For those interested in the subject of whether it’s all mind or all matter (materialism), here is a debate in two parts.
2 Likes
This is a very contentious argument in the world of Western science…and one that I have been following for a while. The one thing that keeps coming to my mind is underlined by this quote from David Papineau, the defender of Materialism:
"They believed in vital forces. They believed in forces beyond the standard physical standards, and they thought that they made a difference to the movements of matter.
Our days, no serious scientists believe in forces like that, which means that they all believe that physical effects have physical causes…" (bold added)
These “serious scientists” may not be looking at some of the cutting edge science that shows that the foundations of their arguments are built on the premise that the standard physical standards arise from spacetime…which has now been definitively shown not to be fundamental.
Here is a wonderfully clear and robust defense of the fundamental nature of mind. Deepak does a pretty good job of showcasing Bernardo Kastrup. The title is a bit misleading:
1 Like
I believe most are products of straight-jacket training/education and their thinking is similarly conditioned. Interesting that the only thing that seems to cut through these restrictions for many are psychedelic substances, and for a very few that I’ve seen, the actual scientific evidence can change minds as well. However it is quite evident that so much of today’s science is politicized science.
1 Like
Yes. Many have staked out these positions in such a way that their careers are tied to them…not to mention their book sales.
It becomes hard to reverse your course when you have so strongly codified it in print. So instead they just label the obvious incongruities as “problems” for which we have yet to find answers, such as the “Hard Problem of Consciousness”.
1 Like