Human Immortality II

See Human Immortality.

"Matter, then, is held to be extended, to have position, and to be capable of motion independently of observation. It is also impenetrable - that is, no two pieces of matter can occupy the same position in space. But it has no colour, it is neither hard nor soft, it has no taste, no smell, and no sound." (p. 22)

When searching for an external cause of our sensations, McTaggart writes:

"A reality which exists independently of me need not be matter - it might, for example, be another spirit. We do not call anything matter unless it possesses the primary qualities of matter given above." (p. 30)

We do call something matter even if it does not possess the primary qualities given above. Mass is a form of energy. Macroscopic objects are composed of empty spaces and forces between subatomic particles whose properties differ qualitatively from those of macroscopic objects. Lenin argued in Materialism and Empirio-criticism that:

philosophically, "matter" just means that which pre-existed consciousness and which continues to exist independently of consciousness;

the properties of "matter" (a more neutral term is "being") are to be discovered by empirical science, not by philosophy;

any scientific account is only provisional because there is always more to be discovered.

Contemporary science seems to confirm this last proposition.

"Causes do not necessarily resemble their effects." (ibid.)

I agree. The world as described by physics is not as we perceive it. Necessarily, we perceive discrete objects separated by apparently empty spaces whereas the reality is a continuum of electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves. But it remains "matter" in Lenin's sense of being that pre-existed and determines consciousness, indeed that has become conscious.

Human Immortality

J.M.E. McTaggart, Human Immortality And Pre-Existence (London, 1916), Part I, Human Immortality, pp. 9-69.

McTaggart believes that sufficient arguments for immortality exist but that they depend on an idealist theory of reality that he hopes to present in a later volume. Until I read and am persuaded by such arguments, I remain, at least provisionally, a materialist.

"All ultimate explanation endeavours to reduce the universe to a unity." (p. 15)

I agree.

"Monism then, whether it be materialism or idealism, is more attractive to the majority of inquirers than dualism is." (p. 16)

I agree.

"Deeper inquiry will, I think, show us that there is no reason to believe that matter does exist." (p. 20)

I need to be persuaded.

"The orange is no more yellow when no one sees it than it is desired when no one knows of its existence." (p. 21)

The sensation of yellow is the effect in us of light reflected from an orange because the surface of the orange absorbs some electromagnetic wavelengths and reflects others. I think that it is legitimate to say that the objectively/externally existing orange is "yellow" if by this we mean that it reflects the wavelengths that cause in us the sensation of yellow. Thus, the perceived color, yellow, is a secondary quality whereas the quality of reflecting the corresponding wavelengths is primary.

When we dream, we believe, e.g., that a roc's egg is real. When we are awake, we believe that our table is real. McTaggarat writes:

"...that belief [about the table] is no stronger and no more evident than the other [about the roc's egg] had been previously." (p. 26)

I think that the belief about the table is stronger and more evident than belief in the roc's egg. We categorize dreams as unreal precisely by contrasting them with the more stable, permanent, consistent and publicly accessible experiences of waking life. You can see, feel and sit at my table today and again tomorrow whereas you do not share my fleeting, one-off image of a roc's egg. Of course, our acceptance of the reality of waking experience is theoretically provisional. We might some day wake up into an even more stable, permanent and consistent world. We need not deny that theoretical possibility while meanwhile continuing to regard the table as real.

To be continued.

Biocentrism

Robert Lanza with Bob Berman, Biocentrism (Dallas, 2009).

I disagree either with what these authors say or with the way they say it. If they mean that conscious organisms create reality, then I disagree. If they mean that conscious organisms create not reality but appearances of reality, then they need to state this more clearly.

We are used to the idea that reality differs from appearances of it:

the Sun appears to go round the Earth;

an apparently continuous and static solid really comprises many moving particles and is really in orbit around the Sun, the galactic center and other points in space;

a galaxy seen from a distance is a single point of light whereas, seen from within, it is many points of light yet it remains a single galaxy;

the sky that looks blue to us looks different to beings with different sense organs;

when a phone rings in an empty house, air molecules vibrate but there is no heard ring anywhere in the house.

Even if the current understanding of reality differs from earlier understandings, it remains an understanding of pre-conscious reality. An indeterminate reality is a counter-intuitive kind of reality but remains a kind of reality, not nothing.

I will state my understanding of reality and appearance. Reality is one but internally differentiated. Its differentiations include many conscious organisms, each perceiving its environment. By interacting with its total environment, an organism creates an appearance of its immediate environment and thus also of a small part of reality. Each such appearance is an interaction within reality, not reality. Reality becomes conscious of itself because it is internally differentiated into conscious organisms and their environments. It existed, even if indeterminately, before becoming conscious.

Conscious And Unconscious

The One becomes conscious of itself many times as an organism sharing an environment with other organisms.
The One is each organism and the environment.
It becomes conscious of itself as:
sensations;
perceived objects;
self-conscious individuals;
Itself.
However, it is conscious of itself only in those parts of itself that have central nervous systems.
The environment and most organisms remain unconscious.
Consciousness depends on unconscious processes that are:
physical;
chemical;
organic;
psychological.
Consciousness is a particular kind of organism-environment interaction.
It does not permeate matter or space.

Prayer

Gods grant
Long life and
Conditions conducive to
Contemplation and liberation.

Beyond Birth And Death

The only way not to die is not to be born.
Would we exist if we were not born?
Only if we are pre-existent souls which some believe but I don't.
Materialists and Buddhists agree that there are no souls.

If you and I had not been born, then the one reality would still exist.
It would still be conscious of itself through many organisms although not through you or me.
The One would exist in a different form.
Were non-existence or unconscious being possible?

I suspect that being and nothing interact and that all potentialities are realized but who knows?
"That god who sees in highest heaven, he alone knows or perhaps he knows not." (See here.)

Advice From Zen Monks

"Can you embrace the past and let go of it?"

"Can you sit with whatever comes up in meditation?"

"There will always be natural thought. Don't add to it."

"There is a swamp inside. Drain the swamp."

Two interacting levels of consciousness:
external inputs;
inner thoughts.

The third level:
Serene Reflection Meditation.