What is Mind? What is Matter? Is idealism vs. materialism a confusion?

RegularGuy

I am of the persuasion that whatever consciousness really is (I think it’s spirit) is the structuring element or substance of reality. The material world exists, but it is only given structure by consciousness (or spirit). You can’t have one without the other. Hence, the materialism vs. idealism debate is really a confusion of the nature of reality. Both are true, needed and necessary in order for reality to be the way we find it.

Since consciousness (or spirit) gives structure to matter, I am of the reasoned opinion that there must have been consciousness (or spirit) at the very beginning (or creation) of the universe (or multiverse). Call this what you want. I call it God.

Now, if we break down matter down to its most fundamental elements, we get energy (kinetic or potential). Some theoretical physicists think the most fundamental elements are vibrating strings (String Theory). This energy or these strings (if these theoretical physicists are correct that strings are the most fundamental elements of reality) I am going to posit are also the manifestations of the consciousness (or spirit) perceiving itself on its most fundamental and microscopic level. Hence, energy IS spirit, and consciousness is spirit that is organized in very complex and convoluted ways (think of the billions of neurons in the physical brain).

So, spirit is the ultimate substance of reality, both of mind AND matter. Now, this doesn’t mean that matter isn’t ultimately real. Just walk into oncoming traffic, and you’ll find out just how real matter is. However, what it’s fundamentally made of is what mind is also fundamentally made of, i.e. spirit.

Think fractals. Spirit exists on the largest of scales (God’s mind and to a lesser but still macro scale, our minds), and spirit exists as the stuff of matter.

Now, this might sound a lot like idealism, but I’m not sure that our consciousness survives the disintegration of the material brain. I tend to believe that the spirit that makes up our brains is absorbed by the cosmos when we die, and we are no longer conscious. (We are stardust and we are spirit at the same time!) I believe that when we die we return to God and become part of the One again. This is also what the Hindus call returning to the Brahmin, what the Buddhists call Nirvana, and what I call returning to God (or the One).

Feel free to criticize/critique.

RegularGuy

Feel free to ask questions or raise concerns. My mind works best through dialogue.

Feel free to criticize/critique. — Noah Te Stroete

Wild speculation, vague and undefined terms, conclusions without any presented reasonable support, God bias, hand picked scientific theories - why string theory over others?

Hardly worth taking seriously.

RegularGuy

Wild speculation, undefined terms, conclusions without any presented reasonable support, God bias, hand picked scientific theories - why string theory over others?

Hardly worth taking seriously. — S

Do you have a specific question or concern? Much of my thought is subconscious and only takes shape through dialogue.

RegularGuy

why string theory over others? — S

Whatever the fundamental element of matter is doesn’t matter. Pardon the pun. Quantum mechanics shows that subatomic particles cannot be pinned down to a specific location and momentum until it is observed. Then the probability function collapses. It takes an observing mind in order for the elements of matter to take shape on its most fundamental scale. Hence, in order for the universe to begin (the Big Bang) something conscious had to observe the singularity in order for it to BECOME something.

Do you have a specific question or concern? Much of my thought is subconscious and only takes shape through dialogue. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't see why I should spend my time and energy giving a detailed breakdown of your opening post. That would seem like an unfair working relationship: you submit a handful of uncritical thoughts, and I'm expected to give you a detailed breakdown of the flaws? Are you suggesting that you're incapable of reassessing your own thinking, given my feedback?

Quantum mechanics shows that subatomic particles cannot be pinned down to a specific location and momentum until it is observed. — Noah Te Stroete

It's an unresolved scientific problem. Your own further reasoning is unwarranted. The "observer" doesn't have to be human, let alone God. Even a brief reading of the Wikipedia article on the observer effect clarifies this, so you must have put little-to-no effort into researching this beforehand. Please learn more about this problem in science, and please try to approach the issue in an unbiased manner, meaning hold back on jumping to conclusions about idealism and God.

It takes an observing mind in order for the elements of matter to take shape on its most fundamental scale. Hence, in order for the universe to begin (the Big Bang) something conscious had to observe the singularity in order for it to BECOME something. — Noah Te Stroete

You've plucked that out of thin air, it seems. Please understand that, unlike yourself, I actually abide by a standard of critical thinking worth it's salt. I don't simply accept claims of that nature, just because you've made them. Do you think me a fool?

RegularGuy

Do you think me a fool? — S

It’s only fitting that my 1300th post should be in response to a (S)issy. I don’t think you’re a fool. I think you’re close-minded, hard-headed, unfeeling, unoriginal, and unimaginative. But you’re not a fool. Do you have a specific question? I have a thought disorder, so my thoughts are not well-organized. Like I said, dialogue helps me get my thoughts in order.

RegularGuy

The "observer" doesn't have to be human, let alone God. — S

The observer has to be conscious. I said I call this consciousness “God.” I didn’t say anything about the nature of God. That is your anti-God bias. As an unresolved issue, it has been shown that an observer is required for the probability function to collapse. Perhaps God is feline in nature. I like cats.

Please don’t edit your posts. Just start a new post. I know you like to LOOK smart for the record, but it is a pain in the ass. Please don’t bastardize the spirit of philosophy. Stop trying to APPEAR smart, and try actually engaging in dialogue.

I think you’re close-minded, hard-headed, unfeeling, unoriginal, and unimaginative. — Noah Te Stroete

I take that as a compliment from you, because what you really mean by that is that I don't willingly cave in to uncritical speculation and excessive emotion, and you'd be right. There's a time and place for everything. I'm an amateur artist, so I have plenty of creativity.

The observer has to be conscious. — Noah Te Stroete

No it doesn't. Do your homework.

RegularGuy

No it doesn't. — S

If you’re talking about machines, then my response would be that it takes a conscious mind to interpret the results.

RegularGuy

I'm an amateur artist, so I have plenty of creativity. — S

I’d love to see your art.

RegularGuy

No it doesn't. Do your homework. — S

The machines, computers, and sensors are made through human intentionality. They require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation.

If you’re talking about machines, then my response would be that it takes a conscious mind to interpret the results. — Noah Te Stroete

There doesn't need to be an observation to begin with. The results don't need to be interpreted. Be honest: you're only pushing this flawed and unoriginal argument (I've seen it plenty of times here before), because you're working backwards from the conclusion that there's a God. This is your predictable God bias, and it hinders your approach to philosophy. You don't actually care about the science. You're just using it.

RegularGuy

There doesn't need to be an observation to begin with. The results don't need to be interpreted. Be honest: you're only pushing this flawed and unoriginal argument (I've seen it plenty of times here before), because you're working backwards from the conclusion that there's a God. This is your predictable God bias, and it hinders your approach to philosophy. You don't actually care about the science. You're just using it. — S

The machines, computers, and sensors are made through human intentionality. They require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation. — Noah Te Stroete

The machines, computers, and sensors are made through human intentionality. They require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation. — Noah Te Stroete

The world existed long before us and our machines. You just want it to be the case that a consciousness is necessary so that you can justify your irrational God delusion. I can see right through you.

RegularGuy

You don't actually care about the science. You're just using it. — S

Do you even know what you’re talking about? I was the biggest atheist there was for half of my life. I even wrote a book about it, and you are free to Google me. A divine consciousness is an elegant way to explain reality. You’re just biased. Your love of scientism shows throughout.

RegularGuy

The world existed long before us and our machines. — S

No kidding. Maybe you are a fool. Do you even understand the science?

Terrapin Station

I am of the persuasion that whatever consciousness really is (I think it’s spirit) is the structuring element or substance of reality. — Noah Te Stroete

Because you believe that God precedes all else, right? If one didn't believe in God, you could see how "consciousness is the structuring element or substance of reality" would make little sense, no?

Now, if we break down matter down to its most fundamental elements, we get energy (kinetic or potential). Some theoretical physicists think the most fundamental elements are vibrating strings (String Theory). This energy or these strings (if these theoretical physicists are correct that strings are the most fundamental elements of reality) — Noah Te Stroete

In my view these ideas are not coherent.

RegularGuy

Because you believe that God precedes all else, right? — Terrapin Station

I have thought about this for years. What would matter even look like without it being perceived? It takes an observer to make the amorphous and undifferentiated become form and differentiated.

Terrapin Station

What would matter even look like without it being perceived? — Noah Te Stroete

Why would lead you to believe that it would look any different than when perceived (re the way it looks at that particular point of reference)?

Mww

↪Noah Te Stroete

It has been the case forever, that human reason has the capacity to think anything it finds conceivable. So said, practically every notion in the OP is perfectly legitimate as pure thought, but is nonetheless merely subjective desiderata, with barely a vain hope of objective validity. Not to say the above is wrong, but only that it is personal, which relegates the discussion to the field of psychology, in order to discover why you feel the notions in the OP are justified, rather than materialistic vs idealistic metaphysical naturalism in order to discover how the notions in the OP are possible.

It would all depend on the power of your argument, so.......have at it, and good luck.

RegularGuy

Why would lead you to believe that it would look any different than when perceived (re the way it looks at that particular point of reference)? — Terrapin Station

A point of reference assumes an observer.

RegularGuy

It would all depend on the power of your argument, so.......have at it, and good luck. — Mww

I’m trying.

Do you even know what you’re talking about? I was the biggest atheist there was for half of my life. I even wrote a book about it, and you are free to Google me. A divine consciousness is an elegant way to explain reality. You’re just biased. Your love of scientism shows throughout. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, I know what I'm talking about enough to correct your basic errors. I don't care about your attempt to boost your reputation. It's not difficult to get a book published. Any old hack can publish through the internet these days. Big publishers like Penguin are a different matter. I won't be googling you.

By elegant, you mean fanciful. And by scientism, you mean science. You speak in coded language, but it's alright, I can translate. And I'm not biased, you are. You clearly put the cart before the horse. You're interpreting the science to lead to God, and you have a poor understanding of the science.

RegularGuy

Yes, I know what I'm talking about enough to correct your basic errors. I don't care about your attempt to boost your reputation. It's not difficult to get a book published. Any old hack can publish through the internet these days. Big publishers like Penguin are a different matter. I won't be googling you. — S

My point was that I was an atheist for a long time. Googling me would show you that. I’m not selling that book anymore. I’ve unpublished it, so your accusation that I’m trying to boost my reputation is a poor assumption made by a lazy thinker.

By “scientism” I am saying that you put faith in science to explain everything, including consciousness. Good luck with that.

From now on I refuse to respond to your faith-based posts, and I would block you if I could. You are anti-philosophy and pro-scientism.

RegularGuy

By “spirit,” I am giving a name to the basic substance. You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” if you like. “Spirit” just sounds like an amalgam of these ideas, and it jives with consciousness and the nature of qualia.

Terrapin Station

A point of reference assumes an observer. — Noah Te Stroete

No, not at all--at least not in the sense that you're thinking about it, so that we're referring to a conscious observer.

The idea is simply that there's some way that an existent is, but that's always from some spatio-temporal reference point--basically some location of space and time, because it's incoherent for there to be a way that an existent is from no spatio-temporal reference point. Existents are different from different spatio-temporal reference points (including their own spatio-temporal reference points). This isn't saying anything about conscious observers.

So the question is that why, when you remove a conscious observer from the equation, do you believe that any existent would be different, from that spatio-temporal location, than it is with the conscious observer at that spatio-temporal location?

Terrapin Station

You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” — Noah Te Stroete

The idea that energy, force or potentiality could be the (sole or primary)"basic substance" is incoherent, though.

RegularGuy

The idea is simply that there's some way that an existent is, but that's always from some spatio-temporal reference point--basically some location of space and time, because it's incoherent for there to be a way that an existent is from no spatio-temporal reference point. Existents are different from different spatio-temporal reference points (including their own spatio-temporal reference points). This isn't saying anything about conscious observers.

So the question is that why, when you remove a conscious observer from the equation, do you believe that any existent would be different, from that spatio-temporal location, than it is with the conscious observer at that spatio-temporal location? — Terrapin Station

You’re correct that a frame of reference alone is spatio-temporal, but what the matter is like requires a conscious observer. Furthermore, in order for the wave function to collapse, it has to be at least observed by a machine with a computer and sensors which are designed, executed, and interpreted through an intentionality of a conscious being.

RegularGuy

The idea that energy, force or potentiality could be a "basic substance" is incoherent, though. — Terrapin Station

I don’t see why? Please explain.

What is Mind? What is Matter? Is idealism vs. materialism a confusion?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions