Gien,
I largely agree. And, in saying that, let me offer an additional framing.
I do not think that science can tell us what the good/ethical thing to do is. It is just not that kind of knowledge system. I don’t see this as a huge mystery. Likewise, I do not think science can tell the world what it is like, qualitatively, to be me, as a unique, idiographic subjective being. Just as the case with ethical claims, it is NOT that kind of knowledge system. So, we first need to be clear about the limits of scientific epistemology. We should be no more surprised that it fails as a theory of idiographic subjectivity as it does as an explanation for what is good/ethical.
Now, we can say that there is a hard problem of consciousness still. There does indeed remain fascinating questions of how subjective experience arises. However, I think we have made great progress on this front. That is, we have generated a conceptual framework that frames the issues so that it can be downgraded, IMO, from a fundamental, inexplicable mystery, to a very difficult problem that can be framed.
To be clear about our languages, I am talking about the problem of animal sentience, subjective conscious experience, and human explicit self-conscious awareness from the vantage point of science. I am not referring to “ultimate/infinite consciousness,” but I do not need that concept to explain ordinary wakefulness/gross conscious states.
From my vantage point from the bridge of a unified theory of psychology into psychotherapy that syncs up with John’s broad, philosophically sophisticated integrated cognitive science, we have generated an effective descriptive metaphysical system for these phenomena in general from a naturalistic behavioral point of view. That is, we are on the verge of the first real scientific paradigm for these things. Now, if my understanding is correct, we will never be able to explain idiographic subjective experience as an individual. Any more than we can explain what morality is. But science will be able to generate a description of it that is coherent, just like we can describe what moral/ethical claims are from a scientific vantage point (i.e., people engaged in justifications about what ought to be is a description of moral behavior).
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of James Gien Wong
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 7:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK idealism versus naturalism
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
________________________________
Hi Gregg,
Yes, i was thinking (and feeling) as much. Your other message responding to Jamie about the three domains - the subjective, the objective and the intersubjective demarcate these three areas in need of a holding space.
One way to articulate what we are all grasping at, perhaps is that hard problem of consciousness is trying to crossover that enlightenment gap while perhaps what is necessary is to acknowledge that we may never achieve this, and accept that as the axiom of a new formal system. Do we just need to get over the fact that there is endless correlation between reams of 3rd person knowledge and 1st person qualia / experiences, but there is no causation. How does a concept cause a qualia?
Maybe we just need to acknowledge that there is inherent, irresolvable mystery as a part of the foundational fabric our entire scientific methodology?
It seems we get confused with the difference between correlation and causation in so many ways in common sense thinking about the world. This is an interesting subject to investigate in the philosophy of science.
On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 13:14, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Gien,
You made a point about mixing third and first person, which is EXACTLY consonant with the Tree versus the Coin. The behavioral-exterior view is a completely different epistemological frame (i.e., third person) than the phenomenological-interior (first). There are observations of behavior…(first to third), But you can’t directly do observations of observations (first to first). That is what I call the epistemological gap and it needs to be a first frame for understanding why science, anchored as it is to behavior, can not “see” first person consciousness.
Now, we can get a general frame on first person consciousness and the self from a third person view. There are ways to understand the structure. But we can never cross the specific idiographic subjective gap. Neither you nor science can see the world from my specific perspective. That is why we need a Tree and a Coin. It seems the Yogic sciences get this…it is part of the hole that I call the Enlightenment Gap.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of James Gien Wong
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 4:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: TOK idealism versus naturalism
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
________________________________
For me, the jury is still out but I am gravitating towards seeing it from Douglas Hofstaeder's "strange loop" point of view, in which our advanced symbolic nature is a confounding factor.
Has anyone thought of applying Godel's incompleteness theorem to the hard problem of consciousness?
How do things like atomic particles generate qualia is beginning to appear to me like mixing up 1st person and 3rd person perspectives. Suppose after a century of more neuroscience research carried out in the same vein, it yields some powerful new explanations. It will still rely on some kind of standard scientific theories like atomic theory, quantum theory, etc. So it once again comes down to trying to employ concepts to explain experiences - concepts that are the result of scientific collaboration, which is in effect a form of cumulative cultural evolution. Wouldn't we still fundamentally arrive at the same kind of problem that perplexes us now? ...albeit with perhaps different scientific models that may have replaced currently popular onces a century from now? Wouldn't we still be stuck trying to puzzle how a concept can give rise to an experience? Concepts don't give rise to other concepts, and can predict things in the world, but a concept a century from now will have no greater power to give rise to experiences than it does now,
Wishing you WELLth
Gien
Future Ancestor
Pull a thread here and you’ll find it’s attached to the rest of the world. - Nadeem Aslam
[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B8QJKo3mP4j_R0lfZVVzTjVsc1U&export=download] [https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B8QJKo3mP4j_VGlNenJBbk5ybFU&export=download] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1UVyeXJX1r7fjnmf91rj5rDAQW7vjJ0gc&revid=0By1chz1cZuIuUDlkRlcvSjdJd2ZYaXJYMWQrekZzSi93NTdzPQ]
www.stopresetgo.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.stopresetgo.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pYVpOmZPjBcr2CQ4F-FOSqdYhz2DnHIAEDB_mQP4OXw&s=zYzs6vKvo6DJOHZEzS4H1hVvK8QsV6IM2O9LY4hZvzQ&e=>
https://www.earthwisecentre.org/tps<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.earthwisecentre.org_tps&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pYVpOmZPjBcr2CQ4F-FOSqdYhz2DnHIAEDB_mQP4OXw&s=8VOmW-y0kXt92iUF3bNqNr28gDZzZihRthhI_dd_T74&e=>
https://tippingpointfestival.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tippingpointfestival.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pYVpOmZPjBcr2CQ4F-FOSqdYhz2DnHIAEDB_mQP4OXw&s=PmL_8qhGKp-zrL8Y77V5atSP_rFpcOkgYhOS2E12evY&e=>
https://www.earthwisecentre.org/music-for-change<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.earthwisecentre.org_music-2Dfor-2Dchange&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pYVpOmZPjBcr2CQ4F-FOSqdYhz2DnHIAEDB_mQP4OXw&s=CqI_B5Unk49Jtazw60CZhO-jV4D0IWvs5lcpJVmaD4g&e=>
www.futureliving.institute<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.futureliving.institute_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pYVpOmZPjBcr2CQ4F-FOSqdYhz2DnHIAEDB_mQP4OXw&s=YTLokC2zE6B_ZSLBmh_DcufVzDjMb6n7vBexSfoQ5Z0&e=>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
intl ph: (1) 206 973-3924
SA ph: (+27) 79 589 6173
skype: geniepop
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 5:11 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am curious if anyone on this list is interested in idealism. I ask because John Vervaeke and Bernardo Kastrup were recently featured on Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWcTmeAs44I<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DUWcTmeAs44I&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pYVpOmZPjBcr2CQ4F-FOSqdYhz2DnHIAEDB_mQP4OXw&s=SMPo2wTQqhSclLCW83SndYzficw0Qd7JoMW0nTMoY9k&e=>
The UTOK is grounded in naturalism, and thus is aligned with John in this exchange. If folks have questions about this or believe that Kastrup is making the better case, I would welcome hearing those thoughts.
Best,
G
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pYVpOmZPjBcr2CQ4F-FOSqdYhz2DnHIAEDB_mQP4OXw&s=jBqud7NF5ojMdGoOtC8SLGUNuvhN3oL51xY_WaKtUaw&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
--
Wishing you WELLth
Gien
Future Ancestor
Pull a thread here and you’ll find it’s attached to the rest of the world. - Nadeem Aslam
[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B8QJKo3mP4j_R0lfZVVzTjVsc1U&export=download] [https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B8QJKo3mP4j_VGlNenJBbk5ybFU&export=download] [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1UVyeXJX1r7fjnmf91rj5rDAQW7vjJ0gc&revid=0By1chz1cZuIuUDlkRlcvSjdJd2ZYaXJYMWQrekZzSi93NTdzPQ]
www.stopresetgo.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.stopresetgo.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=OrHpBDivrwXCUmvDE75I6tKflCwnelI-x-n8Ct04GBw&s=vdGgEdXfqi6ZBA7sI8NtKbnpg4rzk6xkwMmj9HOKndM&e=>
https://www.earthwisecentre.org/tps<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.earthwisecentre.org_tps&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=OrHpBDivrwXCUmvDE75I6tKflCwnelI-x-n8Ct04GBw&s=uloHHWMsj7KZqGBJS18Eo7SZNH82TkblPj5U8grB42I&e=>
https://tippingpointfestival.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tippingpointfestival.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=OrHpBDivrwXCUmvDE75I6tKflCwnelI-x-n8Ct04GBw&s=Gv8uZUAs2AgJ-axOh4vCR9wnrv3Un8-kQQBDiMDpTDU&e=>
https://www.earthwisecentre.org/music-for-change<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.earthwisecentre.org_music-2Dfor-2Dchange&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=OrHpBDivrwXCUmvDE75I6tKflCwnelI-x-n8Ct04GBw&s=ZV3Oy0p-9-4TlwxnztBbPhq9O70BKmxJ8LJynsYTTTc&e=>
www.futureliving.institute<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.futureliving.institute_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=OrHpBDivrwXCUmvDE75I6tKflCwnelI-x-n8Ct04GBw&s=ulOX15EWE9ADdPaXKNHDSHUzUWLj6CITxqAVF2LLohg&e=>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
intl ph: (1) 206 973-3924
SA ph: (+27) 79 589 6173
skype: geniepop
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
