Philosophical Speculations

Cleric, I understand what you are saying. Indeed, the ability of consciousness to cognate and experience meanings is amazing an mysterious and allows for the rich and interconnected universe of meanings to exist in consciousness. However, in philosophical terms phenomenology does not study the mean...

Appearances can be deceiving which, with some thought, can be corrected, for example, the sun appearing to revolve around the earth. For us (most of us), some energy appears to us as having no conscious aspect. But this was not necessarily always the case. As consciousness evolves, so do appearance...

Non-metaphysical thought holds fast to what is experienced in the physical world. In our experience we encounter energy with no signs of consciousness, and we experience consciousness which is grounded in energy. That in itself reveals consciousness to be reducible to energy, and thus physical. ......

No, we wouldn’t need to show that, just that energy is a necessary condition for consciousness, which shows energy to be more fundamental. There can be energy with no consciousness, but no consciousness without energy. How is this not a metaphysical claim, given that there is the possibility that a...

We do know things about energy, including we can reduce everything to it, including consciousness. How do you reduce consciousness to energy? The quick answer is I let Kastrup do it for me. In an argument he had with somebody on Twitter over the possibility of computers developing consciousness, he...

Tbh I don't find the first issue (how the mental can affect the physical) to be much of an issue, because the answer could very well be: it cannot. You just feel like it's you running the show, but hard determinism is actually correct, and you are just watching stuff unfold from 1st person perspect...

JeffreyW wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:11 pm We do know things about energy, including we can reduce everything to it, including consciousness.

How do you reduce consciousness to energy?

Sorry for the nitpick, but it's 'Kuhlewind', not 'Khulewind' (or, to get nitpickier, 'Kühlewind, but I realize this is a challenge for diacritic-challenged US keyboards).

It seems to me that the only major argument against cartesian dualism is parsimony. And indeed, it is not necessary for mind and matter to be separate categories, you can explain reality with just mind. But is there any other substantive argument against why a non-dualist ontology is more likely th...

After reading many of Bernardo’s writings on analytic idealism and also becoming absorbed in Advaita Vedanta philosophy á la Rupert Spira, I realized that they both acknowledge the inherent dimensionless quality of the one consciousness, which is reality itself. What I mean by the term ‘dimensionle...