In chemistry, organic means carbon based. Not all molecules contain carbon, so not all molecules are organic molecules.
All life on a earth is carbon-based, so saying “organic life” is redundant, and there is no such thing as “inorganic life”.
But you are defining “organic” in a different way? You are saying organic life is life in which consciousness is present, and inorganic life is life in which consciousness is not present? So “organic conscious life” is redundant?
All organisms incorporate carbon but not all carbon is organic. Diamonds are carbon as is abiotic graphite (often found in meteorites) neither of which are organic. There’s no reason there would not be planets with carbon and no organic life. So carbon and organic life are not necessarily interchangeable. Life takes other factors.
I’m just referring to ‘organic’ in the standard sense of the word ‘referring to any substance or molecule containing carbon-based compounds that form the structural and functional basis of living organisms.’
I’m saying that, in distinction from panpsychism (Goff/Strawson), which says that consciousness is an attribute of matter generally, I’m more drawn to biopsychism (Thompson/Jonas), which holds that consciousness only arises in relation to organic life - although that is subject of another thread, so we should pursue it there if you wish to discuss it further.
Yes. I wasn’t clear enough. In chemistry, organic means carbon based chemical molecules/compounds. Diamonds and graphite (abiotic or otherwise) are only (different arrangements of) carbon atoms.
I’m not arguing or anything. Although I’ve read enough of your posts to know I’ll disagree with your position, I’m just trying to understand what it is. It did not seem to me that you were referring to “organic” that way when you said all organic life is conscious, and consciousness is what distinguishes organic life from inorganic life. That sounds like consciousness comes with carbon, although I’m sure you don’t mean it that way.
I’m not familiar with inorganic life. Can you give a definition or example?
‘referring to any substance or molecule containing carbon-based compounds that form the structural and functional basis of living organisms.’
I said no such thing. I said life is different from inorganic matter. Head on over to that other thread on panpsychism and abiogenesis, I’ve just entered a post there.
Aaahhh! You actually said “distinguishes organic from inorganic”. I took that as life from two sentences prior, rather than matter, from one sentence prior. I knew there had to be a reasonable explanation for you bringing up in organic life 
Sorry about that.
Yes, for it would only be the messenger, as the implementation, of the message, which, I guess, is to be.
The only way, perhaps, is if all the events really happened, like all-at-once, and then played out again slowly!
Do you mean by this that being remains, however it is presented?
Yes, and you sew quite with it; you are the perfect Storm!
It is also as the Buddhists discounting our reality by claiming it isn’t real. Well, we feel this supposed perfect illusion the same as if it were real; so, as I told the Great Lama who lives near me in Wappingers, NY, a difference (in implementation) that makes no difference (in the message) is no difference!
Seriously? Walden here.
Yes, I live in New Hamburg, which is between Wappingers and the Hudson River. The Lama has a three million dollar temple and used to run a restaurant in New Hamburg, where I met him. There’s a new Lama now; don’t know him but I’ve heard he’s an illusion. I’ve been to Walden off I84.
The Buddha only discounts what you think is yours but which actually isn’t.
I’m late to the party, so haven’t read the whole thread. I can see that it has gone down a familiar path in these discussions. I’ll try to approach it in a different way, although it may not translate into philosophical discourse. So apologies in advance if it doesn’t work.
It’s the idea that there are planes, or domains and consciousness in its different forms, inhabits these planes, producing experiences.
So the physical plane, like all the other planes, follows a symmetry, rules, or laws of nature. So in that plane, there are strict laws of how things are and they can’t be any other way. Each plane has a signature, which is determined by its complexity, or density.
Our consciousness can inhabit a less dense plane (in a less dense body) in which anything we think happens instantly in that plane. But in order to inhabit that plane, we would have a very different body than the one we have here in the physical plane. With very different experiences.
Here in the physical plane we can replicate most of what we can think in that other plane, but we have to physically manufacture it, due to the density of physical material. It is a very slow and laborious process, which is also accompanied by disease and suffering.
As to why it is like this, well planes have their set of rules, or signature and if you go into that plane, those are the things that happen in that plane. So you have to play by the rules.
The World is my oyster.
Thank you, but I don’t understand any of this. Out of interest, what is the source for these theories.
Interesting. I wasn’t aware of the temple there, although I know of a couple others around me.
It’s Theosophy derived from Hinduism.
The planes I’m thinking of correspond to the physical and the mind, if I add another, spirit (or soul), that makes three. In such theories a person is present on each of these three planes simultaneously, via the three highest chakras of the body.
…if you use the richness of the external world as a sign of materialism, shouldn’t you use mental phenomena in our consciousness as a sign of dualism as the inevitable step 2? A mountain inside, a different mountain outside, why is only 1 of them real?
This, I believe, is what is often translated as “clinging.” If you wish to sense your hand - you will experience it. If you wish for it strongly - you will keep experiencing it for a long time… Even if you no longer wish to experience it. “Clinging” that can make us experience the same thing for a very long time might be the cause of our continued human existence.
Not entirely sure what you are asking. My question is for the idealists, not the materialists. Why do we have apparent materialism and all the constraints this involves if all is mentation? There seem to be two answers - some idealists accept that there is a noumenal or external world that is the source of our experience, so that might work. But if everything is consciousness and there is no material world, why do we have the illusion of materiality? At least, that was my original question.
You could just say the external mountain is also a mental object inside a consciousness, no?
Since you interact with it using the same tool (intention) you use to interact with mental objects in your consciousness, and this tool just so happens to be the thing that keeps mental objects inside your consciousness stable, you could simply say that it is also what keeps objects in the “external” world stable.
See? We have this thing, “intention,” that can be used to influence both worlds. And if both worlds are influenced by the same thing, should we even assume they have a different nature?
I’m not really asking about object permanence, although that is related. I’m asking why mentation appears as a physical reality, a world full of constraints that probably could not to exist if everything is consciousness. Why the laws of physics? Why hard objects? Why is movement so awkward? Why is there entropy? Why does consciousness present itself to us as this particular series of obstacles and limitations?
For instance, Bernardo Kastrup might argue that the laws of physics, material resistance, etc are simply the way universal consciousness behaves, and that we experience this as constraints because our individual consciousness is only a limited part of a much larger mental reality.