This sounds somewhat Lockean, with the concept of force replacing Locke's primary qualities. I'm honestly not sure what I think of it. I'm open to the possibility. I think it might well be right. A lot will depend on what is meant by 'force' of course.

Bert1, at this initial stage of you considering my claims I believe the “force” element in my argument is not the one to concentrate on, since physics takes care of it, more importantly are the metaphysical and philosophy of mind consequences. I mean all the elements that mind needs to provide to make an invisible and silent universe, visible and listenable.

In other words, the external world is constituted by force (different levels of force) and appearances or details do not exist there independently, it is only stimuli promoters what lead to appearances or details when mind does its job using the five human senses. — Nelson E Garcia

Well, we have no direct access to external objects anyway, except through the mind and the senses.

But are you saying that the external objects are created by and made of mind or "force" (like intelligent energy or creative intelligence)? Or only the mental objects perceived internally by the mind and the senses?

Apollodorus, the external objects are a synthesis of the external substratum (which lacks any details) and mind. Mind is not an “observer” (since there are not traits that can be observed) it attributes details to the substratum and then identifies the attribution (at the external location of the substratum targeted).

Just one question. Does your theory apply to beer as well?

Or maybe 2 questions. Do all of the people involved in growing the ingredients, making the beer brewing equipment, brewing the beer, canning/bottling the beer actually do nothing at all?

Sir2u, would you ask those questions to George Berkeley after he said: “To exist is to be perceived”?
The beer exist when you drink it, everything involved in making it sub-exist in a dark underground I call: Actuality.
Actuality is made out of facts but it is not Reality.

there is no existence without mind actualizing it — Nelson E Garcia

What would then happen if we "actualized" the Moon (or each other) differently?
What about new discoveries? Are they somehow actualized unconsciously...?
If only I could actualize covid-19 immunity for my mum. What's with the constraints? Oh yes, I'd like a word with whoever actualized the virus. Maybe they could just go ahead and uhh unactualize.

Apollodorus, the external objects are a synthesis of the external substratum (which lacks any details) and mind. Mind is not an “observer” (since there are not traits that can be observed) it attributes details to the substratum and then identifies the attribution (at the external location of the substratum targeted). — Nelson E Garcia

The plot thickens. :)
Well, is this "substratum" then existentially mind-independent?

Jorndoe, the substratum is independent of mind but it does not amount to existence, it pre-exists.

Stove's Gem - again, again and again.

The five human senses do a very good job at seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and dermal feeling by touch but what is cognized is not something located in the external world, only the appearance-less essence of what is cognized is located in the external world and it is mind what provides all cognized appearances and details. — Nelson E Garcia

Very good, similar to the doctrine of Bishop Berkeley:

George Berkeley’s theory that matter does not exist comes from the belief that "sensible things are those only which are immediately perceived by sense." Berkeley says in his book called The Principles of Human Knowledge that "the ideas of sense are stronger, livelier, and clearer than those of the imagination; and they are also steady, orderly and coherent." From this we can tell that the things that we are perceiving are truly real rather than it just being a dream.

All knowledge comes from perception; what we perceive are ideas, not things in themselves; a thing in itself must be outside experience; so the world only consists of ideas and minds that perceive those ideas; a thing only exists so far as it perceives or is perceived. — Wiki

Stove's Gem - again, again and again. — Banno

Well it is a philosophy forum. If you want to find some actual gems, try fossicking.-)

Wayfarer, thanks for the Berkeley excerpts, his persuasion is a strong foundation for future metaphysicians, and his main claim: Immaterialism, was confirmed by modern physics. Developing my own metaphysical persuasion I began with the Berkeley’s frame of mind.

:up:

The OP does not contain an argument, only an assertion. It doesn't even rise to the level of Stove's Gem, which would in fact be more welcome than what is currently on offer, which is nothing.

StreetlightX, you are right, that is only a beginning, an assertion is my way of introducing myself to a new group.

Keep in mind, metaphysics is not a science, offering testable hypotheses, the reputation of the metaphysician is an important component of the enterprise and it depends on the audience respecting it just because the claims could not be disproven, if proved wrong that would be the end of the effort.
My metaphysical persuasion is presented in a book I have self-published and here is an excerpt from my book glossary (the glossary is a separate book) which perhaps would give you a clear idea of my frame of mind.

“Absolute Realization is a metaphysical persuasion which I classify as a theist, essentialist, intelligent design proposition about a foundation of epistemological awareness that eventually reaches theoretical-practical realness. My metaphysical argument springs from a simple, although surprising realization: As a matter of metaphysical fact, the universe is invisible and silent, and the human genetic makeup—practically singlehandedly—must overcome such considerable interaction limitations in order to succeed.

Genetic instructions carried by the chain of species are responsible for both the emergence and functioning of the body and mind in human beings. As the necessary means to interact with the featureless substratum of the universe, they are the cause of the feature-rich environment we are able to observe as soon as we become aware. Therefore, the external world we identify as being visible, audible, tastable, smellable and touchable is a synthesis of the universe substratum’s pre-existents and mind’s effect on them…”

Glossary Book Page 1

the substratum is independent of mind but it does not amount to existence, it pre-exists — Nelson E Garcia

I take my previous statement back, the plot is now diluting.

What would then happen if we "actualized" the Moon (or each other) differently?
What about new discoveries? Are they somehow actualized unconsciously...?
If only I could actualize covid-19 immunity for my mum. What's with the constraints? [...]

If things were wholly of my own making, actualized, then I couldn't really misunderstand or get something wrong about them. I'd know already. Something's amiss, @Nelson E Garcia.

Very good — Wayfarer

Not really. (I guess there are reasons only 4.3% of academic philosophers go down this rabbit hole; dead end.)

Hint: when you reply, use the Reply function, which will appear when you mouse-over the bottom part of a post; that way the person you reply to will be notified.

To quote from a post, select the text you want to quote and a floating Quote button will appear - click on that to copy the properly-formatted text into a new post.

Very good
— Wayfarer

Not really. — jorndoe

'Very good' as in 'Very well, then', not 'Hey I think that's great'. But I am inclined to agree with Berkeley, and predict that many of the objections to such ideas will be lapidiary, although we'll have to wait and see.

If things were wholly of my own making, actualized, then I couldn't really misunderstand or get something wrong about them. I'd know already. Something's amiss — jorndoe

Do do not confuse understanding with actualizing. Understanding depends on you intellectual build-up. Actualizing of the object you observe is provided automatically by your cognitive system. What you observe within awareness (awake, not in a dream or hallucinating) is created by mind in subjective fashion so it can never be wrong since it is actualized internally (from genetic resources and at your highest intellectual level). It is not in fact observed in the external world but since it fits the substratum under target with precision, that is why it is hard to believe.

I claim: Objects do not exist independently, there is no existence without mind actualizing it. — Nelson E Garcia

Scientists claim that the Earth existed billions of years before the emergence of human beings (with minds).

Either you are disagreeing with their claim in which case this is an empirical dispute. Or else you're using words unconventionally which is likely to confuse your audience. If the latter, can you restate your claim in conventional terms?

You have to be careful of the word "exist". Let's take the moon for example. Would the moon exist if no one was around? Well, the the big rock would exist, but there would be no one to call it "moon" (or for that matter to differentiate what a "rock" is from the space around it). So does that mean the moon exists or no? Just depends on your definition.

But the idea that things don't exist until something observes them is just Quantum Mechanics. Now all the fighting is over what this "observer" is. Though there is still some fighting over whether or not QM should be interpreted ontologically or epistemologically. When we talk about the uncertainty principle, and say we are uncertain of where the electron is, is this an "epistemological limitation" as in the electron is in fact in a specific location X and we don't know where, or is it an "ontological limitation" as in the electron is in no specific location X, and is ontologically only describable by a probability function? I think the ontological interpretation is more common nowadays, though Multiple Worlds is of the epistemological variety.

Objects do not exist independently, there is no existence without mind actualizing it. — Nelson E Garcia

Is the mind an object? Does it exist independently? Or must each mind be actualised by another mind?

The five human senses do a very good job at seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and dermal feeling by touch but what is cognized is not something located in the external world, only the appearance-less essence of what is cognized is located in the external world and it is mind what provides all cognized appearances and details.

In other words, the external world is constituted by force (different levels of force) and appearances or details do not exist there independently, it is only stimuli promoters what lead to appearances or details when mind does its job using the five human senses.

Is this "appearance-less essence" or "force" that exists in the external world not an object?

All-in-all this seems like you're getting at something like Kant's noumena/phenomena distinction.

Hi — Nelson E Garcia

Who are you talking to?

A firm requirement of existence is for existents to include traits and details which the external world lack, — Nelson E Garcia

Self-contradictory? If existants require it, but the external world doesn’t have it.....how does an external thing meet its own requirements?
————-

what is cognized is not something located in the external world — Nelson E Garcia

Agreed. What is cognized is representation of that which is in the external world. But that which does not exist in the external world cannot affect sensibility, therefore cannot be represented, hence cannot be cognized.
—————

the external world is constituted by force (different levels of force) — Nelson E Garcia

Dunno so much about that, but......

appearances or details do not exist there independently, it is only stimuli promoters what lead to appearances or details when mind does its job using the five human senses. — Nelson E Garcia

....this is agreeable, insofar as “stimuli promoters” are merely the matter of extant objects. In effect, appearances logically reduce to stimuli promoters. There’s no significant difference between something appearing to be “round”, and that which promotes perception to respond to the conditions of “round-ness”.
—————

if a question is needed for the topic to be valid — Nelson E Garcia

What is this “force” you’re talking about? I suppose one could say extants in the external world “force” themselves upon sensibility, iff any of them are in fact perceived. But if that’s the case, how is that I still cognize my four-legged childhood companion “Sparky”?
—————

No existence without an actualizing mind, is Berkeley’s dogmatic idealism; attribution of “traits and details” is Kant’s transcendental idealism, albeit by means of reason, not mind. “Force” may be original to you, but the rest is well-worn.

And no, no one can prove your claims wrong, because it’s metaphysics. But your claims can be argued and theoretically refuted given some generally identical initial premises but operating under different systemic conditions from them.

Have fun with it, I say.

Either you are disagreeing with their claim in which case this is an empirical dispute. Or else you're using words unconventionally which is likely to confuse your audience. If the latter, can you restate your claim in conventional terms? — Andrew M

I have redefined existence as something that becomes rather than “is”. It is not easy to bring that redefinition to the forum in one shot so first you read my initial claim, ask me to restated it, and here it is in different words. We learn that things (objects) exist in their own, but in fact each time you sense-target there is only a substratum which requires mind to become an existent. Such state of affairs does not affect logical facts such as the one you mentioned: “the Earth existed billions of years before the emergence of human beings (with minds).” Therefore before you become acquainted with my whole frame of mind, all significant aspects of it, I suggest taking my initial explanation as a correction of misguided language. In metaphysical talk (perception metaphysics in particular) it is incorrect to refer to existence-in-its-own, there is no such thing in the universe. Existents become by act of mind.

You have to be careful of the word "exist". Let's take the moon for example. Would the moon exist if no one was around? Well, the the big rock would exist, but there would be no one to call it "moon" (or for that matter to differentiate what a "rock" is from the space around it). So does that mean the moon exists or no? Just depends on your definition. — khaled

I am careful about the word “exist”. Anything able to exist should you sense-target it, pre-exists in the meantime. Consider pre-exist as a correct expression.

Is the mind an object? Does it exist independently? Or must each mind be actualised by another mind? — Michael

Is this "appearance-less essence" or "force" that exists in the external world not an object? — Michael

When referring to immaterial targets such as mind, consider actualization by judgment (judgment of mind) so yes another mind judging yours is needed, but your own judgment is as good as another mind judgement, right? Essence is not an object until it is realized by mind (realized into an object of realness).

Who are you talking to? — counterpunch

Initially I meant to talk to all members, but sarcastic or disrespectful members, if any, I rather not talk to.

Do you have time to read a book?

If all minds in the universe disappeared, what would be left?

Do you have time to read a book? — Nelson E Garcia

Yeah...about that. Theses days, I got all kinds of time, but I seem to have lost a great deal of interest. So, yep, got time, but maybe not inclination.