Neutral Substance Monism - Any Modeling Potential?

[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.
*__-