The core of every reality is, Reality. — IP060903

:ok:

sparks, fire ...
light rays, sun ...
waves, ocean ...
ten thousand things, dao ...
natura naturata, natura naturans ...

Tat Tvam Asi. Aham Brahma Asmi. Para Brahman.

When the retina is deprived of oxygen, it fails to send a signal to the brain, which is interpreted as white light.

Hypoxia mistaken for ontology. — Banno

:clap: Moksha (and yet this truth won't set them free).

:roll:

The majority will never accept that there is the kind of state of self-realisation or higher knowledge that the Advaitins are speaking of, as it has no reference points in modern philosophy or Western culture generally. — Wayfarer

It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic energies of the universe flow through oneself as they flow through everything else. For that reason it is thought that one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Arthur Schopenhauer:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/
in the section 4. The World as Will

I've added the bold

Banno,

OK. People can "see stars," and weird things may occur when someone is dying. But people "see stars" when they are bumped on the head and don't claim the experience was of God. The experience of uncreated light, per Augustine, is "Not this ordinary light, which all flesh may look upon, nor as it were a greater of the same kind". Augustine goes on to call the light, God, and went from being a libertine to a saint. It seems like his experience was something more than "seeing stars."

Accounts like Augustine's seem to be what mysticism is based on. Here's another account.

In 1945, a 42-year-old Jungian psychiatrist raised Protestant, had an unusual experience.

There was light everywhere. . . . [T]he world was flooded with light, the supernal light that so many of the mystics describe . . . [T]he experience was so overwhelmingly good that I couldn’t mistrust it. . . . [G]lory blazing all around me. . . . I realized that some of the medieval poems I had been so innocently handling were written to invoke just such an experience as I had had. (That stuff is still alive, I tell you.)

Her experience lasted for five days; the aftereffects lasted longer. At age 82, she wrote her experience was “. . . so far from anything that I had thought in the realm of the possible, that it has taken me the rest of my life to come to terms with it.”

The quote is from Foster, G. W. (1985). The World Was Flooded with Light; A Mystical Experience Remembered. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, p. 33-34

I'd say the evidence can be interpreted either way. I don't deny that people who have had life-changing encounters with uncreated light may be deluded. I just don't believe they are.

Art48
I've quoted that very passage numerous times on this forum. Doesn't change anything I said. There's no point discussing these kinds of ideas on this forum. — Wayfarer

OK, you have much more experience on this forum than I, so I believe you. But I'm puzzled. Why is there no point in discussing a "a perennial philosophical reflection" on a philosophy forum? Can you elaborate?

Why is there no point in discussing a "a perennial philosophical reflection" on a philosophy forum? — Art48

I had deleted that comment, but now you've picked it up, I will explain what I was getting at.

This forum is a very tolerant and easy-going place, especially compared to a lot of other internet spaces, with a wide range of views being presented. But the general attitude of modern philosophy and secular culture is what I would describe as 'presumptively naturalistic'. To paraphrase a scholar I know, the issue with our usual understanding of secularity is its taken-for-granted-ness, meaning we not aware that it is a worldview. It is an ideology that pretends to be the everyday world we live in, and assumed that it is simply the way the world really is, once superstitious beliefs about it have been removed. In this context, the burden of proof for any ideas of 'the transcendent', whether Christian or from some other source, is on those who propose them, in terms that are either intelligible scientifically, or with respect to the corpus of Western philosophy.

That passage you quote on the SEP article from Schopenhauer is one I myself have also quoted previously. But I'm of the view that Schopenhauer (and the other German idealists) were in some respects the last gasp of philosophy proper. (Now there's a thread topic.) But the point is, the kind of speculative metaphysics you find in Schopenhauer went completely out of fashion in academic philosophy around the time of WW1. Since then the emphasis has been on plain language and analytic philosophy, that demurely cedes the ground to science when it comes to normative claims about the nature of reality. 'Mysticism' is basically a derogatory term for that audience, conveying only vagueness or woolly headed thinking. Another name for woo.

So there are some here who are open to the perspectives offered by Eastern philosophy and indeed the 'perennial tradition' - I'm one of them! - but overall it's a dissident or minority approach.

I'll also add that the point I was trying to make in my earlier responses on this OP, was not that there is anything the matter with Advaita Vedanta. It's more like that when I first encountered it, through the teaching of Ramana Maharishi, it lit a match, so to speak. I even went to an ashram and tried to practice yoga seriously (although I never had much aptitude for it, nor a lot of self-discipline). But I came to realise, over the subsequent decades, that the truth the Advaitins teach about 'sat-chit-ananda' is not something one can casually pick up or enter into. It does demand what is called a sadhana, a spiritual discipline, and a relationship with a guru. So in the end, although we'd like to think there is an essence which can be extracted from the religious trapping (or 'religious fairy tales') it is a religious discipline, and actually a pretty exacting one. I did go far enough into it to actually pass a university exam in Sanskrit, although I've forgotten most of it since. But the man who taught that class ended up ordaining as a Vedantin priest, which he is to this day.

It is amazing, in this day and age, that we have access to all of these materials via the Internet, which in past times were barely even visible in the West. And I think the opportunity to learn about them, appreciate them and study them is a great thing. But don't underestimate what is involved. That's all I'm saying.

I'd say the evidence can be interpreted either way. I don't deny that people who have had life-changing encounters with uncreated light may be deluded. I just don't believe they are. — Art48

:up:
I appreciate the honesty.

I don't deny that people who have had life-changing encounters with uncreated light may be deluded. I just don't believe they are. — Art48

I may have missed it but tell us (again?) why – on what basis – you "don't believe ... encounters with uncreated light" are delusions.

I may have missed it but tell us (again?) why – on what basis – you "don't believe
... encounters with uncreated light" are delusions. — 180 Proof

See my response to Banno, about 7 entries up.

Wayfarer,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, I’m working on an article. (links below to the current draft version). I’d like to explain some points from the article to address your response.

I first define the concept of ultimate ground of existence as that which underlies physical existence. The table’s ground of existence is the wood; the wood’s ground of existence is its atoms; etc., etc., down to the ultimate ground of existence which underlies the entire universe. At this point, it’s a philosophical concept, not unlike Kant's Thing-in-itself or Schopenhauer's Will. I'd say the concept of ultimate ground is harmonious with science, which is looking for a theory of everything.

Does the concept of ultimate ground of existence refer to something real? It may not. But mystics often describe their experience as experience of ultimate reality, which gives some support for the idea. And others who ascribe their experience to some God may be guilty of what I call “gratuitous attribution.” For instance, Pascal had an experience of FIRE and attributed it to "the God of Abraham."

I assume in the article that the ultimate ground of existence is an objective reality. At this point, I believe I’m still doing philosophy, not theology.

But accepting the testimony of the mystics implies that a human being can have a direct experience of the ultimate ground. How can this be possible? How can a human being have a direct experience of something below quarks? On the other hand, how can a human being NOT experience ultimate ground if that, ultimately, is what a human being is? One answer is evolution has tuned us to pay attention to the physical universe. Contemplate your ultimate ground and you may become some animal’s lunch. So, various practices may be helpful to unlearn evolution’s lesson and have direct experience of the ultimate ground (although the experience seems to sometimes occur spontaneously). Mystics have recommended various practices.

So, a human being is an expression of the universe’s ultimate ground of existence and can choose to try to directly experience his/her own ultimate ground. At this point, I believe I’m still in philosophical territory, although perhaps not within philosophy’s current scope.

Now comes the link to theology.

How to relate to the ultimate ground? That is up to the individual. Schopenhauer called it blind. Someone else might call it the goddamned stuff that underlies our horrible world of evil, suffering and pain. But because it is that in which “we live and move and have our being,” someone might regard it religiously as God, not a God who is a person who lives in heaven, but more like Brahman or Tao, i.e., an impersonal God who is immanent in the universe, who in fact IS the universe.

Regarding the ultimate ground religiously or not is a person's choice. When I next revisit the article, one goal will be to make that clearer.

There’s more that could be said, but this, I hope, gives a rough idea of my thought.

P.S. I'd describe Neoplatonism as a philosophy, with optional religious component.

Links to article
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

I first define the concept of ultimate ground of existence as that which underlies physical existence. [ ... ] At this point, it’s a philosophical concept, not unlike Kant's Thing-in-itself or Schopenhauer's Will. — Art48

I prefer Democritus-Epicurus' Void.

Does the concept of ultimate ground of existence refer to something real? It may not. But mystics often describe their experience as experience of ultimate reality, which gives some support for the idea.

How can promixate beings with proximate perceptual capabilities and frames of reference "experience" "ultimate" anything? This assertion doesn't make sense to me. It's more likely "mystics" are mistaken about their ineluctable cognitive (experiential) limits and confabulate an "ultimate" – X-of-the-gaps – that transcends them.

Anyway, Nāgārjuna's Śūnyatā works for me.

See my response to Banno ... — Art48

I did, and that's why I still want (more) compelling reasons. If that's all you've got, well okay, Art, ... whatever.

I did, and that's why I still want (more) compelling reasons. If that's all you've got, well okay, Art, ... whatever. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure there are more compelling reasons other than actually having the experience. Even then, some people interpret mystical experiences as of some person God: Jesus, Krishna, etc. And other people decide they temporarily went nuts.

However, the Tibetan Book of the Dead says the departed awareness naturally approaches the "Clear Light" but most cannot endure the intensity, and fall back through various states until rebirth. If it's accurate, we'll all have the experience then, even if we don't have it sooner.

Augustine goes on to call the light, God, and went from being a libertine to a saint. It seems like his experience was something more than "seeing stars." — Art48

I told you earlier in the thread, this is a reference to Plato's "the good", which he compared to the light of the sun. What "seeing the light" means is to gain an apprehension of the importance of "the good". This is commonly cited as the reason why one changes from misbehaviour to good behaviour, the person claims to have seen the light (apprehended "the good"). That's why Augustine went from libertine to saint.

I first define the concept of ultimate ground of existence as that which underlies physical existence. The table’s ground of existence is the wood; the wood’s ground of existence is its atoms; etc., etc., down to the ultimate ground of existence which underlies the entire universe. At this point, it’s a philosophical concept, not unlike Kant's Thing-in-itself or Schopenhauer's Will. I'd say the concept of ultimate ground is harmonious with science, which is looking for a theory of everything.

Does the concept of ultimate ground of existence refer to something real? It may not. But mystics often describe their experience as experience of ultimate reality, which gives some support for the idea. And others who ascribe their experience to some God may be guilty of what I call “gratuitous attribution.” For instance, Pascal had an experience of FIRE and attributed it to "the God of Abraham."

I assume in the article that the ultimate ground of existence is an objective reality. At this point, I believe I’m still doing philosophy, not theology. — Art48

The ultimate ground of existence is very simple actually. It is "the good". Philosophically "the good" is very significant "The good" answers the question of why there is what there is. The answer is because it is good. This is why monotheists tend to establish an equation between existence and good. Why did God create the universe? Because He saw that it was good.

Hey just saw your reply now.

I assume in the article that the ultimate ground of existence is an objective reality. At this point, I believe I’m still doing philosophy, not theology. — Art48

I think it must transcend the subject-object distinction, because it includes both the cognizing subject and the object of cognition. Hence frequent references in the literature to the union of knower and known. Objectivity, as a criterion for what really exists, is very much an artefact of the modern mindset with its emphasis on individuality and empirical validation.

But accepting the testimony of the mystics implies that a human being can have a direct experience of the ultimate ground. How can this be possible? How can a human being have a direct experience of something below quarks? — Art48

I think the idea of union with the supreme, whether that is cast in Christian or Advaita terminology, is not necessarily a similar kind of cognitive understanding to that divulged by experimental physics. There might be poetic or symbolic resonances between them, but they arise from a very different kind of stance or understanding. But,like that passage you quoted from the Schop. essay, there is a sense in which the being of the world also comprises your being (something made obvious in Vedanta.)

How to relate to the ultimate ground? — Art48

There are some pitfalls with the comparative approach, in trying to equate the often divergent images and metaphors of different traditions with each other. There are those who do, typically the 'perennial philosophers' and the 'traditionalists' e.g. Frithjoj Schuon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, and Huston Smith, to name a few. Buddhists, for instance, would not use the term 'ultimate ground' at all, in fact their philosophy is built around the absence of it. Taoism is very much interwoven with many other aspects of specifically Chinese culture. But on the whole, I do agree that what the perennial traditions have in common is more important than what divides them - provided one doesn't fall into a kind of a la carte syncretism. The real paths are very specific and definitely have boundaries, I think.

As regards 'which path', that's something I'm still wrestling with, and may never solve. I had a long interest in Buddhism, but I've also come to realise that I owe a lot to my own Western heritage. All deep and difficult questions.

And so on. — Banno

Literally disproving the metaphor.

Next you'll want to demonstrate that rivers do not actually have mouths.

Because, (private language argument) the subjective (private) end of the relation of observer and observed can only be spoken of by means of simile and metaphor. If you see what I mean, it may be that that seeing is conducted via a text to speech synthesiser, because you are blind. But to suggest that the blind cannot see what someone means is ridiculous. Not that folks generally are not prone to take their own experiences literally, and mistake hypoxia for insight, but not all who wander are lost.

'the uncreated light' (The comparison with 'energy' is misplaced, because, unless it is directed, energy always flows in the direction indicated by the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. to greater and greater disorder. It possesses no intrinsic intelligence.) — Wayfarer

The Oracle of Apollo was inspired by psychedelic fumes in the cave. Quakers also sit and wait for their "inner light" to move them to speak wisdom. But --- as a dispassionate thinker --- even when I was immersed in my relatively rational fundamentalist religion, I never experienced an inner light as a message from God. Unless, of course, it refers to the various inspirations of Intuition*1. Apparently, intuitive ideas & imagery may seem to come from outside the person experiencing the feeling*2. But the light of intuition seems to be a common aesthetic -- and perhaps informative -- experience for both religious and non-religious people*3*4, regardless of doctrinal differences.

Regarding comparisons of inspirational human religious experiences to physical energy, it may be more accurately defined as meta-physical energy. In the Enformationism thesis, the universal causal force in the world is labelled EnFormAction, the power to enform : both physical forms (things) & mental forms (ideas). Another way to describe world-creating EnFormy is as energy + direction ( a vector). Those philosophical conjectures presume that Evolution is not completely random, but statistical Chaos (possibility generator) + intentional Selection (probability criteria). For me, those notions are not aesthetically illuminating, but rationally informative (elucidating?)*5. :nerd:

*1. Intuition : a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

*2. Psychology : Intuition is a form of knowledge that appears in consciousness without obvious deliberation. It is not magical but rather a faculty in which hunches are generated by the unconscious mind rapidly sifting through past experience and cumulative knowledge.

*3. “All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge,” Einstein once told a friend, according to Psychology Today.

*4. The Inner Light
George Harrison, 1968

Without going out of my door
I can know all things on earth
Without looking out of my window
I could know the ways of heaven

The farther one travels
The less one knows
The less one really knows

Without going out of your door
You can know all things on earth
With out looking out of your window
You can know the ways of heaven

The farther one travels
The less one knows
The less one really knows

Arrive without traveling
See all without looking
Do all without doing

*5. inspirational intuition - Drivers of innovation :
Visions and imaginations open up options for action beyond the beaten solution paths. This is what we call “inspirational intuition”.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021020260

" Intuition has all the dark, mystical energy of the chaotic Feminine and Rationality all of the bright, systematized knowledge of the ..." ___William James. attr.

That George Harrison song had a big impact on my teenage self.

You might be interested in reading up on Terrence Deacon, Incomplete Nature.

You might be interested in reading up on Terrence Deacon, Incomplete Nature. — Wayfarer

Been there, done that. Completely inspired by the notion of Absential forces (attractors) in Nature. :smile:

Yes, I think he's on to something - I've been aware of that book a long time but only just reading it now. Find myself nodding along with the text a lot of the time.

I think it must transcend the subject-object distinction, because it includes both the cognizing subject and the object of cognition. Hence frequent references in the literature to the union of knower and known. Objectivity, as a criterion for what really exists, is very much an artefact of the modern mindset with its emphasis on individuality and empirical validation. — Wayfarer

I used "objective" to indicate the ultimate ground IS, unlike unicorns. But your point is well-taken. Dionysius the Areopagite (Pseudo-Dionysius) would say that the ultimate ground, because it's the source of all existence, is above and beyond existence. Vedanta makes a similar point.
Is Awareness Experienced as an Object? | Swami Sarvapriyananda
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOoV47KLEw

I think the idea of union with the supreme, whether that is cast in Christian or Advaita terminology, is not necessarily a similar kind of cognitive understanding to that divulged by experimental physics. — Wayfarer

Yes, we do not know the ultimate ground as we know other things. Usually, knowing involves 1) the knower, 2) the object known, and 3) the act of knowing. But in unitive knowledge of the ultimate, there is only knowing (or, if you prefer, only the knower).

↪Gnomon
That George Harrison song had a big impact on my teenage self. — Wayfarer

Harrison's sanguine song, was probably inspired by his affiliation with Hindu philosophy, which seemed to promise a more peaceful world of introverted navel-gazers, instead of aggressive money-grubbers. Due to my own experience with religious hype though, I tended to be less optimistic about knowing the absolute truth, which will "set you free". :smile:

Aspirational Hyperbole :
"Without going out of my door
I can know all things on earth"

Know all things :
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
1 John 2:20-29 King James Version (KJV)

:fire: :flower:

I've got a word or two
To say about the things that you do
You're telling all those lies
About the good things that we can have
If we close our eyes

Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you

I left you far behind
The ruins of the life that you had in mind
And though you still can't see
I know your mind's made up
You're gonna cause more misery

Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you

Although your mind's opaque
Try thinking more if just for your own sake
The future still looks good
And you've got time to rectify
All the things that you should

Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you

Do what you want to do
And go where you're going to
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you
Think for yourself
'Cause I won't be there with you — Think For Yourself (1965)

https://youtu.be/vtx5NTxebJk

If so, then how is it that a property as fundamental as "consciousness" is so easily and frequently lost (e.g. sleep, head trauma, coma, blackout, etc) as well as altered by commonplace stressors (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sugar, emotions, violence, sex, illness, video games, porn, gambling, social media, etc) if "consciousness is closest to the ultimate ground of existence"? — 180 Proof

It isn't lost. The self is lost. Content is altered, but not consciousness.

It isn't lost. The self is lost. Content is altered, but not consciousness. — bert1

If it's only the recall of being conscious that is either "lost" or "altered" and not "consciousness" itself, then "consciousness" is like embodiment persisting independently of the state of one's awareness, or lack thereof, of one's own bodily condition. Assuming this scenario is the case, 'being conscious' seems redundant to, or synonymous with, 'being embodied', and eliminativists (i.e. physicalists), not mind-body dualists or panpsychists, are the parsimonious and conceptually coherent ones. To paraphrase Witty: bodily movement is the best picture of 'consciousness'. And Spinoza as well: 'being conscious' is the body's idea.

To paraphrase Witty: the body is the best picture of 'consciousness'. — 180 Proof

:up:
[ including its marks and noises ]

If so, then how is it that a property as fundamental as "consciousness" is so easily and frequently lost (e.g. sleep, head trauma, coma, blackout, etc) as well as altered by commonplace stressors (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sugar, emotions, violence, sex, illness, video games, porn, gambling, social media, etc) if "consciousness is closest to the ultimate ground of existence"? — 180 Proof
It isn't lost. The self is lost. Content is altered, but not consciousness. — bert1

One problem with "Consciousness" is defining what it is. As an abstract noun, the term seems to imply that "C" is a stable physical object, instead of an impermanent process, function, state, or ability. Likewise, the Soul is often imagined as a timeless object, when in fact it is a temporary subjective imaginary concept, that can be turned-off like a light bulb. The brain is a physical machine, whose primary function is to monitor & control the body's life-support processes. That basic operating system (OS) is generally located in the brain stem (the reptile brain), not in the neo-cortex (mammalian brain), where the "movie" of working memory flows.

So, it's not surprising that, when injured, the brain shuts down non-essential (for life) functions. A computer can do the same thing, when a physical malfunction threatens to destroy the whole system. When the threat is over, the system reboots, and functions resume. The information processing ability wasn't "lost", it just temporarily ceased operation. Recovery from a concussion or coma is one example of a biological reboot.

Likewise, the "inmost core of being" is not a real thing, but an ideal abstract concept, created by the brain to represent the Life & Awareness functions of the body. So that "core" is not an Object to be lost, but a Subject to be aware of, or not. The human body's Operating System is essential for Life processes, but not for Mind processes. Therefore, the OS can "shut down" non-essential processes temporarily, without affecting the fundamental operating functions that we call "Life" : also, not a thing, but a process.

What we humans call "Consciousness" seems to be Awareness of working memory. Again, that awareness is not a physical thing, but something like a sampling of ongoing brain processes. So, it's that Self-Reflective Ability that remains to be explained in physical terms. How does the brain produce Ideal representations of reality, that are knowable by the Self, which is also a mind picture created by the brain to represent the body/brain system as a whole? :smile:

PS__I'm just riffing here. I'm not an expert on such technical & esoteric questions. Merely an interested User of the Awareness function of my biological computing system. If someone prefers to label that self-image poetically as "The Soul", that's OK with me. The various aspects of Consciousness can only be defined metaphorically, by analogies to physical things or processes, such as Breathing. But, like Life, it's a fragile process that can be "lost" permanently when the energy flow is interrupted by a broken circuit. Too bad, we can't just solder the wires, or replace the battery. :joke:


Various Concepts of Consciousness :
The concept of consciousness is notoriously ambiguous. It is important first to make several distinctions and to define related terms. The abstract noun “consciousness” is not often used in the contemporary literature . . .
https://iep.utm.edu/consciousness/

What Makes a Computer Just Suddenly Power Off? :
A PC shutting down suddenly is usually a sign of a power problem and can be extremely frustrating. This can cause you to lose whatever you're working on, but it may also be a sign of damage to the computer itself. Generally, when a computer powers down on its own it's due to the power supply, malware, overheating or driver issues.
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/computer-just-suddenly-power-off-67117.html
Note -- working memory, what you were working on, is lost after a shut-down

As an abstract noun, the term seems to imply that "C" is a stable physical object — Gnomon

...or a property, like redness, roundness. X is red. X is round. X is conscious.

As an abstract noun, the term seems to imply that "C" is a stable physical object — Gnomon
...or a property, like redness, roundness. X is red. X is round. X is conscious. — bert1

Yes. Measurable or sensible physical properties are how we identify & distinguish those stable material objects. Unfortunately, physical Properties and metaphysical Qualia are somewhat ambiguous. By definition, a Property is inherent-in or intrinsic-to the thing that "owns" that characteristic*1. A physical property is supposed to be measurable. But sometimes a property is attributed to a thing by the observer, when evidence is unavailable or unclear -- especially subatomic particles. A Quality is a mental abstraction from physical observation. So, we "know" concrete things only by making mental models to represent them.

Before the advent of Quantum physics, people assumed that Redness was a Property of apples. So, our mental images of apples typically include the property/quality of Redness. However, we can make objective measurements of the physical wavelengths of light energy, but we can only make subjective assessments of its color. Color is a Qualia not a Quanta. But, is Consciousness a quantitative Property or merely a qualitative Function*2 of the brain?

Consciousness (or Soul) is obviously not a tangible physical property. So, as a meta-physical quality, it is not measurable in objective units. However, Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory attempts to measure Consciousness indirectly by degree of integration*3. His assumption seems to be that shape-shifting Information is common to both Quanta and Qualia. And my own thesis argues that Energy is merely one form of generic Information, while Matter is another, and Mind is another. Hence the apparent Brain/Mind paradox*4. Can it be explained by Cartesian Dualism or by Russell's Monism*5, or by Enformationism?*6. Is the "Inmost Core" a property or a quality or both? :smile:



*1. Properties are the characteristics that enable us to differentiate one material from another. A physical property is an attribute of matter that is independent of its chemical composition.
https://byjus.com/chemistry/properties-of-matter/

*2. What is a Function? :
A function relates an input to an output. ...
https://www.mathsisfun.com › sets › function
Note -- A function is a mathematical Ratio, or a mental Relationship between things; not a thing itself.

*3. Sizing Up Consciousness by Its Bits :
Tononi argues that we could, in theory, measure consciousness in bits as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/21consciousness.html

*4. The Brain/Mind Paradox :
But how does self-conscious awareness arise from physical operations of a material brain? The meat Brain and the ethereal Mind seem to be two completely different kinds of things. So reconciling meat with mind has been called the “hard problem” of philosophy. But it becomes easier if we look at the situation from the cosmic perspective of Enformationism. In that world-view, the fundamental element of our universe is immaterial information, best visualized as the completely abstract form of Logic we call Mathematics, along with its structure-defining geometric ratios. Where the physical brain sees real shapes, the meta-physical mind sees ideal geometry. Yet brain & mind are merely different forms of that creative element. So it shouldn’t be surprising that energy/information flowing through neurons could generate something like a mind-field.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page31.html

*5. Russellian Monism :
Russellian monism is a theory in the metaphysics of mind, on which a single set of properties underlies both consciousness and the most basic entities posited by physics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russellian-monism/

*6. Brain/Mind Enformation :
"The absence of an empirically identifiable meeting point between the non-physical mind (if there is such a thing) and its physical extension has proven problematic to dualism, and many modern philosophers of mind maintain that the mind is not something separate from the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem

Why posit an ultimate ground? Is not what is sufficient? Is the world too imperfect for it to exist without it depending on something else? Does being ungrounded cause vertigo? A yawning abyss one is too fearful to approach?

Why posit an ultimate ground? Is not what is sufficient? Is the world too imperfect for it to exist without it depending on something else? Does being ungrounded cause vertigo? A yawning abyss one is too fearful to approach? — Fooloso4

Good question. Refer
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14272/why-monism