Well, if you're a panpsychist you'd probably argue that rocks and rivers have some experiential or mental component.

I don't think that's the case. But I can't offer evidence in either direction honestly. I can only use my intuition. I don't see evidence that points to these things having mind of any kind.

Perhaps you have some other kind of argument in mind? I'm all ears. :cool:

and I definitely think that some dualism has drifted in that direction. — Jack Cummins

There is no reason to invoke dualism. "Matter", is an ancient and completely outmoded way of looking at things. Everything is quanta (Mind). How does quanta (Mind) create matter? By compression of waves. Just like water becomes ice. How do we "feel" it differently? Feeling is an interesting idea as it is something the Mind created.

I am certainly wishing to go beyond dualism. Strangely, I began this thread just before I began the one on mysteries. I was feeling a bit frustrated because it was several hours before I got a reply on this, so I started the one on mysteries of philosophy. Strangely,I began getting a few replies on this thread and loads on the one on mysteries. However, my own reading and reflections in response to replies on my thread on mysteries have led me back to thinking beyond dualism. That is the direction of my thinking and reading currently, which is why I logged into this thread this morning. So, I am in favour of pursuing ideas beyond dualism, for any people who are interested.

Perhaps you have some other kind of argument in mind? I'm all ears. — Manuel

I don't, really, but I do like to think out loud.

Most of this thread is over my head. However, when I read it, I get hints of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts." And then I wonder about the parts themselves. What is the difference between a rock and a single cell that makes up our brain? Nothing, really. Unless we impute to the cell it's own consciousness, either independently (no different than the rock), or as as part of the whole (in which case, what of the rock?).

I understand the distinction between what we can learn from a rock, and the rock itself teaching. I get that. But I'm not so sure the rock isn't teaching. I'm reminded of the old saying "What does a rock say?" . . . . "It's your move." The time scales involved here might be inconceivable to us.

Where religious folks might talk about a "Devine spark" or a physicist might talk about electricity or what have you, both are talking about something more than just the parts. When matter comes together in a certain way, through whatever forces, maybe a spark is generated simply by the combination alone, and life begins for the biologist, or electricity is generated by the widget for the physicist. Now, if this state of affairs lasts long enough, the universe (All) may have developed an awareness of itself. All parts came together in such a way as to create the spark of All. All then wanted to perceive itself and assigned a conscious perception to each part, including rocks.

Here's the part I sense, intuitively, but have no way of proving: All became so "Godly" (for lack of a better term) that it could both precede the parts coming together, and be a following result of their combination at the same time. Based upon my previous chronology, it is hard to make that leap, for surely All could only do that after the events that created All brought All into being. But time and chronology don't work in a linear fashion for All.

Anyway, when I look at a rock, it may be "looking" back at me. I try to imagine all it has seen and will see and what it has shown to All.

Side bar digression: When breaking rocks for a construction project one time, I got to thinking about all this and wondered if I was somehow disrespecting the rocks. That night I had a dream. The rocks were telling me, laughing, that they enjoyed the activity. They were all on their way from the Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of Mexico and they were glad to watch me work.

I am interested to receive your reply and as you are aware I am a seeker trying to make sense of ideas. I keep coming across ideas about going beyond dualism or binary thinking. In many ways, some of the ideas are beyond my understanding, especially as I am not a physicist. I came across the idea of the holographic perspective of reality a few weeks ago, and in further aspects of my reading in the last few days. So, I am just pursuing it as an interesting area of exploration.

I have a vague understanding of the holograph, but it's a lay-understanding for sure. I've no doubt, though, that All would be fine with it's perception, and the perception of it's parts, being the observation of, or participation in a holograph. And not. (And whenever I say this or that, I don't mean to imply a two-valued orientation; I also assume all possible stops along the way in between and outside of.)

I have a vague understanding of the holograph, but it's a lay-understanding for sure. I've no doubt, though, that All would be fine with it's perception, and the perception of it's parts, being the observation of, or participation in a holograph. — James Riley

Yes, if you consider the Universe as a hologram, and we are all part of it, you can imagine the movement within the hologram, and perception as a reconstructive beam. Light and Mind and Quanta are synonymous.

But time and chronology don't work in a linear fashion for All. — James Riley

Time is not linear, it is the experience of change.

I am certainly wishing to go beyond dualism. — Jack Cummins

There is no reason to entertain dualism. Everything is light/quanta in a holographic form.

Time is not linear, it is the experience of change. — MondoR

Sounds good to me. My point was simply that, where people might perceive All's perception of itself as having come about as a result of the the parts being in place first, that chronology doesn't necessarily apply to All.

Check out Stephen Robbins on YouTube for a very interesting series on the Holographic Universe.

Sure, this is a good place to think out loud. What you're talking about makes sense. In so far as we are conscious, we can say in very general terms, that consciousness is molded matter or matter organized in a certain way. There's a problem of course, which you point out in your rock example. How can matter possibly be conscious? When we look at things, they don't seem to exhibit any manifest - visible - aspects that could tell us they have experience.

But either mind is found in some way at the bottom of physical stuff, as a dormant potential let's say, or we have no idea at all as to how it could even exist. Then again everything at bottom is physical stuff. So it is quite surprising. Perhaps a rock, modified by God (to put in a colorful manner), could be modified in such a way that it could have experience.

If what you say about rocks is true, that is, if they could experience - which they may - then existence is a mistake. I hope your wrong in this case.

Here's the part I sense, intuitively, but have no way of proving: All became so "Godly" (for lack of a better term) that it could both precede the parts coming together, and be a following result of their combination at the same time. Based upon my previous chronology, it is hard to make that leap, for surely All could only do that after the events that created All brought All into being. But time and chronology don't work in a linear fashion for All. — James Riley

This is also a big problem. I think it's related to the problem of "The One and the Many". Are there many things in the world, say, isolated beings or are things at bottom undifferentiated? I tend to favor the view, like it seems you do too, that all is one. But maybe at a certain step of complexity, things become individual "to themselves", so to speak.

I should add, I think these topics are way over everybody's head. We just pretend to understand these things. :sweat:

If what you say about rocks is true, that is, if they could experience - which they may - then existence is a mistake. — Manuel

I don't know how that follows?

I tend to favor the view, like it seems you do too, that all is one. But maybe at a certain step of complexity, things become individual "to themselves", so to speak. — Manuel

Upon my first reading, I was going to object to your first sentence, but your second sentence brought me home. My mother and I argued about a thesis a friend wrote, where he was using terms like Universal Pantheist (hereinafter UPN) and Universal Panentheist (hereinafter UPNN). My mom rides with UPNN, which is in accord with your first sentence. And when I explained my limited understanding of QM, and how that made me UPN, I explained it thus: If I were to say there is a bunch of gods but they are all really just different interpretations or manifestations of one god, then I would be denying the reality of the individual gods separately as gods (like your second sentence). And, since I believe God (which I'd rather call All) is capable of being both at the same time, I'd have to ride wit UPN since it accounts for UPNN and UPN and the absence of both. After all, it would be a weak sauce indeed if infinity could not account for the absence of itself. If could not, then it would be finite. Which, of course, it is. That's the whole before/after, part/whole thing. I'm no QM guy, but I see them heading in that direction.

I see the whole as greater than the sum of the parts, while seeing the whole as granting wholeness to the parts in it's perception of itself, all while being less than each part. Thus, a rock "perceives" from it's point of view, even if we can't fathom it. I can't remember the name of the theory but it has something to do will all possible manifestations of all possibility being true (like infinite universes and infinite alternatives of manifestations of reality). If that were the case, which I believe it is, then each perspective must be had (and not). Therefor, the rock has one.

I only threw out the rock's time line as a possible reason why we can't fathom how it functions. Hell, I don't think even the geologist understands what he's saying when he talks about a million years, much less billions and more. We can throw the terms around to help us grasp ideas, but as it was opined above, these are but maps and not the terrain of time.

Think of it as a Universal Mind (an ocean) with Individual Minds (waves in the ocean). Of course, A Hologram with everything existing everywhere is another equivalent way of imaging it.

I don't know how that follows? — James Riley

I simply mean that if rocks and rivers were conscious in some way, then the way we treat things we consider to be non-mental, would be way too horrible.

, I'd have to ride wit UPN since it accounts for UPNN and UPN and the absence of both. After all, it would be a weak sauce indeed if infinity could not account for the absence of itself. If could not, then it would be finite. — James Riley

I see. Yeah, that view is plausible. I personally use the word "nature" that way I can use the terms "mental" and "non-mental" with more ease. If you speak of God, then that puts intention and a mind of some kind in the picture automatically. "All", as you said, is a better term. I'd only ask you, does this "All" include "non-mental" stuff, or would you be of the view that there is no "non mental" stuff: all is part of one mind?

Thus, a rock "perceives" from it's point of view, even if we can't fathom it. — James Riley

Sure, that's a rational option. It could be something like that, or it could be something that we can't help postulate. We simply cannot help but attribute human aspects to the world: "The leaves wanted to fall", "The flower is looks for the sun", "The river races to the sea", etc. I understand we need to be able to use words to talk to each other. It could be that we are simply using the wrong approach to think about the way the world appears to us.

But I can't say with much certainty. I tend to favor the view that we construct the world according to our cognitive, intellectual and genetic capacities. How this things "in here" (in the head) relates to whatever is out there, is very obscure, not to say a mystery which is what I think, but avoid saying too much. But my intuition is that there is non-mental being.

Alternatively, there could be a very obscure kind of mentality in most things that connects everything together.

Hell, I don't think even the geologist understands what he's saying when he talks about a million years, much less billions and more. We can throw the terms around to help us grasp ideas, but as it was opined above, these are but maps and not the terrain of time. — James Riley

Yeah. It's hard to make sense of what these statements amount to, absent us.

I simply mean that if rocks and rivers were conscious in some way, then the way we treat things we consider to be non-mental, would be way too horrible. — Manuel

I can see how that would be the case, especially if we anthropomorphize. But I'm willing to think that these "others" would not perceive our treatment of them as horrible as we might think. Kind of like the rock getting busted up. I also think of fear and it's evolutionary benefits, and how the benefits may not make much difference to a deer who experiences it, and yet, while still horrible, may not be as horrible as it would be for, say, a predator that is not as wired for fear as is the deer. That is one reason I don't hunt predators. While there are exceptions, I don't think they are meant to be hunted, at least not as a matter of course. I also think of personal experiences that I have had with cold. It's very difficult for me to articulate, but I know there are "states" that one can be in, as a result of acclimation, where cold is not perceived like it is when in other states. Diving into a cold mountain lake is one thing for a person who does not live cold, and it's a lesser thing for one who lives cold. We used to be tougher. Nature is tough. I can't think of much that is tougher than a rock.

None of this is utilized by me as an excuse for my treatment of others, assuaging a guilt. But I get the feeling that nature would rather us engage her on a primal basis than to ignore her in our sprint away. Especially since we really aren't going anywhere and we seem to be missing out on life.

I'd only ask you, does this "All" include "non-mental" stuff, or would you be of the view that there is no "non mental" stuff: all is part of one mind? — Manuel

I'd say, that by my definition of All, it would have to be both/and, and neither/not. I'm not sure how All would answer your question, but I'm stuck here perceiving my assignment, and trying to figure a way to perceive that which was not assigned to me (I'd love to hunt Bison Latifrons). Because, again, my definition of All would suggest there is a way. I'm fairly certain that when I die, that will happen, but it would be cool if I could do it now. And be choosy about it. Then again, I hear nature calling me back to life to enjoy her now. I'm torn.

ut I can't say with much certainty. I tend to favor the view that we construct the world according to our cognitive, intellectual and genetic capacities. How this things "in here" (in the head) relates to whatever is out there, is very obscure, not to say a mystery which is what I think, but avoid saying too much. — Manuel

:100:

Think of it as a Universal Mind (an ocean) with Individual Minds (waves in the ocean). Of course, A Hologram with everything existing everywhere is another equivalent way of imaging it. — MondoR

I have heard the ocean example before, but I keep getting bogged down in molecules and whatnot. So I found attraction in the hologram example, thinking that maybe it was more like an indivisible wave, like that which the QM scientist perceives before it gets nailed down. I love the idea of particles, because I think they help us, like maps, but I get the feeling they are just that, and not the terrain. I suspect they are both, but when I think of a hologram I like to think it is the non-particle manifestation of reality.

I also think of personal experiences that I have had with cold. It's very difficult for me to articulate, but I know there are "states" that one can be in, as a result of acclimation, where cold is not perceived like it is when in other states. — James Riley

These are very suggestive.

I'm not that brave.

I've had other experiences, some in the course of ordinary life, others, well... in college :grimace: way back when, that at least illustrate how powerful the mind can be, given the fact that most of us, most of the time, take it for granted. It doesn't provoke or incite much awe or bafflement for many, it seems to me.

However, I would not say that anything deep that I have experienced is an indication of anything else other than the power of the mind. The main reason for saying this, is that you can easily get these cult types, who base authority on personal experience. I try to avoid giving too much metaphysical significance to these things, however strong they may be. But again, I could be wrong.

Having said that, I know where you are coming from. And it makes sense, both in the human case, as well as in the case of predators and prey.

Because, again, my definition of All would suggest there is a way. I'm fairly certain that when I die, that will happen, but it would be cool if I could do it now. And be choosy about it. Then again, I hear nature calling me back to life to enjoy her now. I'm torn. — James Riley

The only reference that comes to mind for me, is that state before I was born. No matter how hard I try, none of the words I use in ordinary life apply to that state such as "fear", "joy", "love", "pain", "long" etc. etc. After death, I suspect the state will be the same as the state before birth. Who knows? It might be nice to be a universal mind of some sort, but I can't fathom what such a thing would feel like or be like.

I suspect they are both, but when I think of a hologram I like to think it is the non-particle manifestation of reality. — James Riley

Yes, thinking in terms of particles, or anything discrete, is a major hindrance to grasping the nature of reality. Daoism and other philosophies always use waves in their imagery.

However, I would not say that anything deep that I have experienced is an indication of anything else other than the power of the mind. — Manuel

I agree on the cult thing. I was just using the personal experiences of the mind to show not what it is capable of, but what it may be perceived as being incapable of. There is a thread here on knowing what it's like to be something else (or the impossibility of that). They were talking about bats. I'm going two steps further, to plants and rocks. Our limitations are not the limits. I like to guess about what is not, resting in the comfort of knowing that, from the perspective of All, it is. We are the is not part.

I was just re-reading Plato/Socrates and they were discussing before birth and after death. He made a fun case for it.

They were talking about bats. I'm going two steps further, to plants and rocks. Our limitations are not the limits. — James Riley

Yeah, I posted a bit on that thread.

And a :100: on this last sentence.

Plato is awesome to this day. Crazy, having relevant things to say 2000 years after death.

If everything is mind, what's the mechanism by which it manifests illusions to fool its individual selves that, say, there is more-than-mind (e.g. mass, light, spacetime)?

If everything is mind, what's the mechanism by which it manifests illusions to fool its individual selves that, say, there is more-than-mind (e.g. mass, light, spacetime)? — 180 Proof

Mind is just exploring, learning just creating many different things. Some of them are puzzles, like a magicians act. All to explore new ways of to manifest itself.

I am sure that there are limitations In our understanding of philosophy and I prepared to explored to explore the possibilities, with a view to the most accurate and deeper understanding of the mind. I am certainly not wishing to limit this, but open possibilities arising arising from the current understanding of mind.

Yeah, but how? What's the mechanism?

Yeah, but how? What's the mechanism? — 180 Proof

Mind and Quanta are the same. It creates using itself.

Are such ideas arising in the new physics useful for considering reality and the nature of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

I don't think so. PBS Space Time devoted several episodes to explaining the holographic principle. It's mostly over my head, but he gets the main idea across.

I've been reading Sean Carrol (theoretical physicist). I get the impression that if you accept the idea that there are a lot of worlds other than this one, a lot of quantum mechanics' problems go away (the Many Worlds Interpretation). That sounds a lot like idealism: if you stop thinking this mindless material stuff exists, a lot of the problems related to consciousness go away. Of course, you have to go along with the idea that this is all just a dream.

David Bohm is a legend

Okay. Just what I suspected. :shade: