My philosophy

[IJesusChrist]

I think sometimes that people often find me hard to follow as far as my philosophy;
I'm very scientific, analytical and objective in a great deal of my writings on here, but at the same time I'm on psychonaut.com - a curious man's website to the inner workings of the mind, something I consider extremely subjective.

So I want to clear some things up, and I've said all this before, but never in one clear thread.

I strongly believe in both science and spirituality. I believe science governs everything we interact with physically and materially; our whole physical body will always be subjected to and abide by the rules of universe. There is no escaping that. In that way, I do no believe that there are spirits to be interacted with, I do not believe in magic or magick and I don't believe in any of the sacred geometry or alchemy teachings of the occult world. I believe that if the laws of physics are not accounted for within a field of study or interest, there is no hope for it to glamorously or incredibly take over our current knowledge.

That is about all I can say that I absolutely believe in as far as physical reality goes.

However, with that said, I believe that consciousness acts upward and beyond explanation of science. It's interaction with the mind and brain are completely unknown and will never be explained. Consciousness and the mind cannot be explained, they do not follow rules, and as far as I'm concerned, there is an intangible and incomprehensible reasoning behind the mind's workings: It is not random, but it cannot, ever be defined.

So, I believe that the brain is somehow a filter or a membrane by which the spiritual world, that which I am familiar with on DMT and other entheogens, communicates through into the physical world. I believe that, although the brain must work on a scientifical level, information and reasoning do not have to ( i.e. conscious decisions do not take place in this physical reality.)

Therefore, I have created, in my philosophical quest for understanding, two worlds. One in which we can analyze all we would like for real results, and one which cannot be approach analytically at all, and has no bearing on material logic with which we hold. Hence it is so hard for me to explain a DMT trip or any other high dosage spiritual awakening. I understand so much when I am there, but when I come back, what does it matter, how does it relate? It cannot relate to the physical world! Only to other's spirituality and spirituality in general.

I hope that clears some things up. I just have this feeling that people view me as either a hypocrite or an analytical bastard who has no room for spirituality.

 

[JimmyEulogy]

Ohhh personal philosophy is fun. Here are some of my thoughts on your ideas.

I strongly believe in both science and spirituality. I believe science governs everything we interact with physically and materially; our whole physical body will always be subjected to and abide by the rules of universe. There is no escaping that. In that way, I do no believe that there are spirits to be interacted with, I do not believe in magic or magick and I don't believe in any of the sacred geometry or alchemy teachings of the occult world. I believe that if the laws of physics are not accounted for within a field of study or interest, there is no hope for it to glamorously or incredibly take over our current knowledge.

You've created a fallacious argument. Why do you assume that "spirits" must be interacted with physically?

You claim you don't believe in magick, but I think this is more of a product of your misunderstanding of magick. The schools of magick I am familiar with make no claims to modifying an objective physical universe. You've misunderstood a fundamental tenant for much of this thinking, objective reality is an illusion. Everything is necessarily subjective. You will find that many magick practioners have great respect for science, including Aleister Crowley who famously said:

"We place no reliance on virgin or pidgeon.
Our method is science, our aim is religion.”

However, with that said, I believe that consciousness acts upward and beyond explanation of science. It's interaction with the mind and brain are completely unknown and will never be explained. Consciousness and the mind cannot be explained, they do not follow rules, and as far as I'm concerned, there is an intangible and incomprehensible reasoning behind the mind's workings: It is not random, but it cannot, ever be defined.

the ambiguity of the statements makes it hard to decipher (I prefer to avoid playing semantic games). What does it mean for something to act beyond science? I believe science is a tool we use to explain/investigate perceived epistemically objective (falsifiable) phenomena.

The interaction between consciousness and mind/brain is not completely unknown. Your comment is patently false. Look into some of the research concerning brain injuries and their effects on consciousness. Scientists have managed to collect many clues pertaining to the connection between consciousness and brain, they have simply failed to put all the pieces together (and likely are still missing some).

What does it mean for something to be unexplainable? Surely there is some mechanism that creates consciousness and surely this mechanism has some inner logic. What evidence do you have for consciousness not "following rules"? How does reasoning become incomprehensible? What does that mean?

So, I believe that the brain is somehow a filter or a membrane by which the spiritual world, that which I am familiar with on DMT and other entheogens, communicates through into the physical world. I believe that, although the brain must work on a scientifical level, information and reasoning do not have to ( i.e. conscious decisions do not take place in this physical reality.)

Therefore, I have created, in my philosophical quest for understanding, two worlds. One in which we can analyze all we would like for real results, and one which cannot be approach analytically at all, and has no bearing on material logic with which we hold. Hence it is so hard for me to explain a DMT trip or any other high dosage spiritual awakening. I understand so much when I am there, but when I come back, what does it matter, how does it relate? It cannot relate to the physical world! Only to other's spirituality and spirituality in general.

I think this section presents some interesting ideas that are close to being inline with my current inclinations. Although where you suspect two different states of existence, I suspect the brain itself can operate in different modes.

Your comment on understanding when your "there really" resonates with me. Perhaps someday I can hear your thoughts on my thoughts.

 

[IJesusChrist]

Ohhh personal philosophy is fun. Here are some of my thoughts on your ideas.

You sound familiar.

You've created a fallacious argument. Why do you assume that "spirits" must be interacted with physically?

When I mentioned spirits I meant spirits that physically appear. In order to see them, they must physically react with reality.

You claim you don't believe in magick, but I think this is more of a product of your misunderstanding of magick. The schools of magick I am familiar with make no claims to modifying an objective physical universe. You've misunderstood a fundamental tenant for much of this thinking, objective reality is an illusion. Everything is necessarily subjective. You will find that many magick practioners have great respect for science, including Aleister Crowley who famously said:

"We place no reliance on virgin or pidgeon.
Our method is science, our aim is religion.”

I don't really care who said what, but if you try and relate magick with science you end up with one or the other - they are not ideologies that can overlap.

However, with that said, I believe that consciousness acts upward and beyond explanation of science. It's interaction with the mind and brain are completely unknown and will never be explained. Consciousness and the mind cannot be explained, they do not follow rules, and as far as I'm concerned, there is an intangible and incomprehensible reasoning behind the mind's workings: It is not random, but it cannot, ever be defined.

the ambiguity of the statements makes it hard to decipher (I prefer to avoid playing semantic games). What does it mean for something to act beyond science? I believe science is a tool we use to explain/investigate perceived epistemically objective (falsifiable) phenomena.

Acting beyond science means it cannot be explained by science, it does not follow physical laws.

The interaction between consciousness and mind/brain is not completely unknown. Your comment is patently false. Look into some of the research concerning brain injuries and their effects on consciousness. Scientists have managed to collect many clues pertaining to the connection between consciousness and brain, they have simply failed to put all the pieces together (and likely are still missing some).

You're not seeing the bigger picture. The brain is necessary for consciousness to interact. Of course damage to the brain is going to cause damage to (more so the inability to communicate with) consciousness.

What does it mean for something to be unexplainable? Surely there is some mechanism that creates consciousness and surely this mechanism has some inner logic. What evidence do you have for consciousness not "following rules"? How does reasoning become incomprehensible? What does that mean?

This shows you really aren't grasping the idea. Consciousness is translated through the brain into reality. There is a mechanism of the brain in what it does after it translates consciousness to action, but consciousness itself cannot be described by any mechanism. In reality you can have two occurences in nature: 1. predetermined, 2. random (or more accurately, probabilities). outside of this, there is no possible way to explain "free will" scientifically. I believe that there is some type of free will in some higher communication (that gets translated through the brain) that cannot be explained by science. If free will could be explained by science, this whole arguement I am putting forth would be null and I would say everything can be explained by mechanisms.

So, I believe that the brain is somehow a filter or a membrane by which the spiritual world, that which I am familiar with on DMT and other entheogens, communicates through into the physical world. I believe that, although the brain must work on a scientifical level, information and reasoning do not have to ( i.e. conscious decisions do not take place in this physical reality.)

Therefore, I have created, in my philosophical quest for understanding, two worlds. One in which we can analyze all we would like for real results, and one which cannot be approach analytically at all, and has no bearing on material logic with which we hold. Hence it is so hard for me to explain a DMT trip or any other high dosage spiritual awakening. I understand so much when I am there, but when I come back, what does it matter, how does it relate? It cannot relate to the physical world! Only to other's spirituality and spirituality in general.

I think this section presents some interesting ideas that are close to being inline with my current inclinations. Although where you suspect two different states of existence, I suspect the brain itself can operate in different modes.

Your comment on understanding when your "there really" resonates with me. Perhaps someday I can hear your thoughts on my thoughts.

This is a temporary philosophy of mine, in trying to avoid pure automata biology. I will take leaps and bounds before I submit to the mechanistic view of consciousness (again).

 

[JimmyEulogy]

Ohhh personal philosophy is fun. Here are some of my thoughts on your ideas.

You sound familiar.

I must be thick as this expression escapes me.

You've created a fallacious argument. Why do you assume that "spirits" must be interacted with physically?

When I mentioned spirits I meant spirits that physically appear. In order to see them, they must physically react with reality.

This seems patently false. I'm sure you agree that hallucinations occur. People see them, but they aren't physically interacting with "reality". In the same sense I can see a spirit that won't be interacting with my walls or bookcase.

You claim you don't believe in magick, but I think this is more of a product of your misunderstanding of magick. The schools of magick I am familiar with make no claims to modifying an objective physical universe. You've misunderstood a fundamental tenant for much of this thinking, objective reality is an illusion. Everything is necessarily subjective. You will find that many magick practioners have great respect for science, including Aleister Crowley who famously said:

"We place no reliance on virgin or pidgeon.
Our method is science, our aim is religion.”

I don't really care who said what, but if you try and relate magick with science you end up with one or the other - they are not ideologies that can overlap.

Science and magick can co-exist without contradiction. Altering my perceptions with my Will does not violate science. Like I told you initially, when you think about magick, you first must stop thinking about reality as objective.

Perhaps it makes more sense in your reality tunnel to say that magick alters one's perception of the assumed/perceived objective universe, such is in accordance with science. If you still fail to see how this does not violate scientific principles, perhaps you should try some of the magick experiments.

However, with that said, I believe that consciousness acts upward and beyond explanation of science. It's interaction with the mind and brain are completely unknown and will never be explained. Consciousness and the mind cannot be explained, they do not follow rules, and as far as I'm concerned, there is an intangible and incomprehensible reasoning behind the mind's workings: It is not random, but it cannot, ever be defined.

the ambiguity of the statements makes it hard to decipher (I prefer to avoid playing semantic games). What does it mean for something to act beyond science? I believe science is a tool we use to explain/investigate perceived epistemically objective (falsifiable) phenomena.

Acting beyond science means it cannot be explained by science, it does not follow physical laws.

Okay. I failed to recognize the dualism in your ideas when I initially responded.

The interaction between consciousness and mind/brain is not completely unknown. Your comment is patently false. Look into some of the research concerning brain injuries and their effects on consciousness. Scientists have managed to collect many clues pertaining to the connection between consciousness and brain, they have simply failed to put all the pieces together (and likely are still missing some).

You're not seeing the bigger picture. The brain is necessary for consciousness to interact. Of course damage to the brain is going to cause damage to (more so the inability to communicate with) consciousness.

So you believe that scientists are working to understand the mechanism that consciousness is transferred through. If this mechanism exists in the physical universe and can transmit consciousness, can it be reversed engineered in order to attain information about "authentic" consciousness?

What does it mean for something to be unexplainable? Surely there is some mechanism that creates consciousness and surely this mechanism has some inner logic. What evidence do you have for consciousness not "following rules"? How does reasoning become incomprehensible? What does that mean?

This shows you really aren't grasping the idea. Consciousness is translated through the brain into reality. There is a mechanism of the brain in what it does after it translates consciousness to action, but consciousness itself cannot be described by any mechanism. In reality you can have two occurences in nature: 1. predetermined, 2. random (or more accurately, probabilities). outside of this, there is no possible way to explain "free will" scientifically. I believe that there is some type of free will in some higher communication (that gets translated through the brain) that cannot be explained by science. If free will could be explained by science, this whole arguement I am putting forth would be null and I would say everything can be explained by mechanisms.

This sounds similar to Cartesian dualism. Consciousness exists in a second spiritual plane. How can the physical and spiritual affect each other causally? If they are interacting doesn't this indicate that they are of the same composition? In general how does your explanation deal with the arguments against dualism?

It would be nice to have a more explicit lexicon that would allow us to signify what reality tunnel a symbol-string belonged to. As an example your concept and my concept of reality are completely different. Could use something like reality IJC and reality JE .

 

[IJesusChrist]

Hallucinations are a good topic.

In my reality, I have to come to the question of whether hallucinations are a product of a physical interaction in the brain, i.e. chemical composition, or whether hallucinations are communications from this "upper plane" of non-science, or both.

It IS cartesian dualism. The mind and body act upon different substances.

I don't see a problem with any of the "arguements of dualism" - every arguement is simply the outcome of dualism itself, not the problems of it.

1. Memory is physical. Memory is stored in your brain, you can remove memories physically. You don't have to be conscious to create memories, and you don't have to have memories to be conscious.

2. Consciousness - can it make a neuron fire? The problem here is thermodynamics - we cannot make energy from nothing - we cannot change the physical environment without energy input, which is necessarily physical.

At the moment, the only explanation I can make here is that in quantum mechanics you have a probability that something occurs. I.E. there is a 32% chance the electron will cross barrier X into substrate Y. Perhaps (complete conjecture) consciousness effects these probabilities to be skewed to one direction or another, effectively changing outcome of actions without any change in energy (both outcomes of crossing or not crossing X cost the same energy). It is possible... of course it is just conjecture.

I also have a feeling that the consciousness-physical interaction could be governed by an even more invisble force - I'll have to think about it though.

The only problem is explaining that "filter" or "membrane" that consciousness has to cross in order to somehow effect the physical reality (your brain).

To be very reductive, we may just have a consciousness that isn't located in physical reality that only can "read" the information of the brain, and has no interaction. This would have no problem of physicality - there is no reason why consciousness needs any thermodynamic laws, and thus can read information without violating any laws, or extracting any energy from the system.

nah mene?

 

[mosaicmouse]

So you define consciousness as an epiphenomene of the brain. I lik to think of it as the thing a machine experiences while working: a complete translation and syntax of its input-output (maybe analogue to graphical user interfaces, but more abstract).

The only problem is explaining that "filter" or "membrane" that consciousness has to cross in order to somehow effect the physical reality (your brain).

Do you think consciousness appeared before the brain and had to find it's way trough the brain?

 

[IJesusChrist]

Do you think consciousness appeared before the brain and had to find it's way trough the brain?

To a degree, yes - I don't think consciousness is dependent on a brain to "exist", however, the brain is in which it stores memories, relates memories, retrieves memories, and experiences, so without the brain, consciousness is not physical, and thus is not explainable.

 

[mosaicmouse]

"so without the brain, consciousness is not physical, and thus is not explainable"
So on what grounds do you postulate its existence apart from the brain?

 

[IJesusChrist]

Nothing, other than experience can't be explained physically.

Sit down, think about how you are conscious. Try to understand it. What exactly is happening?

I've done it plenty of times, as have people for thousands of years. Nobody can truly explain it...

How else do I explain it other than the unexplainable? And the only unexplainable is that which doesn't exist in reality.

 

[mosaicmouse]

Nothing is explainable. But the awesome thing about reality is that you can fit models to it. Models like the word "consciousness". These models enable us to reason, think, apply dualisms, learn.

Maybe consciousness is in its pure essence this act of induction. Consciousness as the perceptual and conceptual fragmentation of reality. Fitting these models requires fantasy. An animal needs fantasy to postulate that the print in the sand is of the foot of a predator. The electron is essentially a product of fantasy. "Imagination is more important than knowledge"E.

Induction, the cheat on logic... just as life is the cheat on thermodynamics. The universe the cheat to the nothing?

Maybe fantasy is all it takes to be conscious.
:smoke:

 

[IJesusChrist]

Where does fantasy come from, you high-ass.

 

[mosaicmouse]

I am a little bit more sober today.

Fantasy may have been a bad choice of word. I actually meant imagination ("fantasie" in my native l.)
Lifeforms have evolved imagination as it is essential to understanding causality.
There seems to be a correlation between imagination and consciousness: "the mind's eye"...

I think maybe we had to encounter things that don't exist (in our imagination) to be able to come to the conslusion that we are in the part that exists.

 

[IJesusChrist]

perhaps. can't help but feel like we drifted from the topic of what exactly consciousness is, though.

 

[Sticki]

Maybe the existance of consciousness is that of a harmony?

Spirit and Matter = Consciousness (On the biological level)

The two things we all have in common is the bio-mechanical structure we call the body, Made from dust or matter particals and the Soul or Spirit, That is the electrical impulses that control the bio-mechanical structure we call the body.

As beings that use electrical impulses to operate we individually and uniquelly emit a frequency, Could this be the soul?

P.S. This dualism you talk about, Are you sure this is not the harmony of life on this plane?

 

[mosaicmouse]

P.S. This dualism you talk about, Are you sure this is not the harmony of life on this plane?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism#As ... of_reality The "As a feature of reality" paragraph
But in a lot of interpretations not limited to two opposing categories. I think dualism also applies to eg. the division of a year in seasons.

In my interpretation seeing the harmony in this plane is seeing beyond these dualisms (the fragmentation of perception,categorisation,...). These are the moments of zen when you see the world as it is, more than how you experience it. It's why zen koans have paradoxes but still have meaning. To force your mind to see beyond the layer of words (duality) and get to the harmony level.


IJC, I must say I don't feel like I'm drifting away from the topic. I strongly believe that this categorisation and applying of models is the very prerequisite for consciousness.

You can have your paint and canvas (~neurons, axons, NT's,...) but you still need a method to bring it all together in a painting.
The categorisation being the method of how our senses (perception) are wired to produce consciousness.

 

[ophiuchus]

i think it's still about "what consciousness is". it's just different though, i like the idea of consciousness as a vector. although a noun, more verby in it's "noun-ness".

imagination is a process, and consciousness can only be perceived as a process too.