You wrote this 5 hours ago and no one has responded but, possibly out of my depths as usual, I am daring to speak.

Your debate is one which embraces the perspective of the extreme idealist position or even the Hindu position that the so called real world, 'maya', is an illusion in contrast to the materialist position. Amongst the materialist there is the behaviourist psychology stemming from the ideas of B.F. Skinner, in which consciousness is seen as a byproduct of the brain
Or, coming from a different angle there is Jean Paul Sartre's claim that 'existence precedes essence.'

What a heavy debate. I am inclined to think that none of these positions contains the full perspective and that mind and matter are weaved together, with neither coming before or after. Perhaps the underlying truth is at the heart of quantum reality, Plato's forms, Kant's transcendent reality or even Jung's collective unconscious.

My answer may be inadequate but perhaps after my desperate grasp of the possibility panorama of your question others may choose to step in with more sophisticated academic logic.

Is matter an idea, and ideas are made of matter? — Yohan

FWIW, I'll introduce you to the notion that everything in this world consists of immaterial mental Information (ideas), including Matter. Neuroscientist Don Hoffman has produced an update of Kant's idealism. And my own thesis of Enformationism concludes that both Energy and Matter are forms of universal Information. :smile:

Transcendental Idealism : In his doctrine of Transcendental Idealism, 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant argued that our perception of reality is limited to constructs created in our own minds to represent the invisible and intangible ultimate reality that he mysteriously labeled “ding an sich” [things-in-essence, as opposed to things-as-we-know-them]. In other words, what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Information Realism : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

You wrote this 5 hours ago and no one has responded but, possibly out of my depths as usual, I am daring to speak. — Jack Cummins

Maybe nobody else responded because there is already some ontology threads up... I wanted to try and explore the implications of each view point, and see if they lead to any absurd conclusions. I don't see how if all is matter...that that doesn't mean matter has thoughts and that matter can be deluded etc. To me it doesn't sound right. I guess my concern is the same old concern, and such doesn't bother materialists.

I am inclined to think that none of these positions contains the full perspective and that mind and matter are weaved together, with neither coming before or after. Perhaps the underlying truth is at the heart of quantum reality, Plato's forms, Kant's transcendent reality or even Jung's collective unconscious. — Jack Cummins

I don't know. I do think monism is the answer. But does that mean mind and matter share one essence, that one is a version of the other, or something like that? If one is a form of the other, I have a really hard time understanding how mind can be a form of matter. The fundamental essence should be whichever is simpler, more basic. Consciousness is undoubtable. I have direct access to it, as it. Matter on the other hand...no matter how much we know about it, the question can always remain, what are its mind-independent properties and how is mind able to experience something that is non-mental? Shouldn't awareness only be aware of things within its own scope? Just like, taste can only perceive flavors. Mind should only be able to sense things which have its nature.
But its annoying because to me it sounds like common sense, yet materialists don't share these views apparently. I can't wrap my head around their perspective and I wish there were a way to overcome the communication gap.

I want precise criteria for how to discern a subjective experience from an objective one. I want to know exactly where subjectivity ends and objectivity starts.
Is it not the biggest problem?
I don't think its acknowledged enough. It's not just the hard problem of consciousness, it's also the hard problem of objectivity or the hard problem of ignorance

FWIW, I'll introduce you to the notion that everything in this world consists of immaterial mental Information (ideas), including Matter. Neuroscientist Don Hoffman has produced an update of Kant's idealism. And my own thesis of Enformationism concludes that both Energy and Matter are forms of universal Information. :smile: — Gnomon

Honestly I lack motivation to read the links. But I'd discuss it if you feel to. I'm a little confused about how matter is a type of information. When I hear the word 'information' I think of form or structure. Bring to my mind the analogy of ocean and waves, where the waves are forms of water. Idealists say the water is essentially something like awareness, and the materialists say its forms of matter. I don't get what it would mean to call the water 'information', as for me that refers to the wave, the form, rather than the essence?

I'm a little confused about how matter is a type of information. When I hear the word 'information' I think of form or structure. — Yohan

Yes. Information is the form or structure of every aspect of the world, both Physical and Metaphysical, both Matter and Mind. Unfortunately, reaching that non-mainstream worldview requires a mind-flip from Classical Physics to Quantum Physics. Abandoning modesty, I can say that my Enformationism thesis website is the best step-by-step argument I'm aware of, to lead you to the understanding that "all is Information". But then, that's another patience-trying link with lots of technical mumbo-jumbo.

The origin of the "all is information" concept may be in quantum physicist John Wheeler's observation that all physical objects are macro-scale forms of sub-quantum information. As a simple summary of that weird notion, he quipped "It From Bit", meaning that Things (its) are composed of Information (bits). It's a mind-bending concept, but several serious scientists are pursuing the ramifications of that notion. The Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico is especially focused on adding details to that general concept. I could go on, but that might strain your patience and credulity. :nerd:


It from bit theory : Wheeler said the universe had three parts: First, “Everything is Particles,” second, “Everything is Fields,” and third, “Everything is information.” In the 1980s, he began exploring possible connections between information theory and quantum mechanics. It was during this period he coined the phrase “It from bit.” The idea is that the universe emanates from the information inherent within it. Each it or particle is a bit. It from bit.
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

Digital Physics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Did the mind come up with the idea of matter?
Or did matter come up with the idea of mind? — Yohan

Yes. Both options are correct. But the first Mind is universal or cosmic, while the second is plain old human mentality that emerged from a long sequence of evolutionary events. The Mind of G*D, so to speak, had the idea of Matter, and designed a process for making malleable matter from amorphous energy, which is a dynamic form of Information. Then, eventually, that process created rational minds that can "see" invisible "forms" in the structure of the natural world. Any more questions? :cool: