Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

"the notion that inanimate objects and even trees have feelings is fundamentally unsound"

It may seem unsound from the perspective of ordinary waking consciousness, and certain materialistic[1], physicalist[2], or naturalistic[3] philosophies.

But it seems quite sound from the perspective of many non-ordinary states of consciousness, animism[4], panpsychism[5], pantheism[6], panentheism[7], various types of shamanism[8] and religions which hold animistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic beliefs.

Now, you may argue that there isn't any or enough evidence to support animistic beliefs. But then the question becomes one of what evidence do you accept. Do you accept the evidence of your own senses while in a non-ordinary state of consciousness? If not, why not? Do you accept as evidence the communication you or others may have had with what you or they consider spirits of other worlds? Do you accept the evidence of sacred writings? Etc..

Perhaps you don't. But is there an empirical reason for not counting this as evidence? It's not like you can "scientifically measure" which criteria are "better". Even if you could, there's the question of whether something that's "scientific" should be chosen over something that isn't. And whatever you chose, others would be free to disagree with you.

So, "sound" or "unsound"? It all depends on your point of view.

Anyway, I'm not saying I'm convinced in ordinary waking consciousness that trees or inanimate objects have feelings. I'm just open to the possibility. Anything is possible, and I'm ok with that. I didn't use to be. I used to be quite dogmatic in clinging to what I considered to be a "scientific" and materialistic world view.

Having psychedelic experiences and learning more about philosophy helped me to question these strongly held beliefs. I don't know if I've found any answers, but I am more open to the possibility that reality is not necessarily the way it appears or the way I think it to be. It could be some other way. I could be wrong. What I think "sound" could be "unsound", and what I think "unsound" may in fact be "sound". Or maybe there's no way it is at all. Who knows? Who is to say? I'm certainly no authority.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

[5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

[6] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

[7] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

[8] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism




> But it seems quite sound from the perspective of many non-ordinary states of consciousness, animism[4], panpsychism[5], pantheism[6], panentheism[7], various types of shamanism[8] and religions which hold animistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic beliefs.

Excellent, doctrines do tend to be self-contained. IF X, THEN Y. In the mean time, I bring up an important fact: we have always depended decisively on how well we coordinated our ideas with reality, for the purpose of achieving technological efficacy. In this light, the doctrines you enumerated are undesirable. Judging by the rate of success, the former, scientific doctrines you enumerated are more workable and, as such, preferable for the purpose of adjustment to the conditions of empirical life.

> Do you accept the evidence of your own senses while in a non-ordinary state of consciousness? If not, why not?

We accept evidence that is reproducible. I will stop here and not answer the other questions that you followed with, out of politeness.

> So, "sound" or "unsound"? It all depends on your point of view.

See above.

> I'm just open to the possibility. Anything is possible, and I'm ok with that. I didn't use to be. I used to be quite dogmatic in clinging to what I considered to be a "scientific" and materialistic world view. [...] Who knows? Who is to say? I'm certainly no authority.

Take much care to ensure that you are not merely being open, like a scientist is to new evidence and a better "map" for the "territory"; but rather that you are doubting everything. And as someone once eloquently put it, there are two ways to glide easily through life: to believe everything, and to doubt everything – both ways save us from thinking. (There's also another less polite quote about being open minded)

That aside, I think you have gathered an extraordinary amount of very interesting knowledge in your pursuits, and I think that in itself was as incredibly useful affair.

-----


> Take much care to ensure that you are not merely being open, like a scientist is to new evidence and a better "map" for the "territory"; but rather that you are doubting everything. And as someone once eloquently put it, there are two ways to glide easily through life:

should read:

Take much care to ensure that you are not doubting everything, instead of being merely open, like a scientist is to new evidence and a better "map" for the "territory". As someone once eloquently put it, there are two ways to glide easily through life:

-----




Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: