Should you tell physicalists about your mystical experiences?

[Scholar]

33 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Let me add that when you propose a causal relationship and somebody calls you out on a lack of satisfactory causal mechanism (one that provides a good sense of continuity between the cause and the effect), and then you say "it's simply mysterious, it's God, Infinity, Divinity"; that's called "God of the gaps", or an appeal to an unknown, or an "ad hoc hypothesis". An ad hoc hypothesis is when you conjure up a new hypothesis to protect the main hypothesis and when it doesn't make any new predictions and is often unfalsifiable (which it is in this case).

This is ridicilous. I have given you a specific example between something that we view as established causality vs something that is considered a correlation. The fact that you do not grasp this simple point is incredible.

Jackets in winter are clearly correlative, not causative. We know this.

We also consider gravity causative in regards to the motion of apples as they fall from a tree.

 

If you closely inspect the causative chain between the apple falling, there will come a point where you will have to just say "Okay, this happens because... it just does. This simply causes this, there is no further mechanism that makes it so, other than it being the case."

This must be the case otherwise you would get an infinite regress of causal chains to explain any causal relationship. And not in terms of a first cause, but in terms of each inbetween causal chain.

But this is all irrelevant, because your standard of causality is clearly ridicilous. By this standard, we wouldn't have any established causal relationships at all, and there would be no meaningful difference between a correlation and causation.

 

If I feed 1000 people radioactive strawberries, and they all die from radiation poisoning, we consider this an established causal link, not merely a correlation.

In the same manner, when I hit you on the head real hard, and it alters your consciousness, this will also be considered causative because the epistemic standards of causations have been reached.

 

 

But causation in the sense you speak of, in the sense of establishing a mechanism, can only apply within the same substance. Meaning, you can only have causal mechanisms in the realm of motion, as that is what a causal mechanism is in the first place. This is because causal mechanism are a fundamentally physical notion. When we ask for causal mechanisms, we ask "How does motion translate into different types of motion?".

In this sense you can have the appearance of a causal mechanism.

Once we have two different substances of existence however, such causal mechanisms no longer are relevant. You will never explain how a certain motion leads to or is linked to the color red. You will never find a metaphysical "mechanism" that links these two things. The relationship between these things is direct, it is fundamentally mysterious. It simply is the case.

The same is essentially true for physical mechanism, it just requires a close enough inspection. The illusion of causal mechanisms as a fundamentally driving force is so persistent because it appears to be the case on the surface.

 

 

If you want to grasp this, you have to identify the Causeless Cause, or Groundless Ground in your own experience. Once you grasp it, you will realize that all of reality is fundamentally impossible. There cannot be an explanation to it, in a fundamental sense. The fact that explanations are possible is merely one additional impossibility.

 

Edited February 10 by Scholar

[zurew]

10 hours ago, Scholar said:

I don't understand why I have to explain everything to you as if you were a newborn alien visiting this reality for this first time

We two have had the same problem before - philosophical conversations that are this deep will require spending a lot of time on semantics if you want to have a productive and quality conversation. Without spending enough time on semantics, you will just have much more frustration and you will end up spending much more time down the road, cause you two will be talking past each other (and again I feel like we  have had the exact same problem before and that generated a lot of unnecessary frustration for the both of us)

The good thing with Carl is that he knows more philosophy than probably anyone else on this forum, so he can give a lot of specificity and he can describe some of these concepts in detail without being vague about any of them.

Edited February 10 by zurew

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

The good thing with Carl is that he knows more philosophy than probably anyone else on this forum, so he can give a lot of specificity and he can describe some of these concepts in detail without being vague about any of them.

I suspect this is not a good thing.

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Scholar said:

This is ridicilous. I have given you a specific example between something that we view as established causality vs something that is considered a correlation. The fact that you do not grasp this simple point is incredible.

Jackets in winter are clearly correlative, not causative. We know this.

It's causative, because winters appear before jackets and not the other way around. People put on jackets because it's winter. It's not that it's winter because people take on jackets. There are also satisfactory causal mechanisms for it, e.g. people put on clothes when the temperature drops to help maintain homeostasis.

I'll just leave it at that.

[Carl-Richard]

I identified another salient point in your post:

 

On 10.2.2024 at 11:46 PM, Scholar said:

If you closely inspect the causative chain between the apple falling, there will come a point where you will have to just say "Okay, this happens because... it just does. This simply causes this, there is no further mechanism that makes it so, other than it being the case."

This must be the case otherwise you would get an infinite regress of causal chains to explain any causal relationship. And not in terms of a first cause, but in terms of each inbetween causal chain.

But this is all irrelevant, because your standard of causality is clearly ridicilous. By this standard, we wouldn't have any established causal relationships at all, and there would be no meaningful difference between a correlation and causation.

The problem of infinite regression in causal chains is a different problem than what I've been talking about. With the brain and experience, you don't even have a chain. That is the problem. And again, it has to do with a lack of a satisfactory causal mechanism.

What is a satisfactory causal mechanism? Well, it gives you a sense of understanding and continuity between the proposed cause and effect. There is a recognition of "ah it makes sense". It sounds subjective now, but it's reflective of a deeper point which I'll explain later. Anyways, when you take a concept like gravity and look at the different practical instances where it can apply, and when you apply it to the example of the apple falling, you do get the sense of "ah, it makes sense". It's a satisfactory causal mechanism. It's a "quality" about that causal mechanism.

Now, the problem of infinite regression is more "quantitative": you can keep adding an infinite number of satisfactory causal mechanisms without finding the bottom so to speak. That's of course a problem, but again, it's a different problem than establishing a satisfactory causal mechanism in the first place.

In other words, you've been talking about finding a satisfactory number of mechanisms, while I've been talking about finding a satisfactory kind of mechanism. Both are significant problems in their own right, but they are indeed different.

 

And why is "neurons firing" not a satisfactory causal mechanism for the brain-experience relationship? Because just look at it:

Quote

Neurons ("Cause").

->

Ions float around in extracellular space, voltage-gated sodium ion channels open due to a local change in concentration of ions, sodium ions flow through the sodium channels into intracellular space down the electrochemical gradient, sodium channels soon close due to the change in extracellular ion concentration, slow voltage-gated potassium channels open and potassium ions flow out into extracellular space down the new electrochemical gradient, ATP-metabolizing sodium-potassium pumps transport sodium out from the cell and potassium into the cell which restores the initial electrochemical gradient. The neuron has now fired and is ready to fire again ("Mechanism").

->

Red, flowers, smell of lavender, perfume, taste of candy, feeling of inspiration, desperation, sadness, anger, depression, melancholy, nostalgia, panic, terror, mania, paranoia, worry, regret, jealousy, envy, a moment of clarity, insight, craving, confusion, despair, optimism, hope, psychological transformation, psychological death, awakening, sleep, dreams, goals, purpose, meaning, understanding, grasping ("Effect").

Like "what?!" "ATP and shit" and then boom -> "psychological transformation, rapture, fear, amazement, awakening". There is a clear discontinuity there, and in this case, it's mostly because you're dealing with two different ontological categories ("abstract physical stuff" -> "concrete mental stuff").

 

Now compare that with the falling apple:

Quote

Gravity "(Cause").

->

A gravitational force oriented towards the ground acts on the apple (which has a mass), the force from the stem connecting the apple to the tree currently cancels out the gravitational force, the stem gradually weakens until it snaps and no longer exerts this force, the net forces acting on the apple now causes it to free fall (accelerate) according to Newton's second law of motion, Net forces = mass * acceleration (Newtonian version; I won't pretend to know how to give the Einsteinian version, but it exists) ("Mechanism").

-> 

Apple falls to the ground ("Effect").

You see a kind of continuity there that is absent in the brain-experience relationship. It's a continuous process of different kinds of abstract physical stuff bringing about other kinds of abstract physical stuff. It's a difference in forms, but it's not a difference in fundamental ontological categories.

Also, hearking back to an earlier point about another big problem, i.e. the empirical problems contradicting the brain-experience causal hypothesis; when there is a gravitational field present, you can predict that an apple will fall. When there is brain activity present AND when there is brain activity not present (or it's reduced), you can predict that there will be experience (and more intense experiences). Again, that's another big issue for the hypothesis, and even there, the mainstream paradigm will throw ad hoc hypotheses at you like no other ("there is some activity deep in the brain stem...", "there is an increase in brain noise...", "functional connectivity...", etc.).

Edited February 12 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

We two have had the same problem before - philosophical conversations that are this deep will require spending a lot of time on semantics if you want to have a productive and quality conversation. Without spending enough time on semantics, you will just have much more frustration and you will end up spending much more time down the road, cause you two will be talking past each other (and again I feel like we  have had the exact same problem before and that generated a lot of unnecessary frustration for the both of us)

That is why it helps to be super focused on the clarity of language in general.

 

4 hours ago, zurew said:

The good thing with Carl is that he knows more philosophy than probably anyone else on this forum, so he can give a lot of specificity and he can describe some of these concepts in detail without being vague about any of them.

I think that award goes to @DocWatts or @Nilsi or the legendary @Oeaohoo (RIP he was the most fun person on this forum 😭; btw, he just left, he didn't die irl 😂) ☺️

[zurew]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

That is why it helps to be super focused on the clarity of language in general.

Yes, its very important and this skill takes time to develop, but worth it cause it is useful in all areas of life.

 

One other thing that personally frustrates me is that in a lot of cases, I don't have the same norms in mind when it comes to the debate and we need to end up spending a lot of time in the middle of the convo talking about the meta (how the convo should or needs to go down). Like fuck, why can't we stay hyper focused on the subject matter and hash that out, being willing to answer each others line of questioning as clearly as we possibly can, without getting lost in tangents or in character analysing each other? 

One other thing that could help to reduce frustration and wasting time is having a clear specified debate proposition that both party understand. Like sometimes in these convos I stop and read back the back and forth and ask the question: Wtf are we debating right now or wtf are we actually disagreeing about right now? We get lost in the minutia without having any big picture goal to work towards in the debate. Once we know the debate proposition though, then we can get down in the weeds if it is necessary, cause we have a clear direction to work towards.

The other thing that imo contributes a lot to lack of clarity, is that we don't see the inference structure that is used for an argument. Human language is really vague, so putting an argument in formal logic can help a ton to show how you get to your conclusion and it also gives clarity and an ability for your opponent to specify which premise(s) they disagree with + it can help you to rethink and clear up your own argument as well, because it forces you to create a valid argument, let alone a sound one. Its also super helpful , because its much harder to get lost in tangents, because in order to change an arguments conclusion the thing you talk about have to be connected to one of the premises.

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think that award goes to @DocWatts or @Nilsi or the legendary @Oeaohoo (RIP he was the most fun person on this forum 😭; btw, he just left, he didn't die irl 😂) ☺️

That Oeaohoo guy seemed crazily well read on a lot of things not just philosophy. That immediately struck me, by what words he used and how many different works he referenced in almost every one of his replies.

Although one of the biggest frustration or problem I have with guys who has a lot of domain knowledge is that in a lot of cases, they don't have a good ability to communicate and they have a hard time directly engaging with an argument without going on big ramblings. The ability to only talk about things that are actually directly relevant to the discussion is a rare ability.

[Scholar]

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's causative, because winters appear before jackets and not the other way around. People put on jackets because it's winter. It's not that it's winter because people take on jackets. There are also satisfactory causal mechanisms for it, e.g. people put on clothes when the temperature drops to help maintain homeostasis.

I'll just leave it at that.

You are a weasel. Something being causitive and having causitive influence is not the same as what we mean by a casual relationship.

And the examples provided are clear.

 

It's not possible to have a conversation with you, I am serious. You have complete, contrarian smart-ass brainrot.

Edited February 11 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

13 hours ago, Scholar said:

You are a weasel. Something being causitive and having causitive influence is not the same as what we mean by a casual relationship.

And the examples provided are clear.

 

It's not possible to have a conversation with you, I am serious. You have complete, contrarian smart-ass brainrot.

I'm the weasel who wrote another multi-paragraph response to one of your points which you apparently didn't see most likely because of the palpable emotional reaction that you're now displaying.

Of course, I have to ask: what is the difference between "causative" and "causative influence" and "causal relationship"? It seems like something you just made up, a bit like "metaphysical relationship".

What "causative vs. causative influence" does remind me of is the idea that you can have one thing that causes another thing or you can have many things that causes the same thing. So one causal factor vs. many causal factors. The problem is that this is tangential to what we're talking about, a bit like when you invoked the problem of infinite regression. So again, I have to ask you what you mean.

 

13 hours ago, Scholar said:

And the examples provided are clear.

That's my daily dose of gaslighting. You're free to clarify your clear examples.

On the topic of being a weasel, now when we've finally managed to distill the conversation down to a very specific and important detail (the definition of causality vs. correlation), you're getting very poor on words and it seems like you're backing out. That could say a lot about what is happening here. @zurew pointed out the importance of getting clear on terms and language in general. If you're allergic to that, then I guess all this makes sense.

Edited February 12 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

Weasel. Haha 

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Weasel. Haha 

🦦

Edited February 12 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Weasel. Haha 

You should watch debates more often and you will catch more funny phrases 

[Scholar]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm the weasel who wrote another multi-paragraph response to one of your points which you apparently didn't see most likely because of the palpable emotional reaction that you're now displaying.

You are projecting. If you could hear me speak this to you, you'd know I am mostly just dismissive at this point. I think you are a weasel, but it's not intentional.

 

The simple truth is, you have a debate-bro attitude, which makes it impossible for you to explore and understand my position in the first place. I also do not have the patience to explore my position with you because it would take exceptional effort on my part, with little willingness to understand and learn on your part.

 

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Of course, I have to ask: what is the difference between "causative" and "causative influence" and "causal relationship"? It seems like something you just made up, a bit like "metaphysical relationship".

Causative would be a direct causal relationship. Meaning, if X happens, Y follows directly or inevitably as a result of X. Causative influence is when something indirectly might infuence a causal event, meaning it has influence on the causal chain.

It is important to recognize, as I already stated, that causality in this physicalist sense is illusiory. It is a result of understanding certain aspects of existence through a certain substance of existence (like math or logic).

The causal chain is a functional simplification. In a physicalist sense, a better metaphor would be a causal web, but even that is illusiory.

Causation and the difference between causative and causative influence here is a functional concept, meaning it serves a function, rather than being a description of ground truth. Here, we would apply standards of causation and correlation, to then establish an understanding of what we consider causative or correlative.

I gave the two simple examples because they demonstrate what we view as causative vs correlative in a scientific sense.

 

The problem is you keep switching back and forth between the functional concepts, and then try to go into a metaphysical concept about causation. You confuse the two, which is why you are so confused about my position.

 

Metaphysical relationships are the relationships that exist between different aspects of existence. They are fundamentally mysterious, and any understanding of them are not them, but rather an illusion of causality as described above.

There will never be science that uncovers a causal mechanism between motion/physicality and any other dimension of existence, of which exist infinite. You will never be able to understand why certain physicality (say, a certain state or motion within a unversal or partial wavefunction) is related to non-physical aspects of existence, like: Vision, Sound, Emotion, and so forth.

These relationships necessarily will be non-mechanistic, they will be direct, they will be "metaphysical relationships".

 

In essence, all physical relationships are also metaphysical, in the sense that, at some point they become non-mechanistic. They are instantiated into reality through no mechanism at all. So, as you increase your resolution on a causal chain, at some point you will realize that the relationship between individual chain-links are direct. There is no further chain between them, they simply are. That would be the metaphysical relationship, as opposed to the causal relationship.

 

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

On the topic of being a weasel, now when we've finally managed to distill the conversation down to a very specific and important detail (the definition of causality vs. correlation), you're getting very poor on words and it seems like you're backing out. That could say a lot about what is happening here. @zurew pointed out the importance of getting clear on terms and language in general. If you're allergic to that, then I guess all this makes sense.

This is childish. The problem is that you think I need to care about whether or not you think I am correct, or whether or not you understand what I am saying. I expect a certain degree of autonomous intelligence, and I expect that, instead of being as contrarian as possible on each step of the way, a person has the ability to come to conclude from my words a functional meaning without me having to babysit them through all of it.

 

Edited February 12 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

On 12.2.2024 at 2:41 PM, Scholar said:

You are projecting.

Nah.

 

On 12.2.2024 at 2:41 PM, Scholar said:

The simple truth is, you have a debate-bro attitude

Whatever that is.

 

On 12.2.2024 at 2:41 PM, Scholar said:

Causative would be a direct causal relationship. Meaning, if X happens, Y follows directly or inevitably as a result of X. Causative influence is when something indirectly might infuence a causal event, meaning it has influence on the causal chain.

Give me an example of a direct causal relationship and an indirect causal relationship and tell me how the distinction is relevant in this discussion.

Edited February 23 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Give me an example of a direct causal relationship and an indirect causal relationship and tell me how the distinction is relevant in this discussion.

I don't understand why you keep having difficultie following the line of argumentation. You were the one asking about this, you don't remember why you were asking about it? You could at least go through the effort to read through the other posts to see how it connects.

I already gave you the examples, the raincoats and the atoms.

Before I will go into how it relates to what we discussed, do you understand what I was explaining in my last post? Was any of it vague?

 

Give me a simple summary of the point you think I am making and what I mean by the terms I am evoking, because that is the current hurdle.

[Carl-Richard]

On 23.2.2024 at 10:52 PM, Scholar said:

I already gave you the examples, the raincoats and the atoms.

Surely you have more examples. Is the brain-experience relationship direct or indirect?

Regardless, when we're talking about the brain and experience, any reference to causality is going to be problematic. It doesn't matter how many variations of causality you want to invent. At the end of the day, causality is causality, and causality is when the happening of one thing (or things) precedes the happening of another thing in time and when you have a reasonable mechanism connecting the two.

Hence I don't see why the distinction you have brought up is relevant. It's at best tangential to the discussion. Instead of insinuating that it's relevant and that I'm just too slow to understand, clarify how it is relevant. Be clear.

To conclude, as far as I'm concerned, you've been talking about causality in some way or another, and I'm saying that is problematic for the reasons stated: 1. lack of a reasonable causal mechanism, 2. various empirical contradictions.

And before you do the "argh you just don't understand me, I have made myself clear so many times, try harder", try to clarify at least this one thing: why is the distinction between so-called direct and indirect causality relevant for understanding the brain-experience relationship? If not, we're probably done.

Edited February 25 by Carl-Richard

[Oppositionless]

some will be open to it. like my friend who I told about my astral projections , he said it was an intetesting dream. 

he does a lot of psychedelics and I used to smoke weed with him. your mileage will vary.

Edited February 25 by Oppositionless

[Yimpa]

Physicality works completely different in mystical states. 

[Oppositionless]

@Scholar okay , I have a question

if we live in a brain-simulated reality, what is a brain?

science tells us that matter and energy are equivalent.

Well, the definition of energy is 

“the ability to do work.”

so essentially, you’re saying we live in a reality simulated by an abstract concept “the ability to do work.”

[Scholar]

On 24.2.2024 at 5:35 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Surely you have more examples. Is the brain-experience relationship direct or indirect?

The brain-experience relationship is direct, certain shapes within the physical nature of the universe, which the brain might maintain are related directly to certain other states of existence like redness.

 

On 24.2.2024 at 5:35 PM, Carl-Richard said:

To conclude, as far as I'm concerned, you've been talking about causality in some way or another, and I'm saying that is problematic for the reasons stated: 1. lack of a reasonable causal mechanism, 2. various empirical contradictions.

I already explained taht as far as metaphysical relationships go, there is no reasonable causal mechanism, it isn't possible. But that would require a deeper insight into the nature of Creation, which you seem to lack.

I don't think there are any empirical contradictions.

 

On 24.2.2024 at 5:35 PM, Carl-Richard said:

why is the distinction between so-called direct and indirect causality relevant for understanding the brain-experience relationship?

Because you made the assertion that a reasonable causal mechanism is necessary to consider something causative. At the root or most basic level of existence, relationships are directly asserted into reality, there is no causative mechanism, the relationship itself becomes the causative link, in that sense. That's why I made that point.

If you understand Creation on a basic level, you would understand how silly it is to demand a causal mechanism between physicality and other types of existence.

 

You also lack understanding of what causality is. Physicality, which you might simplify as something like movement in space and time, or mathematical descriptions, in the most basic sense, is causality. Physicality, in this sense, is logic itself.

For physicality to be illogical, would be like saying colors would be unvisual.

 

In a logical or physicalist sense, you will not be able to ever understand the brain-experience relationship in the sense of a semantic causative proposition. Remember, experience just means aspects of existence which are not physical, which are therefore not causal.

 

The relationship between certain physical shapes and other aspects of existence, like color, sound and so forth are fundamentally mysterious. Mysterious here just means that they escape causation, physicality. They necessarily do so, because a relationship between two different aspects of existence cannot be established by one of those aspects of existence. You can never describe a color using math, you can never have an equation that will lead to redness. You will never get an arrangement of physical states and conclude redness from it. The relationship between redness and physicality cannot be grounded in physicality, in "mechanism" or "causations". The relationship exists in and of itself, like all of existence does. It is instantiated directly through Free Will.

 

To ask for a causative relationship for why a certain shape within physicality leads to the color red, would be like asking why certain sounds lead to the color red. It simply makes no sense to ask that question.

 

 

 

You could ask, what causes 2+2 to be 4? Well, this question is misleading, because it misses the point of what it means to say 2+2.

2+2 simply is another way of describing 4. There is no causation there, 4 is simply instantiated into existence, as part of physicality. It wouldn't make sense to say "But what if 2+2=5?". At that point, it's like saying what if the color red was yellow? It simply isn't how reality is instantiated, and to even pose the question implies a deep delusion about reality, in that, anything but itself could be anything but itself.

 

The truth is, 4 simply is. It simply is this relationship. Causation simply is our way of understanding all the relationships that are instantiated into reality. These relationships aren't "caused" by mechanisms. Mechanisms themselves are just a way to look at relationships which exist in reality, in particular physical relationships. (math in this case is part of physicality)

In essence, nothing causes anything. There are just relationships, and those relationships are directly instantiated through the Causeless Cause, the Groundless Ground or Infinity.

 

 

 

The brain is just a way to look at physicality. I can equally say that the reverse shape of physicality is what is "causing" what you label as experience. In the same way as, when you cut out the shape of an elephant out of a piece of paper, you can ask yourself, what is causing the shape of the elephant to exist? Is it the paper, or the hole?

This question is misleading, and misunderstands that the relationship between the paper and the hole is what the elephant is. Trying to understand reality on a fundamentaly level through causal mechanism is as fruitless.

 

 

 

The irony is, you will understanding nothing of this, because you are a physicalist, like Kastrup is. You just don't realize how trapped you are. If physicalism is saying the shape of the elphant is caused by the paper, your version of idealism is like saying the elephant is caused by the hole.

You are doing the same thing without realizing it.

Edited February 25 by Scholar