Austere physicalism may sound unappealing, but actually it is a great philosophy of life

I’ve always referred to my approach as being a naturalist (akin to naturalism). I like the term as it describes my everyday experience (despite the observation that science shows that our brains typically reconstruct the world as a “best guess.) Experiencing reality directly means observing the data of our senses and consciousness without filtering them through mental labels, memories, or interpretations – that is, before overlaying them with concepts.

Graham uses the term ‘austere physicalism’. Very similar to my naturalist experience of the world and everything. Graham says: “Austere physicalism seems to doom everything that makes life worth living, sucking beauty and meaning out of the world. If consciousness itself is eliminated, with it too goes the central wonder of human existence … “But he does qualify that; he adds: “The elimination of consciousness, if it ever happens, would be a theoretical process which would affect our subjective experience not one iota.”

This all gets interesting. One could say that consciousness is not ‘me’. It merely describes one of the organism’s many functions. Could we then live without consciousness, without the ‘subjective experience’ as Graham postulates? He goes on to say: “Neuroscientific insights allow me to marvel over how my brain manages to stitch sensory fragments together to make what seems to be a coherent picture of the world.” Are these ‘fragments’, the contents the brain has access to that give the ‘impression’ of consciousness?

For example, neuroscience increasingly suggests that the “self” is not a core essence, but a kind of narrative construction—a model your brain builds to make sense of experience. Stephen Hawking referred to the mind as being information: he often described the brain as a complex system that processes information. Could consciousness also be grouped along with all the body/brain functions as part of a unified, naturally aware body/brain organism?

Rastafarianism is a great approach to life too and it sounds very similar to your beliefs. I’m thinking about doing it because if you’ve ever been to Jamaica you see that they live like naturalists and are generally very moral and happy performers, the one that play music. Seeing as how radha soami was started by a hukkah smoking saint and Charan Singh had a special fondness for ” hippies” and at the same time classical music. But you just do the steps that you’ve been shown by everyone you’ve ever known until the dance becomes your very own. I’m sure we each have our own philosophy and that’s that book that each one of us has inside of us they say. Philosophy of the Masters will always be the only book I’ll ever need and the only philosophy I’ll ever have to actually want to live by. I know Gurinder was not anti-drugs at all. You just don’t want to be addicted to anything. Not even meditation. And if you are addicted deny it.

The preference for physics rests on its unmatched predictive success and ability to correct errors in naive experience. However, it is not epistemically bulletproof because physics is built on top of phenomenology and human cognition — the very things declared unreliable. This creates a circularity or bootstrapping problem.

Moreover, if it’s abundantly clear that atheism is truth and an uncaring, wholly material universe is the only reality, then what need is there to read more books on the topic? Indeed, what precisely is the topic?

Neuroscientific insights allow us to marvel. Well, Guru bhakti also allows us to marvel. One can argue that both are equal facilitators of marvel. One can also argue that either marvel is useless.

When the big bang requires inventing new laws of physics that had to exist before the big bang, that don’t actually exist today, (we conjecture they existed once, to make the math work) then I think this notion of “Austere Physicalism” must be acknowledged as a yet another product of human imagination.

The concept of “Austere Physicalism” is really just a way to reinvent one’s own version of reality. A version that eliminates all the things the author wishes to label as “unreal” or “Imagined”. But of course, that is their imagined borderline. In the version of reality and illusion they are imagining.

You see, they are imagining what reality is, and they are imagining what it is not. Both things make up their imagined “reality”.

Science has taught us some wonderful things, all because of imagination that is guided by strange results, and which guides further observation using instruments far better than our senses.

But not necessarily better than all our senses, or even encompassing all of them.

I think some people in the Atheist camp, as in the religious camp, can’t help but try to build their own monopoly on Truth.

It all falls apart when you understand those definitions rely on words, and words are nothing more than symbols for other things, and not always very good or accurate ones. Never entirely accurate.

If you must paint over reality with your concept, then Austere Physicalism can’t be and aint it.

“Austere Physicalism” LOL….Put aside words, go and listen, go and see.

If you want to be a truly Austere Physicalist, then words are the first thing that must be tossed out. Let’s enjoy a moment of sheer silence and just experience all there is……
………
………
Ah, now isn’t that better?

I don’t think we should be afraid of science. There is a mass of manipulation and lies being spread around at the present (especially in the USA under Trump), attempting to put science in a bad light. Topics like COVID and climate change have all been politicised. Scientists are particularly concerned as the administration is: – Denying grants that don’t align with the administration’s beliefs: Allowing grants to be terminated if the results are politically inconvenient: Erecting barriers to international scientific collaboration: Basing funding decisions on applicants’ history and organisational “affiliations. The list goes on.

My point is, science is gradually being attacked. It used to be religions that challenged science; now it is the government, and with such a prominent voice, people are being bamboozled into believing what they are told – especially where the rhetoric is aimed at eliciting fears of standards of living being affected.

Science generally is not in the business of searching for the ‘truth’, it’s aim is to build knowledge about the natural world, to explain how things work – and to that end, it cannot be denied that science has extended our knowledge tremendously, frequently at the expense of long-held religious beliefs – and also as a counter to many a dictator’s personal beliefs – or ambitions.

Graham’s ‘Austere Physicalism’ is just another working theory, and if it ruffles some feathers, then that is a sign that one’s fixed views and wishes are felt to be under attack. I’ll finish with a quote from Anal Seth’s ‘Being You’. Although he favours physicalism (everything in reality is ultimately physical), he is also agnostic about such a stance. On discussing consciousness, he states: “This is why I favour a functionally agnostic flavour of physicalism. To me, that is the most pragmatic and productive mindset to adopt when pursuing a science of consciousness. It is also, as far as I’m concerned, the most intellectually honest.”

If science is seen as a threat, then it could be one’s own beliefs, and even one’s own self-image, one’s own self-construct that is felt as being attacked.

Keeping on the sunny side of life I don’t view Trump as the worst American president ever but instead I see him as the first, only and therefore best American dictator ever. The problem with rssb is that was the method of their line of gurus( dictatorship) but it would be stupid to serve two masters at once. In fact it’s impossible to serve two masters at once. Serve yourself.

A life with God, living in the presence of God is a reality for many, part of their daily, physical life. Part of their experience. And it is also not so for many. I think it is best to acknowledge which camp you are in and own it without attempting to invalidate those in the other camp. If you can say “I’m a severe, austere, maybe even stingy physicality fan, it’s my truth, but I don’t pretend to know, to believe or invalidate yours” then you may have something, at least for yourself. It’s not a matter of whose back yard is nicer. It’s really a matter of honoring our own back yard, acknowledging it honestly, without pushing our fence line into our neighbor’s back yard.

That tendency of needing to draw conclusions about how other people live is an interesting, very human way to try to make up for some gap in our sense of self. People make up for this very human gap in several ways.

For me, the best way to live without needing to judge others, without needing their lack to create my sense of self, that doesn’t impose on anyone, consists of four steps.

First, there is simple acknowledgement and acceptance. This is the reality of my life, this is what I experience, this is what I like and don’t like, this is my goal for who I wish to become, or not become. And this is my past, that has shaped the way I see reality and make choices. I can’t change my past. Its influence on me is complete. I am the product of the past. The world I see, physical or otherwise, is built on the things that make me feel secure, and also built on actively denying those things I think threaten my security.

I do have limited capacity to make some changes in my conditioning, if I wish to. But that wish is also conditioned. I can expose myself to some new experiences, new conditioning, and sometimes this happens without my consent, just as an event of life. Whatever that ends up being will also change me, but only to a degree. And only by my choice. If I try to fit whatever happens into my current way of thinking, to justify that somehow I was right, that is certainly a flag that I’m pushing back on what otherwise might be some new learning. When I get defensive that’s a sure sign I’m wrong.

But I can start by doing me best to at least acknowledge my situation, and the reality I experience, and how my past has made me what I am and how I view things.

Second, I can work hard to forgive. A lot of my conditioning is based on negative experiences the I may resent from the past. But those things made me the nice person I think I am today. And had things gone my way, well, the world is full of examples of rich and powerful people who got their way, often easily, but maybe more often, through significant blood, sweat and tears. Yet, for all the nobility of their effort, genius and intention, despite that, they have been transformed nevertheless, without their knowledge, by wealth and power. And as a result of all that wealth and power, they have become human disasters.

So maybe I can learn to forgive everyone and everything, including myself, and not carry that burden, and not be so willing to judge others. To forgive the world, and myself, as a part of accepting, acknowledging, and as a result seeing things as they are, that we are all the result of our conditioning, and with some balance, and learning to see things about myself I may have hated, which are just human, and maybe even nice. And to see other things that I was proud of that really are shameful, and to just let them go, to step away from them without needing to hold onto them, without needing to blame anyone, just happy to see them calmly and be glad today I don’t need to defend those things or carry them anymore.

Then there is submission as the path to real learning. Who is greater than I? Every teacher of a new skill or subject. Even a book can be greater than I, in its topic. This is so because the teacher or book is a functional part of reality, while I am just my best guess. So I can submit my entire self to their instruction, their wisdom, whatever that is. And grow as a result. The experience may be pleasant or unpleasant. Unfortunately, hard work is always the first requirement of gaining real value, just as is submitting to something other than ourselves in order to actually grow.

And finally, we must sacrifice a part, or actually all, of ourselves to become anything more or better. Because whatever part of what we were that remains hold is back.We must become nothing to gain everything of real value. If you sacrifice youth, which is fleeting and false, for not just years but real age, then you have something. There is your connection with the eternal.

Acknowledgement, Acceptance. Forgiveness. Submission and Sacrifice. The entire physical universe is doing this 24/7. It’s been popular for some time.

Graham’s take here seems perfectly reasonable. But I do have a couple …niggles, questions? Those same niggles and questions that I’d raised earlier.

1. He started out saying higher level realities are illusory. That wasn’t just hyperbole, he was quite specific: He spelled out that higher realities are illusory in that they lack causal power. …Well, he seems to be walking that back here. …So, doesn’t he clearly discuss, in his book, why he’d said what he’d said prior, and on what basis he’s walking it back now?

2. He’s tying everything to not just “physicalism”, but actually to “fundamental” physics, to the “lowest level” reality, to QM. So, given that QM hasn’t yet been reconciled with relativity, isn’t he kind of jumping the gun there in making that claim? Does he talk about why he’s saying this?

———-

It’s cool, absolutely no disagreement per se implied! He’s the physicist, talking physics, I’m happy to just listen on. And nor is he saying anything here that disagrees with my larger worldview. (Ehh, he isn’t even saying anything at all remarkable, for that matter.) …Just, given he’s written a whole book apparently around this theme, then I was wondering if he’s clarified these things, is all.

Quote sant64: “…if it’s abundantly clear that atheism is truth and an uncaring, wholly material universe is the only reality, then what need is there to read more books on the topic?”

Tell me you’re a closed-minded anti-intellectual without telling me you’re a closed-minded anti-intellectual.

———-

Quote Spence: “When the big bang requires inventing new laws of physics that had to exist before the big bang…”

It doesn’t.

“I don’t think we should be afraid of science.”

“We” should, Ron.

If “our” worldview and self-view are entwined with anti-scientific claptrap; and “our” self-image is entwined with that self-view: then yes, “we” should indeed be wary of science. And “we” should, indeed, try to discredit science, and when opportunity arises to misrepresent it. So that “we” can maintain said self-image and facade.

@AR “If “our” worldview and self-view are entwined with anti-scientific claptrap; and “our” self-image is entwined with that self-view: then yes, “we” should indeed be wary of science.”

No argument from me re anti-science claptrap, just that real science such as that which addresses medicine, technology, food, ‘clean’ energy and so on is to our benefit. But you have misread me. My point was re Graham’s ‘Austere Physicalism’ is not to be feared as it’s just another working theory. And, as Anal Seth states, although he favours physicalism, he is also agnostic about such a stance – an honest approach.

No, what is feared in science is the uncovering of superstition and erroneous beliefs. Science is not in the business of searching for the ‘truth’, it’s aim is to build knowledge about the natural world, to explain how things work. To this end, scientific discoveries show how we evolved, that Earth is not the centre of the universe, the Earth is not flat, mentally disturbed people are possessed by devils, etc.

Some try to undermine science, where they have an investment in maintaining the belief or hope that there is something more to life than a mere physical existence. Basically, the answer is ‘we do not know’, but the evidence, as shown by science and also through our own observations, does not suggest any ‘super’natural intervention. Anyone who says they ‘know’ such things is not being honest to themselves, as it lies in the realms of belief, not fact.

Be afraid of science, be very afraid because it’s all true. Global warming. Climate and weather trauma. People’s brains turned to mush because of AI. I’m scared but noways tired.

Many scientists are atheists. They see the laws of physics at work, truly a mystery, and a miracle, and yet these laws in action, reliable, repeatable, testable, point to a system as the cause of all measurable events.

The very notion that all laws of physics emerged with time and matter is an incredible, elegant and fantastic notion. But that particular statement can’t be falsified. It can’t be tested by science, which is limited to the dependent variables of this existing creation.

Many scientists, including the Father of physics, Isaac Newton, hold very deep beliefs in God. For them, these beautiful laws and all of science are the actualization of an incredible and loving creator.

Newton famously was asked ‘what is the cause of these laws of physics?’ He famously replied, “I frame no hypothesis.”

He did not attempt to connect belief with science. When all things are taken as evidence of a creator, there is nothing with which to test the existence of the creator. It is a belief, an experience, not an experiment. And as the creator of all events, such belief, at that all-encompassing level, is not falsifiable. The cause of all this incredible and stunning science is himself untestable. It’s a belief, based upon personal experience, and as such has personal verification aplenty. But as science, it cannot be tested. Existence of any definable element can be tested. But existence itself cannot.

Now there are bad scientists and weak believers. Whenever anyone wants to claim something as evidence to support a particular system of belief, they tread on rocky terrain because any argument rests on the premises you choose to accept, and the variables as you choose to define them. And that choice is generally driven by our conditioning. Logic is a beautiful prostitute who will assume any position for a fee. Logic was here long before AI, but both work in a similar way.

There is great wisdom in choosing not to believe in what is defined by human beings, human invention.

But there is incredible beauty, compassion and wisdom in such inventions. Perhaps they do reflect on something greater which is beyond interpretation, artificial labels and attributions. I like to believe so. It feels right and gives me great solace to think that this creation is far more intelligent and capable than I, even if those qualities are deeply hidden and only glimpsed when we let the creations of our own mind go.

Bump!

(To draw attention to the two substantive points I’d raised here in my initial comment, that may have gotten lost in the flood of complete nonsense that followed.)

One: Why exactly did Graham say that higher manifest realities lack causal power, and in that sense are illusory? And on what basis did he subsequently end up walking back that assertion/proposition/claim of his?

And two: On what basis is he suggesting that the lowest level, the fundamental quantum level, is where causal power vests for all of reality, given that we’re not yet arrived at a Theory of Everything that links Relativity with QM (and so are not in a position, as far as I can see, to assert that such a direct one-to-one causal linkage and mapping necessarily even exists)?

———-

I’m not trying to nitpick here! …And again: I myself completely agree with Graham’s broad theme, which is that physicalism causes all and explains all. No disagreement there.

Just, that’s …not really saying much at all, is it? Given he’s written a whole book around this?

I would be very surprised if he hasn’t actually discussed these two questions, probably in detail. …And if he has — as I expect he would have — then we’d stand to gain from his technically informed discussion of these questions.

It all works if you accept Austere Physicality as a point of view, an argument with its strengths and weaknesses. A system of belief, defended eloquently by the author, but limited as are all systems invented by human thought.

For example the author writes that evolution has generated our perceptual experience as a means of utility, for our survival, not strictly accurate but emphasizing the things we need to attend to in order to survive at one time.

But it could also be argued that the imagination, like the imagination of Einstein riding on a wave of light, an internal experience, could just as easily have functional utility, to help the tribe move to an as yet unseen, and perhaps completely unknown, but entirely necessary location for its safety.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Einstein

In this way even imagination has a place in basic survival and therefore in our own evolution as a species.

I read Physics Fixes All the Facts a while ago, and the recent discussion here prompted me to go back through the notes I made at the time. As I see it, Graham is making two separate arguments:

1. There isn’t really a middle ground between austere physicalism and dualism. Any supposedly weaker form of physicalism ultimately reduces to austere physicalism. This makes up most of the book, and I found the argument persuasive.
2. Graham then argues that austere physicalism is preferable to dualism. Whether you find that convincing is probably a matter of philosophical preference.

He acknowledges that physics has significant gaps, but argues that this isn’t a problem for physicalism because, as he puts it, “it is just like any other scientific concept in that it is based on our current knowledge. That’s the best we can ever do.”

His argument that higher-level entities don’t have causal powers is essentially that an event can’t have two independent causes. Either physics is doing the causal work (physicalism), or some higher-level entity is, in which case physics is incomplete or violated (strong emergence or dualism). That’s basically the argument.

I don’t think anything in the previous post about imagination conflicts with austere physicalism, or with dualism, for that matter.

One aspect of the book that I found unsatisfying was how briefly it dealt with consciousness. I’d be interested to hear what others thought about that.

I went back to the book and the short section on consciousness just gives various arguments against the idea of the hard problem:

“What bothers me most about it is the whiff of anthropocentrism. We may no longer be at the centre of things, but we are still the hardest problem in the universe. How cool is that?

Chalmers is correct that it is a problem like no other. But this is because, so far at least, we have only first-person data. I have no way of knowing whether your subjective experience is the same as mine. I have no way of knowing whether you have any subjective experience at all. Without objective evidence, the question is outside the scope of science.

Until we have such evidence, my take is that everyone needs to calm down.”

Thanks for weighing in, Qualiaphile. Appreciate your clarifications.

Since you referenced the general discussion here, allow me to clarify that the “higher-level manifest reality” I was talking about isn’t to do with consciousness, but simply about mundane higher manifestations like books, and chairs, and you and me. While these won’t be possessed of causal power independent of their lower-level physics, including QM level physics: but to therefore suggest that these are not possessed of causal power at all, and therefore are illusory, seems …dicey? (I haven’t read the book myself, and based my observations on just the excerpts and Brian’s discussion: but Brian, who has read the book, agrees with the critique.)

Graham’s overall thesis, that Brian himself discussed, and you spelled out yourself as well, seems perfectly cromulent: just, I was wondering if there was any technical basis to his having argued the above, and if likewise there was any technical basis to his subsequently walking back that position.

(Ditto what I’d asked about QM being taken to be the full-on causal basis even of cosmological-scale reality, even in the absence so far of a ToE. Was wondering if there’s some technical basis to Graham’s taking that line. If there is, then that might be interesting to know.)

———-

There’s one …thought, an argument, that I thought I might share with you.

You suggest that consciousness so far is outside the ambit of science, and therefore we needn’t get all worked up over that question.

My take on this is straightforward. Anything factual that is outside the ambit of science, it is rational and reasonable to provisionally treat as non-existent.

(Allow me to hijack Carl Sagan’s garage dragon here. If I were to claim that I know, beyond doubt, that there’s a dragon in my garage: a garage that’s invisible, that’s weightless, that’s …whatever-you-can-think-of-less, in short, not discernible via any material means: then that dragon is necessarily “outside the scope of science”. While we’re welcome to research the dragon as much as we like, absolutely: but it would be …not rational, not reasonable, to imagine the dragon actually exists, absent evidence.)

Likewise: an extra-physical, extra-material consciousness (that is to say, the idea that consciousness is predicated on anything outside of what Graham describes as “austere physicality”) is non-existent, by any rational and reasonable yardstick.

Agreed that it is silly to make a song and dance about this, beyond (correctly) highlighting the problem itself, and beyond (correctly) recognizing that we don’t yet know the exact mechanism of this, and that this is an area that merits research.

Beyond that, if anyone claims that because this is outside the ambit of science therefore we can’t say one way or the other whether it exists — and by “it”, I again mean consciousness that is anything other than materially based, given that materiality is the only thing we have evidence of — then they’re free to do that, naturally, but they’re in that case not being rational, not being reasonable.

(How you phrase the “let’s all calm down” bit leaves your position kind of ambiguous. If what I’m arguing is what is your position as well, then naturally I’m in fully agreement.)

———-

Incidentally: Completely love your reading habits. I mean where you mention that you’d read this book ages ago, but had made your own notes of it, that you’re preserved, and basis which you’ve reconstructed your understanding of the book. Very cool, I like! I tend to do the same, except by scribbling and marking extensively within the pages of the book itself. (When the book’s mine, that is, naturally!)

I’d like to put down one additional observation, if I may, in connection with Qualiaphile’s observations:

Qualiaphile, you state that: (Graham’s) argument that higher-level entities don’t have causal powers is essentially that an event can’t have two independent causes.”

Well, I’m afraid that argument is …unsound, wrong. Wrong, because it is predicated on a faulty premise.

That assertion, that an event can’t have two independent causes? That’s simply a bald unsupported and apparently random ipse dixitism. There’s no reason, at all, why an event cannot have two, or three, or two hundred and twenty three independent causes!

(That is the same flaw that was taken by Aquinas’ illogic along to the opposite, nonsensical conclusion in favor of the existence of God. In this case the conclusion arrived at is valid, but that’s happenstance, or more likely invalid retrofitting, given that the route taken to arrive at that conclusion is unsound.)

We can indeed, and should indeed, reject the idea that consciousness is not based in physicalism, simply because there’s no evidence bearing that out, and indeed no evidence that there’s anything at all that’s not materially based. It’s a simple straightforward burden of proof thing.

Graham is right to point out that science shows us that physicalism is the cause for everything material. But he is wrong to reject the idea that consciousness comes from outside of materialism, on the grounds that one event or one consequence cannot have more than one cause. (Assuming your recollection of what he’s argued there is correct.)

Thanks for your replies , AppreciativeReader. I think single cause is a little more complicated than that. Take the example of a ball rolling down a slope. You’re right that you can describe its motion as having many different kinds of causes. Someone pushed it. They pushed it because they were curious about what would happen, or because they were bored, or simply because they happened to be there. You can keep expanding that chain indefinitely.

From the perspective of physics, though, the question is different. Either there is a causal chain that is fully consistent with the laws of physics, or there isn’t. If there is, that’s physicalism. If there isn’t, then something non-physical must be contributing to the outcome. Either events unfold according to the laws of physics, in which case the causal work is ultimately done by physical interactions, or they don’t. I think that’s what Graham means by the idea of a single cause in this context.

You mentioned that Graham “walks back that position,” but I don’t read the book that way. Whether or not someone agrees with his conclusions, one thing I appreciated was that he follows the implications of physicalism right to the end instead of stopping halfway.

It’s true that there isn’t a technical proof of physicalism, but I’m not sure that’s a serious problem. Physicalism changes as physics changes. In the nineteenth century it would have been based on Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s equations. Today it’s based on quantum mechanics and general relativity. In the future it may rest on a different physical theory altogether. A philosophical position that doesn’t evolve with knowledge is dogma.

That said, I’m getting to the limits of what I remember from the book. Maybe it would be interesting to invite the author to join the discussion.

“But nothing can have two independent simultaneous causes.”

But why on earth not, Brian?

That is the foundational error in Graham’s reasoning, as it seems to me, and that I spelled out in my last comment addressed to Qualiaphile.

Something can have either no cause (for instance, movement via inertia, if we were to limit ourselves to classical physics, as well as stuff within QM as well, to take two examples that come to mind, not that we necessarily need actual examples for my objection to Graham’s premise to stand), or one single solitary cause, or more than one (independent) cause.

I see absolutely no reason, at all, why on earth Graham assumes that there cannot be more than one independent cause. No reason why some event should not, necessarily, have two, or three, or …well, any number, really, of independent causes!

———-

To tie this abstract argument back to the discussion specifically on consciousness: In showing that causes are tied to physicalism, Graham follows the (IMV fallacious) reasoning above to conclude that, therefore, consciousness is not what is an independent cause — that is, consciousness is either emergent from physicality and therefore dependent on physicality, or else it is altogether illusory. (Either that, or else, at the other extreme, everything springs from consciousness, matter as well.)

There’s a glaring obvious third possibility that’s sitting right there in plain view: Matter and Consciousness could both be two independent entities. Both existing, and both interacting; but both independently existing.

(In fact, Brian, you’ve extensively studied ancient Greek and Indian philosophy, and you’re the guy that literally wrote the authoritative book on Karma! So you’ll recognize what I refer to above as a two-millennia-plus old idea, that comes from an not-quite-fully-mainstream-but-not-yet-quite-fringe and still extant religious/philosophical system, the one that birthed the idea of Karma. …Not that the vintage of that hoary philosophy lends it any creditbility at all: I bring this up just an example from extant philosophy [not that we necessarily need such an example] in pointing out that Graham’s ipse dixit assumption of no-more-than-one-indepenent-cause is completely unwarranted, as I see it, whether generally or specifically in the context of consciousness.)

———-

Sure, we can and do reject the idea of consciousness existing independently from matter, materiality, physicality, absolutely we do! I personally am completely onboard with that conclusion, as you know.

But that’s a straightforward case of simply going by the evidence, and finding none, so far, to support that claim.

Not this no-more-than-one-independent-cause thingy. At least not that I can see.

Of course, all of this is Graham’s view not yours. But still, basis your comment you seem to support his reasoning. And now, basis what I’d said to Qualiaphile prior, and basis what I’ve just now spelled out right here: would you still continue to agree with that reasoning of Graham’s?

———-
———-

Also, Brian: While we’re at it, may I draw your attention to those two questions, issues, doubts, that I’d noted down earlier in this thread. Both of which relate to what we’d already discussed in the last thread. I won’t take up space by repeating what I’d said: but happy to state those afresh if you’d like me to!

Hey, Qualiaphile.

Fair enough, that you’d read this book a long time ago, and don’t remember more of its details. And that Brian himself might do a better job of weighing in on Graham’s arguments.

As you see, he’s done that already. And I’ve just now responded to him. You may find that exchange, plus anything else Brian might now have to say to that, of interest.

———-

To briefly address your apparent defense of Graham’s position in your comment to me:

The ball rolling down a hill? There can be zero cause for it (plain simple inertia); else one single cause (the boy playing with it has kicked it down); or else any number of perfectly plausible independent causes (the boy kicking it down; add to that a sudden strong gust of wind; add to that gravity, coupled with the lay of the land, which is to say the hill, the slope; and so forth).

The premise that an event can have no more than one independent cause? That seems arbitrary, and random, and no more than an unsupported assumption, at least so far as I can see.

(See also my comment to Brian, immediately preceding, for how this might bear directly onto the question of physicalism vis-à-vis consciousness.)

…To be clear: I myself agree with Graham’s conclusion about physicalism, completely so: but that’s simply a case of going by the evidence, is all. Not, so far as I can see, basis some unsupported a priori assumption that there simply cannot be more than one independent cause.

(While agreeing with his conclusion, what I’m finding difficult to wrap my head around, and in fact disagreeing with, is the particular route he takes, the particular reasoning and argument he employs, to arrive at that conclusion)

I agree with you, AppreciativeReader, that any given event can be described as having multiple causes.

The point at issue in the argument for physicalism, though, isn’t really about whether events have one cause or many. It’s about causal exclusion. If a physical explanation is sufficient to account for an event, then there isn’t any causal role left for something non-physical to play. On the other hand, if something non-physical does make a causal difference, then the causal closure of physics is no longer true.

The argument is outlined here:
https://philopedia.org/arguments/causal-exclusion-argument/

Another ambitious but flawed argument in an attempt to eliminate the unknown:
“H causes H*. This can happen in two ways. Either H causes H* directly, shown in the middle panel or H causes P* which then automatically instantiates H*, shown in the right panel. ”

In a time series the cause, P, can actually augment or cause H again. There can be reciprocal causation.

In a dynamic system, the traditional, linear timeline of “Cause → Effect” breaks down, transforming into an ongoing chain where the effect at Time 1 becomes the cause at Time 2.

What this author tries to claim as impossible is in fact part and parcel of physics.

Because space and time are fused into a single four-dimensional fabric (spacetime), you cannot cleanly separate the time steps. In General Relativity, the distribution of matter and the curvature of space are simultaneously locked together. One does not wait for the other; they are co-dependent. The equations must be solved all at once, meaning the distinction between “cause” and “effect” blurs entirely into a single, unified physical reality.

The author bases their argument on an untrue assertion, then uses that as a case for all physics. But what physics actually does is make the case for reciprocal causation, which does not support the author’s assertion. What we see as a result at one level that had a cause at another level of scale can in fact be the cause of forces at that initial scale next.

“Graham’s argument outlines Jaegwon Kim’s Causal Exclusion Argument, but it actually exposes a philosophical error.

Kim’s argument forces a false binary: either accept that fundamental particles are the only real things, or reject physics. This is a radical form of reductionism that modern science has largely outgrown.

First, it relies on a linear, mechanistic view of ’cause and effect’ that ignores the reciprocal causation and feedback loops inherent in actual physics.

Second, it commits a category error regarding what a ’cause’ is. Higher-level states (like biology or consciousness) capture real macroscopic regularities and act as ‘difference-makers’ in the universe in ways that a list of subatomic particles cannot describe.

Finally, using Kim or Graham to support Atheism is completely self-defeating. If higher-level states have no causal power and everything except particle physics is an ‘illusion,’ then human reason, logic, and the scientific method itself are also illusions. You cannot use a philosophical argument that erases the validity of human thought to claim you have rationally deduced a scientific truth about the universe.

It perfectly illustrates my point: it weaponizes a narrow interpretation of science to justify a rigid metaphysical belief.”

Whenever you attempt to eliminate what is currently unknown with some argument, you make a logical and scientific error. It’s scientism, and overreach.

We cannot discuss the whole, but we can discuss the measurable parts.

No way will your argument, for Atheism, in it’s more extreme religious and virulent version, ever defend or make obsolete the necessity to investigate what is yet unknown or unmeasured. That just creates another religion, coopting science, falsely, to do so. And that is a shame, because Atheism is a path to Truth, taken in its humbler version.

Glad we agree on that, Qualiaphile.

And thanks for that link! I’m afraid I’d never ever heard of either Jaegwon Kim, or this Causal Exclusion Argument. I’ll enjoy updating myself by reading up on it.

For now all I’ve checked out from the link is just the summary of it, right at the start, that says: “The causal exclusion argument claims that if every physical event has a sufficient physical cause, then there is no non-redundant causal work left for distinct mental causes, threatening non-reductive physicalism and mental causation.”

Basis just that much, the Causal Exclusion Argument seems reasonable. It seems like no more than just the Occam’s Razor heuristic, as applied specifically to the materialism vs consciousness issue in order to weed out non-material consciousness. Seems straightforward, and seems perfectly cromulent.

But what I don’t get is, how on earth does Graham, in his book, go from here to, and I quote, “nothing can have two independent simultaneous causes” ? That’s the part I’d disagreed with, and now you too agree with my counter-argument: So, what gives, then, with Graham?

(If it was simply sloppy phrasing on Graham’s part in discussing this argument of Kim’s, and if in effect he was doing no more than just invoking the principle of parsimony: well then, fair enough. A single instance of sloppy and incorrect phrasing does not a whole book mar. And if that is indeed the case, then no doubt Graham will be happy to correct that in a future edition, should it be pointed out to him.)

———-

Thanks again for that lovely link, Qualiaphile! I’ll be sure to read up on your link, and educate myself on this Causal Exclusion thingie. (Not just now, though, later when I’ve time.)

Meantime, if you’d like to go ahead and weigh in on whether you think Graham’s phrasing on that specific was sloppy and incorrect; or whether you believe there’s a legit logical route from Occam’s Razor, via the Causal Exclusion Argument, to “nothing can have two independent simultaneous causes”: well then, do please go ahead and tell me!

I’ll be sure to get back here to this page after I’ve had time to read and digest your link, and comment then on what I’ve read, as well as respond to anything you may now have to say to me.

Okay, so I sat down now for a brief first read. My intent was to give this whole thing a general once-over now, and then to return to it later, tomorrow maybe, for a more thorough examination. But it turns out that isn’t necessary. Here’s why:

Right after the introduction, there are three bullet points that clearly explain what Kim’s argument seeks to do. It takes a bit of thinking through, for those of us not used to the terminology/jargon, to clearly understand what’s being said here: but here’s what it amounts to in plain English:

If you assume that mental states, including consciousness, are caused by physical states; and if you further assume that mental states are not exactly identical with their underlying physical states, that is, there’s something more to those mental states than merely their underlying physical causes: and further when you consider that when an event is sufficiently explained by a cause, then there are naturally no additional causes at play here, absent such exceptional specific instances where there are indeed such: then Kim’s argument challenges the conclusion of non-reductive physicalism (that is to say, the view that the mind is entirely physical but that mental states cannot be wholly reduced to or explained by basic physical or neurological science).

Haha, yes, I know, at first reading that might sound incomprehensible, but it’s actually perfectly simple! I’ve taken out all of the philosophical jargon, and stated Kim’s argument in simple everyday English there: just read that italicized portion above one more time, slowly, and the meaning will become crystal clear, I’m sure.

It’s just straightforward tautology, is all it is! If you assume two or three contradictory things, then, ah, what you’re doing is contradictory: is all Kim’s saying here. We don’t even need Kim’s detailed technical notationally-dense “proof” to clearly appreciate those contradictions, they leap right out at us plain as day, within the very formulation of the “problem” (that I’ve italicized above in simple English).

To be clear, I’m not running down Kim here: that’s what logicians do, they clearly and rigorously examine specific positions for validity: and, in this case, Kim is simply exposing the flaw inherent in “non-reductive physicalism” — which, remember, is the idea that while mental states arise from physical states, but yet those mental states are somehow more than their underlying physical states.

———-

So then, where that does leave us?

This is indeed perfectly sound, this thing of Kim’s. Under these strictly defined assumptions and conditions, sure, one event cannot have more than one independent cause.

But no, this simply does not work as a general defense of “austere physicalism”.

If that’s what it is presented as, as a general defense of austere physicalism: well then, given the assumptions galore built into Kim’s Causal Exclusion argument, it would then amount to no more than an elaborate instance of begging the question, of circularity, is all.

So: Either Graham is incorrectly applying Kim’s argument to make his case. Or else, more likely, it is we who have mistaken a portion of his larger discussion as his actual core argument. Either way, it simply doesn’t hold up as a defense of “austere physicalism”.

Which isn’t surprising, at all, given that all Kim has set out to do with his argument is to challenge “non-reductive physicalism”, by making completely clear its inherent contradictions.

———-

Which is fine. Simply empiricism, simply science, and simply parsimony: that does a perfectly fine job of defending “austere physicalism”. Albeit it does so provisionally, not “logically” — but that’s fine too, because everything science tells us is likewise provisional, not written-in-stone “proof”, that’s a feature not a bug (even though ignorant and/or disingenuous critics of science try to misinterpret that “provisional”, and try to force-fit within it their own pet woo).

———-
———-

That ends that. Speaking for myself, I’m completely satisfied with this. But, Brian, and Qualiaphile: given that you’ve already read up on and examined and discussed both Graham and Kim, and discussed this very specific at some length, then I’d appreciate your critiquing what I’ve said just now. Because while I’m pretty much sure about this, like I said, but a sanity check for something like this always helps, to make sure I don’t go away missing some obvious (or not so obvious) flaws in my analysis.

(Very brief TLDR: I’m saying: Kim’s argument is fine for his particular purpose, but, bounded within strict assumptions as it is, it completely fails as a general defense of austere physicalism. Not that that weakens the case for austere physicalism, not at all: just, this particular argument doesn’t work as a general defense of it.)

Liam Graham argues that the universe is strictly driven from the bottom up. He claims that thoughts and consciousness are illusions with zero causal power. To him, micro-physics dictates everything, and everything else is a camel designed by a committee. But meditation exposes the major flaws in this flat view.

When you make a personal choice to meditate, you start with an incorporeal idea. Amazingly, that purely mental intent loops backward to rewrite your physical reality. Working seamlessly through the natural laws of the universe, an abstract, non-physical thought actually alters the physical universe. And changing you to a calmer person, changes your environment, decisions and the world.

Neuroscience proves this loop through neuroplasticity. Functional neuroimaging shows that consistent deep meditation shuts down the Default Mode Network (DMN)—the brain’s narrative “me center” responsible for the ego and mental filtering. This quiets the constant stream of language and thought, allowing internal experience to circumvent conventional filters. Experience comes through an entirely different channel where the experience and the experienced become one.

Simultaneously, meditation physically downscales the primitive brain while strengthening higher structures. Structural MRI scans show that after just weeks of practice, the gray matter density of the amygdala (the brain’s fear and panic button) physically shrinks. Meanwhile, the prefrontal cortex (the seat of rational control) and the hippocampus (the memory and emotional regulation center) physically thicken and expand.

Graham would claim this is just trillions of microscopic particles colliding at once, dismissing reciprocal causation as human shorthand. But he fails to realize what he doesn’t know. To dogmatically claim everything is strictly physical suffers from the same flaw as the proof for God: you cannot prove the nature of the whole universe when science can only test a fraction of its parts.

We most certainly can test, alter and record decisions and their physical effects.

The hard evidence of neuroplasticity shows that the mind is not a helpless passenger driven by fixed biological machinery. Through deliberate focus, an abstract choice initiates a powerful downward causal force that alters cell density, synaptic strength, and neural wiring. Meditation is empirical proof of reciprocal causation. The mind is an active participant, beautifully reshaping the very physical home that hosts it. And further changes downstream decisions, behavior, influencing others and their decisions, changing the world’s physical condition. This is actually evidence for the physical.

Meanwhile we have no practical means to map or duplicate the specific arrangements of atoms to recreate you or your decisions. The makes Austere Physicality woo. It’s another imaginary dragon from the severe anti-theist side of the room.

Right. Clearly not inadvertent oversight, then. More like deliberate ducking, clearly (although I cannot for the life of me figure out why).

Pardon my directness, Brian, and my persistence, pardon my refusing to just let go of this: but this is something I feel very strongly about; and something that I believe is genuinely important regardless of how I personally feel about this. That is, not so much this specific thing about Kim and Graham and causal exclusion and austere physicalism, but this larger issue I mean to say. One that is of not just generally relevant but actually critical, particularly at this juncture when the whole world is in very real danger of backsliding from progressing towards rationalism and enlightenment, and back into superstition and irrationality and intellectual & moral incoherence.

This is a point I’d already made before, back in the thread on Satisficing. It’s one that I’ve referenced once or twice after that as well. …But I’m going to make it again now, and at length, if I may: because this present thread, right here, gives us a great example of exactly what I’d meant.

———-

The abject nonsense, the complete incoherence, that this thread is deluged in? I refer specifically to the veritable flood of complete nonsense brazenly belted out by one of our resident nonsense peddlers?

We’ve no means to exclude this —— and, to be clear, when I say “exclude this”, I don’t for a minute mean ‘let’s not give them a platform to speak out’, what I mean is ‘clearly demarcate our way of thinking from theirs’, I mean ‘give ourselves and others a clear coherent reason to go for our way of thinking and our particular conclusions, both morally and intellectually, while excluding from our own worldview their incessant nonsense (including in such directly immediately consequential matters as vaccination; and climate change; and support for Trump’s policies and misadventures, both internal and international; and all of the rest of it)’ —— I was saying, we’ve no way to exclude this kind of nonsense, and no way to coherently pursue our own search for truth and understanding that is clearly removed from this sort of incoherent halfwittery, if we’re cavalier about the rigor that we subject our own pet biases to. Not without descending to blatant special pleading.

Then it’s just a question of pitting one particular set of feelz against another, is all: with no coherent reason why the Jesus worshiping loon, or the Gurinder worshiping crazy, or the Trump supporting spineless witless sycophant, is any less justified in their insane incoherent views than we are in holding on to our particular positions.

Because the only coherent reason that sets “us” apart from “them” is reason and rationality and rigor and uncompromising intellectual integrity: and when we choose to forgo these when it comes to our own pet biases and fancies, then we also forgo that fundamental essence that sets “our” particular positions apart from “theirs”.

———-

So, I’ve just now taken the trouble to search out that earlier comment of mine. And I’ll both link to that comment itself, as well as directly quote from some portions in it, if I may.

Here’s the link to that full comment: https://churchofthechurchless.com/2026/05/good-enough-can-be-a-wiser-choice-than-absolute-best/#comment-76292

And here are some excerpts taken directly from it.

(Heh, I realize it’s a bit …ah, lacking in modesty, I suppose, to quote extensively from what I’d myself said prior, I fully and painfully realize that! But I do believe that this is one of those rare occasions when such is completely warranted.)

So, those excerpts:

Let’s not make words and terms and ideas like these some kind of excuse, and justification, for loose thinking. …And let’s please not end up making the subject matter of spirituality an excuse for absence of rigor.

If I may be so presumptuous, I’d like to propose this as a motto for Churchless (and indeed for anyone and for any place that wishes to seriously examine and understand spirituality):

Spirituality does not admit of absence of rigor. We must always guard against the tendency, in others and also in ourselves, to favor the subject of spirituality simply in order to indulge in lack of rigor and wallow in incoherence and indulge in undefended “feels”. Halfwittery is as out of place in spirituality, and as dysfunctional in spirituality, as it is in any other discussion on any other subject.

(Loosen the rigor to let in, sans proper rigorous defense, Zen obscurantism for instance, or loosely reasoned Sapolsky-esque views on morals, or invalid Marchant-esque views about the centrality of QBism and what that indicates about consciousness and an external reality: and you’ll have no way to keep out outright oafishness like Jesus worshiping halfwittery, or indeed the Gurinder nonsense, not without resorting to fallacious special pleading and straight-out bias.)

(We can speculate, certainly, and let our imagination roam as wide as we want. But what we mustn’t do is imagine that just because we’ve chosen to do this in the field of spirituality, therefore we are somehow excused from the necessity of rigor that other fields require from us.)

———-

*bows out, with apologies, again, for this hijack*

Hi Appreciative:
The choice to Satisfice includes an appreciation for what we don’t know or can’t know. And therefore limits how much rigor we can apply. But there is also the element you describe in your linked comment: How important is it, relative to other things?

You can say that an understanding of who or what God is is crucially important if it guides our behavior in ways that avoid some sort of afterlife disaster, like returning here!

But you might also say that since that information is unavailable, we are left to make satisficing decisions in accepting a set of ethics to live by.

Now, we can go round and round trying to make arguments in favor or against the presence of a divine consciousness. Really, what does it matter?

For the believer, they have an experience, and that is persistent, through their prayers and devotion. That very experience IS their God…it is what they turn to in times of trouble. They have their God, right now, in that experience.

Physically? All atoms, all energy waves, call it what you like. The universe houses immense information. But is that knowledge? Does any entity know it?

Unknowable, untransferable.

Not a subject for science.

What you can do is debunk with science individuals who try to scam others, with any number of triggers. When Trump buys returned / defective cell phones abroad then repackages them as Trump Phones and sells them to his loyalists, pushing the trigger button “American Made by Trump” what can you say? Caveat Emptor.

But for those who have the divine experience within themselves, I think it’s best to honor that for them (just don’t let them have scissors – I keep my scissors in a drawer so that I can run freely without them:)).

We have to use satisficing for ourselves. But for others? Really? What standard can we hold anyone else to when we ourselves have to pick and choose daily?

Having written this, I must put this in the broader truth; your comments are very fine. Each of us should question our own satisficing daily.

“The choice to Satisfice includes an appreciation for what we don’t know or can’t know. And therefore limits how much rigor we can apply.”

In the linked comment, I’d clearly discussed from first-hand familiarity how, in OR, satisficing is not about lack of rigor, but instead is about rigorous problem solving, of a specific kind of problem. Nor is it about what we “can’t know”, but is instead about what our objective is (in this case, optimization as opposed to maximization), and what our (usually multi-variate) resource constraints are.

Despite that clear explanation, your falling back on this error, that has been clearly and directly discussed already, is …unfortunate, Spence, but coming from you no more than one has come to expect.

———-

And nor was my comment, that you responded to, addressed to you at all. It was addressed squarely to Brian, and in specific context of my analysis of Kim’s causal exclusion argument as it applies to Graham’s austere physicalism.

But of course, this is a public (ish) forum, so no reason why you shouldn’t respond nonetheless if you’ve mind to.

And it’s all good: because your comment actually highlights what I was pointing out to Brian, and gives me a chance to make my larger point again. My point that, if “we” are ourselves cavalier about our standards of rigor when it comes to our own pet biases, then we’ve no reasonable way to then exclude rigor-free nonsense from other quarters, whether political or religious or anything else at all. (“Exclude” only in the sense of clearly demarcating the sensible from the nonsensical.) Which is a pity, particularly at this time when rationality and coherence are clearly under attack in the larger world all around us.

And if all we’re now doing is casually picking up topics that answer to the broad category of spirituality, and doing no more than lightly and superficially familiarizing ourselves with them: well, then, fair enough, if that’s what we’ve now turned to doing. And, depending on the subjects being touched on, that can be interesting too, sure: but only in terms of light casual engagement, not the way more substantive engagement we’ve generally been used to here.

Well, it is what it is. …My point is, if we’re ourselves going to do no more than superficially go through the motions of rational discourse in exploring these subjects: well then, we can’t then, in fairness, turn around and complain when the likes of you present us with a more concentrated distilled version of that same kind of rigor-free discussion, that does no more than put up an empty outer facade of rational discourse.

———-

As for you, Spence: If you now insist on keeping on flooding the thread with yet more of these nonsensical responses, then I’m really in no position to stop you. But my engagement with such ends here.

Hi AR:
I apologize. Strictly speaking you are 100% correct as far as optimization in OR, but not about statisficing: statisficing is in fact a replacement for that kind of rigor. A replacement that functions quite well with a little less rigor.

I was referring to Hebert Simon, the founder of statisificing’s statement:
” Evidently, organisms adapt well enough to ‘satisfice’; they do not, in general, ‘optimize’.”

Simon won the Nobel Prize specifically for this thesis.

“Herbert Simon’s 1956 paper, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment,” is a foundational work in his theory of bounded rationality, which earned him the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1978. The paper argues that human decision-making is limited by cognitive constraints and available information, leading individuals to make “satisficing” (satisfactory and sufficient) rather than optimal decisions. It emphasizes that the structure of the environment plays a crucial role in shaping the simple heuristics people use to make effective choices despite these limitations.”

This is what I was speaking about, the decisions we make within our limited capacity, and acknowledging those limitations.

Simon wrote: “It appears probable that, however adaptive the behavior of organisms in learning and choice situations, this adaptiveness falls short of the ideal of ‘maximizing’ postulated in economic theory. Evidently, organisms adapt well enough to ‘satisfice’; they do not, in general, ‘optimize’.”
….
“We have seen that an organism in an environment with these characteristics requires only very simple perceptual and choice mechanisms to satisfy its several needs and to assure a high probability of its survival over extended periods of time. In particular, no ‘utility function’ needs to be postulated for the organism, nor does it require any elaborate procedure for calculating marginal rates of substitution among different wants.”

We function in a much less rigorous way than you have proposed, AR, and do so with reasonable efficiency.

My statement about not carrying scissors was a tongue in cheek reference to what Simon wrote:

“Human rational behavior is shaped by a scissors whose two blades are the structure of task environments and the computational capabilities of the actor.”

We let these go altogether when we conjecture. And in discussing things that are outside our environment or intellectual capacities to understand, we simply statisfice, even our belief systems.

If anyone is interested in learning more about Herbert Simon’s thoughts on Statisficing…

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-01985-001

Gawd help us, there he goes, gabbing away incoherently again. I’m going to regret not sticking with my decision not to engage any more with this …craziness, and giving in to this “Someone’s wrong on the Internet” moment: but here goes:

Okay, Spence. You’ve got my attention. Ok, let’s dance:

———-
———-

First: Why on earth exactly are you gabbing on about this at all?

Seriously. Answer me this, if your corkscrew mind can, for once, provide an honest straightforward answer. Do you even know that, do you even understand that?

The reason the term “satisficing” even came up at all in this thread is this. Please attend carefully as I spell this out clearly, step by step by step.

1. In this thread, and the last one, we had been talking about Graham’s austere physicalism. To explain which, to clearly spell out Graham’s arguments, Qualiaphile brought in a discussion on Kim’s causal exclusion argument.

2. I went through Kim’s causal exclusion, and found that while it did challenge non-reductive physicalism; but, bounded as it was within assumptions galore, it offered no foundation for a coherent defense of austere physicalism. (Albeit we could easily provide a defense by falling back on Occam’s Razor.)

3. At which point, I repeatedly sought Brian’s views on my analysis: given it was his work that this was all based on in the first place. When that was not forthcoming, when he seemed, as with our discussion on QBism, loathe to engage with the subject beyond mere superficialities: is when I referenced back what I’d said prior about not making the subject matter of spirituality an excuse for lack of rigor.

4. Because I’d made that comment in a thread that was discussing satisficing, is why I referred to it as the Satisficing thread. Is all.

So yeah. Back up. And tell me why on earth you were even gabbing on about Satisficing at all, here in this thread, for what reason.

———-
———-

And now, getting on to satisficing itself.

Yes, I’m aware of what satisficing entails. No, I’ve never read Simon’s paper, that you referenced: but I do know what satisficing entails. While Organization Behavior is not my core subject matter, but we’d touched on it briefly back in the day, when doing some introductory courses back during my post-grad days. Unlike you, I didn’t have to look it up de novo when discussing it.

Spence, please don’t lie about having been referencing Simon’s paper. That’s a transparent lie. It’s clear you’ve only now looked it up, and put it out there now to put up a show of knowing what you’re talking about: and I’m ready to wager that, even now, you haven’t actually read the paper beyond the abstract.

Like I said in the last section, it is insane that you should even be gabbing on about Satisficing here in this thread at all, for no reason at all. But here, in this section, now, let me go back and clearly explain what the discussion was back in the other thread.

Satisficing is a descriptive framework, not a prescriptive one. It explains how real world organizations arrive at decisions that may be sub-optimal.

It doesn’t tell you what you should do. It tells you how organizations tend to act, and explains why they act sub-optimally.

True, for unimportant inconsequent decisions, like choosing which socks to wear (to reference the discussion in the last thread), it might make sense to satisfice, precisely because that decision is relatively inconsequential.

But when it comes to the God question, we’re faced with a solidly consequential decision.

Is the God of the Bible real? Is it true that, as fundamentalists hold, that should you worship “any God but God” — as you yourself do, Spence, basis fundamental interpretations — then you’ll rot in hell for eternity? Or is that interpretation of the Bible wrong? Or is it that all of the Bible is wrong?

(Or, for that matter: Is the theology taught in Sant Mat valid? Is it true we’ll be caught, via Karma, in an endless cycle of rebirths and the suffering following from it, should we not take measures in this life to extricate ourselves from that cycle, by performing Surat Shabda Yoga meditation, and by taking refuge in a Perfect Living Master that may guide us back to our Original Home?)

That’s a solidly consequential question. Nuanced, sure, to those able to process nuance, but solidly consequential. The exact opposite of the inconsequential decision of which socks to wear.

So that, while we can indeed satisfice for which socks to wear; but it doesn’t make sense to satisfice for the God question.

(Following a descriptive decision making route, we may well empirically find people doing that: but even if we do, then that’s a descriptive model, that bespeaks dysfunctionality, given the solidly consequential nature of the problem. It is the exact thing a prescriptive model shouldn’t be doing.)

All of this has already been discussed in the linked thread on satisficing.

———-
———-

So, to end:

1. You’re incoherently gabbing on about satisficing here for no good reason at all, here in this thread that has nothing to do with satisficing. Just because you happened to see the word “satisficing”, which was no more than me pointing to that comment within that thread by referring to it as the “satisficing thread”. And just because you have this insane drive to present a facade of being wise, which drive makes you lie about what you actually know and understand.

2. Even should we now pivot to talking about the subject matter of that other thread — despite there being no good reason why we should do this, and despite the fact that this has already been discussed in that other thread — even should we discuss this now, then: You don’t actually know what you’re actually talking about, although you pretend to, by spuriously pointing to papers you haven’t even read. Because satisficing is a descriptive model not a prescriptive one. And while we can in practice sometimes deliberately fall back on it as a practical measure, but that works only for relatively inconsequential decisions, like choosing which socks to wear. Applying the satisficing model prescriptively to the God question is the definition of dysfunctional thinking.

3. I’m the bigger fool, for wasting my time engaging with this Book of Punishment level nonsense here all over again, and walking back from my decision not to.

Hi AR
No problem.
Satisficing, which you brought up, as its author Simon details, is all about how we make imperfect decisions with limited information that, so long as they are decisions close to our environment, are adequate for our survival. Not perfect.

The scissors of two blades we use for decision-making, says Simon, includes what we know about the tasks we must engage in for our survival and our intellectual capacities. But how can that scissors be used for things outside our perceived environment? And beyond any current testing? It can’t.

So that’s why I leave those scissors in the drawer when discussing things like God, spirit and soul. Trying to reduce these supernatural possibilities to logical thinking is impossible, at least in science’s current state.

But it’s not a problem for believers. As I wrote, what they experience is their “God”.

And most people’s experience is their truth, even atheists. That experience is one of the necessary blades for decision making, as per Simon. The other blade, intellect, is helpless without experience.

Therefore each of us lives in a different reality.

Now, your criteria of importance, that importance should drive rigor only works where rigor is possible. Where data doesn’t exist you can’t get the rigor you are asking for regardless of how important the subject is.

That leads a lot of people to prayer, sincere pleading for connection with a higher power. Lacking hard data, that is their rigor.

If death is final, if life begins at birth, or if life exists before birth or after death, yes that’s pretty important. But it is outside of the conditions necessary for logical decision-making.

To the quantum field of energy and atoms we live in, biological birth and death do not exist. This biological vessel sees all its atoms swapped out every few weeks. We are just a pattern, ripples in that quantum field. If we could experience that, realize we are part of that through direct experience, the conversation about life and death would become irrelevant.

From the neurosciences we know we only have identity through memory and that must be regenerated several times a second for us to know we exist. So in terms of our psychological identity of me and mine, that disappears and is regenerated moment by moment. And we remember ourselves differently all the time, as our memory reconstructs our past over and over.

From that perspective we live in a reconstructed reality of our own making, and the only death we experience is the passing of our our old memory, which already happens many times every second.

If experience is a necessary blade for decision making, then anything increasing our awareness, raising our consciousness, would be important to make better decisions. That’s going to be a different journey for different people with different results.

Amazing. Completely ignored my substantive post, and went back to talking nonsense, and shamelessly lying outright as well. Fucking amazing.

Makes me feel …unclean, engaging with this.

Spirituality my ass, mystical visions my ass.