"But you ask a good question because it makes one consider what “physical” might actually mean."
It's my main objection to philosophers of mind that speculate about the interaction problem of mental causation. If the distinction between physical and unphysical is unclear, then their debates are pointless.
When considering how physical and non-physical worlds interact, it's helpful to define physical. One can argue there's been no concept of physical for hundreds of years, since Newton. Since we cannot define body, therefore there is no mind-body problem. There is no mechanically based concept that explains interactions of matter.
Yes, the problem is that there is no definition of physical. A definition I could think of based on modern physics is everything described by spacetime and forces or causality. But that's my definition. There is no convention. Anything beyond spacetime and causality is non physical. But then mind might be in between. Neither physical nor unphysical.
I do wonder why so many insist that things must be physical to exist. How physical is a thought? Or a poem? Or a song? Or the very air we breathe? There is a whole nonphysical dimension of everything and that is where the mystics go into.
I sympathize with this. But, when you talk to philosophers or scientists about the interaction problem, they seek arguments rooted in physics or philosophical reasoning. I'm not claiming this is the best way to know. On the contrary, the experiential approach has something that the scientific method never will have. But I like to dissect their arguments while playing their game. ;)
I would think at least a philosopher would grant the existence of the invisible intangeable realm. Well, you know how the quote goes about there being "more things in Heaven and Earth, than dreamt of in your Philosophy."
Mystical experiences may be the highest forms of human experience possible. But anything experienced is still content overlaid on the pure screen of awareness.
space, time, awareness, and the experience of consciousness itself -- is still this dreamstate.
Truth realization is the recognition of our true nature as the infinite capacity for these phenomena to appear. It's realizing those phenomena are not the real you, leaving only the truth of the infinite to be who we are.
I hate to sound Zen here, but if you've had a mystical experience, you know it. It's that compelling and obvious and it doesn't matter how science chooses to dissect it. I opt for entanglement theory and believe that we are all fractals of the universe. When one enters the mystical state, one experiences the whole in the fractal. Oneness, love, unity, love, and Spirit are all part of it and yet are the whole of it. Been there, done that. . . .
"But you ask a good question because it makes one consider what “physical” might actually mean."
It's my main objection to philosophers of mind that speculate about the interaction problem of mental causation. If the distinction between physical and unphysical is unclear, then their debates are pointless.
When considering how physical and non-physical worlds interact, it's helpful to define physical. One can argue there's been no concept of physical for hundreds of years, since Newton. Since we cannot define body, therefore there is no mind-body problem. There is no mechanically based concept that explains interactions of matter.
Yes, the problem is that there is no definition of physical. A definition I could think of based on modern physics is everything described by spacetime and forces or causality. But that's my definition. There is no convention. Anything beyond spacetime and causality is non physical. But then mind might be in between. Neither physical nor unphysical.
I do wonder why so many insist that things must be physical to exist. How physical is a thought? Or a poem? Or a song? Or the very air we breathe? There is a whole nonphysical dimension of everything and that is where the mystics go into.
I sympathize with this. But, when you talk to philosophers or scientists about the interaction problem, they seek arguments rooted in physics or philosophical reasoning. I'm not claiming this is the best way to know. On the contrary, the experiential approach has something that the scientific method never will have. But I like to dissect their arguments while playing their game. ;)
I would think at least a philosopher would grant the existence of the invisible intangeable realm. Well, you know how the quote goes about there being "more things in Heaven and Earth, than dreamt of in your Philosophy."
Mystical experiences may be the highest forms of human experience possible. But anything experienced is still content overlaid on the pure screen of awareness.
Therefore all perceived phenomena -- physical sensations, sounds, colors, thoughts, emotions,
space, time, awareness, and the experience of consciousness itself -- is still this dreamstate.
Truth realization is the recognition of our true nature as the infinite capacity for these phenomena to appear. It's realizing those phenomena are not the real you, leaving only the truth of the infinite to be who we are.
Very different from the dreamstate. One is wide awake when having a mystical experience. One is super awake and super aware.
I hate to sound Zen here, but if you've had a mystical experience, you know it. It's that compelling and obvious and it doesn't matter how science chooses to dissect it. I opt for entanglement theory and believe that we are all fractals of the universe. When one enters the mystical state, one experiences the whole in the fractal. Oneness, love, unity, love, and Spirit are all part of it and yet are the whole of it. Been there, done that. . . .