I was just talking about the ontology of consciousness. Yes there are many useful ways of thinking in many kinds of contexts, which are not relevant here.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 4:30 pmSo, there's no substance? Nothing? I'm still not sure if you're a monist or a nollist.
I'm not a big fan of ultimate substance claims. But I do find the distinction useful in some contexts. I think it's a fairly natural, pre-philosophical distinction.For example when we divide reality into mental and physical, we created two ontological philosophical kinds, in our thinking. Then some things are seen as mental, other things are seen as physical.
But such a division is completely made-up,
It depends I suppose what you mean by completely made-up? It's not coming from nothing. It comes from our experiences. This doesn't mean the distinction is ultimately correct, but it's not just some random, hey I'll make up some shit contrast. People were describing what they experienced and it seemed like there were two types of things - to many people, even in many cultures. Just as they divided things into elements. Or divided life/non-life, those that did.
I don't think that's the case. Don't take that as my arguing that there are two substances. I just don't think philosophy is the source of this distinction, nor do I think it is completely made up, given what I said above.it's purely philosophical in origin,
So, have you figured out consciousness since you are not blocked by this substance confusion?it only exists in our thinking. And then philosophers wonder why they can't figure out consciousness since centuries. Well it's because they are trying to solve a problem using the same kind of thinking, that created it.
It's just about made-up "philosophical" divisions in our thinking (and innate illusory, pre-philosophical divisions in our thinking if you like), which we mistake for ontological divisions in the natural world. Yes consciousness is automatically solved without them.So, have you figured out consciousness since you are not blocked by this substance confusion?
Substances are of course made-up too, but they don't always add such divisions, and such divisions can also be added without substances. Yes one should get rid of thinking in substances, too.
If you want me to put a name on my stance, it would probably be: "non-monistic non-duality". Although I'd rather call it "scientific Advaita".