What is Mind? What is Matter? Is idealism vs. materialism a confusion?

Feel free to criticize/critique.

Wild speculation, undefined terms, conclusions without any presented reasonable support, God bias, hand picked scientific theories - why string theory over others?

Hardly worth taking seriously.

why string theory over others?

Do you have a specific question or concern? Much of my thought is subconscious and only takes shape through dialogue.

Quantum mechanics shows that subatomic particles cannot be pinned down to a specific location and momentum until it is observed.

It takes an observing mind in order for the elements of matter to take shape on its most fundamental scale. Hence, in order for the universe to begin (the Big Bang) something conscious had to observe the singularity in order for it to BECOME something.

Do you think me a fool?

The "observer" doesn't have to be human, let alone God.

I think you’re close-minded, hard-headed, unfeeling, unoriginal, and unimaginative.

The observer has to be conscious.

No it doesn't.

I'm an amateur artist, so I have plenty of creativity.

No it doesn't. Do your homework.

If you’re talking about machines, then my response would be that it takes a conscious mind to interpret the results.

There doesn't need to be an observation to begin with. The results don't need to be interpreted. Be honest: you're only pushing this flawed and unoriginal argument (I've seen it plenty of times here before), because you're working backwards from the conclusion that there's a God. This is your predictable God bias, and it hinders your approach to philosophy. You don't actually care about the science. You're just using it.

The machines, computers, and sensors are made through human intentionality. They require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation.

The machines, computers, and sensors are made through human intentionality. They require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation.

You don't actually care about the science. You're just using it.

The world existed long before us and our machines.

I am of the persuasion that whatever consciousness really is (I think it’s spirit) is the structuring element or substance of reality.

Now, if we break down matter down to its most fundamental elements, we get energy (kinetic or potential). Some theoretical physicists think the most fundamental elements are vibrating strings (String Theory). This energy or these strings (if these theoretical physicists are correct that strings are the most fundamental elements of reality)

Because you believe that God precedes all else, right?

What would matter even look like without it being perceived?

Why would lead you to believe that it would look any different than when perceived (re the way it looks at that particular point of reference)?

It would all depend on the power of your argument, so.......have at it, and good luck.

Do you even know what you’re talking about? I was the biggest atheist there was for half of my life. I even wrote a book about it, and you are free to Google me. A divine consciousness is an elegant way to explain reality. You’re just biased. Your love of scientism shows throughout.

Yes, I know what I'm talking about enough to correct your basic errors. I don't care about your attempt to boost your reputation. It's not difficult to get a book published. Any old hack can publish through the internet these days. Big publishers like Penguin are a different matter. I won't be googling you.

A point of reference assumes an observer.

You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,”

The idea is simply that there's some way that an existent is, but that's always from some spatio-temporal reference point--basically some location of space and time, because it's incoherent for there to be a way that an existent is from no spatio-temporal reference point. Existents are different from different spatio-temporal reference points (including their own spatio-temporal reference points). This isn't saying anything about conscious observers.

So the question is that why, when you remove a conscious observer from the equation, do you believe that any existent would be different, from that spatio-temporal location, than it is with the conscious observer at that spatio-temporal location?

The idea that energy, force or potentiality could be a "basic substance" is incoherent, though.

You’re correct that a frame of reference alone is spatio-temporal, but what the matter is like requires a conscious observer.

Why would you believe that properties require a conscious observer?

What things are like are not inherent properties of matter, but properties of thought.

Do you believe that there are properties of things without conscious observers?

The idea that energy, force or potentiality could be a "basic substance" is incoherent, though.
— Terrapin Station

I don’t see why? Please explain.

I believe we could have no knowledge of them or know anything about them.

The world existed long before us and our machines.
— S

No kidding.

Because, for example, energy makes no sense without there being something that's in motion or capable of motion.

Knowledge or perception of motion requires an observer. Without an observer, something there might just as well be nothing there. There’s nothing to discern the motion to say there is motion.

I have thought about this for years.

What would matter even look like without it being perceived? It takes an observer to make the amorphous and undifferentiated become form and differentiated.

So then you understand why it was silly to point out that man-made machines are made through human intentionality, and that they require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation?

And? Do you want a badge? Just because you've thought about this for years, that doesn't mean you're right. You could be just as wrong, if not more so, ten years from now.

That is why a consciousness is required to observe an inflation of a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Without an observer, there would be no Big Bang . . .

By “scientism” I am saying that you put faith in science to explain everything, including consciousness.

Was my comment about epistemology, or somehow saying anything pro or con what you responded with?

Metaphysics and epistemology go hand in hand. Without epistemology, there would be no metaphysics.

By “spirit,” I am giving a name to the basic substance. You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” if you like. “Spirit” just sounds like an amalgam of these ideas, and it jives with consciousness and the nature of qualia.

Does sunlight not interact with all the places on earth where nobody is looking and that's why the globe is warming?

That is why a consciousness is required to observe an inflation of a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Without an observer, there would be no Big Bang. This is one theory of how the universe began. A fluctuation in the quantum foam expanded and inflated into our universe. Just as wave functions require an observer to collapse, it would seem that an observer would be required for the fluctuation in the quantum foam to come into existence.

I will not respond to S.

without a subjective experience by someone, there would be no notion, knowledge, or experience of this. It would have no meaning. It wouldn’t matter.

...but without a subjective experience by someone, there would be no notion, knowledge, or experience of this. It would have no meaning. It wouldn’t matter.

In that trying, beware the bane of speculative philosophy.....the dreaded, but nonetheless ever-present, categorical error.

My point was that I was an atheist for a long time.

What you pointed out would be like saying, "Yes, perhaps the sun is warming things, but without a camera, there could be no photographs."

At least you can learn, which is more than we can say for 90+ percent of the folks around here. ;-)

It’s just that my life was very lonely and shitty when I was an atheist.

It’s just that my life was very lonely and shitty when I was an atheist. :fear:

There can definitely be benefits to church/religion-based social life, especially if you live in particular locations where that dominates the way that people interact socially.

Still I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually less narrow-minded.

I sympathize with your position, but you can't really discuss it with materialists because they disagree with your premises, but then you disagree with theirs so it doesn't lead anywhere. Still I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually less narrow-minded. But it's hard to show someone narrow-minded that they are narrow-minded, they have to be willing to let go of their convictions, or at least to tentatively entertain different points of view without reacting strongly right from the beginning against what they don't believe in.

Let me help you a little bit here. It could be that this material world we experience is a creation of our collective subconsciousness, and so that it depends on each and everyone of us, and that it is our will that shapes it, rather than unchanging laws that don't depend on us. If you don't like materialism, nothing forces you to believe in it, only some people try to force you (for various reasons that depend on them) but you don't have to let them take over your mind.

I could just as well say that I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually more fanciful. I could do this all day. We could just keep on trading characteristics with negative connotations, but it's not productive. It just shows your prejudice.

I don't see why I should spend my time and energy giving a detailed breakdown of your opening post. That would seem like an unfair working relationship: you submit a handful of uncritical thoughts, and I'm expected to give you a detailed breakdown of the flaws? Are you suggesting that you're incapable of reassessing your own thinking, given my feedback?

I used to be a materialist, and I see now how narrow-minded I was, so there's that.

I used to be a materialist, and I see now how narrow-minded I was, so there's that. I don't know of many people who turned materialists later in life, sure there are examples of people who escaped indoctrination from organized religion and who find more peace of mind in materialism, but then these were more looking to escape certain people rather than a philosophy that doesn't see matter as primary.

Also, the ideas of 20th century physics would have been called fanciful by materialists in the centuries before, and they may be called fanciful again in the next centuries, and maybe what you call fanciful now will be seen as reasonable in the future. Looking at the history and philosophy of science can help shatter some deeply-held beliefs, and lead one to be more open-minded.

I used to be a materialist, and I see now how narrow-minded I was, so there's that. I don't know of many people who turned materialists later in life, sure there are examples of people who escaped indoctrination from organized religion and who find more peace of mind in materialism, but then these were more looking to escape certain people rather than a philosophy that doesn't see matter as primary.

Also, the ideas of 20th century physics would have been called fanciful by materialists in the centuries before, and they may be called fanciful again in the next centuries, and maybe what you call fanciful now will be seen as reasonable in the future. Looking at the history and philosophy of science can help shatter some deeply-held beliefs, and lead one to be more open-minded.

I would hope that people aren't choosing philosophical stances based on whether they like[/i[] them.

A sample pool of just one is no basis to support such a judgement.

There's also a long history of science failures, like flogiston, luminiferous aether, and the geocentric model, as well as a wealth of speculative ideas which failed to even meet the principles behind the scientific method. So what you deliberately characterise negatively with the term "narrow-minded" could actually amount to rightly standing by reasonable principles instead of compromising by lowering the standard.

You took the time to write all of this when you didn't have to lol

I'm not the only one to have claimed that, I do have first-hand experience however. You can use my personal report as a starting point to conduct further inquiry and see whether there is a statistically significant percentage of former materialists who call their former self as narrow-minded, or you can simply dismiss it because you don't like the idea or because you don't care.

I don't see how that addresses what I said, those "science failures" you mention were widely accepted as facts, as truth in their time, whereas someone who would have discussed ideas of 20th century physics back then would have been seen as fanciful or as a crank. And these "science failures" adhered to the "scientific method" just fine back then.

S singles out my posts for some reason. He said I have a “God delusion.” I never argued for a particular god or implied that I know the nature of God. A delusion means having a false belief. This from someone who in other threads stated he had no beliefs about God one way or the other. Now he says it’s “delusion,” and says I don’t care about the truth. Weird.

Does anyone like you? If so, then they’re probably insufferable pricks as well.

Does anyone like you? If so, then they’re probably insufferable pricks as well.

S, has nothing to teach. I suggest, learning from someone else if dialectics is your thing.

S, has nothing to teach. I suggest, learning from someone else if dialectics is your thing.

Spoken like a true [s]ignoramus[/s].

And how much do you think you'll learn in an echo chamber?

A wallower.

I think, a lot of what goes on here is identity formation, where you seem to be constantly in dissonance or confusion that is [s]protected[/s]/projected onto others.

Obviously I'm not assessing those views from the perspective of someone at the time, otherwise my point wouldn't make any sense. I'm assessing them based on what we now know. The speculation in the opening post is comparable, in a sense. It resembles science, but is off track and weakly supported, if at all. As others have commented, it's based on a fairly common misperception about the meaning of terms and logical implications relating to the observer effect.

I don't come here to seek agreement or harmony. That would be boring

As for confusion, what do you think I'm confused about?

Well, back then...

Not to say there aren't misconceptions in what the OP said, and surely it doesn't help to use misconceptions in support of a speculative idea, but as a speculative idea I think it is worth exploring, rather than dismissing it right from the start as if we knew better, just because it seems to contradict "what we now know".

A speculative idea sometimes starts as an intuition, we don't really know where it's coming from, it's just floating there, we don't see how we could test it, but maybe if we discuss it and allow it to grow, something that we don't see yet will come out of it. The OP mentioned repeatedly that his mind works best through dialogue, that much of his thought is subconscious and only takes shape through dialogue, that was an invitation to help that idea grow, but instead he was simply met with resistance and with attempts to nip it in the bud. That's why paradigms take time to change, because ideas that contradict the prevalent one are resisted and rejected, instead of being allowed to flourish. A speculative idea is a bit like a flower seed, we have to water it and let it grow if we want to see the flower that it can become.

As for confusion, what do you think I'm confused about?
— S

Then what are you here for?

It is a good exercise to try to find the most basic building blocks of the Universe. Science has traced it back to Energy, but you are Speculating that Spirit or what I would call Consciousness is a more fundamental building block. I don't see how you make Energy from Consciousness, but it is a good Speculation. There's nothing wrong with Speculation. You don't need to have all the answers to have a Speculative Insight. Maybe just the thought that Energy and thus Matter are actually made out of Consciousness will inspire some other Mind to discover the answer. By the way, when it comes to Consciousness all we have is Speculation because nobody

Thank you for the kind words.

I sympathize with your position, but you can't really discuss it with materialists because they disagree with your premises, but then you disagree with theirs so it doesn't lead anywhere. Still I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually less narrow-minded. But it's hard to show someone narrow-minded that they are narrow-minded, they have to be willing to let go of their convictions, or at least to tentatively entertain different points of view without reacting strongly right from the beginning against what they don't believe in.

Would you rather hear kind words or harsh truths?

And what do you know about truth. You’re no better than a nihilist.

I know, at least, that one has a better chance of obtaining it through a means other than those known to be faulty, such as wishful thinking and confirmation bias. You want there to be a God, and, lo and behold, you interpret the science so as to lead to God. That's not the approach of a seeker of truth, that's the approach of someone who is out to indulge in pleasing deception, whether consciously or unconsciously.

S thinks that analytical philosophy is superior to continental philosophy, and that the 17th and 18th century philosophers did nothing of note. I don’t know why I engage with him. He isn’t about discovery, about the world or about himself. He seems to think that the consensus in the scientific community at any given time is the end all and be all. He has no imagination, and he just parrots back what he has learned from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

...and that the 17th and 18th century philosophers did nothing of note

Kant made mince-meat out of Hume.

I happen to think that's precisely why they choose them. For instance there's something about physicalism that suits you that you don't find in other philosophies.

I definitely do not choose any stance because I like it. In fact, I'd often prefer that other things were true. I choose stances based on what's the case.

I definitely do not choose any stance because I like it. In fact, I'd often prefer that other things were true. I choose stances based on what's the case.

It is the case that physicalism has no answer and will never have an answer for consciousness.

That's not at all the case. Consciousness is very clearly a subset of brain function.

That's not at all the case. Consciousness is very clearly a subset of brain function.

And you’ve died already to say that that is clearly shown?

How do you know that consciousness only occurs in brains?

I would guess you might be an example.

By the complete absence of evidence of it occurring elsewhere. That's the same way that we know that Led Zeppelin music only occurs on Earth.

Lack of evidence doesn’t preclude the possibility.

No

Excluding possibilities would amount to proving something, right?

If we've precluded all possibilities but one, then that one thing can't be wrong, no?

How have we precluded all possibilities? What is the justification for that?

Even if it's possible, absent any evidence, it's a possibility that only fools would take seriously. So you're fighting a losing battle here.

If we were to preclude all possibilities but one, that would be a proof, correct?

That sounds like an argument from incredulity.

I suppose that’s logically correct.

Sure. So, are empirical claims provable?

Empirical claims are not provable. Precluding possibilities is irrelevant to them. So that we haven't precluded a possibility in the context of an empirical claim is a red herring. It has nothing to do with support for an empirical claim, nothing to do with reasons to believe one claim over another, etc.

The answer is that they're not.

Precluding possibilities is only relevant to proofs.

Empirical claims are not provable. Precluding possibilities is irrelevant to them. So that we haven't precluded a possibility in the context of an empirical claim is a red herring. It has nothing to do with support for an empirical claim, nothing to do with reasons to believe one claim over another, etc.

No, they’re not provable. That was my point.

you anti-science buffoon

There’s no evidence that there is a multiverse, but it is a widely held speculation among cosmology physicists, you anti-science buffoon.

So bringing up that we haven't excluded some possibility is irrelevant.

And it's more promising than the religiously influenced fantasies that you're peddling.

I don’t subscribe to scientism, and there are many widely held beliefs among scientists that there is no evidence for, such as the multiverse, that black holes retain information, that there is extraterrestrial life, different theories yet differing opinions about the expansion of the universe, etc.

...you anti-science buffoon.

Also, make your mind up, lol. One minute I'm an ardent advocate of scientism, the next I'm anti-science!

I’m not religious. That is a misrepresentation.

Both of you worship science

One: can't you read? Two: are you seriously going to deny that your talk of spirit and God is religiously influenced?

Both of you worship science, but scientists are open-minded like me.

Can you please transparent enough to stop hiding behind the term "open-minded" when you really mean "accepting of nonsense".

I am influenced by many things.

I don’t rule things out because they may sound outlandish to some.

I am not religious.

Well, you know what? Since you didn't hesitate to call me an advocate of scientism, I'm going to call you religious from now on.

I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist. I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. I’m sorry that you’re too pig-headed to wander outside of the corral that Hume, Hitchens, and Dawkins set for you.

You're still missing the point, it seems. There's an important difference between ruling out and what I call taking seriously.

As a follower of scientism, where the believers have no beliefs outside of accepted mainstream science, I’m afraid you are doomed to live a life without an original thought.

Will you pray for my soul?

I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist. I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. I’m sorry that you’re too pig-headed to wander outside of the corral that Hume, Hitchens, and Dawkins set for you.

I very much doubt that you have a soul.

I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out.

Well, or fantasizing, basically. I like doing that, too, but I don't take it to be something other than fantasizing.

Because they don't exist.

The evidence for the proverbial soul is the ability to show empathy.

We just call that the ability to empathize. No need to make up nonsense like a "soul" for it.

don't even accept what seem to be standard notions of space, time, etc.

Showing empathy would just be evidence that I have the ability to understand the emotions and experiences of others.

Like I said, there’s no evidence of that.

It’s not literal. It’s proverbial and metaphorical. Like I said, no one is more fundamentalist than an atheist.

I don’t know how to communicate with you.

That's not true. There's a difference between understanding the emotions of others, and choosing to disregard them.

If you're saying that souls are fictional, that's fine. You're not thinking that I'd disagree with that, are you?

I don’t know how to communicate with you.
— Noah Te Stroete

Hmm, okay.

I’m saying that I use the term metaphorically.

You're saying that you use "soul" metaphorically? For the metaphor, you're non-literally talking about what in terms of what?

When we say that someone is soul-less, then that person is a psychopath. I was talking about S.

Consciousness/qualia is of the brain as a process therein because
1. It reflects what the brain has just come up with from its analysis.
2. It can go away in a faint, with a blow to the head, anesthesia, or get foggy from drugs.

It’s not fantasizing exactly. I cannot communicate to you all of my subjective experiences.

There are many first-person accounts of people having near-death experiences, even after no perceivable brain activity.

How very... convenient. Kind of like, "I can do a backflip", "Go on then", "I can't do it whilst you're watching".

It's not like they'd be able to report the near-death experience they're having while they're medically dead, while they have no perceivable brain activity.

The point is that what you're saying is indistinguishable from bullshit, so it counts for nothing.

Of course they can’t report it. The brain controls the body. The mind seems to go elsewhere during these episodes. Those are the first-person reports.

There are many first-person accounts of people having near-death experiences, even after no perceivable brain activity.

In other words, the person medically dies at 4:20. Then they're brought back at 4:24, whereupon they once again have perceivable brain activity. At 4:26, they report their NDE. Why would we conclude that the NDE didn't occur somewhere between 4:24 and 4:26?

No, the first-person "reports" are just what they say after the event, which could be entirely fabricated or otherwise mistaken, with no possible way of checking, so it counts for nothing.

We normally only see clearly only at about the size of a deck of cards held at arm’s length (Try looking just a little away and the clarity goes way down)—this is the center of the tunnel which is caused by neuronal stripes. I am not really dying to go down the tunnel…

mental modes that give rise to consciousness.

No, it's not my interpretation, it's my reasonable conclusion. Do you have a way of verifying their "report"? Yes or no? If yes, explain. If no, then it counts for nothing, as opposed to evidence in favour of one possibility over others.

If there's no means of verification, then it counts for nothing. You accept that, then? Because I was under the impression that you wanted to count it as evidence. But it can't be, because it could be fabricated or mistaken.

What's "my model"? I haven't made the same claims as Terrapin, but I did somewhat rhetorically raise the question of whether there's any credible evidence of consciousness without a functioning brain. That link definitely counts for something, and it can indeed be verified.

It’s evidence to the people who experience it, and to doubt so many accounts just shows that you may be projecting your psychopathic behaviors onto others. A lot of atheists are psychopaths. Not all of them, but there is strong evidence that you are one.

That link definitely counts for something, and it can indeed be verified

They are just consensual taxonomy.

"It's evidence for them" is so lame a response as to be laughable, and noting the number of accounts is a fallacious appeal to the masses. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost, too.

"It's evidence for them" is so lame a response as to be laughable,

You mean that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify? Big deal. That just means that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify, and nothing else.

Because it's meaningless, i.e. counts for nothing, to anyone who i) isn't that person, and ii) has their wits about them.

Yes I know what you mean, but it´s this kind of questions, posed this way, that drives good "minds" from looking for the answers

It doesn't matter one way or the other!

So you want to ply a little, or is this boring for you? Do you want a good question or a twisted idea?

That’s your interpretation. You’re discounting the person’s perceived experience because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived model.

I believe we could have no knowledge of them or know anything about them.

By “spirit,” I am giving a name to the basic substance. You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” if you like. “Spirit” just sounds like an amalgam of these ideas, and it jives with consciousness and the nature of qualia.