You are hereForums / Non-Duality / Skeptical Metaphysics

Skeptical Metaphysics


5 replies [Last post]
Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:

The metaphysics that I’m going to propose here has enough in common with Vedanta—as regards the most general aspects, and conclusions--that I call it a version of Vedanta. It isn’t Advaita, and I don’t know how much it has in common with the other two traditional Vedanta versions.
.
It’s based on the principle that all assumptions are subject to question. I try to avoid or discount assumptions (or at least state them as only assumptions when speculating), and to make only uncontroversial statements. For that reason, although the name “Skepticism” has already been taken, for a Classical Greek philosophy, I’m borrowing that name for the metaphysics that I propose.
.
Possibility-Worlds, Possibility-Stories:
.
Anything that can be said about our physical world can be said as an “if-statement”. Instead of saying that there’s a traffic-roundabout at 34th and Vine, I can say, “If you go to 34th and Vine, you’ll encounter a traffic-roundabout.”
.
Though declarative grammar is convenient in communication, I suggest that conditional grammar better describes out physical world. The physical worlds are “worlds of if”. (That was the name of a science-fiction magazine, but it’s a good description of our physical universe).
.
There’s no reason to believe that this physical world is other than a hypothetical possibility-world, a world-of-if.
.
To word the same thing a little differently, this physical world (and other ones) can also be described entirely in terms of hypothetical logical and mathematical relations.
.
Several physicists, including Michael Faraday (1844), Frank Tippler (1970s or ‘80s), Max Tegmark (recently) have pointed out that the physical world consists of logical and mathematical _relation_. …and that there’s no need to suppose the existence of actual “stuff”.
.
There’s no particular reason to believe in the Physicalists’ “stuff”. Asserting its existence amounts to an unnecessary assumption, and thereby violates Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony.
.
“Stuff” is as artificial and unnecessary an assumption as aether or phlogiston.
.
This physical world is one of infinitely many hypothetical “possibility worlds”. Your life is a hypothetical “life-possibility-story”, set in a hypothetical possibility world.
.
This universe, our hypothetical possibility-world, has the same existence as all of the other hypothetical possibility-worlds. Ours seems very real to us, because we’re part of it. To say that it’s more real, more existent, than the others, would be pre-Copernican.
.
Why is There Something Instead of Nothing?:
.
Well, by the primary and fundamentally-existent concrete physical way that Physicalists mean “something”, there’s no particular reason to believe that there’s “something”.
.
Western philosophers refer to a broad class of things such as logical relational statements, syllogisms, numbers, statements, abstract logical or mathematical facts, equations, etc. as “abstract objects”. In reply to the question, "Would it have been possible for there to not be abstract objects?", those philosophers have answered that facts are abstract objects, and if there were no facts, it would be a fact that there were no facts--a contradiction.
.
An interviewer once asked a Vedantist what’s the Ultimate Reality. The Vedantist answered “Consciousness”.
.
Then the interviewer asked him, “Then why is there Consciousness?”
.
The Vedantist answered that he didn’t know, and that maybe that question can’t be answered.
.
I disagree.
.
Consciousness is the Protagonist in a life possibility story. Of course there’s no reason why we can’t validly speak of possibility-worlds, universes, in which there’s no life. …but they wouldn’t be of much interest to discuss, would they. We’re interested in life possibility-stories, because that’s us. Stories with us as Protagonist.
.
The stories of interest have a Protagonist, and that’s us.
.
Now, in what context does that interviewer want that Consciousness, that conscious being and his/her possibility-story in a possibility-world, to exist? Tell me, in what context does it need to exist? Does it need some outside context in which to exist and be real?
.
No. It needn’t exist or be real in any context other than its own. Each of us, as Consciousness, the Protagonist, and our hypothetical life story and its hypothetical world, needn’t exist or be real in any context other than our own.

Our shared "physical" world, our common possibility-world, is a context, and needn't have existence or reality in any other context.
.
Maybe this is another way of saying the same thing, but maybe it’s a slightly different statement: Likewise, these hypotheticals don’t need a _medium_ in which to exist. They don’t need _anything_ but themselves.
.
So there’s really no puzzle about why we and our worlds exist.
.
Of course the words “exist”, “real” and “is” aren’t metaphysically-defined, so it’s pointless to debate whether or not the possibility-worlds and stories are real. …but, in their (our) own context they (we) are real.
.
You could say, “Why _me_, in _this_ world??”.
.
Why not? Any life-possibility-story has a Protagonist. All possibility-stories are “there”. You’re plainly the Protagonist of this story. So where’s the puzzle?
.
You could say that this life-possibility-story is there because of you…because you’re someone for a life-story to be about. Of course the Protagonist is an essential part of such a story. .
.
So, in a way, you’re primary.
.
But what if that presumed thing called Liberation has occurred for you?
.
Presumably then you won’t have the feeling of individual identity and identification, and life-concerns that you have now, and so you’ll no longer be the Protagonist of a life-story.
There won't be a life-story about you.
.
If, at the end of that particular life, it’s the end of lives, then what happens for you, the Protagonist, then?
.
Obviously, then, as the body shuts down, and sleep ensues, and the person ends, and the temporary life-experience ends, and the most-natural background of Nothing is approached, there are no concerns, needs, wants, lacks, discontent or incompletion. What else can be, or needs to be, said about that time (or, rather, that timelessness)?
.
It’s said (and sounds reasonable) that that is there for each of us, when we’re ready for it, when we get to it.
.
As I said in a previous post, what’s your hurry? We get there when we do.
.
This metaphysics isn’t Advaita. It doesn’t include an assumption that all Protagonists are really the same Protagonist (even though, down-deep, they might be said to be very similar or even identical).
.
Ockham’s Principle-of-Parsimony suggests that we avoid unnecessary assumptions. It seems to me that the assumption that all Protagonists are really one is an unnecessary unsupported assumption.
.
Life, Reality, experience in general, are perceived individually, from an individual point-of-view, not globally. In a metaphysical discussion, there’s no reason to speak of global reality instead of individual reality. Of course the fact that a biological being (you) is here requires that there’s a species to which you belong. Then it’s hardly surprising that there are other members of that species on this planet.
.
And of course this same hypothetical possibility-world that is the setting for your life-possibility-story inevitably can also be the setting for numerous other life-possibility-stories, from the points of view of various organisms (including people). I remind you that all of the possible life-possibility-stories are “there”, as hypothetical stories, each with some Protagonist. That’s uncontroversial.
.
Are you the person? Are you the body?
.
Of course you are.
.
It couldn’t be any more obvious that you’re the person and the body.
.
Yes, the person is temporary, and, by some standards, what’s temporary, anything that exists in time, isn’t “real”.
.
But, as I pointed out above, the words “real”, “existent” and “is” aren’t metaphysically-defined. There’s no point quibbling about what’s “real”. So let’s just drop that issue about what’s real and what isn’t.
.
Sankara didn’t say that the relative world isn’t real.
.
I’ve tried, here, to only say uncontroversial statements, statements that you won’t disagree with. I’ve tried to avoid unnecessary assumptions.
.
I call this Metaphysics “Skepticism”.
.
Or, if you don’t like that re-use of the name of a Classical Greek philosophy, then how about “Parsimony-Metaphysics”, or “Ockham-Metaphysics”, because it follows directly from Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony.
.
It isn’t literally Advaita, , and doesn’t literally agree with it. But, for one thing, it’s close enough to general Vedanta, to qualify as Vedanta.
.
For another thing, though it isn’t Advaita, its ultimate conclusions and most general metaphysical aspects don’t really seriously disagree even with Advaita. …especially in regards to anything observable. (I re-emphasize that “real” isn’t metaphysically-defined, and that Sankara didn’t say that the relative isn’t real.)
.
For those reasons, I’m not saying that Advaita is incorrect. I’m just saying that another way of saying things makes more sense to me.
.
It’s a principle of Vedanta that all assumptions are subject to question, and this metaphysics is in keeping with that principle.
.
----------------------
.
Metaphysics is about what is. We can speak of our impressions or feelings about what is, and that discussion goes beyond metaphysics.
.
No doubt we agree that there’s something beautiful and complete about the timeless, identity-free, need-free rest that’s there for us, behind the temporary temporal experience that is our hypothetical life-story or sequence of life-stories.
.
In their song, “5D”, the Byrds said:
.
“I opened my heart to the whole universe, and found it was loving.”
.
(It’s pretty much certain that “universe” didn’t refer to this particular physical universe, but rather to all that is. …what Western metaphysical philosophers refer to as “the world”.)
.
Lots of people perceive that there’s something to be grateful for.
.
Some Western philosophers, over a long period of history, have spoken of there being a Principle of Good which is the reason why what is, is as good as it is.
.
It isn’t a matter to argue about. (I argue about metaphysics, a different topic). This is about something beyond metaphysics or philosophy, something not the subject of proof or argument.

Michael Ossipoff

0
Your rating: None
gachchy's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 8 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 06/18/2014
Posts:
.

Hi Michael,

I read your post with curious eyes. Your Thesis is Very interesting. But there are some undefined matters left out. Rather, may be I don't grasp them also. As you have observed, I have also, always, not discarded the relative world as unreal. Just because, consciousness is the Absolute Reality, the relative world is not going to go away or vanish. Hence, the relative world is there for for some noble purpose and we have to deal with them patiently and efficiently.

You have explained many points in your write-up and hence I request you to give a small summary of your thesis for the layman to understand.

My next point is, I have always given Equal weightage for Science as well as Metaphysics in understanding the Reality. As you would have heard about the Quantum Physics and Classical Physics view about reality and their contradictions have always made me more curious about understanding the reality. As it has been understood through Quantum Physics that, 'A conscious observer is absolutely essential for the wave function collapse to occur and the manifestation of the world to occur,' I have always puzzled whether the whole world exists in me (consciousness). To elaborate more, I have always had a doubt that consciousness dreams the world through Natural Simulation to create a world in which we are parts. This would also mean that the Physical World (Hardware part) and the Mental World (Software part) are one within each other, inseparable and they may not be independent of each other, except for the fact that Consciousness may be the only absolute Reality behind existence, which is neither Physical (Hardware) nor Mental (Software). Consciousness may be the sole creator of both the Physical and Mental Worlds which include Space, Time and the contents therein. The Dream and the Dreamer are always one. This creates further doubts as to whether this Physical World will evaporate and vanish together with the death of me.

A simple logic is, the taste of a fruit does not lie in the fruit but in my tongue and it is theoretically and scientifically possible to reconfigure my tongue and change the way the fruit tastes. The nexus between the external and internal world are seemingly purposeful and deliberate by a higher order design. The external and internal world are closely enmeshed as an intertwined entity even though they appear separate for our eyes. This only raises hundreds of questions. Is consciousness dreaming the world through me? Are the contents of my world my own creations? Is there a common shared world with different stories even in my absence? All I can realize is Consciousness is only Absolutely Real and everything else may be mere cooked up stories for my ascension (evolution) and for fun.

If there are infinite number of worlds created by consciousness .....? The question is more perplexing....!!!!!!

Leaving alone Consciousness as the Absolute Reality, your views on these will be interesting as, just as me, you may also be ready to accept and deal with the external world as prudently as possible, even if it is an Illusion.

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Gachchy— . First I want to

Gachchy—
.
First I want to say it more emphatically and unequivocally:
.
I claim that Skepticism, the metaphysics that I propose, doesn’t make or need any assumptions, or make any controversial statements, or posit any brute fact(s).
.
That’s a strong statement.
.
Resuming my reply:
.
I’d like to reply again to the last sentence that I replied to, and then resume from there:
.
[You wrote] :
I have always had a doubt that consciousness dreams the world through Natural Simulation to create a world in which we are parts.
[unquote]
.
It’s sometimes likened to a dream, and no doubt it has some things in common with one.
.
But I don’t think simulation is the word for it. Individual Consciousness is necessary to make there be a life possibility-story, in the sense that a Protagonist is a necessary part of such a story.
.
In that sense, for that reason, you’re the reason for your life possibility story, in the sense that you’re the necessary part of it. It’s the counterpart to us
.
But you didn’t create it or simulate it. You just found yourself in it. But I feel that it can be said that each of us primary to the possibility-world that we find ourselves in. The Protagonist and hir (his/her) possibility-world are a mutually-necessary pair of components to a life possibility-story, without which there wouldn’t be one.
.
[quote]
This would also mean that the Physical World (Hardware part) and the Mental World (Software part) are one within each other, inseparable and they may not be independent of each other
[unquote]
.
That’s another way of saying it too. The Protagonist and hir world are a mutually-necessary pair of components of a life possibility-story.

.
[quote]
, except for the fact that Consciousness may be the only absolute Reality behind existence, which is neither Physical (Hardware) nor Mental (Software). Consciousness may be the sole creator of both the Physical and Mental Worlds which include Space, Time and the contents therein. The Dream and the Dreamer are always one.
[unquote]
.
Yes, the person and hir life-world are the mutually-necessary parts of a life possibility-story.
.
Yes, that and what I’m saying are different wordings of the same statement, though I emphasize individual Consciousness, and I don’t generalize it to one single entity (because that would be contrary to experience).
.
Each life possibility-story is there only because of its Protagonist, a necessary part of it.
.
[quote]
This creates further doubts as to whether this Physical World will evaporate and vanish together with the death of me.
[unquote]
.
Of course it will.
.
Tradition says that it will be replaced by another one, and another life-story.

...or else (if you’re Liberated), if will be the end of lives, and timeless freedom from identity, threat, need, and lack. There then won't be any such thing as time, and you won't know that you were previously a body, or that there ever was such a thing as time, events or needs.
.
I don’t claim to know about those things, but they’re consistent with Skepticism, and Eastern teachers seem unanimous about Liberation, and about the appearance of Reincarnation.

.
[quote]
The nexus between the external and internal world are seemingly purposeful and deliberate by a higher order design.
[unquote]
.
Metaphysics itself seems explainable without any assumptions. But, as I mentioned before, it’s been suggested that there’s a Principle of Good, not part of metaphysics, above metaphysics. …to explain why what is, is as good as it is.
.
[quote]
The external and internal world are closely enmeshed as an intertwined entity even though they appear separate for our eyes.
[unquote]

.
Sure, we’re both saying that, in different words.
.
[quote]
This only raises hundreds of questions. Is consciousness dreaming the world through me?
[unquote]
.
I wouldn’t say it that way, because I regard Consciousness as individual, and I claim that experience doesn’t suggests generalizing Consciousness. But, as I described, there’s a meaningful sense in which you’re primary to your life possibility-world.
.
My explanation of the individual and the world is as I described.
.
[quote]
Are the contents of my world my own creations?
[unquote]
.
I’d say no. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that you created your world. Your life possibility story is, only because of you being part of it, but I don’t think that’s the same as saying that you created the world in which it is set.
.
Weren’t we all a bit bewildered when we found ourselves in this world?
.
[quote]
Is there a common shared world with different stories even in my absence?
[unquote]
.
Of course the beings in a possibility world, such as ours, share that same possibility-world as the setting for their various life possibility-stories. And of course each of those other stories is independent of you.
.
[quote]
All I can realize is Consciousness is only Absolutely Real
[unquote]
.
As the Perceiver, Protagonist, and the essential component of a life-story, Consciousness, it seems to me, can be said to be primary. And doesn’t that continue right into the end-of-lives too, when identity and time are no more?
.
[quote]
and everything else may be mere cooked up stories
[unquote]
.
The stories aren’t cooked-up by us. They’re already there.
.
[quote]
…for my ascension (evolution) and for fun.
[/quote]
.
Maybe for fun, but I wouldn’t say for evolution.
.
I suggest that you’re part of a life-story because your needs and inclinations make you someone that a life-story can be about. There’s a story about someone like that, and your life is that story.
.
I’ve heard the theory that lives are for the purpose of education or evolution, but I don’t agree with that. It’s true that our evolution and education have a lot to do with when we’re done with lives, but that doesn’t mean that that’s the purpose of the lives. We’re in the lives because we’re someone with needs, inclinations, issues, involvement that makes us someone for a life story to be about.
.
[quote]
If there are infinite number of worlds created by consciousness
[unquote]
.
There most definitely are. That’s uncontroversial.

.
[quote]
.....? The question is more perplexing....!!!!!!
[unquote]

.
How so? Of course the infinity of other possibility-worlds don’t seem real to use, as inhabitants of this possibility-world. But to deny their having the same existence as our possibility-world would (as I said) be pre-Copernican.
.
[quote]
Leaving alone Consciousness as the Absolute Reality, your views on these will be interesting as, just as me, you may also be ready to accept and deal with the external world as prudently as possible, even if it is an Illusion.
[unquote]
.
Quite so. We were born into this story because we want or need it, and there would be no point in trying to convince ourselves otherwise.
.
So we have unfinished business here—unless we’re among those very few people who have, during this life, fully completed that business.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Hi Gachchy— . Thanks for the

Hi Gachchy—
.
Thanks for the reply and comments.
.
Of course this immediate reply can only be a preliminary reply, and of course there may later be (probably should be) things that I’ll want to add, or reply to better.
.
(Note written after completion of this post: I’ve replied to most of this message. If there’s more that I can say, in reply to the remaining few paragraphs that I haven’t answered yet, that reply, too, will be along within about a day or so.)
.
Of course, if you know me, you know that just because something is “preliminary”, that doesn’t mean that it’s brief.
.
So let me answer a few comments and questions whose answer occurs to me upon my first reading of your reply:
.
First, I want to emphasize that (I claim that) my metaphysics, Skepticism, is (at least nearly, or tries to be) completely free of assumptions or controversial statements, in keeping with its goal.
.
[You wrote] :
…But there are some undefined matters left out.
[unquote]
.
Sure, that’s always possible, maybe inevitable. In any long posting, there are likely to be things inadvertently left out, or things that it was difficult to decide whether to include.
.
So, by all means, let me know if there’s anything undefined or left out, because it wasn’t intentional, and I want to fix it.
[You wrote] :
.
As you have observed, I have also, always, not discarded the relative world as unreal. Just because, consciousness is the Absolute Reality, the relative world is not going to go away or vanish. Hence, the relative world is there for for some noble purpose and we have to deal with them patiently and efficiently.
[unquote]
.
Quite so. As I was saying, this hypothetical if/then life-story is only “there” as a story because its Protagonist is in that story. Without him/her there’d be no life-story.
.
So yes, we can’t, and shouldn’t want to, just wish it away, or philosophize it away by Advaita doctrine about the Absolute.
.
We shouldn’t want to, because the fact that we’re a life-Protagonist means that we’re in life, and involved in it. We aren’t above it or aloof from it. We’re in it because we wanted it, needed it, are part of it, and it wouldn’t be in our best interest to now decide that we don’t want it.

When we’re eventually done with it, we’ll know it.
.
Equations, abstract general logical statements--including syllogisms--physical-laws, mathematical theorems, etc. are facts. As I mentioned, it’s been pointed out that if there had been no facts, then it would have been a fact that there were no facts…a contradiction.
.
So, the relative worlds, the hypothetical possibility worlds, including this one, are there because they’re inevitable.
.
Arguably, timeless, identity-less, complete and need-free Nothing is what’s most natural. We’re each part of one of the _temporary_ hypothetical possibility-stories. Of course, however many of those life-possibility-stories we live, and however long each life might seem, their duration is nothing, in comparison to the peaceful, un-lacking, full and complete timelessness that follows them.
.
Instead of being in a hurry to get to the end of it, why not just enjoy it while it lasts, until it’s rightly, genuinely completed.
.
We’re born to one of those stories, and that’s what’s for us to do now.
.
[You wrote] :
You have explained many points in your write-up and hence I request you to give a small summary of your thesis for the layman to understand.
[unquote]
.
Yes, good point. My post was _long_. Something briefer would be helpful. It’s a matter of combining the main points into a briefer statement, maybe just a paragraph or a few paragraphs.
.
[You wrote] :
My next point is, I have always given Equal weightage for Science as well as Metaphysics in understanding the Reality.
[unquote]
.
They aren’t in competition with eachother, because they address different subjects, answer different questions.
.
[You wrote] :
As you would have heard about the Quantum Physics and Classical Physics view about reality and their contradictions have always made me more curious about understanding the reality. As it has been understood through Quantum Physics that, 'A conscious observer is absolutely essential for the wave function collapse to occur and the manifestation of the world to occur,'
[unquote]
.
A renowned expert on quantum-mechanics has pointed out that quantum-mechanics has disproved the notion of an objectively-existing physical world.
.
So that’s an instance in which science delineates its own limitations and boundaries.
.
[You wrote] :
I have always puzzled whether the whole world exists in me (consciousness).
[unquote]
.
I wouldn’t say “in”. I’d say “because of”.
.
_Your_ whole physical world, yes.
.
[You wrote] :
To elaborate more, I have always had a doubt that consciousness dreams the world through Natural Simulation to create a world in which we are parts.
[unquote]
.
I don’t subscribe to generalized Consciousness, only individual Consciousness. Sure, it can be argued that, deep down, we’re all identical, and I believe it was Leibnitz who said that identical entities are really just instances of the same thing. I don’t believe that it’s necessary or desirable to say that. I don’t subscribe to it. It’s an assumption, a controversial statement not in keeping with my goal to avoid unnecessary assumptions and controversial statements.
.
I don’t believe everything that Leibnitz said. Leibnitz also endorsed the “Hard Problem of Consciousness”, which is a completely nonexistent problem, a “problem” only in the minds of some Physicalists (and not even a valid necessary problem for them).
.
I don’t regard it as simulation. Tippler pointed out that the physical world is like a computer simulation, but correctly pointed out that there’s no need for the computer or the simulation, just the program (which is already “there” as a possibility), an inter-relation of logical and mathematical abstract facts, abstract facts that are already there, as are all abstract facts. So far, so good. I agree.
.
But Tippler, like a number of computer-scientist authors, also said that it’s an inevitable goal for living beings to convert the universe’s mass into a big computer, to simulate the lives of everyone, including everyone who has lived and died. I completely disagree with him and others expressing that opinion.
.
Some say that this physical world is, or might be, someone’s computer-simulation. I disagree with them too, for the same reason:
.
This physical world is one of infinitely-many hypothetical if/then possibility-worlds, consisting of an inter-relation of logical and mathematical abstract facts. Yes, someone could maybe, in principle, conceivably simulate it on a super-computer. But would they thereby be _creating_ this possibility-world?
.
Of course not. They’d only be creating an opportunity for themselves to observe it. The possibility was already there, and didn’t need anyone or their computer to “create” it.
.
I’ll post this now. Maybe there’s more that I can add, especially in reply to the few remaining paragraphs that I haven’t replied to yet.
.
Michael Ossipoff

gachchy's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 8 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 06/18/2014
Posts:
.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for taking time to give elaborate replies to my post. They are enlightening.

I have always not discarded any possibility to redefine and reorient my beliefs at any point of time in my life. In this way I feel I have absorbed some noteworthy points from your posts. I always believe that anything and everything is subject to revision and amendment as we progress more. Nothing is sealed once for all. One of the reason I have always disliked few religions is because there is no room for any rethinking or amending their sayings and there is no room for free thinking. Few religions have always encouraged SEEKING as the Primary objective and encouraged it and I like them. I am ready to revise and amend my thoughts and beliefs at any point of time in my life as I progress more. I am trying to read your posts multiple times so that I can absorb more from your posts.

To begin with, following are some points that I require clarifications:

MO: Presumably then you won’t have the feeling of individual identity and identification, and life-concerns that you have now, and so you’ll no longer be the Protagonist of a life-story. There won't be a life-story about you.

Ga: In my understanding Liberation means a state of non identification with the Body and Mind where you simply witness everything like watching a movie in which you are not a part. You simply watch everything happening including your own thoughts, feeling and actions unfolding before your own eyes. You switch over from the role of an Actor to assuming the role of a Witness or Onlooker. There is also a Permanent Liberation from the cycles Birth and Death, subsequently for such liberated persons. Am I right?

MO: This metaphysics isn’t Advaita. It doesn’t include an assumption that all Protagonists are really the same Protagonist (even though, down-deep, they might be said to be very similar or even identical).

Ga: Does this mean that you refer to something like the concept of 'Externalism' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalism) wherein conscious mind is not only the result of what is going on inside the nervous system (or the brain), but also what occurs or exists outside the subject. Hence, there must be numerous organisms and players each creating one's own version of reality in the pool of consciousness, but still having single consciousness as their substratum. This would mean that the Individual Protagonist may only be able to attain permanent liberation (say on death) and the rest of the larger existence will continue to thrive even in the individual's absence who got liberated on death until their d-day to attain liberation? If this is a fact then the external world, space and time are not born out of my own creation, but every individual is simply a part of a permanent space and time.

I would be happy if you can share your views on the above. I may ask for more clarifications as I progress through your posts.

P.S: In 2004 British physicist Roger Penrose put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds (http://chaosbook.org/library/Penr04.pdf) – mathematics, the material world and human consciousness. As Penrose acknowledged, it was a complete puzzle to him how the three interacted with one another outside the ability of any scientific or other conventionally rational model.

Joined: 05/04/2017
Posts:
Monday, June 19 Reply

Hi Gachchy—
.
MO: Presumably then you won’t have the feeling of individual identity and identification, and life-concerns that you have now, and so you’ll no longer be the Protagonist of a life-story. There won't be a life-story about you.
.
[You wrote] :
Ga: In my understanding Liberation means a state of non identification with the Body and Mind where you simply witness everything like watching a movie in which you are not a part. You simply watch everything happening including your own thoughts, feeling and actions unfolding before your own eyes. You switch over from the role of an Actor to assuming the role of a Witness or Onlooker. There is also a Permanent Liberation from the cycles Birth and Death, subsequently for such liberated persons. Am I right?
[unquote]
.
Yes, that’s similar my impression from what I’ve read about Liberation, though I re-emphasize that I have only 2nd-hand information about it--or even that there’s such a thing as Libseration.
.
Maybe the Liberated person feels that identity & identification, aren’t as important as they were. Maybe s/he feels less concern and involvement with worldly-life, having completed it in a meaningful sense.
.
MO: This metaphysics isn’t Advaita. It doesn’t include an assumption that all Protagonists are really the same Protagonist (even though, down-deep, they might be said to be very similar or even identical).
.
[You wrote] :
Ga: Does this mean that you refer to something like the concept of 'Externalism' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalism) wherein conscious mind is not only the result of what is going on inside the nervous system (or the brain), but also what occurs or exists outside the subject.
[unquote]
.
No, I wouldn’t say that. But some Externalists did say things that don’t sound so different from what I’ve been saying. Understandably, though, of course I prefer my own way of saying it, to their way of saying it, because when I say it, I say exactly what I mean. What I’d say, then, is just that some of the things that they said don’t seem to contradict what I said.
.
Here are a couple of quotes from the Wikipedia “Externalism” article that don’t seem to disagree with what I’ve said:
.
[quote]
Ted Honderich is perhaps the philosopher with the greatest experience in the field. He defends a position he himself dubbed "radical externalism" perhaps because of its ontological consequences.[32] One of his main examples is that "what it actually is for you to be aware of the room you are in, it is for the room a way to exist."[33] According to him, “Phenomenologically, what it is for you to be perceptually conscious is for a world somehow to exist”.[32] Therefore, he identifies existence with consciousness.
.
Another radical form of phenomenal externalism is the view called the spread mind by Riccardo Manzotti.[9] He questions the separation between subject and object, seeing these as only two incomplete perspectives and descriptions of the same physical process.[34] He supports a process ontology that endorses a mind spread physically and spatio-temporally beyond the skin. Objects are not autonomous as we know them, but rather actual processes framing our reality.[35]
[unquote]
.
But as I said, I prefer my way of saying it. It seems to me that, much or most of the time, Western philosophers are talking about completely different subjects from eachother (and from me). Often there seems no common topic, and even when there is one, it’s at least a little, or more than a little, tenuous. What I’m saying is that there’s some resemblance between the above Externalism quotes and what I’m saying.
.
I guess this is the extent to which I agree with what they’re saying (if I understand them right):
.
The external world isn’t independent of Consciousness, and Consciousness, you a conscious being, is (the essential) part of the larger life-story, including the possibility-world. If someone asks why this world is here, what makes it possible for it to exist as a life-possibility-story, then they need look no farther than themselves, their inclinations & needs, for the explanation of the essential ingredient that makes this possibility-story..
.
I don’t call myself an Externalist—Just a Skeptic.
.
[quote]
Hence, there must be numerous organisms and players each creating one's own version of reality in the pool of consciousness
[unquote]
.
Yes, there are infinitely-many life-possibility-stories, set in infinitely-many possibility-worlds. Again, that’s uncontroversial, because all possibilities are there as possibilities, and all abstract facts such as syllogisms, other abstract logical facts, equations, theorems, systems of physical-laws, and all general abstract if/then statements, are there as abstract facts.
.
And I’ve told why there couldn’t have not been abstract facts.
.
But I wouldn’t use the word “creating”: You’re a (the most) necessary part of your life-possibility-story, but you’re part of it. You didn’t create it; you were born into it bewildered. And you needn’t have existed before it.
.
I assume that the pool of consciousness to which you refer is the set of conscious beings whose life-possibility-stories are set in the same possibility-world, such as our possibility-world.
.
[quote]
, but still having single consciousness as their substratum.
[unquote]
.
Each their own single consciousness, yes.
.
[quote]
This would mean that the Individual Protagonist may only be able to attain permanent liberation (say on death) and the rest of the larger existence will continue to thrive even in the individual's absence who got liberated on death until their d-day to attain liberation?
[unquote]
.
Certainly. Each conscious being has its own life-possibility-story, all independent of eachother, other than the fact that, in a possibility-world, they share the same possibility-world, and therefore can interact in it.
.
[quote]
If this is a fact then the external world, space and time are not born out of my own creation
[unquote]
.
Right, their being is as part of the life-possibility-story that you’re a necessary part of.
.
[quote]
, but every individual is simply a part of a permanent space and time.
[unquote]
.
Not permanent space and time. Your possibility-world, including its space and time, is temporary just as the person is temporary.
.
Of course the same possibility world remains for its other inhabitants, after it no longer exists for you.
.
So, in that broader sense, it could maybe be called permanent.
.
But what if this planet is the only place in this universe where there’s life, and what if global warming, in which our planet turns into a Venus-like planet, ends life on this earth (or something else does)? Then this possibility-world, this universe, would no longer be a setting for any life-possibility-stories, and so, in that sense, it can’t be guaranteed to be permanent—unless we call an uninhabited possibility-world “real”, something that is debatable (For whom would it be real?).
.
[quote]
P.S: In 2004 British physicist Roger Penrose put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds (http://chaosbook.org/library/Penr04.pdf) – mathematics, the material world and human consciousness.
[unquote]
.
I’ve heard of metaphysical dualism. I guess, from the above quote, Penrose’s position could be called “Tri-uelism”.
.
I’m not a dualist or tri-ualist.
.
Physicists and other scientists aren’t usually good sources for metaphysics. Exceptions are Faraday, Tippler (regarding some matters), Tegmark, and Schroedinger. But they’re exceptions.
.
-----------------------------------
.
Always feel free to mention any statement or claim that doesn’t seem to follow, or doesn’t seem well-supported. That won’t be taken as argumentative, because of course philosophical discussion should always allow questioning or challenging. Any statement is always subject to questioning or challenging--calls for justification of a statement.
.
Of course if there were a statement that can’t be justified, then it’s best that that be pointed out. Likewise, if there _is_ justification, but it isn’t obvious, then there’s certainly a need for the need for that justification to be pointed out too. …so that the lack of explanation and justification doesn’t remain.
.
I’d be glad to tell my justification for any statement that needs it. And, if there were a flaw, error, or unjustifiable statement among my statements, then of course I’d want to know about it.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 

 

My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  

 

Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.

  

 

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 10 guests online.