Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[bennyboy]

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.

[archangle]

like a house vs a home.

its a home because its my stuff in there.

[Mudhammam]

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.

[bennyboy]

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.

I don't think I ever said I'm a dualist.

[Chas]

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.

That was utterly off the mark. I'm not talking about evidence for the existence of mind, where did you get that?

Without preconception, I look at the evidence from neuroscience and see that it supports a monist position, not a dualist one.
And when I examine your thesis that matter has some kind of consciousness, I see no evidence for it.

[bennyboy]

Without preconception, I look at the evidence from neuroscience and see that it supports a monist position, not a dualist one.

I don't think the evidence you are talking about supports the position you are taking.

Don't believe me? Tell me, what scientific evidence do you have that other-qualia exist, that does not require the preconception that they exist?

[pocaracas]

Ooooohh... look what I just saw... interesting...

[Chas]

Without preconception, I look at the evidence from neuroscience and see that it supports a monist position, not a dualist one.

I don't think the evidence you are talking about supports the position you are taking.

Don't believe me? Tell me, what scientific evidence do you have that other-qualia exist, that does not require the preconception that they exist?

Believe you? I don't even understand what you are asking.

[Mudhammam]

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.

I don't think I ever said I'm a dualist.

Sorry, I must have confused a comment by ChadWooters with yourself. YOU said you're an agnostic idealist, yes? Just out of curiosity, why idealism rather than realism, in your view?

[bennyboy]

Believe you? I don't even understand what you are asking.

We are in a thread about mind, and you've stated many times that the evidence favors a particular view of mind. I've stated many time that since the mind of others cannot be directly observed, evidence about it is rooted in one or more philosophical assumptions for which there cannot be meaningful evidence.

I want you to specify what evidence you actually have, and in what way you are confident that it supports your positions, rather than simply repeatedly saying you have evidence. You say there is neurological evidence that supports monism. Please provide it.

---

I don't think I ever said I'm a dualist.

Sorry, I must have confused a comment by ChadWooters with yourself. YOU said you're an agnostic idealist, yes? Just out of curiosity, why idealism rather than realism, in your view?

Realism means a lot of things, so you'll have to specify what it means in the context of this question.

I can summarize my position, though: maybe the answer to your question will be in there somewhere.

First, about dualism. I think a philosophical substance dualism is impossible. If you have mind and brain, and they are interacting, then there is a serious problem explaining how they interact. What's the bridge? I contend that it would necessarily be at least a third susbstance. But this third substance would have to have "roots" in both mind and the physical universe. Other than a mystical soul, don't have any good ideas about what this third substance could be.

So let's say for now that a physical monism and an idealistic monism are our two main contenders. Which is better?

To me, the problem of mind is the thorn in physical monism's paw. There is no good physical theory of mind, and mind is not normally considered a physical property (except by monists who want to support their monism). You can't see the minds of others, measure it, or in any capacity interact with it. You're required simply to believe that it exists, and to believe that it is "somewhere in the brain," which completely ignores the important philosophical question of why mind exists, rather than not existing. At best, the physical monist position requires redefining what it means for something to be physical, to the point that the physical/mental semantic distinction is meaningless. But I do have qualia, and that means something to me, and collapsing qualia down to brain function is an avoidance of real inquiry, not a method of inquiry.

There's no such problem in an idealism. Physical properties like color and form are perfectly-well represented as ideas. Gravity, microscopes, scientific methodolgy, talking to professors etc. are all NECESSARILY experienced as ideas by us, and the source of those experiences is not ultimately knowable. They could come from a BIJ, the Matrix, the Mind of God, etc.-- or a physical universe. But even if there is an objective physical reality, we do not experience it-- we experience ideas about it.