Well, for Whitehead "actual occasions" (drops of experience) are the final actualities of which reality is composed. Apart from them there is vast nothingness. As for panexperientialism, panpsychism is becoming a respectable view in the philosophy of mind and consciousness and the view that Whiteheads events (which create time and space) have both a experiential and a physical aspect fits into that quite well. Whitehead is well worth more of your time,, I think. Not contrary to Buddhist philosophy just different concepts and language. The divine dwells within the processes of nature.

If one believes in the Abrahamic God one cannot say one believes in an unknowable divinity, bec an unknowable divinity. — Janus

I am not sure supernatural intervention, divine revelation and the authority of sacred scripture is really a more sophisticated or philosophical conception of the divine even if a common one. :smile:

We are accustomed nowadays to thinking of ourselves as 'the outcome' or 'the product of' material causation, the accidental byproducts of an entirely fortuitous chain of events. Historically, idealism arose as a criticism and protest against that, the observation that whilst physically h.sapiens is a mere blip in the vastness of cosmic time, nevertheless it is us who are aware of that vastness, we are the form in which it becomes aware of itself. — Wayfarer

It should be pretty clear that I do not subscribe to Russell's view of our role in nature. Since my particular view of the divine is one of striving towards creativity, experience, novelty and complexity. That is not to say that there is not a "reality" separate from us or that we are the intended "result" of the divine which dwells within, merely that we (with all our thought, perception and experiences) are part of nature, not separate from the world in which we arise and on which we depend. To separate the world into primary and secondary qualities like Locke is to make an artificial bifurcation of nature. To think that our mathematical models are nature is to commit a fallacy of misplaced concreteness and to think that space and time are separate from process and events is the fallacy of simple location.

I don't really see idealism as the proper solution to eliminative materialism (scientific materialism) although it does get one thinking along a better trajectory.

The series I mentioned was a set of 52 lectures by Canadian professor of cognitive science, John Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (more info). He's doing something similar, albeit on a rather larger scale than pure philosophy. — Wayfarer

A big commitment that 52 hours of lectures, I will look for a summary but thanks

Although I would agree that cognitive experiences are as "real" and as much (maybe more) a part of the world as atoms and other measurable physical phenomena[,adding the notion that they are "material" brings forth all types of problems and objections. It smacks a little of eliminative materialism and thus immediately raises objection from process philosophers, neutral monists, idealists and others. If you wish to assert that "matter" or the "physical" is not completely devoid of experience as is often and commonly assumed, that would be a different discussion

something to bear in mind in all this, is the way in which the rules of the debate have been set by philosophical theology in ages past. All of the terms in lexicon of philosophy, at least up until recently, were dominated by the 'cultural grammar' (to use John Vervaeke's term) of the Bible and the Greek philosophers (mainly Platonist). Many of these rules become what we've been discussing in another thread, 'hinge propositions', which are foundational to any common understanding of philosophical terminology. — Wayfarer

The assumptions about God generally involve concepts like omnipotence and omniscience, along with eternal changeless perfection. To many any conception of God that does not accept these as divine attributes is not talking about the God of religion and philosophy. These assumptions are precisely what are called into question in process theology. Charles Hartshorne wrote an aptly named short book titled "Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes" and Whitehead explicitly rejects these as divine attributes instead focusing on creativity, novelty, experience and creative advance as divine attributes.
Yes, modern worldviews involving cosmology, evolution and physics tell us the theology derived from the notion of the earth as the center of the universe, man as the crown of creation and a divine particularly concerned with human moral behavior are all errors which should prompt us to reconsider our notions about what attributes the divine may or may not have. It requires a different conception and a different language from that inherited from the "philosophical theology of ages past".

As to 'not being able to see' - the very act of seeing (or not seeing) draws on the mind's structuring capacities. The thought experiment of picturing a scene from "no point of view" highlights this: our attempts to describe even an unseen reality always, implicitly or explicitly, reintroduce a perspective. It's not merely that our minds are limited in grasping an already-structured external reality. It's that the structure itself (the segmentation into "objects," the experience of "color" or "sound") arises from the interaction between the world and the mind's organizing principles. This doesn't make what we regard as 'external reality' any less than real - rather, it's to point out that its reality-as-known or reality-as-intelligible is co-constituted by mind. Self and world are co-arising, neither exists in any absolute sense. — Wayfarer

I always have had trouble with philosophical skepticism (especially solipsism) and any form of absolute idealism, even to the point of refusing to seriously entertain the premise or spend considerable time or effort to follow the argument.

I would agree the division of the world into individual objects with inherent properties is a product of mind not of nature. There are no independent objects (everything arises from and is dependent upon) the larger world and environment and properties are really just relationships between events. In that sense the world as we imagine it to be and the way we talk about it are just products or our minds and sense perceptions. The post modernist critique of all our notions about truth and history being products or our language and culture have some validity.

I would also agree that our thoughts, feelings and perceptions are just as much a part of reality and nature as the atoms and fundamental physical forces that we create language and concepts to talk about. The warmth of the sunset and the red sky are as real as the infrared and wavelengths of light we use to talk about them. They are all part of nature, you can not pick and choose.

In the end it seems clear that there is a world, reality, universe which carries on with or without us and which is really quite oblivious to our conceptions and which will obliterate us (and thus our minds, perceptions and thoughts) if we get too carried away with the notion the we create reality as opposed to just living in it, temporarily and contingently :smile: .

This just sounds like Kant's noumena, phenomena dichotomy or the repetitive discussions of indirect versus direct realism.. Sure our worldview is strongly shaped by our culture, our language, our limited sense perception and the way in which our mind integrates and presents sense data to us. I just don't see how that makes a reality independent of human minds any less "real" or "existent". It is our limitation not a limitation on reality independent of our minds and thoughts.

It seems like a tautology to see our minds create our reality but begs the question of a reality independent of our minds.

Straw man description of idealism. Idealists don’t believe the world is all in the mind. — Wayfarer

What this kind of idealist deny is that there is something beyond minds and mental contents (thoughts, sensations and so on). — boundless

So what form of idealism is being promoted? What does this form of idealism have to say about cosmology (14 billion year old universe, 5 billion year old solar system and all the time before advanced or organized minds existed?) Or even the process of evolution. I just can't see how the notion that everything is just minds and mental contents, survives the modern scientific view of the world we live in.?

Not really, we all duck when the baseball is speeding at our head.
We all look both ways before we step out into the street.
People profess various forms of pure idealism but no one lives it.
If they did they would not survive long.

I would argue that perhaps you have this backwards. I think of time as a unit of measurement for change. If nothing changes, there is no way to tell time. — MrLiminal

:up:

Change, process is primary. Time is a derived abstracted concept.

My personal worldview happens to agree with A.N. Whitehead about the Teleological trend in evolution. Which seems to align with your "best time" quote above. Yet, my "real world" has both Good & Bad features. But, like Anne Frank, I choose not to dwell on the downside. :smile: — Gnomon

For Whitehead, I think the divine aim is creativity, higher degrees of complexity, awareness and experience. Whitehead plainly states his view that "God is not a petty moralist" clearly indicating that our human moral concerns may not be relevant to the underlying divine principle. The divine works through nature and natural processes such as evolution. The divine presents the possibility for actualization and satisfaction for each occasion of experience (actual occasion or event) but the divine acts through persuasion not coercion. So the world advances and retreats the divine lure is discarded due to the agency power of all "true actualities" . There is creation and destruction but the overall path seems to be higher levels of complexity, intensity of experience and creative advance. Perhaps artists, musicians and writers are closer to the divine than priests and preachers.

from wikipedia
Sex chromosome anomalies belong to a group of genetic conditions that are caused or affected by the loss, damage or addition of one or both sex chromosomes (also called gonosomes).
In humans this may refer to:
45, X, also known as Turner syndrome
45,X/46,XY mosaicism, also known as X0/XY mosaicism and mixed gonadal dysgenesis
46, XX/XY
47, XXX, also known as trisomy X or triple X syndrome
47, XXY, also known as Klinefelter syndrome
47, XYY, also known as Jacobs syndrome
48, XXXX, also known as tetrasomy X
48, XXXY
48, XXYY
48, XYYY
49, XXXXY
49, XYYYY
49, XXXXX, also known as pentasomy X
46, XX gonadal dysgenesis
46, XY gonadal dysgenesis, also known as Swyer syndrome
46, XX male syndrome, also known as de la Chapelle syndrome
In this list, the karyotype is summarized by the number of chromosomes, followed by the sex chromosomes present in each cell. (In the second and third cases the karyotype varies from cell to cell, while in the last three cases, the genotype is normal but the phenotype is not.)

Sex chromosome mosaicism, a genetic condition, means an individual has different cell lines with varying numbers or types of sex chromosomes. It's not uncommon, with the most frequent forms being 45,X/46,XX and 45,X/46,XY. This mosaicism can lead to a wide range of physical and developmental differences.

also from wikipedia differences, variations (disorders of ) sexual differentiation

Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) – a condition which affects a genetic male's virilization. A person with androgen insensitivity syndrome produces androgens and testosterone but their body does not recognize it, either partially or completely. Mild androgen insensitivity syndrome generally causes no developmental issues and people with this form are raised as males.[44] Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome results in ambiguous genitalia and there is no consensus regarding whether to raise a child with this form as male or female. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome causes a genetic male to have a vagina (often incompletely developed, nearly always blind-ending), breasts, and a clitoris; people with this form are raised as females.[45]
Aphallia – a rare condition where a XY male is born without a penis. As of 2017, only 100 cases have been reported in literature.[46]
Aromatase deficiency – a disorder which, in females, is characterized by androgen excess and estrogen deficiency, and can result in inappropriate virilization, though without pseudohermaphroditism (i.e., genitals are phenotypically appropriate) (with the exception of the possible incidence of clitoromegaly). Aromatase deficiency can also be caused by mutations in P450 oxidoreductase gene.[47]
Aromatase excess syndrome (familial hyperestrogenism) - a condition that causes excessive estrogen production, resulting in feminization without pseudohermaphroditism (i.e., male genitalia at birth and female secondary sexual characteristics at puberty) in males and hyperfeminization in females.[48]
Campomelic dysplasia – a condition caused by de novo autosomal dominant mutations in the SOX9 gene, causing bowing of the limbs, sex reversal in around two thirds of 46,XY males (but not in 46,XX females), and respiratory insufficiency. While in roughly 95% of cases, death occurs in the neonatal period due to respiratory distress, those that live past infancy typically survive to become adults.[49]
Clitoromegaly – a clitoris that is considered larger than average. While clitoromegaly may be a symptom of an intersex condition, it may also be considered a normal variation in clitoris size. Clitoromegaly causes no health issues. Surgical reduction of the clitoris or its complete removal may be performed to normalize the appearance of the genitalia. While female genital mutilation is outlawed in many countries, reduction or the removal of the clitoris in cases of clitoromegaly are generally exempt, despite the fact that it is a nontherapeutic and sexually damaging surgery. Clitoromegaly may also be caused by females using testosterone or anabolic steroids for purposes related to female to male gender transition or bodybuilding.
Combined 17α-hydroxylase/17,20-lyase deficiency – a condition which presents as a combination of the symptoms of congenital adrenal hyperplasia and isolated 17,20-lyase deficiency. See those two conditions for more information.[50]
Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) – a condition which completely affects a genetic male's ability to recognize androgens. It is considered a form of androgen insensitivity syndrome and is the most severe form. People with complete androgen insensitivity are raised as females and usually do not discover they are genetic males until they experience amenorrhoea in their late teens or they need medical intervention due to a hernia caused by their undescended testes.[51][52] Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome results in a genetic male having a vagina, clitoris, and breasts which are capable of breastfeeding. However, they will not have ovaries or a uterus. Because they do not have ovaries or sufficiently developed testicles, people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are infertile.[53]
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) – a condition that causes excessive androgen production, which causes excessive virilization. It is most problematic in genetic females, where severe virilization can result in funding [?] of labia and an enlarged clitoris.[54][55] Females with this condition are usually fertile, with the ability to become pregnant and give birth. The salt-wasting variety of this condition is fatal in infants if left untreated.[56]
Denys–Drash syndrome and the related Frasier syndrome – similar rare conditions arising from de novo autosomal dominant mutations in the WT1 gene, causing symptoms ranging from undervirilization to complete sex reversal with persistent Müllerian ducts in affected 46,XY males (but not in 46,XX females).[57] The disorders are invariably fatal before the age of 15, causing kidney failure due to nephrotic syndrome.[58]
Estrogen insensitivity syndrome (EIS) – the estrogen counterpart to androgen insensitivity syndrome. Extremely rare, with only one verified case having been reported; a biological male presented with tall stature, a heightened risk of osteoporosis, and sterility.[59]
Gartner's duct cyst – persistent Wolffian Ducts in XX females.
Gonadal dysgenesis – any congenital developmental disorder of the reproductive system characterized by a progressive loss of primordial germ cells on the developing gonads of an embryo.
Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich syndrome – a disorder where the Müllerian ducts fail to fuse during embryonic development, leading to the presence of 2 vaginas, 2 uteruses, and a single kidney. Can also affect the spleen, bladder and other urogenital structures.[60][61]
Isolated 17,20-lyase deficiency – a condition that is characterized by either partial or complete inability to produce androgens and estrogens.[62] Results in partial or complete feminization and undervirilization in males and in a delayed, reduced, or absent puberty in both sexes, in turn causing sexual infantilism and infertility, among other symptoms.[63]
Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY and XXY syndrome) – a condition that describes a male born with at least one extra X chromosome. Though the most common variation is 47,XXY, a man may also be 48,XXXY or 49,XXXXY. It is a common occurrence, affecting 1 in 500 to 1,000 men.[64] About 1 in 50,000 men are affected by variant 48,XXXY (Two extra X) and 1 in 100,000 men affected by variant 49,XXXXY (Three extra X).[65] While some men may have no issues related to the syndrome, some may experience gynecomastia, micropenis, cognitive difficulties, hypogonadism, reduced fertility/infertility, and/or little or no facial hair. Testosterone therapy may be pursued by men who desire a more masculine appearance and those with gynecomastia may opt to undergo a reduction mammoplasty. Men who wish to father children may be able to do so with the help of IVF.[66][4][67]
Leydig cell hypoplasia – a condition solely affecting biological males which is characterized by partial or complete inactivation of the luteinizing hormone receptor, resulting in stymied androgen production. Patients may present at birth with a fully female phenotype, ambiguous genitalia, or only mild genital defects such as micropenis and hypospadias. Upon puberty, sexual development is either impaired or fully absent.[68][69]
Lipoid congenital adrenal hyperplasia – an endocrine disorder that arises from defects in the earliest stages of steroid hormone synthesis: the transport of cholesterol into the mitochondria and the conversion of cholesterol to pregnenolone—the first step in the synthesis of all steroid hormones.[70][71]
Mild androgen insensitivity syndrome (MAIS) – a condition which mildly affects a genetic male's ability to recognize androgens. It is considered a form of androgen insensitivity syndrome and is considered the least severe form. While men generally do not need any specialized medical care related to this form, mild androgen insensitivity syndrome may result in gynecomastia and hypospadias. Neither gynecomastia nor hypospadias require surgical intervention or adversely affect a man's health though some men may opt to undergo surgery to remove their breasts and/or repair their hypospadias. Men with mild androgen insensitivity syndrome may have reduced fertility.
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis – a condition of unusual and asymmetrical gonadal development leading to an unassigned sex differentiation. A number of differences have been reported in the karyotype, most commonly a mosaicism 45,X/ 46,XY.[72]
Ovotesticular disorder (also called true hermaphroditism) – a rare condition where an individual has both ovarian and testicular tissue.[28] It is the rarest DSD with at least 500 cases being reported in literature.[73]
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS) – a condition which partially affects a genetic male's ability to recognize androgens. It is considered a form of androgen insensitivity syndrome and while it is not as severe as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, it is more severe than mild androgen insensitivity syndrome.[74] Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome causes major problems with gender assignment because it causes ambiguous genitalia such as a micropenis or clitoromegaly in addition to breast development. People with partial androgen insensitivity syndrome who are assigned as males may undergo testosterone therapy to virilize their body while those who are assigned as females may undergo a surgical reduction of the clitoris and/ or estrogen therapy.[75]
Penoscrotal transposition (PST) – a group of congenital defects involving an abnormal spatial arrangement of penis and scrotum.
Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome – a condition where fallopian tubes, uterus, or the upper part of the vagina are present in an otherwise normal male.[76]
Pseudovaginal perineoscrotal hypospadias (PPSH) – a form of ambiguous genitalia which results in a phallic structure that is smaller than a penis but larger than a clitoris, a chordee, hypospadias, and a shallow vagina.[77]
Swyer syndrome (Pure Gonadal Dysgenesis or XY gonadal dysgenesis) – a type of hypogonadism in a person whose karyotype is 46,XY. The person is externally female with streak gonads, and left untreated, will not experience puberty. Such gonads are typically surgically removed (as they have a significant risk of developing tumors) and a typical medical treatment would include hormone replacement therapy with female hormones.[78][79]
Turner syndrome (Ullrich-Turner syndrome and gonadal dysgenesis) – a condition that describes a female born with only one X chromosome or with an abnormal X chromosome, making her karotype 45,X0. It occurs in 1 in 2,000 to 5,000 females.[80] Turner syndrome can cause numerous health and development problems, including but not limited to short stature, lymphedema, infertility, webbed neck, coarctation of the aorta, ADHD, amenorrhoea, and obesity.[81]
Müllerian agenesis (Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome or vaginal agenesis) – a condition that causes the uterus and other reproductive organs in a 46,XX female to be small or absent, as well as the vaginal canal itself. It affects 1 out of 4,500 to 5,000 females and can also come with skeletal or endocrine system issues at conception.[82][83]
XX testicular DSD – a condition where an individual with an XX karyotype has a male appearance. Genitalia can range from normal to ambiguous genitalia.[84] It is estimated to occur in 1 in 20,000 males.[85]
5α-reductase deficiency (5-ARD) – an autosomal recessive condition caused by a mutation of the 5-alpha reductase type 2 gene. It only affects people with Y chromosomes, namely genetic males. People with this condition are fertile, with the ability to father children, but may be raised as females due to ambiguous or feminized genitalia.[38][39]
17β-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency – a condition characterized by impaired androgen and estrogen synthesis in males and females, respectively. Results in pseudohermaphroditism/undervirilization in males.[40][41]
46,XX/46,XY – a chimeric condition where the person shows variable karyotype in the 23rd chromosome pair, resulting from embryonic merging.[42] It can vary in presentation from phenotypically normal, to ambiguous.[43]
Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) – a condition which affects a genetic male's virilization. A person with androgen insensitivity syndrome produces androgens and testosterone but their body does not recognize it, either partially or completely. Mild androgen insensitivity syndrome generally causes no developmental issues and people with this form are raised as males.[44] Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome results in ambiguous genitalia and there is no consensus regarding whether to raise a child with this form as male or female. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome causes a genetic male to have a vagina (often incompletely developed, nearly always blind-ending), breasts, and a clitoris; people with this form are raised as females.[45]
Aphallia – a rare condition where a XY male is born without a penis. As of 2017, only 100 cases have been reported in literature.[46]
Aromatase deficiency – a disorder which, in females, is characterized by androgen excess and estrogen deficiency, and can result in inappropriate virilization, though without pseudohermaphroditism (i.e., genitals are phenotypically appropriate) (with the exception of the possible incidence of clitoromegaly). Aromatase deficiency can also be caused by mutations in P450 oxidoreductase gene.[47]
Aromatase excess syndrome (familial hyperestrogenism) - a condition that causes excessive estrogen production, resulting in feminization without pseudohermaphroditism (i.e., male genitalia at birth and female secondary sexual characteristics at puberty) in males and hyperfeminization in females.[48]
Campomelic dysplasia – a condition caused by de novo autosomal dominant mutations in the SOX9 gene, causing bowing of the limbs, sex reversal in around two thirds of 46,XY males (but not in 46,XX females), and respiratory insufficiency. While in roughly 95% of cases, death occurs in the neonatal period due to respiratory distress, those that live past infancy typically survive to become adults.[49]
Clitoromegaly – a clitoris that is considered larger than average. While clitoromegaly may be a symptom of an intersex condition, it may also be considered a normal variation in clitoris size. Clitoromegaly causes no health issues. Surgical reduction of the clitoris or its complete removal may be performed to normalize the appearance of the genitalia. While female genital mutilation is outlawed in many countries, reduction or the removal of the clitoris in cases of clitoromegaly are generally exempt, despite the fact that it is a nontherapeutic and sexually damaging surgery. Clitoromegaly may also be caused by females using testosterone or anabolic steroids for purposes related to female to male gender transition or bodybuilding.
Combined 17α-hydroxylase/17,20-lyase deficiency – a condition which presents as a combination of the symptoms of congenital adrenal hyperplasia and isolated 17,20-lyase deficiency. See those two conditions for more information.[50]
Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) – a condition which completely affects a genetic male's ability to recognize androgens. It is considered a form of androgen insensitivity syndrome and is the most severe form. People with complete androgen insensitivity are raised as females and usually do not discover they are genetic males until they experience amenorrhoea in their late teens or they need medical intervention due to a hernia caused by their undescended testes.[51][52] Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome results in a genetic male having a vagina, clitoris, and breasts which are capable of breastfeeding. However, they will not have ovaries or a uterus. Because they do not have ovaries or sufficiently developed testicles, people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are infertile.[53]
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) – a condition that causes excessive androgen production, which causes excessive virilization. It is most problematic in genetic females, where severe virilization can result in funding [?] of labia and an enlarged clitoris.[54][55] Females with this condition are usually fertile, with the ability to become pregnant and give birth. The salt-wasting variety of this condition is fatal in infants if left untreated.[56]
Denys–Drash syndrome and the related Frasier syndrome – similar rare conditions arising from de novo autosomal dominant mutations in the WT1 gene, causing symptoms ranging from undervirilization to complete sex reversal with persistent Müllerian ducts in affected 46,XY males (but not in 46,XX females).[57] The disorders are invariably fatal before the age of 15, causing kidney failure due to nephrotic syndrome.[58]
Estrogen insensitivity syndrome (EIS) – the estrogen counterpart to androgen insensitivity syndrome. Extremely rare, with only one verified case having been reported; a biological male presented with tall stature, a heightened risk of osteoporosis, and sterility.[59]
Gartner's duct cyst – persistent Wolffian Ducts in XX females.
Gonadal dysgenesis – any congenital developmental disorder of the reproductive system characterized by a progressive loss of primordial germ cells on the developing gonads of an embryo.
Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich syndrome – a disorder where the Müllerian ducts fail to fuse during embryonic development, leading to the presence of 2 vaginas, 2 uteruses, and a single kidney. Can also affect the spleen, bladder and other urogenital structures.[60][61]
Isolated 17,20-lyase deficiency – a condition that is characterized by either partial or complete inability to produce androgens and estrogens.[62] Results in partial or complete feminization and undervirilization in males and in a delayed, reduced, or absent puberty in both sexes, in turn causing sexual infantilism and infertility, among other symptoms.[63]
Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY and XXY syndrome) – a condition that describes a male born with at least one extra X chromosome. Though the most common variation is 47,XXY, a man may also be 48,XXXY or 49,XXXXY. It is a common occurrence, affecting 1 in 500 to 1,000 men.[64] About 1 in 50,000 men are affected by variant 48,XXXY (Two extra X) and 1 in 100,000 men affected by variant 49,XXXXY (Three extra X).[65] While some men may have no issues related to the syndrome, some may experience gynecomastia, micropenis, cognitive difficulties, hypogonadism, reduced fertility/infertility, and/or little or no facial hair. Testosterone therapy may be pursued by men who desire a more masculine appearance and those with gynecomastia may opt to undergo a reduction mammoplasty. Men who wish to father children may be able to do so with the help of IVF.[66][4][67]
Leydig cell hypoplasia – a condition solely affecting biological males which is characterized by partial or complete inactivation of the luteinizing hormone receptor, resulting in stymied androgen production. Patients may present at birth with a fully female phenotype, ambiguous genitalia, or only mild genital defects such as micropenis and hypospadias. Upon puberty, sexual development is either impaired or fully absent.[68][69]
Lipoid congenital adrenal hyperplasia – an endocrine disorder that arises from defects in the earliest stages of steroid hormone synthesis: the transport of cholesterol into the mitochondria and the conversion of cholesterol to pregnenolone—the first step in the synthesis of all steroid hormones.[70][71]
Mild androgen insensitivity syndrome (MAIS) – a condition which mildly affects a genetic male's ability to recognize androgens. It is considered a form of androgen insensitivity syndrome and is considered the least severe form. While men generally do not need any specialized medical care related to this form, mild androgen insensitivity syndrome may result in gynecomastia and hypospadias. Neither gynecomastia nor hypospadias require surgical intervention or adversely affect a man's health though some men may opt to undergo surgery to remove their breasts and/or repair their hypospadias. Men with mild androgen insensitivity syndrome may have reduced fertility.
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis – a condition of unusual and asymmetrical gonadal development leading to an unassigned sex differentiation. A number of differences have been reported in the karyotype, most commonly a mosaicism 45,X/ 46,XY.[72]
Ovotesticular disorder (also called true hermaphroditism) – a rare condition where an individual has both ovarian and testicular tissue.[28] It is the rarest DSD with at least 500 cases being reported in literature.[73]
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS) – a condition which partially affects a genetic male's ability to recognize androgens. It is considered a form of androgen insensitivity syndrome and while it is not as severe as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, it is more severe than mild androgen insensitivity syndrome.[74] Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome causes major problems with gender assignment because it causes ambiguous genitalia such as a micropenis or clitoromegaly in addition to breast development. People with partial androgen insensitivity syndrome who are assigned as males may undergo testosterone therapy to virilize their body while those who are assigned as females may undergo a surgical reduction of the clitoris and/ or estrogen therapy.[75]
Penoscrotal transposition (PST) – a group of congenital defects involving an abnormal spatial arrangement of penis and scrotum.
Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome – a condition where fallopian tubes, uterus, or the upper part of the vagina are present in an otherwise normal male.[76]
Pseudovaginal perineoscrotal hypospadias (PPSH) – a form of ambiguous genitalia which results in a phallic structure that is smaller than a penis but larger than a clitoris, a chordee, hypospadias, and a shallow vagina.[77]
Swyer syndrome (Pure Gonadal Dysgenesis or XY gonadal dysgenesis) – a type of hypogonadism in a person whose karyotype is 46,XY. The person is externally female with streak gonads, and left untreated, will not experience puberty. Such gonads are typically surgically removed (as they have a significant risk of developing tumors) and a typical medical treatment would include hormone replacement therapy with female hormones.[78][79]
Turner syndrome (Ullrich-Turner syndrome and gonadal dysgenesis) – a condition that describes a female born with only one X chromosome or with an abnormal X chromosome, making her karotype 45,X0. It occurs in 1 in 2,000 to 5,000 females.[80] Turner syndrome can cause numerous health and development problems, including but not limited to short stature, lymphedema, infertility, webbed neck, coarctation of the aorta, ADHD, amenorrhoea, and obesity.[81]
Müllerian agenesis (Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome or vaginal agenesis) – a condition that causes the uterus and other reproductive organs in a 46,XX female to be small or absent, as well as the vaginal canal itself. It affects 1 out of 4,500 to 5,000 females and can also come with skeletal or endocrine system issues at conception.[82][83]
XX testicular DSD – a condition where an individual with an XX karyotype has a male appearance. Genitalia can range from normal to ambiguous genitalia.[84] It is estimated to occur in 1 in 20,000 males.[85]

Of course, one can just categorically state there are only two biological sexes and try to force everyone into one of their two categories, but nature and biology provide us with a lot of examples to the contrary and despite their wish to simplify the matter to suit their preference, it is just not factual or true.
Gender is a subject different from the biology of sexual differentiation, as is the subject of trans or gender dysphoria. The debate about bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams is also separate from the biology of these matters. None of these are easy subjects with simple answers. Lets's just put doors on all the stalls, changing rooms in all the locker rooms and decide about sports on a case by case basis. Only about 14 reported trans athletes in the entire NCAA programs. Increasingly to some facts and science don't matter but hopefully in philosophy at least some degree of logic applies.

To me, the idea that life is accidental or mindless isn’t necessary either. It doesn’t have to be a choice between God and Meaninglessness or theism versus nihilism. There’s perhaps a middle ground: a world where meaning is made, not given. — Tom Storm

Definitely, people can create their own meaning in their work, their relationships trying to make the world a better place or to contribute something lasting art, literature, music, etc. It is just that although the religious impulse is not universal, it is still strong, and religion still plays a major role in peoples lives and thus in politics and society. Eradicating religion does not seem possible, hard to think of a culture without some form of religion, so encouraging better forms of religion seems a worthwhile endeavor.
It is hard to understand western history, music, art, literature or architecture without understanding the religious impulse that lay behind much of it. Likewise for other cultures. So being familiar with the worlds religions is essential to understanding the societies we live in.

It is not really purely male or purely female either, is it? So we have to make room for these people in our society, our laws and our thinking?

Except as abstract mathematical concepts it is hard to see "dimensionless points" or "duration less instants" as being "real" in any material or physical sense.
I cannot envision the meaning of "time" in a changeless or frozen world.
Time it seems to me is a concept derived from change, from the process of the universe.
I suspect both time and space are quantum in their true naturre and the notion of time without change and space as infinitely divisible are both mere abstractions of thought.

t has often struck me that a tendency toward spirituality or theism is more like a preference, you either have it or you don’t, a bit like a sexual orientation. You can't help what you're drawn to. The theist is pulled toward the idea of God; the atheist sees no explanatory power or use for it. The more sophisticated the individual, the more sophisticated their theology or their atheism. — Tom Storm

That is where I find myself. I have a strong background in science and biology. I know about cosmologic time frames, mass extinctions, global catastrophes, famine, pestilence, disease, the holocaust etc. I still cannot bring myself to believe it is all an accidental, purposeless, mindless creation the result of mere time and chance. I think there is something larger at work although traditional religion does not seem to provide an answer for me but certain philosophical conceptions do seem attractive to me.

the AI answer
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender-diverse people. It's a distinct concept from biological sex, which refers to physical attributes like chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender is a social construct, meaning it's created and shaped by society and culture, with norms and expectations varying across time and different societies.

Gender Identity:
Gender identity: An individual's internal sense of self as male, female, both, neither, or another identity.
Transgender: A term for individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.
Nonbinary: A term for individuals who do not identify as exclusively male or female.
Genderfluid: A term for individuals whose gender identity fluctuates over time.

Gender as a behavior is fluid and changing. It may change over an individuals lifetime. Of course women dressing in suits, smoking cigars, drinking whiskey and using vulgar language do not attract as much social approbation as men wearing dresses and high heels but still gender behavior is a choice and in a truly free country should be tolerated even if not promoted or endorsed.

Biological sex is a different and more complex matter. Most think it is simple male or female but they are unfamiliar it seems with chromosomal abnormalities, true intersex and the various differences in sexual differentiation which can occur. Try watching the end of "Conclave" persistant mullerian duct snydrome Consult wikipedia on disorders (bad term) of sexual differentiation for a long list. So those who spout the there are only two sexes mantra merely display ignorance of the complexity of biology and natures endless variations.

I also suspect most have never dealt with individuals who display true gender dysphoria but telling them they are mistaken and psychologically disturbed is no solution at all. The rate of depression and suicide in this population is tragic.

In the quote I gave from Tillich he doesn't say anything about God being beyond comprehension or beyond knowing. And if you read the larger context of that quote in the book, you won't find much of that type of apophatic theology. I'm not saying he doesn't make gestures in that direction, but I guess I'm trying to say that there is a more concrete and experientially grounded side to Tillich's philosophy.

In other words, there is a positive phenomenology to the experience of the divine, as well as the demonic within the larger phenomenology of the Holy. There is a stark philosophical difference between this perspective, which we might call a theology of the numinous, and the apophatic theology which says God is fundamentally beyond any direct experience or intellectual understanding.

When it comes to worship, by grounding theology in the Holy, there is also a basis for understanding worship and ritual as outward or material expression of the experience of the Holy. In the same way that a physical painting is an outer expression of the artist's aesthetic vision or sensibility or style, the religious worship service is a outer expression of historical encounter with the divine in the the Holy. It may be true that the average participant in the religion doesn't have an intense direct experience on par with the mystic or the prophet, but they can still participate in the sacred encounter indirectly via the outer ritual and worship practices. — FirecrystalScribe

Very nice writing, I don't disagree really. I have no problem with the mystics or the philosopher's, just acknowledging that if there is a God, it can not be captured by language or description only by experience of as the holy, the sacred, the numinous. Rituals and religious practices are experiences which are supposed to bring us closer to the sacred.

At lot of religious philosophy which requires trying to develop language to discuss such matters focuses on the nature of god and gods relationship to the world.
immanence vs transcendence
omnipotence which raises problems with presence of evil
omniscience which raises problems with free will and agency
omnipresence is the spiritual world separate from the material world or is this world infused with spirit

A lot of traditional theology portrays God as eternal changeless, immutable, impassive, perfection
How does such a God relate to a changing world and human concerns.

God is often portrayed in anthropomorphic terms. the ultimate being the assertion of Jesus as God in the flesh. "If horses had a religion, god would be a horse"

I am not sure how Tillich addresses these types of questions especially as a Christian.

The reason I like Whitehead and the process theology approach in general is because these questions are addressed, albeit not in the traditional way.

For Whitehead, God's primary nature is creativity, experience.
Most process theologians see God as the ordering, creative principal in the world.
Nature, the universe is infused with the creative animating spirit (as with many native religions).
The general term is panentheism ( the world is in God, but God is more than just the world) giving both immanence and transcendence.
Creation is not ex nihilo but God imposes order on the formless void, the deep, the primordial chaos.
Creation is not an accomplished feat but an ongoing process. Creation is hard work and is accomplished through nature and natural process not by supernatural intervention.
God does have a primordial changeless nature (think Plato's forms or Whiteheads eternal objects) but also has a consequential nature which takes in and responds to the activity of the world.
The dipolar conception of the divine essence.
Whitehead tries to use language to describe the divine nature but such terms are metaphorical or allegorical not literal descriptions.

I think Victor Frankel is right, man seeks meaning and purpose. Some find it in other pursuits but many find it in religion. I personally have a religious inclination but the traditional theologies are just not compatible with the rest of my understanding about how the world works.

The earth is not the center of the universe, Man is not the crown of creation. God apparently has many concerns and purposes other than human happiness or salvation. Whitehead says "God is not a petty moralist".

Unfortunately our traditional religions and many of their doctrines give the individuals familiar with science cognitive dissonance. Adherence to traditional religion is weakening in all the countries with advanced systems of technology and education. If religion (which I think is useful, even necessary to some extent) wishes to survive it needs to change and adapt to our modern worldview and understanding. In that respect I find process theology a promising approach for discussion.
.






.

This conception of religious faith, gives us a philosophy of religion, and a philosophy of the nature of God, that is more attuned to the experiences of mystics and prophets, rather than the belief systems of the average religious person. We should remember that almost all religions claim to be based in the revelations provided by God to some mystic or prophet. So even if the attitude towards God and faith that Tillich is describing is one shared by a comparative minority of religious believers, it is nevertheless at the root of the nature of religion itself. So I think from a philosophical point of view is crucial to try to understand this. — FirecrystalScribe

Most men want something greater than themselves to look up to and worship.

But they must be able to touch the divine here on earth

They have found nothing to replace religion

Hence the relics, the sacred spaces, the rituals, sacred paintings and music.

A god that is beyond comprehension, beyond knowing, beyond words or thought is also beyond worship except for philosophers and mystics, a very distinct minority.

3. Whitehead's God :
Although he uses a theistic term for the creator of our evolving world, I think his concept of “God” is not religious, but philosophical. Whitehead’s associate Charles Hartshorne⁵ labeled his theology as : PanEnDeism⁶. This deity is not imagined on a throne judging the creation, but everywhere, including in the material world, participating in the on-going process of Creation. — Gnomon

Whitehead's God is not omnipotent (other entities have their own inherent power and independence).
Whitehead's God is not omniscient (the future is open and undetermined).
Whiteheads God is omnipresent (immanent within nature).
Many describe Whiteheads conception as panentheism (God is both completely immanent within the world and also transcendent of the world in certain respects)..
For Whitehead God works through the process of nature not by supernatural means (this is not supernatural theism).
For Whitehead (and Hartshorne for that matter) God has both a primordial (unchanging nature) and a consequential (taking in and responding to the events of the world). This vision of God is referred to bipolar.
God is the fellow traveler and sufferer of the world. God is persuasive and not coercive. God offers possibilities for creative advance but does not force outcomes. God is the poet of the world.
I personally like Whiteheads conception but no linguistic or verbal description can adequately capture the God.

Human sense-perception, limited in many ways*1, is inherently incomplete. Does prayer help? To which god? — Gnomon

Human perception is limited. Humans can perceive only a limited range of wavelengths as color, and vibration frequencies as sound, Dogs have a much better sense of smell. Other creatures have better color vision,say the mantis shrimp. What all perception shares is that there is a direct chain of causality which allows perception to occur at all. Human vision involves photons passing through the cornea striking (rods and cones) in the retina, generating an electrical impulse, passing through the optic nerve to the occipital lobes in the brain. This chain of causality is part of what Whitehead calls “perception in the mode of causal efficacy”. We hear with our ears, see with our eyes, etc. We could not see colors or hear sounds without this underlying chain of causality. This implies both the reality of an external world and the causal nature of the world. Whitehead is a hard core realist. There is no room for solipsism severe skepticism, , pure idealism or for that matter dualism in Whitehead. There is some talk about God in Whitehead but the basic tenets do not require it. For Whitehead God is the source of “eternal objects’, somewhat akin to Platonic forms but actually deficient (potentials only).
God is not about morality but about the creative advance of nature, novelty and higher forms of experience (aesthetic not moral).

Or do we have to rely on hunches & intuition*2? Which merely Gbypass the conscious rational channels in order to access "past knowledge" obtained in the usual manner, by means of sensory organs. Did Whitehead believe in extra-sensory perception*3? Based on what evidence? — Gnomon

Whitehead was a logician and mathematician so he did not (to my knowledge) believe in ESP in the usual sense.

1. Whitehead on Causality and Perception :
Western philosophy in general is so preoccupied with the question of error, because it is deeply concerned with the unreliability of immediate experience – or of the body and the senses. From Plato’s allegory of the cave, through Descartes’ radical doubt about the evidence provided by his physical organs, right on up to Thomas Metzinger’s claim that experience is nothing but an internal, virtual-reality simulation, philosophers have been haunted by the idea that sense perception is delusional – and that, as a result, our beliefs about the world might well be radically wrong.
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1274 — Gnomon

I don't know if you read the whole article but in Whitehead's view, Descartes dualism, Hume's Skepticism and Kant's transcendental idealism set Western Philosophy on a path from which it has yet to recover. There is nothing in Whitehead which is completely counter to modern science now or then. It is the reductionist, deterministic, mechanistic view of nature which Whitehead rejects. The division of the world into mind vs matter, subjective vs objective, the “artificial bifurcation of nature”. The warmth of the sun, the red glow of the sunset, the smell of the rose (all our experience) is as much a part of nature as the photons and infrared with which science tries to explain the phenomena. It is all part of nature Locke’s division of primary and secondary qualities is an artificial division. The task of philosophy, is to produce concepts which help to explain all of our knowledge and experience of the world. Such speculative philosophies are subject to constant revision, flights of adventure of the mind but which must also be founded in our knowledge and experience of the world. Leave nothing out, the strict materialist and eliminativists wish to explain away that which does not fit their preexisting metaphysical view of the world. Mind does not arise from a nature which is largely devoid of type of experience from the beginning.

From the Pinocchio Theory
Whitehead on Causality and Perception by Steven Shaviro
Not too long maybe 15 pages, I find Shaviro to be an unusually clear and perceptive author about Whitehead and several others as well
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1274

The details of how that original distinction-between-something-and-nothing (creation) evolved into objective Brains with subjective Minds, is as yet unknown. But we now have enough information to infer that the traditional "mind/matter dichotomy" is merely a conceptual categorization of the various Forms of fundamental creative Causation. So, we are now able to get "outside" of sense perception by the use of rational conception. :smile: — Gnomon

It seems we are both monists of various persuasions and reject dualism. I think our conceptions and language for our positions may make it difficult to find common ground or terminology..
Do you entertain the notion of panpsychism?
Are you familiar with the basic elements of process philosophy?
I am not a professional philosopher and have just sketchy outlines of the fundamental tenets of some of the more well known philosophers.
For some reason I was taken with process philosophy and with Alfred North Whitehead and his thoughts and writings so I primarily try to present and promote them in the forum.
I don’t like to argue, I won’t trade insults and think that the purpose of discussion is to just try to understand each other's point of view, no winners, no losers, just respectful exchange.
We perceive nothing except through a chain of causal efficacy (photons, retinas, optic nerve, occipital lobe, etc) and so causal efficacy is a given in sensory perception, It the most fundamental and most widespread form of perception.

This seems all an argument trying to say I don't understand language. I was trying to avoid that.
I noticed you did not respond to my questions which were an effort to discern your point of view about mind and consciousness. So it won't be a discussion unless you put something forward other than disputes about the various uses of experience, try "prehension" for the idea instead but you will likely have to look it up. These are not ideas tha I made up, but from the literature on process philosophy in which you may or may not have any interest?

Where in the chain of nature do you speculate mind begins or ends?
The same for consciousness?
Let's work with just those few terms at the moment, since the other terms may result in language
disputes.

Unfortunately, it's hard to describe the parallels between sentient humans, and semi-sentient plants, and insentient atoms, without using common human expressions. So, my alternative is to replace the language of Panpsychism with the language of Informationism. By analogy with Energy,
generic Information consists primarily of distinctions (differences) such as Hot vs Cold in thermodynamics, and Good vs Bad in human language, or dots vs dashes in Morse code, and 1 vs 0 in computer code. . — Gnomon

Similar concepts, I think, employing different language. Whitehead who was quite familiar with the physics of his time ( a mathematician and logician before his philosophy era) purposely used such language as feeling to indicate that mind did not just appear in a universe largely devoid of any kind of precursor in nature. It is hard to see how in a barren universe devoid of any form of subjective experience it could arise

Perhaps I don't understand your point of view, but you seem to talk about a universal field of subjectivity sometimes and so Panpsychism does not seem like such a leap. Especially the Whitehead kind of unconscious experience (non sensory). Primitive mentality (subjective) which is universal and on which all higher forms of cognition are composed.

I thought I saw you refer to the iron block or frozen universe, where the past the present and the future already exist and time is just an illusion. That would not be Whiteheads view of nature. For Whitehead the future is open. There is a real of possibility (think eternal objections somewhat akin to Platonic forms). Except for Plato our world is a shadow or illusion for Whitehead eternal objects are potentials which are actually deficient (mere potentials) and must become actualities through the process of nature.

I fully endorse that phrase of his, 'outside subjectivity nothing whatever', but I interpret its meaning differently. I don't mean that there is some invisible meta-mind - like Berkeley's God - holding everything in existence. What that means to me, is that outside the constructive activities of mind, there can be no conception of anything whatever. So that even though, in the empirical sense, we can picture and analyse the world prior to the arrival of h.sapiens, even that activity is in an obvious sense, still mind-dependent, in that it relies on perspective and measurement. What the world is outside of or apart from that is an empty question. (More in keeping with Buddhist philosophy, which is a kind of moderated realism. — Wayfarer

Hume said we know nothing except what sense impressions tell us, a philosophy variously termed skepticism or strict empiricism and which leads easily to forms of solipsism. Kant was likewise skeptical of ever knowing the thing in itself (noumena) versus sense impression (phenomena). Kant did at least attribute space and time and maybe causality as innate categories of mind.

Suffice it to say, although Whitehead had great admiration for Hume and Kant as well as Descartes, but he felt they set Western Philosophy upon an unfortunate path.One which leads directly to the “bifurcation of nature” with the subjective/objective and mind/matter dichotomy. Whitehead implies we interact with nature in other ways and have forms of knowledge that come to us from outside of “the sense perception theory of knowledge”. We know things through the “perception in the mode of causal efficiency” and the continuity of the past and the possibilities of the future through “prehension” a form of non conscious experience. I can only point the interested in the right direction, I can’t fairly summarize here.
A lot comes from the notion of the fundamental unit of reality as “actual occasions, events or moments of experience). In order for nature to flow from the past (with continuity), to the present (incorporating possibilities) from the future and giving rise to creativity and novelty a certain form of subjective non conscious awareness is required hence “prehension”.

Which brings up the language problem of how one defines "consciousness" as opposed to terms like sub conscience and unconscious.
Some would say that there is a universal consciousness of which all individual consciousness partakes. You may fall into that camp. I personally do not, at least not in that form. I think once again most people use "consciousness" to mean our self-n-reflective, inner discussive subjective experience and so without further discussion or explanation they find the assertion or speculation unreasonable. Likewise, you use the terms "awareness" and "cognition" both of which bring various interpretations to mind.

No issues with this. I find the preamble a bit out of hte place though. I am being quite specific about what hte terms mean, for me, in those sentences. So if that's just context for your questions, fair enough, but I want to be clear - they are simply terms for me. They are not ambiguous and I don't use htem interchangeably — AmadeusD

Yes, you may in fact, in your mind, have very precise meanings that you attach to these terms. However, not everyone will accept or agree with your meanings, definitions and usage. I find many discussions in the forum come down not so much a discussion of ideas or concepts but disagreements about language. If I disagree with you, it is not a personal attack and if I use language a bit differently it does not mean I am deficient in the meaning of words.

Language is inherently a little imprecise and a little ambiguous. Especially when one starts talking about things like religion or other realms of speculative philosophy. I think thoughts and concepts occur before the attempt to put them into words and thus putting things into language sometimes is difficult and what you intend to mean and what the other party interprets can be quite different.

Experience means subjective awareness of one's own life/circumstances. — AmadeusD

. I suppose that is why I (and others) go out of our way to specify "non conscious forms of experience". You may reject such a notion but only because of your definition of experience as requiring consciousness or at least self awareness.

This is speculative philosophy so there is a lot of room for different points of view about mind in nature which is fine. I cannot prove my point of view with empirical data or experiments. Subjective experience by its very nature is beyond the realm of measurement, quantification or direct observation. The only criteria I like to see applied is that such speculations do not deny or ignore whatever scientific information or data are available.

Having said this and taking note of your claim to some form of panpsychism.

Where in the chain of nature do you speculate mind begins or ends?
The same for consciousness?
Let's work with just those few terms at the moment, since the other terms may result in language
disputes.

I don't know what you mean, but it's highly likely I haven't done whatever you're complaining about. — AmadeusD

I am not complaining and I am trying not to argue, just trying to explore each others ideas and concepts.

These are reactions you're describing, not responses.[/quote}
— AmadeusD

We have no evidence of this run-up, and we're pretty damn good at finding gradual processes in the records. — AmadeusD

False. — AmadeusD

Experience means subjective awareness of one's own life/circumstances. — AmadeusD

These are all opinions stated as facts which I am sure i do as well.

These were a variety of terms about mental abilities, which are bandied about in the forum and even by professional philosophers of mind without much agreement about their meaning or definition, much less about where in nature (which creatures or systems) might possess them to what degree.

For instance some promoters of panpsychism will tell you that fundamental particles are conscious. What they mean is that they postulate or speculate that the events of quantum physics have some primitive property non physical aspect which might be the precursor to all higher forms of perception, mind and consciousness in nature. . I think, use of the word consciousness in that context causes the idea to be immediately rejected and ridiculed. This is because most of us use consciousness to refer to the self aware, self reflective, inner discursive mental activity which we experience in our own lives, when not sleeping, drugged or under anesthesia.

I feel pretty strongly that human consciousness has evolved from more primitive forms of mind in nature. I also largely reject the notion that “mind” emerged de novo from nature without more primitive precursors being present. Human “consciousness” may in fact be a special form of mind. The role of conscious mental activity may be overrated even in humans. I take this position on the basis of some knowledge of neuroanatomy, neurology and neuroscience.
I am a panpsychist of sorts. Even several philosophers of mind have begun to consider various forms of panpsychism in their exploration of consciousness, so it is not a ridiculous notion.
The form of panpsychism I adopt is derived from Whitehead's process philosophy. This entails the notion of non conscious and even non sense perception forms of experience. Because of the way you wish to use the term experience this will make no sense to you. So instead the term “prehension” which Whitehead used can be substituted. Whitehead quite casually and purposefully interchanges the term “prehension” with feeling or lure, I think to maintain the connection between the primitive events of process with the higher forms of intellect in more complex and higher organisms and systems.

Cows have brains. I take it they have a mind, but cannot be sure. I also take it they have experiences, as they appear to deliberate and show awareness to a relatively high degree for a lower animal, as it were. — AmadeusD

Have you worked with cows? You seem to have some respect for their mental abilities. I have worked with them and would share these sentiments.

Bees have brains. They might have minds. I do not think they have experiences. They do not seem aware of much. They seem to react, not respond, to stimuli. — AmadeusD

Might want to do some research on bees, they seem much more complex and responsive to environmental changes and threats than you wish to give them credit for.s I think you will find they are not stimulus fixed response creatures in the way you propose.

Awareness is the best corollary of consciousness in my view. The P Zombie notwithstanding. If you are not aware that you are undergoing X, you are not experiencing it. Your body might be, in some super-strict sense, but what we mean here is subjective experience. So, if you're not aware, that's not on the table — AmadeusD

If you wish to follow my train of thought, it should be the experience in the super strict sense.

The jelly fish advances “attraction” and withdraws “repulsion” according to environmental clues or situations. For me this means they perceive, are aware and respond. They also exhibit memory. To me this enough to assert experience but again you assign a different meaning to the word.

Perception is the weirdest of all these to me, because it seems to have a dual meaning even in this specific context: It can mean that your apparatus can receive information - but it can also mean that you are aware of said information. I leave this one to the side lol. — AmadeusD

In ways it is among the most important of the concepts. Certainly perception in the sense of being “aware” of the wider or external world and responding to it is pretty widespread (if not universal) in the natural world.

Have you watched Corvids solve puzzles or octopi opening jars? How about honey badgers exploring various ways to escape from an enclosure? It seems the height of anthropocentric thought to deny the abilities of our follow creatures in terms on their performance. It also seems quite illogical and against evolution to postulate that human thought and consciousness arrived in the world without a long evolutionary path and many precursor forms of mind in nature.

What do you think of Schopenhauer when he says the world IS our Will? — Gregory

Is that what he said? I thought the world was sheer will and our experience was just representation, hence the title "Will and Representation". Will is the naturre of Kant's thing in itself?

Faith is belief in things unseen. It is precisely not knowledge. It is not verified.

There is no ontology of time, simply because time as an independent entity simply does not exist.
Time is a concept derived from the change, the flux, the process and becoming of nature.
In a universe where there was no activity, no flux, the concept of time or the word time would simply become meaningless. Much the same could be said of the concept of empty space (no such thing).

A mind can be conscious. A conscious mind can experience. — AmadeusD

Conscious minds, when they also have experience. I believe a conscious mind is necessary, but not sufficient. Whence commeth Chalmers. — AmadeusD

I am still not getting a sense of how you are using these words. I am not looking for an argument, just a clarification of your thinking, to see if there is any common ground for discussion.

Let's take some specific examples
Cows
Cows clearly have a brain. Do cows have a mind? Are cows conscious? Do they have experiences?
How about sentience, awareness, perception, etc.
How about bees? Same questions both with the caveat individual bees or hive minds?

If something is not made conscious, whence comes subjective experience? — AmadeusD

I think this will lead us into a disagreement about language, about the definition of consciousness?
Do the terms mind, experience and consciousness all convey the same meaning for you?
What entities or creatures in nature do you consider to be conscious, to have experience?

I will try but not tonight. Did you read all the previous posts because it is fairly extensively discussed. Do you not think other creatures than humans have experience, have forms of mind? Do you think all experience is limited to consciouness? Modern neurobiology would indicate there is a lot of "unconscious" experience and mental activity?

Pan-experientialism is subject to the same kind of criticism. Experience as an object of third-person knowledge overlooks the fact that experience is always undergone rather than observed. This suggests that instead of categorizing experience as an explanatory variable in a metaphysical system, we should see the inquiry itself as leading to a fundamental shift in perspective—one that recognizes the impossibility of objectifying the subject at all. That is where the 'way of unknowing' becomes not just a mystical doctrine, but a necessary epistemic move.

I think that short-circuits many of these questions about what kinds of things are conscious, without, however, falling back into any kind of reductionism. — Wayfarer

I am skeptical that there will ever be a satisfactory materialistic explanation of any form of experience. I think this may permanently be the realm of speculative metaphysics, ontology and natural philosophy..The attraction of process philosophy for me is the monistic unified picture of nature which it entails along with a bit of teleology .I also find it to be conceptually compatible with modern quantum physics.

Some of this depends on what one means by “matter” in modern physics. Our investigation into the building blocks of nature has brought us quantum mechanics which is different conceptually and mathematically from classical or even Einstein's Relativity physics.

I tend to roughly equate the “actual occasion or event” of process metaphysics with the “quantum event” of modern physics and quantum field theory.. I also tend to equate the probabilistic (potentiali) nature of quantum physics with the introduction of a degree of freedom, creativity and novelty in nature. The sequencing of events both assures continuity and novelty into nature. The preservation of the past and the introduction of the novelty of the future into the present moment requires some type of external relation (prehension, experience) awareness of outer reality rather be entirely an isolated internal relation. This provides the basis for higher forms of experience in more complex systems.

This is the role of speculative philosophy to provide us with a set of concepts and language with which to unify, comprehend and discuss all of our experience of the world both our objective observations and measurements and out inner subjective experience as a unified monistic whole.

The latter quote is from Steven Shaviro but it reflects my point of view. I personally try to avoid the term "consciousness" except for the self aware inner discursive part of human experience. The terms "mind in nature" for surely there are a variety of types of mind in nature and "unconscious experience" cause a little less confusion. Yes Whitehead does lead to a form of panpsychism, but a variety which David Ray Griffin refers to as "panexperientialism" which I often adopt. All higher forms of mind are derived from this more primitive form of experience which is essential to the flux, creativity and novelty of nature. This gives rise to the so called "combination problem" but seems less serious to me that the new introduction of mind into a view of nature in which it is completely absent in most of the natural world.