I am ok with the difference being that 'terror' is anticipatory — universeness

I'm OK too with that. Fear has to do with the future and the unknown (as we say "fear of the unknown"). Terror is fear too, only it is more intense. Likewise with horror. But terror and horror are not exactly the same. E.g. horror can also cause disgust (as in horror films). But the essential and common element in both terror and fear is intense fear, so they reflect about the same thing. So, in no way are they opposite

Now, since your topic also refers to the mind, there''s a lot to say about how fear --independently of its intensity-- is produced and about the mechanisms of the mind involved in that. But I think this is not the intention of this topic.

Otherwise, I agree with a lot of points in your description of the topic.

Ha! Nice.
(I love these two characters!)

[repky="javi2541997;847994"]
Hi Javi! (You changed your avatar again! :smile:)

I understand your point, but it is complex to answer those questions. This is due to the individualistic sense of freedom we all have. — javi2541997

I don't think it is difficult to define and understand what freedom is.
I have recently replied to and explained in detail in the topic "What is freedom?" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/840566), that fredom is absence of obstacles. Simple as that. This is the essence of freedom. Based on it, you can explain all kinds of cases involving freedom, involving both sides of it: freedom from and freedom to.

“Terror and horror are so far opposite, that the first expands the soul, and awakens the faculties to a high degree of life; the other contracts, freezes, and nearly annihilates them.”
(Ann Radcliffe) — universeness

From Dictionary.com
Horror:
"1. An overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting; a shuddering fear."
"2. Anything that causes such a feeling"
Terror:
"1. Intense, sharp, overmastering fear"
"2. An instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety"

From Cambridge Dictionary
Horror:
"A strong feeling of shock or fear, or something that makes you feel shocked or afraid"
Terror:
"A feeling of being very frightened"

Any dictionary and encyclopedia you open, you will find very similar meanings.

Anyone can see that these two words, not only they are not opposite --in any logical way-- but they are
instead quite close to each other. There's no space for a different interpretation between them.

This gal, Ann Radcliffe, like a lot of "intellectuals" need to feel they make a difference by inventing their own definintions, meanings and interpretations of words and terms, far from wat us the norm, so that they seem to stand out, be "special". Don't get attracted by this kind of shit.

Just think this: When someone reinvents the meaning of words and is using them as such and is even promoting these meanings to others, what s/he actual does is promoting misinformation putting his/her stone in the building of a Tower of Babel and create confusion in people.

I'm very strict about this. For me, this is a literary crime, and hence an information and communication crime.

Right,

Your points are good..
Well, the subject of "competition" was brought up by @Janus, who said that ""Survival of the fittest" has come to imply competition", with which I disagree, anyway.
Moreover, this has drifted us away from the subject of the topic, which --as a reminder-- is "'Survival of the Fittest;: Its meaning and its implications for our life". The meaning and implications of competition is a different subject and could form topic by itself.

Sorry, I can't edit posts from my smartphone, so please dismiss the above post due to wrong tags. — baker

No problem. I did. Thanks for the notice.

It seems that in popular parlance the concept of "survival of the fittest" is used as a heuristic for identifying the right course of action, the moral course of action, and to justify it. "Those who survive are doing things right". — baker

I don't think this is a popular viewpoint among all people. But it must be certainly popular among criminals, fascists, bullies and in general by irrational and insane people.

In practical examples, this also means that someone who commits a crime but manages not to get caught by the justice system is "doing the right thing". — baker

Likewise. In whatever way you look at it, it's a sick viewpoint and/or interpretation.

The concept of the "survival of the fittest" has been originated in framework where the sense of morality was totally absent. And it must be kept in that framework. The consequences I'm talking about resulted from misinterpetation and misuse, intentional or not. And I consider Darwin and the scientists who supported and still support his theory of evolution in part responsible for that. The concept could well be expressed in a different way that would be more comprehensible and would not incite --it really does!-- violence and all kinds of offensive and harmful behavior.
Most often, people behave based on mottos and ideas, rather than on knowledge, prudence or logic. Almost everyone has met the phrase in question at least once in one's life. How many do they know the theory behind it, or even what does it really mean?

The idea as I understand it is that it is the competition for survival, so they don't all survive. It is not necessarily competition directly against the others as in fighting to the death, but competition for resources. Those who gain the resources survive and those who cannot die. — Janus

I know what you mean. Only that I cannot think of any such case, I mean where people have died --certainly not on a large scale-- because of lack of resources, those being water, oil, electric power or other public utility services. But maybe you have some examples.

The only case I can think right now in which "competition" can be applied to the "fittest" principle is in sports matches bewteen two persons or teams. where only the winner "survives" (in a figurative way).
However, one should certainly not generalize from such special cases.

What "bad effect"? — Janus

I already talked about that. (Re: Nazis)

I see that part of Darwin's theory as being pretty much tautologous: it amounts to "those who can survive do and are more likely to reproduce than those who cannot survive." — Janus

Yes, I know about this. But, if I'm not mistaken, it is a circular statement: I have to survive in order to reproduce, but at the same time, in order to survive I have to reproduce. ("I" of course extending to my family (as genealogy), my group, my country, my race, etc.)

Then, what about the poor families all over the world, esp. in India, which is overpopulated), who are over-reproductive? Can they be considered as fittest, when they die from famine, diseases and all sort of things just because they are poor? And if we do consider these as "fittest", it would be like saying that the poor one day will reign the world!

"Survival of the fittest" has come to imply competition — Janus

Yes, it can also have this meaning and maybe other meanings too. Only that it's a failed interpretation, because in a competition they all survive, not only the fittest one. The fittest one is simply in a better condition than the rest. In a track field race, the fastest one wins and takes the golden medal, but the 2nd and 3d ones also win. And in a Marathon, everyone who finishes wins; the first one is simply the best.

But most importantly, we must never forget what this phrase --with its original meaning-- alludes to, esp. as related to Nazis, who used it as a principle and motto, with its known to all atrocious consequences. And of course, it is still in use by neo-Nazis and all kinds of fascists.

Competition is good. It promotes improvement. "Survival of the fittest" is bad, even as a concept. And, I believe that it should be kept with its original meaning alone. There are many other expressions that can be used for competition and other cases that might just remind of "Survival of the fittest".

I also tend to think that when it comes to social animals "fittest" applies to groups more significantly than it does to individuals — Janus

This is true too. But as with competion, I'm afraid that these interpretations are only attempts to moderate the bad effect that Darwin's (controversial) theory has.

So, again, I believe that the phrase "Survival of the fittest" should be kept with its original meaning alone.

Writing "absolute" in front of "nothing" only serves to obfuscate. — Banno

:up:
Well, at least someone else besides me noticed and commented on this redundant --and, as you say, obfuscating-- "absolute" thing. As if there is a "relative nothingness" or "partial nothingness". Which I never heard talking about, not in this thread or elsewhere. Of course, because it has no meaning. Therefore, "absolute nothingness" has no meaning either. And it was not used as a figure of speech or mentioned just en passent, but it is included in the title of the topic itself and appears to be an important element in the OP's description.
It is both surprising and very disappointing to me to see how people, esp. in a place like this, can pass by these things without noticing them or commenting on them ...

I launched a discussion under the title "'Survival of the Fittest': Its meaning and its implications for our life, about 8 months ago.
(See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14045/survival-of-the-fittest-its-meaning-and-its-implications-for-our-life/p1). You can find in there my position on the subject, together with those of other members.)

Why is there something rather than nothing? — Ø implies everything

Mainly because you wouldn't be able to talk about nothing if there weren'r something.
I think that in a way this is what the title of your topic says too.

one must contemplate absolute nothingness — Ø implies everything

I don't remember having ever heard talking about "absolute" nothingness. When we say "nothingness" it's simply nothingness. As you say, nothingness is absence of everyting. That's all there is to it.

This "concept" is often deemed oxymoronic. For something to exist/be true, it must be a thing. If absolute nothingness is a thing, it would entail its own non-existence — Ø implies everything

Of course. But "absolute nothingness" is mainly a pleonasm, it is redundant, as I explained above.

I can't see what can one say more about this subject. And I think that it has been already said too much.
I'm afraid that you are just repeating yourself. Just the title of your topic --without word "absolute"-- says it all. :smile:

But maybe I am wrong, and I don't have a clue about what is going on. :smile: — javi2541997

You are not wrong. And I think you do have a clue, and a correct one. @PL Olcott is simply confused. Besides being rude.

I would check more of your recent messages but it's got late. Maybe tomorrow ...

BTW, the was an spelling error in my sentence "the context in which a question is asked is mission missing or not clear".

When the solution set is restricted to {yes, no} and no element of this solution set is a correct answer from Carol then the question posed to Carol is incorrect. — PL Olcott

Well, depending on the question-statement, I would rather say ambiguous or circular or self-contradictory or --if it refers to an argument-- a fallacious argument.
I think that the attributes "correct" and "incorrect" are too general and/or ambiguous themselves.

Hi friend! Long time no see!
Check this: When I visited TPF a few minutes ago, I had in mind to check about your recent activity (comments)! How can you call this (in Japanese)? :smile:

"Is the living mammal of an elephant any type of fifteen story office building?"
has the correct answer of "no". — PL Olcott

No, it is wrong to say that a question has a correct answer. It is wrong even to say that a question has any answer at all. A question is asked by a person and is addressed to anor person or persons in order to receive, to be given an answer. And then, the answer does not go to the question, it does not become a property of the question; it goes to whom asked the question.
Indeed, sometimes we say "your question includes the answer" or the "question replies to itself", etc. But these are only fiigures of speech.
Moreover, we are talking about a "correct" answer, something which even is more difficult to be attributed to a question.
So we can say that the correct answer to the question "Is the living mammal of an elephant any type of fifteen story office building?" is "No".

I hope this is clear by now.

Is the following sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true."
has no correct answer from the set of {true, false}. — PL Olcott

This is a known self-contraditory statement. It cannot be answered (with "true" or "false"). That's all.
This, as any other question, does not and cannot have an answer. I explained that in detail above.

My purpose of being here is to get feedback so that I can make my words clear enough so that they can be understood as correct. — PL Olcott

I appreciate this. I hope I have contributed in some way,

(BTW, what about my second question, "What does 'correctly ignored' mean? Do you mean 'correctly answered'?" Have you sorted this out?)

When a decision problem decider/input pair lacks a correct Boolean return value from this decider then this decision problem instance is semantically unsound. — PL Olcott

I wouldn't state it like that myself, but I agree. :smile:

Linguistics understands that the context of who is asked a question does change the meaning of some questions ... When the context of who is asked a question determines ... — PL Olcott

I assume of course that "who" refers to a person. But does a person have a context?
I'm afraid that by this word you mean something else, e.g. background, or you apply it incorrectly, e.g. you mean the context in which one talks. Or even something else. I can't know.
And then you repeat it: "When the context of who is asked a question determines ..."

When the context of who is asked a question determines whether or not a question has a correct answer then this context can never be correctly ignored. — PL Olcott

1) A question cannot have a correct answer. What can be correct is the answer given to that question. So maybe you mean that the question can receive a correct answer?
Or that the question can have more than one correct answers?
2) What does "correctly ignored" mean? Do you mean "correctly answered"?

See, these things are not details. One has to be as exact and clear in ones thesis, hypothesis, proposition, etc. in philosophy as in science

My intention is not to criticize you, but to pinpoint important elements in a philosophical discussion. And I'm addressed to the general public, because I see the phenomenon of lack of clarity and misuse of terms only too often.

By extension, all this applies and is an answer to your topic itself: If the context in which a question is asked is missing or not clear, of course this question might receive not incorrect, but inappropriate answers, i.e. answers "out of context" or "off-topic", as we use to say. A classic example is an ambiguous question that can be answered with both "Yes" and "No", about which you talked in your description.

One must also add, that in philosophy, unlike in science, we cannot talk about "correct" answers. Logical schemes, fallacious arguments, etc. are an exception, since they are special elements used in argumentation, hypotheses, propositions, etc., which are borrowed from the science of Logic.

I think I'm the one you mean to be speaking to lol. — Jerry

Certainly. But it was the fault of @noAxioms, who has included different replies to and quotes from different people in a single message ...

Thank you for taking care of and the trouble to answer my questions. I really appreciated that.

This world can be likened to something of a formal system, which I liken to our universe. This is contentious; — Jerry

It is ineed contentious. It tastes like a soup with different vegetables mixed with meat. Good for meat-eaters but not for vegetarians. :smile:

[Re: space, time, particles, energy, matter, etc. all related and obeying certain laws] I would say none of these features of the world, despite their supposed indispensability, are necessary in any possible world. — Jerry

What would be a "possible world"? I have in mind one but I don't know what you have in mind. See here's a classic case where an example is needed! Just a "possible world" for me means nothing.

The only thing that is necessary are that there are laws that determine how things work. — Jerry

Alright, but can the same laws apply to the vegetables as well as to the meat?
Can the same laws apply to the physical things as well as human? This is what I asked. In fact, not only between these two but also between different kinds, categories of physical things. Can we form a single set of laws that apply to everything? I mean, even the unified (field) theory, the unifield reality theory, etc. are still an attempt. And even these would be resolved in the future, what about the non-physical world of the mind and consciousness? They have their own deterministic and non-deterministic laws. This is what I'm trying to put through ...

Free will comes in because even this sort of hypothetical world seems deterministic, because everything obeys the laws — Jerry

OK, this follows the same line of thinking. (Re: "everything"]

You say the physical world of course doesn't have free will.
This is what I'm trying to ascertain. — Jerry

Well, can the physical world have free will? If yes, in what sense? If no, then it will always be deterministic --which it is-- so what's the point to hypothetize any kind of (different) world?

Because the difficulty it seems for free will in our world is that pre-determined causes have their effects on us, so we're just a domino in the chain. — Jerry

OK. But again, what are these pre-determined causes have their effects and in what world? Does this world you are envisioning or hypothetize includes human manifestations, actions, behaviour?
So, of course there is a difficulty ...

let's talk about Conway's Game of Life. Because this is an example of a possible world: it is entirely composed of well-defined rules that govern the cells, their states, and determine the evolution of the game. — Jerry

Good example. But on a physical level only of course. And it involves randomity. Which is totally different than free wiill. And one can see randomity everywhere in the physical universe, As simple coin tossing shows that very clearly. Coins do not have free will but neither does tossing follow any deterministic paterm. (Assuming of course that the coins are not fake or unfair, in any way.)

I would like to hear your input if you better understand my position. — Jerry

Yes, of course I understand better your position now. But, as I mentioned several times, the human factor is missing from your hypothetical world, which, for that reason seems to be clearly a physical world. And alll that would be just fine if you had not involved free will at all.

I seem to not be the only one noticing this lack of distinction that lends meaning to the word 'free'. — noAxioms

No, you were not the ony one. And, as I see, I wasn't the only one either! :smile:

BTW my last comment "It's not about the word "free"! Is this all that you got from my whole comment?" that I addressed to you was actually meant for ! This is what can happen when you include different replies to and quotes from different people in a single message ...

BTW #2, are you a programmer? Your alias name "noAxiom" is a unique form that a lot of programmers use to create variable names: starting with a small letter for the first word and separating it from the next with a capital.

I seem to not be the only one noticing this lack of distinction that lends meaning to the word 'free'. — noAxioms

It's not about the word "free"! Is this all that you got from my whole comment?
It's about your whole thesis. I quote it again below:

"Consider some hypothetical world, a world I would call deterministic because it follows these principles: it obeys certain laws/rules/regularities, such that an outcome follows directly from previous states, these laws/rules/regulations do not change and that they are unbreakable."

1) What world is this? Physical, human, both? Because it's one thing talking about deterministic laws in Physics (the physical world) and another thing talking about deterministic actions in humans.
2) Where or how does free will --which is the main subkect here-- come in here? Can the physical world have free will? Of course not. So it leaves us with human free will.
3) What (kind of) laws/rules/regulations are these?
4) Don't you think that at least one example is needed?

Well, I'm maybe the only one who has all these questions and also see the "gaps" in your thesis, as I explained in detail this time. I believe that you should take advantage of this and improve your thesis, instead of just questioning the validity of comment.

But since I see that you don't appreciate anything in all this, I won't bother you again.

Right. Why all that sweat?

OK. Thanks.

how can that image be the same a physical picture which remains relatively unchanged? — Fooloso4

Didn't get that, sorry. So, maybe I do miss something ...
Let's drop Luke's "picture/description" example and use a simple object in the enviroment: a vase. Isn't this object the same regardless of whether and how you and I perceive it?

I (like many contemporary atheists) am an agnostic atheist. — Tom Storm

I personally don't attach a label to my "atheism", e.g. agnostic. In fact, I don't even put officially the label "atheist" on myself. I simply don't believe in the existence of God or gods, as these terms are commonly used. That's all.

Atheism is mainly an absence of belief in the existence of God, any god. (From Greek "a-theos" (= without god).) All other kinds of atheism are illogical or fallacies. E.g. "positive atheism" is a belief and affirmation that God doesn't exist. Which is a fallacy and esp. of the type of circular reasoning. How can one talk about, much less prove that something does not exist, the existence of which cannot be proven, and worse, if one already believes that it does not exist? That's kind of stupid, isn't it? E.g. Is there any meaning for me to prove that there are no angels flying in the heaven or existing among us, and so on? Besides, how can I? I just don't believe in the existence of angels. That's all.

So, "gnostic atheism" is baloneys. Gnostic theism, as well.

A true beilef in God is a personal affair. It is based on personal experience(s).

I don't see any problem or disagree with anything you said, except that my initial comment regarding Lukes questio/statement still applies. That is, you didn't explain --or I couldn't see-- why you doubted about Luke's statement that "the content of the picture/description is the same regardless of whether it is a public object or whether it is privately imagined", by saying "Not necessarily so." And since the truth of the statement is very obvious to me, I am interested to know why it is not for you. I mean exactly about that statement. You can just summarize it, if you wish, into a single sentence. I won't complain! :smile:

Why take one human and divide her into two separate parts? — Dfpolis

(I think you have just disclosed your gender! :smile:)

We don't divide a human into two parts. A human has two parts.

(Everyone with one's own view on the subject, of course. But mine is stronger! :grin:)

Suppose neuroscientists were able to give you access to my mental picture and render a public physical picture so that everyone can see what the content of my mental picture is. — Fooloso4

You mean, project images from my mind on a screen? You don't know how many times I've thought how amazing that would be! :smile:

My mental picture X rendered public at T1 may differ from my mental picture X rendered public at T2. My mental image is not immutable. — Fooloso4

Indeed. But this doesn't change anything. Everyone has different mental pictures of a same object in the environment. (BTW, I can't see why you call it "public"? Never heard of such a descrition.)

I might say that ever since I was a child I have had this image in my mind. If you asked me whether that image has changed over time I cannot give a definitive answer. I have no way of comparing that image as it was then to how it is now. — Fooloso4

That image has certainly changed, not over time in general, but --strictly speaking-- from one second to another. Thinking is a process producing a kind of energy, which is flowing, like a hologram, and the images that we see in our mind are changing on constant basis. Of course, this does not prevent us from saying, in a figurative way, "I have always this same image in my mind ".

he problem is that there are two traditions about souls. One is dualistic, and followed by Plato, Augustine and Descartes. The other is non-dualistic, and followed by Aristotle and Aquinas. — Dfpolis

Right. (And I guess there are others too in both camps.)
All this is quite interesting.
(BTW, I'm leaning towards Platon. And I'm a pro-Socrates. Although I have never alalyzed or examined them from a "dualistic" point of view.)

Do you agree that the content of the picture/description is the same regardless of whether it is a public object or whether it is privately imagined?
— Luke
Not necessarily. As I imagine something can change.
...
One is physical and can be made public, the other cannot. One remains relatively stable and unchanging the other may not. We can use one an item of comparison, the other only by the one whose mental image it is. — Fooloso4

I believe is right. However, the problem here is that you are talking about a different thing: the difference between an object that exists in the physical universe and that object as you yourself peceived it, i.e. as it exists in your mind. This is not however what @Luke says.

Consider the actuality and potential of an acorn. Its actuality (eidos = form) is being a kind of nut. Its potential (hyle = timber, poorly as translated "matter") is to be an oak tree. — Dfpolis

I guess you refer to planting an acorn in order to grow an oak tree. (What else?) Like planting sperm in an uterus, an action that will (hopefully) result in the growing of human body.
Well, the sperm is not a potential human body. It needs to be united, combined with other organic stuff for an embryo to be created. Same thing with seeds and plants.

But even if sperm is potentially a human body, i.e. the same thing in different development stages, they are both matter. Their relation could not be considered as soul and body or mind and body, a relation from which the subject of dualism arises. Am I right?

BTW, nice handling of the ancient Greek language ... :smile:

This is easily dismissed. The question is no different than any other. What is meant by "poodle"? What do you mean by "what is meant by poodle"? — hypericin

This is not quite the same. The question "What is meant by 'poodle'?" applies, as you say, to any case. Your original question though, "What is meant by 'mean'?" is a unique case. It already initiates a chain based on the verb and concept of "mean". There's a clear difference.
Anyway, the whole subject is taken a little too seriously ... :smile:

What is meant by "mean"? — hypericin

Congrats! You got yourself a perfect circularity! :smile:

Or isn't it perfect? Because the question can also go ad infinitum: "What do you mean by "What is meant by mean?" :smile:

What does it feel like to be energy? — Benj96

It seems that you are talking about something like Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"
But Nagel refered to life and consciousness. He didn't refer to physical things like matter and energy. He is not a Panpsychisist. And for all non Panpsychisists (animists, hylozoists, etc.), consciousness is an attribute of life, of living entities.

Really, isn't a problem for you to think, imagine that light can feel and what kind such feeling would be? :smile:

Consider some hypothetical world, a world I would call deterministic because it follows these principles: it obeys certain laws/rules/regularities, such that an outcome follows directly from previous states, these laws/rules/regulations do not change and that they are unbreakable. — Jerry

Why do you all like to speak theoretically and hypothetically without any examples? Not a single example here. How can one relate all this with reality, the world, life and so on? How can one understand what do you actually have in mind? What is your frame of reference, the context in which you are referring to free will?

In short, what kind of "free will" do you have in mind?

It seems that you are talking about free will and determinism in (the context of) the physical world and the physical laws, as if stones, gravity, light ... any physical object, element, entity, force, etc. could have free will ...

[Re: Consciousness missing in the description] That’s because for my purposes I’m treating ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’ as synonyms. — Wayfarer

I know, some philosophers do that. But it is certainly wrong. These two things are ralated but they are of a different kind and nature, so it's a bad habit to equate them, even for just descrption purposes.

(I know that I'm quite strict with vocabulary but this is because I believe that esp. in philosophy we should use terms and concepts with caution, otherwise misunderstanding or lack of undestanding or even confusion can occur. But even if one needs to equate two terms, one should note that, as you did in your reply here.)

[Re: This is clearly a physicalist/materialist view. It belongs to Science and its materialist view of the world.] Not at all! I think many elements within science itself are actually starting to diverge from a materialist view of the world. — Wayfarer

I see that you refer to neuroscience. Indeed, from what I know, there are a few neurobiologists who admit e.g. that consciousness is not a product of the brain and accept the hard problem of conscioussnes. Thankgod. But the vast majority of scientists stick on the brain. This is their world. They can't work outside the material world.
So, my comment was based on seeing that you are using too the brain to describe the mind and reality.
Mind and brain are related but they are of a different kind and nature. Like consciousness and mind.
Their hierarchy and relation (connection) is:Consciousness <-> mind <-> brain. (I can describe how this works but not here.)

Nice essay and presentation.
I think though that it is somewhat burdened with concepts, -isms and philosophical views. E.g. if one accepts idealism and physicalism (or materialism) as the two main philosophical and opposing views of the world, even if one states that they are not necessary in conflict, one is restricted in either of these systems or frameworks of thought and cannot have an independent view, which may touch one or the other system but is not confined in or even dependent on either.

Let's take your question How Does Mind ‘Create Reality’?
You take it as granted that reality is created by the mind. Is this maintained by idealism, e.g. Plato's idealism or is it your own view? In the first case you are confined in that view system or framework. In the second case your thought is free from such a restriction.
Now, what about the widely accepted philosophical view that reality is created by consciousness? (BTW, I'm surprised that consciousness is totally absent in your description of the topic.) It seems that you ignore it or at least not accept it yourself. Yet, it is a view that can only belong to idealism, since in physicalism it is believed that the nature of consciousness is physical and more specifically it is created by the brain.

So, based also on what follows, it is clear that you are presenting your own view about the creation of reality, although you seem to favor idealism.

By ‘creating reality’, I’m referring to the way the brain receives, organizes and integrates cognitive data, along with memory and expectation, so as to generate the unified world–picture within which we situate and orient ourselves. — Wayfarer

This is clearly a physicalist/materialist view. It belongs to Science and its materialist view of the world.
But in idealism it is maintained that reality is created by the mind or consciousness.
So, there's already a conflict between your pro idealism and what you are describing.
There wouldn't be any if you were not talking about idealism and physicalism. It could stand perfectly alone, as an independent, personal view, independent of the two philosophical systems.

I have too my personal view on how reality is created, which is independent of any philosophical system. If it were, it wouldn't be my own reality! :smile:

I hope I made my point clear.

There are other things in your description that I would like to comment on, but this is already a lot. :smile:

Interesting interpretation ...

[Regarding the emergence of consciousness] It's the central question of the book I'm currently reading, Mind and Cosmos. — Pantagruel

I like Nagel. I have read only a paper of him, "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" and I found it quite original and interesting, as a view regarding the nature of consciousness. As I just read in Wiki, "Mind and cosmos" came almost 40 years later! It will be interesting to see how his thought and view evolved in such a long span of time. And maybe he gives another meaning of "emergence", as you mention, because I don't believe that consciousness has been "emerged" (from anything).

it is possible that there non-physical aspects to the physical, proto-conscious features, in a reductive interpretation. — Pantagruel

I don't like much this kind of acrobatic and speculative hypotheses, based mainly on playing around, fiddling with concepts, some of which sometimes are not well supported themselves, and without some solid ground or frame of reference to support them. See, Nagel in "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" provided a realistic, well-grounded and workable frame of reference on which he supported his arguments.

I don't know if you noticed, but all of the most advanced physics is entirely "theoretical". — Pantagruel

If I noticed? I can't avoid highlighting this fact! :smile:
It occupies a whole area and era in Physics. It is called "Quantum Mechanics". :smile:
Of course, it's also a fascinating subject.

The question as to what is/isn't "hard evidence" is itself psycho-social. — Pantagruel

You think?
Hard evidence are facts that are definitely true and do not need to be questioned. They can be defined and determined univocally and measured numerically. "Hard" stands for "solid", "firm", "unbreakable", "inflexible", ...
What you call "psycho-social" is another kind of evidence: "testimonial or subjective evidence".
So, think again! :smile:

The comment of mine to which you responded is one year old. What took you so long? :smile:

But since you brought it up, it's always my pleasure to talk about it. :smile:

Even if the mechanisms that produced biological life, including consciousness — Pantagruel

We don't know if consciousness has been produced as part of the biological life. If it wre, then the nature of consciouness would be physical. And this has never been established. (It has been only hypothesized by scientists who have not produced and hard evidence about that, as they usually do for other things. And there wouldn't be an immense number of talks about it, since the time the concept of consiousness was conceived (Locke, 1690) and isolated as a human element. Nor would there be any "hard problem of consciousness" (Chalmers, 1995).

If [these meachnisms] are, at some level, the same as those that operate in the evolution of the physical universe, it does not follow that those mechanisms are physical. — Pantagruel

What else could there be? I don't know of anythings physical producing something non-physical. The opposite can happen. Thinking (non-physical) and emotions (non-physical) can increase adrenaline levels, produce stress in the body, etc.

Perhaps some transphysical and transmental concept is required to capture both mechanisms.... — Pantagruel

These are attempts to compromise non-compromisable things, find middle-solutions, etc. And they are of course totally theoretical, existing in a frame, context of their own. I have met a lot of "exotic" terms and concepts like these. The all rise from an inability to explain things, esp. after long periods and efforts. It reminds me of what scientists do for a century or so in trying to explain and establish that memory is created and located in the brain. They keep always changing locations and mechanisms, coming out with similar "exotic" ideas. Yet, still not a trace of hard evidence about them. I personally cannot take all that seriously.

You think that "definitions" in dictionaries represent the sine qua non of meaning? — Pantagruel

No, I don't. I certainly don't consider them perfect. But I think that they provide a basis or general frame of reference on which one can rely for further examination of the subjects they describe. They are based on research about the subjects in question. In contrary to the often biased, opinionized personal "definitions" --here's where the quotation marks actually belong-- based on misconceptions and/or ignorance.

@Isaiasb does not participate in his own topic!
What's the purpose of presenting your position on a subject, ask for comments, etc. if you are not going to respond to them?
I also find it quite rude to not reply to comments from participants to yor topic who are addressing to you.

That's an F !