4 ms·
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
- nabla9 8y agoReplacing seemingly elusive concept of X with more concrete and better defined concept of Y seems like a good starting point. X != Y and X in {mind, information}, Y in {mind, information} For me Kastrup's consciousness-only ontology suffers even more from elusiveness and hand waving.
- woodandsteel 8y ago"The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation." If that is the case, then why do we need material brains to think? This is just Platonism dressed up in different language.
- drdeca 8y agoTo me it sounded like George Berkeley's Idealism. It even says "that the universe is a mental construct displayed on the screen of perception" which sounds quite like how I've heard Berkeley's Idealism described, with God presenting us with the-world-as-our-experiences-of-it .
- woodandsteel 8y agoI agree, you could certainly say it sounds like Berkeley. What Berkeley and Platonism have in common is they are metaphysical idealisms.
- yummypaint 8y agoThe article admits this view isnt falsifiable. It's a fun idea but it is a dissapointment to see such a misleading title in scientific american. In a sense, the idea that only the content of a model matters has always been present in science. Does an electron really exist? Who knows, but people have models which make use of a concept called an electron and they are testable and have superb predictive power. I dont see that this article offers any meaningful contributions to the current understanding.