... another comment that made me think that the poster had not read anything in my essay [my entire, overly long, OP]. — Brendan Golledge

I do not think that 'being' unfolds from a mind, as that mind would be 'non-being' then, which makes no sense to me. — Bob Ross

Instead, there exists, fundamentally, one mind (at-large) of which we are minds within it.

This is what I think objective idealist theories tend to purport, but of course there are theistic accounts that posit God as some sort of producer of even existence itself.

'the universe' is like a Möbius loop – an eternal cycle – wherein the topological 'twist' (ouroboros-like) corresponds to big bangs/big crunches (or white holes/black holes) Q-tunneling between bi-polar (i.e. positive-to-negative / matter-to-antimatter), quantum gravity manifolds consisting of strange-looping (or fractal-like) configurations (entropy gradients) of variable mass-energy densities ...

Well, (your) mind is nonmind-dependent unless solipsism obtains (which, of course, it does not).
—180 Proof

I don’t believe that is true at all. — Bob Ross

All that is required for idealism ... is that existence itself is mind-independent

... not that there exists any mind-independent entities within it.

... idealism (and solipsism I might add: not that they are similar at all) ...

completely reasonable — Bret Bernhoft

You aren't the only one here being stupid, but you are the worst offender — ToothyMaw

Why do you think this happens? — Vera Mont

Is it confined to a related group of cultures or is it world-wide?

Do you do this yourself - follow the procession on screen, or leave flowers and messages at the site?

What do you think about the practice?

How do you feel about it?

How is this not property dualism? — Bob Ross

Are you, then, a necessitarian?

Since I seem to be misrepresenting you, let me just ask for clarification: are you claiming that these promises are moral facts because (1) they are mind-independent (as biologically embedded into us as organisms) and (2) also obligations? Is that the idea? — Bob Ross

So I am failing to see how I misrepresented you ... — Bob Ross

To suffer is also to desire help to reduce my suffering; but there are only other sufferers who can offer, and effectuate, (some) help. This desire, or need, for help, however, implicitly promises to help others to reduce their suffering. This promise is natally prior to reciprocity, contract, cooperation, etc; it's implicit, fundamental, and inheres in each of us being individual members of the same species with the same functional defects (re: physical & psychological homeostasis) which if neglected or harmed render an individual dysfunctioning or worse [...] — 180 Proof

I am misunderstanding what 'dual-aspect' means in your use of 'monism'. — Bob Ross

What is modal-ontological determinism?

It seems clear to me that Jesus has anticipated the self-defense/just-war question: What if someone attacks me? Do not resist evil ... I don't know how you can read Jesus's teachings as anything other than total pacifism. — RogueAI

'Spirit' comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both. — Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

By ‘panpsychism’, are you referring to idealism? If so, then I think Spinoza can very easily be interpreted as an idealist. — Bob Ross

I would like to hear more about your irreductivist approach to explanation.

... could you elaborate on your theory of explanation here?

My point is trying to examine whether self-organizing systems, accountable for self-organizing complexity, possess purpose. Are they instead automatons? — ucarr

Abortion is always wrong. It's not complicated. — NotAristotle

Do environmental forces such as temperature, gravitation and radiation impact "events?" — ucarr

Macro, not micro
— 180 Proof

But macro objects are combinations of micro objects, are they not? — universeness

If you believe that the macro universe is deterministic but the micro or sub-atomic universe is not, then is it size or the complexity of combinatorials or both, that makes all future events in the macroscopic universe, deterministic?

Am I misinterpreting your meaning, again?

A promise is not an ‘is that entails an ought’, for it is the obligation to fulfill one’s promises that furnishes one with a valid deductive argument for any obligation contained in the promise itself — Bob Ross

Here's the problems I have with personhood arguments: [ ... ] — Bob Ross

A seed is not a tree. A sapling is a potential tree. A pre-26th week old unviable fetus is not a person. A viable fetus aka "baby" is a potential person. — 180 Proof