Morality mandates a perspective be taken as one member of a group, with an interest in the group's wellbeing, and any views that fall outside of this context are invalid. — Judaka

I will make the concept/subject of morality more "coercive" than just a "perspective". Morality, in general, means conformity to the rules and principles of right conduct. I will talk about this in a second.
First, I need to point out that you have added an arbitrary element to the description of morality: "any views that fall outside of this context are invalid". As I understand it, it is more than a logical implication that follows the description of morality: it's an implied criticism. And as such, is an opinion that diminishes --if not distorts-- your description and the meaning of morality. Besides. morality is more about human conduct than views, although the latter can be considered moral or immoral. Anyway, it would not be so important if it did not reflect a negative view on the subject of morality.

Now, about the rules and principles of right conduct and why do you consider them coercive and unrealistic.

Who creates them and for what purpose? Can a group of people live together harmoniously in the absence of such rules and principles? Can a family live harmoniously without some rules and principles? Can you live harmoniously with yourself without some rules and principles?

It doesn't matter who creates them and what they consist of. What matters is their purpose, which invariably is to live in absence of conflict, that is, not acting against the wellbeing and interests of the members of your group or your family or even yourself.

When you join a group you agree with that group's rules and principles of right conduct. Sometimes these are written or spoken or they are silent and are made known to you only when you or someone else violates any of them. And, if you don't agree with those rules then there's no meaning for you and in fact you shouldn't join or stay with that group. But from the moment you choose to join or stay with that group, it is only logical that you agree with and stick to those rules asd principles, isn't that right?

So, I can't see anything "coercive" or "unrealistic" in all this. Can you?

There is no consciousness without activity. — Patterner

Without activity of consciousness itself? If consciousness is active, what does it do?

that's always the way of it. People still say that about the internet. Before that, it was television. And radio before that. — Patterner

Indeed. OK, TV and radio are relatively simple technologies, based mainly on signals. But computers are still a kind of "magic boxes" and the Internet is a real "cloud" for a lot --if not most-- people even to this day ... As for AI, most people don't know even what computer programming actually is.

It is impossible that 100% of the time when a UFO crashes, the government gets to the scene first and cleans it perfectly outside the presence of any witness or video. — Hanover

:up:
It inspired me to just come up with another, relevant one: Almost 100% of the reports regarding UFOs come from and/or relate to USA territory, milirary personnel and government. What about the rest of the planet, where there are no such governments and military personnel that can cover up UFO visits and crashes?

How many more of these do the UFO conspiracists need to shut up? (I mean the real ones, not those who act as such for commercial and publicity purposes. )

Not that I consider this discussion as a philosophical one. But, like other similar ones, it's always fun to have a peek at! :smile:

[Re: ChatGPT being conscious] I don't have reason to believe it is. I've chatted with it quite a bit. Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. And it claims not to be. — Patterner

:up:
Unfortunately, Science and Techology are advancing too fast for people to follow, undestand and assimilate their development, even when there's a hype about them. AI is a classic case. They all talk about it, but few know what it actually is, how it works, etc. Personally, as an AI programmer, I find this quite disheartening.

No problem, wonderer1.
I'm glad that this is cleared. It's quite important.

Note: The part "But where is the "process" that ..." at the end of my message is garbage - I forgot to remove it.

I couldn't say the specifics. But my point is that, if there is no activity, like if the brain is frozen, or dead for some other reason (or if it was frozen in time in some sci-fi way), then there is no consciousness. It is not a static thing; not an object. — Patterner

I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by "static". But I agree that consciousness is not an "object".
Anway, you agree then that consciousness is not a process either, right?

Not feeling anything is a definition of unconsciousness. — sime

Well, also not being able to perceive anything with our senses, and other things ...

But how can you verify that you feel nothing under anaesthesia? — sime

I can't, since I'm unconsious! :smile:
I don't think even anesthesiologists do. They might have some kind of indications of slight bodily movements-reactions, etc. but I guess that not even these can an evidence that the patient actually "feels" ...

[Re: What kind of process?] What I mean is, if we were able to freeze time around someone, or even if we literally froze them, we would be able to point to their hands, feet, eyes, hair, internal organs, brain, etc. But we could not point to their consciousness, respiration, digestion, etc. — Patterner

Re "But we could not point to their consciousness": Right. However, the examples of respiration and digestion are indeed procecess, in fact well defined ones. But how does consciouness function as a processs? Thi is what I asked.

But where is the "process" that you are talking about in all this? Or do you mean that consciousness, respiration, digestion, etc.

I'm suggesting it might not be there even though life has not stopped. — Patterner

I wonder how that can be the case ... And if so, how could we know that? Science does not even know what exactly is consciousness, where it is located, how it functions, etc.

"A state of being in which phenomenal experience occurs." — wonderer1

Nice. I like that. :up: However, I don'r how it is in conflct with what I said ... Can this experience exist when life ends?

It doesn't seem to me like what you said, since a brain dead person typically has the majority of their cells still living. — wonderer1

This is maybe correct,. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject. But if so, brain death belongs to the case of being unconscious, only to a much greater degree. E.g. total anesthesia, as I have said earlier to @Art48, blocks the brain to such a degree that it can't function on a stimulus-response anymore. The effect is the same (as far as consciousness is concerned).

Also, things you have said other places gave me the impression that you think that individual cells have consciousness. — wonderer1

Oh, far from that! :smile: Not only the cells, but even the whole brain has no consciousness. I talked about that yesterday, in the discussion of "What constitutes evidence of consciousness?" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/813171)

I believe consciousness is a process. — Patterner

What kind of process? A process involves a series of actions or operations. Does consciousness act or operates in any way?

Some processes that are connected to life cannot stop without ending the life." — Patterner

Process or not, isn't what I said (in different words)? Didn't I say "Once it is attached to a life it will be there until life stops"? I think that "stops" and "ends" mean the same thing here, don't they?

You seem to have your own idiosyncratic definition of "consciousness" — wonderer1

I have not given any definition of consciousness, "idiosyncratic" (!) or other sort.

... that doesn't seem to have much overlap with what is commonly meant by the term — wonderer1

What is commonly meant by the term? In your own words.

The reference that you brought up says ecactly what I said:
"Brain death (also known as brain stem death) is when a person on an artificial life support machine no longer has any brain functions. This means they will not regain consciousness or be able to breathe without support."
"But they will not ever regain consciousness or start breathing on their own again. They have already died."

Isn't this what I said (in different words)? Didn't I say "Once it is attached to a life it will be there until life stops"?
Maybe your comments refer to some other reply than my own ...

Is consciousness present during deep sleep? — Art48

Consciousness is not something that can be created and then disappear, now be present and the next moment be absent.
Consciousness is connected to life. Once it is attached to a life it will be there until life stops.

So, why can't we feel anything under total anesthesia? Because we are unconscious. "Unconscious" does not mean "without consciousness". It means that we cannot perceive, feel, etc. Why? because substances such as drugs, alcohol, etc., shocks, bumps on the head, etc. block parts of the brain, preventing neurons in different brain regions from communicating with each other, with the result that the brain cannot transmit signals that consciousness can receive. In such a state, consciousness is attenuated to the degree of how strong, powerful the drug, shock, bump, etc. is. So, we can be unconscious in part or totally.

f we observe reactions to the surroundings, which also prove perception of the surroundings, how do we know there is consciousness, as opposed to the simple stimulus and response that we can find in any number of mechanical devices? — Patterner

Good question. I don't know! :grin:
But biologists know. Here's something interesting that I have brought in recently in another discussion, showing that even plants are endowed with the faculty of perception:

"Plants perceive the stimuli of the environment (rain, wind, cold, heat, attacks from herbivores or pathogens, and so on) and remember for a sufficiently long period, not these stimuli as such but rather the type of reaction they should have. This capacity is a precious asset enabling plants to produce a response adapted to all these stimuli and their fluctuations. If a plant perceives a stimulus to which it has previously been subjected, its response will be stronger."
(Sensory properties, memory and communication in the plant world)

The key word is "perception". There are things that work on a stimulus-response mechanism but they themsleves can't perceive and thus they have no consciousness. One of these our brain. Our brain does not percieve. It just receives and transmits signals. It is us --as living organisms-- who perceive. The brain only help us, e.g. to use our vision to see something. And we can only do that if we are conscious.

Is consciousness more than the perception and response of an archaea, or the automatic door at the supermarket? Some will say not; that it is much more complex, due to many feedback loops, but is entirely mechanical. — Patterner

Consciousness is more than just perception --and much more complex, as you say-- but his is something outside this thread. Perception, IMO, is a very basic characteristic of it and using it is the best way to describe it for the purposes of most discussions in here.
And there are indeed kind of "feedback loops" as you say, more of which are --or at least seem-- automatic, mechanical. But these interactions are happening by and are due to the mind (esp. thinking). And there of course biological reactions to thoughts and vice versa. But the mind has also a regulator role. With it we can control these "feedback loops" to a greater or lesser degree. And this needs not to be mechanical. Free will is not something mechanical. Conscious and voluntary actions are not mechanical.

And, of course, consciousness is far from being something mechanical. To be mechanical, something must operate. Consciousness is only a witness, an observer of these reactions and the whole processes involving these reactions. Consciousness does not act. It does not even feel. It's just what we are perceiving and experiencing. We are aware of what is happening outside and inside us. That's all.

What are we going to look for as evidence of consciousness in (a) a rock, and (b) a human? — bert1

When we are looking for evidence for the existence of something --animate or inanimate-- we are looking for the presence of special characteristics attributed to that something, i.e. elements that would indicate the existence or occurrence of that something. E.g. in the case of a murder that you mentioned, such elements would be a dead body, fingerprints, etc. The case of consciousness, however, is much more complicated because here we have to deal with a concept, an abstract idea, compared to a much more concrete case, which is murder. Yet, in both cases, the characteristics, the elements we are to look for are part of the definition of the subject in question: what is murder and what is consciousness, resp/ly.
If we don’t know the meaning of them, looking for evidence about them has no meaning either, right?

So, since you have not offered such a definition --I believe you should-- I will have to assume at least a simple definition of consciousness, which is, a state and ability to perceive things in the immediate surroundings and --for human beings-- within ourselves. But let's ignore the second one, in order to make things simpler and more direct.

So, I know for myself that I am conscious because we I can perceive things in the environment. OK, but how do I know that the other person next to me is also conscious? First of all, what applies to me as far as consciousness is concerned, applies to that person too, since he (for brevity) is also a human being. But we can go further and observe that he reacts to the surroundings. To do that he must be able to perceive, that. is to be conscious.

This applies not only to humans but to every form of life, i.e. to life in general. Even plants can perceive. (Yes, they do! :smile:)

So, the evidence that we must look for regarding consciousness --i.e. whether something is conscious or not-- is signs of perception and by extension reactions to the environment.

Now, can we obtain such evidence, i.e. observe such signs in objects, like a rock? Can we establish that a rock perceives ans reacts to the environment?

I'm leaving the answer to you. :smile:

:gasp:
Come on, seriously now ...

And how are you aware of yourself? Don't you need to observe something, then say, "I identify this as myself?" — Philosophim

Do you have to observe anything to know that you exist, that you are awake?

If you have no observation of emotions, thinking, etc, do you have a self? What are you if you have no emotions, thoughts, etc? — Philosophim

Do you have to feel or think anything to know that you exist? That you are a person? That you are reading this message?

Knowing that "something". What is this something? — Philosophim

Anything. Whatever. No some thing in particular. It could be e.g. just sitting on a chair. You don't have to obseve anything to be aware of that. The feeling of the chair on your bottom does not determine the fact that you are sitting. There must only exist a chair and your body be on it. No observation is needed for that.

You do not watch your legs and whole body move fast to be aware that you are running. You just know that you are running.

Notice that I pointed out that thoughts are part of observation. — Philosophim

Right. You can perceive, be aware of your thoughts. But you can also be aware of the absence of thoughts! (Being able to not think needs some training though. :smile:) As you can be aware of silence and space. These do not involve any perceiving/observation.

Leaving concepts, descriptions, etc. aside, just sit back and experience that you are aware of your thoughts, your body, your movements. Do not observe anything.
— Alkis Piskas
That's a contradiction to what I've defined. I need to observe something and then identify that as a "thought". I need to observe something and identify it as a "body". The combination of the two is awareness. — Philosophim

Yes I know that. Repeating it does not prove that I'm wrong! :smile:
Really, why are you refusing to do what I proposed, i.e. the little experiment? Don't you trust your experience?
Also, I wonder why do you chose to ignore all that I have said and shown in multiple ways about observation not being necessary for awareness to exist ...

So, since I'm being ignored, I have no other choice than to thank you for letting me express my views in your discussion and leave.

Awareness is a combination of two main factors: Observation and identification. — Philosophim

This is incorrect. Awareness does not depend or involve necessarily observation. You can be aware of millions of things that have nothing to do with observation. At the basis of all of them, is being aware of yourself. It doesn't involve any observation at all. Neither does being aware of your emotions, thinkng, etc. Awareness is a condition, a state. Observation is a process, an act. Awareness actually means knowing that something exists or is happening.

Just try it for yourself. Leaving concepts, descriptions, etc. aside, just sit back and experience that you are aware of your thoughts, your body, your movements. Do not observe anything. Just be aware of your thoughts, your body, your movements. This experience does not require any observation.

I have intervened at this point of your discussion because I think it has taken a wrong path, i.e. it is constructed around the the wrong assumption that awareness is based, depends --in part, together with identification as you say-- on observation. And by that occasion, I invite you to review and examine closely and from all its aspects the concept of awareness, because it is of most importance.

Nothing wrong with asking someone where they stand on an issue — Fooloso4

Of course not. I talked about my specific question "Are you a materialist?". If not anything else it's too general. And one may also identify to it only in part, as I undestood you do. In fact only (conventional) scientists I think can full identify with it. And ... about 80% of the people in TPF! :smile: (Based on a poll that I conducted out a long time ago.)

So, it would be much more appropriate if I had asked you instead the question of my second message (about "mental things").

The term "matter" has become problematic — Fooloso4

I agree. I believe QM is responsible for that. Matter, as we new it until then was something very concrete and tangible. Yet, even so, I believe we can still differentiate between physical and non-physical, animate and inanimate things. We can also use the terms life, beings, organisms, existence, etc. as opposed to objects. In this way mabe we can avoid using the term "matter".

BTW, there's another kind of "matter", which Vedantists --and maybe otjher-- call "subtle matter", in contrast to "gross matter", and which refers to the mind. I like that. Also, I consider thoughts to consist of some kind of "energy" different from the one we know and which is we cannot call "physical".

See my previous answer ... — Fooloso4

In your previous answer you talked about "particular things that are ascribed to materialism might not stick". But mental things are not just "particular" things. They consist a whole world, in contrast with the material one!

I don't want to waste more of your time on this. It was maybe wrong to make such a question in the first place. Thanks, anyway.

OK. Then --just for checking-- I guess you must believe that thoughts, ideas, memory, knowledge, emotions and all mental activities and contents of the mind in general are composed of matter, produced by the brain and stored in the brain. Right?

You might expect that. I don't expect that. The majority of the medical community does not expect that. The majority of those working in cognitive science do not expect that. — Fooloso4

From the little I know about you and have gathered from you, this has taken me by surprise!
Are you a materialist?

That thing is the object we need to analyze because it is that thing we are speaking about when we speak about a conscious thing. — NOS4A2

I know what you mean. There are cases however, where the word "thing", although very general, is unsuitable. For example, I wouldn't use it to say "a conscious thing", since the word "conscious" refers to beings, living entities and the word "thing", although very general, normally refers to an object, i.e. something material, inanimate. I wouldn't say "conscious being" or "conscious creature" either, because it would be a pleonasm, since beings/creatures are conscious anyway. In these cases, I believe the word "entity" is more suitable, since it covers both living and non-living cases. So, I would say "speaking about a conscious entity" or, better, "speaking about consciousness".

So in my opinion we need to abandon the question begging and the reification, not only because they are fallacious, but because they tend to lead us to false conclusions. — NOS4A2

Right.

I picked up the entire 1957 Americana Encyclopaedia collection at a garage sale, all 30 volumes. They came with a very nice cabinet. — NOS4A2

30 volumes!! I just checked it in Wiki: 45,000 articles, 6,500 contributors, 9,000 bibliographies, 150,000 cross-references, 1,000+ tables, 1,200 maps, 4,500 images. Quite impressive!
First published in 1820! At that time, my country was still under the Ottoman occupation! :grin:
Enjoy!

What is this "something that can be experienced"? All these references to "something", for instance, "there is something it is like" ... — NOS4A2

Well, one has to use ... something! :smile:
Words like "something", "thing", etc. function as wildcards, passe-partouts. They are used for lack of ... something more concrete. I guess they are OK, as far as they help expressing, explaining, etc. ... something.

it can only be assumed in a series of question-begging assertions. — NOS4A2

Yes, I guess this is often the case.

I was reading through the 1957 edition of Encyclopedia Americana when ... — NOS4A2

Are you browsing encyclopedias as a hobby or for fun? :grin:
Sorry. I couldn't help it. It just triggered my imagination. :smile:

[Re: Consciousness] However, the hypostatizing tendency of human thinking has led to its use as if referring to something existential. — NOS4A2

But it is something existential. It refers to the human existence as well as to all life.

Since a man may be conscious, it is easy to fall into the assumption that he may have consciousness — NOS4A2

It's not an assumption. It's not a construction of the mind. It's something that can be experienced. What is a construction of the mind is the concept of consciousness. Together with the effort to be accurately defined, described, explained and proved. If it cannot be scientifically explained and proved --see the hard problem of consciousness"-- does not mean that it does not exist, that it is not a reality. And this is because science, as we know it, in its current state of evolution and development, does not accept the human experience among its tools of analysis, investigation, kinds of proof, etc.

Much psychological interest has been in the description of one’s experiences when he is conscious, his feelings, perceptions, emotions, thoughts ... — NOS4A2

Right. In psychology --the conventional one, at least the one I know from studies in my college years-- consciousness is taken for granted. Well, this is better than denying its existence, isn't it? :smile:

OK, this is as far as your quotation of this professor.

[Re: HPC] It assumes the existence of “conscious experience”. The language often treats it as actual, if not fundamental. — NOS4A2

True. And for a good reason! :smile:

Despite the claims, nothing “arises”, nothing “emerges”, nothing “gives rise” to anything else. Rather than “something it is like”, there appears nothing it is like. — NOS4A2

I agree.

Our Naive Theories of Consciousness — NOS4A2

Where does this refer to? Who is "we"? And how is it connected to the title of the topic "The Naive Theory of Consciousness"?

Chalmers believes there is an explanatory gap between two states in his naturalistic dualism, the biological states and the “states of experience”. — NOS4A2

Well, I would rather say "connection" or "interaction" rather than "gap", since the latter refers to distance, esp. between two things of a similar nature. But these states are totally different kinds of things, of a totally different nature. They can only be connected in the way fear is connected to adrenaline.

But upon an objective analysis we find there is only one state and it is wholly biological. — NOS4A2

Do you mean that consciousness is a biological process and/or of a biological nature?
Whose viewpoint is this? Yours or Chalmers'?
Anyway, whatever is the case, I wonder what this "objective analysis" is ...

Practically (and ethically) we do not have the means to examine a conscious being without altering his consciousness. — NOS4A2

In what way "examine a conscious being"? I assume you mean examine the contents of a being's consciousness, right?
Well, this reminds me of quantum theory ... (From the little I know, of course.)
But consciousness is not a case of particles that we can examine in a laboratory ...
On the other hand, it's true that I cannot examine your consciousness. Not even your thoughts, emotions, ... anything of this sort. I can only examine your state of consciousness, --i.e. if and how conscious you are. Not its contents. As I can't examine your thoughts, emotions, anything of this sort.

So, what I have gathered from all this is that all (the existing) theories of consciousness are naive.
Is this the main point of the topic or is there some other conclusion?

No need to aplogize, Bob. Questions such as about the nature of consciousness, the existence of a universal mind, etc. cannot have definite answers. Besides, we have deviated a lot about the subject of your topic, which is "Analytical Idealism". We have been carried away by the energy that the process of Q&A has created. It's a very powerful process. And you never know where you can end up! :smile:

I am not sure how to simplify it down further! — Bob Ross

OK. No problem. Thanks anyway.

I mean that it is independent of any mind, not just ours. — Bob Ross

Which includes our mind, doesn't, it? I didn't say only our mind. So what I said is correct.
BTW, what other mind do you have ... in mind, besides ours, that is more advanced and more complex and on which the p.u. could can be dependent on?

I mean that if the world is mind-independent, then there is a hard problem of consciousness — Bob Ross

But "I cannot account for myself as" is the same as "I cannot consider myself as" that I said. So I corectely interpreted that too, didn't I?
What I mean, in these two cases, is that you seem to try to reject my interpretation of your statemnts as incorrect, with no real reason. This only creates unnecessary "traffic" in our discussion and prolongs it without reason to maybe lead to an impass.

You are now attributing our inablily to "account for ourselves as conscious beings" to the hard problem of consciousness. But HPC does not say of imply that we should doubt about our consciousness or that we are conscious beings. It is a problem of "mechanics", a problem of scientific explanation, proof, etc. Not of its existence!
For godssake, doubting about the existence of our consciousness and consciousness in general, would put at stake if not invalidate the whole evolution of philosophy! It would also invalidate us as human beings as well as all life!

Bob, I asked for a simpler description or argumentation if possible, not more complicated!

Wow! This is indeed quite a specific argumentation! :smile: But it's too comlex. I should maybe ask for a "simple" instead of a "specific" argumentation.
Anyway, I will have to assume that by mind-(in)dependent you mean that the existence of the physical universe (matter and energy) is in/dependent of/on our mind. (I don't know though if you mean that exactly.)
Then you say, "If it is the latter, then I cannot account for myself as a conscious being." Does this means that you cannot consider yourself as a conscious being? If so, I can't see why. I can't find the connection. In fact, mind-(in)dependence is not a factor, or a prerequisite for (the existence of) individual consciousness, which may exist in either case.

I don't know if the above are based on a correct interpretaion of your posit ...
Maybe if you simplify the whole argumentation, using simple terms --i.e. not concepts that require clarification/interpretation (like mind-(in)dependece)-- I could follow it better.

E.g. my posit that "Consiousness is a characteristic of all life" is a simple and straight statement that does not need interpetation. It can be expanded and supported of course, but always in simple terms, arguments and examples. This makes it easy for someone to argued upon and refute it.
BTW, for me, examples act as arguments, even better. Their use is the best way to clarify statements. Unfortunately, very few people use them as part of their argumentations.

I just thought ... Why don't you start by giving a definition or description of "universal mind"? This might also work as a posit for its existence!

The idea is that, although we can’t infer that everything is a part of a universal mind by directly experiencing it ... — Bob Ross

I prefer to talk about "universal consiousness" rather than "universal mind".
I believe that some individuals have experienced it and are experiencing it. Maybe myself I will be able too, some day, if I consider all the sudden realizations and experiences I have had in my life. However, I don't much mind about it.

... we can infer that it exists because otherwise we have no ability to explain the mental: we have the hard problem of consciousness. — Bob Ross

In order to infer its existence we must use one or the other worldview, theory, system, etc. Their multiplicity only indicates how hard --for me, impossible-- this is. And somewhere here enters the HPC that you mentioned.

BTW, how can we infer that "universal mind" exists? Can you present a specific agrumentation to support it?

We posit that the most parsimonious explanation for what reality fundamentally is is mentality because positing it is mind-independent leads to an irreconcilable dilemma. — Bob Ross

Right. But also positing that it is mind-dependent leads to an impasse. That's why I maintain that only experience can lead to such knowledge.

we infer there is a universal mind just like we infer there are other conscious animals — Bob Ross

Well, I think I explained the difference. (Well, for me at least, it is very obvious. And I'm sure you can see that from what I have said so far on the subject.)

I wasn’t trying to scrutinize your view but, rather, provide clarification in relation to analytic idealism. — Bob Ross

I know. And thanks for the clarification.

A plant is conscious but does not perceive anything. — Bob Ross

Yet, it does!

"Plants perceive the stimuli of the environment (rain, wind, cold, heat, attacks from herbivores or pathogens, and so on) and remember for a sufficiently long period, not these stimuli as such but rather the type of reaction they should have. This capacity is a precious asset enabling plants to produce a response adapted to all these stimuli and their fluctuations. If a plant perceives a stimulus to which it has previously been subjected, its response will be stronger."
(Sensory properties, memory and communication in the plant world)

other people and plants beings conscious is also a concept in that same sense (that we don’t experience it). — Bob Ross

That's why I like to connect consciousness with perception. Because we can know that the another person or a dog, etc. are conscious too --besides ourselves, who can experience consciousness directly-- by observing their reactions to stimuli, communicating with them, etc. If they react, it means that they can perceive and therefore they are conscious entities.

[Re: Me saying "I have no experience if it"] I don’t find this to be a problem: we can know things without experiencing them. — Bob Ross

Certainly.

Is there a name for the doctrine which claims that all religions are epistemically/veridically disjunct from each other? — Hallucinogen

I don't think that this is a question of doctrine. That religions are disjunct from each other is a fact. Even sects within religions are sometimes isolated from each other and their mother religion/church.

How can one reconcile Christianity with Hinduism or Islam or even Judaism?
There have been even religious wars carried out between two denomications. People have been persecuted because of their religion or even their religious beliefs. Even in these days there are ethno-religious enmities with the same countries themselves and not between two but more religions. (E.g. Bosnia)

On the other hand, there is an effort for the protection of religious freedom and human rights in general, made by conventions under the UN of representatives of major religions --Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Religiious freedom automaticall ends enmities among religions as well as persecution by governments and churhes. These and similar conventions and movements are the closest I can think of about arriving at a reconciliation between religions ...

Hi!
Browsing the "All Discussions" page, I keep seeing "Why Monism?" among the topics, updated everyday, and this question has started to haunt me! :grin:
The discussion has reached 7 pages and I can't read thoroughly every comment to find some answer, or at least a frame of reference within which this question is explicitly answered or posited.
Yet, I'm still interested in it since the first day I read about this topic and responded to it ...

So, since it's your topic and you are watching its progress, can you tell me anything that supports the question "Why Monism?" and can maybe remove at least some part of the mystery it created in me? :smile:

It doesn't matter if it's true for others, as long as you or I or him believe it to be true. — A Realist

Of course it doesn't matter. But please complete the sentence "As long as you or I or him believe it to be true ..." (Then what?)

"I am a Liar" which are by definition always true or always false. — A Realist

But this statement is neither true nor false! :smile: It's a known "paradox", or better, a self-contradictory statement. If I am a liar then this statement is a lie (false). But then, if this statement is a lie (false), it means that I'm not a liar. See the self-contradiction involved?

As for Socrates I am not even sure he ever existed, perhaps he is/was a fictional character...'. — A Realist

What have I to do with Socrates in this thread? :smile: Have you confound me with someone else?

Something is true, if you believe it to be true. — A Realist

If you believe that something is true, it doesn't mean that it is true in general, or also true for me or someone else ... (But I believe that it is true for you.)
:smile:

I would need you to explain further what you mean by those terms to give a more precise answer. — Bob Ross

Thank you for your readiness! But I don't think we should get involved in such a quest. Not worthwhile.

Could you give an example of such a detailed description of consciousness? — Bob Ross

I can give you a few references. However, I don't know what you actually expect from this. If you are not involved in the Eastern philosophy, I don't know if what I can refer you to will make much sense or even be useful to you.
They are all refering mainly to experiencing. So, you must not expect scientific facts or even views, although scientific approaches can be applied to some cases.
Also, it is mportant to note that none of the views on consciousness find me totally in aggreement. Maybe I'm closest to Sarvapriyananda's description ("consciousness lighting up experiences".)

So, I have created the following list, prompted by your request! :smile:

Eastern philosophy:

Swami Sarvapriyananda | Consciousness — The Ultimate Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3cuMEBYm_g
Swami Sarvapriyananda on 'CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01fWVdfIUPs
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/
What is Samkhya?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awFdSi_VD5c
The Monistic Idealism of A. Goswami - A Theosophical Appraisal
(Sections "Materialism and idealism" and "Wave-function collapse")
http://davidpratt.info/goswami.htm

Western philosophy with Eastern elements:

Mind, Matter, and Life: Fritjof Capra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFERd65UCh8
Earth Talk: Fritjof Capra - The Systems View of Life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If2Fw0z6uxY
Non-duality and the Nature of Consciousness (Rupert Spira)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRUgkSJZ-8M
Destined to Evolve Our Consciousness (Eckhart Tolle)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gtEjtXCTo

It isn’t even apparent that we will one day be able to definitively understand the entirety of reality. — Bob Ross

This is indeed so.

[Re Einstein] one should be able to articulate their position concisely and precisely — Bob Ross

This is plausible too.

If by “explain what ‘consciousness’ is” you are asking how it works, then only via empirical inquiry will we find out. — Bob Ross

Exactly. This is what I'm saying.

[Re: A few I know that have descibed this quite well ...] Could you give an example? — Bob Ross

See my first reply.

For analytic idealism, consciousness is not synonymous with perception. — Bob Ross

I didn't say that consciousness is synonymous with perception. They are two totally different kinds of things. What I mean is that consciousness is strongly connected to perception, in the sense that it is a state and abiity to preceive things outside us (environment) as well as inside us (thoughts, emotions, etc.)
But consciousness is not limited to perception. I would mention that if I knew you would scrutinize my statement! :grin:

“Perception” is used to denote conscious beings that have evolved to have the faculties to represent its environment to itself — Bob Ross

OK, but consciousness a characteristic of all life: Living organisms as well as plants.

The universal mind, for instance, does not perceive ... — Bob Ross

All this is fine. But the "universal mind" is only a concept for me: I have no experience of it.

Think of it like the difference between plants, which will on a basis of very basic stimulus responses, vs. a complex animal (like a dog): the plant is perceiving anything but yet, under analytic idealism, is conscious. — Bob Ross

Certainly. Each form of life has a different level of consciousness, or better, it is consious on a different level, depending on its complexity as an organism, as you say.

OK, Banno.

"I believe in God" is different than "I assert that God exists". The first is not a posit that requires a proof. It cannot be agreed or disagreed upon, argued and refuted. The second is an assertion that requires a proof and it can be agreed upon, argued and refuted.

Truth has to be proven. So beliefs are exempted from it.

All 3 cases described in the page of the mentioned link refer to beliefs and beliefs are opinions that can be countered, contradicted, etc., but not facts that can be refuted, i.e. proven to be false.

I cannot even say, to you e.g. "Your belief in the existence of ghosts is false". It has no meaning. It is your right to believe in ghosts. And you do believe in ghosts. For you, ghosts are real. So, except if one is disillusioned, one's beliefs are always "true".

Then, beliefs show a certain amount of certitude about something. We say, e.g. "I believe that this is what most probably have happend.". Ans, when we are totally certain about something, we say e.g. "I don't just believe that this is so; I know this is so". But still though, that would not be a fact that can be proven to be true or false[/b].

So, lets stick to the facts, please! :smile: