Yes. And even if there is a bit of evidence, it doesn't have to be mind-at-large; it could be something else.Are you saying there is no evidence for mind-at-large, the fundamental substance in idealism?
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to.How is this different from materialism postulating an ultimately unknowable stuff outside the reach of consciousness?
I understand this, yes. The "fundamental limitation" of physicalism is just that people don't think we can get consciousness from brain function. That is a difficult problem, for sure.Ontologies require a fundamental assumption which then is verified against the rest of our experience and knowledge. Hopefully you undestand that most of the available ontologies are equally compatible with our current understanding of reality. Materialism is actually the most difficult one to endorse from a purely rational standpoint, given its fundamental limitations.
Perhaps, but his metaphysic still requires a giant leap of faith. And he never really tries to show how we can obtain human consciousness from whatever his fundamentals are.If there's one thing Kastrup has done very effectively in his writings is pointing out the physicalists' fallacies and deflate their hubris.
I subscribe to we-understand-as-much-as-we-understand-so-farism.Also, idealism seems a good candidate for a more pasimonoious and elegant way to make sense of the reality we experience and investigate, although I don't have a preferred solution. "Mysterianism" is probably the type of "ism" that I would subscribe to :D
Another reason it's not eliminated.Ironically you need to be conscious to come up with such a stupid idea :D
Again, it's utterly absurd to compare Sheldrake's progress with that of physics and biology in general. I don't mind if he makes a promise. But if he stops there, why would anyone pay a lick of attention?But for any other issues in the physicalist camp promissory notes are more than sufficient... good to see double standards never go out of fashion :)
I think you are promoting the evidence and ignoring the alternate explanations. Meanwhile, no one is going to care until Sheldrake finds direct evidence of the field.(By the way, there's actually quite a lot of evidence from already existing experiments with crystals, plants, animals and even galaxies that support MF hypothesis)
~~Paul