It is a good exercise to try to find the most basic building blocks of the Universe. Science has traced it back to Energy, but you are Speculating that Spirit or what I would call Consciousness is a more fundamental building block. I don't see how you make Energy from Consciousness, but it is a good Speculation. There's nothing wrong with Speculation. You don't need to have all the answers to have a Speculative Insight. Maybe just the thought that Energy and thus Matter are actually made out of Consciousness will inspire some other Mind to discover the answer. By the way, when it comes to Consciousness all we have is Speculation because nobody — SteveKlinko

Thank you for the kind words.

Thank you for the kind words. — Noah Te Stroete

Would you rather hear kind words or harsh truths?

Anyway, if, unlikely though it may seem, your speculation leads to some genuinely valuable insight, as opposed to flights of the imagination, then you will have peaked my interest. Until then, I'm satisfied with my response.

I sympathize with your position, but you can't really discuss it with materialists because they disagree with your premises, but then you disagree with theirs so it doesn't lead anywhere. Still I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually less narrow-minded. But it's hard to show someone narrow-minded that they are narrow-minded, they have to be willing to let go of their convictions, or at least to tentatively entertain different points of view without reacting strongly right from the beginning against what they don't believe in. — leo

Thank you. S thinks that analytical philosophy is superior to continental philosophy, and that the 17th and 18th century philosophers did nothing of note. I don’t know why I engage with him. He isn’t about discovery, about the world or about himself. He seems to think that the consensus in the scientific community at any given time is the end all and be all. He has no imagination, and he just parrots back what he has learned from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Would you rather hear kind words or harsh truths? — S

And what do you know about truth. You’re no better than a nihilist.

And what do you know about truth. You’re no better than a nihilist. — Noah Te Stroete

I know, at least, that one has a better chance of obtaining it through a means other than those known to be faulty, such as wishful thinking and confirmation bias. You want there to be a God, and, lo and behold, you interpret the science so as to lead to God. That's not the approach of a seeker of truth, that's the approach of someone who is out to indulge in self-satisfying deception, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I know, at least, that one has a better chance of obtaining it through a means other than those known to be faulty, such as wishful thinking and confirmation bias. You want there to be a God, and, lo and behold, you interpret the science so as to lead to God. That's not the approach of a seeker of truth, that's the approach of someone who is out to indulge in pleasing deception, whether consciously or unconsciously. — S

S thinks that analytical philosophy is superior to continental philosophy, and that the 17th and 18th century philosophers did nothing of note. I don’t know why I engage with him. He isn’t about discovery, about the world or about himself. He seems to think that the consensus in the scientific community at any given time is the end all and be all. He has no imagination, and he just parrots back what he has learned from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. — Noah Te Stroete

...and that the 17th and 18th century philosophers did nothing of note — Noah Te Stroete

You must not have seen my profile. I've probably referenced Hume more than any other philosopher. 1711 - 1776, by the way.

Kant made mince-meat out of Hume.

Kant made mince-meat out of Hume. — Noah Te Stroete

Hardly. It was he who awoke him from his dogmatic slumber. Kant is indebted to Hume, and developed his groundbreaking thinking. But Hume wins hands down on ethics and philosophy of religion.

That’s your opinion.

Like, that's your opinion, man.

Yeah, well, um, you know, that’s just like your opinion, man. -The Dude (a true philosopher)

And it's only partly my opinion. It's partly Kant's own opinion..................... man.

I happen to think that's precisely why they choose them. For instance there's something about physicalism that suits you that you don't find in other philosophies. — leo

I definitely do not choose any stance because I like it. In fact, I'd often prefer that other things were true. I choose stances based on what's the case.

I'm still interested in a response to this, by the way: "It's not even clear to me what open or closed-minded would amount to in a context like this. "

I definitely do not choose any stance because I like it. In fact, I'd often prefer that other things were true. I choose stances based on what's the case. — Terrapin Station

And that's the right approach. The wrong approach would be, "Ooh, doesn't spirit sound nice? Yeah, I'll go with that. Everything is spirit".

And @Wallows says I have nothing to teach.

I definitely do not choose any stance because I like it. In fact, I'd often prefer that other things were true. I choose stances based on what's the case. — Terrapin Station

It is the case that physicalism has no answer and will never have an answer for consciousness. To so readily discard that which is a given to each of us as unworthy of attention is folly, imho.

It is the case that physicalism has no answer and will never have an answer for consciousness. — Noah Te Stroete

That's not at all the case. Consciousness is very clearly a subset of brain function.

That's not at all the case. Consciousness is very clearly a subset of brain function. — Terrapin Station

And you’ve died already to say that that is clearly shown? What hubris. How do you know that consciousness only occurs in brains? What is your justification?

That's not at all the case. Consciousness is very clearly a subset of brain function. — Terrapin Station

Mmm. Is there any credible evidence of anything conscious without a functional brain?

I would guess you might be an example.

And you’ve died already to say that that is clearly shown? — Noah Te Stroete

Died already? What are you talking about. It's clearly the case due to every bit of scientific evidence about consciousness, including all medical data.

How do you know that consciousness only occurs in brains? — Noah Te Stroete

By the complete absence of evidence of it occurring elsewhere. That's the same way that we know that Led Zeppelin music only occurs on Earth.

I would guess you might be an example. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, if so, then that would at least finally prove, contrary to all prior evidence, that you're not entirely full of crap.

By the complete absence of evidence of it occurring elsewhere. That's the same way that we know that Led Zeppelin music only occurs on Earth. — Terrapin Station

Lack of evidence doesn’t preclude the possibility. There is lack of evidence that consciousness exists outside of this planet.

Lack of evidence doesn’t preclude the possibility. — Noah Te Stroete

Excluding possibilities would amount to proving something, right?

No. Lack of evidence also PROVES nothing.

No — Noah Te Stroete

If we've precluded all possibilities but one, then that one thing can't be wrong, no?

Excluding possibilities would amount to proving something, right? — Terrapin Station

I'll give you the correct answer: yes. It would, obviously and at the very least, prove those things impossible, and narrow down the possibilities.

If we've precluded all possibilities but one, then that one thing can't be wrong, no? — Terrapin Station

How have we precluded all possibilities? What is the justification for that?

How have we precluded all possibilities? What is the justification for that? — Noah Te Stroete

Even if it's possible, absent any evidence, it's a possibility that only fools would take seriously. So you're fighting a losing battle here.

You're not following:

You said, "Lack of evidence doesn’t preclude the possibility."

So we have the idea of precluding possibilities, right?

If we were to preclude all possibilities but one, that would be a proof, correct?