Paper by Max Velmans

[Eugene I]

Recently published paper by Max Velmans IS THE UNIVERSE CONSCIOUS? REFLEXIVE MONISM AND THE GROUND OF BEING. Click on the "Download" to read

[Eugene I]

another paper by Max:
HOW TO ARRIVE AT AN EASTERN PLACE FROM A WESTERN DIRECTION

[Eugene I]

And more on his YT channel
His position is essentially the dual-aspect monism.

[JLPratt]

Velmans' argument seems to be: (a) materialism has a hard problem of consciousness, (b) idealism has an inverse hard problem of consciousness, so (c) the solution must be a middle position bridging consciousness and materiality. But why should it? Couldn't a way exist to get from consciousness to materiality? Wouldn't a middle position, moreover, also require explaining?

At best his theory is another useful description of reality but in that respect not so different from the idealism and materialism he critiques. What do you think about it, Eugene? Is Velmans right about the Hindu traditions? Wouldn't some Hindus at least argue that you cannot get around starting from Pure Consciousness, or an Ultimate Emptiness?

[Eugene I]

Velmans' argument seems to be: (a) materialism has a hard problem of consciousness, (b) idealism has an inverse hard problem of consciousness, so (c) the solution must be a middle position bridging consciousness and materiality. But why should it? Couldn't a way exist to get from consciousness to materiality? Wouldn't a middle position, moreover, also require explaining?

At best his theory is another useful description of reality but in that respect not so different from the idealism and materialism he critiques. What do you think about it, Eugene? Is Velmans right about the Hindu traditions? Wouldn't some Hindus at least argue that you cannot get around starting from Pure Consciousness, or an Ultimate Emptiness?

I'm not promoting dual-aspect monism (DAM), but just pointing to interesting developments in this field of philosophy in parallel with idealism. DAM definitely also has it own explanatory gaps. Any metaphysics stumbles upon the origin of the natural laws of the observable universe. The "inverse hard problem" for idealism can not be compared to the "forward hard problem" for materialism, because the problem for idealism is not of a kind of "brutal emergence", so, in Chalmers terms, it rather belongs to the category of "easy problems".

Regarding the Hinduist traditions, there is a variety of metaphysics in Hinduism, including Dvaita (matter-consciousness dualism aka Cartesian), Samkya which is similar to DAM, and finally Advaita which is pure idealism. So Hinduism overall is metaphysically inconsistent and their metaphysics vary across the schools. But you are right, Advaita is definitely the metaphysics of Consciousness-only.

[JLPratt]

Velmans' argument seems to be: (a) materialism has a hard problem of consciousness, (b) idealism has an inverse hard problem of consciousness, so (c) the solution must be a middle position bridging consciousness and materiality. But why should it? Couldn't a way exist to get from consciousness to materiality? Wouldn't a middle position, moreover, also require explaining?

At best his theory is another useful description of reality but in that respect not so different from the idealism and materialism he critiques. What do you think about it, Eugene? Is Velmans right about the Hindu traditions? Wouldn't some Hindus at least argue that you cannot get around starting from Pure Consciousness, or an Ultimate Emptiness?

I'm not promoting dual-aspect monism (DAM), but just pointing to interesting developments in this field of philosophy in parallel with idealism. DAM definitely also has it own explanatory gaps. Any metaphysics stumbles upon the origin of the natural laws of the observable universe. The "inverse hard problem" for idealism can not be compared to the "forward hard problem" for materialism, because the problem for idealism is not of a kind of "brutal emergence", so, in Chalmers terms, it rather belongs to the category of "easy problems".

Regarding the Hinduist traditions, there is a variety of metaphysics in Hinduism, including Dvaita (matter-consciousness dualism aka Cartesian), Samkya which is similar to DAM, and finally Advaita which is pure idealism. So Hinduism overall is metaphysically inconsistent and their metaphysics vary across the schools.

Thank you for those clarifications. You're absolutely right about the difference between materialism's hard problem of consciousness and what Velmans regards as idealism's inverse hard problem of consciousness, which instead might be called idealism's "hard problem of materialism."

You're no doubt also right about the variety of Hindu metaphysical approaches. In the second paper, Velmans cited a Hindu thinker named Swami Abhedananda who would support Velmans' reflexive monism but at least the Advaita pure idealists would say something like, "Not so fast." Very interesting.

[Eugene I]

You're no doubt also right about the variety of Hindu metaphysical approaches. In the second paper, Velmans cited a Hindu thinker named Swami Abhedananda who would support Velmans' reflexive monism but at least the Advaita pure idealists would say something like, "Not so fast." Very interesting.

Advaita (the pure idealistic school of Hinduism) was developed by Shankaracharyia sometime in the 7-9th century, but it has not become the dominant school in Hinduism in India. But Advaita is the school that was spread in the West (mostly due to the popularity of Maharshi and Maharaj teachings), so many people in the West may get an impression that Hinduism is all idealism, but that is actually far from being true.