The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[VVilliam]

I believe it is a reasonable step to confine what is mind to the following and I believe this is what is studied by Science.
If you don't agree, you have to give your evidence.

What is studied by Physical Science yes I have agreed with this, although it is not so much a matter of belief but of knowing.

Physical science is limited in study of mindfulness as far as devices the mind can use to understand itself in relation to The Universe goes.
If a mind chooses to be restricted to "reasonable steps" re its own existence in The Universe, that is entirely a choice influenced by the individual personality using a mind.

My point is I want to limit our discussion to a science that is limited to observations that are empirical based.

Where will that leave us in relation to each other (mind to mind)?

How would such bring me answers to questions about death and what happens mindfully after the brain dies?

How will such explain to me the planet (stars and entire universe) is or isn't Mindful?

If you want to include formal science like computer science, I have no issue with issue with that, but I don't think it is necessary for our discussion.

Then what is left for us to discuss?

I admit I am not as good [way below] as ChatGpt re the above.
ChatGpt merely summarized what you presented to it.

The summary was intended to pique curiosity that you might revisit the information (the conversation I submitted and which you wrote you could not follow/understand) and my mentioning an LLS had no problem following it was to encourage you to make an effort to follow said conversation.

I presented the above summary and asked ChatGpt the following question:

"My question is, can the contents of the above be verified and justified by science?"

That is a different question altogether. The point you made was that you could not follow the conversation, not that the conversation could not be "verified and justified" by "science".

I gave the summary to point out that GPT had no problem following the conversation, so why would an actual mindful critter such as yourself be unable to do so?

Note I have argued,
the human-based scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective at present, and there is no other better than it in that sense.

Noted.

But how is that helpful with the subject of mindfulness. How does (physical science) help we minds understand ourselves in relation to The Universe or even help us find out if the planet is mindful?

[Veritas Aequitas]

..

Looks like the bottleneck is 'what is Mind' and 'what is mindfulness'.
The terms 'mind' and 'mindfulness' are too ambiguous and I get confused in this case because my version of 'what is mind' [re Biology & Psychology] and 'what is mindfulness' [aware, Vipassana Meditation] it totally different from yours.
Instead of the above can we change the above to God exists as real and is omnipotent?
Thus for you, it is God {a Mind] that is mindful to do anything.

I believe it is a reasonable step to confine what is mind to the following and I believe this is what is studied by Science.
If you don't agree, you have to give your evidence.

What is studied by Physical Science yes I have agreed with this, although it is not so much a matter of belief but of knowing.

Physical science is limited in study of mindfulness as far as devices the mind can use to understand itself in relation to The Universe goes.
If a mind chooses to be restricted to "reasonable steps" re its own existence in The Universe, that is entirely a choice influenced by the individual personality using a mind.

The focus is not on 'a mind' but The Real Person within REALITY who has a mind as a tool [faculty] to live optimally within existing constraints.

What is critical here is to differentiate between 'what is real' and 'what is not real' and using both to optimize the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity at present and for the future; not worrying selfishly about what happened after the death of an individual.
There is a real threat that the human species could go extinct due to climate change, running out of resources on Earth, potential of a rogue asteroid destroying Earth.

At present, the most [generally accepted] credible and objective tool available to verify and justify what is real is the scientific FSRK [physical and social].
This is why I SUGGEST we limit to discuss what is reality to scientific FSRK [physical and social].
If you think other sciences [albeit useful] are better that the two sciences above in relation to verifying what is realty, then you have to justify it. If you can, then I will agree.

My point is I want to limit our discussion to a science that is limited to observations that are empirical based.

Where will that leave us in relation to each other (mind to mind)?
How would such bring me answers to questions about death and what happens mindfully after the brain dies?

How will such explain to me the planet (stars and entire universe) is or isn't Mindful?

Since the physical and social sciences are the most credible and objective, we should rely on this two sciences to verify whether your claim of 'God' [Mind] exists as real or not; and whether the entire universe is really Mindful or not.
If only we can prove God exists as real, then omnipresent mindfulness can be proven.

The approach to reality should be TOP-DOWN based on what is real as experienced and observed; we can then drill down to as far as the evidence can support our claims.
In this case, there is the idea of an infinite regress. Since it only an idea [thought only] we should not be hasty in trying to stop the infinite regress with a first cause or uncaused cause, but rather, we should understand the 'Why' of it.

Now at this point in time, we have not exhausted what is there to know about the human person, i.e. the complexities within the human body, brain and mind. Note the human brain has about 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses [connectors]; just imagine the possible permutations and combinations!!
If we explore deeper and wider, it is more likely that it is within the complexities of the human self that is driving the majority of humans to stop the infinite regress by reifying an illusory 'Mind' that is mindful and striving for the soteriological ultimate of eternal life.

To understand more of the human self [not just mind only] and its motivation, considerations should be given to the potential of the sciences [physical and social] e.g. genetics, cosmology, biology, evolutionary psychology, the various neurosciences, connectome, neuro-psychology, neuro-cognitive science, and many others.

If you want to include formal science like computer science, I have no issue with issue with that, but I don't think it is necessary for our discussion.

Then what is left for us to discuss?

Note the wide range of possibilities I listed above where we can study beside leaving aside computer science in the meantime.
Nonetheless, we need to bring in AI into the picture at some point. ChatGpt* version 100++ will be very helpful. * and other AI LLMs and models.

Note I have argued,
the human-based scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective at present, and there is no other better than it in that sense.

Noted.
But how is that helpful with the subject of mindfulness. How does (physical science) help we minds understand ourselves in relation to The Universe or even help us find out if the planet is mindful?

As I alluded above, we can rely on the physical and social sciences to understand why the majority of humans at present are driven to jump hastily to conclusion or intuit 'there is a real universal Mind [God] that is mindful' in the absence of credible and objective evidence to support such a claim.

Your views?

[VVilliam]

The focus is not on 'a mind' but The Real Person within REALITY who has a mind as a tool [faculty] to live optimally within existing constraints.

That is your focus but not mine. What is a mind that we have one rather than we are one? That is my focus.

Thus for you, it is God {a Mind] that is mindful to do anything.

I haven't define a "god" but go along with the idea that if the planet is mindful, the mind of the planet in relation to the body of the planet would be a contender as far as I am concerned.

Re that, it appears that the planet mind can do much, but not "anything".

What is critical here is to differentiate between 'what is real' and 'what is not real' and using both to optimize the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity at present and for the future; not worrying selfishly about what happened after the death of an individual.

That is a bit judgy. What happens to humanity is not up to me so there is little requirement to feel overly concerned re that. However, what happens to the human personality after the body has died, might be more in my control/influence - based upon reports to do with NDEs et al and my own subjective experience - and need not be relegated as less important than whatever humanity does to itself or whether it survives or goes extinct.

The reality appears to favor the idea that the planet (and universe) is set up in order to grow human personalities (re our particular placement in it) and since niether you or I have the power to save humanity, we are better served to sort our own life-philosophy out and gain as much understanding as we can.

That (in part) is how I use the MIND to Mind interactive message generating process of which the sample that I shared with you and which you appear to be unable to follow/understand - nonetheless shows itself to be rather helpful - at least to me.

Since the physical and social sciences are the most credible and objective, we should rely on this two sciences to verify whether your claim of 'God' [Mind] exists as real or not; and whether the entire universe is really Mindful or not.

These two sciences do not deny the existence of mindfulness. However, (you should agree) they are not overly helpful in assisting us with understanding minds, whether these be human, planetary or universal.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The focus is not on 'a mind' but The Real Person within REALITY who has a mind as a tool [faculty] to live optimally within existing constraints.

That is your focus but not mine. What is a mind that we have one rather than we are one? That is my focus.

I presume you are more interested in 'what is mind'.
But if you are not relying on the two sciences [physical and social] then you don't have any effective means to verify and justify your 'what is Mind'.
So, what means or tools do you verify and justify your 'what is Mind' is real?

Note 'real' as defined which is 'that which actual as conditioned upon a human-based FSRK' of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.

Thus for you, it is God {a Mind] that is mindful to do anything.

I haven't define a "god" but go along with the idea that if the planet is mindful, the mind of the planet in relation to the body of the planet would be a contender as far as I am concerned.

Re that, it appears that the planet mind can do much, but not "anything".

I had presumed your belief is that of the typical theist, i.e. believing in a supreme, perfect, omni-whatever God. Do your believe in this?

When you say "the mind of the planet in relation to the body of the planet" seem like 'Gaia'.
Can you provide the precise basis of your belief re 'Mind' and 'mindfulness'.
Do you have references that I can read so I do not interpret your belief wrongly?

What is critical here is to differentiate between 'what is real' and 'what is not real' and using both to optimize the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity at present and for the future; not worrying selfishly about what happened after the death of an individual.

That is a bit judgy. What happens to humanity is not up to me so there is little requirement to feel overly concerned re that. However, what happens to the human personality after the body has died, might be more in my control/influence - based upon reports to do with NDEs et al and my own subjective experience - and need not be relegated as less important than whatever humanity does to itself or whether it survives or goes extinct.

The reality appears to favor the idea that the planet (and universe) is set up in order to grow human personalities (re our particular placement in it) and since niether you or I have the power to save humanity, we are better served to sort our own life-philosophy out and gain as much understanding as we can.

That (in part) is how I use the MIND to Mind interactive message generating process of which the sample that I shared with you and which you appear to be unable to follow/understand - nonetheless shows itself to be rather helpful - at least to me.

True, there is no way, the individual alone can save humanity.
However, on a collective basis, it is possible for the collective-of-humans has the potential ability to save humanity in the advent of the global and galactical threats.

There is a progressive trend [evident since 100,000 years ago to the present] of the capability of humanity in its ability to protect the human species.
Note the continual progress in the prevention and elimination of chattel slavery since the past 5000 years up to the present. Note other improvements.

In the recent years there was and is a collective co-operation to prevent the covid-19 pandemic. If no collective action was done and no developed modern medicine and technology, the human species could have been wipe out by the covid-19 or future more serious pandemic.

There is a growing awareness of the threat of climate change and its potential threat to the human species.

Also humans have already progress to go into space, land on the moon and possible to other planets. This is driven just in case we run out of space or Earth becomes inhabitable as it orbit nearer to the Sun.

Scientists are exploring idea on how to deflect potentially threatening asteroids whilst they are a million miles away.

From the above, it is evident that there is an inherent propensity in the individuals to act collectively in the interest of the human species.

we are better served to sort our own life-philosophy out and gain as much understanding as we can.

But it seems you are not pursuing to know more about yourself as an individual?
I am confident when you know more about yourself as an individual, you will understand 'no man is an island' and the main thrust [in general] for the individual[s] is for the good of the collective.

To be more concern for your after life in heaven [if that is your goal] that is very selfish which is driven psychologically and very selfish.
In the extreme, some individuals will even kill others if they think their selfish interest to heaven is threatened [note Islam] - all because of an illusory being; other evil acts are the blasphemy laws with threat of death, the hindrance of progressive secular knowledge for God's knowledge only, etc.

Since the physical and social sciences are the most credible and objective, we should rely on this two sciences to verify whether your claim of 'God' [Mind] exists as real or not; and whether the entire universe is really Mindful or not.

These two sciences do not deny the existence of mindfulness. However, (you should agree) they are not overly helpful in assisting us with understanding minds, whether these be human, planetary or universal.

That is the problem when we are not precise with definitions of the term used.
Science is not about denial.
What science pursue is merely to confirm, verify and justify whatever is observed and experienced within the rules and conditioned of the agreed FSRK.
Whatever are scientific facts are at best polished conjectures [Popper].
Many a times "what is scientific fact" from a scientific FSRK has been subsequently proven to be false within the rules of the FSRK.

I don't agree with any planetary nor universal 'Mind'.
However the physical and social sciences has enable to put humanity on the continual progressive path of understanding the human mind.
Are you familiar with the advances of the neurosciences, neuro-psychology, neuro-cognitive sciences, etc. in their advancing understanding of the human mind?
At present we may not have much knowledge of the human mind [with this limited knowledge, humanity has already gain a lot from it], but there is a trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge of the human mind at present; from this trend we can extrapolate humanity will have greater knowledge of the human mind than the last 50 years.

What I am optimistic is in the future, humans will have gained so much knowledge of the human mind that the individuals will be able to manage & modulate mindfully the inherent existential crisis that drive them to cling to an illusory God, planetary mind or Universal Mind to deal with their soteriological issues.

[VVilliam]

The focus is not on 'a mind' but The Real Person within REALITY who has a mind as a tool [faculty] to live optimally within existing constraints.

That is your focus but not mine. What is a mind that we have one rather than we are one? That is my focus.

I presume you are more interested in 'what is mind'.

No. I think it is more than just presumption since I have tried to be clear about that being my focus.

But if you are not relying on the two sciences [physical and social] then you don't have any effective means to verify and justify your 'what is Mind'.

The point being is that those sciences cannot be relied upon alone. They have their place in the scheme of things but have not proven to be overly useful in relation to the hard problem of understanding mindfulness and are certainly not to be elevated beyond their ability re explaining mindfulness.

So, what means or tools do you verify and justify your 'what is Mind' is real?

Note 'real' as defined which is 'that which actual as conditioned upon a human-based FSRK' of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.

I regard mind as being that which is real and the only thing which is able to verify/acknowledge anything as being real.

I had presumed your belief is that of the typical theist, i.e. believing in a supreme, perfect, omni-whatever God. Do your believe in this?

I tend not to believe in things which are delegated to being supernatural.
If indeed the Universe is mindful, then while such a mind could easily be considered "almighty", and certainly "supreme" in regards to ability such a mind would have compared to planetary, or even galactic minds, I have doubts that such a mind would view other minds as actually being separate from itself but would likely understand such minds as extensions of its own mindfulness.

When you say "the mind of the planet in relation to the body of the planet" seem like 'Gaia'.
Can you provide the precise basis of your belief re 'Mind' and 'mindfulness'.

I wouldn't say it is a belief so much as a suspicion which is based upon the existence of human mindfulness, recognisable mindful-like responses in other biological lifeforms (even ones without recognisable "brains") and the possibility that what looks like emergence (through the idea of enough time and process) can (also) explain how Planets can become mindful.

From the above, it is evident that there is an inherent propensity in the individuals to act collectively in the interest of the human species.

Perhaps this is explainable re the same psychology as an existential crisis. Have you thought of this idea along the lines of it being a reaction to a crisis (and) is the reaction as clear and determined as you are presenting it to be?

Is this collective activity really in the interests of the human species and even if so, is it even rational/sensible/necessary that the human species survives rather than goes extinct?

I am not saying it isn't a nice idea but is it practical and does it reflect reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The focus is not on 'a mind' but The Real Person within REALITY who has a mind as a tool [faculty] to live optimally within existing constraints.

That is your focus but not mine. What is a mind that we have one rather than we are one? That is my focus.

I presume you are more interested in 'what is mind'.

No. I think it is more than just presumption since I have tried to be clear about that being my focus.

Actually at this point I am not too sure of what is your belief re 'Mind' and 'mind'.
Since your belief is not typical, do you have references?
Who are the people who share your belief? e.g. "Mindism"? mentalism?
Since you did not refer to any deity, then you are not a theist?

Btw, Bahman also believe in a 'Universal Mind' with the capital "M".

But if you are not relying on the two sciences [physical and social] then you don't have any effective means to verify and justify your 'what is Mind'.

The point being is that those sciences cannot be relied upon alone. They have their place in the scheme of things but have not proven to be overly useful in relation to the hard problem of understanding mindfulness and are certainly not to be elevated beyond their ability re explaining mindfulness.

At present, the best we have in knowing reality is science [physical, natural and social] with acknowledgement of their limitations and weaknesses.
Other than the above what effective means do you have to verify and justify your belief re 'Mind' and 'mindfulness'.

So, what means or tools do you verify and justify your 'what is Mind' is real?

Note 'real' as defined which is 'that which actual as conditioned upon a human-based FSRK' of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.

I regard mind as being that which is real and the only thing which is able to verify/acknowledge anything as being real.

How? by what method and within what Framework and System? to rely upon to reach your conclusions and assuring they are credible and objective?
Example science relied upon the scientific method as the critical leverage together with other conditions within its Framework and System.

I had presumed your belief is that of the typical theist, i.e. believing in a supreme, perfect, omni-whatever God. Do your believe in this?

I tend not to believe in things which are delegated to being supernatural.
If indeed the Universe is mindful, then while such a mind could easily be considered "almighty", and certainly "supreme" in regards to ability such a mind would have compared to planetary, or even galactic minds, I have doubts that such a mind would view other minds as actually being separate from itself but would likely understand such minds as extensions of its own mindfulness.

Noted "such minds as extensions of its own mindfulness"
However, the human mind has intentionality, agency and volition which can be proven via science [psychology, biology, neuroscience, cognitive science].

Does your extended mind has something to do with this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_mind_thesis
In a way, I do agree with the above because the human self and mind are not "islands" within reality but are intricately part and parcel of reality.

However, I do not agree there is a Universal 'Mind' that is 'mindful' with intention, agency and volition on its own to the extent of creating the Universe and the like.

When you say "the mind of the planet in relation to the body of the planet" seem like 'Gaia'.
Can you provide the precise basis of your belief re 'Mind' and 'mindfulness'.

I wouldn't say it is a belief so much as a suspicion which is based upon the existence of human mindfulness, recognisable mindful-like responses in other biological lifeforms (even ones without recognisable "brains") and the possibility that what looks like emergence (through the idea of enough time and process) can (also) explain how Planets can become mindful.

So, your 'suspicion' is a "speculation" of some sort extrapolated from human having a mind.

As I had stated, at present, the most realistic basis of the human mind and mindfulness is verified and justified via science.
There is no other method.
You stated your is merely a "speculation" so we have to take it at that, until you are able
to provided a method that could verify and justify your speculation [hypothesis] as tenable.

From the above, it is evident that there is an inherent propensity in the individuals to act collectively in the interest of the human species.

Perhaps this is explainable re the same psychology as an existential crisis. Have you thought of this idea along the lines of it being a reaction to a crisis (and) is the reaction as clear and determined as you are presenting it to be?

Is this collective activity really in the interests of the human species and even if so, is it even rational/sensible/necessary that the human species survives rather than goes extinct?

I am not saying it isn't a nice idea but is it practical and does it reflect reality?

If you reflect deeply and widely on the history and evolution of the universe, living things and mankind, you will be able infer confidently the default existential crisis that emerge therefrom within all humans.

Based on evidences, the following is the reality;
1. It is evident all humans are "programmed" to survive as long as possible to avoid premature death until the inevitable of mortality.
2. All humans [and all living things] are also "programmed" with reproductive features [sexually or asexually] to produce the next generation. This imply the continual and preservation of the species.
3. From history, it is evident the survival of the individual is more likely with collective co-operation; efficient survival of the individual will facilitate the tribe and the species. If there is an existential threat by aliens from outer-space, I am sure, humans [despite all their differences on Earth] will co-operate to get ride of that threat from aliens. Agree?

4. To ensure optimal survival, all humans are "programmed" with an inherent and very strong 'fear of death' at least till the inevitable to facilitate survival. If there is any conscious awareness of a threat of death, these terrible 'fear of death' is triggered, to force humans to fight or flee to ensure survival and avoidance of death.

5. For good reasons, humans are evolved with adaptiveness of self-consciousness and self-awareness.
Based on very explicit evidence, mortality is 100% certain. Thus, this will automatically trigger the inherent and instinctual 'fear of death' program which manifest fear and terror within the human mind.
While, humans can fight or flee to avoid external threats of death, the self-consciousness of mortality is internal and one cannot fight or flee from it.
This create the inherent cognitive dissonances, i.e. mortality is certain but one cannot escape it while being flooded with terrible primal fears.
This is the inherent Existential Crisis ONLY in ALL humans [not other animals].

6. Fortunately, to avoid paralysis from fears, all humans are also programmed with with inhibitors [brakes] to suppress this inherent, primal and instinctual fears.
These inhibitors only suppress the impulses of primal fears but do not get rid of the "programmed triggers of fears".
Being human, these inhibitors are not 100% effective and it depend on the psychological state of the individual.
As such, the terrible fears from the cognitive dissonances while being suppressed, also leaked into the conscious mind but only as existential angsts most of the time with exceptions as momentary at times or if constantly if the inhibitors are damaged due to various reasons.

7. Since the above in universal in all humans, throughout the history of mankind, humans have been seeking solutions to soothe the leaked primal fears of death [existential angsts] via different methods from the external world. Such methods range from believing in supernatural external entities via primitive religions, shamanism, polytheism, monotheism, various "spiritualities" and also secular methods to soothe the inherent existential angsts.

8. For the belief adopted, the truth of reality is not critical, what is primary is whether it can soothe the existential angst or not.
Up the present, theism is the most effective method to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

8. If yours is not theism, Your 'Mind' and Mindfulness extending to the external world is one of the many methods, you are believing to deal with the inherent existential crisis and its existential angsts.

Your views.

[VVilliam]

Actually at this point I am not too sure of what is your belief re 'Mind' and 'mind'.

Again I refer you to the conversation I supplied which you appear not to have followed, or followed through with the link I gave you to the full one with GPT and my own further comments. Therein you could gain more understanding.

For example, in that case, the "Mind" in that interaction is attached to a Human Personality and the "MIND" as the Planetary Mind.

Since your belief is not typical, do you have references?

I have referenced reports of NDEs - not specifically but in regard to. I don't state that I have beliefs so much as knowledge through experience. I consider my subjective experience to be relevant, even though it is not so relevant to the sciences you are proclaiming as the best way to explain human mindfulness/experience.

Who are the people who share your belief? e.g. "Mindism"? mentalism?

The question is irrelevant at this point.

Since you did not refer to any deity, then you are not a theist?

I regard myself as a Natural Theist since I suspect that all alternate (religious as well) encounters to do with "God/gods" can be sourced locally in the Planet Mind.

The point being is that those sciences cannot be relied upon alone. They have their place in the scheme of things but have not proven to be overly useful in relation to the hard problem of understanding mindfulness and are certainly not to be elevated beyond their ability re explaining mindfulness.

Other than the above what effective means do you have to verify and justify your belief re 'Mind' and 'mindfulness'.

My subjective experience. Such is verified through the reports of other human personalities and their own subjective experiences. Minds in and of themselves are not required to "justify" that they exist.

I regard mind as being that which is real and the only thing which is able to verify/acknowledge anything as being real.

How? by what method and within what Framework and System? to rely upon to reach your conclusions and assuring they are credible and objective?

Are you suggesting that Mindfulness is not real and/or even necessary in order to verify/acknowledge anything as being real?

If so, I regard that as an absurdity.

I tend not to believe in things which are delegated to being supernatural.
If indeed the Universe is mindful, then while such a mind could easily be considered "almighty", and certainly "supreme" in regards to ability such a mind would have compared to planetary, or even galactic minds, I have doubts that such a mind would view other minds as actually being separate from itself but would likely understand such minds as extensions of its own mindfulness.

Noted "such minds as extensions of its own mindfulness"
However, the human mind has intentionality, agency and volition which can be proven via science [psychology, biology, neuroscience, cognitive science].

Yes. Very handy that mindfulness exists in human experience and humans can come to an understanding re intentionality volition and agency.
The Universe as Mindful is so much harder to verify. The Planet (Earth) - not so difficult a thing to accept as probably true.

In a way, I do agree with the above because the human self and mind are not "islands" within reality but are intricately part and parcel of reality.

I simply extend that to include the Earth Mind, of which we are all extensions of. The thought could also be extended to how such a Planet Mind might see itself as an extension of the Galaxy Mind and so on and so forth. The conversation I linked you to (because you said you wanted to understand) touches on this thought in more detail. Here is the link again. (Hopefully you will read the information provided this time.)

So, your 'suspicion' is a "speculation" of some sort extrapolated from human having a mind.

More to the point, if it can be argued that all it takes for mindfulness to emerge from matter is time, then - since the universe has been around far longer - I borrow from that argument.

You stated your is merely a "speculation" so we have to take it at that, until you are able
to provided a method that could verify and justify your speculation [hypothesis] as tenable.

I see "the method" explains itself, if we consider what we know of biological evolution and if we also desist with the presumption that a mindful thing can come from a mindless thing (which is a similar belief as ex nihilo re supernaturalism) the evidence is within the method/process itself.

1.- 8....Your views.

I have already made my views know in prior posts where you have argued such points. I will add that you supply such statements without any citation, but nonetheless, I have already shared my views on that overall theory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually at this point I am not too sure of what is your belief re 'Mind' and 'mind'.

Again I refer you to the conversation I supplied which you appear not to have followed, or followed through with the link I gave you to the full one with GPT and my own further comments. Therein you could gain more understanding.

For example, in that case, the "Mind" in that interaction is attached to a Human Personality and the "MIND" as the Planetary Mind.

Since your belief is not typical, do you have references?

I have referenced reports of NDEs - not specifically but in regard to. I don't state that I have beliefs so much as knowledge through experience. I consider my subjective experience to be relevant, even though it is not so relevant to the sciences you are proclaiming as the best way to explain human mindfulness/experience.

Who are the people who share your belief? e.g. "Mindism"? mentalism?

The question is irrelevant at this point.

Since you did not refer to any deity, then you are not a theist?

I regard myself as a Natural Theist since I suspect that all alternate (religious as well) encounters to do with "God/gods" can be sourced locally in the Planet Mind.

The point being is that those sciences cannot be relied upon alone. They have their place in the scheme of things but have not proven to be overly useful in relation to the hard problem of understanding mindfulness and are certainly not to be elevated beyond their ability re explaining mindfulness.

Other than the above what effective means do you have to verify and justify your belief re 'Mind' and 'mindfulness'.

My subjective experience. Such is verified through the reports of other human personalities and their own subjective experiences. Minds in and of themselves are not required to "justify" that they exist.

I regard mind as being that which is real and the only thing which is able to verify/acknowledge anything as being real.

How? by what method and within what Framework and System? to rely upon to reach your conclusions and assuring they are credible and objective?

Are you suggesting that Mindfulness is not real and/or even necessary in order to verify/acknowledge anything as being real?

If so, I regard that as an absurdity.

I tend not to believe in things which are delegated to being supernatural.
If indeed the Universe is mindful, then while such a mind could easily be considered "almighty", and certainly "supreme" in regards to ability such a mind would have compared to planetary, or even galactic minds, I have doubts that such a mind would view other minds as actually being separate from itself but would likely understand such minds as extensions of its own mindfulness.

Noted "such minds as extensions of its own mindfulness"
However, the human mind has intentionality, agency and volition which can be proven via science [psychology, biology, neuroscience, cognitive science].

Yes. Very handy that mindfulness exists in human experience and humans can come to an understanding re intentionality volition and agency.
The Universe as Mindful is so much harder to verify. The Planet (Earth) - not so difficult a thing to accept as probably true.

In a way, I do agree with the above because the human self and mind are not "islands" within reality but are intricately part and parcel of reality.

I simply extend that to include the Earth Mind, of which we are all extensions of. The thought could also be extended to how such a Planet Mind might see itself as an extension of the Galaxy Mind and so on and so forth. The conversation I linked you to (because you said you wanted to understand) touches on this thought in more detail. Here is the link again. (Hopefully you will read the information provided this time.)

So, your 'suspicion' is a "speculation" of some sort extrapolated from human having a mind.

More to the point, if it can be argued that all it takes for mindfulness to emerge from matter is time, then - since the universe has been around far longer - I borrow from that argument.

You stated your is merely a "speculation" so we have to take it at that, until you are able
to provided a method that could verify and justify your speculation [hypothesis] as tenable.

I see "the method" explains itself, if we consider what we know of biological evolution and if we also desist with the presumption that a mindful thing can come from a mindless thing (which is a similar belief as ex nihilo re supernaturalism) the evidence is within the method/process itself.

1.- 8....Your views.

I have already made my views know in prior posts where you have argued such points. I will add that you supply such statements without any citation, but nonetheless, I have already shared my views on that overall theory.

So your primary leverage of your claim re MIND, mind and mindfulness is that of your first person experience of NDEs?
Your reinforcement of your above belief is based on my testimonials of other first-person reports. This leads to the fallacy of subjectivity, i.e. based merely on high subjectivity and very low on objectivity.

I regard mind as being that which is real and the only thing which is able to verify/acknowledge anything as being real.

How? by what method and within what Framework and System? to rely upon to reach your conclusions and assuring they are credible and objective?

Are you suggesting that Mindfulness is not real and/or even necessary in order to verify/acknowledge anything as being real?
If so, I regard that as an absurdity.

I only consider mindfulness or awareness to be real as far as science can verify and justify it.

You have not answered my question directly re proving the reality of your 'MIND, and planetary mind with their mindfulness:
How? by what method and within what Framework and System? to rely upon to reach your conclusions and assuring they are credible and objective?

I have read
Here is the link again.
Re the responses by ChatGpt therein, that is merely a summary of the narratives you provided and does not consider whether the points therein are realistic or not.
Anyone can weave all sorts of narratives [whether good, bad, true, fictions, false, pseudo-sciences] for ChatGPT to summarize, and ChatGpt will just summarize it and maybe praise the effort and creativity therein. Like any machine, there is the possibility Garbage In, Garbage Out.[GIGO].

On the basis of intellectual integrity, wisdom, you need to ask ChatGpt whether the hypotheses you raised therein are realistic & objective or not, such that any rational person with critical thinking skills can accept or not.

As I had argued, what is most realistic, credible and objective to any rational person with critical thinking skills is that from the human-based scientific framework and system [as qualified with its limitations and weaknesses]; there is no other better.

[VVilliam]

So your primary leverage of your claim re MIND, mind and mindfulness is that of your first person experience of NDEs?

I have not had an NDE but have had OOBEs. Coupled with reports from other human personalities to do with NDEs OOBEs and even substance induced experiences, I take these mindful things seriously as evidence worthy of contemplation.

Your reinforcement of your above belief is based on my testimonials of other first-person reports.

Did you mean to write on THE testimonials of other first-person reports?

This leads to the fallacy of subjectivity,

The subjectivist fallacy (SbF) occurs when one concludes that something is true for one person (a subject) but not true for another person (another subject), when, in fact, it is true objectively for all persons.

i.e. based merely on high subjectivity and very low on objectivity.

Where do you get your information from to conclude such?

I have read...

The rest of your comment includes a type of gaslighting which I will note but respond no further to.

I will remind you also that I included the GPT summary simply regarding your claim that you could not follow the interaction I shared, in an effort to show that if a mere machine could follow it, there is no reason why an intelligent human being could not do the same.

You have not answered my question directly re proving the reality of your 'MIND, and planetary mind with their mindfulness:
How? by what method and within what Framework and System? to rely upon to reach your conclusions and assuring they are credible and objective?

Re that generated message, therein is the answer to your question which is why you either haven't read the whole post or you failed to give it full attention and missed those answers.

Overall, your insistence on suppressing any information which cannot be verified by physical science alongside your fairly obvious superiority complex re that, and attempts at gaslighting don't bode for productive discussion between us at this point.

Perhaps at some future moment, we can revisit the topic but until then, I don't see that there is any way forward presently.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So your primary leverage of your claim re MIND, mind and mindfulness is that of your first person experience of NDEs?

I have not had an NDE but have had OOBEs. Coupled with reports from other human personalities to do with NDEs OOBEs and even substance induced experiences, I take these mindful things seriously as evidence worthy of contemplation.

Your reinforcement of your above belief is based on my testimonials of other first-person reports.

Did you mean to write on THE testimonials of other first-person reports?

This leads to the fallacy of subjectivity,

The subjectivist fallacy (SbF) occurs when one concludes that something is true for one person (a subject) but not true for another person (another subject), when, in fact, it is true objectively for all persons.

i.e. based merely on high subjectivity and very low on objectivity.

Where do you get your information from to conclude such?

I have read...

The rest of your comment includes a type of gaslighting which I will note but respond no further to.

I will remind you also that I included the GPT summary simply regarding your claim that you could not follow the interaction I shared, in an effort to show that if a mere machine could follow it, there is no reason why an intelligent human being could not do the same.

You have not answered my question directly re proving the reality of your 'MIND, and planetary mind with their mindfulness:
How? by what method and within what Framework and System? to rely upon to reach your conclusions and assuring they are credible and objective?

Re that generated message, therein is the answer to your question which is why you either haven't read the whole post or you failed to give it full attention and missed those answers.

Overall, your insistence on suppressing any information which cannot be verified by physical science alongside your fairly obvious superiority complex re that, and attempts at gaslighting don't bode for productive discussion between us at this point.

Perhaps at some future moment, we can revisit the topic but until then, I don't see that there is any way forward presently.

Yes, it was mistake, I meant 'the testimonials' of others.

I did put quite a bit of effort in reading your link but the points are not that straightforward.
I believe the onus is on any writer to made it as easy as possible to ensure his message get across to the other party such that he will understand [not necessary agree with] it easily.

My principle is,
whatever is true, real, exists, fact, objective is conditioned upon a human-based [collective] framework and system of realization [of reality] and knowledge; of which the scientific FSRK is the most credible and objective.

This if a view is held by one person that is subjective.
If held by a collective-of-people in an organized manner [collectively], i.e. within a FSK, then it is objective, but the objectivity will depend on the credibility of the FSK relative to science as the standard [evidently and acceptable by any rational person].

Example a claim God exists within say a group of believers with their constitution, e.g. Christianity grounded on the Gospels, that would be objective as defined.
But because that theological FSK is based on blind faith [no verification, testing and justifications] it is of negligible objectivity say 0.1/100 in contrast to science as the standard indexed at 100/100.

In your case, your confidence is based on a loose groups of people with NDEs and OBEs without any proper framework and system, thus it cannot be objective as defined; at most there is lesser subjectivity because there are many first person's testimonials.

Btw, this is just a discussion and for me I have a very selfish interest to participate for my own interest, e.g. to refresh my ideas, etc. and not trying to convince anyone of my ideas.

So, I am willing to discuss as long as the other is willing to do so [amicably as in your case].

[VVilliam]

I did put quite a bit of effort in reading your link but the points are not that straightforward.
I believe the onus is on any writer to made it as easy as possible to ensure his message get across to the other party such that he will understand [not necessary agree with] it easily.

Generally if I ask a question about something, and the answer is still unclear, I ask more questions - if I am interested.