I do not believe one can say that duality is essential. There is all possibility that reality is a monism, specifically a physical one. Why I say … …Question of the essentiality of duality
“the evidence for a mind can only be found in its existent physical manifestation. Whether this is evidence of a mind remains an open question.
Modern scientific evidence points to consciousness as being an emergent property of the physical brain.”
I’d say that the evidence found in existent physical reality has nothing to with the name we put on it. I think you’ve made that point yourself. That the names are purely arbitrary and, basically, made up.
There is ample evidence that consciousness emerges as we associate any series of event or objects. We can make sense from any evidence and any series of evidence can make sense.
What particular sense we are relying upon as criterion is the issue I am bringing up.
Why is the brain a special object which attaches necessarily to something which is not a subjective projection?
How is definition able to break through not only subjective projection but the incredible arbitrariness of human/object relation in order to say this definition is ….what world shal we use here? True? Real?
I’m not sure.
Does definition point to something that is true, false, essential…. ? there seems to be a lot of noisy problem around here.