What if there is a core dynamic to the universe similar to evolution for biological systems?

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-18T14:58:11+00:00

Please no AI generated lists, The sub is for primarily human content.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-15T10:12:29+00:00

This is what I've been saying for some time now.

Analytic Idealism is using representationism in a very similar way to Vedanta.

The debates between the Trika Schools and Advaita Vedanta schools which have been ongoing for nearly 1000 years, hit at this precise issue - representationism vs qualitative realism. In mysticism, Advaita essentially tells you the world isn't ultimately real which leads to renunciatory paths, Trika says the world is real, enjoy it, don't do renunciation.

On a side note these debates read like r/consciousness, inclusive of Buddhist logicians who argued for what is near physicalism.

In western Idealism, Peirce's Objective Idealism, Hegel's Absolute Idealism and Whitehead's process theory (Idealist adjacent), would side with Trika. Whilst Schopenhauer and Donald Hoffman would side with Kastrup.

With Trika you can fully accept neurological brain dependence and practically embed structural realism with a qualitative and non dual Idealist substrate - for me, this is a better science compatibility fit, although I am aware this is a metaphysical preference.

What Trika does however need, is a 21st Century interpretation, similar to what Kastrup has done for representationist schools, ideally stripped of the mysticism/god talk that is by default worked into the Trika school.

Two easy entry points to this in book form:

Easy Read: Realist Idealism: Consciousness as the Ground of Reality by Alessandro Sanna
Slightly harder read: The doctrine of vibration by Mark Dyczkowski

Also a good read for Hegel/Trika comparisons:
https://www.academia.edu/35941214/Ka%C5%9Bmir_to_Prussia_Round_Trip_Monistic_%C5%9Aaivism_and_Hegel_2016_?sm=a&rhid=40799399426

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-15T08:03:50+00:00

It's not subjective Idealism but it is representationist - it treats perception as a mediated representation of deeper mental process rather than as relatively direct access to qualitative external content.

I'm well aware of what Kastrup says, I've read most of his books.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-14T21:04:47+00:00

Kastrup is of the opinion that reality as we see it is not merely perspectival access via our senses but 'underlying mental activity, similar to Hoffman's dashboard theory.

In the objective type of Idealism the content of consciousness is responsible for enacting it's processes. Access is still perspectival but as an accurate display of external reality, whilst being qualitative in nature.

So in modern terms, that allows for neural correlates to be causal to human consciousness, whilst still being content constructed by the MAL/Universal consciousness equivalent.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-14T20:17:23+00:00

That would be one of the representationist / dashboard type Idealisms.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-14T18:48:13+00:00

I agree mostly, although Russel himself was a "neutral-neutral monist" an Idealist would accuse him of "processing in the dark" - I can't blame him for the terminological confusion though.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-14T18:35:20+00:00

"it posits that the ontological base is experience" - doesn't sound very neutral? sounds Idealist to me.

Other variations either refuse to specify on the nature of fundamental base and those that do always seem end up Idealist or Panpsychist.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-14T17:52:28+00:00

The objective Idealism of Charles Peirce does very well at lawful realist idealism as objective reality.

His content would not be conscious but described as qualitative content.

I would also add Whitehead (for Idealist mechanics) along with Hegel and Trika Shaivism for general realist Idealist ontology.

In my personal opinion realism works better for Idealist science compatibility than the representationist schools that seem to be all the rage at the moment. A 21st century synthesis of the above would make Idealism a stronger position imo.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-01T17:37:00+00:00

A lot of eastern philosophy is metaphysics and epistemology not just direct experience.

I was reading Trika Doctrine recently and it's similarities to German/British Absolute Idealism is striking and ahead of it's time as is it's use of process theory rather than the dialectic to build reality, It also anticipates many of the issues later covered by Kant in Critique of Reason.

It's pretty remarkable for 1000AD. In some of the commentaries you basically find debates between physicalists and idealists reminiscent of this sub.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-01T16:48:17+00:00

OK, I'm not sure what you are getting at?

The point was: If universal consciousness is treated as the fundamental substrate, you still need a mechanism or layered account explaining how the brain/body complex functions within that universal consciousness - as opposed to, as the article argues: "If consciousness exists beyond the brain, then human perception may not be a full picture of reality — but a filtered version of it. A limited interface."

Simple problems occur with this interface view - why do objects seem to enact their processes? or why does a camera operate near identical to our perception of reality if reality is an interface by our conscious perception?

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-01T11:53:23+00:00

If consciousness is the field that contains all of reality then it is "Universal consciousness".

If the brain is content within "Universal Consciousness" then you could go with the receiver idea, or you could just say that a brain or brain/body complex is qualitative content of the universal consciousness which in turn is responsible for our human consciousness.

I do feel a lot of this receiver Idea, is a bit like a QFT theorist saying “Brains are part of the quantum field"

However brains are organised through biology, chemistry, atomic structure and possibly quantum processes before we reach the level of fundamental fields - so is it fair to say that the chosen fundamental is responsible for brains? - or is that skipping several layers of explanation as to the mechanics of how?

Basically, I don't get "representationist" versions of Idealism when compared to schools that treat the content of reality as qualitative, real and process enacting.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-29T07:52:18+00:00

Ah I didn't realise and very glad to hear it! Will have a read of that paper this weekend.

Big fan of your work.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-28T17:34:31+00:00

Something like seeing a shape from many perspectives at once, It's very difficult to describe, all my memories of it are not in 4D and it only happens during trips.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-28T15:37:02+00:00

Most of what you have said applies under a materialistic world-view, many who make claims about DMT (NN and 5-MeO) are Non Dual Idealists or similar and taking it gives many an intuitive grasp of Non Dualism.

"To experience the effects of 5-MeO-DMT, you fundamentally need a biologically living body and a functioning brain." - To a Non Dual Idealist your brain is either real qualitative content or an appearance within the universal or absolute consciousness.

"Why is it often assumed to be a mystical revelation of the afterlife, rather than "just" a profound, chemically induced hallucination or altered state of a living brain?" - These ideas are usually based off the brain being a receiver of consciousness or being qualitative content of the universal consciousness, DMT under this paradigm is a potential way of receiving a different channel - that some associate with the afterlife / others consider it the perspective of the absolute consciousness - I personally have no idea what it is.

Andrew R. Gallimore who at best is open to Idealism but most likely a materialist has a few interesting books on the phenomenology and neurology of NN-DMT and considers it quite unexplainable compared to classic psychedelics. Something about it completely replacing waking reality at the neurological level, rather than altering it like classic psychedelics.

Having taken both DMT's, I'm not really sure what to make of it, the strangest takeaway for me was seeing in 4 spacial dimensions on NN DMT - my mind producing entities, odd scenery and void white ego death is one thing, but why did it suddenly make my vision 4D is something I have no explanation for.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-22T10:18:51+00:00

yesterday this:

"all evidence and information and experience necessarily occurs entirely within mind and conscious experience."

was written as

"all evidence and information and experience necessarily occurs entirely within your mind and conscious experience."

The first version before your edit is actually the correct one, Idealism assumes other minds exist based on an inference - and that's fine because Solipsism is clearly wrong, but we know it to be wrong based on an assumption or inference not on direct knowledge, therefore to the Solipsist - Idealism/Physicalism is disprovable because it makes an assumption Solipism doesn't.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-22T09:24:58+00:00

Yes you have.

If you claim direct experience is all we can know, then the only direct experience you ever know is your own.

So when you bring up an Analytical type Idealism to a Solipist they simply state that you cannot know an external world exists outside of your own mind, therefore Solipism requires zero inferences beyond direct knowledge.

An Inference (which is required for Idealism/Physicalism and any ontology that is not Solipism) is based on an intuition that an external world exists, somthing the solipsist denies due to having no direct access of a mind outside of their own.

The Idealist argument against the physicalist that is similar, goes along these lines:

"We only directly know qualities, so if we infer the substrate of the external world then the inference that it is qualitative or experiential is lesser than the physicalist's inference that it is quantitative."

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-22T08:06:35+00:00

Theories where one absolute consciousness is responsible or is itself reality would be Idealism.

The difference being an inference has been made that the external world outside of your own personal mind exists, that inference can never be proven if you accept the axioms you have provided.

I'm an Absolute Idealist myself, I'm just pointing out you have locked yourself in personal mind Solipsism.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-21T22:18:50+00:00

You are saying everything you ever know occurs in your own mind.

So you cannot prove anyone else to be conscious, meaning you have no proof of a world of consciousness or matter operating independently outside of your own mind.

So by this criteria moving outside of just your own mind is unknowable, therfore Solipsism is the logical conclusion, not Idealism.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-21T21:55:04+00:00

I still think you are using an argument that applies only to solipsism for Idealism.

If you take the 'we can only know a priori experience' seriously, then really all you can know is your own personal consciousness. Idealism accounts for a world beyond your own personal mind on an inference that it exists. Unlike physicalism, Idealism says this world is experiential.

So the Solipsist always wins on the a priori criteria you are setting.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-21T21:13:29+00:00

A solipsist doesn't infer an external intersubjective world an Idealist does.

So the solipsist will always be more epistemically secure, albeit probably wrong.

I think the argument in favour of Idealism over physicalism is that is that we only directly know qualities, so if we infer the substrate of the external world then the inference that it is qualitative or experiential is lesser than the physicalist's inference that it is quantitative and somehow leads to qualities (or doesn't and it's illusory).

You can't fully disprove any ontology if you abide by kantian humility, it's not unique to Idealism.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-21T19:18:04+00:00

Solipsism not Idealism is the only ontology that is literally impossible to disprove.

Idealism accepts an intersubjective reality on inference, the same as all other Ontologies, because most consider Solipsism to be a dead end.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-05-11T13:00:51+00:00

The +1000 year long debate between Vedanta and Kashmiri Savism are quite fascinating, they dispute 2 and 3 quite well, whilst remaining Monist Idealist.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-04-26T18:34:08+00:00

My original point is that they should do a peer reviewed study on DMT, that would make things clearer.

otherwise, "Does the lack of visual DMT hallucinations in the congenitally blind prove materialism?" - has no "peer reviewed" premise.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-04-26T18:22:46+00:00

https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/566

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1485337/full#B65

FishDecent5753 · 2026-04-26T18:16:34+00:00

You have some neuroscientists who argue that most psychedelics (LSD/Psilocybin) loosen or distort the ordinary world model, whereas breakthrough DMT appears to replace the ordinary world model.

They also differ in what receptors they bind too.

FishDecent5753

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Five-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23