The Problem of Seth's Origin: A Case Study...

I do find it odd to see the argument that idealism is all theoretical as though materialism or dualism or anything in between (pansychism, panentheism, all the other isms) is anything other than theoretical.

How can you prove that the flag is still there if there is no observer? You just can't. It seems obvious to you because you are conditioned to think that way but you can't prove it. 

To me, it seems obvious that the mind is both the observer and the observed and that the separation of the two is an illusion. It may be a necessary illusion for the sake of evolving consciousness, but it is all one mind.

1. Well, why not leave them all aside and just keep on investigating until we get more answers. I'll stop telling you I'm a dualist if you stop telling me you're an idealist.  

2. How can you prove it isn't ? You can't either. Why should matter cease to exist because we stop looking at it. 

3. Why would we need to evolve if we are all one mind. Does the creator need to evolve, to learn, to grow. If we are identical with the creator then what are we doing here? 

Your assertion that it seems "obvious to you", also brings you into the territory of certainties and I know you particularly don't care for certainties. Your motto states that.

1. Well, why not leave them all aside and just keep on investigating until we get more answers. I'll stop telling you I'm a dualist if you stop telling me you're an idealist.  

2. How can you prove it isn't ? You can't either. Why should matter cease to exist because we stop looking at it. 

3. Why would we need to evolve if we are all one mind. Does the creator need to evolve, to learn, to grow. If we are identical with the creator then what are we doing here? 

Your assertion that it seems "obvious to you", also brings you into the territory of certainties and I know you particularly don't care for certainties. Your motto states that.

1. I am an idealist because that's what makes sense to me. I'm not asking you to drop your ideas - only to justify them.

2. Because, in my view (and it is a point of view, not a certainty) matter is a manifestation of mind. Without mind, there is no matter - again, in my view.

3. This goes right to the nub of the meaning of existence. For me, the whole point is evolution and for the mind to know itself, it seems that it creates in order to experience. I cannot know or experience the whole but the whole can know and experience each and every aspect of created reality, including my reality. A molecule of water is not the ocean but it is not other than the ocean.

Obvious to me does not suggest proof or certainty, just something that makes sense. There are very few things, if any, that I am certain of.

1. I am an idealist because that's what makes sense to me. I'm not asking you to drop your ideas - only to justify them.

2. Because, in my view (and it is a point of view, not a certainty) matter is a manifestation of mind. Without mind, there is no matter - again, in my view.

3. This goes right to the nub of the meaning of existence. For me, the whole point is evolution and for the mind to know itself, it seems that it creates in order to experience. I cannot know or experience the whole but the whole can know and experience each and every aspect of created reality, including my reality. A molecule of water is not the ocean but it is not other than the ocean.

Obvious to me does not suggest proof or certainty, just something that makes sense. There are very few things, if any, that I am certain of.

1. And I'm a dualist because that's what makes sense to me. I didn't ask you to drop your ideas, I suggested you might stop informing me and thereby inferring you think my ideas are wrong. You can't justify your ideas anymore than I can justify mine (dualism)

2. We cannot know the meaning of existence. We can only hypothesise. Your ideas may be right but they may also be dead wrong and someone who disagrees is being just as right or just as wrong as you are or might be.

3. Doesn't obvious (also) mean evident ? I would suggest that 'obvious' certainly does suggest some certainty. 

There are few things you are certain of, okay so is idealism one of those ?

As I wrote earlier, if you plant a flag in the moon and then wipe out all living things (that can observe the flag) that flag will still be there on the moon. Why wouldn't it be ?

Well depending on the Idealism one picks there might always be some entity observing the flag. Maybe it's God, maybe some spirit, maybe the particles that make up the flag...

This isn't to say Idealism is correct or incorrect, just that the flag itself is in consciousness since consciousness is all there is under Idealism.

Personally I *think* there is just one kind of "stuff" and it is Everything. So no Dualism, Idealism, or Materialism. Neutral Monism is probably the name for it...

1. And I'm a dualist because that's what makes sense to me. I didn't ask you to drop your ideas, I suggested you might stop informing me and thereby inferring you think my ideas are wrong. You can't justify your ideas anymore than I can justify mine (dualism)

2. We cannot know the meaning of existence. We can only hypothesise. Your ideas may be right but they may also be dead wrong and someone who disagrees is being just as right or just as wrong as you are or might be.

3. Doesn't obvious (also) mean evident ? I would suggest that 'obvious' certainly does suggest some certainty. 

There are few things you are certain of, okay so is idealism one of those ?

Splitting hairs there tim. Certainty requires proof and we all know there is no proof. I'm not even sure that "some" certainty makes any sense. Like pregnancy, something is either certain or there's some doubt.

Well depending on the Idealism one picks there might always be some entity observing the flag. Maybe it's God, maybe some spirit, maybe the particles that make up the flag...

This isn't to say Idealism is correct or incorrect, just that the flag itself is in consciousness since consciousness is all there is under Idealism.

Personally I *think* there is just one kind of "stuff" and it is Everything. So no Dualism, Idealism, or Materialism. Neutral Monism is probably the name for it...

All a bit of a cop-out isn't it, Sci?

Doesn't any kind of monism maintain that there is just one kind of stuff? I often say that I'm a monist idealist, meaning that I think that all is mind. All, Everything ... ?

All a bit of a cop-out isn't it, Sci?

Doesn't any kind of monism maintain that there is just one kind of stuff? I often say that I'm a monist idealist, meaning that I think that all is mind. All, Everything ... ?

A cop out? Heheheh perhaps!

For myself I've leaned heavily into Idealism at times but consciousness always seems to be of/about something, and the conscious experience is for someone.

That "something" seems to suggest something external to a subjective PoV's own experience.

Admittedly there are issues with Neutral Monism as much as any other "immaterialist" metaphysics, though none are as bad as Materialism/Physicalism since the problem there is an insurmountable claim that something - namely Mind - can come from nothing - a Reality with no mental character at its beginning.

I guess everyone has a different intuitive sense. It's funny as I've talked with Bernardo in the past, and he did give answers to this nagging issue...but I just can't seem to every truly let go that there's more than Mind.

"It's not you Idealism, it's me." :-)

3. This goes right to the nub of the meaning of existence. For me, the whole point is evolution and for the mind to know itself, it seems that it creates in order to experience.

I strongly agree and why I am so behind the idea of studying mental evolution.

The search for the "meaning of existence" has a long, long history.  Just look at all the positions discussed in the forum.

The goal is to develop a process model that would produce the reality we observe.  My stance is about the existence of objective meaning as fundamental, as well as energy, formal information and materials.  Living entities are not fountains of meaning flowing out from their person - but agents are transformers of the meanings in their informational environments, making them into local experiences.  This implies the potential for conservation laws in the transforms of information.

Splitting hairs there tim. Certainty requires proof and we all know there is no proof. I'm not even sure that "some" certainty makes any sense. Like pregnancy, something is either certain or there's some doubt.

I disagree. I'm certain of quite a few things but I can't necessarily prove them. Proof is only available in mathematics.

Why do we have to give ourselves definitions anyway ? Anyway Dave, I don't want to fall out over this, we've had a good to and fro so I'll leave it there and if you want to have the final word, you can.

2. Why should matter cease to exist because we stop looking at it. 

3. Why would we need to evolve if we are all one mind. Does the creator need to evolve, to learn, to grow. If we are identical with the creator then what are we doing here? 

Bishop Berkeley's presentation of Idealism was well thought out.  It is very useful in being a polar opposite of materialism and aided all thinkers who followed by framing the issues.  It never got on top, imho, because it offers no working model.

And while I have affection for neutral monism (NM) I would also limit its scope for the same reason.

Full disclosure: both A.N. Whitehead and Kenneth Sayre (an originator of the world-view of Informational Realism) take the NM position.

NM sets up the step to differentiate informational processes being a separate pathway of causality than physics.  In this way each can be a separate reductive methodology to describe real world events.  However, in my view, They are too intertwined to be "neutral".  Dualism seems not quite right, because it also has a limit.  Dualism can replace monisms of various styles - but why only 2 domains of generative activity?  I think there is more than two.

Your other assertion about the flag on the moon is interesting.  I have the same intuition as you.  The thought that there are "states of informational structure" has attracted me.  I have no back-up to claim it is correct.  But in terms of process, a flag on the moon forms an information object, where there is a manifest physical structure will have objective information.  

The flag can cause changes in reality when that information is exported to agents.  A war could start over territory, young folks can be inspired to learn about telemetry or it could be a sign to an alien agency an thousand years from now.  Each is because the mutual information changes real-world positions when communicated.

A flag on the moon or a tree falling in the forest without possibility for export information to an agent lacks this potential for interfering with the evolving future, other than as its evolution to dust.  A flag is a sign and can be a symbol, hence an information object with the activity potential to change things.   I would describe this a a different state of information in the presence of detection.  I don't think I have seen this described in the literature, altho "degrees of freedom" may address it.