Gotta love those halcyon days of so-called 'free' love and pre-prohibition, paranoia-free psychedelics.

Back on topic ... Your question just triggered this thought about the materialism vs idealism debate, in that the question could be rephrased as follows: Is it 'real' matter that is experiencing the illusion of mind? Or is it 'real' mind that is experiencing the illusion of matter? Wadya think?

Hey, I'm old enough to claim to be an original hippie, so you can't pull the flower-power garland over my eyes.

It is the material of the world that gains self awareness, however imperfect and limted. — Kym

Or, if one is to go with Idealism, it is the Cosmic Mind that conceives of the idea of matter, and a finite locus of that mind that experiences it as such, while there is never any actual separation between them.

As well, there's the Advaita Vedanta take, as per this Shankara quote ...

Brahman alone is real
The world is illusory
Brahman is the world

Take your pick :wink:

Hey, I know it's not an easy job, and often quite thankless ... been there, done that. And I trust that there's generally good will, as well as the will to make it as good as it can be under the provisional circumstances. So thanks for your efforts in that regard.

That the mods aren't all on the same page in their interpretation of guidelines just speaks to my point that there is some inconsistency in the application of the guidelines, wherein a certain amount of leeway is given, depending upon the subjective opinion of the mod, and their familiarity and affinity with poster's mindset. I understand that this isn't going to be perfect, just seeking clarification on why. Now I know.

To be fair, there would appear to be some inconstancy in the application of this guideline. For example, this post 'CERN Discovers that the Universe Ought Not to Exist' doesn't seem to be especially philosophical in nature. If you feel that it is, could you be more explicit as to why? It also asks no specific or detailed question of the readers.

I agree, and don't in fact think there are two realms. Rather, I have some kind of materialist view. — Kym

I'm not sure I can make sense of this. Who or what is conscious of a material world? This would seem to imply two categories, mind (subject) and matter (object). How would one make them not-two?

There is a subsection titled Science and Technology. If it's not appropriate to ask such a question there, then I have no idea why not.

You might want to check out Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist who attempts to make consciousness theory congruent with evolutionary theory, with his 'Conscious Realism' take, apparently with some equations to back it up. There are quite a few conference presentations and interviews available on youtube.

I'd suggest that consciousness remains scientifically mysterious in that the physicalist explanation for it as being an epiphenomenon of brain activity is a work in progress, without a definitive result. But even with an idealist interpretation positing consciousness as the ontological primitive, it may remain a noumenal mystery, as per Kant, insofar as the 'thing' in itself can't be known other than as its phenomenal aspects. Either way though, our experiential awareness is surely all we can know -- albeit some spiritual adepts, in deep states of samadhi, report a state empty of phenomena as being a singular awareness of being 'pure' Awareness, or Beingness, or Knowingness, or some such elusive word for it.

One thing many of these ideas about the soul have in common is that they still depend upon being comprised of some energetic or aether-like substrate. What if any such substrate is an entirely cognitive construct, and these souls are no more nor less than the 'stuff' that dreams are made on? -- if I may borrow from The Bard.

but if you can get hold of a copy of his book A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism, you might find exactly what you're looking for. — jkg20

Hmm ... at $100-plus Cdn for a hard copy, I'll have to pass, unless there's some less-expensive, less-than-material (ha,ha) source available in cyberspace -- albeit, there would appear to be very little online presence of Foster's body of work, other than some synoptic reviews and excerpts, which I will delve into ... Thanks nonetheless for the suggestion.

I suppose for many contemporary metaphysicians, Kastrup included, the issue with Berkeley, and others, is precisely that he brings those 18th century ideas of God into the equation, with all of the problematic baggage that now comes with that term. With that in mind, do you feel that Idealism can be cogently articulated, without resorting to some such Divine Beingness -- for lack of a better term?

Thanks for that edification, as it is clearly a critical distinction. Again, I'm not intending here to definitively defend Kastrup's model, which he must do himself, but rather to get feedback on his, or any version of Idealism that others here may offer for consideration, so as to be informed about all options. So I do appreciate the input.

Well Kastrup posits that the 'world' of Ideas, in the platonic sense, does indeed still exist absent a finite locus of mind, insofar as it immanently exists in a Cosmic Mind-at-large -- along the lines of Berkeley's take, seemingly in sync with Kastrup, to quote "Where does this leave the moon when everyone's gone to sleep? Berkeley's answer was that God never sleeps, and perceives all things at all times."

I could be misconstruing your worldview, but it would appear to be a QM interpretation that is still clinging to the materialist premise that there is a mind-independent world of matter 'out there', the very notion that Kastrup, or any idealist ontology, is dubious about ... as now am I.

To that point, curiously enough, I just learned that Mr. Kastrup has now been invited to a meeting of minds at the Vatican (not sure that's the most apropos venue), to discourse on the impact of science on culture and society. Perhaps, from the perspective of Idealism, a few more seeds thrown into the shifting winds of change.

This process occurs independently of conscious observers being present. — Andrew M

So says a conscious observer. Again, I repeat the question: What exactly is a measurement absent a conscious agent to calculate a measurement from the reactive apparatus, if that measurement apparatus itself is observer-dependent, without which isn't it all just in potentia?

From what I've gleaned from your other contributions in this thread, and elsewhere in the forum, I feel we probably agree on more than that upon which we may disagree.

I just think Kastrup does a disservice to the position he is arguing — jkg20

It may well be perceived as a disservice to those inside the academic boxes. I can forgive some incidental errors that can eventually be ironed out if the goal of shifting the paradigm is achieved.

You're of course welcome to your subjective opinion. Sure, Kastrup may be thinking outside the academic boxes, however, I would expect that if Idealism is to ever infiltrate and supplant the prevailing materialist paradigm, it may need all the philosophical and scientific support it can get.

Oh dear, it seems we've succumbed to the fate of discussion forums ... conflict-mode.

Still somehow I can't ignore QM's redefining of the word 'observer' and applying it to an apparatus as just a convenient way of ignoring Chalmers' inconvenient 'hard problem.' With such oblivious attempts to get around it, no wonder I find myself attracted to Idealism.

That much is clear. — StreetlightX

Well at least something is clear.

Still not seeing how 'measurement' means anything different at all in QM, unless one arbitrarily decides that it does. But that is also one's prerogative.

Perhaps that's a good question, but it is one that has nothing to do with quantum physics. — StreetlightX

Ok, you've totally lost me now. Lucky QM physicists who are exempt from answering good questions.

But what exactly is a measurement absent a conscious agent to calculate a measurement from the reactive apparatus, if that apparatus itself is observer-dependent, without which isn't it all just in potentia?

It's curious that you describe him as an excellent scientist, while his science was dismissed earlier by apokrisis as being 'crank.' In any case, that some of his claims and opinions may be in dispute and controversial is hardly surprising, given the challenge of attempting to reconcile Idealism with current scientific models, and the profound implications that entails. Indeed, I should think it almost inevitable.

I'll concede that I'm not well-versed in quantum theory. So please elucidate: how does QM explain the process by which a table lamp is observing? I can see how a thermostat reacts to a change in temperature, so is that too an act of observance?

it is traditional to denote this something as the observer, but it is important in the following discussion to keep in mind that the observer can be a table lamp. — Relational Quantum Mechanics - Carlo Rovelli

This would seem to be a radical redefinition of the word 'observer.' Surely any claim whatsoever can be rationalized, if you arbitrarily redefine words so that what you want to claim then ends up making linguistic sense.

ESL class dismissed ... Don't forget your homework :wink:

Wow, this is a tough crowd ! If Kastrup is execrable, what does that make me ?

I can only give a very intuitive take on the idea of the Soul, or Oversoul, not especially derived from any given philosophy or spiritual tradition, per se. My sense is that it might be some greater transpersonal, trans-spatiotemporal source-entity that is dreaming the maya-dream of apparent subject/object separation -- or disassociation may be the better descriptor -- into recursive, fractal-like, multidimensional loci or iterations of itself, as multiple unique, individuated, phenomenal self-expressions, for the sake of this relational experience with other such entities, as is its creative imperative. As such, in theory, any two or more individuals within a given phenomenal construct, though not necessarily the same construct, could be aspects of the same Soul, which spans many such dimensional constructs. These Souls would be once-removed aspects, so to speak, of ultimate Divine Beingness, for lack of a better name for the nameless, which, while it is the essence of all expression, must remain noumenal to any given phenomenal expression.

I have investigated the idea of the soul from the perspective of various versions of Idealism, from Plato to Kant, but for the most part I'm none the wiser, as it often seems quite convoluted and hard to make sense of -- at least for this finite mind. However, if there was one version that did somewhat resonate intuitively, it would have to be that of Plotinus, if a bit too moralistic in my view ... Here is a brief overview

I also resonate with what you have to say here. My point about how science may or may not influence the cultural ethos and narrative can be illustrated by one simple example. When we speak to our impressionable children and say 'Look darling, the sun is setting', this is a true enough 'fact' of our experience, now embedded into the language construct. However, according to scientific astronomy, it's not an actual fact at all, and the story we should be telling the child is 'Look darling, we are moving away from the sun on the rotating planet earth into the darkness of its shadow.' Yet the factual truth that science tells us, does not trump the quaint story that we tell our children, which they implicitly believe, until educated otherwise. So perhaps this example can also be extrapolated to the story that we tell ourselves about there being a mind-independent world of matter 'out there', which quantum physicists tell us is also not strictly factual.

Coincidentally, I just came upon Kastrup's latest paper, which speaks to the shiftiness of paradigms, which may be of interest here, if so inclined ...

Once again, you make some valid points. No doubt it's not cut and dried why folks believe what they believe, but messy, complicated and nuanced. And it surely does seem that whatever the factors may be, scientific, religious, or the slings and arrows of fate, the truism may often be that believing is seeing, and not the other way around.

Seems like your and Sapientia's experiences are different. — T Clark

That would seem to be the case ... so be it. I don't see it as any less valid than my experience, but just accept that it too plays its integral role.

More to the point about referring to the void. It seems that what you are actually trying to convey is the idea of space, or spaciousness, that which contains and envelopes all forms, which to me means something quite different from 'the void', which perhaps pervades all forms. But all this can be very subjective of course.

So I must concur with T Clark. If the intention here is not to be philosophically exacting, but rather to be poetically allegorical, then it may be best to avoid the tendency to over analyze, as it becomes like dissecting an intricate and lovely insect to discover what makes it so, and in the process destroying it. Sure, terms like 'soul' can be ambiguous, nebulous and mystical; but poetry surely must allow for some subjective and intuitive leeway in interpretation. So go with what intuitively and integrally feels right to you, as your heartfelt expression, and let the interpreters read into it what they may.

Well perhaps the void could effectively be worked into it. However, in a strictly metaphysical sense, the void, by definition, would be entirely empty of form. Albeit, if the Heart Sutra is taken into account, emptiness is not other than form. So keep at it. Poetry can take time and many drafts to get it feeling just right. Just keep in mind that sometimes less is more.

Don't get me wrong. It's a very good attempt for someone who has taken on the significant challenge of learning a new language. So kudos for taking on that challenge, and wanting to improve upon it. One obvious correction, the word Divine is spelled incorrectly, and in the context that you are using it, I would use the uppercase 'D'.

Due to the issues with syntax, grammar, spelling and punctuation, I'm guessing English is not your first language. So assuming you've been studying it, it's best to continue with those studies.

Otherwise, you have the makings of a nice metaphor. However, as with all such metaphors, there is a temptation to over extend and mix them, beyond the simple allegory they are intended to convey. As such, you lost me with the last part, when you ventured into the void, so to speak. Maybe leave out the last three sentences.

Thanks for the feedback ... all quite cogent insights, which I look forward to pondering more deeply. I certainly respect your caution regarding not wishing to fixate on any one model, as perhaps even a hybrid of such models may be more fitting -- insofar as there can ever be an ultimate, definitive model. I guess the reason I feel that Idealism should at least attempt to be reconcilable with current science, is that it may then make it more tenable for the scientific mindset to consider it as a premise on which to advance their scientific theories, most especially in QM, where there are currently several versions, and counting, competing for attention, with no unified theory in sight.

And this also speaks to your point about basing a cultural ethos on such a model, in that most folks don’t ever give ontology or cosmology much thought at all, if ever. And if the scientific revolution during the Age of Enlightenment is any indication, they just rely on the high priests of science to set the epistemological agenda, which then becomes the default foundation for all further indoctrination into the given paradigm, via mass education/media. Hence, if that paradigm is ever going to shift, it seems that it has to start with those who set the paradigmatic agenda, and the cultural ethos at large then follows suit. But you make a good point, and may well be correct, that it may start with a more grass-roots shift, and a mass rejection of the current prevailing model, when enough folks like myself no longer feel that it resonates with their experience, and their beliefs about the world are radically altered -- based upon who knows what mysterious ‘awakening’ events -- despite what the high priests are saying, culminating in some tipping point.

Ok, that is weird ... Thanks for your attention and the restoration :)