I don't think facts about the world or reality have the power to compel us to act. — Andrew4Handel

Minds other than human minds are invoked to account for object permanence. — bert1

[T]o what extent is Ryle's thinking compatible with nondualistic philosophy perspectives? — Jack Cummins

Is the idea of the 'ghost in the machine' one which is to be abandoned completely? — Jack Cummins

I think Descartes was right that the only thing we can't doubt is that we exist ... — Andrew4Handel

You have always displayed a rather pessimistic viewpoint for the future of the human race, and I have always, and will always, disagree with that aspect of your current world view. — universeness

I would prefer homo nova to homo superior — universeness

... you didn't offer your personal interpretation of the final scene you posted above ... — universeness

I've imagined Kubrick/Clarke's "Monolith" as the ultimate  intelligent descendant of terrestrial life interacting with its primeval ancestors (us) in "higher dimensional" quantum-level simulations (e.g. "pocket universes"). Symbolically, for us, the "Monolith" is both mirror and window (i.e. "film screen") of the unknown ...

When (movie) Dave Bowman transforms (chrysalis-like) into the "Starchild", the Monolith's simulation, I imagine, becomes aware of itself as (manifested as an avatar of) the Monolith's simulation. (Book) Bowman's last transmission as his pod falls onto / into the Great Monolith "My God, it's full of stars ..." in which "stars" could mean souls, or minds, or intelligences ... perhaps all there ever has been and will ever be ... simulated. No doubt, another inspiration for Frank Tipler's cosmological "Omega Point"? — 180 Proof

I imagine the Monolith is (for our species) the enabling-constraint of becoming (fractally joining) the Monolith. A quasi-gnostic odyssey of re/turning to the source (pleroma), or the prodigal homecoming – monomyth – of all intelligences ... — 180 Proof

Does anyone have an alternate criterion for what is morally normative that they prefer? — Mark S

[M]y normative ethics is Negative Hedonic Utilitarianism (i.e. "right" judgments and conduct which prevent or reduce harm); — 180 Proof

... challenged for empirical evidence, rather than logical reasons. — Gnomon

What about that exchange is not clear? — Wayfarer

Idealism sounds to closer to mysticism. — Wayfarer

One way I have put it is that whilst we may be distinct and separate - an inevitable consequence of existence! - we are not, as it were, outside of, or apart from, reality itself. That, I think, is the key insight of non-dualism. — Wayfarer

Stoicism for me, but like Seneca, I have great regard for Epicurus — Ciceronianus

As usual, you and ↪180 Proof interpret my philosophical & technical terminology differently from my intention. — Gnomon

Name one cheerful philosopher. — Ciceronianus

I became convinced, and still am convinced, that what philosophers had to say in this respect was said long, long ago as part of the effort to determine how best to live. That took place before Christianity, before Romanticism, before people came to understand that "God is dead" and despaired because of it, before nihilism, existentialism; in short, before we became devotees of angst. — Ciceronianus

I don't mean to say that great questions are unimportant or should not be addressed, but I don't think philosophy is useful in addressing them, unless we mean by philosophy art, poetry, meditation and pursuits which evoke rather than seek to explain. Those are pursuits which are better left to those who aren't philosophers.

What might be more interesting a fitting on a philosophy forum is if you looked at a topic, said why the existing answers are unsatisfactory, and narrowly and specifically say why enformationism is different and peculiarly suited to solving the problem. Maybe you've already done that and I haven't noticed. — bert1

I share 180 Proof's 'impatience,' with your attempts to deny that your enformer, IS a god of the gaps posit. If you had honestly and earnestly stated your enformer as a theological proposal from the start, then I think @180 Proof would just have disagreed with you, and moved on, but, trying to suggest that your enformer is a legitimate scientific projection, based on current quantum mechanics, is like a red rag to a bull imo. That's why @180 Proof's and my reactions are more 'aggravated,' imo. — universeness

I'm not sure why idealism is on there. Idealism is not a position on whether or not there is an external world, but about whether that world (external or not) is independent of any minds. — bert1

A. What had 'motivated' my interest in philosophy?

B. Which aspects of my biography 'determine' my philosophical commitments?

↪180 Proof .... Don't you have any arguments? — Sam26

180's terms seem to be those proposed by the Vienna Circle — Gnomon

The title of this thread is "Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body" and you go on cherry picking "evidence" that are testimonial and you ignore all the scientific body of evidence.This is dishonest. Then you declare testimonial evidence to be "academic" when Science rejects subjective opinions by default!
Ignoring credible epistemology makes your claims pseudo philosophical — Nickolasgaspar

Is there an external world? Yes.

Do we experience it as it is [not experienced by us]? No.

Is our knowledge of it an accurate representation of it? We try — Fooloso4

Human ability to manifest intent, purpose and intelligent design is being combined and enhanced by memorialised information which has resulted in an ever increasing pace of human invention of new tech and discovery of new knowledge.
This IS evidence that we are moving towards 'points of pivotal change,' at a faster pace. Movement towards advanced AI for example ... observable emergence ... — universeness

Since he won't listen to me
— Gnomon

You're not the only one he doesn't listen to, but nor is he the only one that doesn't listen to you. I struggle with your posts, and I suspect others ignore your stuff too. — bert1