What doe the Philosopher Fear?

Maybe that makes things clearer? Regardless, my main point was just to show that there doesn't seem to be a way to know whether the "stuff" of the Real is suffused throughout with some kind of consciousness. For example when we see an apparition acting willfully - is its entire body conscious or does it have some kind of "ghost brain"?

My thoughts here would be by nature of an aside rather than pertinent to the discussion. Still, inherent in your example is the assumption that human consciousness (probably?) resides in the brain. While I can see that intellect - computing if you like - may take place in the brain - I'm more of the view that such things as consciousness and the will are whole-body phenomena. The ancients had a strong emphasis on the role of the heart, this continues in present-day folklore and language, but maybe the heart really is central? At any rate in my view the whole body (and beyond) is conscious.

Well, what is an alter other than "a (dissociated set of) thought(s) in the universal mind"? And since an alter has thoughts of its own, the conclusion that thoughts can think seems inevitable.

Seriously, what is an alter other than that? What is its fundamental nature?

Isn't a split personality of the Dreamer?

My thoughts here would be by nature of an aside rather than pertinent to the discussion. Still, inherent in your example is the assumption that human consciousness (probably?) resides in the brain. While I can see that intellect - computing if you like - may take place in the brain - I'm more of the view that such things as consciousness and the will are whole-body phenomena. The ancients had a strong emphasis on the role of the heart, this continues in present-day folklore and language, but maybe the heart really is central? At any rate in my view the whole body (and beyond) is conscious.

Well I just threw the ghost-brain up as a possibility. With gut bacteria possibly affecting our mood it does seem like there's consciousness having a relationship with multiple body systems at the least.

[Laird]

Isn't a split personality of the Dreamer?

Sure, but what is it that splits? Some sort of mentality-as-experience, right? The "experiences" or as you prefer "thoughts" of the Dreamer somehow structure themselves such that they become self-aware, in a process for which we are given analogies such as a whirlpool of water and a reflective membrane vibrating in multiple dimensions and folding in on itself, etc etc.

Sure, but what is it that splits? Some sort of mentality-as-experience, right? The "experiences" or as you prefer "thoughts" of the Dreamer somehow structure themselves such that they become self-aware, in a process for which we are given analogies such as a whirlpool of water and a reflective membrane vibrating in multiple dimensions and folding in on itself, etc etc.

IIRC BK modeled this after DID because it was something that actually existed, as in we know minds can fracture into new identities. There's also some anecdotal accounts that DID personalities can exist in a "place" within the original subject's mind.

So I don't think anyone positing a One <=> Many relation would have a complete account of how One becomes Many, but would look at DID and note that it is rooted on a known occurrence.

I think this puts the One <=> Many "origin story" above the Something-from-Nothing fantasy of Physicalism (obviously) and Bottom Up "add up bits of mind" Panpsychism, but probably above the idea that "God" just "creates" souls to "occupy" physical bodies.

OTOH, one can just start with the idea that our souls have always been around, maybe in an infinite regression into the past or born at some inconceivable starting point.

[Laird]

IIRC BK modeled this after DID because it was something that actually existed, as in we know minds can fracture into new identities.

Yep, and I would emphasise the word "new" in that: these are discrete identities, rather than the same identity in a different "mode" or "guise" or what have you.

In any case, I think that what you're implying is: if DID doesn't entail "thoughts thinking" or "experiences experiencing", then the same need not be entailed on Analytic Idealism either.

OK. As I've written elsewhere, I think that this strange notion can be avoided by taking the concept of "experience" under Analytic Idealism to be a dual-aspect one, with one aspect being objective/extrinsic/outer, and the other subjective/intrinsic/inner. Then, it makes sense to say that it is "experience" in the former aspect - some sort of objective energy - which "splits" into an "alter", thus avoiding the strangeness of subjective experience, i.e., qualia, splitting into an alter which has qualia of its own.

I think this puts the One <=> Many "origin story" above the Something-from-Nothing fantasy of Physicalism (obviously) and Bottom Up "add up bits of mind" Panpsychism, but probably above the idea that "God" just "creates" souls to "occupy" physical bodies.

On the latter we disagree, but that's OK.

OTOH, one can just start with the idea that our souls have always been around, maybe in an infinite regression into the past or born at some inconceivable starting point.

Again, as you know, we disagree on the coherence of infinite regression. Again, that's OK.

On the latter we disagree, but that's OK.

How does an entity create new conscious entities *and* physical matter?

Ex Nihilo?

[Laird]

How does an entity create new conscious entities *and* physical matter?

Ex Nihilo?

I don't see how this is any more challenging a question than "How does anything come into existence in the first place?", which any metaphysic has to answer - and idealism has no better answer to this than any other.

Ex nihilo? Sure, why not? Why couldn't a divine Being have the power to create more of what it already is (conscious energy), as well as a more stripped-down version of what it already is (energy, but non-conscious)?

Aren't we all creating new thoughts and experiences all of the time? How is that not equally creation ex nihilo?

I don't see how this is any more challenging a question than "How does anything come into existence in the first place?", which any metaphysic has to answer - and idealism has no better answer to this than any other.

But something can exist Eternally and begin the process of creation using It's Self as the building material.

Ex nihilo? Sure, why not? Why couldn't a divine Being have the power to create more of what it already is (conscious energy), as well as a more stripped-down version of what it already is (energy, but non-conscious)?

Where does it get this power? And if Ex Nihilo creation is fine, why is Physicalism not acceptable?

Aren't we all creating new thoughts and experiences all of the time? How is that not equally creation ex nihilo?

We're having new thoughts and experiences, but we aren't creating new thinkers/experiencers from scratch.

We're having new thoughts and experiences, but we aren't creating new thinkers/experiencers from scratch.

Well, not here on the forum, no.

But what people get up to away from the forum...