Do you have the experience of location, of darkness and light; the experience of objects, of sensations (pain, hunger, desire, boredom), of thoughts and of emotions (and so on)? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I have sensations, yes.

Oh indeed. I was just trying to bring out different usages of 'like', one as a way to compare, and one to indicate phenomenality. — bert1

I do not know what it is like to be me. I am not sure that is a meaningful concept.

Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values? — magritte

What makes it objective?

Faith (religiously speaking) and belief are qualitatively different but commonly confused. Doubt relates to belief, not faith (in the religious sense). — Merkwurdichliebe

I was referring to Hegel in the Phenomenology.

Actually the opposite of doubt is belief. — Merkwurdichliebe

What I said, yes.

So, you see the latter as personal attack and not the former? If so, could you point out what you see as the difference? (Just so you know, I don't see either as a personal attack, but if pressed I would say the former comes closer). — Janus

Goodnight.

I think you misunderstand — Janus

Back at you. Not engaging with personal attacks.

Entangled particle behavior isn't action at a distance, but only correlation of measurement at a distance. — noAxioms

If you are a physicist you may prefer reading the journal article:

Qubit teleportation between non-neighbouring nodes in a quantum network

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04697-y

I think this synthesis is referred to as "sublation", — Janus

The German is Aufhebung. This means affirmation/negation.

I think you are right. The usual formulation: thesis—antithesis—synthesis was not explicitly enunciated by Hegel, but scholars generally seem to think it is a good model for what he was doing. — Janus

This is exactly wrong and trivializes Hegel's work. Dialectic is that one idea is in conflict with itself. Not that two ideas are in conflict. This reduces dialectic to legal arbitration.

For example, the concept of faith in religion is based on doubt. There is no synthesis, the very concept is wrong.

But Einstein's views on this question have been refuted by subsequent experimental evidence. — Wayfarer

Quantum mechanics is more in line with how I think. The deterministic model never made sense to me.

Personally, I don't see anything said here as in conflict with what I said. — Moliere

I do not know what you are referring to. It helps to use the quote function if you are referring to something someone said.

What does that have to do with fishing? — jgill

I am not a good audience for your stand up routine.

Why did Einstein make such a big deal of it? — jgill

Einstein did not like the quantum model. He still understood physics under the old deterministic model.

Or to put it another way every idea contains the seed of its own negation. — Janus

Which would be more what Hegel means.

Dialectic is the systematic process of affirmation and negation.

Hegel's dialectic -- but whereas Hegel's dialectic is between contradictory ideas — Moliere

What Hegel means by dialectic is that one idea is in conflict with itself.

Marx's is between contradictory classes. — Moliere

No, it is based on internal conflict in capitalism.

"Although it cannot move objects from place to place, it can move information by taking advantage of a quantum property called “entanglement”: A change in the state of one quantum system instantaneously affects the state of another, distant one.

“After entanglement, you can no longer describe these states individually,” Dr. Northup said. “Fundamentally, it is now one system.”

What I meant to ask was whether people thought ID was a philosophically viable position. — Paulm12

No, it is not. It is just theology.

So in your panpsychist viewpoint did spacetime come before the universal conscience or after it or at the same time? — universeness

On terminology: I never used the phrase "universal conscience."

Physicality and intelligence are coexistent, neither came before the other.

universal conscience — universeness

I nev

Ok, a clear example, and i get the distinction you are making but in analysing that scenario a little deeper, it seems to me that there are other events to consider, there are two possibilities:
1. I have a prescription or I am low or have ran out of allergy medicine and I need more.
2. I am suffering an allergic reaction and I need allergy medicine. — universeness

Both, yes? I would not need allergy medicine if I had no allergies.

And your preference is for never having been born. If that were satisfied you would consider it moral. Never having been born is your notion of divinity , that which ends all suffering. — Joshs

“There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide” (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus).

Like Hamlet, to be or not to be. If life is not worth living then kill yourself and end it. If that is not the option then find things to make life worthwhile.

Does not or cannot? is choice invloved? — universeness

Using Aristotle here. By definition the final cause is not movement.
For example, I walk to the drugstore to buy allergy medicine. Walking is the efficient cause. Needing relief from allergies is the final cause.

The final cause acts, but it acts according to the mode of final causality, as an end or good that induces the efficient cause to act.
This suggests to me that Aristotelian thought suggests that the arrow's path can be altered if this 'efficient cause' has the intent to make it so. — universeness

No. Final cause does not act.

But is this your variant of panpsychism that there already exists a Universal mind or conscience and it is not an emergent reality that might become true in the very distant future — universeness

Always been true.

Ah, is your viewpoint panpsychist or cosmopsychist? — universeness

I don't find the distinction useful.
My version of panpsychism is not that all physicality has consciousness, but that all things exhibit intelligence.

Added: Intelligence is found in consciousness but an intelligent event need not have consciousness.

Efficient Cause
NOUN
philosophy
that which produces an effect by a causal process

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/efficient-cause

Which of these would best illustrate your use of 'efficient?' — universeness

None.

Can you accept god as a 'principle' in the absence of any empirical evidence at all? — universeness

Greeks had an idea of nous, which just meant intelligence. So Aristotle's God is nous, or "thought thinking thought."

The fact that Christians built their idea of God on Aristotle (and Plato) makes it difficult to go back to Aristotle and understand that he was just explaining intelligence of the universe.

Civilians with guns are not going to stop the US military, there have been a number of militia uprisings within the US in the last two decades and they have all been handily defeated by federal forces. This is just role-playing fantasy. — Maw

The last group of people I would trust with our democracy are the gun nuts.

Why efficient? Do you mean that there are other ways to achieve the same result which would be successful but less efficient? — universeness

Efficient cause means how something is caused or changed, especially by an agent.

Are you happy with any current description or evidence available that attempts to explain the role god played and now plays in this Universe? — universeness

Aristotle's god is a principle, not personality. So, no, I never believed in God in any Christian sense.

Did you mean 'efficient' or 'sufficient.' — universeness

Efficient cause.

I realise, you are just discussing the term uncaused cause from the standpoint of logic and contradiction but I think it does fail in that aspect as well. Which rule in propositional logic validates uncaused cause? — universeness

If you say God caused the physical universe, that would be an efficient cause. Then you would look at God as needing to be caused as well.

I think Aristotle solves the problem by making the physical world always existing and 'God' (Prime Mover) also uncaused and co-existing.

What swear words should we be using?

True enough, but then we would come to conclusions like panpsychism which normally isn't considered materialism. — schopenhauer1

Most panpsychists criticize physicalism.

Hot and cold are not the type of things which themselves have properties. — Metaphysician Undercover

Properties of temperature.

If we take two things which are categorically different, and set them up as opposites, then we falsely assign a shared property to them. True opposites, in the absolute sense, cannot share any property, or else they are not absolutely opposite. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is why Hegel's dialectic is different from Plato's.

I find something of value and interest in Whitehead's panexperientialism, but the idea that rocks have minds does not convince; nevertheless to each their own... — Janus

Not that rocks have consciousness like humans. But that they act in intelligent systems like our own.

"what is it like to be a bat?" is really asking "what (kinds of things) would you experience if you were a bat?". — Janus

Or a rock. Or a tree. I am a panpsychist.