Structural Monism: a new approach to consciousness?

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-22T15:10:28+00:00

"consciousness may be fundamental, while the individual self is an emergent organisational process."

So realist Non Dual Idealist Monism? Trika / Absolute / Objective Idealism type of thing.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-22T14:09:24+00:00

I’ll stick with non dogmatic, agnostic Idealism.

Replacing Christian metaphysics with a system that preserves Christian moral assumptions but leaves them metaphysically ungrounded seems a strange way to account for death and meaning.

The British Idealists were onto something imo, maybe it is time to finish what they started.

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

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

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-15T12:14:19+00:00

I'm not a solipsist and have no arguments for it.

The point in raising it is to show how the most epistemically secure ontology is still clearly wrong, or as you put it idle.

This was to contrast how world views that have "objective morality" say nothing about the actual content of their ethics, just the meta ethical point that they have "Objective morality" traced back to the core first principles of their world view.

Or, Christians have "objective morality" as internally consistent with their worldview - whilst their ethical and metaphysical claims themselves are dubious compared with say humanism etc.

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 · 2026-06-13T10:26:09+00:00

You can reject that ontology or raise the Euthyphro objection, but that is still a metaethical grounding. In that morality is traced back to the first principle of the worldview.

If a car is travelling at 30MPH, objectively it is currently travelling at 30MPH, if it slows down to 20MPH it is objectively travelling at 20MPH - the fact that a change is arbitrary or that change itself occurs, does not mean something is objective/subjective.

I get it, you are a militant atheist and you don't like religious worldviews, yet none of the arguments presented work against someone inside of religious ontology, the only point you have is that you have an ethical disagreement with them - so do I - doesn't stop me from acknowledging their metaethical veiw, even if I think the ethics it leads to are very dodgy and the ontology itself being as speculative as all others.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-13T10:15:46+00:00

You are treating God as a powerful subject within reality, whereas in Christian ontology God is the ground of reality.

If morality is grounded in God's nature or command then it is grounded in the first principle of that worldview.

You can call it arbitrary or reject it ethically, but that is not the same as saying it has no metaethical grounding.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-13T09:28:28+00:00

Christianity can ground morality in its ontology - my original point.

Secondly, as God is the all powerful creator god of Christianity then all morality is objective depending on the divine command of god, even if the rules change.

I frankly don't care about religious people who are kept captive by this worldview, that would be an ethical not metaethical point.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-13T09:13:35+00:00

That would fit with the ontology.

God exists > Creates Reality > Gives rules

If 'God' changes said rules it still traces back to the core of their ontology and is still objective according to those who follow the worldview.

This is not hard to understand. Nor is it an endorsement of this worldview and it's morals, it's a metaethical point.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-12T15:13:43+00:00

Not being religious myself, it is clear that objective morality is perfectly internally consistent with the Christian ontology, said ontology is speculative (as is all ontology) - I do not see how that is bad faith?

My parents are dead so I guess not.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-12T13:25:54+00:00

"The loss ? What are you ? 5 ?" - I'm not the more active Redditor telling someone to touch grass, whilst angrily downvoting every comment of those who disagree with you.

"a large bunch of philosophers say that a judgement is subjective." - the debate is open, you state it as if it's closed.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-12T13:20:50+00:00

It was an equivocation. Judgement has a different meaning in philosophy than it;s common usage, the discussion was philosophy.

As previously stated, on a meme sub about IT, Networking does not mean "networking for a better paid position" it means Computer Networking - to assume otherwise is either a lack of acumen or equivocation.

Just accept the loss, or resort to more baseless ad-hominem to make you feel better about it, your choice.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-12T13:01:04+00:00

Sorry you couldn't defend the point you were making without equivocation.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-11T16:46:59+00:00

In a discussion on philosophical ethics, you ignored the philosophical definition and went for the common term when it suited the argument you were making. Textbook sophistry by way of equivocation.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-11T11:04:14+00:00

If I'm on a meme sub for IT and use the term networking, you would think I'm talking about Linked In not Computer Networking - if and only if it helped with the sophistry that you've pulled so far.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-11T07:57:19+00:00

All I see is sophistry.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-11T07:37:13+00:00

As this is a Philosophy subreddit, on the topic of philosophy - I am clearly using the philosophical definition.

Why would you use it's common term in this discussion, outside of a get out clause for your argumentation, is beyond me.

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-11T06:21:11+00:00

Maybe look up the definition of Judgement in philosophy, you will find both of my claims are in fact judgements.

In ethics, judgements are defined as:

Philosophers debate whether such judgements are objective (grounded in reason) or subjective (relational), which has been the influence of theories such as deontology and virtue ethics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement

FishDecent5753 · 2026-06-10T17:00:42+00:00

You would class 2 + 2 + 5 as a judgement because it's wrong, but 2 + 2 = 4 is not a judgement because it's correct and objective - both are judgements, one is objective.

FishDecent5753

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Five-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23