The universe we describe is inseparable from the organism that describes it

I also notice that you ignored this question, which it would be helpful if you answered:

give me a chance... I was reading a brief summary of it...

OK, I misread you. You're saying I defined the "something more" as "what comes before the equal sign", and you object to that definition. So, are you saying then that, yes, there's something more, but it's not "what comes before the equal sign", or at least not just that?

What is 'more'?

[Laird]

What is 'more'?

I'm using the ordinary, dictionary sense of the word. Are you really asking me to define a common word?

I'm using the ordinary, dictionary sense of the word. Are you really asking me to define a common word?

I'm asking you to define what you mean... the word cannot be defined if there is no context

if you say we start with 10 and you add something from somewhere else... say 1 (your meaning of more) which equals 11... I won't agree

[Laird]

I'm asking you to define what you mean

I did.

if you say we start with 10

We're talking about the constituents of reality (experience, experiencers, and (if anything)...?...), not numbers, so, there's your context.

[Laird]

I won't agree

I guess then the only sense I can make of your view is that it's some sort of dual-aspect monism. You want to neither deny nor affirm that experience (plus experiencers) is all that exists, which I presume is because you think experience is not quite what it's usually thought to be: it's one aspect but has a dual aspect. Perhaps finish your reviewing of dual-aspect monism and let us know what you think.

I did.


We're talking about the constituents of reality (experience, experiencers, and (if anything)...?...), not numbers, so, there's your context.

Doesn't help... with what you meant by 'something more'...

I guess then the only sense I can make of your view is that it's some sort of dual-aspect monism. You want to neither deny nor affirm that experience (plus experiencers) is all that exists, which I presume is because you think experience is not quite what it's usually thought to be: it's one aspect but has a dual aspect. Perhaps finish your reviewing of dual-aspect monism and let us know what you think.

I posted this diagram a long time ago... separating commonly labeled aspects in time vs space... perhaps that's some sort of dual-aspect monism



My ideas have changed since then, for example, this diagram doesn't get to the heart of explaining how people recall experiences which are not their own...

[Laird]

Doesn't help... with what you meant by 'something more'...

My experience as an experiencer right now is that you're being deliberately obtuse. (Question to onlookers: is what I'm asking at all unclear to you?)

That aligns with my general experience as an experiencer in this exchange: a fairly consistent not equals from you, with the odd opening which unfortunately is too rare for me to see value in persisting, at least as things stand right now. Maybe that will change as the thread develops. Hopefully, then, others can draw out of you what it is you're proposing or otherwise trying to say about reality.

(Re your diagram: I can see its structure and elements, but I don't get anything conceptually meaningful out of it, at least in the context of this exchange. Perhaps you can try to express in words, even if only briefly, what it's intended to convey.)

Well that may just be a serious limitation with physics! I mean somehow the inside of our heads experiences a ton of stuff (or it communicates with something else that does the experiencing).

The only way round that is to deny that you experience anything! I know some people claim to do that,

but your very icon contradicts that idea applied to yourself. What does 'want' mean in the absence of experience?

As far as I can see, modern science has become lost in self denial.

I am confident that science needed to become objective for a while, but that could only be a temporary fix because humans and animals are part of the world and they don't work like clockwork!

David

Don't pay too much attention to my icon. You might not recognize the famous slogan from The X-Files, a popular UFO-themed TV series from the 1990s. (For the record, I don’t believe in UFOs in any literal or physical sense.)

Physics, by definition, is the study of the physical realm, matter, motion, force, and energy.

Notably, this definition says nothing about "experience," whether spelled with a lowercase or uppercase "E."

While I suspect that most physicists would reject the idea that consciousness acts as an agent of downward causation, there are nevertheless prominent exceptions such as Brian Josephson and Bernard Carr, who hold different views.