experienced it) , but that is not a reason for me to accept this new dimension as real. Same applies to people who vividly describe encounters with alien beings, angels, apparitions, Jesus etc: It is real to them, but I need not accept their claims.
ABBA " I believe in Angels". Believe what you want, but do not expect others to believe in another dimension unless you can demonstrate why we may need it to explain a phenomena and show me how it fits in with everything else we know about how things work.
Again, we're not up to this, but "I believe the earth is round" - believe what you want but don't expect others to agree. We don't say that, even though I myself never examined all of the evidence (if you have, pick an ant's biology or quantum mechanics or any of the million things you trust others on, because eventually you have to trust the system), because there is this thing called a scientific system and consensus which if you deny you are being totally unreasonable. But there is a system and consensus here too - ANYONE who has tried this philosophical journey has reported positive results. Though not scientific which is specifically to examine material, it is empirical, and you're welcome to try it out.
"...because there is this thing called a scientific system and consensus which if you deny you are being totally unreasonable. But there is a system and consensus here too - ANYONE who has tried this philosophical journey has reported positive results. " Fallacy of Grey again
"...ANYONE who has tried this philosophical journey has reported positive results." I dont doubt people can experience what they think is another dimension, It does not follow that such a dimension exists. Again, they are the result of brain states.
Says you with complete certainty. Again, I am not referring to a vague experience or entering another dimension. I am referring to knowing the mind inside of you, albeit more clearly. When that happens, it is clear as anything else, and it would be the fallacy of gray to assume at that point that it isn't what it seems
But again, resorting to brain states is something those with no concept of the immaterial would do, since consciousness is mysterious we can kind of say what we want about it. Same to why AI is deemed such a threat; if consciousness is just emergent, who said it can't emerge from technical wires? But if we can demystify consciousness for real, these two ideas become very, very weak.
Thousands of Christians have claimed to have had contact in some sense with Jesus: This includes NDE, Spiritual Awakenings, Dream Like States, Apparitions. I believe many of them are sincere. For them Jesus is real, should I also embrace Jesus ?
Many religious people and people who meditate claim to experience another dimension. Drugs can also induce this experience and so to near death experiences. THAT DOES NOT MEAN there is another dimension, Rather it is a manifestation of brain function - and some scientists have been able to stimulate such experiences with electrical devices.
The religious people will be proof to me as we'll discuss. The drugs makes you sound like Russell. The drugs are not even close to the reality of Plato's experience (although they simulate it slightly, which works in my framework).
My point is an individual can experience another dimension and such an experience does not mean the other dimension exists and the same applies to whatever you are claiming Plato experienced. They could be explained by certain brain states with no need to go to new dimensions.
I don't think you read this post well. Plato is describing no vague conception of an experience. And I don't mean a little bit clear. I mean as clear as the sky is blue, with no room for mistake at all. If you haven't reached there, according to Plato, you are a prisoner.
Right, everybody who does not buy into Plato's imagined new dimension is a prisoner. Come on. It is more likely Plato deluded himself if he thought he caught glimpses of a new dimension.
"It is more likely" those words are very telling. Is it not possible that he was saying the truth because *you* have never experienced anything like that? And what if we go on to show that it wasn't just Plato, but THOUSANDS of followers over the next THOUSAND plus years, who were considered the wisest and most pious and truthful people, and they all not just bought into this stuff, but experienced it, will you be so conspiratorial to discount all of them as well, because *you* never tried it?
People who do very large doses of DMT say that the hallucinatory world feels “realer than real” or “more real than reality”. At least as real as the sky being blue. Many people conclude that it’s actually real.
First of all, maybe they are tapping into this same reality?
Second, there's a difference between being on drugs for a few minutes and living an *entire life of truth and perfection* and then coming to these subtle yet real experiences.
"Its pretty unlikely that everyone's neurons would conjure similar images." I think it's extremely likely, actually. We all have the same underlying neural architecture, so it should respond in similar ways to the same drug.
I didn't read the whole thing but sounds like hisarguments against it being a true spiritual experience is that people don't seem to come away with anything they already brought to the table?
Just curious, do you know about this reality of the non-physical which Plato was describing? Hey - that's something you don't already know! Which ancient wisdoms *can* tell you about...
He explains that the soul is connected to the nefesh habihamis( animal soul) and the animal soul is connected to the human body.
When you dream depending on how spiritual you are you will either have a mixture of fragments of your subconscious thoughts, or if you are more spiritual your consciousness will get glimpses through its connection with the soul.
A good way to explain it is that there are two inputs into your consciousness; an earthier less spiritual one and a higher holier one.
Depending on who you are as a person you consciousness will derive more from either input.
My personal opinion of psychedelics is that it uninhibited your mind like a dream state.
You get fragments of subconscious material which won't give you anything more then who you were prior but will sometimes help you to work through unresolved traumas.
The reason why people come away changed us that they see that that there is a whole new level of consciousness that exists that they had no prior realization of.
Its like the moment when Neo takes the Red Pill.
If he would firmly come in with a materialist view he can discount it as neorons misfiring.
yep. I think Terence Mckenna was deeply irresponsible for suggesting that the creatures you see on DMT might actually be real in some other dimension. This stuff can drive you crazy if you aren't going in with a firm materialist mindset. Important to emphasize that all of it is in your head; none of it is real
According to me, they never can and never will (I'm with Chomsky). Consciousness is only possible for those who have been endowed with it by God. *If* it demonstrably happens, I would probably need to rethink my whole position. But I have enough backing to know tht it's not a worry.
So the Lord is somehow involved in attaching Consciousness to every single worm, insect, animal and person at around the time it's life begins ? (That amounts to billions of acts with billions of acts occurring simultaneously and over wide rages of distance.) The Lord must be quite busy just here on Earth.
is that an issue? Acc. to us he is involved not just with giving life, but with the very existence of matter (we believe that everything only continues to exist through Him constantly willing it to), so He is even more busy than your description. I'm not sure how that affects anything we're talking about.
Are you saying God of the gaps? Because He most certainly has 'messengers,' either natural ones (nature, science) or what we call angels (aka messengers) which are not acting every time anew, rather they are also a part of a built in process (as I briefly explained above https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/p/angels/comment/18692359)
"we believe that everything only continues to exist through Him constantly willing it to"
I don't think this is the Rambams view rather that once created it functions on its own. (This is however the nefesh hachaims view). ("Tamid" just means "regularly" so in context "daily " in other contexts "monthly" or "yearly".)
If you want a citation I will bl"n run it down upon request.
I wasn't particularly expressing the Rambam's view in that comment; only mine. But I don't know if the Rambam ever talks about this specifically, I'd love a source. Someone once told me there was a Ralbag that disagrees with the Mekubalim (not just נפש החיים) as well, but didn't follow up. The best I know of is in Moreh 2:17 where he sounds like what you're saying (https://www.sefaria.org/Guide_for_the_Perplexed%2C_Part_2.17.5?lang=bi&with=MOREH%20NEVUCHIM,%20TRANSLATED%20BY%20IBN%20TIBON&lang2=en) - but I'm not convinced based on a number of other Rambam ideas (such as his famous ידיעה בחירה question in תשובה ספ"ה which a long and complex topic which gives me the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that the Rambam doesn't disagree with the מקובלים in this area)
That's not chomsky's position. He is skeptical that the field's current paradigm (probabilistic/statistical deep learning) can lead to genuine intelligence, but he doesn't think it's impossible in principle. I think he is wrong, but his view is a lot more nuanced than yours
No he thinks language is so complex and even the simplest sentences are so unbelieivably *creative* that it is silly to think that a machine will ever come close to anything like it.
I'm not quite understanding why you are any more comfortable with a weird meaty brain having consciousness. No modern philosopher or scientist I know claims to understand it, they just claim it is this way.
if you wish to maintain dualism as a serious theory with real explanatory power, then you are left with the impossible task of precisely defining the boundaries of the self as well as describing the mechanisms by which it interacts with the platonic realm
the more parsimonious explanation is that the self is an illusion and consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neuronal firings in your brain
"those who have never ventured out of their caves of physicality" does not apply to me as I only accepted physicalism extremely recently. From my POV you're the one who never ventured out of the cave
Well be honest with yourself here, you haven't ventured outside the cave only to come back and say that there is nothing out there. Only, at some point you thought maybe there was truth to the idea that we are prisoners, until recently you've proudly concluded that there is no cave, without trying even to check. So no, you're still in the cave:(
I understand your POV, that's why I'm not yet claiming the truth of Plato's assertions - we'll get to that
But then you are just not appreciating the cave analogy, and probably not anything I was saying; Plato is claiming that there is an entire *empirical reality* - that is not just a claim that he has a different outlook on life, rather an ability to sense an entire other sense, in which his analogy is perfectly useful. You are not claiming any new reality sir, sorry.
This doesn't make him not a liar, we'll get to that, but the nature of his claim is wildly different.
Do you hear the words I am using though? That he is claiming to literally be privy to another sense? That he is claiming that those who haven't perceived this sense are 'blind' to it? Not figuratively, not a flowery analogy, but an actuality, a reality as real as color. You seem to not get the difference.
Nobody is saying Plato is liar. Neither are the many religious people and people who meditate who also claim to experience another dimension. Drugs can also induce this experience and so to near death experiences. THAT DOES NOT MEAN there is another dimension, Rather it is a manifestation of brain function - and some scientists have been able to stimulate such experiences with electrical devices.
Your arguments are thoughtful, but they are good examples of Fallacy of Complex Question: "The fallacy of phrasing a question in a context that assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not in evidence, contains an ambiguity, or assumes a false dichotomy in a covert attempt to establish a conclusion."
It is another form of trying to use persuasive sounding, but unsound arguments, to reach a conclusion. This is really what I found so bizarre and objectionable with my religious teachers: it was a ruse. My rabbis, Jews, used trickery (whether they understood that or not.) And, it got even worse: good luck sharing your voice in this manipulative mess. Good luck testing the premises they set up. Good luck bringing in outside perspectives. Why the closed shop? Because the logic was not there, so shutting down free speech was essential. Kangaroo court rules. Show trial to trick people (again, in yet a new way.)
I honestly have no clue what this comment has to do with anything. Which part of what I said was vague? I am simply setting up a factual premise - which you, at this point, can deny - that one has the ability to get in touch with a 'new reality' after years of hard work. Very straightforward stuff. And not meant to persuade anyone at all, just factual claims.
sorry. it's more of a general statement i am making. you have a lot of assertions. a lot of references - Plato, ideals, ideas, theories, science - and by the number of comments here, people take exception at most every turn to the premises or assumptions.
i would liken it to someone going off on tangents in a court of law. immediately, there would be objections if the defense started raising philosophic questions about the nature of reality, about theoretical objections built on platonic ideals.
maybe, it's a fallacy of irrelevance, a problem of non sequiturs? but, i have no doubt, that someone who is building such a complex view of reality is also trying hard to lead us to consent to it all, and ultimately, to assent to the "fact" of angels. maybe it is a fallacy of a false dichotomy - -you are drawing a map, but really, the two choices you are setting up is a false dichotomy (which serves your argument, but is logically weak.) maybe it's a straw man problem - where you phrase and frame "reality" in to something that makes it sound like your assertion must be correct, but the framing is in and of itself a straw man.
also, this started with an idea that we accept many things, like the existence of albert einstein, without great evidence, so why not accept the existence of say, Moses at Har Sinai? This is for sure a false equivalency of some kind.
I'm sorry if I'm missing the point. I do remember a scene from the movie JFK, where the prosecutor says that scientists can use fancy physics arguments to prove that an elephant can hang from a daisy -- but we know that ain't a real thing.
Your arguments seem like that. they sound "persuasive," sort of, but are very hollow, and really about twisting reality, framing, structuring a narrative. persuading. but, it's a form of rhetoric. maybe a fallacy of appeal to emotion, appeal to to the idea that the framing you choose is somehow just a bit more clever and thought out - but, in truth, it's just framing. just a narrative. a clever but facile sales pitch. not impressive.
still, i enjoy the stuff -- just not compelling. if you want to assert a false equivalency (another fallacy, i think) that we all accept einstein, so let's all accept moses. it's obvious and clear cut and i don't see the equivalency. it's a failed argument, but it's straightforward, and concise, and while most a will see the fallacy. which they should. in all your arguing - you are disguising the weakness with complexity -- you are arguing that an elephant can, theoretically, hang off a cliff tied to a daisy. it may be full of wizardry and brilliance - but it's not actually true.
There are all kinds of fallacies i barely touch on or understand. affirming the consequent fallacy, denying the antecedent fallacy -- many more -- they seem to have relevance in complex arguments that proceed from: if you accept this, then you must accept that.
It's a whole world - how arguments are flawed. i'm just beginning to see the way people employ bad arguments (that sound good) in areas like "proving" religion.
I never ever said we should accept Moses just because we should accept Einstein. I've only ever equated the two in reference to the fact that we have different tools which we use to accept different facts. Most people don't accept Einstein's existence only because it can be tested in a lab. Most people accept his existence because of historical reasons. Why I accept the Sinai event is obviously a whole lot more complex, but we are working to get there one piece at a time.
As far as angels go, already in the post itself I spelled out clearly that I haven't proven that angels actually exist. All I've laid out thus far is but one thing, that perhaps the idea of angels may be a bit less silly than you thought, or at least a way to process that they could be a bit less silly than you thought.
I haven't asked anyone to accept anything beyond this idea (that 'angels' may be something the mind could grasp). Not even that they exist. If you read this post and took out of this some sort of proof that angels exist, that's on you.
you write "perhaps the idea of angels may be a bit less silly than you thought."
This is a version of an ad ignornatiam fallacy, i think. "no one knows it is false, therefore it is true." In this case, it "may" be true, as you say. Or, in your watered down version "it may be a bit less silly than you thought."
It may be an ad populum fallacy.
It may be ten other fallacies! I have a lot to learn about fallacies. A LOT.
But, I object to this kind of arguing. Let me use an example of how awful this type of thinking is, how terrible it is:
A man meets a child. He wants to touch the kid sexually. He says "I just want to put my hand on your shoulder." The child says "ok." Then he says "now, on your stomach." The child objects. The man says, surely if I can touch your shoulder, I can touch your stomach?" The child has no good argument.
Someone wants to convince me JC is the messiah. He uses a lot of phrases like "perhaps what I am saying is a bit less silly than you originally thought." I can't object. He made a few good points. He pointed out some biblical passages. Next, he goes on to "now, if what I have said is a bit less silly than you thought, perhaps what I will say next can also be seen as less silly..." and goes on to tell me more stuff. Here we are agreeing. I am nodding.
OY. These are maybe "loaded question" fallacies -- people start to say "yes," and then have trouble saying "no," because they have been primed by loaded questions.
The kind of arguing - the path you are taking us down - is a loaded question fallacy, I think. You say something as watered down as "perhaps the idea of angels may be a bit less silly than you thought," and we have no choice but to say "yes," because, indeed, perhaps it is.
But the JC evangelist is going to say "perhaps JC as your savior is a bit less silly than you thought," and he will get a YES too. Because, hey "perhaps" it is not QUITE as silly as I thought..!
There is a psychological trick or some kind of fallacy here, and you are reproducing it in your argument. I think it is wrong to do that.
If I ever do that, call me out. Until then it is perfectly reasonable to build up ideas one piece at a time.
Btw I realize that I am also making a second assertion, besides making angels less 'silly' seeming: that Plato believed in these things. But that is pretty well known already.
I'm not really familiar with what Plato believed. I think that is called a "mind reading" fallacy.
Let's be clear, with an example: I might be a great salesman for the power of astrology. I might write well about it, and express my belief in it.
I also may be collecting a paycheck. I may see an opportunity. I may actually have no real idea if it is real, but people seem to want it, they seem to need it, and I have got a gift for writing about it in an enthusiastic and powerful way. It's also making me a lot of money, without a whole lot of work. And, with my bad knees and bad back and in my sixties - there is NO way I am going out and looking for another job.
We don't know what Plato believed. We know what he said. We know he perhaps enjoyed the questions, the discussions, the discourse, the life of the mind, and the topic. Perhaps, for him, angels were a metaphor. Perhaps he found that talking about angels, he learned a lot about people. Perhaps when people spoke to him about angels, he was able to glean understandings of their deeper nature.
did President "X" really think "we're going to change the world!," or was it a campaign slogan that tested well, and inspired people to help him win?
We can't know what people really believe. Certainly not by what they write.
Not helpful at all. It misses the boat of what I was saying. Besides that I am not 'proving God' here, I am saying that Plato was aware (or at least claims to be aware) of an entire new reality. One that comes after years of hard work and specific training. That wasn't a hypothesis. It was a factual claim, as real as any scientific conclusion, although it more empirical than scientific. Either he was lying or I am misinterpreting. Another option is to say that he himself was misinterpreting, but *he makes it clear that only a pre-philosopher would claim that* (in his allegory especially). It is real as the sky is blue.
"It was a factual claim, as real as any scientific conclusion, although it more empirical than scientific." Come on. Plato's claim is what he has told us he felt. That is not as real as a scientific conclusion. It is not even wrong science. Nor is it empirical except for himself. That is like me saying I saw a ghost. I really really did.
But again, what if it wasn't just him? And what if there were a specific process you can follow to get there? And those that followed the process continually report success from all regions of the world? Does that not matter?
If not, what would matter? Only if *you personally* experienced it? Do you have that same standard for all your scientific knowledge? I get most of my scientific information form studies other people did and I trust them because of the system. That can't apply over here? What if a thousand people you know and trust for so many reasons told you about this? Would that also not be enough? Tell me what your standard would be and we'll see if we reach that bar.
(And don't include the people who just began their philosophical journey or people who discuss physical apparitions, I am not talking about them for the fifth time)
"But again, what if it wasn't just him? And what if there were a specific process you can follow to get there? And those that followed the process continually report success from all regions of the world? Does that not matter?" In meditation (or some other mental states) people feel they are in contact with a new plane of reality. I still deny this is evidence for a new plane of reality. Rather, science should investigate their brain's to see what parts of the brain may be involved in triggering such feelings. Also, we need to figure out if and how such a new plane can interact with our known world. EVEN if a new plane exists, I am reluctant to accept it has any relevance to our world. For if it could interact with our world we should be able to detect it, yet we can not.
Nowadays meditation for the most part comes nothing close to the years of philosophical training Plato was describing, but they are certainly tapping into these ideas.
Your response seems weak: the ONLY way you'd believe something is if it can be proven scientifically? Really? Are you being honest? Besides that there are hundreds of thing way more basic than if a bat is a mammal that you believe without scientific experimentation, such as much of history, and trusting your very own perception of the world through your senses. Science can neither confirm nor deny Descartes's "Cognito ergo sum" but it is perfectly reasonable to believe that you are who you are even though it can't be scientifically 'proven.' And science can't confirm most of history.
But the main thing is that to me this smells like a bias. If you come in with the assumption that you will never accept anything that is not scientifically proven, and you then add, "unless it is already reasonable without science," what you are really saying is that this is too unreasonable to ever believe. But you have to admit that there would be a bar where you would believe it despite its so-called unreasonability, such as if 99% of the world began Plato's "experiment" and began seeing this 'sixth sense' for themselves, even skeptics like Dawkins and Schermer and whoever, you would surely question your assumptions pretty quickly.
There must be some bar.
Once we establish that there is a bar, we can figure out if history reaches that bar.
If thousands of people experienced Plato's new dimension, I would NOT accept that such subjective experiences indicates a new dimension really really exists. The hypothesis that such a new dimension really really exists is put thru the same scientific ringer that all other hypothesises. However, I think scientists should investigate the situation. Could the experiences be explained by brain states, something ate/drank, group think etc: etc: Please see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/04/kuzari-argument-part-23-or-proof-of-god.html That involves EYE WITNESS testimony of numerous people including scientists ! It did not involve subjective feelings of contact with new dimensions ala Plato and his followers.
I share my experience with you. I used to play chess. There were times when an image of the chessboard appeared to me as if in another dimension. I saw the pieces literally moving, and the opponents pieces moving. I was then able to make the moves on my board in real time at a rapid pace as I had already seen in my mind the correct moves. Should I conclude the chess board etc: existed in another dimension that actually exists ?
"But the main thing is that to me this smells like a bias. If you come in with the assumption that you will never accept anything that is not scientifically proven..." Empirical disciplines are close enough to science to be reasonably accepted, but of course not with the force of the so called hard sciences. . For example, studies of group behaviour, some of economics...
"...trusting your very own perception of the world through your senses." This is part of empiricism and thus the scientific method. But scientists go way beyond that since your senses are very limited. What looks like a solid table turns out not be as solid as you saw. Scientific method is a method that has proven to work.
Historians do try to put their description of history on a more scientific basis. This includes gathering data and information, archaeology, psychology, human interaction, developing hypothesis, testing it making predictions etc: Not so unscientific actually.
I am obviously referring to the Platonic philosopher - I thought I was abundantly clear about how they differ entirely from today's mechanical philosophers. You are referring to modern philosophers who have nothing to do with this philosophical journey Plato was referring to and have nothing to do with this conversation.
Eventually, when we get to them. Right now we are discussing Plato's philosophers, people who spend years of intense celibacy and abstinence while working really hard mentally, trying to perceive the immaterial - they claim successfully - and you bring in these children who have no concept any of these ideas, who construct their own 'rigid' theories when all they've ever seen were the shadows on the wall. Exactly as described in Plato's allegory.
Sorry to interupt the convo. "...Plato's philosophers years of intense celibacy and abstinence while working really hard mentally, trying to perceive the immaterial - they claim successfully..." Maybe doing all that altered their brains, that plus intense desire to reach a goal convinced them they had contacted a new dimension (wishful thinking ?). Something like self hypnosis ?
I'm sure you think so. Sagan is right there in the cave with you staring at the simple shadows thinking he understands everything. Along with Kant and Hume and Descartes.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't use DMT and other psychedelics as a proof against other dimensions but then say that you have to enter it with materialist mindset in order not to get fooled into thinking its real.
Cognitive bias
> "the perfect triangle which consists of mathematical numbers"
1) a triangle consists of points and line segments, not numbers
2) as opposed to non-mathematical numbers?
Thanks lol
I wish you'd analyze the main points just as thoroughly:)
Have you considered that we know alot more about how things work now as compared to what Plato knew ? Have you considered that people's experiences of another dimension could just be brain states, and nothing more ?
Have you considered that they knew more about the mind? While its possible that they are "brain states and nothing more,' it's also possible that what you see every day with your eyes is a virtual reality. But that isn't a reasonable assumption; we don't live like that. It's rich that anyone who hasn't experienced what thousands of (the brightest) people in history claimed to have, this encounter with a reality that they say only comes only after years of hard work, and they all report astoundingly similar accounts, *which are not at all vague*, and those who are living in the initial 'Point A' state just deny it flat out.
Incidentally, what we know more of is specifically about the physical world. I am saying that hey knew more about the non-physical. Coming in 2023 and saying its all brain function is a clear indication that one has no cue what consciousness is.
Honestly, my point in this post was just to explain Plato to eventually get the the Rambam, and only afterward return to the facts of the matter, but for the atheists I guess we need to talk now...
Thousands of Christians have claimed to have had contact in some sense with Jesus: This includes NDE, Spiritual Awakenings, Dream Like States, Apparitions. I believe many of them are sincere. For them Jesus is real, should I also embrace Jesus ?
For the most part Jesus is actually just the term they use for their spiritual feeling; they call it feeling Jesus. They are wrong about their interpretation. Separate the good from the chaff.
Also, these feelings, though sincere, are probably very vague (https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/p/angels#:~:text=At%20the%20early,vague%20and%20undefined.) and are not quite what Plato was ultimately describing.
And last, if they are claiming anything physical like an apparition, that is not our discussion at all. For the most part, don't mind anyone who says they saw an actual image.
"They are wrong about their interpretation." Says you. I have spoken to some and read some of the literature and they feel they are unmistaken. For example - Jesus spoke to them and they are convinced. But I suppose you think the Lord actually spoke to Moshe. Or was that also a term for spiritual feeling;
I'm enjoying this btw, thanks for the helpful insights. Most of this stuff was going to be covered down the line, but I'd way rather dialogue!! so tx.
Again, there are many levels and those who have hallucinations are not in this discussion. But experiencing 'non-physical' or 'the mind', that we have good evidence from very, very smart and wise, and NOT gullible people.
When I talk about spiritual feeling, I refer to the vague feeling people experience when they stand in the beginning of their journey (though many of them aren't setting out toward anything and they experience this from music or thinking about Jesus or whatever) and also, we should all be skeptical of any physical vision stories. But after a certain point of specific training, things get real and clear and undeniable. Moshe was the clearest of them all, no vague spiritual feeling.
consciousness- Come on. ACJA "Consider a rock. It is probably uncontroversial that rock has no or very limited consciousness. Now consider a single cell. These appear to follow the rule Stimulus -----> Response and seems like they would have perhaps more consciousness than a rock. Consider a more complex organism say a worm. These seem to follow Stimulus -----> Response. At any rate - they may have more consciousness than a single cell. As organism complexity increases however, it seems that consciousness makes it's appearance more and more. So perhaps there is a range of consciousness from rock to Humans. Consciousness as an emergent property of complex organisms of a certain type."
That is a non-argument. It is just an observation of facts that some more complex organisms end up with consciousness. First of all, are we actually more chemically or physically complex than a lion? Second, you are explaining nothing about what consciousness is.
"Consciousness as an emergent property of complex organisms of a certain type." ACJA
"Of a certain type" explains nothing.
And there is no foundation for that statement. It is just an observation, presuming a material world.
And it is a reasonable conclusion based on observing the real world. PLEASE ANSWER: Do you think a rock has consciousness ? Does an individual cell have consciousness ? What about fungi ? Plants ? What about a worm ? An insect, dog, chimp ? What about a severely brain damaged person ? When does a person get consciousness ? When does he lose it ? Does some entity give consciousness to a thing ? Does the entity take it away ? Are there a limited number of consciousnesses ? Can they be recycled ? Thanks
"Have you considered that they knew more about the mind?" Of course they did not. We have modern scientific methods and tools. Come on.
Come on you! Which scientific tools have helped explain the mind even a bit? Modern science is a basket case when it comes to consciousness and the mind. They admit it openly. Being able to watch neurons firing in the brain has very, very little to do with understanding consciousness.
"Which scientific tools have helped explain the mind even a bit?" See the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness.
But even if science is a basket case, you can not use that as a back door to get to supernatural. THAT IS GOD OF THE GAPS fallacy.
The God of the gaps is a word game, or really a straw man. It goes as follows: You believe in God because His existence explains a lot of things (false assumption). But Science now explains them and there is no reason for God as an explanation. But what about the things science doesn't explain? Those gaps are where we still have proof for God, hence, God of the gaps. But how is that proof? What if those gaps get closed up as well? And we are always getting closer. One can even add that given the world is billions of years old (claims you) and God is unnecessary for all of it except for like three things along the way (how something comes from nothing, how life began, how communication began), these are "small" gaps which we have yet to uncover and understand, or maybe we never will, but that doesn't prove any God. That is the argument of the God of the gaps.
But this is all backwards. Besides for the less important rebuttals: the fact that those three things are like the most major arguments (design was mostly used once we know God exists, to say "look how wondrous He is," but even more recently when used a as proof, it was never the strongest proof ever, unlike the other three. And those that thought it was a strong proof *still think so* because unless this world is entirely meaningless evolution is nothing more than a mechanism), and the fact that science figured out the physical gives a completely false confidence that they will figure out the immaterial etc. - besides all these 'philosophical' arguments which can be argued ad nauseam, more important than that - the whole entire arguments is fallacious, resting on absolutely nothing, as we will now explain:
Here is my FULL world view (which I planned to cover throughout many posts bl'n, maybe now I'll be saved on a trip...) in really, really short: I don't believe in God as *a hypothesis* to explain a lot of things. I believe in God because, believe it or not, He appeared before my ancestors and undeniably showed Himself (we'll get to if that's a true story). Of course, now that there is a God, it is true that we are not bothered by the how and why questions because God's existence does answer them (better than the alternative pure randomness theory), and we're glad to find out the scientific 'how,' but that is not *the reason* for believing in Him, and I understand that if I would have no other proof, the Godless alternative would probably be viable whether I like it or not (although I'd first strongly consider a more deistic approach or something like that because the world is too perfect, but that's just me; for all practical purposes I'd probably end up near or right with you).
Now what is this God my ancestors saw? And probably more importantly, why haven't we seen Him recently? Sounds fishy - the atheist's best argument. But the answer is *not* because they were a bunch of fools who made things up (as you will *prove* from the fact that they didn't know science, from the fact that they believed in what you think are silly things, from the fact of evolution); rather, because He is purely immaterial. The world of the minds is the world where God 'resides.' The physical perception which we are so tightly conjoined with completely blinds us from the conception of the mind, see post, an idea they explained waaaaay before the scientific method was discovered (as we'll see, from Plato to Aristotle to Avveroes to Al Farabi to Maimonidies to Aquinas to hundreds of major Jewish leaders (my particular expertise) and same with all of the eastern 'religions' as shall all be discussed), and therefore, our physicality blinds us from God. Our job is to become less physical (through the commandments, see Moreh part 3, see also any of the other philosophers mentioned above).
Back then, when they were more in touch with their immaterial side, God was naturally more accessible. Now we are so distracted by all the physicality amongst other similar reasons (see Plato's strict censorship rules for example) and it's really, really hard to break out of our prisons of physicality (a fact we can attest to ourselves from just how hard it is for us to just not to eat that stupid looking potato chip).
This is the sacred concept of the decline of the generations which we base our entire world view on, that the ancients were far greater than us, no, not in science but in this reality, which is true knowledge and wisdom, way more important than science (not that science is not important) - as opposed to you guys who think we are growing smarter and wiser from an evolutionary perspective. And in this distinction lies our only difference. You think they were all silly people (primitive, ignorant, gullible, use whatever terminology you'd like); we think they were way wiser and smarter and closer to the truth. The 'proof' to my worldview is from examining the ancient wisdoms and history really well and seeing an obvious, undeniable pattern, which we will discuss.
We are just better historians is all.
Back to the story, we (later generations), in our thick physicality, have a hard time conceiving of God, which obviously leads to doubt. People have resorted to outside proofs and they are either heavily debated or completely debunked. Throughout the constant decline, philosophical ideas have changed from generation to generation, and now as God is totally unclear even amongst the smarter of the generations, and atheism is henceforth becoming the rampant ideology. Everyone knows that only the 'silly' people believe in this ancient stuff. (Prisoner talk.)
Now comes along science and explains a whole bunch of cool things, all of them are completely physical realizations, because physicality is the world of cause and effect, which is where science does its thing. (You can check out my post https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-acceptance-of-creation for further analysis, but it's speaking to a Jewish and Yeshivish crowd who are mostly aware of these ideas, so you'll have to read it as an academic and phrase it to your liking - happy to discuss, we'll probably get there eventually) but science advanced us absolutely nowhere in terms of the stuff the ancients were discussing. Nothing new has been introduced by science as far as my beliefs should go - *all that changed in any way* is that the outside world lost sight of what consciousness, the mind, immaterial really is, that's IT - and got more involved in the physical as a result and which is exactly what led to the scientific revolution we know and love (because as the immaterial is less accessible the physical mattered more as questions of how and why have new meaning, and when we began to explore the physical, we humans are unbelievably smart, and we set up the tools and figure it out rather quickly!)
Not to mention that our tradition specifically speaks of this decline as its core message; we even say it three times a day, for those who understand Judaism for real.
I am saying a lot of things here, but mostly, to answer your question, God of the gaps is only applicable when we are hypothesizing and evoke God as the explainer - we lose our hold as science takes over, though the God idea, if true, is a better explainer, it cannot be accepted if God is a teapot or a dragon. But from my POV, science has always stayed within its boundary, as it only could, and our knowledge of the non-physical is as elusive as ever scientifically. The only way to understand the immaterial is how they did, which is not as unreasonable as you decided to convince yourself it is.
There is no gap because God is not a hypothesis, He is a perceivable Reality.
(That was too long, I'll bl'n try to put it into post after Shabbos and we can continue the convo there)
Gootta Vach. Thanks for patiently conversing with me. You make numerous assertions both here and in other comments (including extraordinary claims), which I will have a hard time accepting without good evidence or at least compelling logic and reason. So in order to reduce time I will focus on what you wrote "I believe in God because, believe it or not, He appeared before my ancestors and undeniably showed Himself (we'll get to if that's a true story)." This is an important admission. It is not because of Plato, or Science, or Prophecies or Consciousness-Mind-Body problem or any of a number of supposed proofs ! Thus, it seems that we are back to some sort of Kuzari argument. Now, ACJA has written extensively on challenging this style of argument. Many religious Jews do not accept the validity of the Kuzari style argument. Maybe you have a new twist on the Kuzari style argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness includes some scientific approaches. You are dangerously close to another fallacy - God of the Gaps
I don't buy the God of the gaps in this case - when science only explained *one thing* so far, the *one thing* science is expected to explain: the physical. The fact that they've never explained anything related to the mind, which is precisely what the ancients were claiming to understand - that is not a gap; that is the only thing we ever thought we had a hold on. If I'm not being clear, I'll try again later. G'night.
Read the Wiki link. For example "A study in 2016 looked at lesions in specific areas of the brainstem that were associated with coma and vegetative states. A small region of the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum in the brainstem was suggested to drive consciousness through functional connectivity with two cortical regions, the left ventral anterior insular cortex, and the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex. These three regions may work together as a triad to maintain consciousness." DOES science have all the answers yet ? No. But it is making progress.
"While its possible that they are "brain states and nothing more,' it's also possible that what you see every day with your eyes is a virtual reality." I think that is the fallacy of Grey.
Incorrect, if you understand what Plato was saying about the mind. You are inserting the fallacy of gray onto Plato, that's my point.
I point out what you said is just like fallacy of Grey. Do you admit that ?
I don't thinks so. I'm not sure how, if you understood what I was saying. What I was just saying was that the same way we assume our world is real, as we should, so too Plato was able to assume his world was real, because it was actually just as real as what the five senses tell us about ours. Where is the fallacy in that?
You, I think, are assuming his experience to not be so real and therefore all it does is cast doubts on reality, and if so you'd be right, but that isn't what Plato was claiming.
I have written before it was real to Plato (he experienced it) , but that is not a reason for me to accept this new dimension as real. Same applies to people who vividly describe encounters with alien beings, angels, apparitions, Jesus etc: It is real to them, but I need not accept their claims.
ABBA " I believe in Angels". Believe what you want, but do not expect others to believe in another dimension unless you can demonstrate why we may need it to explain a phenomena and show me how it fits in with everything else we know about how things work.
Again, we're not up to this, but "I believe the earth is round" - believe what you want but don't expect others to agree. We don't say that, even though I myself never examined all of the evidence (if you have, pick an ant's biology or quantum mechanics or any of the million things you trust others on, because eventually you have to trust the system), because there is this thing called a scientific system and consensus which if you deny you are being totally unreasonable. But there is a system and consensus here too - ANYONE who has tried this philosophical journey has reported positive results. Though not scientific which is specifically to examine material, it is empirical, and you're welcome to try it out.
"...because there is this thing called a scientific system and consensus which if you deny you are being totally unreasonable. But there is a system and consensus here too - ANYONE who has tried this philosophical journey has reported positive results. " Fallacy of Grey again
Not sure how. I am reporting a very identifiable fact.
"...ANYONE who has tried this philosophical journey has reported positive results." I dont doubt people can experience what they think is another dimension, It does not follow that such a dimension exists. Again, they are the result of brain states.
Says you with complete certainty. Again, I am not referring to a vague experience or entering another dimension. I am referring to knowing the mind inside of you, albeit more clearly. When that happens, it is clear as anything else, and it would be the fallacy of gray to assume at that point that it isn't what it seems
"Says you with complete certainty." I wrote to fast. I should have wrote "Again, they PROBABLY are the result of brain states, IMHO."
But again, resorting to brain states is something those with no concept of the immaterial would do, since consciousness is mysterious we can kind of say what we want about it. Same to why AI is deemed such a threat; if consciousness is just emergent, who said it can't emerge from technical wires? But if we can demystify consciousness for real, these two ideas become very, very weak.
Thousands of Christians have claimed to have had contact in some sense with Jesus: This includes NDE, Spiritual Awakenings, Dream Like States, Apparitions. I believe many of them are sincere. For them Jesus is real, should I also embrace Jesus ?
Many religious people and people who meditate claim to experience another dimension. Drugs can also induce this experience and so to near death experiences. THAT DOES NOT MEAN there is another dimension, Rather it is a manifestation of brain function - and some scientists have been able to stimulate such experiences with electrical devices.
The religious people will be proof to me as we'll discuss. The drugs makes you sound like Russell. The drugs are not even close to the reality of Plato's experience (although they simulate it slightly, which works in my framework).
My point is an individual can experience another dimension and such an experience does not mean the other dimension exists and the same applies to whatever you are claiming Plato experienced. They could be explained by certain brain states with no need to go to new dimensions.
I don't think you read this post well. Plato is describing no vague conception of an experience. And I don't mean a little bit clear. I mean as clear as the sky is blue, with no room for mistake at all. If you haven't reached there, according to Plato, you are a prisoner.
Right, everybody who does not buy into Plato's imagined new dimension is a prisoner. Come on. It is more likely Plato deluded himself if he thought he caught glimpses of a new dimension.
"It is more likely" those words are very telling. Is it not possible that he was saying the truth because *you* have never experienced anything like that? And what if we go on to show that it wasn't just Plato, but THOUSANDS of followers over the next THOUSAND plus years, who were considered the wisest and most pious and truthful people, and they all not just bought into this stuff, but experienced it, will you be so conspiratorial to discount all of them as well, because *you* never tried it?
People who do very large doses of DMT say that the hallucinatory world feels “realer than real” or “more real than reality”. At least as real as the sky being blue. Many people conclude that it’s actually real.
First of all, maybe they are tapping into this same reality?
Second, there's a difference between being on drugs for a few minutes and living an *entire life of truth and perfection* and then coming to these subtle yet real experiences.
“Maybe they are tapping into this same reality”
U think the aliens this guy saw really exist? https://youtu.be/x-lMNnCkoqk
Why can't psychedelics be a path do a different dimension?
Its pretty unlikely that everyone's neurons would conjure similar images.
Read up about ayahuasca.
"Its pretty unlikely that everyone's neurons would conjure similar images." I think it's extremely likely, actually. We all have the same underlying neural architecture, so it should respond in similar ways to the same drug.
Similar universal concepts as well?
See Joseph Campbells archetypes that seem to pop up in every cultures consciousness.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/21/universal-love-said-the-cactus-person/
I think asam Harris had the same point.
I didn't read the whole thing but sounds like hisarguments against it being a true spiritual experience is that people don't seem to come away with anything they already brought to the table?
yeah, the creatures can never tell you anything that you didn't already know
Just curious, do you know about this reality of the non-physical which Plato was describing? Hey - that's something you don't already know! Which ancient wisdoms *can* tell you about...
Got it.
Harris made the same argument.
I definitely understand the point.
The way I understand it is based on the Ramchal.
He explains that the soul is connected to the nefesh habihamis( animal soul) and the animal soul is connected to the human body.
When you dream depending on how spiritual you are you will either have a mixture of fragments of your subconscious thoughts, or if you are more spiritual your consciousness will get glimpses through its connection with the soul.
A good way to explain it is that there are two inputs into your consciousness; an earthier less spiritual one and a higher holier one.
Depending on who you are as a person you consciousness will derive more from either input.
My personal opinion of psychedelics is that it uninhibited your mind like a dream state.
You get fragments of subconscious material which won't give you anything more then who you were prior but will sometimes help you to work through unresolved traumas.
The reason why people come away changed us that they see that that there is a whole new level of consciousness that exists that they had no prior realization of.
Its like the moment when Neo takes the Red Pill.
If he would firmly come in with a materialist view he can discount it as neorons misfiring.
yep. I think Terence Mckenna was deeply irresponsible for suggesting that the creatures you see on DMT might actually be real in some other dimension. This stuff can drive you crazy if you aren't going in with a firm materialist mindset. Important to emphasize that all of it is in your head; none of it is real
If ai someday developed conscience would you accept that the "soul" is an emergent property of the brains neurons?
If not, why not?
Jerome.
According to me, they never can and never will (I'm with Chomsky). Consciousness is only possible for those who have been endowed with it by God. *If* it demonstrably happens, I would probably need to rethink my whole position. But I have enough backing to know tht it's not a worry.
So the Lord is somehow involved in attaching Consciousness to every single worm, insect, animal and person at around the time it's life begins ? (That amounts to billions of acts with billions of acts occurring simultaneously and over wide rages of distance.) The Lord must be quite busy just here on Earth.
is that an issue? Acc. to us he is involved not just with giving life, but with the very existence of matter (we believe that everything only continues to exist through Him constantly willing it to), so He is even more busy than your description. I'm not sure how that affects anything we're talking about.
Are you saying God of the gaps? Because He most certainly has 'messengers,' either natural ones (nature, science) or what we call angels (aka messengers) which are not acting every time anew, rather they are also a part of a built in process (as I briefly explained above https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/p/angels/comment/18692359)
"we believe that everything only continues to exist through Him constantly willing it to"
I don't think this is the Rambams view rather that once created it functions on its own. (This is however the nefesh hachaims view). ("Tamid" just means "regularly" so in context "daily " in other contexts "monthly" or "yearly".)
If you want a citation I will bl"n run it down upon request.
btw - random - Aquinas also held like the נפש החיים :)
I wasn't particularly expressing the Rambam's view in that comment; only mine. But I don't know if the Rambam ever talks about this specifically, I'd love a source. Someone once told me there was a Ralbag that disagrees with the Mekubalim (not just נפש החיים) as well, but didn't follow up. The best I know of is in Moreh 2:17 where he sounds like what you're saying (https://www.sefaria.org/Guide_for_the_Perplexed%2C_Part_2.17.5?lang=bi&with=MOREH%20NEVUCHIM,%20TRANSLATED%20BY%20IBN%20TIBON&lang2=en) - but I'm not convinced based on a number of other Rambam ideas (such as his famous ידיעה בחירה question in תשובה ספ"ה which a long and complex topic which gives me the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that the Rambam doesn't disagree with the מקובלים in this area)
either way, I'm open to more sources! Thanks!
Moreh 1: 73 (6th hakdama) he quotes this view as one of those he disagrees with.
That's not chomsky's position. He is skeptical that the field's current paradigm (probabilistic/statistical deep learning) can lead to genuine intelligence, but he doesn't think it's impossible in principle. I think he is wrong, but his view is a lot more nuanced than yours
No he thinks language is so complex and even the simplest sentences are so unbelieivably *creative* that it is silly to think that a machine will ever come close to anything like it.
Can a rock have Consciousness ? Can worms ? Can Insects ? Can rats, cows, dogs, birds, chimps, dolphins ?
*Can* they? I'm not sure why not. *Do* they? No.
I'm not quite understanding why you are any more comfortable with a weird meaty brain having consciousness. No modern philosopher or scientist I know claims to understand it, they just claim it is this way.
Uhh, what? You don't think mammals and birds have consciousness?
What is your definition of consciousness?
My bad, I was answering to rocks alone. The rest have.
Are there degrees of consciousness ? A worm has the same amount of consciousness as a man ? How do you know a worm has consciousness ?
if you wish to maintain dualism as a serious theory with real explanatory power, then you are left with the impossible task of precisely defining the boundaries of the self as well as describing the mechanisms by which it interacts with the platonic realm
the more parsimonious explanation is that the self is an illusion and consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neuronal firings in your brain
...says the prisoner
"those who have never ventured out of their caves of physicality" does not apply to me as I only accepted physicalism extremely recently. From my POV you're the one who never ventured out of the cave
Well be honest with yourself here, you haven't ventured outside the cave only to come back and say that there is nothing out there. Only, at some point you thought maybe there was truth to the idea that we are prisoners, until recently you've proudly concluded that there is no cave, without trying even to check. So no, you're still in the cave:(
I understand your POV, that's why I'm not yet claiming the truth of Plato's assertions - we'll get to that
I think the cave analogy is pretty useless. Anyone can claim that the people they disagree with are in caves
But then you are just not appreciating the cave analogy, and probably not anything I was saying; Plato is claiming that there is an entire *empirical reality* - that is not just a claim that he has a different outlook on life, rather an ability to sense an entire other sense, in which his analogy is perfectly useful. You are not claiming any new reality sir, sorry.
This doesn't make him not a liar, we'll get to that, but the nature of his claim is wildly different.
Do you hear the words I am using though? That he is claiming to literally be privy to another sense? That he is claiming that those who haven't perceived this sense are 'blind' to it? Not figuratively, not a flowery analogy, but an actuality, a reality as real as color. You seem to not get the difference.
Nobody is saying Plato is liar. Neither are the many religious people and people who meditate who also claim to experience another dimension. Drugs can also induce this experience and so to near death experiences. THAT DOES NOT MEAN there is another dimension, Rather it is a manifestation of brain function - and some scientists have been able to stimulate such experiences with electrical devices.
Dw we'll continue the conversation and I'll explain why I trust Plato. We're not quite up to there yet.
Your arguments are thoughtful, but they are good examples of Fallacy of Complex Question: "The fallacy of phrasing a question in a context that assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not in evidence, contains an ambiguity, or assumes a false dichotomy in a covert attempt to establish a conclusion."
It is another form of trying to use persuasive sounding, but unsound arguments, to reach a conclusion. This is really what I found so bizarre and objectionable with my religious teachers: it was a ruse. My rabbis, Jews, used trickery (whether they understood that or not.) And, it got even worse: good luck sharing your voice in this manipulative mess. Good luck testing the premises they set up. Good luck bringing in outside perspectives. Why the closed shop? Because the logic was not there, so shutting down free speech was essential. Kangaroo court rules. Show trial to trick people (again, in yet a new way.)
Can you give specific examples of this , barry?
I honestly have no clue what this comment has to do with anything. Which part of what I said was vague? I am simply setting up a factual premise - which you, at this point, can deny - that one has the ability to get in touch with a 'new reality' after years of hard work. Very straightforward stuff. And not meant to persuade anyone at all, just factual claims.
sorry. it's more of a general statement i am making. you have a lot of assertions. a lot of references - Plato, ideals, ideas, theories, science - and by the number of comments here, people take exception at most every turn to the premises or assumptions.
i would liken it to someone going off on tangents in a court of law. immediately, there would be objections if the defense started raising philosophic questions about the nature of reality, about theoretical objections built on platonic ideals.
maybe, it's a fallacy of irrelevance, a problem of non sequiturs? but, i have no doubt, that someone who is building such a complex view of reality is also trying hard to lead us to consent to it all, and ultimately, to assent to the "fact" of angels. maybe it is a fallacy of a false dichotomy - -you are drawing a map, but really, the two choices you are setting up is a false dichotomy (which serves your argument, but is logically weak.) maybe it's a straw man problem - where you phrase and frame "reality" in to something that makes it sound like your assertion must be correct, but the framing is in and of itself a straw man.
also, this started with an idea that we accept many things, like the existence of albert einstein, without great evidence, so why not accept the existence of say, Moses at Har Sinai? This is for sure a false equivalency of some kind.
I'm sorry if I'm missing the point. I do remember a scene from the movie JFK, where the prosecutor says that scientists can use fancy physics arguments to prove that an elephant can hang from a daisy -- but we know that ain't a real thing.
Your arguments seem like that. they sound "persuasive," sort of, but are very hollow, and really about twisting reality, framing, structuring a narrative. persuading. but, it's a form of rhetoric. maybe a fallacy of appeal to emotion, appeal to to the idea that the framing you choose is somehow just a bit more clever and thought out - but, in truth, it's just framing. just a narrative. a clever but facile sales pitch. not impressive.
still, i enjoy the stuff -- just not compelling. if you want to assert a false equivalency (another fallacy, i think) that we all accept einstein, so let's all accept moses. it's obvious and clear cut and i don't see the equivalency. it's a failed argument, but it's straightforward, and concise, and while most a will see the fallacy. which they should. in all your arguing - you are disguising the weakness with complexity -- you are arguing that an elephant can, theoretically, hang off a cliff tied to a daisy. it may be full of wizardry and brilliance - but it's not actually true.
There are all kinds of fallacies i barely touch on or understand. affirming the consequent fallacy, denying the antecedent fallacy -- many more -- they seem to have relevance in complex arguments that proceed from: if you accept this, then you must accept that.
It's a whole world - how arguments are flawed. i'm just beginning to see the way people employ bad arguments (that sound good) in areas like "proving" religion.
I never ever said we should accept Moses just because we should accept Einstein. I've only ever equated the two in reference to the fact that we have different tools which we use to accept different facts. Most people don't accept Einstein's existence only because it can be tested in a lab. Most people accept his existence because of historical reasons. Why I accept the Sinai event is obviously a whole lot more complex, but we are working to get there one piece at a time.
As far as angels go, already in the post itself I spelled out clearly that I haven't proven that angels actually exist. All I've laid out thus far is but one thing, that perhaps the idea of angels may be a bit less silly than you thought, or at least a way to process that they could be a bit less silly than you thought.
I haven't asked anyone to accept anything beyond this idea (that 'angels' may be something the mind could grasp). Not even that they exist. If you read this post and took out of this some sort of proof that angels exist, that's on you.
you write "perhaps the idea of angels may be a bit less silly than you thought."
This is a version of an ad ignornatiam fallacy, i think. "no one knows it is false, therefore it is true." In this case, it "may" be true, as you say. Or, in your watered down version "it may be a bit less silly than you thought."
It may be an ad populum fallacy.
It may be ten other fallacies! I have a lot to learn about fallacies. A LOT.
But, I object to this kind of arguing. Let me use an example of how awful this type of thinking is, how terrible it is:
A man meets a child. He wants to touch the kid sexually. He says "I just want to put my hand on your shoulder." The child says "ok." Then he says "now, on your stomach." The child objects. The man says, surely if I can touch your shoulder, I can touch your stomach?" The child has no good argument.
Someone wants to convince me JC is the messiah. He uses a lot of phrases like "perhaps what I am saying is a bit less silly than you originally thought." I can't object. He made a few good points. He pointed out some biblical passages. Next, he goes on to "now, if what I have said is a bit less silly than you thought, perhaps what I will say next can also be seen as less silly..." and goes on to tell me more stuff. Here we are agreeing. I am nodding.
OY. These are maybe "loaded question" fallacies -- people start to say "yes," and then have trouble saying "no," because they have been primed by loaded questions.
The kind of arguing - the path you are taking us down - is a loaded question fallacy, I think. You say something as watered down as "perhaps the idea of angels may be a bit less silly than you thought," and we have no choice but to say "yes," because, indeed, perhaps it is.
But the JC evangelist is going to say "perhaps JC as your savior is a bit less silly than you thought," and he will get a YES too. Because, hey "perhaps" it is not QUITE as silly as I thought..!
There is a psychological trick or some kind of fallacy here, and you are reproducing it in your argument. I think it is wrong to do that.
If I ever do that, call me out. Until then it is perfectly reasonable to build up ideas one piece at a time.
Btw I realize that I am also making a second assertion, besides making angels less 'silly' seeming: that Plato believed in these things. But that is pretty well known already.
I'm not really familiar with what Plato believed. I think that is called a "mind reading" fallacy.
Let's be clear, with an example: I might be a great salesman for the power of astrology. I might write well about it, and express my belief in it.
I also may be collecting a paycheck. I may see an opportunity. I may actually have no real idea if it is real, but people seem to want it, they seem to need it, and I have got a gift for writing about it in an enthusiastic and powerful way. It's also making me a lot of money, without a whole lot of work. And, with my bad knees and bad back and in my sixties - there is NO way I am going out and looking for another job.
We don't know what Plato believed. We know what he said. We know he perhaps enjoyed the questions, the discussions, the discourse, the life of the mind, and the topic. Perhaps, for him, angels were a metaphor. Perhaps he found that talking about angels, he learned a lot about people. Perhaps when people spoke to him about angels, he was able to glean understandings of their deeper nature.
did President "X" really think "we're going to change the world!," or was it a campaign slogan that tested well, and inspired people to help him win?
We can't know what people really believe. Certainly not by what they write.
Sorry these two links may be helpful and are related https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2020/12/proof-of-god-from-mathematics.html AND https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/08/proof-of-god-from-free-will-justice_4.html
Not helpful at all. It misses the boat of what I was saying. Besides that I am not 'proving God' here, I am saying that Plato was aware (or at least claims to be aware) of an entire new reality. One that comes after years of hard work and specific training. That wasn't a hypothesis. It was a factual claim, as real as any scientific conclusion, although it more empirical than scientific. Either he was lying or I am misinterpreting. Another option is to say that he himself was misinterpreting, but *he makes it clear that only a pre-philosopher would claim that* (in his allegory especially). It is real as the sky is blue.
"It was a factual claim, as real as any scientific conclusion, although it more empirical than scientific." Come on. Plato's claim is what he has told us he felt. That is not as real as a scientific conclusion. It is not even wrong science. Nor is it empirical except for himself. That is like me saying I saw a ghost. I really really did.
But again, what if it wasn't just him? And what if there were a specific process you can follow to get there? And those that followed the process continually report success from all regions of the world? Does that not matter?
If not, what would matter? Only if *you personally* experienced it? Do you have that same standard for all your scientific knowledge? I get most of my scientific information form studies other people did and I trust them because of the system. That can't apply over here? What if a thousand people you know and trust for so many reasons told you about this? Would that also not be enough? Tell me what your standard would be and we'll see if we reach that bar.
(And don't include the people who just began their philosophical journey or people who discuss physical apparitions, I am not talking about them for the fifth time)
"But again, what if it wasn't just him? And what if there were a specific process you can follow to get there? And those that followed the process continually report success from all regions of the world? Does that not matter?" In meditation (or some other mental states) people feel they are in contact with a new plane of reality. I still deny this is evidence for a new plane of reality. Rather, science should investigate their brain's to see what parts of the brain may be involved in triggering such feelings. Also, we need to figure out if and how such a new plane can interact with our known world. EVEN if a new plane exists, I am reluctant to accept it has any relevance to our world. For if it could interact with our world we should be able to detect it, yet we can not.
Nowadays meditation for the most part comes nothing close to the years of philosophical training Plato was describing, but they are certainly tapping into these ideas.
Your response seems weak: the ONLY way you'd believe something is if it can be proven scientifically? Really? Are you being honest? Besides that there are hundreds of thing way more basic than if a bat is a mammal that you believe without scientific experimentation, such as much of history, and trusting your very own perception of the world through your senses. Science can neither confirm nor deny Descartes's "Cognito ergo sum" but it is perfectly reasonable to believe that you are who you are even though it can't be scientifically 'proven.' And science can't confirm most of history.
But the main thing is that to me this smells like a bias. If you come in with the assumption that you will never accept anything that is not scientifically proven, and you then add, "unless it is already reasonable without science," what you are really saying is that this is too unreasonable to ever believe. But you have to admit that there would be a bar where you would believe it despite its so-called unreasonability, such as if 99% of the world began Plato's "experiment" and began seeing this 'sixth sense' for themselves, even skeptics like Dawkins and Schermer and whoever, you would surely question your assumptions pretty quickly.
There must be some bar.
Once we establish that there is a bar, we can figure out if history reaches that bar.
If thousands of people experienced Plato's new dimension, I would NOT accept that such subjective experiences indicates a new dimension really really exists. The hypothesis that such a new dimension really really exists is put thru the same scientific ringer that all other hypothesises. However, I think scientists should investigate the situation. Could the experiences be explained by brain states, something ate/drank, group think etc: etc: Please see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/04/kuzari-argument-part-23-or-proof-of-god.html That involves EYE WITNESS testimony of numerous people including scientists ! It did not involve subjective feelings of contact with new dimensions ala Plato and his followers.
I share my experience with you. I used to play chess. There were times when an image of the chessboard appeared to me as if in another dimension. I saw the pieces literally moving, and the opponents pieces moving. I was then able to make the moves on my board in real time at a rapid pace as I had already seen in my mind the correct moves. Should I conclude the chess board etc: existed in another dimension that actually exists ?
"But the main thing is that to me this smells like a bias. If you come in with the assumption that you will never accept anything that is not scientifically proven..." Empirical disciplines are close enough to science to be reasonably accepted, but of course not with the force of the so called hard sciences. . For example, studies of group behaviour, some of economics...
"...trusting your very own perception of the world through your senses." This is part of empiricism and thus the scientific method. But scientists go way beyond that since your senses are very limited. What looks like a solid table turns out not be as solid as you saw. Scientific method is a method that has proven to work.
Historians do try to put their description of history on a more scientific basis. This includes gathering data and information, archaeology, psychology, human interaction, developing hypothesis, testing it making predictions etc: Not so unscientific actually.
I just reread your response. You worded it well, actually. You should be reluctant. But not closed completely to anything, that's all.
Isn't that explanations of consciousness just as conspiratorial as how you claim us G-d believers are?
As a side that does not at all explain how there are universal patterns in consciousness.
"to the pre-philosopher..." lol, the majority of professional philosophers are physicalists
I am obviously referring to the Platonic philosopher - I thought I was abundantly clear about how they differ entirely from today's mechanical philosophers. You are referring to modern philosophers who have nothing to do with this philosophical journey Plato was referring to and have nothing to do with this conversation.
I think they have quite a bit to do with this conversation.
Eventually, when we get to them. Right now we are discussing Plato's philosophers, people who spend years of intense celibacy and abstinence while working really hard mentally, trying to perceive the immaterial - they claim successfully - and you bring in these children who have no concept any of these ideas, who construct their own 'rigid' theories when all they've ever seen were the shadows on the wall. Exactly as described in Plato's allegory.
Sorry to interupt the convo. "...Plato's philosophers years of intense celibacy and abstinence while working really hard mentally, trying to perceive the immaterial - they claim successfully..." Maybe doing all that altered their brains, that plus intense desire to reach a goal convinced them they had contacted a new dimension (wishful thinking ?). Something like self hypnosis ?
I think they definitely do understand these ideas . And much better than you do.
I'm sure you think so. Sagan is right there in the cave with you staring at the simple shadows thinking he understands everything. Along with Kant and Hume and Descartes.
Descartes was not a physicalist lmfao
Perhaps - for now I am just explaining what Plato believed. We'll analyze the truth of it as we move on...
Oops..that was meant for Dov Ber not you
Lol got it, still inadvertently brought out a good point...