Malerin, what difference? Immaterialism is Moot

[paximperium]

And that difference always seems to be an attempt to create a space for God.

Because god seems to only exist in the little gaps of human ignorance and fantasy and apparently no where else.

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course there's an enormous difference.

Really? What might that be?

Which explains why the argument carries on, and can become quite vehement.

Does it?

I've noticed that the "what difference does it make?" line is one taken solely by the materialists.

And solely unanswered by the idealists.

They do this because they implicitly recognise a weakness in their own position.

Which is?

That weakness being that idealism is a priori batting on a better wicket, due to skepticism as to the existence of mind being patently absurd and self-defeating.

Existence of mind only gets you as far as solipsism, which is no help to anyone.

Whereas skepticism as to the existence of a material world, existing independent of mind, is at least not patently absurd, and is not at all self-defeating.

Ah, I see. Allow me hit to you over the head with this baseball bat, then.

No?

Whyever not?

As materialists are exposed to discussions on this matter they become uncomfortable, and try to get out of their fix by trying to argue or imply that idealism and solipsism are the same thing, which they clearly are not.

No, that would be your argument.

(So, note to readers, when you see orthodox JREFers writing 'solipsism' a dollar to a dime they're trying to get out of this fix)

What fix?

Back to whether there's a difference.
Idealism puts mind (consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality.

Meaning what?

Mind is 'what reality is made of'. Mind is primary.

Meaning what?

Materialism puts matter (physicality independent of mind/consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality.
Matter/ Physicality Independent of Mind .. is 'what reality is made of'. Matter is primary.

And, indeed, this is what we find.

If people can't see how choosing between these two options makes any difference then they have to be living in cloud-cuckoo land.

What is matter, Plumjam?

What is it really? All we can do is describe how it behaves, not what it is - if the question of what it is even has any meaning.

So if all we have is descriptions of behaviour - information. And is not that then a form of idealism as much as it is a form of materialism?

When Mind is primary there is nothing at all surprising about a whole host of things that orthodox JREFers can't stand.. such as free will

Meaningless under any monism.

God

Betrayed by a stark lack of any evidence whatsoever.

intelligence behind the existence of mathematically describable physical laws

Not only not in evidence, but of dubious coherence as a statement in the first place.

the existence of consciousness associated with physical lifeforms

Not a problem in any way.

the fine tuning of the universe to enable life

Which tells us nothing until we have other universe with which to compare.

the imposition of determinism at the macro-level in order to enable Mind to take meaningful decisions which will therefore definitely be physically enacted

No such thing exists.

moral responsibility for ones choices

Not a problem.

spirituality

Entirely irrelevant.

the exquisitely intelligent design of lifeforms

False-to-fact.

spiritual practice

Entirely irrelevant.

existence as being objectively directional purposeful and meaningful

Incoherent.

the continuation of life beyond Mind's association with a particular organic form

Does not happen.

most of the paranormal

Does not happen.

(I could go on for ages but you get the picture)

Yes. You're making stuff up to support something else that you've made up.

On the contrary, when Matter / Physicality Independent of Mind (PIM) are seen as primary one is forced to describe all the above as either non-existent, fraudulent, or at the very most as epiphenomena (side-effects) of the existence of PIM.

Which turns out to be the case.

Thus the great dance of denial begins, in which every effort is made to push Mind to the margins of reality.

No, Plumjam, the denial is entirely on your side of the fence.

It is only by positing that the material is the basis for the mental that any progress in understanding the mind has been made at all.

To see the absurd lengths materialist academia has gone to in this regard please google Behaviorism and B.F. Skinner (its founder), in which it was academically respectable for many years to want to deny that anything of interest happened in the inner conscious life of the human being.

No.

That was mainstream academic psychology.

No, that is your strawman of mainstream academic psychology.

I could take any recent academic discipline and describe a similar kind of denialism of the bleedin' obvious at work, all in order to fit with the desire to push Mind out of the picture as far as possible.

Of course you could. And all of these descriptions would be false.

For example, in politics it led to relatively morality-free materialist ideologies which killed upwards of 100 million citizens in 70 years.

No, you're thinking of Communism.

Easy to get them confused, I know. One is a process of careful study, experimentation, and peer-review, and the other a failed politico-economic system that can be enforced only at gunpoint.

Only last Tuesday I mixed up my undergraduate tutorial class with an unruly Mongolian peasant village and machine-gunned the lot of them, and then, myself. All die. O, the embarassment.

Well, you can call it whatever you like. To me, laws imply intentionality.

Laws need not imply any such thing.

You infer intentionality.

You infer incorrectly.

wanting to get something done, whether it be legally in the courts, or physically in the created Universe.

The Law of Gravity is an equation. Intentionality where, please?

For intentionality to exist Mind has to exist.

Of some sort, I suppose. But since there is no evidence this intentionality of yours exists, so likewise this Mind of which you speak.

So Universal Laws at the physical level are a clear indicator of Universal Intentionality and thus Universal Mind.

In a word, no.

If you can present to me a convincing argument which can explain some accidental (non-intentional) genesis of dozens of predictable physical laws and constants, then perhaps I might reconsider

It just happened that way.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Reality- Philosophy for grownups.

 

[Darat]

And that difference always seems to be an attempt to create a space for God.

I've also seen it used to try and find a space for that other perennial "freewill".

 

[Scazon]

A solispsitic theist? That's a new one on me. I refute it thus, it's as good an argument as any. The real problem as any ex-Catholic will know is that God is too soulless. Too soulless sanctus, too soulless dominus, too soulless altissimus.

 

[athon]

I've noticed that the "what difference does it make?" line is one taken solely by the materialists. They do this because they implicitly recognise a weakness in their own position.

That's an assumption I don't agree with. Being a materialist myself, I'd like to at least speak on my own behalf, and not have you speak for me.

Whereas skepticism as to the existence of a material world, existing independent of mind, is at least not patently absurd, and is not at all self-defeating.

'Acting independent of mind' is where you're making an incorrect assumption. While I can't speak for every materialist (just like I'll assume you don't speak for all idealists), is irrelevant. You could exist totally as a figment of my imagination. My mind could be all there is. Yet that does not change the fact that the universe - as my 'universe mind' sees it - acts as if it operates under a set of immutable laws.

As materialists are exposed to discussions on this matter they become uncomfortable, and try to get out of their fix by trying to argue or imply that idealism and solipsism are the same thing, which they clearly are not.

Again, we'll keep this discussion to how you and I see each side, and not continue to use broad sweeping generalisations which assume how all members of the respective side think. Deal?

Idealism puts mind (consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality. Mind is 'what reality is made of'. Mind is primary.
Materialism puts matter (physicality independent of mind/consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality.
Matter/ Physicality Independent of Mind .. is 'what reality is made of'. Matter is primary.

So far, I don't have a problem with this. If you choose to say 'all laws are contained within one's own personal mind', and I say 'all laws are external', then it really doesn't matter, for both will give rise to the same universe we perceive. The main tenet of materialism is that there are laws which seem to explain what we see - the ultimate, fundamental reality is beyond describing, ultimately. Even if we find some mathematical description of space-time and the laws embedded in it, you're still free to describe that as a feature of your mind. And I can't argue - but really, it's pointless.

If people can't see how choosing between these two options makes any difference then they have to be living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Then you'll have to do a better job explaining it. If I can only start with one absolute - that I exist (as demonstrated by my act of thinking) - then it doesn't matter if all laws are a part of my act of thinking, or act upon it. Those laws are still apparent.

When Mind is primary there is nothing at all surprising about a whole host of things that orthodox JREFers can't stand.. such as free will, God, intelligence behind the existence of mathematically describable physical laws, the existence of consciousness associated with physical lifeforms, the fine tuning of the universe to enable life, the imposition of determinism at the macro-level in order to enable Mind to take meaningful decisions which will therefore definitely be physically enacted, moral responsibility for ones choices, spirituality, the exquisitely intelligent design of lifeforms, spiritual practice, existence as being objectively directional purposeful and meaningful, the continuation of life beyond Mind's association with a particular organic form, most of the paranormal... etc.. (I could go on for ages but you get the picture)

Except it's all a non-sequitor. These things don't rely on the ontology of reality - they rely on the nature of the laws describing everything.

If there is a deity behind everything, there can only be the assumption that it is distinct from those laws which create my 'mind universe' or the 'external universe'. If so...what makes me think it could exist? It's influence? Then it must subscribe to those laws.

If, however, you believe that the universe has no symmetrical laws, then we have a different argument. I'll wait to hear your response before I open the discussion to that train of thought.

On the contrary, when Matter / Physicality Independent of Mind (PIM) are seen as primary one is forced to describe all the above as either non-existent, fraudulent, or at the very most as epiphenomena (side-effects) of the existence of PIM.

Another strawman. If the mind is independent of matter, it is up to those who believe so to demonstrate that it does not operate under any laws whatsoever. If materialism is the system by which the universe operates under a set of laws, how does the mind operate if not under any system?

Well, you can call it whatever you like. To me, laws imply intentionality.. wanting to get something done, whether it be legally in the courts, or physically in the created Universe.

Ah, now we're getting to the crux of it. You believe, personally, that laws imply an intention. Fine. If ultimately you're a deist who holds onto teleology because you can't contemplate anything else, then so be it. I won't stop you. If we're perceiving the same universe, and come to the same conclusions, yet you (post hoc) say 'that was ordained', I might think it offers nothing more than personal comfort...but if it helps you sleep at night, go for it.

But there is nothing that logically demands intention in the way these laws operate.

For intentionality to exist Mind has to exist. So Universal Laws at the physical level are a clear indicator of Universal Intentionality and thus Universal Mind.
If you can present to me a convincing argument which can explain some accidental (non-intentional) genesis of dozens of predictable physical laws and constants, then perhaps I might reconsider

Nope. However, it does surprise me that you're happy to see the origin of these laws as not requiring an intention. If a mind has intent, and the mind exists, under what intentions was that mind formed?

Turtles...all the way down.

(so do physicists, with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)

Hehe, spoken like somebody who doesn't quite understand the HUP. There is nothing in the mathematics to suggest that there is some unobservable cause. The end result is very predictable and follows causation neatly. The randomness in waveform collapse does not imply external causation - it implies no causation at all.

I really should start laying bets that QM is going to be abused in half of these discussions - I'd make a fortune.

If. That's a huge if.

Huge? No. It's just an average sized 'if'. The problem is, if is not a system, how would it operate? If not laws which interact, producing an outcome, then what? By any definition, a mind has certain properties which operate in conjunction with one another.

What you seem to be doing (which is rife among materialists) is applying modes of thought reasonably applicable to the conditioned 'material' space/time Universe, to that which exists independent of it.
It's like someone brought up in an Indian village assuming that everyone in the whole World lives on curry, rice and dahl.
The same may well not apply

Of course. That's true. But your analogy doesn't work.

We're not talking specifics of laws and rules. If you suggested that the edge of the universe might have different universal constants, I'd ask you what makes you say that. I wouldn't dismiss it entirely as impossible. Yet to suggest something exists without being based within some sort of system or interacting properties...well, it is simply a paradox. How can something exist and not exist at the same time? How can a mind exist, and not be embedded within a system of operation?

Well, I can. I just did.

While I obviously still have questions, I appreciate the effort.

Malerin would probably state something similar. Hopefully I've saved him the bother.

To be blunt, I'd be surprised. Few idealists bother to even attempt to offer anything. They get stuck on getting past the 'minds can exist without existing' part.

I hope we can nut that one out.

Clearly not.
Test it in your own experience. Imagine something, your own imaginary World, if you like. Are you, as the imagination which created that World, limited to the laws which you imposed on it?

Interesting analogy. No, I'm not. But I do subscribe to another set of laws.

If, extending this analogy, a creator of this universe has created these laws and subscribes to his own...and the creator of that realm subscribes to its own...ad infinitum (which, although not parsimonous, is not illogical)...we'd still have to observe a set of laws, even if they operate within some sort of Russian doll hierarchy. Now, it's an interesting idea, but it has one flaw - you're insinuating that our minds also subscribe (therefore) the laws which are imposed onto the creator. Therefore, each system is not distinct at all, but is connected. We can now treat the entire system as a whole, as there are laws that knock on from one 'realm' to the next, and can be observed, questioned, tested...

We haven't progressed. It's still a material universe.

I don't think Malerin or myself are avoiding anything. We just happen to be enormously outnumbered here. We receive a lot of crap from dogmatists. If he loses his temper I think it's understandable. Often I just post my point of view and can't be arsed to follow it up because due to experience I know the kind of old, uninteresting, sometimes insulting, dogmatic replies I'm going to receive.

No offence, but this road runs both ways. We often read the same drivel from people who are also stumped and can't back up their claims. We also feel it's dogmatic. Of course, I try to judge each statement on its own merits, but when somebody avoids questions, I tend to find it difficult to respect their position.

[quoteJust to ask, do you think there is no difference?[/quote]

Honestly, it depends on the definitions. Since, as far as I understand it, materialism refers to the existance of laws which define my observations and can be described according to what I see with regard to time and space, it depends on what each person thinks idealism means. Some refer to a distinct mind...which, as they describe it, simply is a another term for 'the universe' (simply seen from a subjective viewpoint). This is no different. Yet if idealism refers to something metaphysical, which cannot be observed to exist yet can be observed to exist...I think it becomes a paradox which cannot be support. And is therefore different to materialism.

Athon

 

[Darat]

Moved a couple of posts that were off-topic "personalising" posts. Keep to the topic under discussion.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Sideroxylon]

On the contrary, when Matter / Physicality Independent of Mind (PIM) are seen as primary one is forced to describe all the above as either non-existent, fraudulent, or at the very most as epiphenomena (side-effects) of the existence of PIM.
Thus the great dance of denial begins, in which every effort is made to push Mind to the margins of reality. To see the absurd lengths materialist academia has gone to in this regard please google Behaviorism and B.F. Skinner (its founder), in which it was academically respectable for many years to want to deny that anything of interest happened in the inner conscious life of the human being. That was mainstream academic psychology.

Behaviourism was not a denial that anything of interest happened in the inner conscious, but rather a move away from subjective experiences to a focus on that which is observable and so examinable by the scientific method.

 

[Dancing David]

Rule 1 violation. Be civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Wow, i am shocked, that was not what i expected. I was hoping that you would engage in debate.

Sigh...

 

[Dancing David]

I looked over the post that Malerin was apparently retaliating against.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4242720#post4242720

Last I checked, the term "strawman" refers to a person's arguments or tactics at most, and is not a personal attack or insult. It's also okay to call people "dishonest" if it's contextually justified and relevant to the debate. I fail to see how anything Dancing David said warranted that kind of response. Having one's beliefs mocked is no different from having one's ideas or arguments attacked.

ETA: Thank you Tricky for your prompt response.

I was very angry when I wrote a long and extended post in the other thread, I made many emotional statements along with the rational ones. And I used a sidebar appeal to emotion that was unwarranted, I will respond to that post in that thread.

 

[Dancing David]

It's rather a daft thread.

Surely you guys can't be quite that dumb or deluded. It clearly makes a difference to you. Your own actions betray you.

So your actions say that you misunderstand my point, I am saying that it is a moot point. I am not arguing for materialsm. I am pointing out that the two monisms are exactly the same in outcome.

So once again you make unsupported assertions, your actions betray you.

Can you answer the question?

What difference would it make?

 

[plumjam]

So your actions say that you misunderstand my point, I am saying that it is a moot point. I am not arguing for materialsm. I am pointing out that the two monisms are exactly the same in outcome.

So once again you make unsupported assertions, your actions betray you.

Can you answer the question?

What difference would it make?

I already answered it, to Athlon.

Your whole presence here at JREF cries out that you believe there's an enormous difference. I have read many of your posts to that effect. So please don't try to start arguing there's no difference between Idealism and Materialism. If you didn't already think so why would you have started the thread and rather ungallantly aimed it at a particular, named, (possibly) Idealist fellow forum member?

If you think there's no real difference why do you repeatedly argue towards materialism rather than idealism?

I'll save you the trouble. You won't be able to answer these.

 

[Dancing David]

Of course there's an enormous difference. Which explains why the argument carries on, and can become quite vehement.

I have asked what difference?

I notice you haven't answered. And that you are using a straw herring to distract from not answering the questions.
[quote}

I've noticed that the "what difference does it make?" line is one taken solely by the materialists.
[/quote]
No HammeGK is the one who pointed it out to me, a cranky person for sure but an honest one. He was an ideal monist who agreed to the observable monism postulate.

I have said, and I say now:

Butterfly dreams, godthought or quanta, they all act the same. So it is not asserting that materialsim is correct, it is stating that it is a mott point.

They do this because they implicitly recognise a weakness in their own position. That weakness being that idealism is a priori batting on a better wicket, due to skepticism as to the existence of mind being patently absurd and self-defeating.

Still just flailing? Okay.

Whereas skepticism as to the existence of a material world, existing independent of mind, is at least not patently absurd, and is not at all self-defeating.

You still haven't ansered the question:

i have stated that the world could be total illusion, it doesn't matter.

As materialists are exposed to discussions on this matter they become uncomfortable, and try to get out of their fix by trying to argue or imply that idealism and solipsism are the same thing, which they clearly are not.
(So, note to readers, when you see orthodox JREFers writing 'solipsism' a dollar to a dime they're trying to get out of this fix)

Back to whether there's a difference.
Idealism puts mind (consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality. Mind is 'what reality is made of'. Mind is primary.
Materialism puts matter (physicality independent of mind/consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality.
Matter/ Physicality Independent of Mind .. is 'what reality is made of'. Matter is primary.

Still no answer.

If people can't see how choosing between these two options makes any difference then they have to be living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Name calling.

Not an answer.

When Mind is primary there is nothing at all surprising about a whole host of things that orthodox JREFers can't stand.. such as free will, God, intelligence behind the existence of mathematically describable physical laws, the existence of consciousness associated with physical lifeforms, the fine tuning of the universe to enable life, the imposition of determinism at the macro-level in order to enable Mind to take meaningful decisions which will therefore definitely be physically enacted, moral responsibility for ones choices, spirituality, the exquisitely intelligent design of lifeforms, spiritual practice, existence as being objectively directional purposeful and meaningful, the continuation of life beyond Mind's association with a particular organic form, most of the paranormal... etc.. (I could go on for ages but you get the picture)

Still no answer.

On the contrary, when Matter / Physicality Independent of Mind (PIM) are seen as primary one is forced to describe all the above as either non-existent, fraudulent, or at the very most as epiphenomena (side-effects) of the existence of PIM.

Still no answer.

Thus the great dance of denial begins, in which every effort is made to push Mind to the margins of reality. To see the absurd lengths materialist academia has gone to in this regard please google Behaviorism and B.F. Skinner (its founder), in which it was academically respectable for many years to want to deny that anything of interest happened in the inner conscious life of the human being. That was mainstream academic psychology.

Still no answer.

I could take any recent academic discipline and describe a similar kind of denialism of the bleedin' obvious at work, all in order to fit with the desire to push Mind out of the picture as far as possible.
For example, in politics it led to relatively morality-free materialist ideologies which killed upwards of 100 million citizens in 70 years.

Still no answer.

Well, you can call it whatever you like. To me, laws imply intentionality.. wanting to get something done, whether it be legally in the courts, or physically in the created Universe. For intentionality to exist Mind has to exist. So Universal Laws at the physical level are a clear indicator of Universal Intentionality and thus Universal Mind.
If you can present to me a convincing argument which can explain some accidental (non-intentional) genesis of dozens of predictable physical laws and constants, then perhaps I might reconsider

Still no answer.

(so do physicists, with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)

If. That's a huge if.
What you seem to be doing (which is rife among materialists) is applying modes of thought reasonably applicable to the conditioned 'material' space/time Universe, to that which exists independent of it.

Still no answer.

It's like someone brought up in an Indian village assuming that everyone in the whole World lives on curry, rice and dahl.
The same may well not apply


Well, I can. I just did.
Malerin would probably state something similar. Hopefully I've saved him the bother.




Clearly not.
Test it in your own experience. Imagine something, your own imaginary World, if you like. Are you, as the imagination which created that World, limited to the laws which you imposed on it?

Still no answer.

I don't think Malerin or myself are avoiding anything. We just happen to be enormously outnumbered here. We receive a lot of crap from dogmatists. If he loses his temper I think it's understandable. Often I just post my point of view and can't be arsed to follow it up because due to experience I know the kind of old, uninteresting, sometimes insulting, dogmatic replies I'm going to receive.

Just to ask, do you think there is no difference?

Yes, absolutely, I am a evil nihilist as well.

 

[plumjam]

Dancing David,
I already told you I answered it. It was post number 20.
You know, it's your own thread, so I was expecting you'd pay attention. Until then I shouldn't really bother myself.

Well, you now 'answered it'.
Please go back and look at your answers.
None of them are substantive in any way. There are about 15 of them, nearly all mono-sentences, and almost half of them consist simply of 'still no answer'.
I did at least present some arguments. None of which you adequately tried to answer.
On the beer?

 

[Mashuna]

I already answered it, to Athlon.

Your whole presence here at JREF cries out that you believe there's an enormous difference. I have read many of your posts to that effect. So please don't try to start arguing there's no difference between Idealism and Materialism. If you didn't already think so why would you have started the thread and rather ungallantly aimed it at a particular, named, (possibly) Idealist fellow forum member?

If you think there's no real difference why do you repeatedly argue towards materialism rather than idealism?

I'll save you the trouble. You won't be able to answer these.

How odd.

As a general point, if you have to start your argument by telling the other person that they don't think what they've just said, then attacking them for what you say they believe, it's a strawm. . .

Oh, wait. . .

<checks PJ's strawman avatar>

I guess you knew what you were doing after all.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David,
I already told you I answered it. It was post number 20.
You know, it's your own thread, so I was expecting you'd pay attention. Until then I shouldn't really bother myself.

Well, you now 'answered it'.
Please go back and look at your answers.
None of them are substantive in any way. There are about 15 of them, nearly all mono-sentences, and almost half of them consist simply of 'still no answer'.
I did at least present some arguments. None of which you adequately tried to answer.
On the beer?

I read your post and I am asking, what difference does it make.

here is the deal, if it is all thought or all matter it is all teh same. As long as your use a form of monism.

Evry problem that exists for idealism exists for materialism and visa versa.

No you have no answered the question, you have asserted that it might make a difference, but ask yourself:

What difference would it make?

How could one tell the difference between the two?

Please try to answer that with out saying "I already did.", how could you tell the difference?

See this is what I mean, HammeGK tried to explain himself, you have not. The two models reduce to the same outcome.

I am comfortable with all of them, I may be a brain in a vat, a butterfly dream a godthought of quanta of energy.

It all comes down to the same result, what difference would there be?

I take your evasion as aknowledgement that you can not answer teh question directly.

 

[Dancing David]

From here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4245240&postcount=20

Back to whether there's a difference.
Idealism puts mind (consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality. Mind is 'what reality is made of'. Mind is primary.
Materialism puts matter (physicality independent of mind/consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality.
Matter/ Physicality Independent of Mind .. is 'what reality is made of'. Matter is primary.

And those are both thought constructs of human modeling of the approximate behavior of reality.

There is no difference to test to see which one might be more valid than the other.

How can youd emonstrate that one has a more valid approach than the other?
They are both the same in outcome.

And then there is this, which assumes that i am not spiritual, that i have never explored mysticism or that I have never stopped to think about tehse things, and I have for almost 4 decades.

When Mind is primary there is nothing at all surprising about a whole host of things that orthodox JREFers can't stand.. such as free will, God, intelligence behind the existence of mathematically describable physical laws, the existence of consciousness associated with physical lifeforms, the fine tuning of the universe to enable life, the imposition of determinism at the macro-level in order to enable Mind to take meaningful decisions which will therefore definitely be physically enacted, moral responsibility for ones choices, spirituality, the exquisitely intelligent design of lifeforms, spiritual practice, existence as being objectively directional purposeful and meaningful, the continuation of life beyond Mind's association with a particular organic form, most of the paranormal... etc.. (I could go on for ages but you get the picture)

For each and everyone of those that you mention, you are just assuming that idealism makes a difference versus materialism. You are just assuming that the properties of Mind are somehow different than properties of matter:

Which is fine speculation and implies an inherent dualism.

However imagine that you live in world that has a magical mental technology, where it is assumed that Mental Monism is the model of choice.

A Mage is presented with the idea that there is Matter and that it is somehow different from Mind, but then they ask the important question:

How would I know that they are different? How can i test the assumption that they would be different?

It doesn't matter what spiritual network or physics network you choose, they are all teh same in the end.

It could be that there are unseen forces that we can not determine the nature of, and that is true in both systems. It could be that the world we see is all illusion, that is true in both systems. In fact any statement that you make "There is the hard problem of consciousness." is true for boths systems, you cana ssert that there would be a difference, but how would you demonstrate ite it.

I am comfortable with the notions of both models, ceause I believe that they are equally true and equally false. Both are just models and in fact they are models inw hich there is no demonstrated diffrerence.

So what difference would there be?

How can you tell the difference?

 

[Nick227]

Back to whether there's a difference.
Idealism puts mind (consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality. Mind is 'what reality is made of'. Mind is primary.
Materialism puts matter (physicality independent of mind/consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality.
Matter/ Physicality Independent of Mind .. is 'what reality is made of'. Matter is primary.

And those are both thought constructs of human modeling of the approximate behavior of reality.

There is no difference to test to see which one might be more valid than the other.

I would agree that it's not possible to establish how the "final substance" looks. But in the context of the history of philosophy, I would say that materialism has outperformed idealism very significantly over the last few decades.

To say that we don't know what the ur substance actually is - mind or matter - to me this is not really the gist of it. I say this because I see that idealism usually relates back to some notion of a cosmic mind or implicit sense of order or organising principle. The perspective of idealist philosophy does not seem so focussed on establishing the final, reductionist stuff of the universe. This seems to me more a materialist endeavour.

I think when one looks at the classical understanding of idealism, as opposed to simply equating idealism with materialism within the context of final substance, materialism basically wins.

I'm also not much convinced by the "brain in a vat" argument, as in your OP. I think if we are talking about a actual brain, as opposed to just phenomenology, then it's more and more clear that The Matrix just doesn't work.

Nick

 

[Dancing David]

I would agree that it's not possible to establish how the "final substance" looks. But in the context of the history of philosophy, I would say that materialism has outperformed idealism very significantly over the last few decades.

I am again just pointing out that they are two postulates. They are not really in competition withe ach other.

There are spurious conclusions people draw based upon those postulates, and they are often hotly contested.

To say that we don't know what the ur substance actually is - mind or matter - to me this is not really the gist of it. I say this because I see that idealism usually relates back to some notion of a cosmic mind or implicit sense of order or organising principle.

then what does it mean?

What difference would it make if there is some cosmic mind?
What difference would it make if there was an implicit sense of order or organising principle?

How would you tell the difference?

It is great postulate, but where does it go after that?

The perspective of idealist philosophy does not seem so focussed on establishing the final, reductionist stuff of the universe. This seems to me more a materialist endeavour.

And that is your assumption, again I say science is about aprroximate models of the behavior of the observed reality. The rest is speculation.
Idealism, as presented by many people is totally obsessed with it as well.

I think when one looks at the classical understanding of idealism, as opposed to simply equating idealism with materialism within the context of final substance, materialism basically wins.

Why?

they reduce to the same things, a world where we can only perceive or have thoughst is the equivalent of a world that has quanta of energy that organise to create beings that have perceptions and thoughts.

The two are absolutely equivalent in effect.

I'm also not much convinced by the "brain in a vat" argument, as in your OP. I think if we are talking about a actual brain, as opposed to just phenomenology, then it's more and more clear that The Matrix just doesn't work.

Nick

I don't see why, just because none of us are demonstrating Neo poweres does not give one more credence than the other.

The point is this, observed monism is all that we have.

 

[Nick227]

then what does it mean?

Idealism does not solely assert that the universe is finally mind. This is not the whole of it. I'm by no means expert in the history of philosophy, but for me there is more to idealism than simply asserting that it's all mind.

What difference would it make if there is some cosmic mind?
What difference would it make if there was an implicit sense of order or organising principle?

If you can drag it all back to mathematics then it doesn't make so much difference, but by no means all idealisms do this. There are notions of "seed ideas", "archetypal realms", "self-similarity" - all this kind of stuff. Idealism is by no means all about mathematical relationships or what the final substance is.

And that is your assumption, again I say science is about aprroximate models of the behavior of the observed reality. The rest is speculation.
Idealism, as presented by many people is totally obsessed with it as well.

Why?

Philosophies are inevitably speculative.

For me, historically, idealism has lost out big-time to materialism. When it was clear that the brain affected consciousness, this must have been a hammer-blow to idealism. When it was clear that thinking was the result of neural activity, another. The basic observations on which Idealism came to be based have been battered over the last few decades.

they reduce to the same things, a world where we can only perceive or have thoughst is the equivalent of a world that has quanta of energy that organise to create beings that have perceptions and thoughts.

But thoughts are reliant on a material substrate to exist.

I don't see why, just because none of us are demonstrating Neo poweres does not give one more credence than the other.

The "brain in a vat" scenario to me fundamentally assumes that the brain is the passive recipient of information being fed to it. I don't know for sure but I very much doubt that, if we're talking "brain" (as opposed to "phenomenology"), this is the case. The brain needs to seek information constantly, and it could well be that there simply is no stream of consciousness, that the world around it is its long-term memory. You couldn't just plug the old brain into some apparatus which mimicked sensory input and leave it to chug along. It would be vastly more complex. Thus, to me the evidence again points towards a material brain embedded within a dynamic, changing environment.

Of course if it's just "phenomenology in a vat," and we can throw neurobiology out the window as "simply more of the programme," then this is feasible. I mean, finally, we have no certain knowledge of anything, not least because the notion of the brain actually having identity is only constructed by the brain and frankly idiotic by anyone's standards.

The point is this, observed monism is all that we have.

I agree.

Nick