Agnostic mysticism

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Agnostic mysticism

Post by chewybrian »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:02 am (A) We CAN'T argue that we're observationally getting facts about externals wrong in particular ways WITHOUT ALSO arguing that we can observationally get some facts RIGHT about externals,

(B) If we're arguing against ever being able to realize direct/naive realism, and we're instead arguing for some sort of representationalism, it necessarily collapses into solipsism, with the only out there being faith claims that solipsism isn't the case,

and

(C) (B) CAN'T rely on scientific theories of perception, how perceptual faculties work, etc., because per (B), we CAN'T actually observe things like eyes, ears, other people, etc.--what we take to be eyes, ears, etc. would be our own imaginings, our own mental fantasies.
I can certainly argue that we are getting facts wrong without showing that we are getting facts right:
"Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong", Dire Straits
It follows, if there can only be one Jesus, that one of the men must be wrong. But, nothing says they can't both be wrong. As soon as two men say they are Jesus, it is shown that we sometimes get facts wrong. It does not show that we sometimes, or ever get them right, does it? What does show this? You mentioned faith, and I guess that's a good word for it. My habit of interpreting a set of circumstances in a certain way in the past has served me well, so I will continue seeing that set of circumstances in that light until I discover a more useful way of framing it. But, does that say how much of it, if any of it, I ever got right?

If you want to go full-on Descartes and spit out all your assumptions and only take back what is true, then you'll begin with solipsism. You start with the idea that you are having experiences-check. Therefore, you exist in some form to be able to be the experiencer-check. At this point, the form in which you exist might just be a cloud of thought floating in space, having a dream of being alive. You don't necessarily need eyes and ears to imagine you are seeing or hearing. You don't need scientific theories of any kind to exist in that state, imagining everything. It seems reasonable to go on to step three and beyond, accepting the existence of others and quite a lot of science and such, but you really have to do it on faith in some sense. It's not the kind of faith you might need for God, but you can't carry on beyond step two with the same level of certainty, can you?

I don't advocate thinking that way all the time, challenging everything at every step, and I don't see Huxley saying that, either. Also, I am not sure his way of challenging reality with drugs is the right way for most of us, myself included. But, I think he is on to something in reminding himself once in a while that everything we 'know' amounts to opinion, no matter how great the consensus. It's very liberating to do this in small ways for me, especially when I find myself getting sad, anxious or angry. I believe I have blurred the line between concepts and reality in the past and suffered for my mistake. So, not being a solipsist, I must assume that others have suffered in the same way, and could also find relief in letting go once in a while, or hitting the reset button.
...the man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out.
He will be wiser but less cocksure, happier but less self-satisfied, humbler in acknowledging his
ignorance yet better equipped to understand the relationship of words to things, of systematic reasoning
to the unfathomable Mystery which it tries, forever vainly, to comprehend.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Agnostic mysticism

Post by Terrapin Station »

chewybrian wrote: June 12th, 2021, 7:10 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:02 am (A) We CAN'T argue that we're observationally getting facts about externals wrong in particular ways WITHOUT ALSO arguing that we can observationally get some facts RIGHT about externals,

(B) If we're arguing against ever being able to realize direct/naive realism, and we're instead arguing for some sort of representationalism, it necessarily collapses into solipsism, with the only out there being faith claims that solipsism isn't the case,

and

(C) (B) CAN'T rely on scientific theories of perception, how perceptual faculties work, etc., because per (B), we CAN'T actually observe things like eyes, ears, other people, etc.--what we take to be eyes, ears, etc. would be our own imaginings, our own mental fantasies.
I can certainly argue that we are getting facts wrong without showing that we are getting facts right:
"Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong", Dire Straits
It follows, if there can only be one Jesus, that one of the men must be wrong.
First off, OBSERVATIONALLY. You ignored that word. I'm talking about perceiving things. Getting logical things right or wrong is a different issue (that we could talk about, but it's a completely different topic).
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Agnostic mysticism

Post by chewybrian »

Terrapin Station wrote: June 13th, 2021, 7:19 am
chewybrian wrote: June 12th, 2021, 7:10 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:02 am (A) We CAN'T argue that we're observationally getting facts about externals wrong in particular ways WITHOUT ALSO arguing that we can observationally get some facts RIGHT about externals,

(B) If we're arguing against ever being able to realize direct/naive realism, and we're instead arguing for some sort of representationalism, it necessarily collapses into solipsism, with the only out there being faith claims that solipsism isn't the case,

and

(C) (B) CAN'T rely on scientific theories of perception, how perceptual faculties work, etc., because per (B), we CAN'T actually observe things like eyes, ears, other people, etc.--what we take to be eyes, ears, etc. would be our own imaginings, our own mental fantasies.
I can certainly argue that we are getting facts wrong without showing that we are getting facts right:
"Two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong", Dire Straits
It follows, if there can only be one Jesus, that one of the men must be wrong.
First off, OBSERVATIONALLY. You ignored that word. I'm talking about perceiving things. Getting logical things right or wrong is a different issue (that we could talk about, but it's a completely different topic).
But, on what basis do we establish the correctness of our observations without implicit or explicit logic? I see a boat; you see a car. We can say "boat" "car" all day long and resolve nothing. Any attempt to resolve it steps into the world of logic. Any further claims that I make about the object having a sail or a rudder imply logic. Otherwise, it might just be a car with a sail and a rudder, and nothing is resolved.
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
(^Monty Python)
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Agnostic mysticism

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Atla wrote: June 12th, 2021, 1:57 pm I'd say, here perceptions, conceptions, thinking and everything we experience are our mind. At least from what I gathered, that's what Anil Seth called a "hallucination" here.
I'll be honest: I haven't watched the video, and I have no intention of watching. I posted it in response to this other comment:
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 8th, 2021, 7:11 am Some psychologists I've read are convinced that 'reality' is an hallucination. Who knows, perhaps they're right?
Tegularius wrote: June 8th, 2021, 5:27 pm As for psychologists convinced that reality is a hallucination, I haven't read of any.
So I searched out a link, which was criticised because it wasn't written by a "psychologist", so I looked for more, and found neuroscientist Anil Seth.

The idea that "'reality' is an hallucination" seems obvious to me, but I have no particular wish to pursue it further for now.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Agnostic mysticism

Post by Terrapin Station »

chewybrian wrote: June 13th, 2021, 8:06 am But, on what basis do we establish the correctness of our observations without implicit or explicit logic? I see a boat; you see a car. We can say "boat" "car" all day long and resolve nothing. Any attempt to resolve it steps into the world of logic. Any further claims that I make about the object having a sail or a rudder imply logic. Otherwise, it might just be a car with a sail and a rudder, and nothing is resolved.
I'm not arguing for "how we establish the correctness of our observations."

That's not the point I'm making.

The point I'm making is this:

We can't say that an observation is incorrect, and we can't say that we can't accurately observe anything in the external world, if we're not at least implicitly saying that we know what's correct about the external world, and we have to know that via observational means.

How we know what's correct doesn't matter for the above. The above IS a point of logic. We could just assume that one thing or another is correct. That doesn't matter. The point is that we can't possibly say that "It's incorrect that that was a car" if we're claiming that it's not possible to accurately observe anything about the external world.

If it's not possible to accurately observe anything about the external world, then we certainly can't know that what we observed wasn't a car, and that we didn't observe the car correctly.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Agnostic mysticism

Post by Atla »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 13th, 2021, 8:55 am
Atla wrote: June 12th, 2021, 1:57 pm I'd say, here perceptions, conceptions, thinking and everything we experience are our mind. At least from what I gathered, that's what Anil Seth called a "hallucination" here.
I'll be honest: I haven't watched the video, and I have no intention of watching. I posted it in response to this other comment:
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 8th, 2021, 7:11 am Some psychologists I've read are convinced that 'reality' is an hallucination. Who knows, perhaps they're right?
Tegularius wrote: June 8th, 2021, 5:27 pm As for psychologists convinced that reality is a hallucination, I haven't read of any.
So I searched out a link, which was criticised because it wasn't written by a "psychologist", so I looked for more, and found neuroscientist Anil Seth.

The idea that "'reality' is an hallucination" seems obvious to me, but I have no particular wish to pursue it further for now.
Not addressing what I said, neither looking into what your link actually says, nor wanting to, but whatever it says seems obvious and serious thinkers will propose it.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Agnostic mysticism

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Atla wrote: June 13th, 2021, 9:53 am Not addressing what I said, neither looking into what your link actually says, nor wanting to, but whatever it says seems obvious and serious thinkers will propose it.
OK, I think. Or not; I'm not sure. I'm sorry if I've disappointed you. 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: Agnostic mysticism

Post by Tegularius »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 13th, 2021, 8:55 am
Tegularius wrote: June 8th, 2021, 5:27 pm As for psychologists convinced that reality is a hallucination, I haven't read of any.
So I searched out a link, which was criticised because it wasn't written by a "psychologist", so I looked for more, and found neuroscientist Anil Seth.

The idea that "'reality' is an hallucination" seems obvious to me, but I have no particular wish to pursue it further for now.
To me reality is an interpretation moderated by the brain or sensing device which perceives it or why else would almost every creature have one! Every species perceives differently, even time differently, and slightly so even among its own members. This has long ceased to be a theory; it's not a process in which interpretation equals hallucination, which corresponds more to the deformation of a working process designed to do what it was meant to do. Reality is real enough if you have to survive in it. Hallucinations don't help in that regard.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021