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

The universe pre-existent substratum would be left.

The universe pre-existent substratum would be left. — Nelson E Garcia

What are the properties of this substratum?

Initially I meant to talk to all members — Nelson E Garcia

How can you if 'There is no Independent Existence'?
This forum, and all its members are figments of your solipsistic imagination.
You're talking to yourself - and you still didn't get it!

What are the properties of this substratum? — RogueAI

If you are looking for a metaphysical definition: force surfaces. If looking for a scientific response, physics has a growing catalogue regarding properties of the substratum.

So, yep, got time, but maybe not inclination. — Mww

Check my website to determine whether you have interest. (look at my bio).

I would be willing to suppose that the universe is expanding to keep up with how far we are looking, but mind actualization seems to limiting to be the only requirement for existence. Things that are out of view still need to remain in existence in so much as other variables states rely on them. The inner core of the earth is probably always there without the need for anyone constantly pinging it.

I would be willing to suppose that the universe is expanding to keep up with how far we are looking, but mind actualization seems to limiting to be the only requirement for existence. Things that are out of view still need to remain in existence in so much as other variables states rely on them. The inner core of the earth is probably always there without the need for anyone constantly pinging it. — Cheshire

It is a controversial feature of my metaphysical persuasion to only rate as reality what is perceived, while anything else pre-existing out of mind’s sense-targeting I rate as actuality, not reality. The controversy is large because I claim science in its totality operates within actuality. Only perception (directly and in close proximity) reaches realness and if that was not enough a controversy, human cognition I divide between reception and perception. Only human beings who attain the hierarchy of perceptors are capable of perceiving. Human receptors and scientific instrument are not capable of perceiving, they operate by means of psychological impressions. I do not expect you to fully understand my frame of mind just by reading here a few of my claims.

Actually.....that’s not half bad, gathered from the “about the book” section. Most of it is within, or amendable to, my metaphysical disposition.

On the other hand, I reject the “facts of intelligent design” and “supernaturally imposed programmed features” out of hand, whatever their associations, and tentatively withhold judgement on “force surface”......not quite getting the gist of that one.

Are you an academic? In the announcements page I offer a free e-book copy to some academics.

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. — Wayfarer

But why? (agree, predict, ...)
Minds are parts of the world, there are things that depend thereupon, but (literally) everything? :brow:



@Nelson E Garcia, not really seeing any (good) responses to inquiries.

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, keep in mind that what you don't know can still kill you. ;)
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to universalize self-dependence.
Kind of haphazard, unwarranted, questionable, ...

↪Cheshire It is a controversial feature of my metaphysical persuasion to only rate as reality what is perceived, while anything else pre-existing out of mind’s sense-targeting I rate as actuality, not reality. The controversy is large because I claim science in its totality operates within actuality. Only perception (directly and in close proximity) reaches realness and if that was not enough a controversy, human cognition I divide between reception and perception. — Nelson E Garcia

Supposing this is the case I have a couple of questions regarding the demarcation line between in and out of the mind's sense-targeting. Keeping with the inner core of the earth as an example, I see two possible cases under your criteria.

The inner core of the earth exists in actuality; in the sense we can get information about it but it isn't there because there isn't a direct path between our senses and the inner core of the earth.
or
The inner core of the exists in reality, because of the gravity I feel for a positive sense or the lack dangerous radiation hitting me because of the magnetic field as a negative sense.

Which are you implying to be the correct interpretation or neither. I realize it's later qualified, but I'm looking for a starting point.

Are you an academic? — Nelson E Garcia

(sidelong glances)......who, me???? Nahhh......no formal training. I couldn’t sit still long enough for the superfluous stuff. Plus, there was the......you know.....the draft.

Thanks for the offer.

Oh, keep in mind that what you don't know can still kill you. ;)
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to universalize self-dependence.
Kind of haphazard, unwarranted, questionable, ... — jorndoe

If idealism is so obviously wrong to you, why do you think people believe it? I'm asking for philosophical reasons, not psychological or cultural ones. I've never seen you really engage with the philosophy of idealism, despite repeated mockeries and hints at ridiculousness.

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

But aren't you a kind of linguo-idealist? Sometimes you say things along the lines of language structuring the world. But we can't talk about the world without talking about it, can we? Why doesn't that fall foul of a version of Stove's gem?

No doubt I've mischaracterised your view here, but I'm interested in the correct version.

The Berkeleyan subjective idealist empiricist intuition is that the external world is made up of lots of properties - that is how we experience it. However all these properties depend on a point of view for their them to be as they are. Therefore the world in general, in so far as it is composed of these properties, is also so dependent on these points of view. I'm not at all sure that this is right. But it is not enough to say "Oh but this is just to say we can't think about something without thinking about it." Is there anything we can say about the unexperienced world which isn't question-begging? Any why? More work needs to be done to deal with the idealist challenge.

Which are you implying to be the correct interpretation or neither. I realize it's later qualified, but I'm looking for a starting point. — Cheshire

A different example: Pre-existence is not a denial of logical facts. Let us supposed you visit a building located far away from your home. While you are there looking at it directly you perceive it and the building is set in reality. Later you go back home and remember the building, your memories of the building are set in actuality (or, the building is set in actuality owed to your memories of it). Therefore what makes the building real is you perceiving it (it is the direct subject/object relationship). When you are away from it only the location of the building is a fact of actuality corroborated by your memories. Far away the building is no more than a logical fact, suggested by either: your memories of it, a map, a television camera, etcetera, but it is not real unless perceived directly. Let us suppose while you are away the building roof collapses and no one see it happening, well the collapse is a fact of actuality waiting to be discovered. When someone arrives there and perceives the results of the collapse, the collapse is real. (It is set in reality). Again, actuality (pre-existence) is no negation of unobserved facts, but those facts are logical facts, not perceptive facts.

The Berkeleyan subjective idealist empiricist intuition is that the external work is made up of lots of properties - that is how we experience it. — bert1

May I disagree with your description of the Berkeleyan perspective? Berkeley thought the external world is only felt in some ways (as ideas). Therefore it would be improper to attribute properties to it other than the ideas that make up our feeling of the external world. That is because we are limited to our cognitive system and there is no way to reach the external world beyond our ideas. Later on, a remarkable thing happened that would surprise Berkeley very much. He thought there was no way to corroborate materiality, and concluded, correctly so, there is no matter, only a “feeling” of matter. In the basis of his conclusion it can be inferred that neither materiality or immateriality can be corroborated, and that was the case in his time. But then comes the surprise, the atom microscope was developed and his Immaterialism became a scientific fact.

May I disagree with your description of the Berkeleyan perspective? — Nelson E Garcia

Yes

But then comes the surprise, the atom microscope was developed and his Immaterialism became a scientific fact. — Nelson E Garcia

I don't understand what you are referring to there.

But aren't you a kind or linguo-idealist? Sometimes you say things along the lines of language structuring the world. — bert1

The OP is pretty muddled, moving between sensing and force and existence without much clarity. But the rough idea seems to be a version of Stove's Gem: that we only ever cognise/know/understand stuff through our senses and hence that we never cognise/know/understand stuff as it is "in itself"; the "appearance-less essence of what is cognized is located in the external world and it is mind what (sic.) provides all cognized appearances and details."

Stove's Gem is that you only know stuff with your mind, so you don't really know stuff.

Meditate on that for a bit. It contains that odd word, "really"; and it says you know stuff but you don't really know stuff. Both hallmarks of confusion.

Do you know you are reading this post? The argument would go something like that the "appearance-less essence of what is cognised" of this post "is located in the external world", not in your mind, but your reading is located in your mind... so you are not really reading this post.

But I put it to you that you are indeed reading this post, and further that you also know you are reading this post. It follows, by reductio, that any argument that says otherwise is wrong.

(If you prefer only justified knowledge, replace "know" with "are certain" in the argument for the same result).

So where does Garcia go astray? By trying to make a distinction where there is none, between what is
cognise/know/understand and what is "really real" - some unknowable essence. What is cognise/know/understand is what is real. This is what T-sentences demonstrate, and is the point made by Davidson in On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Our language is in direct unmediated contact with the world, and not separated from it by some conceptual scheme.

Doubtless this post will be misunderstood in twenty different ways by folk who will not bother to do the work of reading the background material, but you did ask, so I answered.

But I put it to you that you are indeed reading this post, and further that you also know you are reading this post. It follows, by reductio, that any argument that says otherwise is wrong. — Banno

Berkeley would agree I think. And Berkeley also thinks we have direct unmediated contact with the world. Your views on the relationship between language and the world seem strikingly reminiscent of idealism to me, even though you repudiate idealism.

I do think that a reader's understanding of a post is primarily the responsibility of the writer of that post. You, Apokrisis, 180 Proof, and other regular posters, all blame readers for not understanding you. Apokrisis particularly was strangely unable to perceive how his posts came across to many others. Having said that I'm grateful for your response. It is interesting and I haven't read Davidson and I should. I will do that. :)

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

Why would 'force' exist independently? to me it seems you are rethinking Kant in a way. Read his trnascendental deduction. What you call 'force' he called 'ding an sich' or noumenon. To me it seems that 'existence' does indeed not exist independently, whatsoever. that does not mean existence is any less real. If I dream of a beautiful dark haired girlfriend, it is damn waste if I wake up and se turns out not to exist.

Again, actuality (pre-existence) is no negation of unobserved facts, but those facts are logical facts, not perceptive facts. — Nelson E Garcia

The building example gives me something to work with, thanks. Does it matter what medium of perception I use? Looking versus echo locating? Both direct relationships with the senses. Suppose I look at it through night vision googles to see the heat signature that I am blind to otherwise. Where would these fall?

Before going to far; is there some novel conclusion that is supposed to be drawn that can't otherwise be assailed?

Berkeley would agree I think. And Berkeley also thinks we have direct unmediated contact with the world. — bert1

I'm not going to pretend to understand Berkeley.

Some information seems relative to the observer. Is it being suggested there is an ideal head size one must have in order to gauge the size of a hat?

Before going to far; is there some novel conclusion that is supposed to be drawn that can't otherwise be assailed? — Cheshire

Do you have time to read a book? If you do check my website. (Look up my bio.)

Maybe, but at first glance this seems like we have two different types of facts. And the lessor or "least real" suffers from it's logical derivation instead of empirical observation. To me this is counter-intuitive because I could have a fact sheet about a building and know far more than looking at it in person. Unless we are talking pure aesthetics. What is gained by subjugating logic to observation?

What is gained by subjugating logic to observation? — Cheshire

Perception, as defined by me, is more than observation and there is a lot to gain in such “subjugating” but it is too long to explain here. Specially when members respond only to my last post ignoring what I have explained previously and I need to repeat myself.

If you had simply a novel approach to reality that's one thing, but if all this is for enjoying a X belief is rational, then I'd like to know what I'm buying.

pre-existents — Nelson E Garcia

These stimuli seem to hover somewhere in between natural existence and nonexistence yet they lean far away from nonexistence and more toward existence since they are apparently something that the senses can take in, with the brain needed to turn them into phenomena as 'existence' in our minds' reality, they only in that sense being named as 'pre-existent'.

These stimuli seem to hover somewhere in between natural existence and nonexistence yet they lean far away from nonexistence and more toward existence since they are apparently something that the senses can take in, with the brain needed to turn them into phenomena as 'existence' in our minds' reality, they only in that sense being named as 'pre-existent'. — PoeticUniverse

You lack enough information to determine whether the concept is one worthy of consideration.