everything is fundamentally mind-dependent. A universal mind can be a part of a natural process, — Bob Ross

No. A much more so "weakly emergent" function like e.g. breathing or digesting or walking.
—180 Proof

How can mental activity be both weakly emergent and irreductive? — Bob Ross

However, the ‘physical’ in a formal sense does not exist at all.

Mother Nature can smack you upside the head if you get it wrong. — wonderer1

Interesting: what would you say are the methodological distinctions between them? — Bob Ross

Would you consider consciousness strongly emergent then (as opposed to weakly emergent)?

Since the reductive methodology doesn’t work on consciousness (which is, and correct me if I am wrong, what I am interpreting you to be agreeing with me on as a property dualist), do you deploy a different methodological approach that still retains (ontological) naturalism?

If so, then could you give a brief elaboration thereon?

[ ... ] all of reality is of a mental substance—there is no, under Analytic Idealism, physical substance. With that in mind, do you still think it violates the law of conservation of energy (and what not)?

PS___You shouldn't depend on ↪180 Proof for information about Enformationism. He seems to be well-read in ancient Philosophy, but not in modern Science. Despite what he says, the Enformationism thesis is compatible with Naturalism, all the way back to the Big Bang. Apparently, he has read the thesis & blog & post links, only enough to scan for hot-button terms such as "panendeism" (which is explicitly discussed, not disguised). Apparently the philosophical implications of the thesis are contrary to his personal worldview (Parmenadean?) So, he has made it his mission on TPF to defend his fossilized belief system (Naturalism, Materialism, Realism, you name it) from fresh new information . He thinly disguises his disgust with sophistry. That's why I no longer engage in his word games. — Gnomon

... I'd come across the space opera novel Dune and had read it (maybe twice immediately), my grade school antipathy for Star Wars was confirmed – it'd seemed back in '77 that Star Wars was only a corny mashup of 1930s' era Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Wizard of Oz & bad samurai flicks ... but, in fact, I found that George Lucas had filmed a highly derivative, dumbed-down, "adaptation" of the 1965 Frank Herbert novel. — 180 Proof

In my limited understanding matter is not inert stuff but actively forms self-organizing systems. — Fooloso4

Interesting. Let me phrase it a bit differently: what ontology of being/reality would you subscribe to (if any)? — Bob Ross

By ‘naturalism’, are you distinguishing it from ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’?

Are you referring to ontological or/and methodological naturalism?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as though you may be a methodological but not ontological naturalist ...

Would you say that “consciousness” is reducible to the brain or is it just supervenient?

I think "consciousness" – phenomenal self modeling – supervenes on the brain's neurological systems bodily interacting with its local environment. — 180 Proof

Would you classify yourself as a property dualist (i.e., irreductive physicalist)? — Bob Ross

Why would it ["Universal Spirit"] violate conservation laws?

They are however "closer" to that which doesn't change - the singularity - a fundamental and unchanging rule. — Benj96

If that is the case how to we know the mass of the sun, the strength of gravity or the speed of light? — Benj96

Who's to say these truth tellers weren't just philosophers?

Biden to sign the clean debt ceiling raise into law by the first of June.
No US Default – come hell or highwater! – is my prediction. — 180 Proof

↪Wayfarer Both Schumer & McConnell are nothing if not lifelong, loyal-to-a-fault employees of the billionaire political parties donor-class and committed to avoiding default on US Debt. The US Senate will easily pass the bill. — 180 Proof

Out of curiosity, what ontology would you subscribe to? — Bob Ross

Do you think that consciousness can be provably determined as reducible to brain states?

What problems do you find with positing a Universal Spirit?

So, if our brains are representations like anything else [ ... ] The question then is what is doing the representing? — Janus

From this old post: if "to be is to be perceived", then, for a perceiver to be, a perceiver must be perceived by another perceiver ... by another perceiver . .. by another perceiver .. ad infinitum. [ ... ] My naturalism is too pragmatic for this conceptual jabberwocky. — 180 Proof

I still don't know why you [Gnomon] have received such reactions. What forums did you go to? Because, here, it would be out of place to label you as religious and irrational, unless, of course, you're talking about religion and theism. — L'éléphant

For pissing off that same supernatural entity you then rely on saving you - for a price. — Vera Mont

So, if our brains are representations like anything else [ ... ] The question then is what is doing the representing? — Janus

Biden to sign the clean debt ceiling raise into law by the first [fifth] of June.

No US Default -– come hell or highwater! – is my prediction. — 180 Proof

There is an irony in atheism insofar as it is a theological position. — NOS4A2

Religion is about control, that seems to be the nutshell here. — Darkneos

Religion doesn’t answer how to live so much as tell/force you to live as such or else. — Darkneos

Even Christ wasn’t exactly a good guy in the book itself. There is a reason a lot of atheists say they became atheists by reading the Bible. — Darkneos

So a piece of Christian Dogma may be "Jesus Christ rose from the dead". What makes this dogma? — Moliere

Another point is that even though causality and propositionality (or causes and reasons) might seem incommensurable to us that can be, as Spinoza says, on account of looking at the one thing from two different incommensurable perspectives and may not reflect on the nature of physical processes, but rather on our naive understanding of them, or our dualistic "either/ or" kind of thinking. — Janus

Promissory materialism, then. — Wayfarer

I don't think we have access to reality or can even define it, except in the shallowest terms. — Tom Storm

That's the weasel argument. We happily accept the idea of a physical quantity – a measure of "stuff" or substantial being, such as charge. And so the linguistic trick is get us thinking of a quality – qualia – in a similarly physicalist and countable way. Little jolts of experience like the feeling of red or smell of a rose flashing through the mind.

The sleight of hand works as our folk metaphysical notions of physical quantity are as suspect as our ones about mental qualities.

Something fundamental like charge is treated as if it were like a measure of some fluid stuff that flows. It is already pictured and talked about in an overly concrete fashion. Then Chalmers takes that folk physics and applies it to the mind as if consciousness is also a quantity of this atomistic stuff called qualia, or isolated flashes of experience. — apokrisis

There is something it is like to be a football. — NOS4A2