May I add to this that the reason is the whim of the unconscious infinite intelligence to become conscious and know itself? In my worldview, everything points to the surging of this whim as the first cause.
How do you reply to the physicalist/materialist who will object to your reference of an unconscious infinite intelligence when you can provide no empirical proof for the existence of such an entity?
It is clear that the materialist view will object to any mention of infinite intelligence, whether conscious or unconscious. On the other hand, there is no empirical proof that "matter" -as this philosophical view means it- exists. It is a posited unknowable substance that should account for the experience we have of the "material world". Also note I do not see infinite intelligence as "an entity" but rather as our identity.
Please note that I am not playing devil's advocate here. I've been reading Marco's latest book and find it fascinating. But the objections of physicalists rattle me. Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, who I deeply respect, just published a double essay this week refuting idealism as nonsense. It's difficult to get your head around this stuff!
I did not find Pigliucci’s arguments particularly profound. Physicalists sometimes raise genuinely strong objections that are not easy to rebut, but this was not one of those cases. His criticisms were fairly standard ones, all of which I had addressed in my books.
All forms of idealism have left many issues they created unexplained so they have rightly been refuted. For one thing, assuming that the individual is the source of his experience, though partially correct, is undefendable. So you will not find me defending idealism. Instead I will support a proper spiritual insight that corrects and closes the gaps of both idealists and materialists. I would agree more with physicalists if it wasn't for considering that mental states can be explained in terms of physical processes.
So, the reason for the electron triggering detector 1 instead of detector 2, or the atom decaying at time t1 instead of t2, is the whim of the unconscious infinite intelligence?
Not sure what Stelio’s meant, I was saying “yes” to your comment on infinite intelligence. Though on reflection, I would call it a “cause” but not a “reason” (unless one is speaking of the “logic of the infinite”!)
"Logic" comes in question only after the human stage of evolution. The structure of crystals and plants follow infinite intelligence long before logic appears in the picture. I definitely agree that it is a "cause", and not a "reason".
"First cause", it would rather point to how natural laws and "things" like quarks come about to be. From there on, everything that can be observed in the universe follows the laws of nature. The reason for the decay time of atoms or why they behave they do is for physical sciences to determine.
Sri Aurobindo used the term "supramental consciousness" for the infinite intelligence hidden in the physical, emerging slowly in animals and humans, and ultimately emerging in the process of evolution. Scientists actually - Marco may disagree - do not have any idea what underlies the processes they study, as the quantitative method does not give us the nature of things but the processes which manifest as behavior.
In which case we are talking about the same infinite intelligence. I have not studied Sri Aurobindo more than reading about his philosophy in Wikipedia. I started looking ever since I read some or Marco's articles. So far I feel quite at home with his philosophy, although I use Meher Baba's language as explained in his "Infinite Intelligence notebooks". I think that Sri Aurobindo addresses a somewhat more scientifically oriented audience, which I find very important, especially for issues like approaching behavior from the wrong end.
Bertrand Russell rejected the need for the universe as a whole to have an explanation, famously saying: “The universe is just there, and that’s all.”
This reminds me of the comment of American transcendentalist philosophy Margaret Fuller: "I accept the universe!!"
To which British playwright George Bernard Shaw replied, "By God, she'd better!!"
Hmmm....
Let's see:
What is the reason I read this post at this exact moment?
Why did Jan just send me, at the moment before I clicked to see this post, the schedule for the Dzogchen/Buddhist retreat we're starting tonight?
Why is my cat licking her front paw (left one)?
Why do I have a sudden desire to munch on some mozzarella cheese?
Why is the Iran war not happening and happening at the same time (Schrodinger's war!!)
What do the birds return to Capistrano?
Why didn't Shankara teach an integral evolutionary philosophy (Oh wait, that's an easy one)
All of which is to say, I doubt there's a reason for anything, but I have full faith in the infinite intelligence underlying all.
Then the reason is the infinite intelligence. Still a reason.
May I add to this that the reason is the whim of the unconscious infinite intelligence to become conscious and know itself? In my worldview, everything points to the surging of this whim as the first cause.
How do you reply to the physicalist/materialist who will object to your reference of an unconscious infinite intelligence when you can provide no empirical proof for the existence of such an entity?
It is clear that the materialist view will object to any mention of infinite intelligence, whether conscious or unconscious. On the other hand, there is no empirical proof that "matter" -as this philosophical view means it- exists. It is a posited unknowable substance that should account for the experience we have of the "material world". Also note I do not see infinite intelligence as "an entity" but rather as our identity.
Please note that I am not playing devil's advocate here. I've been reading Marco's latest book and find it fascinating. But the objections of physicalists rattle me. Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, who I deeply respect, just published a double essay this week refuting idealism as nonsense. It's difficult to get your head around this stuff!
I did not find Pigliucci’s arguments particularly profound. Physicalists sometimes raise genuinely strong objections that are not easy to rebut, but this was not one of those cases. His criticisms were fairly standard ones, all of which I had addressed in my books.
All forms of idealism have left many issues they created unexplained so they have rightly been refuted. For one thing, assuming that the individual is the source of his experience, though partially correct, is undefendable. So you will not find me defending idealism. Instead I will support a proper spiritual insight that corrects and closes the gaps of both idealists and materialists. I would agree more with physicalists if it wasn't for considering that mental states can be explained in terms of physical processes.
Yes!
So, the reason for the electron triggering detector 1 instead of detector 2, or the atom decaying at time t1 instead of t2, is the whim of the unconscious infinite intelligence?
Not sure what Stelio’s meant, I was saying “yes” to your comment on infinite intelligence. Though on reflection, I would call it a “cause” but not a “reason” (unless one is speaking of the “logic of the infinite”!)
"Logic" comes in question only after the human stage of evolution. The structure of crystals and plants follow infinite intelligence long before logic appears in the picture. I definitely agree that it is a "cause", and not a "reason".
Marco and I are using Sri Aurobindo's language. I'll answer more in the comment below...
"First cause", it would rather point to how natural laws and "things" like quarks come about to be. From there on, everything that can be observed in the universe follows the laws of nature. The reason for the decay time of atoms or why they behave they do is for physical sciences to determine.
Sri Aurobindo used the term "supramental consciousness" for the infinite intelligence hidden in the physical, emerging slowly in animals and humans, and ultimately emerging in the process of evolution. Scientists actually - Marco may disagree - do not have any idea what underlies the processes they study, as the quantitative method does not give us the nature of things but the processes which manifest as behavior.
In which case we are talking about the same infinite intelligence. I have not studied Sri Aurobindo more than reading about his philosophy in Wikipedia. I started looking ever since I read some or Marco's articles. So far I feel quite at home with his philosophy, although I use Meher Baba's language as explained in his "Infinite Intelligence notebooks". I think that Sri Aurobindo addresses a somewhat more scientifically oriented audience, which I find very important, especially for issues like approaching behavior from the wrong end.