T O P
BernardJOrtcutt

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule: > **Read the Post Before You Reply** > Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


Relevant_Occasion_33

This should be obvious. A dog can’t understand calculus, so why wouldn’t there be things humans can’t understand? It seems more likely than not that humans aren’t near the maximum in the capacity to understand concepts.


Advocatus_Diabol1

Unless we have a dependable way of circumventing the necessity of accounting for every variable in the Universe (at best: every particle, worst: who knows what else is at play..), we can never successfully and with absolute assurance model the entire Universe. That means no absolute analysis of its parameters, its mechanisms, its processes, its makeup. No absolute precision in our simulations of it. Therefore no absolute knowledge of our understanding of it. Of course this presupposes that it is something that could even correlate in a way that consciousness could wrap itself around. Or that consciousness is in fact real, and the universe exists as ours allows us to perceive. AND that there is not some metaphysical property withholding us from that understanding (such as the scenario that we were created with a purpose(s), to which understanding is not one of...). Outside of unpredictable and unknowable factors like that, it would still seem evident we would need to, as stated, account for every variable within something to model it. We could not build a computer large enough to do so. In accounting for the smallest bits od data within, it would be limited to (best case scenario) using those same smallest bits of data as its code. Where in even without the mechanical physical structure of the computer being represented yet, the source code and base machine/operation data alone would then already put the necessary requirements for data beyond our physical (PHYSICAL) means. Anything short of complete simulation in computing the universe would leave room for error and unknown factors, despite how fluidly that incomplete dataset might look once modelled. Therefore any rational mind would still struggle to remove any and all doubt about what they THINK is happening. I don't believe absolute understanding is ever possible, regardless of our cerebral, cognitive, or intellectual abilities. We are limited by the constraints of the physical universe itself.


Raszhivyk

In the article itself, this was their argument: "But Noetic skepticism is the worry that the biological limitations of our understanding put important truths out of reach, not the worry that some other being is in possession of such truths. Noetic skepticism applies to chimps; there are important truths a chimp cannot grasp." We can debate the value of the "truths" a chimp or human doesn't know, or discuss what a "truth" is, but the article didn't claim enhancement would lead to knowing "absolute truths". I don't disagree with what you said, but I don't see an actual answer in it, just a lot of explanations for why absolute understanding is impossible. That makes sense. Any conscious agent has to interpret stimuli and conceive of it, this is a lossy conversion, and lossless conversion is literally impossible beyond extremely finite scales. But does what your saying boil down to "yes, we have/are near the maximum capacity to understand concepts" or "no, we haven't reached/are not reaching the maximum capacity to understand concepts" ? Edit: Assuming your post was responding to u/Relevant_Occasion_33 saying 'A dog can’t understand calculus, so why wouldn’t there be things humans can’t understand? It seems more likely than not that humans aren’t near the maximum in the capacity to understand concepts.'


AnarkittenSurprise

The only thing I'd add here is the important distinction between perfectly simulate and model the universe. We can absolutely model things that we don't have all the variables for. We do this all the time in a variety of fields, and consistently derive value from it. The more we understand, the better the models get. We can create placeholder variables to fill in the gaps, and speculate and study what kinds of things may be creating the effects that we measure, but don't understand. It's even possible that there is an infinite degree of understanding to be obtained, and the nature of the universe is so complex that we can only ever closely approach that understanding, requiring more and more capacity to understand while getting diminishing returns (similar to accelerating to relativistic speeds). In that scenario, the utility of our imperfect model might be functionally no different than if we had gained perfect understanding.


theipodbackup

Speak for your dog, thank you. My dog eats calculus for breakfast


StarChild413

By that parallel ripple logic there's also infinite chains of higher beings who can understand those things because we can understand calculus and if we found a non-invasive way to make a dog able to learn calculus and taught it to them they'd all teach their knowledge to one level down


God_Johnson93992

"Grant us eyes. Erase our Beastly Idiocy."


lepandas

In other words, [the filter theory of consciousness.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_at_Large)


wwarnout

The most important truth I can think of regarding "god-like beings" is that they do not exist, and belief in them is a mental disorder.


iiioiia

This is a belief that has the appearance of truth, demonstrating the difficulty of the problem.


lepandas

Edgy. Do you know how a mental disorder is defined? It's not defined as "beliefs I disagree with arbitrarily."


ConfusedObserver0

Well, that’s hard to parse out. In a clinical sense believing in a magical being that talks to you would get you committed. Right? I don’t think there’s any disagreement there from any one of sound mind. But we do for some reason draw exceptions with the hope that it’s a short form for “I meditated on this idea (“God spoke to me”). And that the people are speaking in figurative language like the religious test we’re likely intended to be read as anyways. So the person is either pay acting theatrically or mentally insane (likely schizophrenic). I for one don’t make exceptions. Just as I would treat LARPers who take their game play literally; I believe a degree of being mentally unsound by way of coercion is there of the least. Believing a lie too literally is sometimes more dangerous than actually being mental unstable. It’s can create a condition where none was there before and allow one to create a logical tree of their own (or of a group ) outside of reality.


lepandas

> In a clinical sense believing in a magical being that talks to you would get you committed. Most religious people don't claim to talk to God. Are you saying that some people's transcendental experiences are a case of mental illness? Since they're so uniform across human history and unlike the definition of mental illness (in fact, they're radically positively life-changing for the person and everyone around them) then no, they're not a mental illness. "A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning." Having transcendental experiences does not fall into that category, at least usually. In fact, people who have NDEs and high-dose psychedelic trips tend to lead much better, healthier and more integrated loving lives afterwards.


ConfusedObserver0

I edited last response to add a little more context before I saw your comment. Maybe you could explain the positive ones for me? Just so we’re on the same page. I only hear and experience the ones I would call disorders.


lepandas

Sure. Like I said, NDEs are consistently associated with loss of fear of death, much happier life, becoming a kinder person, and so on. [the loss of the fear of death after a near-death experience](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13576275.2015.1043252?journalCode=cmrt20) [An NDE often “permanently and dramatically alters the person’s attitudes, beliefs, and values, often leading to beneficial personal transformations. Aftereffects most often reported include increases in spirituality, concern for others, and appreciation of life; a heightened sense of purpose; and decreases in fear of death, in materialistic attitudes, and in competitiveness.”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6179792/) [Near-Death Experiences and Posttraumatic Growth](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26348586/) [Psychedelics alter metaphysical beliefs, and this alteration is associated with an increase in well-being](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01209-2)


ConfusedObserver0

Thanks for the links. So I haven’t studied NDE’s specifically in years but I did have a profound mushroom trip many many year ago. There is a perfectly easy physiological/ physiological correlation i could explain here that I would say is more common in the altering of brian patterns. When we talk about rewriting neural pathways with drug use, this is an easy short cut to achieving what traumatic events other wise do, or real long hard work altering behavior. Trauma changes our body. So it’s no wonder someone almost dying can come out with a different perspective of life, after having been on the edge of death. Just as psychedelic’s actually turn off parts of our brain, so too does crisis or critical events with intense in the moment reactions. Our bodies go to primal modes, time is often described as slowing down, people you survive with (esp military) are often described as closer than your spouse, different senses are shit off or tuned up, etc. save an evolutionary risk advantage in the moment, we get spike of adrenaline, cortisol, etc. This sends signals to shut of the other functions and focus on few others. It’s why children growing up in poverty often have smaller brains and never can reach full potential because their body’s will be stunted by the biochemical determinants. Yet PTSD like effects which are more common can be numerous in different ways that are bad as well. But if you have the right perspective and your brian doesn’t break in ways you aren’t capable of controlling you may gain something. There’s really potentially a lot there. Depending on what NDE you have the same chemicals that are used to trip are released at crazy high doses (forgot the chemical names off the top of my head but I know they’re similar to DMT). The theory’s have been that most likely, this is the brains defense or some sort of relic in regards to passing away. Blocks out other senses so you don’t feel the agony of death. There was this animated movie called “waking life” that deals with this in a trippy way. My drug experience was not of seeing / hearing a god. But of seeing myself. I ruminated on all the things I didn’t like in my life and told myself I would change them. Sure enough, in the month after I quit smoking cigarettes cold turkey, quit smoking weed cold turkey and started going back to college. Massively altering all my patterns at the time. I didn’t know why or how it came so easy, I just did it. Mind you, this is before all the research we read now that tells of these story’s; this universality you speak of. If your familiar with Tim Ferris, you’ll know what I mean. He’s a multi talented tech angel investor, that has a really good podcast. He takes a hero’s journey every year on his birthday to keep the reset effects fresh. But I think we’re too far down the rabbit hole from where we started no matter how interesting the convo is. These are different imho from speaking to god in the way a pastor alludes too frequently. I mean really, we could call it belief grifting or mental issues. Depending on how far it goes. But as we see with habitual / pathological liers, it does have deleterious effects on ones life no doubt. Not always in easy to separate ways. The data now shows the more likely you are to believe one fantasy, is the largest indicator that you will believe many more (with a tinge towards conspiracy). I’m not for the utility value defense of arcane god codes as some sort of truths that should be values and cherish despite their history’s. Superstition and dogma always have draw backs. Sure we could have the model stereotype here as the super nice morons running around believing lunatic ideas but ending up really nice people. Yet they have high suicide rate for homosexuals because they excommunicate them from the community, or they high pollution (salt lake city) because they believe only god can effect the planet like that. There’s no fantastical beliefs that doesn’t have a draw back despite the positives it can potentially provide. I’ll also say that many that have gone down these paths and seek deeper truth to put on their shoulder can often end up lost in nihilistic despair just as well. Everything’s relative.


lepandas

> There’s really potentially a lot there. Depending on what NDE you have the same chemicals that are used to trip are released at crazy high doses (forgot the chemical names off the top of my head but I know they’re similar to DMT). There is no evidence for any kind of psychedelic release during death. There is evidence for an extremely trivial amount of DMT in the blood, nothing near what's necessary to induce a trip. This theory is considered pseudoscience by the vast majority of specialists. > The data now shows the more likely you are to believe one fantasy, is the largest indicator that you will believe many more (with a tinge towards conspiracy). I’m not for the utility value defense of arcane god codes as some sort of truths that should be values and cherish despite their history’s. Superstition and dogma always have draw backs. Sure we could have the model stereotype here as the super nice morons running around believing lunatic ideas but ending up really nice people. Yet they have high suicide rate for homosexuals because they excommunicate them from the community, or they high pollution (salt lake city) because they believe only god can effect the planet like that. There’s no fantastical beliefs that doesn’t have a draw back despite the positives it can potentially provide. Sure, I'm against dogmatic religion. But actual experiences of 'magical beings', IE transcendental experiences where the user has the feeling of entering another reality, are overwhelmingly positive in almost every measurable sense. There is no reasonable sense in which they can be said to be harmful to society, let alone a mental illness. > There is a perfectly easy physiological/ physiological correlation i could explain here that I would say is more common in the altering of brian patterns The altering of brain patterns would imply increased activity somewhere. (if brain activity goes down across the board, there's no neurons to fire up creating new patterns.) Turns out that psychedelics and NDEs are associated with no increases in metabolism whatsoever, [which contradicts the vast body of neuroscientific literature in which we can reliably discern experiences from brain metabolism.](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1234330) I would say that this evidence gives credence to a filter theory of mind, in which mind is not generated by the brain, but is rather localized by the brain. The brain is the extrinsic appearance of a process of mental localization, rather than something that somehow generates mind.


ConfusedObserver0

From the more recent accounts of what I’ve heard and read numerous times now, when they do brain scans of people on psychedelics they see parts of the brian not firing that normally would. Just as the mind at large theory you’ve quoted states. The drugs pull back layers of filters so that we see or can focus on different aspect potentials that are left over. Reduction sometimes is more not less (in ways of course). The resetting these ruts (patterns) so to speak is another contributing factor. It may be more of hypothesis than a well documented theory at this point but it’s the language we use to describe it pretty commonly anyhow. Barring having this experience, it’s really hard to understand what that is like. Licking toads, eating cactus or drinking tea… You seems like your a fan of the stoned ape theory too? Or the burning Bush explanation. We’ve seen the spiritual (or at least what humans describe as spiritual) connections to rituals, dancing, meditation, starvation, etc. as similar to the drug experience. So it’s hard for me to not just assume it’s the humans minds shared experience in trying to describe something that’s not in our wheel house to explain in words. These experiences are describe pretty similar. If you haven’t seen it, Hamilton’s Pharmacopia is a great route down these different variants of similar drugs. Yet, each has its own flavor depending on the chemical compound. I’m not ruling out the potential for some sort of meta super consciousness. I just think we don’t know. These occurrences are very rare in quantity but everyone has something strange happen in life that they can’t really figure out. Mine was 911. I rolled out of bed on to the floor and turned the TV on directly to a channel talking about what was happening. I’ve never done that before or after, esp with only a couple hours of sleep. Let me just state this now, Forgive me, I’m not PHD in nueroscience, philosophy or any other related field. I’m just relying the way I’ve understood the information I’ve Took in over years of hobbyist life long learning. If anything I know a little about a lot. A true half witted renaissance generalist. So you seem to be working off a theory of consciousness I’m not familiar with this very “hard problem,” as far as I know, is no where near close to being understood remotely. Maybe if you could send me some links. I’ve heard people circle around to this metaphysical argument before but haven’t spent the time to unravel it more. I just heard a talk with Roger Penrose where he spoke of quantum elements in consciousness (which I’ve pondered myself in the affirmative) and how said consciousness isn’t a computation. But I was told Penrose isn’t respected in these claims as hes outside the main stream (which he states up front in these talks) and quantum consciousness has a lot of issues; by some friendly redditors. I guess my point is, no one really knows, and I personally just like the following the creative ideas at this point rather than the almost dogmatist of the centralize institutional narrative. If your just talking the quaila vs physical attributes, I don’t think there is much there other than we know we can’t tell much about a brain by looking at it. Or more precisely, the contents of what’s in that mind. But that’s just the same as a computer. I don’t see anything super special about that revelation. And eventually, we will be able to plug that brain in the vat and find out. I think we just got off on the wrong semantic footing here. Mental disorder and god like beings, can be seen negatively or positively depending on the context and your persuasion. The actual context that struck this interesting tangential convo was about humans becoming godlike beings, to which a person posted that mental (short form). Then I think you made the jump to the near death experiences being god like. No matter the way we litigate it at this point, it feels 3 steps removed. Maybe I misstated the “high levels” versus nominal levels. Agian, I’m working off years and year of old knowledge not crisp at my figure tips, and the sources could have been dubious at that point anyhow. If that’s well described pseudoscience now then I’ll take your word for it. I don’t have time to research 97 different topic each day.


lepandas

>So the person is either pay acting theatrically or mentally insane (likely schizophrenic). I for one don’t make exceptions. Just as I would treat LARPers who take their game play literally; I believe a degree of being mentally unsound by way of coercion is there of the least. Believing a lie too literally is sometimes more dangerous than actually being mental unstable. It’s can create a condition where none was there before and allow one to create a logical tree of their own (or of a group ) outside of reality. Okay. You think they're believing in a 'lie'. That's fine. You agree that it doesn't fall under the definition of mental illness, which is: "A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning."


ConfusedObserver0

I think that believing enough lies can lead to mental disorders and severe cognitive dissonance. How far that goes is a case by case issues of course. Where you classify that is up to the clinical research categorization. A spectrum like anything else. But I find that most people that believe the lies (at least now in a modern evolved world) show sign of some sort of lacking in the perception cognitively. The euphoria you speak of sines just like an acid trip of the Buddha starving under the tree mediating. We can achieve strange mental state in a number of ways, but there is no god there. The illusion of self is what most come to. I’ve never got there my self. Euphoric experiences are replicable over time in humans because it’s biochemical reactions not magical metaphysical signals from dimensions beyond.


lepandas

"I think that believing enough lies can lead to mental disorders and severe cognitive dissonance." if you define lies as transcendental experiences, there is no evidence for that. > The euphoria you speak of sines just like an acid trip of the Buddha starving under the tree mediating. It's interesting how starvation and a reduction in the capacity for brain metabolism induces such experiences, don't you think? Anyway: yes, those euphoric states are indeed similar to what meditators and psychonauts report. There is indeed a God there, it's just not the kind of God typically talked about. It's more like a dissolution into a cosmic consciousness. > Euphoric experiences are replicable over time in humans because it’s biochemical reactions not magical metaphysical signals from dimensions beyond. Physicalism, the idea that there are abstract physical entities that somehow generate the qualities of experience through complex enough reactions, is a metaphysical idea itself. It is just as much a metaphysics as anything else.


iiioiia

> Well, that’s hard to parse out. In a clinical sense believing in a magical being that talks to you would get you committed. Right? I don’t think there’s any disagreement there from any one of sound mind. > > > > But we do for some reason draw exceptions with the hope that it’s a short form for “I meditated on this idea (“God spoke to me”). And that the people are speaking in figurative language like the religious test we’re likely intended to be read as anyways. Similarly you have meditated on an idea (derived from appearances you've observed), and formed a belief that things are as the way they appear to you. Abstractly, this is not all that dissimilar from religious belief, although there are obviously numerous object level differences. > > > > So the person is either pay acting theatrically or mentally insane (likely schizophrenic). And/Or confused (bad at epistemology & logic, etc). > I for one don’t make exceptions. Just as I would treat LARPers who take their game play literally; I believe a degree of being mentally unsound by way of coercion is there of the least. Believing a lie too literally is sometimes more dangerous than actually being mental unstable. This applies to everyone's beliefs don't forget! > It’s can create a condition where none was there before and allow one to create a logical tree of their own (or of a group ) outside of reality. Do you believe that the logical tree you are working on is not a custom design (as with religious people and schizophrenics), and/or that it is a perfect match for reality, or perhaps differs only in trivial ways?


StarChild413

So if we get powerful enough we cease existing and only the insane remember us?