JW, this is mostly above my head with the physics-stuff but thanks for sharing.
Only a few thoughts.
Is it wise to reference philosophers who did not have at their disposal all the things we know from physics and biology today?
After all, they can not interpret the situation as we can.
I am saying this with something in mind that BK said the other day, that QFT is the most successful theory ever, just as an example.
They did not know of QFT.
Does it make sense to say on the one hand that we can not know and on the other hand denounce ontological primitves like mind?
I think you said yourself physics seems to point at an ontological primitive. And then you said "if such a thing even exists". Does it not make sense to argue for "one", be it one universal mind, one garbage-universe, or whatever oneness?
And:
What reveals itself again is the error of metaphysics. It attempts to speak what we cannot say. To define the unknowable most elementary base of existence as consciousness is as meaningless as defining it as fairyland. Both are mere anthropomorphic projections from inside out locked cage of human representation.
One could hold against that that consciousness is not a projection, it is a fact, fairyland is not. And speculating this is what the universe is all about. Does that make it an antromorphic projection? and not for example an inference? I think an anthromorpic projection would be to say the universe is like us or a personal God. The idealistic argument is that experience is the only ontic category that we know to be really exist as a fact. Why is this speculation less valuable than to posit, as I think you said in your video, that maybe superpositional states result in al kinds of things including consciousness? "The error of metaphysics", as it stands, is just an assertion to me right now potentially begging the question of materialism. My personal speculation is that "one mind" does not get into some peoples heads. But there is nothing strange about it, at least to me.
Along the same lines: The fairyland-sentence: This seems to imply the belief that whatever we could possibly speculate always has to be meaningless. I dont see why you think its meaningless to begin with. To me, speculations could always be wrong. But to declare the wrong only because they could be wrong does not have much purchase for me.
There
Its early here and I have to rush. But one thing I remember from your video but only vaguely. It was one X and one Y and you caid they can not be reconciled into "one". Can you remind me/us and elaborate on that, that was interesting. It made me doubt what you said but I also did not really unerstand it.
There seem to be 2 conflicting definitions of metaphysics.
The one most here would presumably subscribe to is this one: Its just a way to analytically get behind the ontic nature of the world.
A part of philosophy.
You seem to say that we have to stick with German philosophers who dealt with the subject-matter first, meaning that the term is already
begging the question in favor of e.g. idealism, because a transcendent cause or first principle is already considered a given.
That about right?
Do you self-identify as anything....are you a materialist or...
How do you solve materialisms main-problem, that, as many here would argue, materialists are trying to pull experience from an abstraction-space?
What value do you grant to our human experience when potentially figuring things out, be it meditating on a mountain, taking certain substances etc?
Is it conceivable for you say you took whatever substance to change your world-view after the experience? Why or why not?
What also comes to mind you said that the way this world is can not even be grasped. There is this famous idea that scripture
is the "finger pointing at the moon", the moon indeed is the ineffable and can not be grasped so you need a story to illustrate
the ungraspable.
Last but not least: You are saying that Schopenhauer was not an idealist? If so, why did he say what I posted under your video and why did he own a dog named Atman?
Thanks for your great comments, looking forward to more. Mark