Criticism

[JeffreyW]

You repeat the same mistake. I create no concept of fundamental reality at all because I can’t. It is people like Kastrup who reduce it by trying to define it as Consciousness, or god, or Ideas out of thin air.

As I said above, it has nothing to do with ontology and it does not matter what's fundamental and what's not. It's the interaction problem and brutal emergence problem - conscious experience and anything by nature non-conscious can not co-exist and interact in one reality (interaction problem (C) Princess Elisabeth), and they also cannot emerge from each other (brutal emergence problem (C) Chalmers).

An empty assertion. The only possible true statement is that we don’t know.

[Mark Tetzner]

Why should anybody accept coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy adequacy as the determinants of truth?

Sure. Then I claim that the ultimate truth is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's actually very beautiful and poetic as I picture it in my mind. And I do not accept any contra-arguments based on coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy as those are inadequate as determinants of truth. I only trust my sense of poetic beauty. End of philosophy.

It seems you responded what I thought JW would say.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Because it cannot be answered and Metaphysics offers no valid explanations, just the beckoning of Syrens inviting to crash on the shores. It remains that I find no real reason to assume elemental consciousness.

And therefore, presumably, if no elemental Awareness then no elemental Thinking ... and yet you concur with Ashvin that due to evolutionary reasons we're starting to access That so as to reach into deeper, more numinous layers of Reality via "esthetic knowledge". What is your take on the numinous?

[JeffreyW]

Why should anybody accept coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy adequacy as the determinants of truth?

Sure. Then I claim that the ultimate truth is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's actually very beautiful and poetic as I picture it in my mind. And I do not accept any contra-arguments based on coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy as those are inadequate as determinants of truth. I only trust my sense of poetic beauty. End of philosophy.

You have a particular talent for creating strawmen.

[JeffreyW]

Why should anybody accept coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy adequacy as the determinants of truth?

Sure. Then I claim that the ultimate truth is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's actually very beautiful and poetic as I picture it in my mind. And I do not accept any contra-arguments based on coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy as those are inadequate as determinants of truth. I only trust my sense of poetic beauty. End of philosophy.

It seems you responded what I thought JW would say.

One more example of how you have very little understanding of what I say or will say.

[JeffreyW]

Because it cannot be answered and Metaphysics offers no valid explanations, just the beckoning of Syrens inviting to crash on the shores. It remains that I find no real reason to assume elemental consciousness.

And therefore, presumably, if no elemental Awareness then no elemental Thinking ... and yet you concur with Ashvin that due to evolutionary reasons we're starting to access That so as to reach into deeper, more numinous layers of Reality via "esthetic knowledge". What is your take on the numinous?

Noumenal is an archaic metaphysical error.

[Mark Tetzner]

Sure. Then I claim that the ultimate truth is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's actually very beautiful and poetic as I picture it in my mind. And I do not accept any contra-arguments based on coherence, internal consistency, parsimony, explanatory power and empirical adequacy as those are inadequate as determinants of truth. I only trust my sense of poetic beauty. End of philosophy.

It seems you responded what I thought JW would say.

One more example of how you have very little understanding of what I say or will say.

I understand very little. It´s hard to understand your position except for "we dont know" which is true enough.
but some like to go further. you reject metaphysics i reject the rejection of it. so lets leave it at that. our
positions dont talk to each other easily.

[Eugene I]

An empty assertion. The only possible true statement is that we don’t know.

If that's the case then why do you claim that you know that "energy" is the "stuff" from which conscious experience emerges?

Agnosticism is a good position actually, I have nothing against it. But you are being inconsistent by claiming that you don't know, and yet claiming that you know (about consciousness emerging from "energy").

[JeffreyW]

An empty assertion. The only possible true statement is that we don’t know.

If that's the case then why do you claim that you know that "energy" is the "stuff" from which conscious experience emerges?

You are conflating things again, perhaps to create another strawman, or perhaps through lack of understanding. Energy is the lowest level “stuff” we know of. You continuously try to twist that into my saying it is the lowest, most elemental stuff there is. I make no such assertion about Being because we can know so little about it. We do know things about energy, including we can reduce everything to it, including consciousness. That is why you continuously evade Kastrup’s inadvertent acknowledgement of that through his ATP argument.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Because it cannot be answered and Metaphysics offers no valid explanations, just the beckoning of Syrens inviting to crash on the shores. It remains that I find no real reason to assume elemental consciousness.

And therefore, presumably, if no elemental Awareness then no elemental Thinking ... and yet you concur with Ashvin that due to evolutionary reasons we're starting to access That so as to reach into deeper, more numinous layers of Reality via "esthetic knowledge". What is your take on the numinous?

Noumenal is an archaic metaphysical error.

Um ok, but I asked for your take on the 'numinous'?