The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

[Felix]

BigBango: "Aldous Huxley was the first to say that the "nervous system" is eliminative rather than expansive of sensation."

Hardly, the Vedic rishis explained this thousands of years ago.

I am trying to develop a metaphysical explanation, that is empirically testable, to explain what Tamminen is saying and bring his theory back into one which does not just have to be intuited. I wish I had some help!

An empirically verifiable metaphysical theory? That's an oxymoron. But try Mothers Agenda, the answer is there for those who have the eyes to see it: https://bit.ly/2QRQj72

[BigBango]

BigBango: "Aldous Huxley was the first to say that the "nervous system" is eliminative rather than expansive of sensation."

Hardly, the Vedic rishis explained this thousands of years ago.

I am trying to develop a metaphysical explanation, that is empirically testable, to explain what Tamminen is saying and bring his theory back into one which does not just have to be intuited. I wish I had some help!

An empirically verifiable metaphysical theory? That's an oxymoron. But try Mothers Agenda, the answer is there for those who have the eyes to see it: https://bit.ly/2QRQj72

Felix, I really do respect your analysis and the hard time you give Tamminen, but you are not going to rescue your arguments by quoting "Mother" and her eastern philosophical arguments. The reason is that eastern philosophical arguments may be true and Tamminen's arguments may be true but they are not cast in Western philosophical or Western Scientific terms. It may not be important for us to do that in order to inform our life goals, but I am in this philosophical forum specifically to illuminate the nature of reality in Western philosophical terms that hold out some hope for empirical verification. Otherwise, you should be in a religious forum.

[ubojico]

BigBango: "Aldous Huxley was the first to say that the "nervous system" is eliminative rather than expansive of sensation."

Hardly, the Vedic rishis explained this thousands of years ago.

I am trying to develop a metaphysical explanation, that is empirically testable, to explain what Tamminen is saying and bring his theory back into one which does not just have to be intuited. I wish I had some help!

An empirically verifiable metaphysical theory? That's an oxymoron. But try Mothers Agenda, the answer is there for those who have the eyes to see it

Felix, I really do respect your analysis and the hard time you give Tamminen, but you are not going to rescue your arguments by quoting "Mother" and her eastern philosophical arguments. The reason is that eastern philosophical arguments may be true and Tamminen's arguments may be true but they are not cast in Western philosophical or Western Scientific terms. It may not be important for us to do that in order to inform our life goals, but I am in this philosophical forum specifically to illuminate the nature of reality in Western philosophical terms that hold out some hope for empirical verification. Otherwise, you should be in a religious forum.

By the very nature of metaphysics, you cannot find empirical proofs for these claims, otherwise it would be called physics. Metaphysics is close to religious/spiritual thinking. I suggest you read Schopenhauer.

Philosophy is bridging the gap between science and spiritual in this case. Saying "you should be in a religious forum" is not fair because then you should be in a science forum.

[Tamminen]

This is the logic of existence:

1. If I did not exist, there would be nothing. This is a phenomenological truth that contradicts the empirical truth that the world goes on after my death. Therefore my existence must be eternal, though not as an individual. The present never dies.

2. All experiences are my experiences, because only I can experience something. This is the whole idea of experience. Foreign experiences would be self-contradictory. Therefore also others' experiences must be my experiences, but because they are not my present experiences, they must be my past or future experiences. So I meet myself in the world as others, as part of the eternal subjective time we all share. We have a double relationship with each other: temporal through subjective time, and spatial as the community of subjects.

I think this is the idea of generic subjective continuity. At least my version of it.

[Felix]

BigBango said: "The reason is that eastern philosophical arguments may be true and Tamminen's arguments may be true but they are not cast in Western philosophical or Western Scientific terms. It may not be important for us to do that in order to inform our life goals, but I am in this philosophical forum specifically to illuminate the nature of reality in Western philosophical terms that hold out some hope for empirical verification."

Mystics from East and West more or less agree on the fundamental nature of reality and their knowledge is derived not from thinking about perceived phenomena but from a more direct apprehension of reality (of course empiricists will reject this claim). That is to say, their assertions are no more religious than those of quantum physics (which are theoretical abstractions).

How would you expect to empirically verify supersensory phenomenality? It does imply the existence of other "subtler" worlds so perhaps it could be mathematically modeled as in superstring theory but it is simply naive to think it will ever be something one could pin down and examine like a dead butterfly.

[BigBango]

BigBango said: "The reason is that eastern philosophical arguments may be true and Tamminen's arguments may be true but they are not cast in Western philosophical or Western Scientific terms. It may not be important for us to do that in order to inform our life goals, but I am in this philosophical forum specifically to illuminate the nature of reality in Western philosophical terms that hold out some hope for empirical verification."

Mystics from East and West more or less agree on the fundamental nature of reality and their knowledge is derived not from thinking about perceived phenomena but from a more direct apprehension of reality (of course empiricists will reject this claim). That is to say, their assertions are no more religious than those of quantum physics (which are theoretical abstractions).

The fact that there is much agreement between mystics does mean that Western Philosophy should be shamed into agreement with them anymore than agreement between various religions as to the nature of the afterlife should persuade us to believe them. We are looking for evidence and persuasion that fits into our philosophical history, doesn't emphasis lifestyle changes and does put an emphasis on rational thinking and empiricism.
I do agree with you that there are valid criticisms about QM that bother me and should bother Western Philosophers. However, that does not put all Western Philosophy to shame.

How would you expect to empirically verify supersensory phenomenality? It does imply the existence of other "subtler" worlds so perhaps it could be mathematically modeled as in superstring theory but it is simply naive to think it will ever be something one could pin down and examine like a dead butterfly.

Certainly we, as Western Philosophers, accept, for the moment, the evidence about nature as discovered by the particle accelerator industry. Yet much of their evidence is nothing like "examining a dead butterfly". There is certainly much to be gained by espousing a theory, as in the nature of particles and then predicting what particles, will be indirectly evidenced, when particles are smashed together in a particle accelerator. If one limits one's science to what can be see on a slide with a microscope or seen in a telescope then one will not get very far in discovering natures secrets.

A special evidentiary tool I have developed I call "Fractal Induction" If one can show that a substance has the properties of being a fractal then one can assert things about the nature of its lower fractal levels, that cannot be directly tested for, but can be "inferred" because all levels of a "fractal" preserve the same "form" they just get smaller and/or bigger.

If one examines the world we can measure then it becomes an evidentiary bonanza because it is like a smashed vase. the parts are the evidence of what it once was. You can find the vases smashed handle, find the parts where it was connected to the body of the vase, etc.

[Felix]

Big Bango: "If one examines the world we can measure then it becomes an evidentiary bonanza because it is like a smashed vase."

That approach really only works with visible 3D phenomena, it is ineffectual for probing subatomic hyperdimensional realms. In that domain we must resort to quantitative modeling of experimental evidence, which is an intuitive sort of approach.

Big Bango: "A special evidentiary tool I have developed I call "Fractal Induction" If one can show that a substance has the properties of being a fractal then one can assert things about the nature of its lower fractal levels, that cannot be directly tested for, but can be "inferred" because all levels of a "fractal" preserve the same "form" they just get smaller and/or bigger."

Starting with a preconceived model and attempting to make the evidence conform to it is not science.

[BigBango]

Big Bango: "If one examines the world we can measure then it becomes an evidentiary bonanza because it is like a smashed vase."

That approach really only works with visible 3D phenomena, it is ineffectual for probing subatomic hyperdimensional realms. In that domain we must resort to quantitative modeling of experimental evidence, which is an intuitive sort of approach.

Big Bango: "A special evidentiary tool I have developed I call "Fractal Induction" If one can show that a substance has the properties of being a fractal then one can assert things about the nature of its lower fractal levels, that cannot be directly tested for, but can be "inferred" because all levels of a "fractal" preserve the same "form" they just get smaller and/or bigger."

Starting with a preconceived model and attempting to make the evidence conform to it is not science

Tell that to Einstein who had a preconceived model, General Relativity, that predicted the bending of light around massive stars. That is what scientists do.

That approach really only works with visible 3D phenomena, it is ineffectual for probing subatomic hyperdimensional realms. In that domain we must resort to quantitative modeling of experimental evidence, which is an intuitive sort of approach.

Well I am using visible 3D phenomena and I agree with you that it works. I am not probing subatomic hyper dimensional realms, except for how it relates to the physical side of reality, the physics of visible matter that exists between galactic black hole centers.

[Tamminen]

It is easy to make abstractions and leave thinking half-way. A few examples:

1. It is easy to think that all subjects' experiences take place simultaneously, but when we look closer we see that it is impossible.

2. It is easy to think that the world can exist without subjects, but when we look closer we see that it is impossible.

3. It is easy to think that there can be an infinite series of past events, but when we look closer we see that it is impossible.

I have written about each of these cases in other posts.

[Tamminen]

Then of course there are the abstractions of matter and consciousness. Neither of them can exist without the subject's consciousness of matter. The subject is the unifying principle that makes existence concrete and real, but taken apart from this "holy trinity" it is nothing.

[Felix]

Tamminen: "Then of course there are the abstractions of matter and consciousness. Neither of them can exist without the subject's consciousness of matter."

But what are consciousness and matter? Without knowing the ultimate nature and limits of consciousness and matter, it is simply hubris to pronounce what is or isn't possible. At most you can say what seems to be subjectively possible for human beings here and now.

[Tamminen]

Tamminen: "Then of course there are the abstractions of matter and consciousness. Neither of them can exist without the subject's consciousness of matter."

But what are consciousness and matter? Without knowing the ultimate nature and limits of consciousness and matter, it is simply hubris to pronounce what is or isn't possible. At most you can say what seems to be subjectively possible for human beings here and now.

You are right, this is a metaphysical hypothesis only, based on the principles of immediate experience, logic and Occam's razor, i.e. not bringing any supernatural elements to the picture. The general idea is that only the totality 'the subject - consciousness - matter' is real and concrete, whereas each of those components alone is only an abstraction. If there can be other ontological structures of concrete being, I do not know, but if there are, they should be seen and communicated somehow. Do you think that also other kinds of being, for instance consciousness without matter, are possible? You have probably read from my other posts what I think matter is, what consciousness is, and what the subject is.

[Sculptor1]

Nothingness being logically impossible and monism being true implies generic subjective continuity (gsc). My flavor of generic subjective continuity rests within a b theory, eternalist metaphysics, where change/becoming is impossible.

This implies that what you have typed was impossible to do.

[Felix]

Tamminen: "Do you think that also other kinds of being, for instance consciousness without matter, are possible?"

I'm just saying that the boundaries of consciousness and matter are unclear. My viewpoint is influenced by some unusual people I've known and experiences I've had, starting with my mother, who on a few occasions recounted, in specific detail, events that took place up to a day before any of us could possibly know they had occurred. She would have visions or dreams of the events. I imagine she would have been burned as a witch in an earlier century. This and other "irrational" experiences helped form my perspective on the limits of awareness and the concept of time.

But I've found that talking about such things publicly is unproductive. Most people have very definite ideas about the nature of reality and can be quite resistant to changing them.

[Tamminen]

Tamminen: "Do you think that also other kinds of being, for instance consciousness without matter, are possible?"

I'm just saying that the boundaries of consciousness and matter are unclear. My viewpoint is influenced by some unusual people I've known and experiences I've had, starting with my mother, who on a few occasions recounted, in specific detail, events that took place up to a day before any of us could possibly know they had occurred. She would have visions or dreams of the events. I imagine she would have been burned as a witch in an earlier century. This and other "irrational" experiences helped form my perspective on the limits of awareness and the concept of time.

But I've found that talking about such things publicly is unproductive. Most people have very definite ideas about the nature of reality and can be quite resistant to changing them.

I know, and I am always ready to enlarge my views if new convincing experiences compel to do so.