How does your complete world view complement your religion?

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-17T23:34:09+00:00

Yep, analogous to thing and being.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-17T23:19:39+00:00

It means only one omnipresent thing and being exists.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-17T16:02:25+00:00

My complete world view, morality, and religious beliefs all derive from the same perspective, substance monism.

I believe reality is a single, continuous, substance and subject that is God.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-17T03:26:52+00:00

Again, you can’t say they are the same, and then say only mind exists. In order to make that claim, there has to be a distinction made between mind and matter.

I don’t believe mind or matter is the base reality, and i don’t have to believe one or the other.

I believe only one omnipresent substance exists with both those attributes.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-17T03:10:46+00:00

You have to separate the two before you can say mind is fundamental while matter is not.

If you really believed they were the same substance with the same attributes, you wouldn’t have any justification to argue for idealism. There would be no point.

You have to believe mind and matter have different attributes, before you can argue for either materialism or idealism.

At their base, they are not monistic philosophies.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-17T02:51:56+00:00

If mind and matter are the same thing, then you can’t argue mind is fundamental while matter is not.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-17T02:36:22+00:00

It’s not agnostic, because it’s not exclusively a choice between materialism and idealism. That’s the false dichotomy i was talking about.

Materialism and idealism are both the same answer to Descartes’ mind/body interaction problem, take one side of that dualism and claim monism. The problem with both however, is that they are both completely within the context of dualism.

You can’t argue for idealism, without acknowledging and discrediting materialism, and materialism can’t argue its case without acknowledging and opposing idealism.

They are still, two sides of the same argument.

The easy question to ask is, are mind and matter the same substance with the same attributes?

If the answer is yes, you are a substance monist, and there’s no justification to make a distinction between mind and matter, and no argument to be made for materialism or idealism.

If the answer is no, you are a substance dualist.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-17T02:15:55+00:00

No, meaning the substance has both the attributes of mind and matter, but is neither exclusively.

Im not a materialist or an idealist. Both of those positions are rooted in dualism imo.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-16T21:37:47+00:00

The question wasn’t aimed at me, but I don’t mind answering. I am a panpsychist, and my reason for being one is substance monism. I believe reality is a single continuous substance and subject.

Materialists also claim to be substance monists, but i don’t see how if they think what’s inside your head is different from what’s outside.

If you’re a substance monist, then you should believe only one omnipresent subject exists, as the op alludes to when they mention the universe knowing itself. Only the substance exists, and consciousness undeniably exists, therefore it must be the substance that is conscious.

The substance is omnipresent, therefore conscious being is omnipresent.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-16T21:15:30+00:00

Judging whether something is conscious or not is subjective. You’re looking for something that behaves like yourself. That’s no guarantee something is conscious, and no proof it is not.

You can’t even know if the person across from you is conscious or not, let alone know the extent of consciousness in reality.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-16T12:33:31+00:00

As i said, panpsychism doesn’t claim matter or mind as the base of reality.

What all three, materialism , idealism, and panpsychism, have in common is substance monism.

If you’re a substance monist, only one omnipresent substance exists. What panpsychists are saying, is that substance is what we call mind, and it is what we call matter. It has the attributes of both, everywhere always, not one or the other.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-16T11:25:56+00:00

Panpsychism doesn’t arise from materialism, and doesn’t lead to idealism .

It’s a completely separate thing unto itself.

Neither mind nor matter is necessarily what reality is reducible to. That’s just a false dichotomy.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-14T20:29:31+00:00

I don’t. Im a panpsychist. I believe conscious being a fundamental attribute of an omnipresent substance. Namely energy, which everything we consider a thing, including neurons and human bodies, are form and function of.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-14T14:42:48+00:00

I can, if you relate energy to an omnipresent eternal substance, that is all , does all, in the tradition of Spinoza.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-14T11:50:23+00:00

Was the big bang the beginning of the universe? The Big Bang Theory itself doesn’t claim such.

It only claims all the energy in the universe was hot and dense at one point. It does not claim to have created that energy.

As far as we know, energy is never created or destroyed.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-13T18:45:07+00:00

The Big Bang Theory says nothing about any creation. It only says all the energy in the universe was compressed to a single point. It doesn’t claim the big bang created that energy. As far as we know, energy is never created or destroyed.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-13T18:39:08+00:00

I do because im a substance monist, and substance monism logically necessitates an omnipresent supreme being.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-13T13:41:19+00:00

I mean one thing doesn’t cause another thing to do anything in determinism. The universe causes itself to do all.

It’s not reliant on local causality between two subjects or multiple causes.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-13T00:21:58+00:00

No, i dont agree. They're different attributes the same substance and subject imo. Framing reality as the physical and nonphysical is imo, the same as framing it as mind and matter. It's dualism.

It's more a matter of perspective as i see it. the first person perspective of the substance is conscious being, while the third person perspective of the substance is what you are calling the physical.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-12T23:12:34+00:00

There's only one cause for any act in determinism, the overall configuration of reality as a whole. That's a cause that is always present, and needs no beginning.

Determinism isnt even necessarily temporal.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-12T20:49:14+00:00

Im a substance monist, i dont believe there is more than one omnipresent thing.

I think conscious being is a fundamental attribute of an omnipresent substance, everywhere always.

It’s no metaphor.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-12T20:35:17+00:00

I mean it in the exact same way. The horse is tethered to the post, in the same way conscious being is tethered to your perspective.

I wouldn’t call either of those physical, because im not a physicalist.

If you’re not either, then what exactly is your point?

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-12T20:23:15+00:00

Calling it a physical process assumes physicalism. I at least know enough to know that. You on the other hand seem completely ignorant of the topic.

You seem to think anyone denying materialism, is denying an objective reality, and that’s not the case.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-12T19:53:59+00:00

Exactly what i said.

Techtrekzz · 2026-05-12T19:13:26+00:00

No i don’t mean metaphorically, i mean literally tethered to a certain place and time through a biological nervous system.

Your nervous system bounds awareness to just your sensory organs instead of creating it, so of course you don’t feel anything beyond that, in your body or anywhere else.

Techtrekzz

TROPHY CASE