The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
popeye1945
Posts: 1085
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by popeye1945 »

My view is not incomplete the world is not a projection of the mind the world is a cognitive representation of the bodily experience of what it is capable of sensing. I agree the world has a relative existence and this is because subject and object stand or fall together. If you are trying to make the two views agree this won't happen, for one thing, I do not personally agree there is anything eternal anything immortal. So, if finding my view correct is dependent upon it agreeing with the view you find in the Upanishads of course you won't find it correct. Again, there is nothing mystical in my view represented here.
popeye1945
Posts: 1085
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by popeye1945 »

AmericanKestrel wrote: June 9th, 2021, 5:45 pm
popeye1945 wrote: June 9th, 2021, 3:37 pm AmericanKestrel,
LOL!!! That's funny but if you understand that the physical world as object is half of your cognitive function. It is the fuel the brain runs upon in order to produce the mind. That is why Schopenhauer says subject and object stand or fall together. Whatever is outside you is the physical world including your own body. The mind's first object is the body and it is only through the body that the mind knows a physical world. PS; you still see a dog or a tree or a waterfall.
The body-mind complex and the world is not your true self. You have to look within, not outwards, to find your Self.
AmericanKestrel,
Well, have you looked within, and if so, what did you find, what does this self look like or of what is it composed, again your view taken from the Upanishads is a mystical one. If you are content with a mystical view that is fine, but You will never make the two views agree.
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by AmericanKestrel »

popeye1945 wrote: June 10th, 2021, 4:07 am
AmericanKestrel wrote: June 9th, 2021, 5:45 pm
popeye1945 wrote: June 9th, 2021, 3:37 pm AmericanKestrel,
LOL!!! That's funny but if you understand that the physical world as object is half of your cognitive function. It is the fuel the brain runs upon in order to produce the mind. That is why Schopenhauer says subject and object stand or fall together. Whatever is outside you is the physical world including your own body. The mind's first object is the body and it is only through the body that the mind knows a physical world. PS; you still see a dog or a tree or a waterfall.
The body-mind complex and the world is not your true self. You have to look within, not outwards, to find your Self.
AmericanKestrel,
Well, have you looked within, and if so, what did you find, what does this self look like or of what is it composed, again your view taken from the Upanishads is a mystical one. If you are content with a mystical view that is fine, but You will never make the two views agree.
Dont forget Schopenhauer himself was quite impressed with the revelations in the Upanishad and mentioned them in his writings. He never explained what Will is and that is a hole in his philosophy. The concept of Advaita is sound and the realization arises from complete understanding and meditation on the concept. This realization brings peace and harmony within, which no amount of materialism can bring. Atma is indescribable because there is nothing to compare it to.
"The Serpent did not lie."
popeye1945
Posts: 1085
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by popeye1945 »

AmericanKestrel,
I am not denying the value of the philosophy of the Upanishads but it is a mixture of philosophy and religion and like all religions has that irrational quality that indescribable something not in time and space. I take the philosophy and leave the religion.
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by AmericanKestrel »

popeye1945 wrote: June 10th, 2021, 5:53 pm AmericanKestrel,
I am not denying the value of the philosophy of the Upanishads but it is a mixture of philosophy and religion and like all religions has that irrational quality that indescribable something not in time and space. I take the philosophy and leave the religion.
Upanishads is philosophy of the self. It is not religion, there is no such religion. I dont think you have a sound understanding of all that you are stating.
"The Serpent did not lie."
popeye1945
Posts: 1085
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by popeye1945 »

AmericanKestrel wrote: June 10th, 2021, 6:57 pm
popeye1945 wrote: June 10th, 2021, 5:53 pm AmericanKestrel,
I am not denying the value of the philosophy of the Upanishads but it is a mixture of philosophy and religion and like all religions has that irrational quality that indescribable something not in time and space. I take the philosophy and leave the religion.
Upanishads is philosophy of the self. It is not religion, there is no such religion. I dont think you have a sound understanding of all that you are stating.
AmericanKestrel,
Yes, the Upanishads are of the Hindu faith with a tradition many thousands of years old. Although they have many many gods what they really believe is the there is a basic energy of which these gods are but manifestations.
popeye1945
Posts: 1085
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by popeye1945 »

The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience ---Duh!
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by Tegularius »

What it amounts to is new stuff being added to the old stuff making the old stuff new again...or so it seems. If the old stuff becomes too top-heavy memory starts a slow culling operation to make room for new stuff...a kind of mental recycling process. What remains of the old stuff are the most intense memories and experiences, which more often than not, are not the kind one hopes to have permanently recorded.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

RJG wrote: June 8th, 2021, 8:17 am
RJG wrote:The "self" ("I"; consciousness) is just the "experiencer" (physical recognition) of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations reactively created by the physical body. There is no "self" beyond these experiences.
AmericanKestrel wrote:If the Self is the experiencer of the experience, and there is no self beyond these experiences, then the experience and the experiencer are the same.
Not so. The physical body* is the experiencer. Bodily reactions are the experiences.

Consciousness itself is an experience (a bodily reaction called "recognition") made possible by memory. Those bodies that possess memory have the capability to experience consciousness, as do those bodies that possess eyeballs have the capability to experience sight/vision.

Note* -- To be more specific, the "self" ("I"; consciousness; experiencer) is the memory portion of the physical body. Take away someone's memory and you take away their consciousness. (...take away their eyeballs and you take away their sight.).
I would agree that 'experience' itself ranks high in the hierarchy of perceiving one's own truth (one's ability or capacity to perceive truth through their senses). However, I would question whether memory itself holds this same preeminence. Self-awareness, and the Will (Schop-as mentioned earlier by other's), more than likely precedes memory. Consider a new born baby who has a blank slate of conscious experience. Their own need to live (their will) acts as an instinct to survive. Much like emergent instinct (Emergence), no memory required.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by RJG »

3017Metaphysician wrote:I would agree that 'experience' itself ranks high in the hierarchy of perceiving one's own truth (one's ability or capacity to perceive truth through their senses). However, I would question whether memory itself holds this same preeminence.
Without memory, we could not "know" that we experience anything.

3017Metaphysician wrote:Consider a new born baby who has a blank slate of conscious experience. Their own need to live (their will) acts as an instinct to survive.
Agreed. Though it does not matter if the body is a newborn or an adult. We all auto-react accordingly (all the time!). Only those of us that can experience recognition (made possible by memory) can "know" that we experience some of these auto-reactions.

3017Metaphysician wrote:Self-awareness, and the Will (Schop-as mentioned earlier by other's), more than likely precedes memory.
True "self-awareness" is a myth; a logical impossibility [X<X].

1. We can only consciously experience experiences (physical bodily reactions), not "selfs", or things themselves.
2. We cannot be in two places at once. We cannot be both the observer and the observed simultaneously.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

RJG wrote: July 27th, 2021, 1:50 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote:I would agree that 'experience' itself ranks high in the hierarchy of perceiving one's own truth (one's ability or capacity to perceive truth through their senses). However, I would question whether memory itself holds this same preeminence.
Without memory, we could not "know" that we experience anything.

3017Metaphysician wrote:Consider a new born baby who has a blank slate of conscious experience. Their own need to live (their will) acts as an instinct to survive.
Agreed. Though it does not matter if the body is a newborn or an adult. We all auto-react accordingly (all the time!). Only those of us that can experience recognition (made possible by memory) can "know" that we experience some of these auto-reactions.

3017Metaphysician wrote:Self-awareness, and the Will (Schop-as mentioned earlier by other's), more than likely precedes memory.
True "self-awareness" is a myth; a logical impossibility [X<X].

1. We can only consciously experience experiences (physical bodily reactions), not "selfs", or things themselves.
2. We cannot be in two places at once. We cannot be both the observer and the observed simultaneously.
RJG!

I think you can have both memory and Will that in-turn break the rules of P and not P. In phenomenology and reality, of course, logical impossibility exists in many forms, whether it’s the paradox of time itself (the act of thinking/cognition itself and the paradox of past, present & future time) and/or the explanation of consciousness. And in discussing the nature of reality (metaphysics), formal logic does not really help us.
The conscious mind and subconsciousness mind working together breaks the rules of non-contradiction/bivalence, and metaphorically becomes a kind of ‘mottled color of red’ description or phenomenon.

For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind? The answer is a little of both (which is not allowed in formal logic). In that descriptive case, the logically impossible proposition/judgement/explanation would be: I was driving and not driving my car. Though that proposition on its face is objectively logically impossible/not sound, it remains subjectively true for the individual and their experience of driving. And that’s because he didn’t know if he was on the beach or consciously/physically driving the car at the same time. He was confused, it was a little of both. His body was somewhere else at the same time his mind was somewhere else.

To your point, using a similar sense of logic here, one could say being an “observer” is our own subjective truth that we advance in time by Being, thinking, acting, and so forth (the Will). And the “observed” becomes an independent objective truth that we require to make sense of ‘things’ in an objective world (world of matter/objects). Both truths happen simultaneously to apperceive a some-thing, an experience. We need both truths. And the phenomenon is dynamic; not static, linear or sequential. This is another reason why you cannot use the static rules of a priori logic to explain the nature of (conscious) existence and/or reality (metaphysics). One’s own ‘memory’ then, becomes subordinated into or part of a ‘mottled color’ of consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconscious cognition.

In short, embrace logical impossibility and logically impossible explanations for things. Our minds, in and of themselves, is a some-thing that exists that is essentially ‘beyond pure reason’. Its logical explanations become transcendent. A priori logic does not provide for accurate descriptions or explanations for the nature of those existing things. This is a common mistake I see philosophers make, (especially for atheists who rely exclusively on logic or want to somehow deny mystery and so on). The irony rears its head (no pun intended) when one cannot even explain their own existence/reality yet suppose they can ‘objectively’ explain ‘all of’ the nature of same.

Anyway, with respect to the myth of self-awareness, could you be taking issue with “I think therefore I am”, which of course is another discussion altogether, yes? In that case, I might argue that the ‘I’ which is part of self-awareness becomes a synthetic judgement because it’s a given or assumed that I exist, to think that “I am”. Is that part of the self-awareness ‘myth’?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by RJG »

3017Metaphysician wrote:...logical impossibility exists in many forms…
There are two basic forms of logical impossibilities, they are X=~X and X<X.

There is nothing more objectively certain in all of reality than that of a logical impossibility. So, if we are looking for objective truths (true knowledge), one method is to weed out the "logical impossibilities" from our contaminated pool of beliefs and knowledge.

3017Metaphysician wrote:...whether it’s the paradox of time itself (the act of thinking/cognition itself and the paradox of past, present & future time) and/or the explanation of consciousness. And in discussing the nature of reality (metaphysics), formal logic does not really help us.

The conscious mind and subconsciousness mind working together breaks the rules of non-contradiction/bivalence, and metaphorically becomes a kind of ‘mottled color of red’ description or phenomenon.
I see nothing that defies logic, or is paradoxical, regarding time or the explanation of consciousness. Remember, paradoxes are not real, they are much like magic. They rely on our ignorance to make them seem real.

3017Metaphysician wrote:For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind?
There is no real "mind" (or controlling entity within us) per se. Consciousness cannot logically do anything. To best understand this impossibility, take a look at my OP entitled The Logical Implication of CTD (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17102).

As I see it, we are like everything else in this universe. We are physical objects/entities that auto-react/interact accordingly (to applied stimuli). Those of us entities that possess memory function, and can therefore recognize (experience recognition of) our physical bodily reactions are said to be "conscious" entities. For it is 'recognition' that converts the non-conscious physical bodily experience into a "conscious experience".

Consciousness is the experience of recognition made possible by memory.

Those entities that possess eyes have the capability to experience seeing.
Those entities that possess ears have the capability to experience hearing.
Those entities that possess memory have the capability to experience recognition (aka "consciousness").

RJG wrote:True "self-awareness" is a myth; a logical impossibility [X<X].

1. We can only consciously experience experiences (physical bodily reactions), not "selfs", or things themselves.
2. We cannot be in two places at once. We cannot be both the observer and the observed simultaneously.
3017Metaphysician wrote:Anyway, with respect to the myth of self-awareness, could you be taking issue with “I think therefore I am”, which of course is another discussion altogether, yes?
No, true "self-awareness" is clearly logically impossible on at least two fronts.

Firstly we can only experience (or be aware of) experiences (physical bodily reactions). That's it. Nothing more. We can't actually experience things, or "selfs", themselves.

Secondly, the "self" can't logically be in two places at once. [X<X] He can't simultaneously be both the observer and the observed. For example, pick up a stone and tap it on anything you want. Now tap it on itself. It can't be done. And likewise, the experiencer (aka "self") can experience many things, but never himself. True "self-awareness" is not logically possible.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

RJG wrote: July 29th, 2021, 7:06 am
3017Metaphysician wrote:...logical impossibility exists in many forms…
There are two basic forms of logical impossibilities, they are X=~X and X<X.

There is nothing more objectively certain in all of reality than that of a logical impossibility. So, if we are looking for objective truths (true knowledge), one method is to weed out the "logical impossibilities" from our contaminated pool of beliefs and knowledge.

3017Metaphysician wrote:...whether it’s the paradox of time itself (the act of thinking/cognition itself and the paradox of past, present & future time) and/or the explanation of consciousness. And in discussing the nature of reality (metaphysics), formal logic does not really help us.

The conscious mind and subconsciousness mind working together breaks the rules of non-contradiction/bivalence, and metaphorically becomes a kind of ‘mottled color of red’ description or phenomenon.
I see nothing that defies logic, or is paradoxical, regarding time or the explanation of consciousness. Remember, paradoxes are not real, they are much like magic. They rely on our ignorance to make them seem real.

3017Metaphysician wrote:For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind?
There is no real "mind" (or controlling entity within us) per se. Consciousness cannot logically do anything. To best understand this impossibility, take a look at my OP entitled The Logical Implication of CTD (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17102).

As I see it, we are like everything else in this universe. We are physical objects/entities that auto-react/interact accordingly (to applied stimuli). Those of us entities that possess memory function, and can therefore recognize (experience recognition of) our physical bodily reactions are said to be "conscious" entities. For it is 'recognition' that converts the non-conscious physical bodily experience into a "conscious experience".

Consciousness is the experience of recognition made possible by memory.

Those entities that possess eyes have the capability to experience seeing.
Those entities that possess ears have the capability to experience hearing.
Those entities that possess memory have the capability to experience recognition (aka "consciousness").

RJG wrote:True "self-awareness" is a myth; a logical impossibility [X<X].

1. We can only consciously experience experiences (physical bodily reactions), not "selfs", or things themselves.
2. We cannot be in two places at once. We cannot be both the observer and the observed simultaneously.
3017Metaphysician wrote:Anyway, with respect to the myth of self-awareness, could you be taking issue with “I think therefore I am”, which of course is another discussion altogether, yes?
No, true "self-awareness" is clearly logically impossible on at least two fronts.

Firstly we can only experience (or be aware of) experiences (physical bodily reactions). That's it. Nothing more. We can't actually experience things, or "selfs", themselves.

Secondly, the "self" can't logically be in two places at once. [X<X] He can't simultaneously be both the observer and the observed. For example, pick up a stone and tap it on anything you want. Now tap it on itself. It can't be done. And likewise, the experiencer (aka "self") can experience many things, but never himself. True "self-awareness" is not logically possible.
Hello RJG!

I would rephrase it to something like: There is nothing more certain in life than uncertainty. Whether it is the paradox of time, Gödel, Turing, or Heisenberg's uncertainty, it's all the same. There remains something unaccounted for...using logic. Embrace logically impossibility. As I mentioned earlier. your consciousness itself, operates logically, out of logical impossibility. Quite a paradox, yes?

With respect to the 'rock analogy', could you be postulating that the self, in and of itself, has an independent existence of some kind? I ask that question because my interpretation of that analogy would be that we seem to exist, yet using the logic of the sense experience, we are not absolutely sure we exist. The rock does not know its a rock. In other words, how do we become self-aware, is that logically impossible? The conundrum would be, how do we become aware that we are not aware?

Maybe it's back to the driving while daydreaming analogy... .
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by RJG »

3017Metaphysician wrote:As I mentioned earlier. your consciousness itself, operates logically, out of logical impossibility. Quite a paradox, yes?
Sorry, I don't follow. How does consciousness operate out of logical impossibility???

3017Metaphysician wrote:With respect to the 'rock analogy', could you be postulating that the self, in and of itself, has an independent existence of some kind? I ask that question because my interpretation of that analogy would be that we seem to exist, yet using the logic of the sense experience, we are not absolutely sure we exist.
Our knowledge of our existence (of "I am") is logically derived; it is not an 'absolute' truth, nor an 'experiential' truth (via awareness); it is a 'logical' truth.
  • P1. Experiencing exists
    C1. Therefore an Experiencer (called "I") exists.
P1 is the starting premise (the seed upon which to build all true knowledge) that Descartes was searching for but never found. "Experiencing exists" is an absolute; undeniable truth that requires no supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness (i.e. absolute certainty).

Descartes failed logic:
  • P1. I think
    C1. Therefore I am
Failure #1 -- this is a classic "begging-the-question" fallacy (pre-assuming the conclusion). Note the "I" in the premise statement and the "I" in the conclusion statement. He pre-assumes the "I" in the premise so as to then claim it in the conclusion. This logic is therefore invalid, and therefore unsound.

Failure #2 -- Premise statement P1 "I think" is FALSE. It is logically impossible [X<X] to "think" (to cause/create/script/author our own thoughts). We can only 'experience' thoughts (and other bodily reactions), not "think" (or cause/create) them. This logic is therefore unsound.

We only know we exist ("I am") through logic, not through any direct experiential "awareness" (which in itself is logically impossible [X<X]).

3017Metaphysician wrote:The rock does not know its a rock.
Correct. The rock cannot experience 'recognition' and therefore cannot "know" of its existence.

3017Metaphysician wrote:In other words, how do we become self-aware, is that logically impossible?
Yes, true (direct) "self-awareness" is logically impossible [X<X]. We only know we exist through logic.

3017Metaphysician wrote:The conundrum would be, how do we become aware that we are not aware?
We can't. There is no "conundrum". If we are not aware, then we cannot be aware of anything, including the logic that tells us that we exist.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: The self beyond thought, sensation, and experience

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

RJG wrote: July 29th, 2021, 1:35 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote:As I mentioned earlier. your consciousness itself, operates logically, out of logical impossibility. Quite a paradox, yes?
Sorry, I don't follow. How does consciousness operate out of logical impossibility???

3017Metaphysician wrote:With respect to the 'rock analogy', could you be postulating that the self, in and of itself, has an independent existence of some kind? I ask that question because my interpretation of that analogy would be that we seem to exist, yet using the logic of the sense experience, we are not absolutely sure we exist.
Our knowledge of our existence (of "I am") is logically derived; it is not an 'absolute' truth, nor an 'experiential' truth (via awareness); it is a 'logical' truth.
  • P1. Experiencing exists
    C1. Therefore an Experiencer (called "I") exists.
P1 is the starting premise (the seed upon which to build all true knowledge) that Descartes was searching for but never found. "Experiencing exists" is an absolute; undeniable truth that requires no supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness (i.e. absolute certainty).

Descartes failed logic:
  • P1. I think
    C1. Therefore I am
Failure #1 -- this is a classic "begging-the-question" fallacy (pre-assuming the conclusion). Note the "I" in the premise statement and the "I" in the conclusion statement. He pre-assumes the "I" in the premise so as to then claim it in the conclusion. This logic is therefore invalid, and therefore unsound.

Failure #2 -- Premise statement P1 "I think" is FALSE. It is logically impossible [X<X] to "think" (to cause/create/script/author our own thoughts). We can only 'experience' thoughts (and other bodily reactions), not "think" (or cause/create) them. This logic is therefore unsound.

We only know we exist ("I am") through logic, not through any direct experiential "awareness" (which in itself is logically impossible [X<X]).

3017Metaphysician wrote:The rock does not know its a rock.
Correct. The rock cannot experience 'recognition' and therefore cannot "know" of its existence.

3017Metaphysician wrote:In other words, how do we become self-aware, is that logically impossible?
Yes, true (direct) "self-awareness" is logically impossible [X<X]. We only know we exist through logic.

3017Metaphysician wrote:The conundrum would be, how do we become aware that we are not aware?
We can't. There is no "conundrum". If we are not aware, then we cannot be aware of anything, including the logic that tells us that we exist.
Hi RJG!

Consciousness/subconsciousness works out of logical impossibility by virtue of the logical proposition: He was driving and not driving his car.

Descartes was correct by using Modus Tollens. Or if you prefer, Kantian synthetic a priori logic. Either way, it's a given that we must first exist to think.

I'm glad to see now you understand that we only know our self consciousness/self-awareness through logical impossibility. That's an important distinction. Much like Time itself, this is a kind of paradox or contradiction that is part of reality. Nonetheless, we still don't understand these things-in-themselves (the nature of same/reality). That is a metaphysical question. Did I get that right?

And so I agree that the rock cannot be aware, but unless I'm misunderstanding you, we become aware through logical impossibility. Or said another way, our thinking and/or self-awareness, logically, is logically impossible.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

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