Here both posters and comments will be restricted to topic-specific discourse. Comments should directly address the original post and poster. Comments and/or links that are deemed to be too digressive or off-topic, may be deleted by a moderator.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 4:04 pm
What dualistic assumption is that?
I'm making no dualistic assumption. I'm just saying reality is not solely mental. That's it.
The rationale is that shared reality differs in quality from private consciousness so it cannot be solely mental. It does not have the characteristics of consciousness.
What it is I didn't say.
You are positing a "shared reality" in opposition to a "private consciousness" from the outset. That is dualistic assumption.
I'm not ruling that there might be n underlying unity between "shared reality" and "private consciousness. I'm saying it can't be solely mental. You could draw the conclusion it is something other than mental. Not-mental doesn't necessarily mean matter. It could be something we haven't thought of yet.
Regardless of what it is, if there is obviously mental aspect of experience, then the non-mental aspect creates a dualism. Two things of two different essences... I don't buy into "DA monism" or other attempts to cover up the dualism, such as panpsychism. Their concepts function exactly as those of a subject-object dualist, which is exactly how it functions with the author of the OP.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 8:55 pm
Regardless of what it is, if there is obviously mental aspect of experience, then the non-mental aspect creates a dualism. Two things of two different essences... I don't buy into "DA monism" or other attempts to cover up the dualism, such as panpsychism. Their concepts function exactly as those of a subject-object dualist, which is exactly how it functions with the author of the OP.
I suppose there's a case to be made that absent any materialism-hooked bastardization of the term 'panpsychism', which really just refers to omnipresent psyche, i.e. irreducible omnipresent willing/feeling/thinking (ideation), all being isomorphic to irreducible psyche (synonymous soul/mind/spirit in Greek), then I can live with that term. It's only when it assumes some physicalist-based state that is not isomorphic to pysche, which has the immanent capacity for willing/feeling/thinking, that it becomes some dualistic, ontic conflation, some incongruous hybrid of physicalism and idealism, serving to appease those who can't let go of physicalism's 'matter', and yet also need a way around its 'hard problem.'
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
You are positing a "shared reality" in opposition to a "private consciousness" from the outset. That is dualistic assumption.
I'm not ruling that there might be n underlying unity between "shared reality" and "private consciousness. I'm saying it can't be solely mental. You could draw the conclusion it is something other than mental. Not-mental doesn't necessarily mean matter. It could be something we haven't thought of yet.
Regardless of what it is, if there is obviously mental aspect of experience, then the non-mental aspect creates a dualism. Two things of two different essences... I don't buy into "DA monism" or other attempts to cover up the dualism, such as panpsychism. Their concepts function exactly as those of a subject-object dualist, which is exactly how it functions with the author of the OP.
What is it about "underlying unity between shared reality and private consciousness" that you think is dualist?
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 8:55 pm
Regardless of what it is, if there is obviously mental aspect of experience, then the non-mental aspect creates a dualism. Two things of two different essences... I don't buy into "DA monism" or other attempts to cover up the dualism, such as panpsychism. Their concepts function exactly as those of a subject-object dualist, which is exactly how it functions with the author of the OP.
I suppose there's a case to be made that absent any materialism-hooked bastardization of the term 'panpsychism', which really just refers to omnipresent psyche, i.e. irreducible omnipresent willing/feeling/thinking (ideation), all being isomorphic to irreducible psyche (synonymous soul/mind/spirit in Greek), then I can live with that term. It's only when it assumes some physicalist-based state that is not isomorphic to pysche, which has the immanent capacity for willing/feeling/thinking, that it becomes some dualistic, ontic conflation, some incongruous hybrid of physicalism and idealism, serving to appease those who can't let go of physicalism's 'matter', and yet also need a way around its 'hard problem.'
Panpsychism holds that there are ontic physical things, like electrons, atoms, and such, which also possess their own 1st-person conscious perspective. That is most certainly dualism. I suppose there are Whiteheadian panpsychists and such who would deny that, but then the question is, what exactly differentiates their position from idealism?
Jim wrote:What is it about "underlying unity between shared reality and private consciousness" that you think is dualist?
I can say there are physical things in 'shared space' and mental things in 'private space', but they both find their underlying Unity in the spaghetti-monster being who pervades all... have I just circumvented metaphysical dualism altogether? Of course not. It's ridiculous to suggest that, and what you are doing is no different.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:51 pm
Panpsychism holds that there are ontic physical things, like electrons, atoms, and such, which also possess their own 1st-person conscious perspective. That is most certainly dualism.
Again, I'm saying that definition is a materialism-hooked bastardization of the term 'panpsychism', not applicable if strictly holding to the derivation of 'pan' and 'psyche'—the term panpsychism (/pænˈsaɪkɪzəm/) comes from the Greek pan (πᾶν : "all, everything, whole, omnipresent") and psyche (ψυχή: "soul, mind")—which in no way requires any 'ontic, physical thing' add-ons.
I suppose there are Whiteheadian panpsychists and such who would deny that, but then the question is, what exactly differentiates their position from idealism?
Exactly co-councel ... I rest my case.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:51 pm
Panpsychism holds that there are ontic physical things, like electrons, atoms, and such, which also possess their own 1st-person conscious perspective. That is most certainly dualism.
Again, I'm saying that definition is a materialism-hooked bastardization of the term 'panpsychism', not applicable if strictly holding to the derivation of 'pan' and 'psyche'—the term panpsychism (/pænˈsaɪkɪzəm/) comes from the Greek pan (πᾶν : "all, everything, whole, omnipresent") and psyche (ψυχή: "soul, mind")—which in no way requires any 'ontic, physical thing' add-ons.
I suppose there are Whiteheadian panpsychists and such who would deny that, but then the question is, what exactly differentiates their position from idealism?
Exactly co-councel ... I rest my case.
The only reason to differentiate from idealism is to also maintain ontic physical things which have been 'discovered' by modern science. But if you are saying "panpsychism" and "idealism" are two ways of stating the exact same metaphysical position... then yeah I guess I can't argue against that tautology
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:51 pm
Panpsychism holds that there are ontic physical things, like electrons, atoms, and such, which also possess their own 1st-person conscious perspective. That is most certainly dualism.
Again, I'm saying that definition is a materialism-hooked bastardization of the term 'panpsychism', not applicable if strictly holding to the derivation of 'pan' and 'psyche'—the term panpsychism (/pænˈsaɪkɪzəm/) comes from the Greek pan (πᾶν : "all, everything, whole, omnipresent") and psyche (ψυχή: "soul, mind")—which in no way requires any 'ontic, physical thing' add-ons.
I suppose there are Whiteheadian panpsychists and such who would deny that, but then the question is, what exactly differentiates their position from idealism?
Exactly co-councel ... I rest my case.
The only reason to differentiate from idealism is to also maintain ontic physical things which have been 'discovered' by modern science. But if you are saying "panpsychism" and "idealism" are two ways of stating the exact same metaphysical position... then yeah I guess I can't argue against that tautology
Indeed, a tautology only if applying the original derivation of 'pan' and 'psyche'. Of course, materialists are well known for redefining terms, such as 'observer' to mean a table-top measurement apparatus.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 11:11 pm
Again, I'm saying that definition is a materialism-hooked bastardization of the term 'panpsychism', not applicable if strictly holding to the derivation of 'pan' and 'psyche'—the term panpsychism (/pænˈsaɪkɪzəm/) comes from the Greek pan (πᾶν : "all, everything, whole, omnipresent") and psyche (ψυχή: "soul, mind")—which in no way requires any 'ontic, physical thing' add-ons.
Exactly co-councel ... I rest my case.
The only reason to differentiate from idealism is to also maintain ontic physical things which have been 'discovered' by modern science. But if you are saying "panpsychism" and "idealism" are two ways of stating the exact same metaphysical position... then yeah I guess I can't argue against that tautology
Indeed, a tautology only if applying the original derivation of 'pan' and 'psyche'. Of course, materialists are well known for redefining terms, such as 'observer' to mean a table-top measurement apparatus.
Funny how people can latch onto a term in technical discipline like physics and build a metaphysical conclusion on it, then complain when the scientists tell them they misunderstood.
The prominence of seemingly subjective or anthropocentric ideas like "observer" in the early development of the theory has been a continuing source of disquiet and philosophical dispute.[3] A number of new-age religious or philosophical views give the observer a more special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer.There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims. As an example of such claims, Fritjof Capra declared, "The crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an object, but is necessary even to define these properties."[4]
The Copenhagen interpretation, which is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists,[1][5]: 248 posits that an "observer" or a "measurement" is merely a physical process. One of the founders of the Copenhagen interpretation, Werner Heisenberg, wrote:
The Copenhagen interpretation, which is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists,[1][5]: 248 posits that an "observer" or a "measurement" is merely a physical process. One of the founders of the Copenhagen interpretation, Werner Heisenberg, wrote:
Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[6]
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:52 pm
Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[6]
Thanks for making my point. The derivation of observe is 'to watch' or to 'look at', implying subjectivity. To suggest that a brick reacting to sunlight by heating up is somehow 'watching' or 'looking at' or 'sensing' the sunlight, is tantamount to the panpsychism which holds that discrete ontic particles have conscious agency. So, when it is applied to a measurement apparatus that should not be taken to imply some kind of subjective features, like watching and looking, how is it not a re-defining of the derivation of the term?
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:52 pm
Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[6]
Thanks for making my point. The derivation of observe is 'to watch' or to 'look at', implying subjectivity. To suggest that a brick reacting to sunlight by heating up is somehow 'watching' or 'looking at' or 'sensing' the sunlight, is tantamount to the panpsychism which holds that discrete ontic particles have conscious agency. So, when it is applied to a measurement apparatus that should not be taken to imply some kind of subjective features, like watching and looking, how is it not a re-defining of the derivation of the term?
It's a technical term.
As John Bell inquired, "Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer—with a PhD?"
There's also a charm quark and a strange quark in physics. I guess you would be pleased to meet the first one but kind a weirded out by the second one.
