Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[Foster Zygote]

I'm a bit late to this thread. Has an idealist yet posited a reasonable argument that matter is an illusion that does not also lead to solipsism?

 

[Nick227]

Nominated.

You know nick. This is are actually extremely good points. During infancy we do indeed go through an important phase(s) of development related to concrete and abstract thinking.

This coupled with the fact that we are evolutionarily primed to be concrete thinkers (you won't have much luck as a tree swinger if you can't judge distances) really does make us all "materialists" whether we want to be or not.

Yes, I have long felt that the difference between materialists and idealists has little to do with philosophy and more to do with the basic disposition of the individual. Idealists will tend towards abstract thinking and materialists will like to see concrete stuff.

I think evolution dictates that materialism will always be with us, whether we have any idea of what the "final stuff of the universe" is or not.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I'm a bit late to this thread. Has an idealist yet posited a reasonable argument that matter is an illusion that does not also lead to solipsism?

I'm not an idealist but I would dispute that the argument that matter is illusory necessarily leads to solipsism. Frankly, in the past I've found it a drag to be accused of solipsism by people who clearly didn't have the much understanding of the differing philosophical perspectives, simply because I didn't agree with their notion of materialism. It has often seemed to me that there are forum members who delight in accusing any non-materialist of solipsism without being able to back this up, rather as a "back door" out of examining just what is being proposed.

So, say I believe that the universe is entirely information interacting according to mathematical laws, how does this necessarily lead to me positing that I am the only being in existence?

ETA: Solipsism happens when you start to slide down the slippery slope created by Descartes with his Cogito. In assuming that selfhood is an innate quality to existence so the ground-rule that can permit solipsism is established. In theory monism overwhelms solipsism, as I see it, but in practice many who consider themselves "monists" or "materialists" still end up looking for some observing entity within the brain. Thus these Cartesian Materialists, to use Dennett's term, could equally drift into solipsism as I see it.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Can you give a machine actual, experiential vision? Can you give it actual sensational feeling?

A much better question is, how can you not do this? Once you attach a camera to a computer and program (or otherwise teach) the computer to respond to visual stimuli, what is the human doing that the computer is not?

On a behavioural level, perhaps there is very little difference. But does this account for actual seeing?

If the ventral stream is damaged and the dorsal intact, we still have some of the behaviour of sight without the conscious experience of sight. This has been demonstrated. But what I'm asking is for a physical explanation for the phenomena of vision, not the behaviour of vision. For example, it seems to me at this moment that I can see a monitor screen right in front of me. Is this a phenomenal representation created by the brain and if so is it located somewhere in the brain? Does Prof Woolfe explain this?

Thanks for the other link btw.

Nick

 

[plumjam]

I don't think you quite understand the consequences. How does it make sense to care about what you fundamentaly cannot possibly know?

Again, you´re making the same assumption (which would require omniscience)as some of the others. That it is not knowable is simply a faith position on your part. Thousands of years of human experience indicates it is knowable. Why simply dismiss such evidence and plump for a position there will in principle never be any evidence for? That´s kind of anti-scientific isn´t it?

Speaking of different types of monism thoroyghly misses the mark. If there is one thing, we cannot know precisely what it is in itself, so it makes no sense to speak of what type of monism it is. There cannot be more than one "thing". If you speak of different types of monism, then you are not discussing the fundamental existent but one of its attributes.

Again, you are just restating your faith position. Like a mantra. ¨Fundamental reality cannot be known.¨ Repeat ad infinitum.
What do you base this belief on?

No, they realized that we cannot know fundamental reality. Calling it matter, consciousness, whatever you want is either affixing a meaningless label to it -- in a confused and confusing process -- or describing an attribute of fundamental reality and not that reality in itself. This is pretty standard ontology-speak.

You are making the same mistake as Akumanimani, Pixy, and Athon.
You are confusing knowing and describing/explaining. The entirely logical and reasonable position that fundamental reality cannot, in principle, due to it being The Whole, be accurately described/explained in terms of parts (language) in no way affects the possibility that it may be known (experienced).
In fact, descriptions of knowing fundamental reality commonly describe it as indescribable, ineffable, not conducive to language.. and the like, which, from a philosophical perspective, is precisely what one would expect.

Aristotle might have a bone to pick with you on that, since to him experience was only the fodder for knowledge. Knowledge depends on thought, reflection, argument, and a framework in which we makes sense of experience. As he was fond of saying, animals experience, man knows.

Well what you are talking about is communicable knowledge. Communicable knowledge only applies to the parts, not the Whole. Not all knowledge is communicable. For example, you know how to recall to memory an image of your first school. Now please communicate to someone else how you did that.
Once you´ve done that then please communicate it to someone who has never experienced long term memory.

Theresa of Avila was a mystic. She said the divine is blue. Was she factually correct? Maybe John of the Cross was wrong and Theresa's concern that the devil was fooling her was correct?

Spiritual development is not an instant flip from a normal life to absorption in Absolute Divinity. There are many variegated finite experiences which will lie between the two. These are commonly communicated to the individual mind in forms which will make cultural and religious sense to that individual mind. Not all mystics or saints reach the same level in any particular lifetime, but it´s clear that the end point is the same.

Youcan't seriously be arguing, using reason, that reason is essentially worthless in this situation.

I am stating the simple truth that experience is almost always more powerful and persuasive than are reason, argumentation etc..
Could someone argue you into believing you were really a pheasant when your experience tells you you´re a man?

Why are you here, then, to gain converts?

Yes, I accept all major credit cards.

Doesn't matter to me if you bother with reason or not. If your position is that reason doesn't matter, then that's fine. But don't argue it, since you can't be reasonable. You can say only -- I know the truth and you don't, nah, nah.

You are strawmanning. Where did I say reason doesn´t matter? Reason has value, within its useful domain of application. It is nevertheless much less powerful than is experience.

Unless you might be amenable to the realization that experience is simply experience and must be interpreted within some framework for it to be meaningful. What if you interpret from the wrong framework? That is the proepr place for reason and other experience. Traditionally, that is what is called wisdom.

Yes, some interpretive frameworks will be better than others. This is where reason can play a part. But it will always be secondary to experience.

What assumption? I assume you have an argument against Spinoza. I would like to hear it.
I'm sorry, but do you know how cognition works? Have you looked at how thought and experience work? Do you know how perception is even possible? If you want to argue that cognition and the ability to experience is limitless then I would like to hear how this is possible. Please provide your argument, along with the critique of Spinoza in your next post if you wish to continue, since you seem to be working under the misconception that he began with wild assumptions. Like anyone who thinks he began with premises. If you want to argue against a thinker, though, it doesn't work to claim -- assumption -- without showing where the problem might lie.

I have some idea regarding cognition etc.. half my degree was in psychology, including cognitive psychology and neuropsychology. The other half was philosophy. I´m not sure why you seem to want to drag the discussion round to Spinoza. I suspect it´s because you are studying him recently, and want to move the subject matter onto safer ground for you.
Well, I´m sorry, due to experience being more important than rational argumentation and syllogistic systems, I have much more interest in what the mystics had to say (even, or perhaps especially, the virtually illiterate and unschooled ones). Spinoza wasn´t a mystic, he was a thinker. You don´t get to fundamental reality by doing a lot of thinking, and then mistaking your thoughts for the truth. If anything, you´re likely to go in the other direction.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Plumjam,

OK, I think I see the problem. I am using the commonly accepted definition of "knowledge", which is "justified true belief". What you are describing is more akin to the common usage of the word "faith", which is belief held strongly (in the same way that we hold to beliefs we call knowledge), with that belief being accompanied by a feeling "this is right".

Experiences do not arrive with justification, though they may arrive with the feeling "this is right". Justification is a process that involves analysis, which involves comparison. There is no comparison possible between the fundamental substance and anything else.

We simply are not speaking of commensurate things, which means that we cannot move forward. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

And, no, I am not currently nor have I recently been studying Spinoza. His name arises anytime one speaks of monism since he provided the best formalized system of thought.

 

[nescafe]

Again, you are just restating your faith position. Like a mantra. ¨Fundamental reality cannot be known.¨ Repeat ad infinitum.
What do you base this belief on?

For my part, the implications Goedel's incompleteness theorems and the Church-Turing hypothesis have on how accurately it is possible to know anything, and the impossibility of being absolutely sure that any given explanation is in fact the correct one.

You are making the same mistake as Akumanimani, Pixy, and Athon.
You are confusing knowing and describing/explaining. The entirely logical and reasonable position that fundamental reality cannot, in principle, due to it being The Whole, be accurately described/explained in terms of parts (language) in no way affects the possibility that it may be known (experienced).
In fact, descriptions of knowing fundamental reality commonly describe it as indescribable, ineffable, not conducive to language.. and the like, which, from a philosophical perspective, is precisely what one would expect.

And if you suffer from Fregoli delusion you know and have the experience that everyone you meet are really just one or two people perpetrating a massive hoax on you.

Experience by itself cannot be unconditionally trusted.

 

[Nick227]

You are making the same mistake as Akumanimani, Pixy, and Athon.
You are confusing knowing and describing/explaining. The entirely logical and reasonable position that fundamental reality cannot, in principle, due to it being The Whole, be accurately described/explained in terms of parts (language) in no way affects the possibility that it may be known (experienced).
In fact, descriptions of knowing fundamental reality commonly describe it as indescribable, ineffable, not conducive to language.. and the like, which, from a philosophical perspective, is precisely what one would expect.

They describe it as this because the describer is, I submit, aware that thinking and language do not truly describe reality. They are merely processes like anything else. Yet in order to explain this a philosophy of some sort must be constructed. An example would be the Hindu philosophy, well known in the West, Advaita Vendanta (non-dualism). It is recognised that the existence of self is essentially illusory and so there is no actual point in the universe from which to make an objective statement of "how things are." Yet, in order to communicate this to the individual, a philosophy called Advaita is constructed, even though the adherent will, hopefully, at some point appreciate that all philosophy, including Advaita itself, is meaningless.

Spiritual development is not an instant flip from a normal life to absorption in Absolute Divinity. There are many variegated finite experiences which will lie between the two.

So spiritualists will try and convince you! Spiritual memes are notoriously good at embedding themselves in the mind with all sorts of tricks for convincing the individual that they are on a "path to enlightenment" or whatever.

These are commonly communicated to the individual mind in forms which will make cultural and religious sense to that individual mind. Not all mystics or saints reach the same level in any particular lifetime, but it´s clear that the end point is the same.

I would treat the whole notion of "spiritual progress" as extremely tentative. I did a lot of spiritual stuff and also "direct teaching" - satsang, Advaita, and the like. The two camps do not get on at all. Spiritual pathways invariably purport to be some form of "gradual progressive unveiling" but when you deal with Advaita you find spirituality is almost universally reviled, and treated as a parasitic teaching.

I recommend you really try materialism. It's a stronger meditation in my experience.

Nick

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Like I said before, in the face of experience, reliance on argument is rather a damp squib. It is bowing to the lessons of experience which gives science its main strength. (snip)

"We cannot trust logical argumentation in the face of experience because... thus... therefore... if, then... Oh hell, just take all your dreams literally, including the flying dreams, daydreams, lucid dreams, wet dreams, and then you'll see what I'm getting at!"

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

On a behavioural level, perhaps there is very little difference. But does this account for actual seeing?

If the ventral stream is damaged and the dorsal intact, we still have some of the behaviour of sight without the conscious experience of sight. This has been demonstrated. But what I'm asking is for a physical explanation for the phenomena of vision, not the behaviour of vision. For example, it seems to me at this moment that I can see a monitor screen right in front of me. Is this a phenomenal representation created by the brain and if so is it located somewhere in the brain? Does Prof Woolfe explain this?

Thanks for the other link btw.

Nick

No, I'm afraid no one knows the information to that degree of abstraction. My guess is that there are multiple informational streams active all the time (that's an obvious one when you think of it) and the emotional and motivational streams are integrated with pure perceptual streams to give the phenomenal quality to vision. The brain is constructed with a basic diagram of lower levels sending up volleys of info to higher levels with info looping back to lower levels in a continuous oscillating streams. There are many somewhat isolated streams (the two primary means of isolating systems are location and neurotransmitters) that interact also in a variety of ways that also depend on the presence of different neurotransmitter systems -- for instance, the distributed dopaminergic pathways from the ventral tegmentum spread widely through the hemispheres but only affect areas where they ramify and where receptors are in place (and this can be further modulated by the existence of a minimum of five different dopamine receptors that allow variations on the degree of excitation or inhibition).

 

[PixyMisa]

On a behavioural level, perhaps there is very little difference. But does this account for actual seeing?

Yes.

If the ventral stream is damaged and the dorsal intact, we still have some of the behaviour of sight without the conscious experience of sight. This has been demonstrated. But what I'm asking is for a physical explanation for the phenomena of vision, not the behaviour of vision.

You're doomed to disappointment so long as you keep importing dualist terminology into a materialist Universe.

For example, it seems to me at this moment that I can see a monitor screen right in front of me.

Sure.

Is this a phenomenal representation created by the brain and if so is it located somewhere in the brain?

The representation (note the word I left out) is created by the brain and the process is handled by specific parts of the brain. The representation is not an object you can point to, it's an ongoing and ever-changing process.

Does Prof Woolfe explain this?

Yes.

As I said earlier, we still do not know every detail, but we know a great deal.

Thanks for the other link btw.

The mind-reading one? Yeah, that's fascinating, isn't it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Plumjam,

OK, I think I see the problem. I am using the commonly accepted definition of "knowledge", which is "justified true belief". What you are describing is more akin to the common usage of the word "faith", which is belief held strongly (in the same way that we hold to beliefs we call knowledge), with that belief being accompanied by a feeling "this is right".

Or to put it another way:

Plumjam, you are confusing the word "know" with the expression "invent a ridiculous story that doesn't stand up to the most cursory examination".

If you could use the latter phrase in future posts, it would clear up a lot of misunderstanding.

 

[articulett]

I wonder how many lives have been destroyed by someone's "inner knowingness" about "divine truths"?

 

[Dancing David]

Ah, but even then, reality would be what it is.

That we observe anything at all tells us that there is a reality. Our observations may or may not accurately reflect the nature of reality, but it is indisputable that there is a reality.

I don't even remember now why I needed to make that point... Oh, yes, it was HypnoPsi telling us what atheists really believe.

Define reality.

 

[Dancing David]

On a behavioural level, perhaps there is very little difference. But does this account for actual seeing?

If the ventral stream is damaged and the dorsal intact, we still have some of the behaviour of sight without the conscious experience of sight. This has been demonstrated. But what I'm asking is for a physical explanation for the phenomena of vision, not the behaviour of vision. For example, it seems to me at this moment that I can see a monitor screen right in front of me. Is this a phenomenal representation created by the brain and if so is it located somewhere in the brain? Does Prof Woolfe explain this?

Thanks for the other link btw.

Nick

Yes it is sort of in your brain, the visual perceptions are created at the back of your head, but it is not like a bit map image. Much of it is also shared with auditory processing.

But of course this is still in it's infancy as a science, much comes from stimulating brains, more from damage and disease.

 

[rocketdodger]

I have been unable to locate the full text - though I have certainly came across this work before earlier in the year.

...snip...

If this research means what you think it means then every competitive sport from table tennis to soccer would be impossible as the brain simply doesn't have a 7 second window to prepare.

I don't have the full text, I am going on nothing but anecdote here.

And I am not reaching the invalid conclusions you accuse me of reaching.

My conclusion is simply that there are documented (here) instances of people being mistaken about their own perception of their own consciousness.

That doesn't mean anything other than what it means.

If a person doesn't think they know which hand they will move until they think they have decided, but in fact their subconscious mind has already even partially contributed to the decision, that person is wrong about their subjective perception.

Unless I am totally misunderstanding the abstract and reports of this study.

 

[rocketdodger]

Nor do you have to be omnisicient to know that there are things you cannot know. Godel proved precisely that.

Mathematics aren't relevant to this thread, dur.

 

[rocketdodger]

To argue that it is in principle impossible to know what is the fundamental nature of reality, is to assume your own omniscience.. which is a condition you repeatedly state to be impossible. So you´re arguing against yourself.
When and how did you become omniscient?

Are you sure you know what "omniscient" means?

Because last time I checked knowing it is impossible to know the fundamental nature of reality is only a single fact.

Are you going to present an argument that this is somehow equivalent to knowing all facts -- as "omniscience" implies?

 

[Robin]

Well, it delineates materialism/physicalism from idealism. If reality is idealistic, then nothing can exist indepedent of being perceived or thought of.

So you are claiming to have no existence, apart from these words on a screen?

 

[rocketdodger]

Nope. I don't think that either theism or materialism provides any sense of completeness. Instead, both theories only open up new questions and avenues for investigation, as is the way (and some would argue purpose) of the scientific habit of theorising.

What questions, other than the who, where, what, why, when of dogmatic scripture, does theism open?

Did you really think about that statement before you made it? I find that hard to believe.

I never suggested you didn't - nor would I.

Yes, you did. Your entire participation on this thread is tantamount to it.

We have told you over and over that we don't know about the fundamental substance. We don't care about it, because we know we can't know it. All we are concerned with is the fundamental properties.

And your consistent response is "but materialists assert matter is all there is, and this is less parsimonious than asserting mind is all there is." wtf? Can you read? This is literally the third time I have told you that you are arguing with a strawman. And everyone else has done the same. When will you listen? Never?

That is about as far from my point as you can get. Scientific thinking involves considerably more than just being skeptical of the other guys theory. That's the easy part of science. (I could sit here all day poking fun at thinking thermostats and computer consciousness.)

But that is not what makes science a noble pursuit.

The real test of someone's character lies in thesis defence. Which is why, traditionally, it has always been the completion of that task that makes someone a scientist (or, at the very least, recognised as scientific in their thinking).

And, to be concise, that means constructing a theory that is both parsimonious and testable (even if just in principle and not in practice) and actively defending it.

Are you saying you are incapable of this? Why? Are you embarrased about the fact that there is no evidence that the Universe is self-sustaining/self-generating and that there is absolutely no evidence for such things as computer consciousness, etc.,? In otherwords, are you embarrased about the fact that it's all just faith?

What are you talking about? I was talking about incompleteness. That doesn't seem to be topic of the above statements. So ...

That is not the point. A theory (a proposition that is maintained by argument), be it presented as a single statement or lengthy tract in a dissertation, wouldn't be a theory if we knew how it worked. It would be "fact".

All you seem to be doing here is trying desparately to avoid being in a position where you actually have to defend some claim or other. That's hardly very scientific, is it?

What are you lying about now?

I posted three properties that I believe all existents must feature. That is the full extent of my position on substance.

You haven't disagreed. You can't disagree, because those properties are logically irrefutable. If you want to claim that my position is so strong that it implies I must have chosen this position specifically to avoid a difficult battle, go ahead. But that is utter stupidity akin to an amazon warrior shaking his spear at a helicopter gunship and accusing the pilot of being a coward -- if you wanted a good argument, you should have built one. Don't get mad at me because your chosen position leaves you wallowing in jungle muck with the rest of the backwards natives.