Neutral Substance Monism - Any Modeling Potential?

[Les Sleeth]

But that is what it boils down to, doesn't it? I am trying hard to understand your objections, I am asking you for further clarification where your views seem obscure, and your response is simply "I'm not interested in discussing it further". I wonder why this could be? With respect, not the reaction I would expect from someone who genuinely wants to improve their understanding...

My last objection has to do with wanting to maintain the integrity of my own thread. I asked people to consider substance monism as I presented it, and to contemplate what potential it might have, if any, for modeling the universe. I found myself in a fight with someone who seemed to want to relocate all ideas into the standard cosmology model, and to discuss things in terms of that. I already know what the standard model is, I was asking what a new idea might have to offer. If you want to talk about how the Casimir force etc. might explain origins, then I think you should start your own thread.

And then, you really didn't answer my objections to the standard model. I know how the gaps are filled, and because I don't think what's proposed to fill them really does is why I suggested substance monism in the first place. I could tell by everything you said you really hadn't grasped what I saw wrong with how the "gaps" are filled. You just wanted to repeat over and over how the standard model fills the gaps. So again, it seemed like you just wanted to turn my thread into a discussion about what you believe.

Also, you insist on saying everyone agrees the term "universe" means all that is. Well, even modern cosmologists don't agree about that. Why else would physicists postulate multiple universes? And in philosophy, there is no freakin' way you will get consensus about that. Yet you were rigid about the definition of universe, and so for me that left no room for any sort of creative discussion.

Finally, I didn't like this statement, "You say 'I am certain,' but you cannot/will not argue the case rationally? With respect, this sounds similar to the theist argument for a belief in God, based on faith rather than rationality. Is that what your theories boil down to? Please don’t go down that path……."

Grrrrr. I am so tired of rationalists (and physicalists) assuming they have the inside track to the whole truth before they've demonstrated they do. What if knowing the whole truth requires, in addition to rationality, a level of feeling you haven't even imagined yet? Likewise, the "Please don't go down that path . . . " is nauseatingly condescending. All people who have faith aren't stupid or deluded, some have actual reasons for their faith.

My statement that you are "obvious" comes from lots of debates I've been in where someone thinks if only I (and all people who don't buy rationalist/physicalist theory) were educated more then I/we would see the truth.

I offered you a chance to step out of your belief system and contemplate creation a different way. If you prefer not to, then I am okay with that. If you want to, I am happy to play the intellectual game of "neutral substance monism."

 

[Les Sleeth]

Actually I'm quite serious. We are able to think, not because we are made of Esse. We are able to think because we have a contradiction such as something up against nothing.

Yes, but where are the contradistinctions? In essence, or in form? I agree that thinking requires something against which we can juxtapose our ideas, but that isn't what you said. You claimed we couldn't even have a concept of existence without nonexistence.

If we talk about "form," then, according to the monistic model, there is existence and nonexistence (i.e., of form). But if we are talking about what composes the form (esse), then there is only existence. You are mixing up concepts. Esse can't not exist, but forms of esse can.

I would submit that the Esse is not conscious.

Absolutely! That's what I've said from the start.

I find it difficult to pass off properties to something that has no size. I.E. A fudamental entity of Esse has smalled it way out of Existence. It is not possible to take a fundamental unit of Esse and say it measures Yea by yea (there is no measure), and if I can't give it this kind of reality, it does not exist.

Hmmmmm. I am trying to understand your problem with that concept. Why don't you have a similar problem with the smallest possible unit of . . . whatever? Esse (or should I make clear, the CONCEPT of esse . . . i.e., I am not saying esse actually exists, I am just asking people to contemplate the idea) is continuous, and so isn't composed of "units." It is just one thing, uninterrupted.

Could it be that your experience with this physical reality, which is 100% unit-bound, has conditioned you so that you can't imagine a unit-less substance?

Keep in mind, esse is being proposed to be the most basic state of existence. In the "ground state" esse is nothing but potential (judged from our perspective of seeing all the esse-forms that exist). Only when in form does esse appear to be a collection of units.

 

[Castlegate]

Yes, but where are the contradistinctions? In essence, or in form? I agree that thinking requires something against which we can juxtapose our ideas, but that isn't what you said. You claimed we couldn't even have a concept of existence without nonexistence.

As I was trying to explain in the other thread {The universe is the reality of Non-Existence}. The postulate is that the universe came from nothing. Also to say that all fundamental units in this universe are composed of one nothing, and that all of these units are conscious.The reason why these units are conscious is the contradiction of each and every unit. Also that Existence is not physical, but conceptual. The rationale that Existence is conceptual is because Non-Existence is conceptual only, and being that we are the reality of Non-Existence, we must accept only what we are dealt with. We can't slip in another card and cheat our way into physical Existence. We can only escape Non-Existence by way of conceptual means {period}.

Getting to the question

As stated elswhere - A fudamental unit is equal to one nothing. In other words - A form of nothing. It is the form that exist and the composition that doesn't. These are the ingredients for consciousness. A fundamental unit knows what it is, because it knows what it is not. This is Existence smack up against Non-Existence, within the same unit (pure contradiction). Proof of consciousness comes in the way of interaction with other units. If there is an effect, and there always is. We can surmise with confidence that not only are fundamental units self aware, but aware of other units as well.

Could it be that your experience with this physical reality, which is 100% unit-bound, has conditioned you so that you can't imagine a unit-less substance?

I have yet to express the universe as a physical entity, and that definition will not be forthcoming.

Should one try to examine one nothing - it will be found that there are no units within it's form, so I (can) imagine that which is unitless.

I am just asking people to contemplate the idea) is continuous, and so isn't composed of "units." It is just one thing, uninterrupted.

This is asking for too much IMO. We can make things out of playdough, but making things out of nothing but playdough seems to push the envelope.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is asking for too much IMO. We can make things out of playdough, but making things out of nothing but playdough seems to push the envelope.

I wasn't proposing playdough, but rather a substance of such maliable properties that would allow it exist in a great variety of forms. The exercise is to try to imagine what sort of properties that substance would need to have for that.

The postulate is that the universe came from nothing. Also to say that all fundamental units in this universe are composed of one nothing, and that all of these units are conscious.

You mean your postulate. I guess you too have decided not to contemplate substance monism afterall.

As stated elswhere - A fudamental unit is equal to one nothing. In other words - A form of nothing. It is the form that exist and the composition that doesn't.

Boy, it is really hard to understand why you don't see that as total nonsense, but good luck with it.

If you haven't already, you might want to study the substantial objections philosophers have made over the centuries to what you seem devoted to . . . philosophical idealism. My main objection is that if one maintains one's theories only in the mind, then one can imagine anything to be true and go on to build an entire philosophy out of it. There is no way to test it, and therefore prove or disprove it.

People today might say, if we concentrate a beam of light sufficiently, then it can burn a hole through metal. If they just imagine it, then it is nothing more than one of a zillion theories. But when someone actually builds such a device and demonstrates it, then because it "works" according to the proposed principles we know they've understood something about the nature of reality.

But where is your test? Well, you don't need one because no matter what anyone suggests you can counter it with whatever you decide to imagine; and since the universe is purely conceptual and based on nothing, your concept becomes as true as anyone else's.

No, the exploration of the nature of reality has firmly turned in favor of the experientialists, not the conceptual idealists. Experientialists have always been the realizers and achievers, it's just that it took a couple of thousand of years of useless rationalistic philosophizing before someone recognized it and formulated it into empirical philosphy (though I prefer to call it "experientialistic philosophy"). That's why even a theoretical model such as yours has to account for what's been observed (i.e. experienced).

 

[Castlegate]

You mean your postulate. I guess you too have decided not to contemplate substance monism afterall.

You asked for an explanation, and I gave it. Of course there is no likeness here to monism. What were you expecting?

I wasn't proposing playdough, but rather a substance of such maliable properties that would allow it exist in a great variety of forms. The exercise is to try to imagine what sort of properties that substance would need to have for that.

Well let's read some details. You do know the devil is in the details ...right? Make me a gumby out of this substance you call Esse. Tell me how this works.

My main objection is that if one maintains one's theories only in the mind

You simply misunderstand. I may have said that all that exist is not physical, but I didn't say that all that exist does not move. So if I say that a non-physical entity moves from point A to point B, Whats the difference if it is physical or not? The observation of reality is still the same

 

[nameless]

...a substance of such maliable properties that would allow it exist in a great variety of forms. The exercise is to try to imagine what sort of properties that substance would need to have for that.

The 'substance' of imagination?
What are the 'properties' of imagination? Consciousness?
Would something that had 'properties' at all be sufficiently 'malleable' for the purposes you propose? Perhaps something 'property'-less? Like Consciousness?
*__-

 

[moving finger]

I think the definition of 'universe' is causing much of the misunderstanding between you and Les. You claim that 'universe' means all that is, yet you seem to limit the notion of universe to the space-time continuum of cosmological theories with the extension to regions of that same continuum which is in principle inaccessible to us. I think Les, and certainly I, would claim that there is a possibility that reality (another synonym for 'universe' but without the physicalist baggage) consists of vastly more beyond any space-time continua. The "more" is not space-like nor time-like, so it is beyond and outside of what I think is your notion of 'universe'. In Les' view, the physical space-time continuum in which the big bang occurred, and which contains the farthest reaches of space, and the remotest time in either direction, is a mere speck in the total context of reality. I happen to agree with Les on this.

With respect, it is not "I" who claim that universe means "all there is", this is the generally accepted meaning of universe in the English language, and that is the basis of my interpretation of universe.
We can argue about whether "all there is" intrinsically limits the universe to “what is accessible to us” or not, but “what is not accessible to us” must always be the subject of speculation and/or faith, and any attempt at rational discussion on “what is not accessible to us” (though metaphysically possibly very intriguing) is ultimately intellectually fruitless.
(an analogy : would anyone be interested in discussing with me the fairies which live at the bottom of my garden? Oh, I can’t see them of course, in fact I have no way of demonstrating that they really exist, but I simply KNOW that they are there……what, nobody believes me? How strange……)
If either you or Les has a different interpretation of "universe" then with respect the onus is on you to explain what that definition is…….

Now let me tie this back to my question which you answered. You agreed with me that esse must be conscious, even though among the three of us (You, me, and Les) we haven't really come to an agreement on what esse is.

By definition, all is esse. Therefore if anything is conscious then it must be esse which is conscious.

I might drive my car up to the top of a hill which sort of defies the laws of physics. Yes, the laws of physics can explain how energy in the gasoline was converted to the increased potential energy of the car, but it can't explain at all why I drove the car up there in the first place.

I would argue that science has the potential (at least in principle) to explain most of your behaviour, but the reason it cannot do so precisely is basically the same as the reason why we cannot perfectly forecast the weather – a combination of insufficient data, inadequate computing power, and chaos.

In my view, the scientific explanation of the "universe" is limited to the behavior of matter and energy in a space-time continuum, and this limitation, in the view of many, does not, and cannot, explain consciousness in any of its aspects. It cannot explain what consciousness is; it cannot explain how consciousness arises in physical structures like brains; it cannot explain how (or even be sure that) consciousness can have a causal effect on matter; and it cannot explain how perceptions of phenomena can be known, remembered, and recalled.

I disagree. Whilst we do not yet have a complete understanding of how consciousness arises and operates (the human brain is after all the most complex machine that we know), I believe that consciousness can be eventually explained scientifically.

What I would humbly suggest is that we take consciousness itself as the candidate to consider to be esse.
I think it is a good candidate because we each know what it is from direct experience.

I disagree that we necessarily have the same concepts. I know that I am conscious, and I know what that feels like, but I have no idea whether you are conscious or not, or what that feels like to you. It is therefore a “leap of faith” to say that we are talking about the same things.

Now we know that conscious experience changes.

Consciousness is a dynamic process. If everything stayed the same there would be no consciousness. Hence change is a necessary pre-requisite for consciousness. But it is possible to perceive in principle of a universe where nothing changes, hence there would be no consciousness. What happens to esse in this case?

Since esse is one, then one consequence would be that there is only one consciousness.

Does not follow. Its like saying “if we assume esse is silly-putty, then since esse is one this implies there is only one silly-putty”.

Since conscious experience changes, there must be a temporal parameter which could lead to the definition of a temporal dimension, or simply time. Even though science has made exquisite and precise definitions and measurements involving time (leading to Special Relativity, GPS, and other stunning marvels), the fact (posited) that esse does not change opens the door to the possibility that "between" esse and the changing world of physics and cosmology, there might be other temporal dimensions not participating in the laws of physics.

How can you use the logic that “esse is one therefore there is only one consciousness” and at the same time accept “consciousness changes but esse stays the same”?
You ask me what I think……excuse me, but I cannot help feeling this is all becoming metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and flights of fancy….
Now, anybody want to chat about those fairies in my garden?
With respect
MF

 

[Tournesol]

By definition, all is esse. Therefore if anything is conscious then it must be esse which is conscious.

All is esse. Therefore, if anyting is a teapot, esse is a teapot.

(NB the difference between

"esse is a teapot as a result of having the form and behaviour of a teapot
as secondary qualities"

and

"esse is inherently and intriniscally teapot-ish in all its forms".)

 

[moving finger]

Hi again Les

My last objection has to do with wanting to maintain the integrity of my own thread. I asked people to consider substance monism as I presented it, and to contemplate what potential it might have, if any, for modeling the universe.

You asked for opinions, Les. I gave you my opinion – that I think one of your assumptions is flawed. I asked you to justify your assumption that the universe is necessarily infinite in spatial and temporal extent, and you refuse.

I found myself in a fight with someone who seemed to want to relocate all ideas into the standard cosmology model, and to discuss things in terms of that.

Incorrect. I was always approaching this as an intellectual and rational debate. If you see it as a “fight” then I am sorry. I am simply looking for justification of your assumption of necessarily infinite spacetime, that is all. The only reasons I referred to cosmological models was by way of illustration, because you seemed to think finite spacetimes necessarily implied some kind of boundaries, which they do not.

I already know what the standard model is, I was asking what a new idea might have to offer. If you want to talk about how the Casimir force etc. might explain origins, then I think you should start your own thread.

Casimir force? You have lost me here. (oh, I know what it is, I just have no idea why you suddenly refer to it here).
All I am trying to do, Les, is to point out errors in your logic. If you choose to ignore these errors that is fine, but it doesn’t make the errors go away.

And then, you really didn't answer my objections to the standard model.

With respect, Les, you never raised (to my knowledge) any objections to any parts of the standard model in this thread, except that you said you could not make sense of them :

I know them and can't make sense of the ultimate origin of things with them.

That is not an objection, simply a statement of your lack of understanding.

I know how the gaps are filled, and because I don't think what's proposed to fill them really does is why I suggested substance monism in the first place. .

What gaps? Can you elucidate?

I could tell by everything you said you really hadn't grasped what I saw wrong with how the "gaps" are filled.

What gaps? Can you elucidate?

You just wanted to repeat over and over how the standard model fills the gaps.

What gaps? Can you elucidate?

So again, it seemed like you just wanted to turn my thread into a discussion about what you believe.

No, I wanted you to understand the error in your logic, that is all, and to open your eyes to more possibilities by understanding where that error was.

Also, you insist on saying everyone agrees the term "universe" means all that is.

No, I never said that “everyone agrees”, that is a fallacy. I said the definition of “universe” is “all there is”. If you have a different definition of “universe” can you please let us know, or is it a secret?

Well, even modern cosmologists don't agree about that. Why else would physicists postulate multiple universes?

Many physicists would insist this is in fact an incorrect use of English and we should be talking of “many worlds” rather than “multiple universe”. The generally accepted term for this theory by the way is the Many Worlds Theory, not the Multiple Universe Theory. Not everyone always uses English correctly, and since we are all imperfect humans we all make mistakes from time to time (including me). The important thing to know when making a mistake is to own up to it when it is pointed out to you, and then move on.

And in philosophy, there is no freakin' way you will get consensus about that.

I am not asking for concensus. However, in order for any rational discussion to proceed the participants must agree on definitions of terms. I offered a definition of universe. You seem not to like that definition; the rational step would then be for you to offer an alternative definition that we could discuss…….. will you do that?

Finally, I didn't like this statement, "You say 'I am certain,' but you cannot/will not argue the case rationally? With respect, this sounds similar to the theist argument for a belief in God, based on faith rather than rationality. Is that what your theories boil down to? Please don’t go down that path……."
Grrrrr. I am so tired of rationalists (and physicalists) assuming they have the inside track to the whole truth before they've demonstrated they do.

I’m sorry you did not like the statement, Les, but hey, I am not the one saying that “I have the truth” here! I am instead objecting to someone who says quite openly “I am certain” and then is unwilling to respond to criticism of their logic and is unable or unwilling to rationally justify their feeling of certainty.

What if knowing the whole truth requires, in addition to rationality, a level of feeling you haven't even imagined yet? Likewise, the "Please don't go down that path . . . " is nauseatingly condescending. All people who have faith aren't stupid or deluded, some have actual reasons for their faith.

Please see my earlier response to Paul Martin, where I said :

any attempt at rational discussion on “what is not accessible to us” (though metaphysically possibly very intriguing) is ultimately intellectually fruitless.
(an analogy : would anyone be interested in discussing with me the fairies which live at the bottom of my garden? Oh, I can’t see them of course, in fact I have no way of demonstrating that they really exist, but I simply KNOW that they are there……what, nobody believes me? How strange……).

I have no objections to faith, or people who have faith. I respect others’ beliefs. But with respect the reason I said “please don’t go down that path” is because I suggest this is not the forum for discussing issues which are matters of faith.

I offered you a chance to step out of your belief system and contemplate creation a different way.

Now who is being condescending? That is very gracious and generous of you. Les. But with respect I would rather not restrict my beliefs to models involving infinite spacetimes. I prefer instead to keep an open mind and consider all logical and rational possibilities, including those involving a finite spaetime. Perhaps you should consider the same.
With respect
MF

 

[moving finger]

All is esse. Therefore, if anyting is a teapot, esse is a teapot.

Agreed. Esse is a teapot. It is also a daisy, and a sunflower.

consider the universal set {esse}
every member of this set is esse
consciousness is a member of this set
all teapots are members of this setMF

 

[roamer]

Wow this debate is getting a little heated! I don't plan on contributing the argument, but I do have a question regarding the orginal attempt of this thread. All personal philosophies aside I thought this thread was an excercise in modeling under the rules of nuetral substance monoism. I found Les's example of compression within esse to at least pose possibilites for modeling the physical world. I haven't yet been able to undertsand how it could model conciousness. My first thought is that conciousness would require some compression of esse to even become distinguished from esse. My second thought is that the dynamics of this compression would have to be wholly different from those that created matter. The dynamics would have to exhibit the characteristic of progressive organization as esse decompresses. I'm also curious as to how conciousness could interact with matter (as it obviously does) in this model. Anways I don't have any good ideas on modeling within the rules of esse but I thought it might be interesting to see what happens if we tried.

 

[Castlegate]

Anyways I don't have any good ideas on modeling within the rules of esse but I thought it might be interesting to see what happens if we tried.

The problem is that Les Sleeth is setting rules by which he is wishy washy. Each day the rules of Esse seem to take on new meaning. Currently I think the rules are that Esse is one thing of infinite size, wherin any area can be molded (compressed?) into any and all things. Somehow the Esse can stretch in the absense of parts. I could go on, but the ball is really in his court. I love playing the game of imagination, but I don't want to play it in a dream sequence. I do that when I'm sleeping.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well let's read some details. You do know the devil is in the details ...right? Make me a gumby out of this substance you call Esse. Tell me how this works.

I would LOVE to, believe me, but I am afraid of getting in trouble with the physics guys here who want to maintain an atmosphere of scholastism, not speculation.

Here's something I just posted in my thread "Define Physics":

"The energy issue is interesting because if you have mass, you can observe lots of properties. Think about the variety of properties demonstrated by all the forms of mass and it is pretty amazing (e.g., diamonds, water, neon, wood, gold, plasmas . . .). But when it comes to energy, we find far fewer traits to observe. We see movement/change and heat.

"Over in my neutral substance monism thread, several have complained that just one "base" substance can't account for all the stuff and principles we see in our universe, yet energy, apparently the most basic aspect of the physical universe, is something rather simple, but when energy is in the form of mass, we find it becomes a huge variety of characteristics."

No one seems to be complaining about how some single simple energy makes up all of mass, and then leads to tons of properties.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What are the 'properties' of imagination? Consciousness?

Imagination would be a characteristic of consciousness.

Would something that had 'properties' at all be sufficiently 'malleable' for the purposes you propose?

The idea is to try to figure out what sort of base properties something would have to have to be able to take shape into all that we observe. You won't get very far if you are negative about the exercise from the start!

Perhaps something 'property'-less? Like Consciousness?

How can you say consciousness is property-less? It organizes, it learns, it loves . . . I don't think anything that is property-less, including esse.

 

[Les Sleeth]

All is esse. Therefore, if anyting is a teapot, esse is a teapot.
(NB the difference between
"esse is a teapot as a result of having the form and behaviour of a teapot
as secondary qualities"
and
"esse is inherently and intriniscally teapot-ish in all its forms".)

I can't help but think that this is many, many, many levels below your normal quality of logic. You've not even offered us a proper syllogism.

All is composed of energy. [missing step here] Therefore, if anything is a teapot, energy is a teapot.

Proper syllogism reflecting the theme of this thread:

All that exists is composed of esse. A teapost exists. Therefore, a teapot is composed of esse.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The problem is that Les Sleeth is setting rules by which he is wishy washy. Each day the rules of Esse seem to take on new meaning. Currently I think the rules are that Esse is one thing of infinite size, wherin any area can be molded (compressed?) into any and all things. Somehow the Esse can stretch in the absense of parts. I could go on, but the ball is really in his court. I love playing the game of imagination, but I don't want to play it in a dream sequence. I do that when I'm sleeping.

Hey, don't blame me for your lack of understanding of my proposal. You currently "think the rules are that Esse is one thing of infinite size, wherin any area can be molded (compressed?) into any and all things"? Well, welcome aboard, that's exactly what I have said from the start without the slightest variation.

You think, "Esse can stretch in the absense of parts"? I didn't say that, I only talked about compression. But it is an interesting idea I'll have to think about.

You don't want to think about how to model with this concept? Well, who is forcing you to? I simply proposed an idea to ponder, I haven't insisted it is true, or that you have to think about it. My only insistance has been that if you are going to think about it, then do so within the confines of the rules I put forth for this thread.

Geez, you'd think I was asking y'all to contemplate murder or something. What's wrong with just an exercise in theoretical reflection?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Wow this debate is getting a little heated! I don't plan on contributing the argument, but I do have a question regarding the orginal attempt of this thread. All personal philosophies aside I thought this thread was an excercise in modeling under the rules of neutral substance monoism.

:!) :!) :!) Roamer, you've understood perfectly.

I found Les's example of compression within esse to at least pose possibilites for modeling the physical world. I haven't yet been able to undertsand how it could model conciousness.

Yes, it is tough to model that. If you check out my thread on panpsychism (you can find it in my profile that lists all my past threads), I do offer some ideas. Actually here I was hoping for ideas on physical modeling.

My first thought is that conciousness would require some compression of esse to even become distinguished from esse.

Exactly. I am impressed! If all is one, then SOMETHING has to distinquish forms without creating duality, and that includes consciousness and physicalness.

My second thought is that the dynamics of this compression would have to be wholly different from those that created matter. The dynamics would have to exhibit the characteristic of progressive organization as esse decompresses. I'm also curious as to how conciousness could interact with matter (as it obviously does) in this model. Anways I don't have any good ideas on modeling within the rules of esse but I thought it might be interesting to see what happens if we tried.

What I've suggested for consciousness is that some sort of self-sustaining dynamic gets going in the esse continuum, and it is capable of evolving. For example, look at a hydrogen atom. It is this tiny oscillating engine. What if it is a single compressed base substance (esse) oscillating so fast that it creates two phases: a converged phase and a diverged phase.

The two phases appear as distinct particles, but really they are just extemes of the polar phases we call an electron and a proton.

Then, let's say you concentrate more of the base substance into that critter. Possibly there is point where you get stasis, and we call that a neutron. I could go on to describe quarks as simply the observation of internal oscillation points, radiation as decompression, energy as the force of decompression, an antiparticle as the reverse side of an oscillatory entity (particle), and so on. Really it would require a book to lay all of it out fully .

I appreciate your effort to participate as I asked readers to.

 

[nameless]

Originally Posted by nameless
What are the 'properties' of imagination? Consciousness?

Imagination would be a characteristic of consciousness.
Sorry, I meant that sequentially. As two questions.

Originally Posted by nameless
Would something that had 'properties' at all be sufficiently 'malleable' for the purposes you propose?

All in italics from Les Sleeth.
The idea is to try to figure out what sort of base properties something would have to have to be able to take shape into all that we observe. You won't get very far if you are negative about the exercise from the start!
I don't mean to be 'negative'. It simply appears as an obvious consideration for me upon being asked 'what sort of properties something would have' to first ascertain whether 'properties' 'exist' or 'can exist' in the first place in the proposed paradigm. More below.. i think i might have been reading 'properties' and thinking 'features', not the same...

Originally Posted by nameless
Perhaps something 'property'-less? Like Consciousness?

How can you say consciousness is property-less? It organizes, it learns, it loves . . . I don't think anything that is property-less, including esse.
I see Consciousness roughly analogous to this;
And this is a very crude analogy.
Consciousness is like the night sky. We are like little egoic lenses (glitches in Consciousness? a bit of Chaos?) imagining that we are looking through powerful telescopes at a tiny corner of a near crater on the moon. We can even see the rocks (self/ego/unique..). The problem is that the more intensely that one focuses on anyone 'item', the less of everything else gets in. We gain a very stilted picture of the universe, but we get to know all about that moon rock, which is part of the universe. Now as we gain in ability to 'observe', perhaps we 'open' the aperature of our telescope (mind/awareness) and take in the whole moon. Now our 'understanding' (access to Consciousness) improves as we can see that rock juxtaposed with, and in, its environment. We take a larger view, a 'greater' perspective, an 'access' to a greater amount of Consciousness. Open the aperature (of mind) until the entire galaxy is 'encompassed' within the Consciousness that you have accessed. You now have/are access to Galactic Consciousness. You are now Conscious of a sparrow falling on a planet in the Andromeda System! Completely opening that 'aperature' would completely destroy any border betweem one's egoic little 'self' and the vast Consciousness that Is that It Is. Universal Consciousness. Omniversal Consciousness. The same yesterday, today, and always. Timeless ('time' being a dream/concept within a Dream within Consciousness), perfectly symmetrical, All that Is (at least as far as I have found).

So, it isn't Consciousness that does any 'learning' or 'thinking' or 'memorizing' or 'hypothesizing' or 'anticipating and expecting' or remembering ... as all of these 'activities' are found in a mind... that is found in the immediate vicinity of a functioning brain ...within a temporal egoic concept of a 'Self', 'what' we refer to as 'myself', a Dreaming Dream within Consciousness.
Perhaps 'we' are all just an anomaly, a Chaotic 'burp' (big bang?) within the vastness Counsciousness?
Within and without (us) is Consciousness, unchanging, unchangeable. Featureless.

But ..perhaps there are properties after all!
According to my nonsense,
one 'property' of Consciousness
is that it 'Dreams'...

I have found no other 'properties' of Consciousness.

 

[Castlegate]

I would LOVE to, believe me, but I am afraid of getting in trouble with the physics guys here who want to maintain an atmosphere of scholastism, not speculation.

You may as well take a gun to your head. If you can't speculate ... You'll lose one of the most important aspects of living. You may as well give up your autonomy also, for there is no point in being a self governing entity if speculation is reined in. This is Philosophy 101, and most definitely not speculation. The only reason one would give up their speculative nature is with the intention of getting it back. So in the interest of being what you are ... please speculate on.

No one seems to be complaining about how some single simple energy makes up all of mass, and then leads to tons of properties.

Thats because we are talking in terms of a discreet quantity which can have properties. I have yet to read anything from you in regards to Esse that has a property that I can sink my teeth into.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I see Consciousness roughly analogous to this;

And this is a very crude analogy.

Consciousness is like the night sky. We are like little egoic lenses (glitches in Consciousness? a bit of Chaos?) imagining that we are looking through powerful telescopes at a tiny corner of a near crater on the moon. We can even see the rocks (self/ego/unique..). The problem is that the more intensely that one focuses on anyone 'item', the less of everything else gets in. We gain a very stilted picture of the universe, but we get to know all about that moon rock, which is part of the universe. Now as we gain in ability to 'observe', perhaps we 'open' the aperature of our telescope (mind/awareness) and take in the whole moon. Now our 'understanding' (access to Consciousness) improves as we can see that rock juxtaposed with, and in, its environment. We take a larger view, a 'greater' perspective, an 'access' to a greater amount of Consciousness. Open the aperature (of mind) until the entire galaxy is 'encompassed' within the Consciousness that you have accessed. You now have/are access to Galactic Consciousness. You are now Conscious of a sparrow falling on a planet in the Andromeda System! Completely opening that 'aperature' would completely destroy any border betweem one's egoic little 'self' and the vast Consciousness that Is that It Is. Universal Consciousness. Omniversal Consciousness. The same yesterday, today, and always. Timeless ('time' being a dream/concept within a Dream within Consciousness), perfectly symmetrical, All that Is (at least as far as I have found).

So, it isn't Consciousness that does any 'learning' or 'thinking' or 'memorizing' or 'hypothesizing' or 'anticipating and expecting' or remembering ... as all of these 'activities' are found in a mind... that is found in the immediate vicinity of a functioning brain ...within a temporal egoic concept of a 'Self', 'what' we refer to as 'myself', a Dreaming Dream within Consciousness.

Perhaps 'we' are all just an anomaly, a Chaotic 'burp' (big bang?) within the vastness Counsciousness?

I could see how a model like that might be made sense of. In the panpsychism thread I mentioned to Roamer, I modeled human consciousness as concentrated "points" within, and one with, a greater more general field of consciousness, let's call it the Whole.

Within and without (us) is Consciousness, unchanging, unchangeable. Featureless.

Here is the issue that I can't make sense of. If we learn, then the Whole learns, and if the Whole learns, then it changes. Also, if we are part of it, then the Whole has the feature of individuating points within itself.

From that I reason that if the Whole becomes more learned, then there was a point when it was unlearned, and therefore it had a beginning. To make the substance monism model work in that case, it means there must be some uncreated, uncaused substance, with "ocean" dynamics, in which this consciousness could first accidentally develop. Then it's a matter of learning/evolving and growing more powerful until it acquired the ability to concentrate our universe into existence.

But ..perhaps there are properties after all! According to my nonsense, one 'property' of Consciousness is that it Dreams'...I have found no other 'properties' of Consciousness.

Well, I know there are properties for a fact since I meditate everyday, and have for over thirty years. The objective of the type of meditation I do is to directly experience consciousness itself, its "base" qualities.

One property I can report consciousness having is light, another is a very fine vibratory quality, and yet another is a gentle pulse you can find hiding behind the breath. That's why Kabir, a great meditator (1488–1512, India), once said "“What is God? He is the breath inside the breath.” (He also said, reminiscent of the model I proposed, "“The Supreme Soul is seen within the soul, the Point is seen within the Supreme Soul, and within the Point the reflection is seen again.”) One doesn't have to use the words "god" or "soul" to see the modeling possibilities.

In terms of consciousness being a dream, I would say, as a meditator, almost the opposite of your interpretation.

As I learned to still my mind, I became more and more aware of the residual effect of incessant thinking. You know, like if you think angry thoughts about a situation it will leave behind a residual effect. But because most people never stop thinking, and outright imagining, there is a strong build up of residual effects they carry around all the time which to me anyway, seemed something like a dream; in fact, I used to call it a "semi-dream."

This semi-dream constantly affects consciousness, distorting every experience by translating it so it fits into the realm of the semi-dream (a big part of the semi-dream is, as you say, egoic). Because of that, I see the semi-dream as UNconscious in nature, not conscious. Only when the mind is made crystal clear from stillness does reality appear as it is. So, I say UNconsciousness is a dream, and true consciousness is awake.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So in the interest of being what you are ... please speculate on.

Okay, you asked for it . . .

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=30762

. . . complete with diagrams. It's a long thread, but if you are interested in modeling with monistic concepts, you'll find plenty there.

For this thread I was asking others' opinions on if a neutral substance monism could be practical to modeling physical aspects of the universe. I referenced some great philosophers up front, such as Russell (who was also an empiricist), who did see potential for it. Yet no one has really ever given it a serious try as far as I know. That, and because I've already modeled with it in the above thread, is why I haven't gotten into it more here.

Thats because we are talking in terms of a discreet quantity . . .

What does discrete quantities have to do with it? I've already accounted for that by suggesting that a neutral substance will appear discrete (in the sense of separate from its surroundings) if it is concentrated into a self sustaining system (e.g., an atom).

Moving finger spoke of zero point energy. We do know virtual particles pop in and out of existence due to some sort of energy tension (and further observed in the Casimir force) in the vacuum (which obviously isn't really a vacuum). What if that field could be concentrated enough at a point to form an atom? If so, then the atom emerges from that field yet is still one with it. What appears "discrete" is really just differentiated by concentration and oscillation of a "point" in the field . . . there is no real separation. These are monistic concepts.

. . . which can have properties.

What properties does energy have besides causing movement and manifesting heat? How is it then, that it takes the form of mass which then becomes all the characteristics we know in this universe. From something simple comes something incredibly varied, so in terms of me proposing that same idea for substance monism, there is precedent.

 

[nameless]

Here is the issue that I can't make sense of. If we learn, then the Whole learns, and if the Whole learns, then it changes. Also, if we are part of it, then the Whole has the feature of individuating points within itself.

We, as 'momentary' dreams within Consciousness, dream 'ourselves' and a 'universe' to live in, and 'time' (as a necessity of space and 'mass') to do it. Time is also a necessity for 'learning' anything at all. Learning is linear (like the mind; so, like 'time'..go figure!), involving 'memory', extrapolation, thought, 'motion'.. all sequential, linear, and all dependent on the 'given' of 'time'.
Consciousness is not 'in' time. Like a Planck Moment. Consciousness is so 'in the moment' that there is literally 'no time' (for time) to learn anything nor anything to learn. Learning requires a functioning brain and mind to conceptualize that which we shall learn. First we 'manufacture' a 'moon', then we study it and learn about it.
The timeless NOW has no 'concepts' much less concepts of 'past', 'trees', or anything else. It just 'Is'. It is only mind within ego within Consciousness that fantasizes 'things separate from things' (something to learn about) Nothing 'exists' for Consciousness to be conscious of. Other than these fantasy dreams.

Then it's a matter of learning/evolving and growing more powerful until it acquired the ability to concentrate our universe into existence.

Thats US doing that, not Consciousness. We don't 'concentrate it into existence', we just think/observe it into 'existence'. Sometimes the gentlest glance can have 'monumental effect' in the 'physical' world. The harder one 'concentrates, the worse the results. Ego 'tries'. Wisdom 'opens to'..

The objective of the type of meditation I do is to directly experience consciousness itself, its "base" qualities.

The closer I came to Consciousness the less there was an 'I' to 'experience' anything, much less the, if any, 'properties' of Consciousness. I posit that we can not experience the (if any) 'properties' of Consciousness. The best we could do would be to 'logically' posit any, like the property of 'dreaming', perhaps? Perhaps WE are a 'base' property of Consciousness? If the 'ability to dream' is a property of Consciousness, then the dreams of the dreams might also be concidered 'properties' of Consciousness? If so, then the material (apparently material) universe is also a 'subset' of Consciousness, another, albeit tenuous, 'property' of Consciousness...
If there is 'time/change' in a dream of a dream of Consciousness and 'change' is 'happening' in this dream, can one also say that Consciousness thereby also 'changes'? Of course there is really no-*thing*, really, that ever 'changes'. Is a 'hologram' considered a thing? Again, tenuous at best...

One property I can report consciousness having is light, another is a very fine vibratory quality, and yet another is a gentle pulse you can find hiding behind the breath.

Nothing that I have found similar. Perhaps you are juxtaposing Consciousness and an expanded Awareness of the subtler aspects of your body. Light, needs eyes and mind (light is a concept), vibration and pulse, likewise, are related to our senses and mind (all concepts within brain/mind). Ego is all that stands between us and Consciousness. There seems to be an inverse ratio involved between 'ego' and (access to) Consciousness. It is ego that maintains the illusions of Maya, of the phenomenal universe, of the linearity of time, motion, the Duality that allows this and that... The greater the Consciousness that is 'experienced' (with no 'experiencer'? Perhaps it is Consciousness that is the Experiencer??! Not 'knower', not 'thinker', not 'rememberer, but the immediacy of pure experience of the NOW?), the less real is the egoic 'self' and subsequent universe of apparent phenomena.

That's why Kabir, a great meditator (1488–1512, India), once said "“What is God? He is the breath inside the breath.” (He also said, reminiscent of the model I proposed, "“The Supreme Soul is seen within the soul, the Point is seen within the Supreme Soul, and within the Point the reflection is seen again.”)

Consciousness Is, within, without, It Is that which 'Is'. We search within, we find 'God' (Consciousness, 'Self'), searching without, the same... I can understand what Kabir is saying here..

One doesn't have to use the words "god" or "soul" to see the modeling possibilities.

Of course...

In terms of consciousness being a dream, I would say, as a meditator, almost the opposite of your interpretation.

Sigh... after all this! NONONONONONONO! I am NOT saying that Consciousness is a dream, but that, within Consciousness, Dream is. Consciousness is the Ground 'Matrix' of Dream, not the Dream itself.

As I learned to still my mind, I became more and more aware of the residual effect of incessant thinking. You know, like if you think angry thoughts about a situation it will leave behind a residual effect. But because most people never stop thinking, and outright imagining, there is a strong build up of residual effects they carry around all the time which to me anyway, seemed something like a dream; in fact, I used to call it a "semi-dream."

You are describing 'attachments'. Thought is involved in the creation of 'residual effects'. Hence meditation, to bring unruly thought under control. It is the 'relinquishment' of those 'attachments' that liberate one from karma NOW..

This semi-dream constantly affects consciousness,

Affects our access to Consciousness, the amount of which we 'partake'. Most are not conscious in the least, but lost in their dreaming, sleepwalking through life, tripping over their illusions, crying to their god "Why?" and begging for help... No wonder the world is as it is!

distorting every experience by translating it so it fits into the realm of the semi-dream (a big part of the semi-dream is, as you say, egoic). Because of that, I see the semi-dream as UNconscious in nature, not conscious. Only when the mind is made crystal clear from stillness does reality appear as it is. So, I say UNconsciousness is a dream, and true consciousness is awake.

Yeah, like I just said.. I can hang with this.. You just are saying it a bit differently than I just did, but... yeah.
Hahahaha.. nice to end on such an agreeable note!
Good night.
*__-