A No-brainer,

[Lou Gold]

For a challenging counter to the anthropocentric bias of mentalism, here is a no-brainer.

[Lou Gold]

For a challenging counter to the anthropocentric bias of mentalism, here is a no-brainer.

I hope the Idealists here won't get distracted by the likelihood that these scientists must often use the dominant science lingo of materialism ('brains' rather than 'minds'). My point in posting this is to reveal a gaping hole in a model that limits consciousness to the 'brainy ones', which would be the challenging 'anthropocentric bias' vulnerability of Idealism.

[Astra052]

Honestly I don't see how idealism is anthropocentric? Maybe I'm alone here but I value animal consciousness and other potential consciousnesses as just important as mine. Most of us probably don't limit consciousness to just the brain. I find it competely plausible that fungi would have consciousness and I don't see how this effects my idealism.

[Lou Gold]

Honestly I don't see how idealism is anthropocentric? Maybe I'm alone here but I value animal consciousness and other potential consciousnesses as just important as mine. Most of us probably don't limit consciousness to just the brain. I find it competely plausible that fungi would have consciousness and I don't see how this effects my idealism.

Oh, I only described the the 'anthropocentrism' as a 'vulnerability', which is surely not equally present across the spectrum of Idealism, say, perhaps, from Kastrup to Sheldrake. But, yes, this depends on how one defines true or real idealism, just as much depends on how one defines 'mind' or 'God'. To inquire in a mindful way, one might hold differing concepts of a a forest and see which one allows one to experience it must fully.

Back in the days of my wilderness vigils, I used to walk trails through the old-growth forest giving myself permission to think any thoughts I'd fancy. The only instruction was, "don't make the forest vanish." The moment I'd identify too closely with a thought, the whole forest would vanish. This is the trap called 'mentalism' and in a cautionary way I hold it up as a 'vulnerability of Idealism'. Orwell famously said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

[Astra052]

Honestly I don't see how idealism is anthropocentric? Maybe I'm alone here but I value animal consciousness and other potential consciousnesses as just important as mine. Most of us probably don't limit consciousness to just the brain. I find it competely plausible that fungi would have consciousness and I don't see how this effects my idealism.

Oh, I only described the the 'anthropocentrism' as a 'vulnerability', which is surely not equally present across the spectrum of Idealism, say, perhaps, from Kastrup to Sheldrake. But, yes, this depends on how one defines true or real idealism, just as much depends on how one defines 'mind' or 'God'. To inquire in a mindful way, one might hold differing concepts of a a forest and see which one allows one to experience it must fully.

Back in the days of my wilderness vigils, I used to walk trails through the old-growth forest giving myself permission to think any thoughts I'd fancy. The only instruction was, "don't make the forest vanish." The moment I'd identify too closely with a thought, the whole forest would vanish. This is the trap called 'mentalism' and in a cautionary way I hold it up as a 'vulnerability of Idealism'. Orwell famously said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

I think I understand what you're saying, in which case I agree.