Question for Lifegazer

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, I feel like it's time to challenge Lifegazer.

Lifegazer has spent many hundreds of hours trying to convince the denizens of the JREF that materialism is wrong. I wish to suggest that this is in fact an irrelevant argument, and here is why. Instead of arguing until the end of time about the correctness/incorrectness of materialism (based upon philosophical-logical arguments) perhaps we ought to consider how it affects our view of the world if we were to accept that materialism is false.

For the purposes of this thread, let us assume two things :

1) Idealism is true.
2) The observable/observed world behaves exactly as if Materialism is true.

Now, these two assumptions should please everybody. It pleases Lifegazer, because it saves him from trying to convince everybody that materialism is false. And it pleases the JREF skeptics because it renders the falsity of materialism a total irrelevance.

Science is the investigation of the observable Universe by repeatable methods. The fact that nobody has claimed Randis money, and the fact that nobody can ever provide experimental evidence that materialism is false strongly support assumption number 2. The observable world always behaves as if materialism is true, regardless of whether or not it is actually true.

The mind-body problem, and all the other logical proofs against materialism (e.g. Jackson, Chalmers) do not change (2), they merely support (1).

My question to Lifegazer is as follows :

If in fact Idealism is true, but the observed Universe behaves exactly as if materialism is true, then how should this change our behaviour, our ethics and our morality? What is the relevance of idealism being true if the Universe behaves exactly as if materialism is true? Does it change the way we carry out scientific investigation into the obserable Universe? I mean - if the observable Universe always behaves as if materialism were true, then what difference does it make to science that idealism is actually true? Does it change the way we decide what is right and wrong? How does ontology affect ethics?

Please can people responding to this thread stick to the questions that have actually been asked. I am only interested in discussing the hypothetical consequences of my two assumptions being true. I am not interested in defending those assumptions. That has been done to death already. I wish to demonstrate that Lifegazers entire approach is completely irrelevant. Any person who allows themselves to be drawn into a discussion about the veracity of the assumptions is allowing themselves to be driven by the agenda I am attempting to demonstrate is pointless.

 

[lifegazer]

If in fact Idealism is true, but the observed Universe behaves exactly as if materialism is true, then how should this change our behaviour, our ethics and our morality?

Well if idealism is true, then only God exists and we are God having the perception of being people. Thus, we are really all the same entity.
So, how should the world behave with this new realisation? Well it's obvious really. It should unify us and put an end to all differences. It should really fire us to want whats best for everyone - selflessness. It should bring an end to inequality, injustice, poverty, war, nationality and boundaries.
Need I say more?

What is the relevance of idealism being true if the Universe behaves exactly as if materialism is true?

The relevance is predominantly spiritual. The world would change if the world was convinced that idealism is true.

Does it change the way we carry out scientific investigation into the obserable Universe? I mean - if the observable Universe always behaves as if materialism were true, then what difference does it make to science that idealism is actually true?

Armed with the knowledge that the Mind imposes the awareness of the universe upon itself must affect science somehow. For starters, no more the belief that there is a causal agent "out there" for every perceived effect, for ultimately, the Mind is the causal agent of every-thing, as well as the laws/order itself.
I honestly believe that physicists are leading us down a garden path with their string theories. And I'm almost certain that there is no 'graviton'. And of course, scientists would need to step back from viewing the brain as the causal agent of perceived existence.
Presently, scientific bias towards "causal agents out there" has led us into looking for "things" that I think simply do not exist.

Does it change the way we decide what is right and wrong?
How does ontology affect ethics?

If you want to play along with this, you're going to have to immerse yourself into the idea that we are all the same entity. Of course, that changes things completely.

 

[roger]

Re: Re: Question for Lifegazer

Well if idealism is true, then only God exists

Why?

 

[lifegazer]

Well if idealism is true, then only God exists

Why?

Because all "things" are generated to exist by, for and within, The Mind (of God the creator). Anything that is perceived is perceived by that Mind and is an illusion occuring within that Mind.
So, you are really God lost within the perception of being roger, for instance.

 

[Upchurch]

Because all "things" are generated to exist by, for and within, The Mind (of God the creator). Anything that is perceived is perceived by that Mind and is an illusion occuring within that Mind.

That assumes there is only one mind. (Otherwise, perceptions that one mind experiences could be generated by a second mind.) My understanding is that this is not an assumption of idealism.

Roughly supported by this

Main Entry: ide·al·ism
Pronunciation: I-'dE-(&-)"liz-&m, 'I-(")dE-
Function: noun
1 a (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason b (1) : a theory that only the perceptible is real (2) : a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable

So, why assume there is only one mind?

 

[jackmott]

Re: Re: Question for Lifegazer

Do you know of any evidence suggesting that idealism is true and materialism is not?

Do you even know of any approaches to discover which is true?

Well if idealism is true, then only God exists and we are God having the perception of being people. Thus, we are really all the same entity.
So, how should the world behave with this new realisation? Well it's obvious really. It should unify us and put an end to all differences. It should really fire us to want whats best for everyone - selflessness. It should bring an end to inequality, injustice, poverty, war, nationality and boundaries.
Need I say more?

The relevance is predominantly spiritual. The world would change if the world was convinced that idealism is true.

Armed with the knowledge that the Mind imposes the awareness of the universe upon itself must affect science somehow. For starters, no more the belief that there is a causal agent "out there" for every perceived effect, for ultimately, the Mind is the causal agent of every-thing, as well as the laws/order itself.
I honestly believe that physicists are leading us down a garden path with their string theories. And I'm almost certain that there is no 'graviton'. And of course, scientists would need to step back from viewing the brain as the causal agent of perceived existence.
Presently, scientific bias towards "causal agents out there" has led us into looking for "things" that I think simply do not exist.
If you want to play along with this, you're going to have to immerse yourself into the idea that we are all the same entity. Of course, that changes things completely.

 

[roger]

Because all "things" are generated to exist by, for and within, The Mind (of God the creator). Anything that is perceived is perceived by that Mind and is an illusion occuring within that Mind.

That's an assertion that does not directly follow from Geoff's 2 initial premises. So, prove it, don't assert it.

 

[roger]

Re: Re: Re: Question for Lifegazer

Do you know of any evidence suggesting that idealism is true and materialism is not?

For the purposes of this thread only we are assuming idealism IS true. So let's not debate it here, per Geoff's request.

 

[lifegazer]

That assumes there is only one mind. (Otherwise, perceptions that one mind experiences could be generated by a second mind.) My understanding is that this is not an assumption of idealism.

Roughly supported by this So, why assume there is only one mind?

There are several reasons to show why the Mind is singular, not least of which is that all perceived beings share the same perceived universe with the same perceived order.

I don't think Geoff wants to discuss anything other than the consequences of accepting my philosophy.

 

[roger]

I don't think Geoff wants to discuss anything other than the consequences of accepting my philosophy.

No, he wants to discuss the consequences of accepting Idealism. You've added something to Idealism with this assumption of 1 mind.

 

[lifegazer]

That's an assertion that does not directly follow from Geoff's 2 initial premises. So, prove it, don't assert it.

If Geoff wants to ask me questions about the consequences of my philosophy, then Geoff will have to accept what my philosophy states. I can't answer questions in regards a different philosophy to my own, now can I?

 

[Upchurch]

There are several reasons to show why the Mind is singular, not least of which is that all perceived beings share the same perceived universe with the same perceived order.

Couple problems with that logic. First, your conclusion contradicts your premise.

1: Multiple minds exist.
2: all minds experience the same set of sensations.
3: only one mind exsts.

Second, your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Even if all mines experience the same perceived universe, it is just likely that those perceptions are generated from a common, yet external, source.

I don't think Geoff wants to discuss anything other than the consequences of accepting my philosophy.

Oops. You're right. Sorry, Geoff.

 

[lifegazer]

1: Multiple minds exist.
2: all minds experience the same set of sensations.
3: only one mind exsts.

This isn't right. Here's how my philosophy reads:-
1: Multiple perceptions exist.
2: All perceptions are related (same universe).
3: One Mind is having this experience.

We are not seperate minds. We are seperate perceptions which one Mind is having.

I could talk about space and singularities and indivisibility and boundlessness, also, but we'd be going way-off topic.

 

[Upchurch]

This isn't right. Here's how my philosophy reads:-
1: Multiple perceptions exist.
2: All perceptions are related (same universe).
3: One Mind is having this experience.

Hm. That's a different logical problem. One mind exists, therefore one mind exists. It's circular reasoning for your premise to assume your conclusion.

 

[lifegazer]

Hm. That's a different logical problem. One mind exists, therefore one mind exists. It's circular reasoning for your premise to assume your conclusion.

I explained that all perception is related. The same order... the same universe. Where there is a singular order with a singular theme which is being perceived by the same sensations (we both see, hear, touch, taste & smell), then the conclusion is that these perceptions are being generated and had by one Mind.
Furthermore, the interaction of two perceived entities in one projected universe must indicate that those entities exist in one Mind.
For example, imagine that two characters are having a conversation. It is sure to say that these characters (the perception of them) exist in one mind (yours). It is clear that two imaginary characters cannot have a conversation if one exists in one mind and one exists in another.
So, the fact that we can all talk to one another is a proof that we all exist in the same Mind.

 

[Upchurch]

I explained that all perception is related. The same order... the same universe. Where there is a singular order with a singular theme which is being perceived by the same sensations (we both see, hear, touch, taste & smell), then the conclusion is that these perceptions are being generated and had by one Mind.

Yeah, that's what you said before but it doesn't address the logical problem. You're assuming that individual minds are merely perceived and that there is only one mind underneath it all. To use that premise to then conclude that there is only one mind is circular logic.

Furthermore, the interaction of two perceived entities in one projected universe must indicate that those entities exist in one Mind.

As I said, only if you first assume that they are only "perceived" entities that are aspects of a single mind. That doesn't necessarily follow from Idealism.

It is clear that two imaginary characters cannot have a conversation if one exists in one mind and one exists in another.

Well, first, not true. If I imagine one character and you imagine another character, our imaginary characters can communicate through our own abilities to communicate with one another. Happens all the time in role playing games like D&D.

Second, there is no reason to assume that the "characters" are imaginary in the first place.

 

[uruk]

There are several reasons to show why the Mind is singular, not least of which is that all perceived beings share the same perceived universe with the same perceived order.

For example, imagine that two characters are having a conversation. It is sure to say that these characters (the perception of them) exist in one mind (yours). It is clear that two imaginary characters cannot have a conversation if one exists in one mind and one exists in another.

The problem with this is that you have no way of knowing wether the other person or character actually exists at all. If you accept that there is no "out there" then you have to question the existance of anything you percieve. That includes other people. You obviously believe this, because you believe that we aren't even real. were are the dreams of a diety. So what's th point?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: Re: Question for Lifegazer

Well if idealism is true, then only God exists.....

OK, we are already in trouble. I would like you to explain how you get from "idealism is true" to "only God exists". The problem is that there are many forms of idealism, from polytheistic Hinduism to atheistic Buddhism. In terms of western philosophy, you also have to consider people like Arthur Schopenhauer - clearly an idealist and even more clearly as atheistic as they come. Please explain how you get from "idealism is true" to "only God exists". It is assumed that "God" means the anthropomorphised emotional God that you believe in - simply calling "everything" God is irrelevant, since you might as well just call it "everything".

and we are God having the perception of being people. Thus, we are really all the same entity.

So, how should the world behave with this new realisation? Well it's obvious really. It should unify us and put an end to all differences. It should really fire us to want whats best for everyone - selflessness. It should bring an end to inequality, injustice, poverty, war, nationality and boundaries.
Need I say more?

Yes, Lifegazer. You have to explain all of the "it should's" in that paragraph. I give you again the example of Schopenhauer. He is an idealist. He also claimed that at root we are all manifestations of the same cosmic force. But he did not conclude that this should "unify" us, and he did not believe that this knowledge should bring and end to injustice, poverty and war. The reason he did not believe that is because he was a realist with regard to human nature. In other words, even though he was an idealist, he accepted that the world (and people) behaved as if materialism was true. Far from believing that idealist metaphysics could save the world, Schopenhauer was about the most pessimistic philosopher who ever lived. So I need you to explain quite clearly why idealism "should" have these effects, and why in those parts of the world where most people are idealists (like India) it has NOT had these effects. It is no use just saying "well, it is obvious" or repeating "it should" and not explaining why.

Armed with the knowledge that the Mind imposes the awareness of the universe upon itself must affect science somehow.

I want to know WHY, mere assertions that it "must" are no use to anybody.

For starters, no more the belief that there is a causal agent "out there" for every perceived effect, for ultimately, the Mind is the causal agent of every-thing, as well as the laws/order itself.
I honestly believe that physicists are leading us down a garden path with their string theories.

Please explain how science itself can actually change to accomodate these ideas. Remember, that the 2nd assumption we have made is that the world behaves as if materialism is true. If there world behaves as if materialism is true, then why does it make any difference to science if the mind is a causal agent? If you cannot PHYSICALLY demonstrate this "causality", then how does it effect science? Science does not work on theoretical untestables. For something to be relevant to science, you must be able to apply it to the observable world, yes?

And I'm almost certain that there is no 'graviton'.

Why?

And of course, scientists would need to step back from viewing the brain as the causal agent of perceived existence.

What would they gain, scientifically, from doing this?

Presently, scientific bias towards "causal agents out there" has led us into looking for "things" that I think simply do not exist.

Are you suggesting something else to look for, which they can actually find? It seems to me it is YOU, not they, who is trying to introduce untestable and non-existent things into scientific theories, where they do not belong.

If you want to play along with this, you're going to have to immerse yourself into the idea that we are all the same entity. Of course, that changes things completely.

I don't want to "play along", Lifegazer. Philosophy is about thinking for yourself. I think that idealists like Schopenhauer were quite clear that we "are all the same entity", but their conclusions could not have been more different to yours. I want to know WHY idealism "changes things completely". On a practical, scientific and ethical level, I do not see why it changes anything at all. I am waiting for you to explain your reasoning. All you have done so far is declare things.

 

[Wudang]

lifegazers argument only works if the 2 "perceivers" perceive exactly the same thing. It does not cover the case of separate perceptions. Only I can see the particular screen in front of me at the moment.
Again this is my biggest problem with all idealist philosophies - the "transactional mechanism" (probably a better term out there) that allows my private knowledge of throwing the rock to turn into Jims private knowledge of instant unconsciousness.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Because all "things" are generated to exist by, for and within, The Mind (of God the creator). Anything that is perceived is perceived by that Mind and is an illusion occuring within that Mind.
So, you are really God lost within the perception of being roger, for instance.

You have to make clear what youy mean by God.

Do you mean

a) All human and animal consciousness?
b) All human and animal consicousness PLUS "God's consciousness"?
c) "Everything"?

I can't tell whether you are using the word "God" to mean "the sum total of all consciousness" (as Schopenhauer might have done) or whether you are introducing some sort of extra "God consciousness" of the sort Christians believe in but which Schopenhauer thoroughly rejected.