Kastrup: Idea of the World

For myself I think there is ultimately a single substance, though its exact nature is unknown and perhaps unknowable...at least on this side of the Veil. [Of course once we're on the other side I know philosophy won't be my priority.]

The only reason I'm wary of Substance Dualism is because it's very easy to just dismiss the entire afterlife (and often Psi as well). You see it here & there, that because the evidence implies dualism it can be dismissed without examination. It supposedly can't be true.

I think a lot of the usual materialist cheerleaders trot this out from time to time.

"The only reason I'm wary of Substance Dualism is because it's very easy to just dismiss the entire afterlife (and often Psi as well). You see it here & there, that because the evidence implies dualism it can be dismissed without examination. It supposedly can't be true."

Indeed, but isn't this only because of the problem with how does non material stuff affect material stuff, or am I missing something?

I too reckon using substance dualism as a working model is probably the most productive approach to take.... as allowing for a provisional difference between physical stuff and mind stuff opens the door to pragmatic categorization and the application of appropriate terms of reference/tools of examination when investigating various phenomena. Otherwise the tendency to slip into solipsism and a complete, disintegrative blurring of boundaries is seemingly rather high. And, really, why try and argue away matter?

That said, I do like to think that there is some level of reality where these dualist oppositions are united. A non-dual whole, as it were. Yet if the ultimate is truly non-dual, then is can have no oppositions, it must include everything, and every possibility, including multiplicity, dualism, and differentness. So for the non-dual to be truly non-dual it has to allow for dualism. It also means that the ultimate nature of reality is most likely supra-rational (at least from our point of view) since we have nothing to compare or contrast it with, we cannot get outside of it.

So maybe it would be best to follow an ontologically pluralist approach to the world.

As for Neo-Platonists and Mr. Kastrup: For me, both schematics ultimately reduce to the foundation of existence being something akin to an impersonal mechanism. This strikes me as selling reality short.

Whew. I need a pill.

"The only reason I'm wary of Substance Dualism is because it's very easy to just dismiss the entire afterlife (and often Psi as well). You see it here & there, that because the evidence implies dualism it can be dismissed without examination. It supposedly can't be true."

Indeed, but isn't this only because of the problem with how does non material stuff affect material stuff, or am I missing something?

Yeah, that's the issue. It gets trotted out over & over.

Yeah, that's the issue. It gets trotted out over & over.

Yes but I've never got it as to why. I must be in error somewhere. We have a mind=psyche=soul=self, irrespective of whether or not we believe it can function without the brain. This mind is non material (is it not?) and yet when we have a thought it immediately affects our physiology. QED ? What am I missing ?

 "A sub-stance --circumstances". 

I assume there is no actual inherent significance in the roots and branches of those words (from Latin and Greek substania/circum and ousia etc) that you are drawing my attention to ? 

"By the phrase, "a kind heart" is not meant the physical one.  Nor is meant the informational heart (which is measurable in its vast communication with other bodily systems).  What is meant is a measurable flow of good will, freely given.  A valuable substance in my humble point of view."

Of course but I think I'm missing what you're getting at there.

Latin was always poorly done, by me, as a study subject of years ago.  But the ideas of reduction and derivation where firmly installed.  Yes - probably nothing inherent.  In my mind, the thought was that substance has an implication of an active inner nature and circumstances address an active outer environment.  Both are need for an ecological viewpoint.  I would be be on board with the framework of Ecological Psychology. 

The bit about the heart was to point to the different kinds of substance.  My view of substance philosophy is strongly influenced by Ian Thompson.

 Another deeply held philosophical idea of substance was held by Spinoza and Leibniz, who defined substance as ‘that whose nature requires its separate existence’. On this view, substances are self-sufficient beings that contain within themselves the complete source of all their changes. Leibniz claimed, for example, that all natural changes of his monads come from within, as ‘an external cause can have no influence upon its inner being’ (Leibniz, (1714) para. 11). The difficulty then, as Kant realised, is that on this account ‘it is not necessary for [a substance's] existence that it stand in relation to other things’ (Kant, (1747) §7). It is then a puzzle why substances even have positional relations that might enable the acting of one substance on another. The possibility of interactions of substances can only be regained by denying that substances are self-sufficient beings. They persist, not autonomously, but for interactions. 

  “No process without structure, no structure without substance, no substance without power, no power without process.” We see how to understand objects as made of propensity-substance in the form of some structure or field, so that things in the world may consistently be bearers of both dispositional and formal properties.

https://www.generativescience.org/ph-papers/pas.htm

My intent was to assert that loving kindness may be seen as a type of substance at a level beyond nature.

Yes but I've never got it as to why. I must be in error somewhere. We have a mind=psyche=soul=self, irrespective of whether or not we believe it can function without the brain. This mind is non material (is it not?) and yet when we have a thought it immediately affects our physiology. QED ? What am I missing ?

I guess it's the question of how two things that are completely un-alike would interact, but this goes back to Descartes saying "Mind" - Soul for our purposes - was non-spatial in contrast to the world which is spatial.

Now that at least some physicists are suggesting Space/Time are themselves emergent from some deeper reality not sure this holds.

Not to mention no one has every really explained why things made of one substance can interact, or how forces/fields and matter which are themselves distinct can interact.

As such, for me, it's more PR though "gun to my head" I do think there's only one "stuff" that is likely comparable to Spirit. In fact this is where "Pan-Spiritism" and "Subtle/Transcendental Matter" ideas have their appeal to me.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

I would just say for everyone just to study up again. Plato gives a very fair assessment. Dualism can be enticing, but there are significant problems. Definitely a reason why people stay away and go to things like panpsychism or idealism. Though I don't want to start discussing flaws while in a Kastrup thread.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

I would just say for everyone just to study up again. Plato gives a very fair assessment. Dualism can be enticing, but there are significant problems. Definitely a reason why people stay away and go to things like panpsychism or idealism. Though I don't want to start discussing flaws while in a Kastrup thread.

I made a new thread.

I listened to this discussion earlier today. I can’t understand what Bernardo thinks might happen after we die? Is it something like absorption by ‘mind at large’? If so, I personally don’t think that’s particularly logical after one life, learning so little when there is so much to learn from lots of different perspectives. It also ignores some evidence. He is open to things like NDEs, if so, he must look seriously at the life reviews people report having. What about reincarnation research? Surely we can’t just ignore such evidence in favour of our own ideas? Can we? I’d feel better if he’d leave it open, instead of committing to one path. Or is that what I’m doing too? 

I listened to this discussion earlier today. I can’t understand what Bernardo thinks might happen after we die? Is it something like absorption by ‘mind at large’? If so, I personally don’t think that’s particularly logical after one life, learning so little when there is so much to learn from lots of different perspectives. It also ignores some evidence. He is open to things like NDEs, if so, he must look seriously at the life reviews people report having. What about reincarnation research? Surely we can’t just ignore such evidence in favour of our own ideas? Can we? I’d feel better if he’d leave it open, instead of committing to one path. Or is that what I’m doing too? 

I given your comments the "like", Stan, not the video. I agree and I don't get what the fascination is with Bernado's thoughts and opinions (though I do like him). Maybe somebody can explain. Has he conducted some kind of 'experiment' that demonstrates he's right ?