To me physical is made of stuff and has form — bahman

It is perceived and sensed as such. Under analysis, as we peer deeper, it gradually becomes more-and more non-physical, quantitized. There is no separation or solidity.

I cannot comprehend non-physical thing such as mind. — bahman

Your mind may be different from mine, but I have dreams all the time as well as other images.

There is really no difference between the two. They are ultimately all wave forms. It is what we feel that is different. Our minds (consciousness) feel.

Experience is of the world, and the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is unsustainable. — unenlightened

This I agree with.

I also agree there is a "sun" add some sort of waveform, which we are interpreting as some inner image. I have no idea where the image in my name mind it's the same as the one other people have, much less other life forms. But the image is relatively constant and agreement between humans (and possibly other life forms) is possible. We affect that image in various ways, such as creating pollution waveforms that interfere with that image as smog. The interaction between waveforms and images is continuous. This, no possible objectivity.

I should add the "inner images" are also embedded in the universe as a waveform.

see time in past, present or in future. — Sunny S Koul

We don't see time. We have memories that are constantly changing as the past pushes into the present, but in so doing the present immediately becomes a memory. This is how we experience time, memory in flux. The "future" is some memory of potential (virtual) action. We do not see the future. This is real time, and Bergson called it duration (la dureé).

Scientific "time" is not the time we experience in life. Duration is continuous and heterogenous (feels slow it fast). Scientific time is a regular, homogenous movement in space if some object that is used to measure simultaneity of events. This is not the time of life. It is a measurement tool. If one does not properly distinguish real time from scientific time, then all kinds of paradoxes develop, especially when one attempts to elevate General Relativity to an ontology.

Time had never been quantitized and never will because duration is a property consciousness as are c all feelings. It is not subject to mathematical symbolics who which are static and cannot capture continuous flow of anything - much less feelings.

we have access to the objective — unenlightened

The issue here is that they is no objective, because the universe is in continuous flux. We use c approximations for practical applications. However, it is real and everyone is involved in the shaping and sharing of it. I agree we (consciousness) are embedded in it.

Please. Give it a break already. I really find word games useless. I'm only interested in understanding the nature of nature. Mind is First. It evolves out of Feeling.

However, what he said about Materialism was precious. I must save that somewhere.

"Mind is First, Matter is Second, Evolution is Third."

"It would suppose that in the beginning, — infinitely
remote, — there was a chaos of unpersonalised feeling, which being
without connection or regularity would properly be without exist-
ence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness,
would have started the germ of a generalising tendency. Its other
sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue.
Thus, the tendency to habit would be started ; and from this with
the other principles of evolution all the regularities of the universe
would be evolved."

So close, but no cigar. Very Daoistic though.

It it's the second quote that counts.

A very sensible direction for philosophy and science.

No one knows for sure what Peirce really had in mind; that's why there are scholars who spend lifetimes studying the great philosophers and disagreeing over how to interpret them. — Janus

Peirce is pretty clear:

https://archive.org/stream/C.S.Peirces5FamousTheMonistPapers/1.TheArchitectureOfTheories1891_djvu.txt

"The materialistic doctrine seems to me quite as repugnant to scientific logic as to common sense."

"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective
idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming
physical laws."

He is actually pretty close. Bergson some how was able to intuit it much better, having somehow been able to conceive of quantum behavior before it was actually discovered.

We separate two events in our minds and we use induction to conclude that one caused the other. But, it is my understanding, nobody has ever observed any such "causing" happening. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

During my everyday experience, I find myself feeling that I want to move my hand in a particular manner and then feeling my hand move in that manner. My mind is causing my hand to move.

Nope. You left out Mind and jumped right too "effete mind" or matter, because this better dovetails with your biased interpretation. He clearly indicates Mind (not matter) is fundamental. He even described matter as deadened Mind. He didn't title his paper the Law of Matter.

There is just the information processing, and this can be explained by everyday neuroscience. — Michael

Of course not. The best explanation I ever heard by ba neuro-scientist was that "it was all very complicated". Which is a bit more than what you are saying, which is complete denial (I suggested this stance in my original reply - illusion and/or denial).

But we drift. I thought you presented materialism as representing Mind and Brain (undefined) Matter as identical. What happened to that?

he means entails that consciousness is fundamental to reality — Janus

Actually he wrote Tychism and Mind are fundamental. That is why he titled his paper Law if the Mind.

No need for me to "interpret". I have my own views of Mind. Peirce has his views.

"I argued further in favor of that way of thinking, which it will be convenient to christen tychism (from τύχη, chance)."

" I have begun by showing that tychism must give birth to an evolutionary cosmology, in which all the regularities of nature and of mind are regarded as products of growth,"

and to a Schelling-fashioned idealism which holds matter to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind..

It's straight forward. I don't agree entirely, but that is my view. I don't layer my views on Peirce.

Mind is a result of the growth of tychism. Matter is deadened mind.

Very, very straightforward.

The Law of the Mind.

I asked you to cite passages and provide arguments for your particular interpretation o — Janus

There is no need to interpret. This is not ancient Greek. It is plain English and unusually succinct and pristine for philosophical writings which usually meander into total obfuscation and meaningless rambling. I'll leave the distortions, or what you call sophisticated intepretation, to you.

I'd contend that objects of nature, like a tree or a cat, do not have a structure where the parts are so arranged that the whole can achieve or be used to achieve a higher order than the parts alone. — Moliere

I think the whole of Life achieves Life. Carve up the body and you get a murder indictment.

The living whole cannot exist without its parts. By extension, the life form needs the the whole of the environment to continue to exist. There is no separation.

Did you read Michael's carefully crafted messages. The Mind is the Body. They are identical. The Mind directs the body. How does that grab you?

Let me put it this way. The Mind is Life is the Body. I'm cool with this "materialistic" philosophy.

I think that the body is directed by the body. — Pseudonym

That's nice. The Mind is the Body - according the New Age Materialism. Ask Michael.

oh, my guess is you a agree Mind directs the whole body? Right?

It's magic that trees aren't chairs, or that cats aren't dogs, or that brain activity isn't a fusion reactor? — Michael

Exactly, the whole theory if materialism rests on a magical Miracle of the greatest sort. In a nutshell, "it all just happens".

Meaningless philosophy with the sole goal being to claim everything is material. Totally laughable.

Some material things are consciousness. — Michael

Or, consciousness and material is identical. That is what you claim. How does that sound with you? That's my belief.

Why? Does the materialist need to explain how some matter is identical to brain activity and others aren't, and how it persists? Does he need to explain how some matter is identical to a tree and others aren't, and how it persists? — Michael

Yes, otherwise it's magic, or more precisely a religious Miracle.

They might believe that the mind is identical to some material thing (e.g. brain activity), — Michael

materialist will claim that mind is matter, — Michael

Well then, you have to come up with a Theory on how some matter is identical to Mind and others aren't and how it persists. But again, no matter. You have already said that you believe (I really dislike speaking for this ambiguous they), that some matter and mind are identical. Well, that is a mouthful for materialism.

When the human body moves, it is the Mind that is moving it. What's more, the Mind is making choices. Sounds fine to me. I would just be reticent to claim that materialists believe this.

No I haven't. I've said that materialists can be identity theorists. — Michael

Fine they can be anyone they want. I guess for some people the word is most important. "I am a materialist!!!" quietly .... but I believe that mind and material are identical.

People run their lives as they choose.

materialist will claim that mind is matter, — Michael

No, according to you Mind and Brain (matter) are identical. In other words, brain is mind.

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. — Michael

You have unilaterally redefined materialism as some sort of Identity Theory, in such a way that obliterates the differences between material and non-material ( no problem with this, quantum theory did the same 100 years ago), yet still permits you to call it materialism. Sort of having your cake and eat it.

For me, I don't care about this sort of word gymnastics. You have agreed that Mind and Body are identical. That defines your philosophy.

It's not my philosophy. It's materialist philosophy. — Michael

Ok. Materialism says that Mind directs the body and makes Choices. I can live with that.

So you say. But given that there is a rich history of the competing monisms of materialism, idealism and neutral monism, I'm going to need more than just a few sentences to convince me to abandon these traditional distinctions. — Michael

Well, it's your philosophy. Mind and Body are identical. You've chosen.

Parenthetically, in choosing, you've also adopted a viewpoint that the Mind had Choices.

As I said, if there is no difference between the mind and matter, if they are identical, then that is that. There are mind-waves directing the actions of our being and all matter is mind. Materialism vanishes. The brain, however one defines it, is inconsequential.

I do not believe a philosophy that speaks about delusions of denials of other people gets one anywhere. Better to just understand oneself and what one is experiencing in the world. Are you delusional or denying anything? Or are you just experiencing and navigating through your life with memories of the past and some direction that you envision?

The identity theorist argues that consciousness is identical to certain brain processes, — Michael

The article was a rambling mess but he clearly takes the position of mind somehow, someway springing from the brain. He doesn't even define "the brain". You know the "brain" is spread out throughout the body, right?

If the Mind-Body are identical, then that's that. Mind, brain, brain waves, neurons, cells, etc. are identical. Materialism vanishes since there is no longer an opposite. Some may call this monism.

No, I'm saying MIND. The experience of Life.

As I said earlier, materialists just pretend that such a thing doesn't exist, they (their Minds) are so involved in denying it.

I'm not sure how you read that into it. — Michael

It is the author's choice of words and description of events. Here either clearly suggesting epiphenomenalism and has zero idea how to support it - so he rambles. Materialists have to use obfuscation, otherwise they have to answer how and why? How does this persistence of mind come about and persist??? NO THEORY at all.

However, as I indicated, if anyone takes the position that Mind and Body are identical, well I guess that is it. Mind is causal and identical to the Body (neither are material or physical in the normal sense of the word).

does anything exist if unperceived", really doesn't make any sense at all, because "to exist" refers to how we perceive things. — Metaphysician Undercover

However, careful examination of our existence provides clues.

When we are unconscious, we are not observing. And then we awaken!

How do we know that we were unconscious or asleep? Because there had been some disruption in our memory pattern. Something is different than it normally would be. We surmise that we had been unconscious.

Some memory has changed (or been disrupted). Other patterns remain. This is evidence of a changing universe with patterns.

How would the universe be without an observer? It would be as if we are unconscious. Are there persistent patterns embedded in the universe? Appears so, as they persist through an unconscious state. A holographic model of the universal memory supports these experiences as we perceive them. Memory is in the fabric of the universe. That is what we (our minds) are observing.

I'm saying that that is what some materialists will claim. See The Mind/Brain Identity Theory. Contrary to your repeated claims, materialism doesn't entail epiphenomenalism. — Michael

This article had epiphenomenalism written all over it and then punts on the question by simply referencing a myriad of opinions on the subject. It's easy to hide nothingness in spaghetti as this article evidences. Materialism in any guise still says nothing about the nature of consciousness other than "heck it just happens - persistently, again, and again, and again. The Greatest Miracle of All.

If someone posits that Mind-Body are identical (they are) then they are. Neither holds a superior position in such an ontology. In addition, there is no evidence whatsoever that the brain is the sole origin of all communication. On the contrary, all evidence is quite the opposite. This idea that all actions are governed by the brain is not only antiquated, it is totally manufactured.

It is all information — Harry Hindu

Information is passive, inactive.

Consciousness is active. It creates. It makes choices by effect of will. It moves in a direction. Another aspect of consciousness is memory (information) that it influences this willful, creative drive.

Any model of consciousness has in one form or another both memory (information) and impulse (will applied in a specific direction), whether or not it is explicit it hidden in some other concept.

That is, obviously, when you are observing them, not when you are not observing them. — PossibleAaran

The question I thought was how do we know that there are things out there that we are not overseeing directly. My answer is by observing indirectly - that is overview the actions of other life forms.

Oh well, I remain unconvinced that you have any idea what was on Peirce's mind. — Janus

And you do? First you didn't even know about his own writings on the subject. Then, when presented, you completely ignore it. Then you simply rewrite it to your own taste. Then you start quotng some 5th removed text. Remarkable. It reminds me of the "academic scholars" who declare Bohmian Mechanics deterministic despite Bohm's own specific writings to the contrary.

Apparently an author's writings don't count much.

if you disagree with what he wrote, then just disagree with him. His description is pristine clear and carefully crafted. He knew that he had to deal with the question of mind and matter and he did. Good for him. And he didn't need 15000 pages to do it. When someone knows what they want to convey, it can be done very succinctly. It's when someone has no idea what they are talking about when obfuscation and long windiness becomes the tool, hoping that the mass of words will hide that there is nothing there.

In one short, succinct paragraph Peirce related what was on his on mind. A breath of fresh air.

Matter is effete mind, ineffective mind, consciousness is thus evolved effete mind, — Janus

The distortion, the twisting begins. Just drop some some words, rearrange some, and presto you have something you can live with. Now let's read what he really wrote instead of what you wish he wrote specifically about the mind (probably anticipating philosophers who would try to distort his views).

Peirce took several years to write his paper. It was written in English. Peirce knows how to use the language.

"I have begun by showing that tychism must give birth to an evolutionary cosmology, in which all the regularities of nature and of mind are regarded as products of growth, and to a Schelling-fashioned idealism which holds matter to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind.

Rarely, have I read any philosophers so perfectly succinct about his views about mind. Bergson took the exact same view as did others, Emerson being one influence.

For all those who enjoy Tychism, I hope you equally enjoy Mind which provides the creative, non-deterministic impulse as well as deadened mind/matter.

, but the materialist worldview of that time has been dead for a long time — MindForged

Yep, materialism is flat out dead. So be it. But still it is taught as if it isn't. Lots of money to be made trading people to believe they are just computer bots without intelligence.

This is compatible with everything ceasing to exist when no one is perceiving it, so how does this support the view that things exist unperceived? — PossibleAaran

No. It is there (possibly) only hasn't been conceived by the mind. If course, new stuff is being created all the time.

How can this be known? How do you know that there are other life forms when you are not perceiving them? — PossibleAaran

By observing their actions such as dogs reacting to higher frequency whistles or homing pigeons.