Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why the natural universe exists?

[William]

I initially thought about posting this in the Science and Religion forum because I think it is most appropriate , but decided that the Christianity and Apologetics forum might garner more interest in the subject.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?


I ask the question because a recent interaction with a Christian who insisted that this was the only plausible conclusion one could reach to explain why we and the universe exist.
Indeed, many Christians argue the necessity for the supernatural to explain the natural.

Some of the key points for discussion/debate.


The influence of Christian beliefs: The cosmological argument has been shaped and influenced by certain Christian perspectives, which can impact its perceived validity.

Alternative explanations: A supernatural explanation may not be necessary to account for the existence of the natural universe, and that simpler explanations without invoking supernatural elements can be considered.

Different interpretations of "supernatural": The definition of "supernatural" and whether it necessarily implies a separate and distinct realm from the natural universe.

Critique of the cosmological argument in natural theology: Re the OP question, counterarguments to this cosmological argument, challenging the assumption that a supernatural cause is required to explain the existence of the natural universe.

(A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.)

Context and historical origins: The importance of considering the historical context and origins of the cosmological argument in order to engage in a more comprehensive discussion.

Validity of alternative arguments: Alternative explanations should not be dismissed simply because they reach different conclusions from the OP questioning that cosmological argument, and that critical evaluation of different perspectives is necessary for a robust discussion.

[fredonly]

Consciousness is what makes anything real.

That doesn't explain what consciousness is.
Is it an object? If so, does it have parts?
Is it a property?
Is it a relation?
Is it a set of properties or relations?
Is it a process? If so, what what objects are involved?

These are questions from the perspective of my ontology. Recall that in my ontology, everything that exists is a an object with 3 types of constituents: a particular, its intrinsic properties, and its relations to other things that exist. Complex objects are formed of simpler objects. Types of objects can perform a function, and interact with other types of objects. I've described consciousness as a process, and this is consistent with the way we talk about it: perception entails the act of perceiving; thinking is an activity; reacting to a stimulus is an activity. It seems that consciousness consists largely of these activities.

I don't think your theory fits my ontology, so you need to describe your ontology and explain how consciousness fits into it.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #91]

Consciousness is what makes anything real.

That doesn't explain what consciousness is.

You are wanting to know what constitutes consciousness as in what matter it is made of?

That is not the hard problem. The hard problem is why consciousness experiences.

The Natural Philosophy answer is that it is real, and that it is the very thing which allows for anything else to be acknowledged and experienced as real.

To explain it another way, neither Natural or Supernatural Philosophies create the hard problem of consciousness because it is factored into the primary rather than being seen as a secondary.

Therefore it is a problem created through Materialist Philosophy.

In the same way that the problem of infinite regress is created through Supernaturalist Philosophy, (which you pointed out is ONLY a problem for "theism" and as I pointed out, not all theists agree with supernaturalism so it is not strictly a problem for theism.)

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #91]

Consciousness is what makes anything real.

That doesn't explain what consciousness is.

You are wanting to know what constitutes consciousness as in what matter it is made of?

I asked how it fits into an ontology. You need to account for its existence.

That is not the hard problem. The hard problem is why consciousness experiences.

The hard problem is downstream of the ontology. If you don't have ontological basis, your alleged solution is ungrounded. Simply saying "Consciousness [which is undefined] is real" is not a solution. It leaves everything to the imagination. That doesn't account for a toothache or the experience of redness, and unless you account for these, you haven't solved the hard problem.

The Natural Philosophy answer is that it is real

Being "real" means it exists in the world, but doesn't explain what it is (a thing? A property? A process?...) or its place in the world. In order to answer what it is, you need to define a basic ontology. You've called it "natural", but haven't defined what it means to be natural ("not supernatural" does not anwer the question, unless you define "supernatural"). I gave you a definition, but it applies to my ontology and doesn't seem applicable to yours.

You said the UM exists timelessly prior to matter becoming organized. Is the UM conscious in that state? If so, how is that manifested? Thinking and experiencing entail a passage of time. What does it mean to be conscious in a timeless state?

Does it have knowledge? If so, how did this knowledge get there? Is it magically present?

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #93]

I asked how it fits into an ontology. You need to account for its existence.

And I pointed out that I have already explained it through Naturalist Philosophy. It has always existed.

You said the UM exists timelessly prior to matter becoming organized. Is the UM conscious in that state?

It is a mind. Minds are - by definition - conscious.

Thinking and experiencing entail a passage of time. What does it mean to be conscious in a timeless state?

Only when in a state of time. What argument can you give that time is required for a mind to be able to think and experience itself?

Does it have knowledge? If so, how did this knowledge get there?

Explained. Why do you ask questions which have already been answered?
Here it is again.

What is learned through the temporal experience is kept by the eternal mind, and the data can be used to formulate the next manifestation of organized matter into functional form.
The Universal Mind itself is that which saves the data of experience – so no – I do not reject the description that planning requires knowledge, which entails encoding of information, which entails organization of matter as this should be obviously, an integral aspect of the Natural Philosophy I have been sharing

The hard problem is downstream of the ontology. If you don't have ontological basis, your alleged solution is ungrounded. Simply saying "Consciousness [which is undefined] is real" is not a solution. It leaves everything to the imagination. That doesn't account for a toothache or the experience of redness, and unless you account for these, you haven't solved the hard problem.

To explain it another way, neither Natural or Supernatural Philosophies create the hard problem of consciousness because it is factored into the primary rather than being seen as a secondary.

Therefore it is a problem created through Materialist Philosophy.

In the same way that the problem of infinite regress is created through Supernaturalist Philosophy, (which you pointed out is ONLY a problem for "theism" and as I pointed out, not all theists agree with supernaturalism so it is not strictly a problem for theism.)
The hard problem of consciousness is ONLY a hard problem for Materialism.

Being "real" means it exists in the world, but doesn't explain what it is (a thing? A property? A process?...)

Explained. Most notably it exists in the fact that consciousness exists, and that is the point. Not only human consciousness (which is detectable) but in those other objects I mentioned, notably the planet earth itself.
The UM experiences what it is like to be - not only the whole universe, but the parts which make up the whole universe as well.
Perhaps rather than asking me the same questions and then complaining that I have not answered them, and my having to repeat my answers, you read my answers and try to understand them in the context of Natural Philosophy presented rather than through the lens of Materialist philosophy.

I also explained that Natural Philosophy has it that the UM has to be made of matter otherwise there is no way to explain how it is able to organize matter into functional objects which it can then experience...and how frequency must be involved re "How does the UM cause unorganized matter to organize?".
Scientifically, frequency is a fundamental concept in various fields, particularly physics and wave theory. It's often associated with the oscillation or vibration of physical objects, as well as with electromagnetic waves and other wave phenomena.

[fredonly]

The hard problem of consciousness is ONLY a hard problem for Materialism.

Yes, but you said, "the UM has to be made of matter". Ergo, the UM is material. So, in your ontology, what exists that is NOT material?

The Universal Mind itself is that which saves the data of experience – so no – I do not reject the description that planning requires knowledge, which entails encoding of information, which entails organization of matter

How is information encoded? Is it physical? If so, isn't this information capable of being detected,in principle? Also: this implies that when matter is in an unorganized state, no information exists. How does the UM mantain knowledge across the cycles of birth/death of the universe?

Consciousness exists

OK., but isn't the UM (which is made of matter) conscious?

Isn't it true that consciousness doesn't exist independently of a mind? If so, this implies that consciousness is dependent on the matter that makes up a mind.

frequency must be involved

Frequencies are properties of waves; they aren't a thing themselves - but you're treating them as such. Regardless, you believe the UM has some some sort of power to manipulate matter. Is this a physical power, like gravity or electromagnetism? If so, shouldn't it be detectable? Alternatively, is it immaterial and undetectable. If this power is exclusively available to the UM, this would be equivalent to supernaturalism- it would entail something beyond nature.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #95]

The hard problem of consciousness is ONLY a hard problem for Materialism.

Yes, but you said, "the UM has to be made of matter". Ergo, the UM is material. So, in your ontology, what exists that is NOT material?

Natural Philosophy has it that there is no such thing as "non-material" and that includes MIND.

The Universal Mind itself is that which saves the data of experience – so no – I do not reject the description that planning requires knowledge, which entails encoding of information, which entails organization of matter

How is information encoded? Is it physical? If so, isn't this information capable of being detected, in principle?

Certainly. In principle, it should be able to be accessible. However, something capable of being accessed requires something that is capable of accessing it.
In principle, the Universal Mind being physical itself, would have its own unique frequency.

Also: this implies that when matter is in an unorganized state, no information exists.

To be clear, the organization of matter into functional forms is the overall description of the current universe being experienced.
In the timeless state between those incarnations The Mind still exists as an organized entity and thus information exists re said mind for said mind to access. *Essentially the Bedrock Particle/sea of undifferentiated energy mindfully exists in this timeless state as matter potential for mindfully organizing into functional form.

How does the UM maintain knowledge across the cycles of birth/death of the universe?

It is eternally mindful.

OK., but isn't the UM (which is made of matter) conscious?

Isn't it true that consciousness doesn't exist independently of a mind? If so, this implies that consciousness is dependent on the matter that makes up a mind.

In the sense you are inquiring, the mind is "dependent" upon itself. As I have already explained, (now for the third time) "My argument re the initial starting point/Timeless *Unorganized Matter is that is has to be conscious/mindful and thus mindfulness has also always existed. I presently also think that Timeless Unorganized Matter and Mind may be indistinguishable rather than there being 2 things - Unorganized Matter AND Mind. I think Timeless Unorganized Matter = Mind."

Therein, the mind being "dependent" on it own existence, is here-nor-there. It exists, has always existed and will always exist.

I also explained that Natural Philosophy has it that the UM has to be made of matter otherwise there is no way to explain how it is able to organize matter into functional objects which it can then experience...and how frequency must be involved re "How does the UM cause unorganized matter to organize?".
Scientifically, frequency is a fundamental concept in various fields, particularly physics and wave theory. It's often associated with the oscillation or vibration of physical objects, as well as with electromagnetic waves and other wave phenomena.

Frequencies are properties of waves; they aren't a thing themselves - but you're treating them as such.

I am treating them as physical things yes. I would even say that my understanding of frequencies is that these create waves, not waves create frequencies, so waves are properties of frequencies...but for now will settle for these being the same thing observed differently.
(Re Double-slit experiment)

Regardless, you believe the UM has some some sort of power to manipulate matter. Is this a physical power, like gravity or electromagnetism?

Sure. It would have to be physical in order to organize matter into functional forms.
Given the scope of the known universe, the power could be described as "almighty" re that.

If so, shouldn't it be detectable?

Given the right instrument, I don't see why not.

Alternatively, is it immaterial and undetectable.

Supernatural explanations? Nope. Natural Philosophy rejects all arguments of Supernaturalism on the principle that all things can be explained naturally.

If this power is exclusively available to the UM, this would be equivalent to supernaturalism- it would entail something beyond nature.

Natural Philosophy has it that the Universal Mind is not exclusive from any other mindfulness inhabiting functional forms as all other forms of mindfulness are intimately related and sourced in the Universal Mind and are effectively expressions of the Universal Mind within/through the experience of functional formations.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Materialist Philosophy also claim the same thing as Supernatural Philosophy that “mind” is “non-material”?
Is that not what you mean when you argued that consciousness arises as a “second-order mental state, primarily emerging from the physical properties and processes of the brain”? Is that what you are also arguing re frequencies being “properties of waves”?

Essentially, describing that minds are properties of brains and for that, are not even physical, is clearly evoking the belief that non-physical causes are attributable to physical outcomes.

If so, then that is a form of supernaturalism, at least when aligned with the Natural Philosophy I am developing.

[fredonly]

Natural Philosophy has it that there is no such thing as "non-material" and that includes MIND.

Then your theory is a form of materialism: you're saying everything that exists is material.
But you say that matter is "mindful". I don't think you've defined this term. It sounds like it's a property that every bit of material has. However, there seems to be some connection to the UM, but this is vague. Can you clarify?

While you're at it, I still want you to explain what consciousness is.
You've just said that minds have it, and (oddly) that it's "what makes anything real". And you've also said that everything that exists is material, which would imply that if consciousness is a thing, then it is material. Alternatively, you could be saying that matter is conscious- that it's a property, or set of properties. Either way, you need to define it. I'll give you mine:

IMO, consciousness =awareness of self and the external world. But this doesn't work for you, so please explain.

Also: this implies that when matter is in an unorganized state, no information exists.

In the timeless state between those incarnations The Mind still exists as an organized entity and thus information exists re said mind for said mind to access. *Essentially the Bedrock Particle/sea of undifferentiated energy mindfully exists in this timeless state as matter potential for mindfully organizing into functional form.

I'm confused. You're now saying the mind exists as an organized entity in these periodic so-called "timeless" states, but you earlier said this:

the natural unorganized timeless matter is mindful

Does the "mindfulness" of matter produce the UM, or does the UM make matter "mindful". If the latter, I'll have more questions.

Isn't it true that consciousness doesn't exist independently of a mind? If so, this implies that consciousness is dependent on the matter that makes up a mind.

In the sense you are inquiring, the mind is "dependent" upon itself.

Yes, but you said the UM is "made of matter". This entails an ontological dependency. An automobile is made of parts, therefore the automobile is ontologically dependent on those parts. The same with the UM.

As I have already explained, (now for the third time) "My argument re the initial starting point/Timeless *Unorganized Matter is that is has to be conscious/mindful and thus mindfulness has also always existed. I presently also think that Timeless Unorganized Matter and Mind may be indistinguishable rather than there being 2 things - Unorganized Matter AND Mind. I think Timeless Unorganized Matter = Mind."

You contradicted this, above, when you said, "In the timeless state between those incarnations The Mind still exists as an organized entity".

I would even say that my understanding of frequencies is that these create waves, not waves create frequencies, so waves are properties of frequencies...but for now will settle for these being the same thing observed differently.
(Re Double-slit experiment)

You understanding is incorrect. Light is a wave, and can exist at a variety of frequencies. Frequencies are not objects, they are properties of objects. However, this is a tangent - it just means you should use a different word to describe UM's powers over matter.

Natural Philosophy has it that the Universal Mind is not exclusive from any other mindfulness inhabiting functional forms as all other forms of mindfulness are intimately related and sourced in the Universal Mind and are effectively expressions of the Universal Mind within/through the experience of functional formations.

You have referred to the UM as an entity that influences the universe. It seems the UM is a distinct identity, one that has knowledge, thinks, plans, and executes plans. It is not identical to you and I. Explain our connection to UM. How does its existence account for OUR minds? Surely there's some relationship between the "mindfulness" of matter, OUR minds, and the UM.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Materialist Philosophy also claim the same thing as Supernatural Philosophy that “mind” is “non-material”?

No.

Is that not what you mean when you argued that consciousness arises as a “second-order mental state, primarily emerging from the physical properties and processes of the brain”?

Consciousness isn't a thing; it's a process.

Is that what you are also arguing re frequencies being “properties of waves”?

Essentially, describing that minds are properties of brains and for that, are not even physical, is clearly evoking the belief that non-physical causes are attributable to physical outcomes.

No. The "mind" is the term we apply to the functional system of our central nervous system that produces mental activities. Mental activities are realized by series of mental states.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #97]

Your theory is a form of materialism: you're saying everything that exists is material.

Not sure what your point is there. When you pointed out that there are similarities in this Natural Philosophy with theist-based philosophies and made the comment that you are personally driven to defeat theist cosmological arguments in the broadest possible way I explained to you then, that I am developing a Natural Philosophy which is designed to bridge the differences between Materialism and Supernaturalism.
(It is not my intention to alienate either side of those opposing positions.)
This Natural Philosophy is neither a form of materialism or supernaturalism. It is unique to those positions. It is its own position.

I still want you to explain what consciousness is.

I have been doing so all along.

You've just said that minds have it,

No. I do not differentiate between mindfulness and consciousness, intelligence or sentience. I use the word consciousness in the broadest term, to cover everything associated with mindfulness.

And (oddly) that it's "what makes anything real".

Likely, this is out of context. Please quote the words I used.

And you've also said that everything that exists is material, which would imply that if consciousness is a thing, that is material.

All things are material. That is the definition of "things".

Alternatively, you could be saying that matter is conscious- that it's a property, or set of properties. Either way, you need to define it.

I have defined it re the bedrock particle being mindful. Further to that, there is no differentiation between the particle and its mindfulness. One is not the "property" of the other because there is no "other" in that timeless state.

The "other" comes about in the organization of that mindful matter into functional forms through which it can experience being everything from the largest to the smallest, universally. The "other" in this sense, is temporal.

You said the UM is "made of matter". This entails an ontological dependency. An automobile is made of parts, therefore the automobile is ontologically dependent on those parts. The same with the UM.

I have answered this already.

Natural Philosophy has it that the Universal Mind has always existed and is physical and thus able to organize unorganized matter, into functional objects. Unorganized matter is a fundamental aspect of said Universal Mind and not a separate entity.

Perhaps your ongoing confusion is in my referring to the Mind as "Universal" even when it is in this timeless state between the organization of matter into fictional forms?

Here is a related part of an interaction we have already had.

Fred: You didn't say the UM is independent from the matter, but you did say it's independent of the matter's organization (or lack thereof).
William: I doubt I said or have implied that as what I wrote in Post #63 states the following:
"My argument re the initial starting point/Timeless Unorganized Matter is that is has to be conscious/mindful and thus mindfulness has also always existed. I presently also think that Timeless Unorganized Matter and Mind may be indistinguishable rather than there being 2 things - Unorganized Matter AND Mind. I think Timeless Unorganized Matter = Mind."

How can the UM be "independent" from the unorganized matter it consequently organizes?

You contradicted this, above, when you said, "In the timeless state between those incarnations The Mind still exists as an organized entity".

I have addressed potential confusion here by clarifying that my use of the phrase "organized matter" has always referred to "functional objects" - (that which is created). That which is temporal.

I would even say that my understanding of frequencies is that these create waves, not waves create frequencies, so waves are properties of frequencies...but for now will settle for these being the same thing observed differently.
(Re Double-slit experiment)

Your understanding is incorrect. Light is a wave, and can exist at a variety of frequencies. Frequencies are not objects, they are properties of objects. However, this is a tangent - it just means you should use a different word to describe UM's powers over matter.

Really, all I said was that frequency must be involved. A "source" or "disturbance" generates waves with a specific frequency. The hypothesis is that the source is mindful. "How" it does this isn't so much something of an issue since no philosophy knows the answer to that question.

Whatever the "powers over matter" are, they appear to be almighty.

You have referred to the UM as an entity that influences the universe. It seems the UM is a distinct identity, one that has knowledge, thinks, plans, and executes plans. It is not identical to you and I. Explain our connection to UM. How does its existence account for OUR minds?

I have explained that already.

All minds are sourced with the UM and are essentially UM having different experiences within different functional forms.

I have also mentioned that the correct phrase is not "we have minds" but that "we are minds".

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Materialist Philosophy also claim the same thing as Supernatural Philosophy that “mind” is “non-material”?

No.

Is that not what you mean when you argued that consciousness arises as a “second-order mental state, primarily emerging from the physical properties and processes of the brain”?

Consciousness isn't a thing; it's a process.

So, if it is not a "thing" what else can it be but a "non-thing"?
"Non-things" don't exist according to this Natural Philosophy. Please explain why a "process" can be regarded as a non-thing.

The "mind" is the term we apply to the functional system of our central nervous system that produces mental activities. Mental activities are realized by series of mental states.

The assumption being that this set of physical processes creates our mindfulness/sense of self/ability to acknowledge existence.

[fredonly]

[Replying to fredonly in post #97]

Your theory is a form of materialism: you're saying everything that exists is material.

Not sure what your point is there. When you pointed out that there are similarities in this Natural Philosophy with theist-based philosophies and made the comment that you are personally driven to defeat theist cosmological arguments in the broadest possible way...

I never claimed I was "personally driven to defeat theist arguments in the broadest possible way". To the contary, I told you:

In my discussions with theists, I’ve tried to keep an open mind – but call out the issues I see. I’ve discussed each of their well-known theistic arguments, and have acknowledged they’re all valid and possibly sound. But I point out why they may be unsound, and it’s always because they depend on debatable metaphysical assumptions.

Acknowledging the possible soundness of theist arguments is the opposite of “defeating in the broadest ways. You misunderstood something I said.

I explained to you then, that I am developing a Natural Philosophy which is designed to bridge the differences between Materialism and Supernaturalism.
(It is not my intention to alienate either side of those opposing positions.

You sever that bridge by dogmatically assuming the past is infinite. I haven’t called you out on this, because we were discussing other things. You describe an infinite causal (and thus temporal) sequence of universe birth/death cycles – with a so-called “timeless” state in between, but maintaining a causal connection because the UM maintains its memory of its infinite past. You are free to make this assumption, but I’ve already given you my argument for a finite past – and many theists agree with me.

This Natural Philosophy is neither a form of materialism or supernaturalism. It is unique to those positions.

And yet, you say:

Natural Philosophy has it that there is no such thing as "non-material" and that includes MIND

Here’s a succinct definition of materialism from the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy:

The doctrine that all items in the world are composed of matter and that the properties of matter determine
all other things, including mental phenomena. Every explicable thing can be explained on the grounds of natural laws.

So I surmise that you differ from classic materialism in that you define mind as the bedrock of reality (if I follow you correctly), so that mind is not grounded in non-mind matter.

I do not differentiate between mindfulness and consciousness, intelligence or sentience. I use the word consciousness in the broadest term, to cover everything associated with mindfulness.

Thanks for clarifying.

And (oddly) that it's "what makes anything real".

Likely, this is out of context. Please quote the words I used.

You used those words in post#90,in response to my request that you account for the nature of qualia:
"I have done so on more than one occasion. Consciousness is what makes anything real. Add that to organized matter and such things as being a bee or a human, feeling pain or seeing redness et all can be experienced as real. It does not matter if these things are actually real or the product of a sophisticated simulation, because it is that which is having the experience which is the actual real. It is that which identifies and acknowledges experience (of self or of apparently objective things in relation to self) which is real."
The expanded quote is confusing. You say “it does not matter if these things are actually real…”.. Really?! Your ontology doesn’t even make the call as to whether the world we experience is real? It sounds like you are open to everything being an illusion.

there is no differentiation between the particle and its mindfulness. One is not the "property" of the other because there is no "other" in that timeless state.

This is confusing. You said the “bedrock particle” ="the mind/mindfulness/consciousness" is a material thing. You also said you accept the existence of laws of nature that are not under the control of the UM (and presumably outside the control of any single or group of bedrock particles). So how do you account for laws of nature? If they exist, you apparently believe they’re material. If they’re material, then they are somehow made up of bedrock particle(s), and they are “mindful”. How can mind be consistent with laws of nature?

I have defined it re the bedrock particle being mindful. Further to that, there is no differentiation between the particle and its mindfulness. One is not the "property" of the other because there is no "other" in that timeless state.

Doesn’t the bedrock particle have physical properties? Clearly, the particles in the standard model have physical properties. This question seems related to the one about laws of nature.

You said the UM is "made of matter". This entails an ontological dependency. An automobile is made of parts, therefore the automobile is ontologically dependent on those parts. The same with the UM.

I have answered this already.

You denied a dependency, but didn’t seem to understand ontological dependency. I defined it for you, and as I said – it seems logical that if the UM is “made of matter” (direct quote) then it is ontologically dependent on matter. I realize that matter is mind, but it raises the question of how a universal mind emerges from a potentially infinite set of mindful-bedrock-particles”. It’s a mereological question of the relation of parts to a whole: there is one UM, but many bedrock particles. The relationship needs explaining.

I have addressed potential confusion here by clarifying that my use of the phrase "organized matter" has always referred to "functional objects" - (that which is created). That which is temporal

But the UM is ITSELF a functional object, so there is no state of affairs in which no functional object exists. You indicated the UM maintains knowledge, which is encoded (organized) matter. Isn’t this physical repository of knowledge be part of the UM? Where is it? Access of encoded information would seem to be distance limited, because of speed-of-light limitations. Or do you just assume special relativity doesn’t apply?

You have referred to the UM as an entity that influences the universe. It seems the UM is a distinct identity, one that has knowledge, thinks, plans, and executes plans. It is not identical to you and I. Explain our connection to UM. How does its existence account for OUR minds?

I have explained that already.

All minds are sourced with the UM and are essentially UM having different experiences within different functional forms.

Yes, you’ve said that – but it’s not at all clear what is entailed by being “sourced with the UM”, and it doesn’t account for my individuality. It’s obvious that I am not identical to the UM: I don’t have UM’s knowledge or powers, and I exist in a fairly narrow range of spatial coordinates. I have a set of experiences that are unique to me -even if the UM shares in it, because I do not share in all the UM’s experiences.

Consciousness isn't a thing; it's a process.

So, if it is not a "thing" what else can it be but a "non-thing"?

Running isn’t a thing either. The word refers to a process, a set of actions. Same with mental activities.

The "mind" is the term we apply to the functional system of our central nervous system that produces mental activities. Mental activities are realized by series of mental states.

The assumption being that this set of physical processes creates our mindfulness/sense of self/ability to acknowledge existence.

Yes.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #99]

Not sure what your point is there. When you pointed out that there are similarities in this Natural Philosophy with theist-based philosophies and made the comment that you are personally driven to defeat theist cosmological arguments in the broadest possible way....

I never claimed I was "personally driven to defeat theist arguments in the broadest possible way".

"Theist cosmological arguments" and yeah....that is what you wrote. Post #57.