Saturday, November 26, 2022

Comments by jodyr

Showing 5 of 5 comments.

  • Steve: We’re pretty much on the same page. It is possible that just the activity of neurons alone is enough to generate qualia, and it’s possible this occurs against some kind of universal background of consciousness. This is the biological materialist/pan-psychist divide. I agree this may forever be an unanswerable question and remain a mystery, but if I’m going to make the call, I fall on the side of biology alone. I feel this is more congruent with Occam’s razor.

  • Steve: I prefer it because I feel it’s a more simple and elegant solution to the mind/brain problem. The neurophilosopher Dr. Thomas Metzinger agrees:

    i_e: The brain has 80-billion neurons with thousands of connections each. These can generate inner realities, i.e., [just realized this is a pun in the present conversational context ;)] the psychic narratives that get labeled past life memories, just as they generate any and all phenomenology that is considered to be of the spiritual category. If there is such a thing as spirituality, it is entirely 100% biological, IMO.

  • Steve: Totally agree: “Until you get me a spoonful of “mind” or in some other way demonstrate what it is in a replicable manner, it remains beyond the scope of science to study.”

    i_e: My research CV:

    1986: Lived one year on-site as an adept at the Yoga Center of California ashram of Southern California on Palomar Mountain, CA.
    1988: Initiated in the Vedanta tradition of Swami Vivekananda and the tantric shakta tradition of Sri Ramakrishna.
    1988 – 1990: Completed two years in the Consciousness Studies program at John F. Kennedy University in Orinda, CA.
    1999: Understanding confirmed and a grant of permission by my initiation guru to teach Vedanta.
    2005: Started the blog Guruphiliac, one of the first that was openly critical of the commercial enlightenment business.
    2010: Once again instructed by my guru that I have permission to teach Vedanta after I reported that I had not been promoting myself as a teacher.
    2010: Formulated a critique of how enlightenment is framed conceptually. I gave it the name “the folk theory of enlightenment” and presented it as a keynote at the inauguratory session of the annual ongoing conference known as “Science and Nonduality.”
    2010 – now: Practicing as an enlightenment Twitter voice (@Kalieezchild) critical of how enlightenment is framed conceptually by both ancient and modern traditions.

    This isn’t to say there isn’t more research to be done, but I’ve done a good bit already as described and while blessed to have studied with some fantastic preceptors, I have arrived at different conclusions than yours, thus, your mileage is likely to vary.

  • Hey Steve. I would reply that the question is a matter of which side to slice off with your Razor. In my view, it should be the things that require additional explanation, like a “spiritual reality,” rather than those which stand on their own, like the idea the mind is a virtual extension of neurological activity. Obviously, mileage varies depending on your presuppositions.