Major Worldviews on Mind and Body

A place to conduct polls of the membership. Since voting on polls is a web-only system, there is no associated email list for this forum.
Post Reply

Which mind-body worldview seems most appropriate?

Poll ended at Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:35 pm

Dualism
0
No votes
Materialism
0
No votes
Idealism
1
17%
Panpsychism
5
83%
 
Total votes: 6

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Major Worldviews on Mind and Body

Post by zenmaster » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:35 pm

Christian de Quincey wrote:Major Worldviews on Mind and Body

Dualism: The metaphysical view that both mind and matter are real, but separate. Here, the core problem is interaction. Dualism requires a miracle to "explain" how two utterly different and separate substances could ever interact. Yet, plainly, mind and body do interact moment by moment in our own experience.

Dualism makes no sense if we cannot explain how the "ghost enters the machine." It asks us to accept that supernatural soul or spirit "somehow" interacts with the natural world of matter. Dualism defends the position that half of reality is supernatural.

Materialism: The view that only matter (or physical energy) is ultimately real. Here, the core problem is emergence. Materialism faces the insuperable problem of explaining how mind could emerge from mindless matter. It asks us to accept not only that mind is wholly natural, but that it is also wholly physical and objective—which completely leaves the undeniable subjectivity of consciousness wholly unaccounted for.

Materialism, thus, also requires a miracle to "explain" how sentient, subjective minds could ever evolve or emerge out of matter that was wholly insentient and objective to begin with. For mind to emerge from matter, for consciousness to appear in the natural world, would require some kind of miraculous intervention. Materialism defends the paradoxical position that everything real is natural, physical, and objective—including mind, which is undeniably subjective. But in a world made up wholly of objective physical stuff the appearance of subjective mind could not happen naturally. Such emergence would require an inexplicable ontological jump—a miracle. In a purely physical world, the appearance of mind would be a supernatural event.

Idealism: The view that only mind or consciousness is real. Here, the core problem is realism. Idealism denies that the physical world has any reality of its own, independent of a perceiving mind.

Idealism, too, requires a miracle of one kind or another: either the unreality of physical reality, or the creation of real matter from pure spirit. It asks us to believe either that all matter is ultimately illusion (maya), or that matter emanates from pure mind or spirit. The first option leaves unresolved the pragmatic problem of living in the world if we do not treat matter as real. Matter forces us to acknowledge its reality, despite the claims of idealists. The second option is merely the flipside of materialism: It asks us to believe physical matter could evolve or emerge or emanate from wholly nonphysical mind or spirit.

Idealism, then, asks us to reject the natural world as having any substantial reality in its own right. According to this position everything is ultimately supernatural—all physical manifestation, the entire panorama of nature, derives all its reality from the mind that creates it. What we call the natural world is merely appearance or illusion generated by pure mind. In idealism, nature is merely an epiphenomenon of mind.

Panpsychism: The view that consciousness and matter are inseparable, and both go all the way down—so that even single cells, molecules, atoms, or electrons are bundles of sentient energy. In panpsychism, matter (or energy) itself intrinsically feels.

Panpsychism requires no miracles or supernaturalism. It takes the position: 1) Both mind and matter are real and natural (neither one has ontological priority over the other); and 2) it is inconceivable that subjectivity and sentience could ever evolve or emerge from wholly objective and insentient matter-energy (likewise, objectivity and physicality could never emerge from wholly nonobjective and nonphysical mind).

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Major Worldviews on Mind and Body

Post by Raytrek » Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:10 pm

I will try to paint a picture of how I see it. A consciousness was the first existence, before matter and even energy, that both mind and physical manifestations eminate from this consciousness. This master consciousness causes all the matter within to obey set laws, physics, and as the mind resides as a function of a material vessel, it percieves these laws as they apply. But as we have this sentient aspect, (I define sentient as a being that displays conceptual thought, but this does not encapsulate the entire human as we contain emotion also) that permits us to create a universe that is not bound by the laws of physics.
The nature of a human being is duel, in the sense that there are two aspects, emotion and sentience, existing together and spirituality is when these two exist in a way without conflict. (but I am getting off topic) I believe that the sentient aspect is the half of a human that exists unencombered by the laws of physics, but the emotional half is tied to this master consciousness through the physical realm.
So it is as though two seperate universes, one physical with the sense of feeling sensation and one creative in imagination and thought, collided to form a new universe where both attributes exist within each other that make it possible for numerous physical beings to live under identical physical laws together while existing in their own independant, even isolated, minds. So we are linked to a collective consciousness through our emotions but we are separated to independant consciousness by our intellect.(so in conclusion, I do not know how to answer the poll)

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3790
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Major Worldviews on Mind and Body

Post by LoneBear » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:45 am

Raytrek wrote:A consciousness was the first existence, before matter and even energy, that both mind and physical manifestations eminate from this consciousness. This master consciousness causes all the matter within to obey set laws, physics, and as the mind resides as a function of a material vessel, it percieves these laws as they apply.
"Laws" can be interpreted two ways:

Man's Law (physics, astronomy,... the sciences)
A commandment on the way something is to behave.
Natural Law
An observation on the way something does behave.

It is difficult to violate a "natural law," but man screws up his laws all the time!
Raytrek wrote:But as we have this sentient aspect, (I define sentient as a being that displays conceptual thought, but this does not encapsulate the entire human as we contain emotion also) that permits us to create a universe that is not bound by the laws of physics.
I define "sentience" in a similar fashion; the ability to generalize into concepts, find relations between those concepts, then project those concepts back down into the manifest framework. I have found that conceptualization is a prerequisite to consciousness and proactive choice.

But don't put too much credence in the "laws of physics." After I read Dewey Larson's research, I left firmly believing that our current physical laws are just barely past the Flat Earth society. We've got a LONG way to go for to define a coherent set of physical laws.
Raytrek wrote:The nature of a human being is duel,
LOL... I assume you meant "dual"... but "duel" is a very humorous Freudian slip. I may have to quote you on that in the future--very apropos!
Raytrek wrote:in the sense that there are two aspects, emotion and sentience, existing together and spirituality is when these two exist in a way without conflict.
That is almost the way Larson defines his "Life Unit" in Beyond Space and Time. Matter and antimatter normally annihilate each other, but under specific conditions they can form a stable combination, "without conflict," that we call a cell of life.
Raytrek wrote:I believe that the sentient aspect is the half of a human that exists unencumbered by the laws of physics, but the emotional half is tied to this master consciousness through the physical realm.
IMHO, most things exist unencumbered by the laws of physics, but that is a problem with the laws, not the Universe. Your view is consistent with what I have found during my research on emotions, being the nonlocal aspect of the life unit.
Raytrek wrote:So it is as though two separate universes, one physical with the sense of feeling sensation and one creative in imagination and thought, collided to form a new universe where both attributes exist within each other that make it possible for numerous physical beings to live under identical physical laws together while existing in their own independent, even isolated, minds.
The essence of Larson's Reciprocal System is that there are two, separate Universes, a "material" one that is spatial (sensation) and a "cosmic" one that is temporal (intuition), that are in collision to form a Universe of motion, which he later defined as "nothing more than abstract change in three dimensions."

Where did your views originate? It is surprising that your views are so close to Larson's, yet from the other side of the planet.
Raytrek wrote:So we are linked to a collective consciousness through our emotions but we are separated to independent consciousness by our intellect.
If I were to project that into my RS2 worldview (my reevaluation of Larson's work), that would indicate that emotions are the nonlocal aspect of the material side of the life unit, whereas thinking (intellect) would be the localized aspect of the cosmic side of the life unit. And localized in space would indicate that "thought" does have physical properties, such as volume. That is almost exactly what I experienced in a dream the other night--very curious.

Great ideas Ray; giving me a lot to consider.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Major Worldviews on Mind and Body

Post by Raytrek » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:25 pm

yes, ha, dual or duel, it depends on if the two conflict (I'm sorry for my spelling mistakes). But thanks for the dissection. It clearly shows there is a correlation between my human two universe existence theory and a more broader idea I had on time and space, which I was considering going into but did not see any clear connection at the time. People believe that time and space are two aspects of this universe but any conflict that may arise in relativity suggests that we and our perceptions are the aspect that exists within two universes. Such an approach may prove to resolve many conflicts within the theories of relativity. This spacial/sensation (emotion) universe and this temperal/intuitive (creative or conceptual thought) universe.
I do not believe I am familiar with Larson but the mind is a remarkable thing that is capable of far more than we know, it is possible I am sub-consciously transfering any information I may have read of his. I do tend to remember works, by title and/or author, I have studied for some time so if I have read Larson it was some time ago, as I cannot recall. I can say that these ideas are relatively new to me, I have been exploring similar concepts for some time but they have only just recently come to this focus.
(There was a discussion on High Existence called "the future affecting the past", or something along those lines, this is basically when I first came up with the idea of perhaps time and space are not so much observable properties of this universe but we may exist in two simultaneously)

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3790
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Major Worldviews on Mind and Body

Post by LoneBear » Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:04 pm

Raytrek wrote:People believe that time and space are two aspects of this universe but any conflict that may arise in relativity suggests that we and our perceptions are the aspect that exists within two universes. Such an approach may prove to resolve many conflicts within the theories of relativity. This spacial/sensation (emotion) universe and this temperal/intuitive (creative or conceptual thought) universe.
It is not new information; I'm reading a book on the history of Taoism in China (quite fascinating), and back in 2400 BCE they knew the Universe was composed of two halves, a "body" and "soul" if you will... the names change, but the concept remains the same. Today we call them space and time. If you want to look at the technical details, take a look at my RS2 (Reciprocal System--the reevaluation) site, http://rs2theory.org. It is a scientific formalization of this space/time dichotomy, extended from Larson's scientific premise with metaphysical concepts integrated in to it.
Raytrek wrote:I do not believe I am familiar with Larson but the mind is a remarkable thing that is capable of far more than we know, it is possible I am sub-consciously transfering any information I may have read of his. I do tend to remember works, by title and/or author, I have studied for some time so if I have read Larson it was some time ago, as I cannot recall. I can say that these ideas are relatively new to me, I have been exploring similar concepts for some time but they have only just recently come to this focus.
Since Larson's death in 1991, I have been keeping his work alive and his books in publication. The site is http://rstheory.org. There are many of his books you can read online there in the Library (if reading online is a problem, I can send you a PDF scan).

Larson's premise is that we live in a universe of MOTION, rather than of MATTER. Matter is "space with clock time," what is conventionally understood. In Larson's "motion" concept, space and time are reciprocally related as speed (an amount of space to an amount of time), or in general terms, "Motion." In order to have balance in a reciprocal, the "center" is Unity, not zero... 2/1 x 1/2 = 1

From this symmetry, Larson determines there are two "halves" to the Universe, which he calls "sectors." The material sector is the one of our conventional experience, 3D space and clock time. By symmetry, there must also exist a "cosmic sector" that is made of 3D TIME and CLOCK SPACE. Using that relationship, he goes on to develop a theoretical model from just 2 postulates, that closely resembles the universe in which we live.

About 15 years ago, I met Prof. KVK Nehru at a conference, a student of Larson's work. We got chatting and found some problems with Larson's system, regarding his model of the photon. Nehru wrote a series of papers on the "birotating photon," which proposed a simple solution--but that solution introduced a "yin" into Larson's very "yang" system. It was something that Larson did not consider, as the only yin-based theories of the time were the "ether" ones, being disproven by the quantum gang. But with the onset of computers and virtual realities, the computer software indicated that there WAS a yin component that made virtual models work, and it was from that justification that we developed RS2, the reevaluation of the Reciprocal System, that includes both physics, metaphysics and spirituality.
Raytrek wrote:(There was a discussion on High Existence called "the future affecting the past", or something along those lines, this is basically when I first came up with the idea of perhaps time and space are not so much observable properties of this universe but we may exist in two simultaneously)
I'll see if I can find it. I have a tough time finding things on HE... the search engine does not always work correctly. Been talking with Jordan, and he says his next version fixes all of the problems (I sent him a huge list of bugs) so I'm hoping he'll get it out soon.

Post Reply