IE, the mind is not a cause of a new state of affairs, the "mind" is no more than a word used in language to describe the state of the brain that causes a new state of affairs. — RussellA

The brain and the mind are two sides of the same medal. You could just as well keep up that it's the mind that causes new states of the brain. Does the mind runs behind the brain state? Maybe it's the mind pulling the brain state. A charged particle is pulled by another charged particle. You can say with a just as happy face that charge pulls the particles. Like mind can pull the brain. If I'm angry, my ferocious mood can cause my thoughts to stagger in a blind alley.

Brain and mind are just two aspects of the same thing. The owner of the mind feels the content, the person looking from a safe distant will look at it from the outside, noting the material aspect only.

I simply think the mental and matter are connected, like the charge of an electron is attached to it, contained in it, or is a property of it.
— Raymond

That's panpsychism, too iffy for my taste. — Olivier5

Panpsychism:

"Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West, and has recently enjoyed a revival in analytic philosophy. For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other. The worry with dualism—the view that mind and matter are fundamentally different kinds of thing—is that it leaves us with a radically disunified picture of nature, and the deep difficulty of understanding how mind and brain interact. And whilst physicalism offers a simple and unified vision of the world, this is arguably at the cost of being unable to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness. Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature."

It's both matter and mental that's fundamental. I think it's the matter only view that is iffy. It is even contradicted by physics as physics projects a charge on matter too. Both quarks and leptons contain two kinds of color charges an electric charge. Mass is a different kind of charge. Physics doesn't call that mental charges but nevertheless charges nature with something panpsychism does too. Particles have no minds though, and it's therefore that panpsychists are not taken seriously. The Sun is no conscious viotile star as Sheldrake maintains. He even links this greedy star behavior to dark matter. Stars looking for other stars to eat by propelling themselves with cosmic rays, thereby creating the appearance that the laws of gravity look different over big distances. The guy has imagination but is crazy at the same time. A simple calculation shows he can't be right. He merely uses science as a cover for his weird idea. Dead matter has no mind. That's where the misunderstanding originates. Panpsychists claim everything has a mind. Though the quote doesn't say this. Remains the question what physicists mean by charge. It's a property, yes. But what is it? What's is nature? God knows, but you can use it to explain consciousness. Matter alone doesn’t suffice. If charge is a property of matter though, and it is, but with unknown nature, then consciousness is a logical property of complex structures of matter interacting with the world. It's even a necessary ingredient, like charge is for interaction with other particles. The charge of a particle makes it react to other particles, like it can influence other charged particles at the same time.
It's impossible to explain the feeling of pain, or seeing red (or even hearing it) and hearing sound (or seeing it), by reference to an uncharged material process. But as matter has charge, the problem dissappears. Hearing music is the charge of the material process in the brain it corresponds to. By hearing it we are even aware of these charges, mysterious as they might be. Why should the materialist call them illusions if they are there? Because they deny the dual aspect of nature, leading to unsolvable problems like the "hard problem", which actually is no problem at all.

Change is a relational property I guess. It's a property existent between invariable elements. If the distances between the elements vary irreversibly then there occurs change. The change is the variation in the distances.So change is related to space and can be used to identify time, as a reversible periodic process, like the swinging of a pendulum or metronome by which time can be quantified. A periodic variation in distance is time. Is change time? Only if the change is periodic and reversible. If it's not periodic then change (reversible or irreversible) is just change. One period can be defined as a unit of time. Pendulums and metronomes are no clocks though. They don't register how much time has passed, t but they register that time passes. Like a ruler registers space but doesn't register how much space has passed, which is accomplished by an odometer. So rulers and metronomes are equivalent. Like clocks and odometers. Clocks and rulers are actually used for measuring change, though you could use metronomes and odometers just as well.

Isn't it simply a displacement (or universalisation) of the classical Cartesian human mind vs matter 'divide', in direction of panpsychism? — Olivier5

I don't think so. It's just a convenient way to solve the problem of how mind can emerge from material processes. If you consider material processes the only thing to exist, that problem can never be solved. You can involve whatever material processes, strange self referential loops, structured processes in the brain interacting with the material world, but that still leaves out a necessary ingredient: the mental. One can say it's an illusion coming into existence as a by-product of the processes, but that denies the reality of the mental.

I simply think the mental and matter are connected, like the charge of an electron is attached to it, contained in it, or is a property of it. It is a necessary ingredient for interaction. Like mental charge is. Without this charge no interaction with the world around us would be possible. Materialists call it an illusion, while it's a reality. We couldn't even be mindless zombies because they can't exist in the first place, as matter without charge can't develop.

So there is no divide but a strict unity. Mind and matter can't be pulled apart, like charge and particle can't or brain, body, and the world can't.

Since deterministic systems have to adhere to the Principle of Least Action and humans consistently violate this principle, is this free will? — Agent Smith

I'm not sure if processes have to adhere to any principle. That's just our way to say that these processes have to obey to our principle. If we mentally construct a variety of paths of a particle between two fixed points in space and time, and put forth the proposition that it's the path with least action that is the actual path taken, does that mean then that the particle has to adhere to The Principle? Isn't it the other way round?

If you throw yourself from the stairs at your mom's house, do you obey to The Principle? You start from a point at the top at noon, and end up down the steps somewhere, a fraction of a second later. Two defined points in space and time. The path taken is precisely the one for which the action is minimal. Your path is such that it ensures one can project this property on them.

The Principle seems to be teleological in nature, but it's just us giving the system initial and final conditions, like begin/end positions in space and time. If a particle finds itself, in the absence of force, at an origin, and 5 seconds later at a point 10 meters away from it, then you can let the particle move in 1001 possible ways between the two points. Let it go fast, then slow, and then fast again.

If you evaluate the integral of the kinetic energy over time you will note that the path (history) for which the kinetic energy is constant is the path with least action, or resistance.

As the particle moves in a force free region this is understandable. Any other path you let the particle follow in your mind involves a force. If you let it move fast in the first part and slow in the second you have to apply a force to decelerate it and change direction if the parts of the path have different ones.

This is even clearer if you let the particle in a circle first and then, kzjong! straight to the end point. The only path without using forces is a straight line with constant velocity. No resistance of forces is met.

Same for a free particle in a force field. The path of a particle in a gravitational field can be varied. Between the two given points in spacetime, the path on which you don't have to apply forces to the particle during its motion on the path is a parabolic trajectory on which the particle moves with varying velocity. The parabola with varying velocity in a gravity field is the equivalent of the straight line with constant velocity in the force free casus.

If the particle is constrained to a path, then it won't follow a path of least resistance. The particle experiences forces along the path (say a marble shot in a madly curved tube). You could have chosen the shape of the tube as a path to follow in the free particle case. The path would have given a higher value of the action then the straight line. But if you force the particle, it obviously doesn't follow a path of least resistance, as that is a straight line (or a parabola). But given the constraint, the particle still moves with least resistance or least action. The forced path is always in disagreement with the free path.

The variational principle can't be applied if frictional forces are present. If you imagine a rough solid box on a rough table, and imagine it stands on on end at a given time and on the other side at a later time, what is the actual path taken?

The principle seems teleological insofar it seems that the particle chooses the right path. It seems to know that to arrive at a point in space at a given time, it has to start with a certain velocity, follow the right path, with varying (or not) velocities, and end up at the right time at the desired point. This is obvious nonsense. It's us who vary the paths and choose the right path.

You contradict yourself here, it seems to me. — Olivier5

I like to contradict, be it myself or others. Keeps things going. What's wrong with that? I just don't like to contradict.

What do I seem to contradict? I use two approaches to reality. One that sets it apart of the human mind, implying the dualism you seem to have in mind, and the notion that such a form of dualism doesn't exist. Reality is what we think. A physicist sees fields of particles, a pantheist sees conscious entities everywhere, and a dualist like myself sees both approaches (not to an independent reality, in case you might think I contradict myself covertly...) combined., i.e, the basic ingredients of reality possess mental charge, as well as material properties. That's a different kind of dualism, I guess.

Is the dualism spoken about here the dualism you have in mind? The duality between what we think about reality and reality itself? Between knowledge about the world we see and the world itself? If that's the kind of dualism the thread is about, then there seems to be no problem. What we think about the world is the world.

A long look at the history of philosophy shows a commonly recurring theme. It shows the attempt to create/discover some fundamental bedrock of certainty upon which we can build a foundation for all knowledge and wisdom — Reformed Nihilist

Taking an even longer look shows that the attempts are in vain. The fundamental bedrocks philosophers have come up with sofar, be it Popper's falsificationism, Kuhn's paradigms, normal science and revolutions, Lakatos' research programs, or more recent experimental approaches (van Fraassen, Hacking, Rorty, Radder), or philosophical ToEs), are rather a hindrance to scientific practice. Adhering to them as a scientist takes away the irrational grounds on which knowledge is based. Mostly, philosophers of science are frustrated scientists, though they offer nice reading and show signs of intelligence once in a while. They all offer small parts of a picture which just can't be seen in its entirety. Any philosopher claiming to have found a bedrock, has found a small part of the entire rock only. No philosopher, or any other mortal soul, will ever be able to see the whole rock.

Building a foundation for all knowledge and wisdom is even more megalomaniac and supercilious. Ratio fascists, and their relentless efforts to capture thought and action in well described schemes, stand a few steps too far from reality.

Because of the epistemic divide I am talking about. Any knowledge is an interpretation, and any interpretation involves an epistemic jump. The map is not the territory. — Olivier5

The map is the territory. What we think we see is what we see. There is no epistemic divide. This leaves reality out of reach forever. The interpretation, the theory is the reality. An observation is not theory laden. The observation is the theory.

And in any case, charge is a physical property of a physical object- no mystery there. — Seppo

Uh, yeah...right. a property. In any case. Well, not in my case. Then what's that property like? The name already implies it. Particles are charged, which mean they contain this property. That it's inside it. Where else it can be? A hundred meters away from the electron? You can't pull charge out, can you? If you can tell what that property is you would be awarded a Nobel prize, for no one knows. The concept of charge is a mysterious one. What's its nature? What's the nature of a particle?

And that's why consciousness is an even greater mystery. But because it's inside us, like electric and color charges reside in a quark or electron, it's familiar. Consciousness might even be a complicated arrangement of charges. It is, in fact. You can call charge physical, but its nature is not known, nor is the nature of consciousness. You can feel its nature though.

And de facto, our knowledge of nature is always imperfect — Olivier5

Why should that knowledge be imperfect? Doesn't that depend on what you call perfect?

Spin has at least an analogue in the everyday world. It's associated with rotation. Rotate a fermion particle twice in space and it's spin has rotated only once. There is some strange kind of zero point spin of 1/2 (Js), like a zero point energy of 1/2 (J) for oscillators. Still, these can be identified with everyday objects. Charge has no counterpart. Two magnets attract, but exactly what is the electric charge causing this?

I think a physicist claiming they knows doesn't understand the concept. Like mental states. Modern science has transformed something inaccessible to science into a materialistic asset, which it isn't.

Koyaanisquatsi-life out of balance. The Hopi saying is the title of the first out of a trilogy, criticizing the western way. Not as inherently wrong, but as disturbing the natural order. Captive imagery, showing the beauty of nature, which is overtaken by images of the craziness of the western way and its damaging influence. The music by Philip Glass fits the images perfectly.

Taking that back to the OP, the upshot is that religious belief is categorically distinct from factual belief — Banno

Very true. But their contents are interchangeable. The religious belief of one can be factual belief for others, and the other way round.

God(s) can be fact and facts can be god(s).

What if we recognized chaos as the evil that threatens us and felt responsible for causing that chaos and also for restoring order? — Athena

Isn't the evil exactly the opposite? Isn't it the order imposed on nature by human activity that threatens the creation of our Creator, praise His Name! Isn't the natural order in danger by the efforts of modern-day men (women are in the minority, so is my impression) to control nature and recreate it to fit our knowledge about it and make it as predictable as possible? Isn't this the cause for chaos in the natural order? If we would recognize that artificial order is the cause of the chaos in nature, or reduction of natural order at least, shouldn't we blame Muses? Was Muses rejected by Zeus, after which she took revenge by imposing her will on humanity? Can we undo her influence?

Physicists don't use the word "charge" to talk about "mental stuff residing in physical stuff", they use the word "charge" to talk about a particular physical property of matter. So far as I'm aware, physicists don't have a word for "mental stuff residing in physical stuff", because that's not something physics concerns itself with (and if it did, then the mental = the physical after all). — Seppo

But what is electric charge? They don't know.

Given the usual English meaning of the phrase "residing in" it certainly is a physical relation ("residing in" is equivalent to being situated, located, or physically present in- a spatial relation). — Seppo

Charge is attached to a particle. So both have to be at the same place. Always. They can't be pulled apart. So charge always has the same spatial relation to a particle. Which makes it non-spatial.

We are brain networks running a linguistic program — Ignoredreddituser

Already here he is wrong (well, as he sees it that way, it's up to him). This is total nonsense. I don't know what he is supposed to eliminate but viewing us like this cannot hold anything good in store.

also think you're either confused about what "charge" is- — Seppo

There is no physicist who is not confused by this concept. You can name or label it. But that's it. Explaining it as a vibrational mode of a string redirects the question to the string. What makes a string vibrate?

Because "residing in" is a physical or spatial relation

No. Residing in is not a spatial relation. Charge can reside in an electron. What's spatial about that?

Because "residing in" is a physical or spatial relation. How can a mental substance or entity stand in a physical or spatial relation, without itself being physical — Seppo

Because it's mental stuff. Why can't mental stuff reside in physical stuff. Physicists even call it something: charge.

While advocating modified theories, or generating new ones, is perfectly warranted, if the modified or new theory doesn’t justify relinquishing the old one, it doesn’t really serve any purpose, other than perhaps making a name for its provocateur. — Mww

The question is: when is it justified? A new theory can always justify itself by the simple fact of being there. It might or might not relinquish the old theory. That just remains to be seen. In the early sixties, quarks weren't needed to explain the old hadron and meson world. Where they provocative? Same holds for preons nowadays. What is the provocation of today is the reality of tomorrow.

Provocative theories might offer new ways of investigation. If quarks and partos weren't introduced (Feynman didn't believe in quarks), there wouldn't have been searches for them set up.

Hardly, even supposing that "the mental resides in the physical" (and supposing that this is even a meaningful phrase in the first place, given that "residing in" is a physical or spatial relation) the interaction problem remains in its entirety: how do they interact? Where do they interact? How is a "where" even meaningful when we're talking about a non-physical metaphysical substance? — Seppo

Why shouldn't it be a meaningful statement? Is it meaningful to state electric or color charges reside in a particle? I think it is. Likewise with mental charge, which even can be considered as a huge collection of charges. The body then lies between these mental charges and the physical world, the outside of which we see as the material world.

Science is about this outside, material aspect of a dualistic reality, and there is a lot of knowledge about it, though artificial mostly. That's why science is kind of an art.

If you consider the elements of thought, such as reasoning, inference, language, abstraction and so on, then there's no plausible way to reduce them to the physical, because they belong to a different order of description and explanation.  — Wayfarer

I totally agree. It's the mental content of matter which we are talking about here. Like physical charge contained in physical matter, this can't be explained by reference to the matter it's in. Thoughts are contained in matter like charge is contained in particles. Physical charge cannot be explained with a language referring to the stuff it's in, like particle fields, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, brains, you name it. Even the charge of an electron cannot be explained, let alone that of a huge collection of them.

So the supposition that everything is matter only leaves out a very important aspect of matter. The charge that's in it. Charge is routinely used in the description of matter. That can't be denied. What can be denied is that we have an understanding of the notion of charge. We don't know what it is. Which isn't to say we can't experience it, like the charge of our brains and bodies. Consciousness cannot be explained by material processes, only experienced. I think it's an a priori for interaction, like charge is for interaction between particles.

So, as you seem to imply rightly, looking at the brain by means of all kinds of advanced equipment, like you are looking at a physical process, lacks an understanding of the contents, the charge of what you are looking at. Only the one you are looking at this way can truly understand this content. You can note there is a neuronal pattern of a checkerboard in the brain of a mouse if she looks at a checkerboard but the very image of a checkerboard is a mental state that cannot be explained materialistically. You can use materialism for describing the mental from the outside, but what's on the inside cannot be explained.

Happy new year! My ears are still banging. Some pretty heavy fireworks were fired last night. As if war broke out! BHOMB!

And ultimately, even if we grant e.g. the "hard problem" and other popular arguments against physicalism, dualism is stick with its own even harder problem, of how a metaphysically distinct category of the mental interacts with and causes changes in the physical world. — Seppo

I don't think this problem is hard to solve. If the mental resides in the physical, all problems are solved. The mental, like electric charge, or one of the other three, reside in matter too. They are properties projected into matter to describe its behavior when lumps of matter interact in space.

Charge and mass are properties of matter involved in their interaction in space. The exact nature of charge and mass are not known. Whatever theory you use to explain them, invariably leads to the use of the very ingredient you want to explain. For example, if charge is explained as a vibrational mode of a string confined within the bounds of a compact space, you are left with the question how a string can vibrate in the first place. Vibration needs charge or force so explaining charge by a vibration is circular as you use charge in explaining it.

So all you can say about charge is that it is a property related to the way things interact. I think the same holds for "mental charges". They are properties not of small particles, but of complicated structures, like a working brain. Particles are not carried along by charge and nor is charge carried along by particles. There is just an interaction between charged particles. Neither charge nor the particles carrying it are "in charge".
I think the materialistic approach faiIs in explaining the nature of charge (electric, colored, mass, though the nature of mass is different from the nature of its electric or colored counterpart). To assert it can explain the nature of the "mental charge" is equivalent (identical, similar, equal, corresponding, 1-1 related) to assert that physical charges can be explained. Which can't be, for who knows what's it like to be an inanimate piece of matter? We know what's it like to be an animate people, and thus we know the nature of the mental charge directly. Explaining the nature of mental charge by reference to a materialistic process overlooks the charges residing in these processes, which can't be explained but experienced only.

So dualism already exists at the basic level of nature. Does that remove science from the scene? Not at all. But it denies that science is able to explain both aspects of the dualism.

Look here

Or here


Forms in the real world can be seen in the brain.

How much weighs a thought? Per day the brain uses about 1500 Joules. This is about 1500/(9x10exp16) or about 1.4x10exp-14 kilograms. It depends on the length of a thought but this it the maximum weight of a thought. Note that the kind of thought is irrelevant for its weight. Heavy thoughts weigh just as much as thoughts involved in making a cup of tea. It's difficult to put a thought on a scale. Like it's difficult to put a moving ball with kinetic energy on a scale. Neurons can be put on a scale, so can ions, but ions flowing through channels are just as difficult as the thrown ball.

Natural processes just are. There is nothing that accounts for them. One can say they are completely determined by the laws of nature, but that's just a thought. Processes don't give a damned about the laws of nature and the notion of natural laws is just a silly human concept to capture things by a law.

Only in a lab the so called laws of nature are articulated by putting processes in the same experimental set up time after time and observing a behavior that's the same every time. The behavior is described by a law, and then we say that the process is determined by that law. Which is nonsense, because it's the law that is determined by the process. There is no such thing as a natural law existing in nature. Only in the human mind such laws exist. The law is a human invention projected onto nature, thereby giving it an apparent objective existence. The natural things observed don't care. They just show an aspect of them that's the same every time. The law of nature is not what accounts for them.

Likewise, in modern society, laws are introduced. They differ from natural laws in the sense that they are used to direct behavior before it shows unwanted forms. Which is also done in a lab to study natural processes, the difference being that the objects in a lab conform to the laws from the start (after enough repetitions to achieve stability). The processes are isolated from unwanted influences thereby creating processes that are the same everytme.

This can't be done with people. So laws are a priori introduced to steer their behavior, in favor of the powers that rule. Be it determined or not. Accountability is introduced because it relieves the power from the burden to control each and every one. Holding the individual itself accountable, mposing feelings of guilt, and promises of punishment is very effective to keep the individual within the lines of wanted behavior. And behold. The individual behaves determined by laws.

Space and time seem to be the subjective expression, by means of perception, of a real feature of objects. The space between them and the variations thereof, constitute change. Objects need space and time to interact. Space is a means for objects to interact. Without space no change (time), without change no interaction.

It seems so strange still that someone writing about how one can be free in dailey life agrees with taking the freedom away of a whole group of people. Are you concerned with freedom then?

We like to see ourselves in a continuous process in the course of which empirical gain leads to an increasing convergence between human imagination and objective reality — Mersi

Is that so? Only followers of a specific view towards the nature of reality like to see them that way. It seems though that Popper's days are gone.

This means that a physics graduate in 2020 had a more accurate imagination of reality than such a graduate in 1950. — Mersi

This is not true. They have different imaginations, and the graduate in 1950 could even had a more accurate one than present day graduates.

Then H and me agree! A pity he was so adversive to the Jewish way, so to speak. I know it was pretty common in those days to be antisemite, and I think everybody has the right to be one, but to put your aversion in practice and remove "the problem" is fucking wrong. Nice piece you cited! Who wrote it?

Pragmatic engagement isn’t something above and beyond idle talk as some sort of physical activity, it is the condition of possibility of idle talk and all other forms of language and experience in general. All experiences of perception and thought emerge out of contexts of relevance. — Joshs

I don't think pragmatic engagement is the condition for idle talk or other forms of language. On the contrary. Idle talk and language can even be the condition for pragmatic engagement, especially in the field of poetry, literature, mathematics, theoretical physics, religion, etc. Pragmatic engagement can be of importance, but it fulfills an auxiliary role only.

Contexts of relevance emerge from thought and shape perception. The relevant context of one can be the the irrelevant or absurd context of others. Who is to say which context is relevant. They are relevant, but relevance is a subjective notion. You can set relevance of pragmatic context apart, and give it an objective importance, but then you cut it off from the real context appearing in practice. But it offers good fother for an abstract philosophical approach. The relevance of pragmatic engagement can be doubted though.

I don't condemn the ideas of the Nazis or deny their right to live a life as they see as fit. They should be given their part of the pie. I don't like their way though, and any attempt on their behalf to impose their way on others by force should be acted against.

Consistency is the condition for maintaining the status quo. Every demand for consistency, in general, or in relation to the self, is a demand to stay frozen in the theoretical ice, a steelcrusted self, or a rusted practice.

He would not claim that everydayness and idle talk are untrue , only that they cut themselves off from the wider contexts of pragmatic engagement and relevance which make them fully intelligible. — Joshs

So only pragmatic engagement is relevant and make idle talk fully comprehensible? Action speaks louder than words? If only the members of his party hadn't followed his advice! If only the idle talk of the Nazis had remained just that. Idle talk...

“Idle talk conceals simply because of its characteristic failure to address things in an originary way [urspriinglichen Ansprechens]. It obscures the true appearance of the world and the events in it by instituting a dominant view [herrschende Ansicht].”“Usually and for the most part the ontic mode of being-in (discoverture) is concealment [Verdeckung]. Interpretedness, which is speech encrusted by idle talk, draws any given Dasein into 'one's' way of being. But existence in the 'one' now entails the concealment and marginalization of the genuine self [eigentlichen Selbst]. Not only has each particular given itself over to 'one', 'one' blocks Dasein's access to the state it finds itself in [Befindlichkeit].”(Heidegger 2011) — Joshs

Seems like H expresses the same as science does. There is everyday experience. Conceiled (verdeckte) and hidden Daseins (the things that are there). The true Daseins (scientific reality) is clouded by idle talk. What is needed is an originary language talk, "ursprunglichen Ansprechens", the language of science. Idle talk obscures the true appearance of the world by imposing "herschende Ansichte" (non-scientific ones). Usually one is in the world by disregarding the true nature of Dasein and concealing it with idle talk ("wir verdecken das Dasein mit Kwatsj") and sually one doesn't see the reality science sees. Every particular aspect of the Daseins not only presents itself to us, it can be blocked by the silly idle stuff we say or think about it. Which involves the ego and not our genuine self, which is involved in the "Befindlichkeit" (perceptiveness) of the true Dasein, the scientific reality

Old wine in new bottles.

Omniscience is an impossibility. Omniscience excludes the science of that which or who who possesses the science. Postulating that even that is contained in the knowledge is delegating the knowledge away from the knower to a heavenly domain of knowledge. If it is God having this knowledge then He can't intervene in that what his omniscience is about. If He did, then He would be not omniscient about the universe anymore, as he cannot possibly know everything about the universe when he interacts with it. His knowing about the universe cannot be part of the knowledge, and since He interacts with the universe, His knowledge about the universe must be incomplete.

If you want to know everything about a part of the world you have to isolate it and impose precise initial conditions. You will know how the process develops. Any further interaction will arrest the development and invalidates the knowledge. If God knew our moves in detail, and he chooses to intervene, the knowledg he had before that moment is invalidated. If God takes His intervention into consideration, then the knowledge of the new situation contradicts his former knowledge. Intervening will result in a continuously changing omniscience, meaning He's not omniscient at all.

Individually, the freedom to do as you please is a good idea. But collectively, that would result in chaos and conflict. — Gnomon

Do you really think that collectively people have the guts to do as they please? It's my impression that collectively people are behaving in conforming mode. Abberations of accepted behavior are frowned upon, dismissed as crazy or mental, "tolerated" (a fancy word for silent dislike), locked away, or simply wiped out of existence.

The internet offers a means for the gutless to speak and spell in an environment where physical repercussions are not to be expected. It offers a means to express ideas as well. There is no board of censorship checking upon fake news or true news. That's true. But a thread to democracy? I think it are the people using the internet are the real thread. Not the internet per se.

The internet is like a global telephone line. It's easy to fool people on the telephone line, and much easier to insult, fight, or have a love relation with than in real life. Insofar human interaction is concerned, the net sucks.There is no truly direct contact. You can be superman on the net, without repercussions to be expected. You can call names however you like, from the safe environment behind your screen, protected by a fake identity or algorithms to hide your whereabouts. You can spread ideas which could have your face smacked if you had spread them in the real world. Which makes it a wonderful medium for politicians or perpetrators of constraining ideas,. If we don't watch out life itself is redirected to the net. I think the disadvantages should be taken for granted. It's a great medium, like television. Television can be used to control or to set free. The will to control or set free can't be taken away by abolishing the internet, TV, or any form of media. It merely adds a means to realize the control.

Democracy will be endangered if the net is used to enforce or regulate a free exchange of ideas or actions by a state-empowered institute.

Dasein is always in a mood, with a certain understanding, and moving forward in the world in a purposeful manner. And that is the structure of the average everydayness of human being. — Arne

Sounds like you identify Dasein with a human being, who are always in a mood, have a certain understanding, and move forward in the world purposefully.
That holds for animals too. It's my guess (I'm not sure) that Heidegger puts us aside of animals in that our Dasein has a Dasein about itself, wich is the much debated topic of the self, the I, self consciousness, or whatever. I'm not sure if this is a unique human quality. Too much of it maybe, especially in the current era. It's a necessary condition for freedom though.

The guy isn't a solipsist. He contends that you and I are solipsist too, so there is still some reasonableness left. He sees all 7 billion people on Earth as solipsists seeing each other as p-zombies. This basically denies his position as a solipsist.

He is a panpsychist who sees us all as collapsing forms of consciousness. All part of the universal consciousness. He denies the reality of material processes. That's the irrealism reffered to. The realism of the immaterial. The irrealism of the material.

All in all, his picture is coherent and he at least admits other solipsists. In fact, all 7 billion of them!

It seems mother nature knows us inside out - we're not the kind who'll take action if we're not put in the hot seat so to speak. — Agent Smith

Is that why my ascendants created pain? To get my ass moving?