It should be clear by now that I did not say so because I do not believe in scientific and philosophical problem solving. I said so because there is no problem to solve, due to the ontological structure of reality. There is no "hard problem" of consciousness, except in the minds of some materialists, and failing to solve this pseudo problem does not speak for the fruitfulness of materialistic ontology.
Spiritual versus Religious
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
Sure it would. But would this be a solution to the "hard problem"? And can someone tell me what the hard problem is? To formulate it somehow. To create a "space" to seek.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
The transcendental subject is not supernatural, it is the ontological precondition of nature itself. And it was detected by Descartes, Kant, Husserl, Wittgenstein and others, perhaps with slightly different interpretations. It was also behind Heidegger's Dasein, although he criticized Husserl's interpretation of it. In fact it is quite easy to detect with a little reflection. But I have never seen anyone detect a material subject, unless it is a material organism interpreted as subject, which has nothing to do with subjectivity.
The transcendental subject is the 'I' of the 'I am such and such'. The 'such and such' varies in the universe, but the 'I' does not change or cease to be. It is the permanent reference point of our changing experiences of the world.
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
No, the availability of a complete set of psychophysical correlation laws wouldn't provide a solution to the hard problem.
See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/
See: "The easy problems and the hard problem" in David Chalmers' paper "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness"
"David Chalmers…is not alone in regarding it beyond question that qualities of conscious experiences, the qualia, must be utterly unlike physical qualities, unlike kinds of property that figure in explanations in the physical sciences. Materialists (or physicalists; I shall use the labels interchangeably) disagree. Every property, they contend, is a material property. The difficulty for materialism has been to reconcile the 'rich phenomenology', the 'phenomenal character' of conscious experience, with the idea that all there is to conscious agents are dreary states and properties of the kind studied in the natural sciences. The difficulty accosts philosophers and non-philosophers alike."
(Heil, John. The Universe As We Find It. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 223)
"The subjective nature of consciousness presents a real puzzle to both neuroscientists and philosophers these days and (at least in the case of the philosophers) also some days ago: How is it possible that something as subjective as consciousness and its phenomenal features can arise within the objective physical world in general, and our seemingly purely physical brain in particular? This question touches upon what philosophers like David Chalmers (…) describe as the “hard problem.”
Put in an abbreviated way, this hard problem is the question of why there is and how it is possible that there is consciousness and thus subjectivity at all in the midst of an otherwise purely objective and completely non-conscious physical world. To address this question, the focus in this second volume shift s from the brain itself and its physical features, as dealt with in the first volume, to consciousness and its phenomenal features: How can the seemingly objective and purely physical brain (…) possibly generate something as subjective and phenomenal as consciousness?"
(Northoff, Georg. Unlocking the Brain, Vol 2: Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. xvi)
"We have a body that includes a brain. Both body and brain can be described in purely physical terms, similar to the rest of the world and its various objects. This is the easy part. What about the hard part? The hard part is to account for our various mental features like self, consciousness, emotions, free will, etc. Why and how can these mental features come into existence and reality in a world that seems to be purely physical?"
(Northoff, Georg. Minding the Brain: A Guide to Philosophy and Neuroscience. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. p. 535)
"The specific problem I want to discuss concerns consciousness, the hard nut of the mind-body problem. How is it possible for conscious states to depend upon brain states? How can technicolour phenomenology arise from soggy grey matter? What makes the bodily organ we call the brain so radically different from other bodily organs, say the kidneys—the body parts without a trace of consciousness? How could the aggregation of millions of individually insentient neurons generate subjective awareness? We know that brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness, but we have, it seems, no understanding whatever of how this can be so. It strikes us as miraculous, eerie, even faintly comic. Somehow, we feel, the water of the physical brain is turned into the wine of consciousness, but we draw a total blank on the nature of this conversion. Neural transmissions just seem like the wrong kind of materials with which to bring consciousness into the world, but it appears that in some way they perform this mysterious feat. The mind-body problem is the problem of understanding how the miracle is wrought, thus removing the sense of deep mystery. We want to take the magic out of the link between consciousness and the brain."
(McGinn, Colin. "Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?" Mind 98, no. 391 (1989): 349-366. p. 349)
"An ideal naturalistic solution would show how phenomenal qualities are just physical, whilst at the same time doing full justice to their qualitative nature as disclosed in our awareness of them—their ‘conscious feel’. This would enable us to understand how the qualities we are aware of in consciousness have the effects in the world that they seem to common sense to have—such as pains causing us to withdraw from painful stimuli, and visual experiences as of baby blue t-shirts causing their purchase. What consciousness discloses in the first-person mode would then be fully integrated with what the physical sciences tell us about the world from their third-person perspective. This represents the Holy Grail of solutions to the problem of phenomenal consciousness, hitherto elusive."
(Coates, Paul, and Sam Coleman. "Introduction: The Nature of Phenomenal Qualities." In Phenomenal Qualities: Sense, Perception, and Consciousness, edited by Paul Coates and Sam Coleman, 1-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. p. 14)
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
When McGinn formulates the hard problem by asking "How can technicolour phenomenology arise from soggy grey matter?", he presupposes that "brains are the de facto causal basis of consciousness," and that "somehow…the water of the physical brain is turned into the wine of consciousness." That is, he presupposes materialism about the substrate and producer of consciousness: conscious states are states of brains or bodies/organisms.
This presupposition is rejected by substance dualists and spiritualist substance monists, who believe that the substrate and producer of consciousness is an immaterial soul. But this doesn't mean that they aren't confronted with the hard problem of consciousness too, since they have to answer the question as to how "technicolour phenomenology" can arise from nonphysical "soul-stuff". How an immaterial soul can realize consciousness is at least as mysterious as how a material organism or brain can do so!
I would say their hard problem is even harder—much, much harder—than that of the materialists, who can scientifically examine organisms and brains. What can spiritualists examine? According to them, the soul is the substrate and organ of consciousness, but such imperceptible immaterial substances are certainly not scientifically examinable. And no spiritualist has ever offered a plausible explanation of how consciousness could be generated by immaterial processes in an immaterial soul, or even suggested a viable approach to the problem. How could they when any non-materialistic/spiritualistic attempt at a solution to the hard problem is a nonstarter?!
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
Thank you for defining the hard problem, it was very clarifying and very much what I have had in mind myself. But as I said the whole problem is based on a false ontology, and seeing that removes the problem altogether. And if you read my last post and some of my previous posts you should have noticed that I do not think there is any kind of soul substance. So your last remarks are not valid for me. Consciousness is fundamental and original. It is already there, so it needs no generation from some sort of spiritual stuff. There is no such stuff. Consciousness, being already there, is consciousness of the world, that is all. That makes the situation so simple that only physicalists find it difficult.Consul wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 1:30 pm This presupposition is rejected by substance dualists and spiritualist substance monists, who believe that the substrate and producer of consciousness is an immaterial soul. But this doesn't mean that they aren't confronted with the hard problem of consciousness too, since they have to answer the question as to how "technicolour phenomenology" can arise from nonphysical "soul-stuff". How an immaterial soul can realize consciousness is at least as mysterious as how a material organism or brain can do so!
I would say their hard problem is even harder—much, much harder—than that of the materialists, who can scientifically examine organisms and brains. What can spiritualists examine? According to them, the soul is the substrate and organ of consciousness, but such imperceptible immaterial substances are certainly not scientifically examinable. And no spiritualist has ever offered a plausible explanation of how consciousness could be generated by immaterial processes in an immaterial soul, or even suggested a viable approach to the problem. How could they when any non-materialistic/spiritualistic attempt at a solution to the hard problem is a nonstarter?!
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
If consciousness is neither a state or property of immaterial souls nor a state or property of material bodies, and it is not a substance itself, then the only possibility left is the bundle or pure-process view—according to which consciousness lacks a substantial substratum and is "nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement" (Hume), "a system of floating ideas, without any substance to support them" (Berkeley). (Note that Berkeley rejects this view, thinking that ideas are dependent items requiring a substance whose ideas they are!)Tamminen wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 2:37 pm Thank you for defining the hard problem, it was very clarifying and very much what I have had in mind myself. But as I said the whole problem is based on a false ontology, and seeing that removes the problem altogether. And if you read my last post and some of my previous posts you should have noticed that I do not think there is any kind of soul substance. So your last remarks are not valid for me. Consciousness is fundamental and original. It is already there, so it needs no generation from some sort of spiritual stuff. There is no such stuff. Consciousness, being already there, is consciousness of the world, that is all. That makes the situation so simple that only physicalists find it difficult.
-
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
There is some truth in the view that consciousness is a flowing bundle of ideas. But it is also true that there must be something to keep those ideas together to make them my ideas. And this something is exactly the transcendental or metaphysical subject that Wittgenstein spoke of in Tractatus. Metaphorically it is, as W. said, "a point along which the world gets coordinated". I have gone somewhat further than that in some of my posts on this forum, and that is what I meant by 'speculative metaphysics'. But there is nothing mystical in the concept of transcendental or metaphysical I: it is each of us as the experiencer, not as an individual or empirical subject. It is not an abstraction, it is very concrete, and detectable in reflection. We only have to look closer and forget the world around us for a moment.Consul wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 3:02 pm If consciousness is neither a state or property of immaterial souls nor a state or property of material bodies, and it is not a substance itself, then the only possibility left is the bundle or pure-process view—according to which consciousness lacks a substantial substratum and is "nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement" (Hume), "a system of floating ideas, without any substance to support them" (Berkeley). (Note that Berkeley rejects this view, thinking that ideas are dependent items requiring a substance whose ideas they are!)
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: August 4th, 2013, 1:14 pm
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
I agree fully with the above."Both 'religion' and 'spirituality' are very loose terms thus cannot have absolute meanings or even a standard common meanings especially within a philosophical forum."
I am aware that some may not agree with my interpretation of the terms which is as follows:
Spiritual
The term “spirit” suggests an active living force or energy which may be termed “life energy”. This energy pervades all living things, whether animal or plant. Some may wish to restrict the use of spirit to human beings only. Yet, what is the justification, if any, for such an anthropocentric view.
Spirituality entails a personal awareness of one's connection with the life energy of all living things, whether plant or animal. This awareness is based on direct experience or insight, independent of any dogma or religious teaching.
Such an experience may occur as a mystical feeling somewhat similar to the “peak experience” in Greta's blog topic: “Peak experiences – a sideshow or significant?”
Religious
The conventional view of religion is a system of beliefs or dogma pertaining to a supernatural deity or deities, referred to as a god or gods.
God is viewed as an anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism -
an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics.
(Merriam Webster Dictionary)
To be religious is to have an understanding of certain concepts and the relationship between them as espoused by religion. This is the backbone of theology. One may attempt to seek a deeper experience beyond the conceptual level but it must be firmly tied to the relevant belief system or dogma.
- Vivek7
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: August 3rd, 2017, 4:07 am
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
I can agree to the above.Metathought wrote: ↑February 10th, 2018, 10:17 pm I am aware that some may not agree with my interpretation of the terms which is as follows:
Spiritual
The term “spirit” suggests an active living force or energy which may be termed “life energy”. This energy pervades all living things, whether animal or plant. Some may wish to restrict the use of spirit to human beings only. Yet, what is the justification, if any, for such an anthropocentric view.
Spirituality entails a personal awareness of one's connection with the life energy of all living things, whether plant or animal. This awareness is based on direct experience or insight, independent of any dogma or religious teaching.
Such an experience may occur as a mystical feeling somewhat similar to the “peak experience” in Greta's blog topic: “Peak experiences – a sideshow or significant?”
One point is such a spiritual force is not an external pre-existing force that penetrate into a physical body. Rather I view such a force [the empirical 'I'] as an emergent.
Note Buddhism is religious and share common traits with other religions* but fundamentally and ultimately it is not theistic nor deistic.Religious
The conventional view of religion is a system of beliefs or dogma pertaining to a supernatural deity or deities, referred to as a god or gods.
God is viewed as an anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism -
an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics.
(Merriam Webster Dictionary)
To be religious is to have an understanding of certain concepts and the relationship between them as espoused by religion. This is the backbone of theology. One may attempt to seek a deeper experience beyond the conceptual level but it must be firmly tied to the relevant belief system or dogma.
The critical common denominator of all religions is they share the seeking of solutions to deal with an inherent existential crisis.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
Have you read Eliade, Geertz or Levi-Strauss? I'm reading them right now. I think you'd find them useful. Just read a part where Geertz is pointing out that many religious are about dealing with "suffering" rather than ignoring it - by which he means "knowing how to suffer."
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
Have not read their books.Burning ghost wrote: ↑February 11th, 2018, 4:52 am Spectrum -
Have you read Eliade, Geertz or Levi-Strauss? I'm reading them right now. I think you'd find them useful. Just read a part where Geertz is pointing out that many religious are about dealing with "suffering" rather than ignoring it - by which he means "knowing how to suffer."
Re Geertz, which book?
Did a quick search,
http://nideffer.net/classes/GCT_RPI_S14 ... ystem_.pdf
Did not come across anything that is 'striking' for me.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
That is the essay I just read. He has a book with collection of his essays. The that is from is called "The Interpretation of Cultures"
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Spiritual versus Religious
* Sheldrake, Philip. Spirituality: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023