Chalmers on potential movement toward Idealism

The way I see it, mind is everything, matter is everything, everything is everything, it just depends which lens you are looking through when you interpret the information.

Logically, "matter" is not equal to "everything", "mind" is not equal to "everything". Only "everything" is equal to "everything". And yet, "everything" is merely all the individual items in a set. "Everything" is not the "Set" itself, however.

The "Set" is greater than the sum of "everything" that is part of it.

However, the "Set" itself is ultimately unknowable... without all the things to reflect it, the "Set" would have no existence or meaning.

We give each thing a name relating to the particular concept we wish to impose on it, thus separating it from everything else in order to communicate with other people but, like the mathematics model, the language model is not reality.  The map is not the terrain and the menu is not the meal. It punctuates and separates that which is not separate.

In *this* world, there is no such thing as true separation, only the necessary appearances of such.

Can you truly separate one concept from another, especially when we must always define a concept by comparison to another?

We could not participate in this world without both map and terrain. Every individual inevitably creates their own map of the terrain they travel, even if the terrain traveled is identical.

I don't know if there is a name for my position.

Everything-ism? Seriously, though... there probably might be!

Logically, "matter" is not equal to "everything", "mind" is not equal to "everything". Only "everything" is equal to "everything". And yet, "everything" is merely all the individual items in a set. "Everything" is not the "Set" itself, however.

The "Set" is greater than the sum of "everything" that is part of it.

However, the "Set" itself is ultimately unknowable... without all the things to reflect it, the "Set" would have no existence or meaning.


In *this* world, there is no such thing as true separation, only the necessary appearances of such.

Can you truly separate one concept from another, especially when we must always define a concept by comparison to another?

We could not participate in this world without both map and terrain. Every individual inevitably creates their own map of the terrain they travel, even if the terrain traveled is identical.

Everything-ism? Seriously, though... there probably might be!

I don't think you understood what I was saying at all.  We have to separate things for survival and communication but when everything is broken down smaller than particles and finer than energy, isn't it all just the same - an indefinable potential that we have no actual words for but functions as a kind of information field?  At this level, is there really any difference between mind, matter or anything else?  You are trying to use a mind that automatically separates things to understand something in which there is no separation and that is why you can't see my position.

[Ninshub]

The way I see it, mind is everything, matter is everything, everything is everything, it just depends which lens you are looking through when you interpret the information.  We give each thing a name relating to the particular concept we wish to impose on it, thus separating it from everything else in order to communicate with other people but, like the mathematics model, the language model is not reality.  The map is not the terrain and the menu is not the meal. It punctuates and separates that which is not separate.   I don't know if there is a name for my position.

I don't know the name (dual-aspect monism? neutral monism? existence monism?) but it sounds like some kind of monism! (i.e. we separate what is not separate.)

Monism.

[Ninshub]

Discussion about dualism or idealist monism as the best framework for explaining survival after death data moved here.

Discussion about dualism or idealist monism as the best framework for explaining survival after death data moved here.

The only problem with this move is that apparently the newly created thread doesn't appear on the summary thread index page under Philosophical Discussions, making it hard to follow and update.

[Ninshub]

The only problem with this move is that apparently the newly created thread doesn't appear on the summary thread index page under Philosophical Discussions, making it hard to follow and update.

I just checked and I'm seeing the thread under that heading. I wonder what's going on? Can you check again?

[Ninshub]

This is what I'm seeing:



p.s. I'll be going to bed soon, so probably won't be able to check this until tomorrow. Sorry about that.

This is what I'm seeing:



p.s. I'll be going to bed soon, so probably won't be able to check this until tomorrow. Sorry about that.

It's OK now on my screen. There may have been a timing delay.

I don't know the name (dual-aspect monism? neutral monism? existence monism?) but it sounds like some kind of monism! (i.e. we separate what is not separate.)

Monism.

Thank you.

The way I see it, mind is everything, matter is everything, everything is everything, it just depends which lens you are looking through when you interpret the information.  We give each thing a name relating to the particular concept we wish to impose on it, thus separating it from everything else in order to communicate with other people but, like the mathematics model, the language model is not reality.  The map is not the terrain and the menu is not the meal. It punctuates and separates that which is not separate.   I don't know if there is a name for my position.

The framework where information is seen to exist and be active in a different space of analysis or environment overcomes the limit of physical reality.  In this mapping -- the language models and the math models are not physical reality, they are mutual information ABOUT physical reality.  As measurable mutual information with reference to physical reality, they can be everything at a different level - without being physical.

So maps are a realty (making casual influences), without being anything more of a physical reality, other than the paper (or digital storage) representation.

The everything extension is for the environment of information where its not physical structures -- but relational structures.  Chicken and eggs can be physically separated - but not when talking about their reproductive cycle.  Things bound by relation and disposition can be probable and not in the physical environment.