RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 28, 2014 at 11:24 am
(This post was last modified: May 28, 2014 at 11:25 am by Mudhammam.)
(May 28, 2014 at 2:26 am)bennyboy Wrote:(May 27, 2014 at 12:45 pm)Chas Wrote: That's a good summary - except I haven't said we have great evidence for anything. I believe there is some for my view and none for yours.
Therefore, I choose to believe that mind emerges from complexity and that matter has nothing much to do with mind - it's just the hardware.
I agree there's some minimal evidence-- but I disagree with the interpretation of it. When you start with the "knowledge" of something, and work your way back to an explanation, there's a problem with bias.
What, for example, if I already "knew" that God existed? What if I considered it so obvious that I didn't need to prove it existed, but could jump right into the science of seeing how it worked and how it mattered to people. In that case, all the evidence we've been talking about would be taken as evidence in support of the existence of God, or of specific theories about the relationship between God and people.
Mind really isn't that different. I already "know" that mind exists, and that all functioning people have it. All the evidence I begin to collect--brain studies, split-brain studies, drug studies, etc. serves as evidence PRECISELY BECAUSE I have already accepted the existence of minds.
In short, the evidence you are talking about IS evidence-- but not for the existence of mind.
I'm really surprised that you consider yourself a dualist though. I mean, yeah--I agree that the idea that matter evolves to retain and process memories, formulate an identity, and then explore and debate the nature of itself and its place in the Universe--that's a bizarre phenomenon that might speak to something fundamental to existence, to why or how there's anything at all. But I still don't see why'd you jump off into dualism from there.
