Panpsychism (metaphysics)

[jockmcplop]

Firstly, I know this thread could easily turn out to be 'undergrad hipster philosophy 101' but to me its just an interesting anomaly of thought that leads to some interesting conclusions when you go deep enough with it.

So recently i've been hearing about, and looking into very briefly, the idea of panpsychism.
At its most basic, its the idea that either everything has an element of consciousness, or at least the fundamental building blocks of life do. Its one of those unprovable theories that is very interesting in its implications for other areas of thought.

Here, have a TED talk, by philosopher David Chalmers:


Interesting, huh?

If you want to hear more from Mr. Chalmers about panpsychism, check out the podcast he did with Sam Harris (its one of the 'Waking up with Sam Harris' series)

Some questions that came to me when I was reading about this:
If panpsychism is true, does this give credibility to the idea of the primacy of consciousness (ie the idea that consciousness is a pre-existing condition of the universe. A similarly unprovable but interesting theory)?
Does it say anything about concepts like our perception of time and whether or not time is dependent on consciousness or separate from it?
Which form of panpsychism is most credible? Everything having an 'amount' of consciousness dependent on its ability to process information, or simply that some basic building blocks of the universe are conscious and it is their interaction with each other which creates more nuanced consciousness such as intelligence?

[RubiconDecision]

Metaphysics. Wow, that's a word I haven't heard in since grad school and read Herni Bergson and the Nature of Reality.


The word is for all intents and purposes "retired" from the English language; it extremely rare to hear it in even challenging academic conversations. It might even be labeled archaic.

[jockmcplop]

Metaphysical discussions are pretty much extinct when it comes to deducing the actual nature of reality. We have moved way past that with proper science.
However, they can still form th basis of interesting thought experiments and logical exercises, which is the purpose of this post.

[RubiconDecision]

Wittgensteins comments on metaphysics has an analogy in Walt Whitman's Learn'd Astronomer poem.

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide,
and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with
much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
Walt Whitman

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Metaphor.htm
"Wittgenstein in particular maintained that metaphysical statements have no cognitive content whatever—that, indeed, they are composed of meaningless terms in much the same way in which Lewis Carroll’s poem “Jabberwocky” is composed of “words” without sense. In the interest of cleaning up a discourse that was riddled with hazy notions and conceptual confusions, Wittgenstein recommended that the murky and pretentious propositions of metaphysics be replaced by a clear-headed silence. At the end of his trailblazing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus he wrote:

The right method in philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. ,the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had not given a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would not be satisfying to the other --he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method. ... Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (1)"

The learn'd astronomer has lost the vital connection to the awe of the stars through overanalysis instead of regaling his audience with the wonder that brought him to the stars to study them.
...
If our consciousness, even our soul is energy, then when we die, perhaps we join the Void of Space-Time and do participate in the consciousness of the building blocks of reality. It's plausible, but how would one ever prove it?

[jockmcplop]

All of this is kind of true, if not a little murky and vague in itself. I suppose it depends on your intentions.
If I were to be wondering about the scientific truth or validity of panpsychism, for example, I might as well try to bottle the ocean. Its pointless because its unprovable.
However, if you're asking specific questions simply as a means of logical 'play' I don't really see the problem with it. I feel we are approaching the idea from completely different places.
I'll give an example:
How about the question "Assuming panpsychism is true and, say, all quarks have some element of consciousness to them. Does this change or have some kind of effect on the rest of science as we know it?"
Another question could be "Do any of the major religions permit panpsychism as a part of reality?"
You could reasonably ask whether or not there is any point at all in thinking about it. I would reply that yes, there is a point, it allows you to approach familiar subjects through a different lens, and maybe gain an additional perspective on facts that we already have, as well as simply being an excuse to learn some interesting things about science that might come up in the conversation. If I was a serious philosopher (ie making money off selling books and stuff) this wouldn't necessarily be a good way to go about things, but on an internet forum where everyone is bringing different knowledge to the table, I feel it is something that's worth exploring.
These exercises and thought experiments aren't about deducing the nature of reality, as i said before, they are simply 'play'. Just playing around with metaphysical thought and seeing what happens if you try to follow through with it using some logical rules.

BTW panpsychism isn't some ancient, forgotten metaphysical nonsense, it has some very well developed modern ideas attached to it.
The following is a HUGE document explaining alot of the different modern interpretations.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/
I still think its pointless to speculate on the truth or falsehood of such ideas, but exploring them is useful imo

[RubiconDecision]

Well think about it in this way. Human being have a secondary nervous system in their gut.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-second-brain/

"The second brain informs our state of mind in other more obscure ways, as well. "A big part of our emotions are probably influenced by the nerves in our gut," Mayer says. Butterflies in the stomach—signaling in the gut as part of our physiological stress response, Gershon says—is but one example. Although gastrointestinal (GI) turmoil can sour one's moods, everyday emotional well-being may rely on messages from the brain below to the brain above. For example, electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve—a useful treatment for depression—may mimic these signals, Gershon says.

Given the two brains' commonalities, other depression treatments that target the mind can unintentionally impact the gut. The enteric nervous system uses more than 30 neurotransmitters, just like the brain, and in fact 95 percent of the body's serotonin is found in the bowels. Because antidepressant medications called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) increase serotonin levels, it's little wonder that meds meant to cause chemical changes in the mind often provoke GI issues as a side effect. Irritable bowel syndrome—which afflicts more than two million Americans—also arises in part from too much serotonin in our entrails, and could perhaps be regarded as a "mental illness" of the second brain.

Scientists are learning that the serotonin made by the enteric nervous system might also play a role in more surprising diseases: In a new Nature Medicine study published online February 7, a drug that inhibited the release of serotonin from the gut counteracted the bone-deteriorating disease osteoporosis in postmenopausal rodents. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) "It was totally unexpected that the gut would regulate bone mass to the extent that one could use this regulation to cure—at least in rodents—osteoporosis," says Gerard Karsenty, lead author of the study and chair of the Department of Genetics and Development at Columbia University Medical Center."

Now one interesting model of looking at a human being is not that we are a single entity with a consciousness, but in fact, we are a container of a human being that carries along a sea of bacteria within our gut that has taken up residence in us. And this secondary nervous system in our gut DOES have an effect on behaviour. So while that's not at the atomic or subatomic level, but at the microscopic level, it's possible that the millions or billion of E coli and other anerobic bacteria that reside in our digestive system, might in turn affect the enteric nervous system.

Likewise, since parasites affect human beings at any one time, particularly in childhood (where perhaps as many as 75% of American kids have had parasites), and since we know that some parasites are implicated in altering cat behaviour i.e. Toxoplasma gondii, then consciousness might be best understood as a colony of creatures that affect human behaviour while our main consciousness then is partially under our control. I say partially because the subconscious has very powerful effects upon us, more than we know.

Diet affects mood but also up and down regulates our genetics. So let's say that consciousness exists in all things, even all subatomic particles. Then perhaps everything we consume affects our consciousness. It's plausible, but unproveable.

Maybe it's Musk who said that when you look at String Theory, then if we ever prove it, and look into what makes Strings then maybe it's computer code in essence. What if the Strings that make everything are made of consciousness as code?

Then there's an elegance to creation as if Ideas make Strings which make up everything. And these Ideas are bits of consciousness, even perhaps the residue of former beings?

EDIT: It's S. James Gates and Adinkras
http://www.onbeing.org/program/uncov...e-reality/1460


EDIT2: If you bothered to read the science article on Gate's and his crew's findings on patterns within Strings and Adinkras, then you might have noticed the pattern images. Like this one:


Now it starts to get really "freaky" if you also know anything about mysticism, say the Kabbalah because that pattern looks awful familiar to this:

At this point, if I was Jewish and a mathematician and studying physics, I'd get chills.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binah_(Kabbalah)

According to the Bahir: "The third (utterance): quarry of the Torah, treasury of wisdom, quarry of God's spirit, hewn out by the spirit of God. This teaches that God hewed out all the letters of the Torah, engraving them with the Spirit, casting His forms within it".^[2]
Binah is 'intuitive understanding', or 'contemplation'. It is likened to a 'palace of mirrors' that reflects the pure point of light of Chokhmah, wisdom, increasing and multiplying it in an infinite variety of ways. In this sense, it is the 'quarry', which is carved out by the light of wisdom. It is the womb, which gives shape to the Spirit of God.

Twilight Zone kind of chills.

[Iskar]

Now it starts to get really "freaky" if you also know anything about mysticism, say the Kabbalah because that pattern looks awful familiar to this:

At this point, if I was Jewish and a mathematician and studying physics, I'd get chills.

If I was Jewish and a mathematician and studying physics I would look at the two pictures, notice that both consist of bubbles linked by coloured lines and that they share no further structural characteristics (not even the number of bubbles or the distribution of lines between them). I'd shrug and realise that similar depiction of flow charts is most likely to be simply a consequence of the common structure of the conceiving human mind in depicting processes and correlations rather than intrinsic relations between what is being depicted in particular.

As for metaphysics and panpsychism specifically, all such questions are not even worth asking, because the words are, in accordance with Wittgenstein, empty and have no meaning. The philosopher in the opening video makes the mistake of treating consciousness like a contingent property that one can sensibly choose to regard or disregard. This is on the same level as the fallacy that treats "existence" as a predicate in logics. You cannot sensibly ask the question "Why do we have consciousness?" because consciousness is necessary to even ask that question. In order to find a causal foundation for something that something must be facultative and must have the possibility to not be the case: Something that is always the case independent of other circumstances cannot be meaningfully caused by something else.
So all this metaphysical play with words, even if its purpose is just to explore hypothetical ideas or widen the mind, is just inane and fails to accomplish even the widening of the mind. All it does is obstruct and darken the mind with empty and meaningless concepts.

Ceterum censeo metaphysicam esse delendam.

[RubiconDecision]

Come on, if a Christian then there's always some iota of supernatural awe, unless one is a total wet blanket. One need only look at the Fibbonaci Sequence and its presence in Nature to see the Fingerprint of God.

...
And, teasing you, but aren't we supposed to always include a translation when using a foreign language in the forum?

Paraphrasing the famous utterance, Carthage must be destroyed as above is hysterical, but you ought to have illuminated the unwashed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est

Translation: Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
"Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Carthage must be destroyed"

HENCE
"Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Metaphysics must be destroyed"

And yes, that's why I included Wittgenstein's comments on metaphysics so early in the conversation. He was also being a wet blanket but perfectly correct at the sloppy nature of metaphysics discussions.
...
One is likely to be an atheist studying String Theory, as many scientists have discounted what cannot be proven. But to a Christian who is also educated, then there is a lyrical beauty to the idea of Strings creating the fundamental building block of reality. Vibrating in a form of music we cannot yet hear, and plucked like stringed instruments by YHWH. But even more so ideas as the basis for those strings, recollecting this verse.

As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not. Romans 4:17

It is as if the idea once uttered then gives Life, and that is the creation process by God, and why we as creators should be careful and tame our tongues for giving utterance to ideas, for they take on a Life of their own.

[jockmcplop]

As for metaphysics and panpsychism specifically, all such questions are not even worth asking, because the words are, in accordance with Wittgenstein, empty and have no meaning. The philosopher in the opening video makes the mistake of treating consciousness like a contingent property that one can sensibly choose to regard or disregard. This is on the same level as the fallacy that treats "existence" as a predicate in logics. You cannot sensibly ask the question "Why do we have consciousness?" because consciousness is necessary to even ask that question. In order to find a causal foundation for something that something must be facultative and must have the possibility to not be the case: Something that is always the case independent of other circumstances cannot be meaningfully caused by something else.
So all this metaphysical play with words, even if its purpose is just to explore hypothetical ideas or widen the mind, is just inane and fails to accomplish even the widening of the mind. All it does is obstruct and darken the mind with empty and meaningless concepts.

Sure, if you want to worship Wittgenstein. I would not agree with him though. Just saying something is empty and meaningless doesn't make it so. Panpsychism has a very specific meaning, which people have come to after over a hundred years of intensive study.
The idea that consciousness is not a contingent property is, in fact, a metaphysical idea. So you are asserting that metaphysics is a useless and pointless discussion and trying to prove it using metaphysics.
Frankly, your entire post is very vague and simply shows, rather than any logic or evidence, that you don't like metaphysics. This is fine, but I would challenge you to dig a bit deeper if you want to really convince me that this isn't a rabbit hole worth going down. Or don't, if you wish, and I will carry on regardless

Come on, if a Christian then there's always some iota of supernatural awe, unless one is a total wet blanket. One need only look at the Fibbonaci Sequence and its presence in Nature to see the Fingerprint of God.

...
And, teasing you, but aren't we supposed to always include a translation when using a foreign language in the forum?

Paraphrasing the famous utterance, Carthage must be destroyed as above is hysterical, but you ought to have illuminated the unwashed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est

Translation: Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
"Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Carthage must be destroyed"

HENCE
"Furthermore, (moreover) I consider that Metaphysics must be destroyed"

And yes, that's why I included Wittgenstein's comments on metaphysics so early in the conversation. He was also being a wet blanket but perfectly correct at the sloppy nature of metaphysics discussions.
...
One is likely to be an atheist studying String Theory, as many scientists have discounted what cannot be proven. But to a Christian who is also educated, then there is a lyrical beauty to the idea of Strings creating the fundamental building block of reality. Vibrating in a form of music we cannot yet hear, and plucked like stringed instruments by YHWH. But even more so ideas as the basis for those strings, recollecting this verse.

As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not. Romans 4:17

It is as if the idea once uttered then gives Life, and that is the creation process by God, and why we as creators should be careful and tame our tongues for giving utterance to ideas, for they take on a Life of their own.

I would stay far away from generalizations that completely dismiss an entire area of study. I like your posts, though, they are interesting and poetic.
I think that metaphysics study CAN be very vague and meaningless, but are not necessarily so. Why not go along for the ride? humour me
BTW I think I am a materialist, i'm just very interested in the stuff that materialism can't yet define. Sure, there will one day be a full explanation of consciousness, and i'm fairly confident that one day we will have discovered the truth or falsehood of panpsychism.

Anyway, why not answer some questions, or attempt to??
If pansychism is the natural condition of the universe, would it effect our scientific understanding of the universe (other than the 'fact' of panpsychism itself)?
Does it say anything about concepts like our perception of time and whether or not time is dependent on consciousness or separate from it?
etc.
I dunno this topic obviously isn't as popular as I thought it might be and maybe its time to kill the thread as the main topic of discussion appears to be whether or not to discuss the topic.

[Iskar]

@RD: I may not be Jewish, but I am a mathematician that studied physics and a practicing Catholic. I marvel daily at the elegance of what science unravels. I simply think one should base such marvelling on a reliable and logically cogent analysis rather than associative musings based on superficial observations. The "similarity" between the string theoretic diagram and the Kabbalist diagram does not go beyond design choices for instance.

The frequent occurence of the golden ratio on the other hand is a nice example of naturally occuring patters of aesthetic "beauty", although one could certainly argue that structural patterns which have proven themselves functionally advantageous, such as the golden ratio, would sooner or later by evolution find their way into our sense of aesthetics, simply because it is evolutionarily favourable to regard such structures intuitively positively.

Nevertheless, if I, additionally to my scientific perspective, hold that the world I perceive is the work of a creator deity, I can still marvel at the fact that it has been so cleverly designed that the functionally favourable appeals to my sense of beauty in its formal appearance. It's like a cosmic edition of the Bauhaus principle: Form follows function.

Sure, if you want to worship Wittgenstein. I would not agree with him though. Just saying something is empty and meaningless doesn't make it so. Panpsychism has a very specific meaning, which people have come to after over a hundred years of intensive study.
The idea that consciousness is not a contingent property is, in fact, a metaphysical idea. So you are asserting that metaphysics is a useless and pointless discussion and trying to prove it using metaphysics.
Frankly, your entire post is very vague and simply shows, rather than any logic or evidence, that you don't like metaphysics. This is fine, but I would challenge you to dig a bit deeper if you want to really convince me that this isn't a rabbit hole worth going down. Or don't, if you wish, and I will carry on regardless



I would stay far away from generalizations that completely dismiss an entire area of study. I like your posts, though, they are interesting and poetic.
I think that metaphysics study CAN be very vague and meaningless, but are not necessarily so. Why not go along for the ride? humour me
BTW I think I am a materialist, i'm just very interested in the stuff that materialism can't yet define. Sure, there will one day be a full explanation of consciousness, and i'm fairly confident that one day we will have discovered the truth or falsehood of panpsychism.

Anyway, why not answer some questions, or attempt to??
If pansychism is the natural condition of the universe, would it effect our scientific understanding of the universe (other than the 'fact' of panpsychism itself)?
Does it say anything about concepts like our perception of time and whether or not time is dependent on consciousness or separate from it?
etc.
I dunno this topic obviously isn't as popular as I thought it might be and maybe its time to kill the thread as the main topic of discussion appears to be whether or not to discuss the topic.

For the record, I do not worship Wittgenstein. I merely agree with this singular statement by him. In fact, I disagree with most of the other stuff he said or how he did philosophy in general.

The idea that consciousness is not contingent is not metaphysical, in so far as it can be logically founded, and so I did in my previous post, so my arguments are specifically not metaphysical:

You cannot sensibly ask the question "Why do we have consciousness?" because consciousness is necessary to even ask that question. In order to find a causal foundation for something that something must be facultative and must have the possibility to not be the case: Something that is always the case independent of other circumstances cannot be meaningfully caused by something else.

I would invite you to demonstrate at which point the above argument is metaphysical and not cogently logical.

It is certainly interesting and worthwhile to investigate the implications of assumptions that are not "proven" so far but are possible scenarios in general. However, the first question one has to ask oneself when considering some hypothetical assumption is whether it satisfies this criterion of a priori possibility at all. If the assumption is epistemologically empty or logically contradictory it is a waste of time to consider it any further, because it can never be the case at all.

If you post a philosophical assertion in the EM&M you will have to accept that it is subjected to a proper logical scrutiny from scratch, i.e. starting with the very basic questions of whether the assumption itself or its implicit premises are even logically coherent. Once such has been established one can explore its hypothetical consequences, but investigating the assumed implications of something that is a priori contradictory or inconsistent leads nowhere.

So, instead of asking the semantically empty question of "Why do we have consciousness" we might ask more sensible questions, such as "How do you characterise consciousness?", "Is it emergent despite being necessary?", "Can we empirically find indications of consciousness in non-humans?", "Are these indications gradual or strictly quantised, i.e. is there a jump from unconscious to conscious conduct, or is there a continuum of states ranging from inanimate objects up to humans?", etc. All of these are very viable questions one can ask and investigate with regard to the phenomenon of consciousness instead of wasting time with chasing the meaningless implications of a priori illogical and inconsistent wordplays - to which most of metaphysics simply amounts.

It is not my intention to "bust" your thread, rather to show how one can engage in meaningful discussion regarding the direction of thought you have indicated and which mistakes to avoid, so I hope you do not perceive these remarks as hostile.

[RubiconDecision]

Iskar your posts are always delightful to read . They're the very best aspects of the D & D.

I'm a Christian mystic at heart. In my youth I practically lived outdoors, and it's a wonder I didn't become a pagan before there was such a thing (yes that old). Yet at the same time I grew up extremely Anglo-Catholic to the point of considering attending seminary...but I didn't want them to break my faith as happens so often there.

Meanwhile that intensity meant huge amounts of time were spent in lay ministry and working with the suffering. So instead of becoming a low churchman rejecting mysticism due to being in such persistent work with the impoverished, I felt I saw the Face of God among them. It only enhanced my sense of wonder and the Supernatural aspects of Christianity.

The miracle of life on this world is that I see YHWH's aspect everywhere. Such passion is typically only found today among the Sufis for people like Dame Julian and St. Teresa of Avilla are long forgotten.


I stand by what I wrote despite the monumental leaps I made. I'd be shocked if a thousand years from now if we hadn't discovered ideas are the base fabric of reality.

http://opcentral.org/resources/2015/...ne-revelation/

As the Showings make clear, Julian’s visions are an expression of the realizable, felt presence of God. Having had the visitations to some extent forces her to spend time clarifying her sense of what this experience of divinity is like. When we encounter God, according to Julian, our proper attitude is one of “reverent fear” before the awe-inspiring majesty of divine power. This is not simply a subjective or mental state but a spontaneous response to the objective reality of God’s presence.(2)
But we do not experience God solely as a being outside ourselves; we also perceive divine reality to exist within. Julian begins with a traditional theological model in her discussion of the nature and relationship of body and soul. God created our bodies from “the slime of the earth, which is matter mixed and gathered from all bodily things” (284). The creation of our souls, however, is attributable to nothing except divine spirit (and this creation is hence literally “inspiration.”) The theological consequence of this act of creation is that “man’s soul is kept whole” (284) — that is, divine reality underpins the very fact of our humanity and unites us to God, defined by Julian as “substantial uncreated nature” (284). Realizing the true (i.e., divine) nature of our being is simultaneously an act of “creating God.” God is thus not only creator but is also continually created, given form, and realized through the instrumentality of humanity. Julian comments that God
wants us to know that this beloved soul was preciously knitted to him in its making, by a knot so subtle and so mighty that it is united in God. In this uniting it is made endlessly holy. (284)
The consequence of this divine union is that humans provide the locus for the continual coming-into-being of God; this human expression of the energy of the godhead confirms our identity and existence as co-creators of sacred reality. Our soul is created to be God’s dwelling place, and the dwelling of our soul is God, who is uncreated. It is a great understanding to see and know inwardly that God, who is our Creator, dwells in our soul, and it is a far greater understanding to see and know inwardly that our soul, which is created, dwells in God in substance, of which substance, through God, we are what we are. And I saw no difference between God and our substance, but, as it were, all God; and still my understanding accepted that our substance is in God, that is to say that God is God, and our substance is a creature in God. (285)
The divine part of our being — our soul — realizes the nature of God through a metaphysical correspondence or a kind of cosmic resonance that is set in motion when we encounter this Presence. But not only does our soul share divinity in being created by God; we also create God out of the divine nature of our souls. Because of the congruity between divinity and humanity, we “shape” the creation of God in the course of realizing our humanity. SELF KNOWLEDGE, GOD KNOWLEDGE

She went dangerously close to the edge of the precipice of Pantheism and almost leap into that Abyss.

How elegant and magnificent it would be if Anselm's Ontological Argument at the very macroscopic nature of YHWH being confirmed by Ideas of YHWH, then becomes the ultimate microscopic nature of Reality found in all things as a consequence of YHWH as Ultimate Reality.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/#H3

More formally, the argument is this:

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

I AM WHO I AM then constantly streams ideas into being and makes up all things and creatures everywhere and infinitely.

[sumskilz]

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, the famed Indian mystic, guru, cult leader, and Rolls-Royce collector:

Metaphysics is nonsense, but even then it must be serving some object, otherwise it would not have existed – so long. Man finds himself helpless – in a strange world, unfamiliar... not only unknown, but unknowable also. This darkness, this cloud of unknowing, disturbs the human mind tremendously. Somehow he has to console himself. Somehow he has to create knowledge.

Even if that knowledge is not true knowledge, it will give an appearance that you are grounded. It will give an appearance that you are not absolutely helpless. You can pretend through it that you are not a stranger in this world – a chance, a coincidence – but a master. At least you can play with words and do whatsoever you like with words and can create a false illusion of your power.

This is what metaphysics has always been doing. It gives you a sense of power where in fact no power exists in you. It gives you an illusion of knowledge where no knowledge really exists.

Metaphysics is not only nonsense, it is also madness – of course, with a method. It is very methodological. Metaphysicians go on building skyscrapers of words – the tower of babel. They go on building it.

And once you are caught in the words, the reality recedes farther away from you. You start living behind a wall of words. And a wall of words is stronger than any wall. Even a wall of stones, rocks, is not so strong.

The strength of words lies in their being transparent: you can go on looking through them and you will never become aware that you are looking through words. They are almost invisible, transparent – like pure glass. You can stand near a window. If the glass is really pure, you will not become aware of the glass. You will think that the window is open and you are seeing the sky and the trees and the sun rising, and you will never become aware that there is a glass between you and the reality.

Metaphysics is a glass. It goes on hiding you from reality, and it goes on distorting reality.

People cling to words because they don’t know what reality is. So they start believing in words – it is a make-believe. At least it gives a sense that you know. When you use the word ‘god’, suddenly you feel as if you know god. You don’t know anything about god, you only know the word ‘god’. That too you have only heard, but it has become your foundation rock.

Professor Saul Lieberman, the great Talmudist of the Jewish Theological Seminary:

All of Kabbalah is complete nonsense, but the academic study of nonsense, that is scholarship.

[RubiconDecision]

Another intellectual giant speaks, and humbles with but a few words. Touche.

[chriscase]

My admittedly naive thinking in this area is that it would not be particularly surprising if consciousness turns out not to be nearly as special as we have generally imagined it to be. That would be the rather predictably poetic culmination of centuries of intellectual consternation, particularly given the narcissistic tendencies of the human mind. Of course I would also predict this discovery not to belong in the metaphysical realm at all, but, rather, in the physical.