Guys, what in the heck is metaphysics?

My dictionary says something about this: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter.

Ya right :)

How do you guys feel about this one :) ? :lolhit:

sonny

As an old mystic for 52 years (since I was five) and as an old student of yoga science for 32 years, can our minds effect "Creation?" :) Yepper :)

So now what? How does an old fella named "sonny", explore this relality?

Dude? :)

Metaphysics just for fun.

sonny

Metaphysics comes in two forms, the philosophical one, where thinkers of more or less mental acuity come together and try to take a stab at applying logic to the ultimate nature of the universe. Depending on the intelligence of the participants, this can be quite an interesting exercise.

The other form is when kids of more or less abject stupidity come together to try to "feel each other's energy," and instead of using logic, they use their Dungeons and Dragons handbooks to make sense of the ultimate nature of the universe. Depending on the hotness of the participants, this can be a quite fun exercise.

Metaphysics comes in two forms, the philosophical one, where thinkers of more or less mental acuity come together and try to take a stab at applying logic to the ultimate nature of the universe. Depending on the intelligence of the participants, this can be quite an interesting exercise.

The other form is when kids of more or less abject stupidity come together to try to "feel each other's energy," and instead of using logic, they use their Dungeons and Dragons handbooks to make sense of the ultimate nature of the universe. Depending on the hotness of the participants, this can be a quite fun exercise.

Napster I agree with the above :) . :hitout:

:bike: , If you claim to be real and I claim to be real, then how can you and I explore things? :matrix:

:banana: Am I a banana? I don't think so. I know that you Napster are not a banana. How can we (and others, who are very much wecome too, if they wish?) explore things? If you wish to? I am going to play for a while even if you do or not. :)

Napster you are real. Can we (and others who may wish too) explore wether I am or not?

sonny/acaveyogi

So guys what effect do our minds have over "Creation", if we are actually in control of our minds? :)

sonny

And if one really wants to have control over their own mind :) how can this possibly (maybe :) ) be done?

sonny

I would rather not discuss questions of metaphysics. The topic simply does not interest me. I don't care to try to apply logic to the base nature of existence. We exist, nothing more needs to be said.

Instead, I want to discuss the human experience. Metaphysics is ancient philosophy. It attempts to posit a type of existence that isn't human, that is universal. This to me is a futile pursuit, doomed from the very beginning.

I would rather not discuss questions of metaphysics. The topic simply does not interest me. I don't care to try to apply logic to the base nature of existence. We exist, nothing more needs to be said.

Instead, I want to discuss the human experience. Metaphysics is ancient philosophy. It attempts to posit a type of existence that isn't human, that is universal. This to me is a futile pursuit, doomed from the very beginning.

HI :)

I would rather not discuss questions of metaphysics. The topic simply does not interest me. I don't care to try to apply logic to the base nature of existence. We exist, nothing more needs to be said.

Humm :) Napster explain to a five year old that there is a bigger world out there than their fenced in back yard.

Instead, I want to discuss the human experience. Metaphysics is ancient philosophy. It attempts to posit a type of existence that isn't human, that is universal. This to me is a futile pursuit, doomed from the very beginning.

Maybe Napster :)

Ok then, lets you and I (if you wish) talk about the "human experience."

ONE) All decisions that we make are based on what we know. And these descisions have an affect on the reality that creates the reality that we live in as an individual person.

TWO) We don't know any different because what we know is suppose to be real. Our ancestors surived because they knew what we know and by the time we were six we locked into their gift.

THREE) So Napster, what is it about the "human experience" that causes you to be here? In the midsts of :) shall we say, "The Philosophy" of a possibly different reality, than "standard issue?"

sonny

Napster explain to a five year old that there is a bigger world out there than their fenced in back yard.

Why? They'll find out soon enough.

Ok then, lets you and I (if you wish) talk about the "human experience."

Why don't you start by explaining your own experiences. Then I'll tell you what I think of them. I can't get a bearing on what you mean or what you're about without knowing where you came from.

Guys, what in the heck is metaphysics?

My dictionary says something about this: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter.Nap has given the fairest answer.

My personal favourite way of thinking about it is this: Physics (in the loosest sense) is about our awareness of how the universe is and works. Metaphysics is about our awareness of our awareness of how the universe is and works. It is a shift of attention from thinking about things to thinking about ourselves thinking about things.

All a bit circular and ambiguous I know, but I like the subtlety and Plain English-ness of this view.

My personal favourite way of thinking about it is this: Physics (in the loosest sense) is about our awareness of how the universe is and works. Metaphysics is about our awareness of our awareness of how the universe is and works. It is a shift of attention from thinking about things to thinking about ourselves thinking about things.

All a bit circular and ambiguous I know, but I like the subtlety and Plain English-ness of this view.
Very nice Blob!
Good to see you again.

Why? They'll find out soon enough.



Why don't you start by explaining your own experiences. Then I'll tell you what I think of them. I can't get a bearing on what you mean or what you're about without knowing where you came from.

Why don't you start by explaining your own experiences. Then I'll tell you what I think of them.

:) Well Napster that was honest on your part... Yepper! :)

One) We are out here in the unknown.
Two) We are out here in the unknown.
Three) We are out here in the unknown. :)

Napster, I don't have to convince you of anything. Not a single thing. Noper.

Napster you have created me and this messageboard. What if I don't want to be your creation? Will I be allowed to exist? I don't know you. And I don't know what power you carry. A "spear carrier" in your world that is concerned for their loved ones.

sonny

Nap has given the fairest answer.

My personal favourite way of thinking about it is this: Physics (in the loosest sense) is about our awareness of how the universe is and works. Metaphysics is about our awareness of our awareness of how the universe is and works. It is a shift of attention from thinking about things to thinking about ourselves thinking about things.

All a bit circular and ambiguous I know, but I like the subtlety and Plain English-ness of this view.

Hi Blob!

Metaphysics is actually about our mind's ability to affect "Creation". Science says that it can't be done. But medical science says that there might be somethiig going on realitive to our bodies. :)

Circular works for me Blob! :) We are both a creation of Napster's. :) Or maybe yours, Blob.

sonny

Hi Starsha and wecome!

You are very much loved!

John

Science says that it can't be done.

This is absurd. Science says no such thing.

Thanks Sal!

Circular works for me Blob! Cool. Circular reasoning is much maligned. It can be fallacious but it also helps us to see so-called paradoxes such as "the world shapes ideas vs. ideas shape the world" and "mind is a product of brain vs. brain is a product of mind" as positive feedback loops.

This is absurd. Science says no such thing.

Ok :) If it works for you it works for me :) Maybe....

sonny....

Cool. Circular reasoning is much maligned. It can be fallacious but it also helps us to see so-called paradoxes such as "the world shapes ideas vs. ideas shape the world" and "mind is a product of brain vs. brain is a product of mind" as positive feedback loops.

Blob, what you have posted is very interesting, to me anyway :)

It is not standard "dribble".

Blob, I am inclinded to think that you are dangerous :) There in nothing worse than a mind that is thinking :) And then calls itself "Blob". Sheesh! :)

Sonny

So anyway can our minds effect/manipulate "Creation"? Obviously I don't walk on water. And if any of you guys can I am sure everybody would know about it. So is there anybody out there that can actually effect things with their mind? Besides me :) (with the understanding that I do not walk on water or move mountains or actually bend spoons :) ).

sonny

So anyway can our minds effect/manipulate "Creation"? Obviously I don't walk on water. And if any of you guys can I am sure everybody would know about it. So is there anybody out there that can actually effect things with their mind? Besides me :) (with the understanding that I do not walk on water or move mountains or actually bend spoons :) ).

sonny
We all control the way we experience the day and the people around us and the effort we put forth. What we give out comes back in spades. We create our own experience of the world. Does floating on water count? ;)

Thanks Sonny! And nice to have you here.

We all control the way we experience the day and the people around us and the effort we put forth. What we give out comes back in spades. We create our own experience of the world. Does floating on water count? ;)

Sal it depends on what you define as water :)

And Sal welcome to this conversation. :)

I always end up with the "One Hand Clapping Thing", I have no idea why people don't like me :) I am just sure that I don't, argg!

Anyway wecome,

sonny

Thanks Sonny! And nice to have you here.

Thank you Blob and we can talk about anything that you or others wish too, as long as the administrator or the Mods don't care. A man "pontificates" on what he knows and I have been a mystic for 52 years. So I have a tendency to "nest" in Mystic/Metaphysics stuff :) you know how this could possibly be :) maybe?

sonny

Sal it depends on what you define as water :)

And Sal welcome to this conversation. :)

I always end up with the "One Hand Clapping Thing", I have no idea why people don't like me :) I am just sure that I don't, argg!

Anyway wecome,

sonny
Hey sonny, thanks for the welcome, that very sweet of you. I am not into discussing metaphysics in any serious way. More just into finding the harmony around me and sliding into that, making sure I am centered in my approach to things, listening to any universal warnings and just living. :)

I noticed you said you have been a mystic for 52 years. Do you believe in a god/gods? Life after life? Reincarnation?

Hey sonny, thanks for the welcome, that very sweet of you. I am not into discussing metaphysics in any serious way. More just into finding the harmony around me and sliding into that, making sure I am centered in my approach to things, listening to any universal warnings and just living. :)

I noticed you said you have been a mystic for 52 years. Do you believe in a god/gods? Life after life? Reincarnation?

finding the harmony around me and sliding into that, making sure I am centered in my approach to things, listening to any universal warnings and just living. :)

Sal what you have posted above is wisdom. Nobody with any sense would ever disagree with that. Noper!

[QUOTE=Sal]I noticed you said you have been a mystic for 52 years. Do you believe in a god/gods? Life after life? Reincarnation?[/QUOTE

Yeper, I do.

I wouldn't use the word "believe", But based on my experience, I find the above statement real. Including the concept of God and gods. There is a whole nether world out there and kicking around in it is interesting.

Physical Immortality is real (at least until the final judgement :) ). One's mind's ability to screw with things (metaphysics), relative to creation, is also real.

Input?

sonny

I noticed you said you have been a mystic for 52 years. Do you believe in a god/gods? Life after life? Reincarnation?

Yeper, I do.

I wouldn't use the word "believe", But based on my experience, I find the above statement real. Including the concept of God and gods. There is a whole nether world out there and kicking around in it is interesting.

Physical Immortality is real (at least until the final judgement :) ). One's mind's ability to screw with things (metaphysics), relative to creation, is also real.

Input?
sonny[/QUOTE]
Input? Well sonny there is a lot there. God or gods? Yeah I believe in an ultimate God... the ultimate source and also lesser "gods". As for the nether world, that was an accidental discovery of mine while meditating. Found a whole new level. Still don't know if it was real and frankly don't care as it opened new avenues for me on this plane.

Pysical Immortality yeah. Been here before and done that. Need a few more visits yet if ya get my drift. As for screwing with creation, that's beyond me yet and possibly for this life anyway.

People only see what they are prepared to see.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sal, that boy was wise :)

sonny

All right, lets start here:

One's mind is a "Thought" generator and one's body is a manifestation of thought.

When you do not want to maintain a body anymore, for whatever reason, your body falls apart and dies (Oh, and goes back to dirt, dust, stuff :) )

Sal doesn't care, but does anybody else want to know how the gods kept that from happening to their bodies? :)

It doesn't matter if you don't want to know, I am going to tell you anyway :)

Yepper, if the administrator and moderators of the messageboard will continue to allow me to nest here in this forum. :)

Hey Sal, call me on it :) Blob? Anybody?

Acaveyogi

All right, lets start here:

One's mind is a "Thought" generator and one's body is a manifestation of thought.

When you do not want to maintain a body anymore, for whatever reason, your body falls apart and dies (Oh, and goes back to dirt, dust, stuff :) )An interesting idea.

Sal doesn't care, but does anybody else want to know how the gods kept that from happening to their bodies? :)

It doesn't matter if you don't want to know, I am going to tell you anyway :) Now how come Sal doesn't care? :) Soooooo tell us even though I don't care. ;)

Yepper, if the administrator and moderators of the messageboard will continue to allow me to nest here in this forum. :) The mods on this board are great sonny. They don't care what we talk about so long as we respect each other so nest away.

Hey Sal, call me on it :) Blob? Anybody? I'm calling you on it cave yogi.

An interesting idea.

Now how come Sal doesn't care? :) Soooooo tell us even though I don't care. ;)

The mods on this board are great sonny. They don't care what we talk about so long as we respect each other so nest away.

I'm calling you on it cave yogi.

Hi Sal :) just checking to see if you are real. And you are! I was on this messageboard two years ago (acaveyogi) and actually enjoyed my visit. Ok?

In over four years this is the only messageboard that I was ever on that was fun. The conversation was fun and the people were fun. I had to come back and hang out for a while. Based on my experience, "All Forums" is a rare place. A place where good people hang out (Hats off to the Amin. And his/her choice of mods).

Sal you have called me to the carpet and it was "very" well done. I am happy about this. It means that things are still real. Hugs and Love! John

The face beyond the mask:

http://acaveyogi.blogspot.com/

acaveyogi

Interesting...

A (more or less) description of metaphysics that I like is found in the wikipedia article of this subjet. I paste it below:

"... metaphysical statements are not meaningless statements, but rather that they are generally not fallible, testable or provable statements (see Karl Popper). That is to say, there is no valid set of empirical observations nor a valid set of logical arguments, which could definitively prove metaphysical statements to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world or about the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically verifiable. That idea could be changed in a non-arbitrary way, based on experience or argument, yet there exists no evidence or argument so compelling that it could rationally force a change in that idea, in the sense of definitely proving it false."

So, in short, metaphytics are speculations about the nature of...well, just about anything. Therefore, for good reason , it's not a very satisfactory pursuit for the positivists (Wittgenstein followers); and it is not a useful pursuit (although interesting, like day dreaming is interesting) for the pragmatists (including myself).

isn't that the bad guy from that cartoon where all the superheros hung out at a place called the justice league or something.? you had to get the dude to say his name backwards and he'd disappear

Metaphysics is all speculation :) Too cool!

So Dio, that means that once "speculation" can be proven it is nolonger metaphysics. So ok :) if it is nolonger metaphysics, then what is it?

sonny

The problem with metaphysics is that it isn't scientific. That rules out the possibility of proof.

sonny5700

For a statement to be metaphysical it must be phrased in an unprovable way. So I should have said Unprovable Speculations.

But to answer your question. I am not sure metaphysics has an exact antithesis. So a speculation that is provable can be anything. Anything but metaphysics.

Proof shmoof. Proof can be as trivial as the difference between 99.9% probable and 100% probable.

Anyway surely "the nature of proof" itself a metaphysical concern and therefore not applicable as a statement of metaphysical validity.

Proof is by no means a metaphysical concern. It's a semantic one.

Proof is by no means a metaphysical concern. It's a semantic one.Hmmm. Never really thought about that before. I guess I consider truth to be a semantic concern so proof it follows proof is too.

The problem with metaphysics is that it isn't scientific. That rules out the possibility of proof.

So guys :) what is the difference between a "Hypothesis" and a "Theory"?

Westen science versus western philosophy :)

Plato (the father of western philosiphy) said that one's mind can study things and know. Western science says prove it.

This forum is "Mysticism/ Metaphysics". Can one's mind study things as a mystic/philosopher and then prove to science that these things are real? :)

Yes, you guys are not scientists and yes, you guys are not mystics. But activity is the life of a messageboard. So none of it matters. Can we create activity anyway?

I am a mystic and you guys are a gift to this messageboard. Can we create activity? And let God sort it out :)

Love,

sonny

I think non-scientific types should forget all about theory and hypothesis and law. The concept just seems to be way too much for them.

A hypothesis is an idea we think may be right but awaits confirmation. Theory has at least two meanings--the popular meaning is roughly synonymous with hypothesis, and the professional (scientific) meaning is "a body of knowledge," such as in "atomic theory."

Philosophy and science and religion all blend together, and the boundaries are man-made for our convenience. Philosophers of science have decreed that something cannot be "science" unless it is replicable--an observation or an experiment must be capable of being done over and over before it is science.

Religion is, I think, a form of philosophy about a narrow range of subjects--mainly speculations about things outside of nature; another definition looks at the traditions that are commonly called "religions" and points to them and says, "That is religion."

Philosophy can be viewed as the daddy of both science and religion (they are branches of philosophy). Philosophy has quite a few other branches. I think of philosophy distinguished from science in that philosophy consists mainly of thought experiments and science, while it employs thought experiments, requires actual experiments sooner or later.

Now can I ask you to define "mystic." You seem to be saying that mysticism deals with truths that cannot be demonstrated (prooved).

As such the mystic must be dealing with things analagous to the exobiologist. We don't know that there is life out there, but we damn well suspect there probably is, so we speculate about it in exobiology. Similarly, we don't know that there are unexplainable phenomena (by definition we couldn't know), but we suspect there probably is, so we speculate about it.

So guys :) what is the difference between a "Hypothesis" and a "Theory"?
I like Thislin's response, but would like to add my own thoughts as well.

The most simplified definition of "hypothesis" is: a testable question with an educated-guess as a result. Example: "I hypothesize that if I pour water into a container of sodium, will it explode? I hypthesize that 'yes it will'." To expound, often a scientist will have "multiple working hypotheses" when they are investigating a set of data. I'm a geologist, so I use this phrase often when doing research. For instance, I might come across a set of juxtaposed rock formations in the field, the juxtaposition of which could be explained through several geologic processes. I would have, therefore, multiple working hypotheses running through my brain (and jotted in my notebook), and would walk to another location that I think would exhibit something that might help narrow down the possibilities. This would commonly result in more questions being generated, and some answered. The point here is that the testing of a scientific hypothesis is not always a discrete process. Hypothesis 'A' followed by test 'A' does not always lead immediately to answer 'A'. There are often many intervening questions (hypotheses) that crop up, requiring their own tests. The questions can balloon, and often do. In the process, though, most times the original hypothesis gets answered. The other questions become fodder for further research by the original investigator, or a future investigator.

The term "theory" (scientific) is only invoked after an extremely large number of tested hypotheses relating to an all-encompassing idea all end up supporting the idea. There are additional terms you might wonder about. "Law", for instance. Why do they call it the "law" of gravity, rather than the "theory" of gravity?

Westen science versus western philosophy :)

There's no such thing as "western science". Just "science". There may be certain differences from culture to culture, but fundamentally the process is the same.

Plato (the father of western philosiphy) said that one's mind can study things and know. Western science says prove it.

I'm not sure I see the difference.

This forum is "Mysticism/ Metaphysics". Can one's mind study things as a mystic/philosopher and then prove to science that these things are real? :)

How do you mean? Do you mean, can I ponder something and weigh things out mentally, and then prove something to "science"? Yes, if you can show it through repeatable tests.

Yes, you guys are not scientists and yes, you guys are not mystics. But activity is the life of a messageboard. So none of it matters. Can we create activity anyway?

Sure. I am a scientist, though. And I love discussions about philosophy, religion, science, fishing, beer (ask me about the great geologic breakthrough that involved beer sometime!), women, ...

I am a mystic and you guys are a gift to this messageboard. Can we create activity? And let God sort it out :)

To heck with God. We can sort it out on our own.

Jack

I see a term like "law" (as in "Newton's laws of motion") and "fact" as nineteenth century vocabulary still used in certain contexts because they have become frozen into the language.

Today a "law" is better described as "theory" and a "fact" is better described as "data" or "observation."

This newer vocabulary has the benefit of expressing far better what scientific knowledge is--it is not fact and law--these express a teleological world-view that we no longer have.

I would like to quibble a little about the statement that there is no such thing as "Western science." The sense of this is that science is science, just as common sense is common sense.

There are, however, difference in the way scientific questions are approached from culture to culture. It is subtle, but there is a "American science" that differs from a "French science" from a "Chinese science" (which often tries to model itself after Confucian scholarship).

In Asia, even though now producing more and more competent scientists, it is still referred to as "Western science" (even if discovered by a Japanese). This is especially true for medicine.

I think the reason is an unwillingness to give up the validity of alternative modes of thinking that originated in Asia--a defense of idea systems, such as fengshui or qi--which are seen as not being "Western science" but are seen as Asian science.

I understand your point, which is why I tried (poorly) to explain that while there are differences in approach, the goal is (or should be) the same from culture to culture. The goal is to answer a question through empirical testing. My point is that science is (or should be) non-cultural at its core. Certain scientists may approach a question from a different angle than other scientists, which may have something to do with underlying cultural influences--but the goal is still the same. The benefit derived from differing approaches is important, however, for hopefully obvious reasons.

Ergo, western science is a flavor without fundamental difference from, say, eastern science.

I would ask what is "scientific" about fengshui or qi? Is there rigorous scientific inquiry into the validity of these idea systems? Why should Asian scientific inquiry differ from western scientific inquiry into such things?

I would ask what is "scientific" about fengshui or qi? Is there rigorous scientific inquiry into the validity of these idea systems? Why should Asian scientific inquiry differ from western scientific inquiry into such things?

My dogmatic Vietnamese friends see both of them as superstition--perhaps more adamantly than you would.

Arguing about such matters is a little like arguing with a convinced astrologer. You say there is no repeatable rigorous scientific inquiry, and they assert that there is--and produce stuff produced by the astrological community for their proof. It is a case of a polar bear and a penguin trying to communicate from their opposite poles.

Underlying this sort of thing is a fundamental problem--we think of "science" as being the stuff of universities and peer-reviewed journals; others have a broader definition.

Let me take, for example, the subject of ghosts. These are dismissed by "Western scientists," almost certainly correctly, as delusional superstition. Still, there is a whole culture in America of spectral "investigators" who have produced a considerable literature on the subject. What are we to make of this literature, when so much of it seems to us to reek of special pleading, but which is taken as "science" by those in the group?

I have long wondered how it is that we separate out real science from these pretenders. Various attempts to spell out the difference have been made, and I have come to the personal conclusion that it has to do with smell. This is not objective, but I have not seen an objective test that applies effectively.

The scientific enterprise manages to keep a remarkable uniformity by means of subtle pressures--especially that of reputation. Every now and then a respected scientist goes off the deep end and comes to be viewed as either eccentric or as a dinosaur or as a crackpot--especially when the consensus has moved on and they have not (Agassiz comes to mind, but Fred Hoyle or Linus Pauling could also be mentioned).

The Asian advocate of qi (a sort of energy principle that forms the theoretical foundation of Chinese medicine) will cite "evidence" (generally anecdotes and testimonies) of the fact that Chinese medicine is often effective. The Western practitioner has an armament of reasons why this approach is invalid. The typical Chinese figures to do both Western and Chinese methods, since that would logically seem to improve the odds of a cure.

As I have spent the last half dozen years in Asia, I have run into a similar culture of people--both Asians and Westerners--advancing evidence in favor of the idea of rebirth--actually producing children who claim memories of previous lives, and so on. Much of it is astonishing (the world of coincidence produces astonishing things, especially when one is actively looking for them).

I don't know whether we are reborn or not, just as I don't know whether ghosts represent some sort of real phenomenon or whether the planets exert some sort of unknown influence on us, but they all share a certain odor. This being subjective, I sometimes ask whether if I were less scientifically trained, I would smell things the same.