Their remains no scientific account of which neural systems are able to generate the subjective unity of experience. — Wayfarer

For example, ↪180 Proof has made his implicit emotional reaction explicit, as in the post above: "@Gnomon "Im-material" = not instantiable (i.e. un-observable), ergo in-consequential." — Gnomon

If one reduces themselves to physical harm towards those that wish to do physical harm, then are we really any better? — Benj96

How would one go about defusing that? — Benj96

This is exactly why dualism is called for. — Metaphysician Undercover

Either there is no "free will" or there is no "God" or there is neither; therefore, there is no problem of reconciling "free will" with "God". — 180 Proof

No it [immaterialism] does not entail solipsism. — Bob Ross

If one only "knows" ideas because there are only ideas, and if ideas are properties of minds, and if each mind is an idea, then all minds are properties of each mind or, in effect, one mind. QED. — immaterialism, ergo solipsism

... transcendental in the Kantian sense. — Wayfarer

We can form no meaningful idea of what exists in the absence of the order that the mind brings to reality. — Wayfarer

It's a survival machine. In order to survive, it [a brain] requires information; it must construct a mental model of its world.
— Vera Mont

I think this opinion is wrong. The desire to believe, to know, and understand, is not based in what is needed to survive. — Metaphysician Undercover

Pansychism [ ... ] matter is fundamental but that matter is conscious, whereas analytic idealism is the view that mind (i.e., consciousness) is fundamental ... — Bob Ross

Interesting how nature, once 'the created', is now imbued with the power of creating itself. — Wayfarer

Under analytical idealism, the entirety of reality is fundamentally mind and is thusly conscious: not just animals. — Bob Ross

Analytical Idealism is not a form of pansychism. Furthermore, could you please elaborate on why you think such? — Bob Ross

... to hold an imaginary ... — Mark Nyquist

... contained in my brain as an immaterial representation ... — Mark Nyquist

↪180 Proof If you are a monist ... — Mark Nyquist

The physical world is representation, not the thing itself. — schopenhauer1

You could observe me in either of these states, but you would not be able to know for sure whether I was conscious of what I was looking at, at the time. — Janus

Where do you sit on the notion that maths is Platonic? — Tom Storm

Would mathematical Platonism quality as immaterial?

On the other hand, if we each know from experience that we are conscious, then it must also be observable in another sense, the difference being that this other kind of observation is not publicly confirmable. — Janus

My answer to you asking the question* would be that it is not the chemicals, but the loss of the chemicals being arranged grandma-ishly that I am mourning, because I really liked the effect of the chemicals being arranged grandma-ishly. — wonderer1

There is a logical leap from our being experiential to the universe being experiential. We have no experience of the experience of the universe or of it being experiential. It seems to be a form of anthropomorphism. — Fooloso4

We have no experience of something fundamental. That there must be something fundamental is merely an assumption that rests fundamentally on our desire that the universe to be intelligible to us. — Fooloso4

We have, however, made considerable progress in explaining things physically. The claim that things are experience (esse est percipi?) does not explain anything. — Fooloso4

Everything humans do is a product of culture and society, and always has been. — Jamal

Digestion is a material process which is not a material object.

Ideas, theories and generalizations only exist insofar as they are physically instantiated. — Janus

Do you mean 'intelligence versus self-awareness?' — universeness