Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Idealism

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 11:35:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What's your opinion of idealism? I started reading Berkeley's The Principles of Human Knowledge, and I must admit, I'm pretty impressed. I think it's got alot going for it as far as explanatory power goes, Occam's razor, and good arguments.

What are some good objections to idealism?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 12:35:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
10$ RT is going to post in this thread.

Anyway, I haven't really seen any knock-down objection to it. Some can be made like you can't escape solipsism. I have thought about it and maybe you can make an objection based on the absurdity of occasionalism. There are still interactions in Idealism. God's mind and your mind. Basically how would that work without going into some form of occasionalism or pseudo-dualism?

I've also seen John Searle poke fun at it. He says to an idealist, jump out of 2 story building and tell me gravity is just some mental construct. Nothing really knock-down, but I'm not sure there can be a knock-down argument. It seems to make all the predictions of realism.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 3:14:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 12:35:17 PM, n7 wrote:
10$ RT is going to post in this thread.


Probably. ;) He seems to be more familiar with idealism via QM though.

Anyway, I haven't really seen any knock-down objection to it. Some can be made like you can't escape solipsism. I have thought about it and maybe you can make an objection based on the absurdity of occasionalism. There are still interactions in Idealism. God's mind and your mind. Basically how would that work without going into some form of occasionalism or pseudo-dualism?


Hmmm... I don't see how that's an interaction problem though, ebcause they're essentially the same "type" of thing.

I've also seen John Searle poke fun at it. He says to an idealist, jump out of 2 story building and tell me gravity is just some mental construct. Nothing really knock-down, but I'm not sure there can be a knock-down argument. It seems to make all the predictions of realism.

Hm. Yes, that doesn't seem like a good objection to me. I think that idealism isn't as counter-intuitive as it may sound actually.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:05:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 11:35:09 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
What's your opinion of idealism?

Ideally, nobody would be an idealist. It's not an ideal philosophy.

I started reading Berkeley's The Principles of Human Knowledge, and I must admit, I'm pretty impressed. I think it's got alot going for it as far as explanatory power goes, Occam's razor, and good arguments.

I haven't read it in over 15 years, but I remember Occam's razor being about the only thing it had going for it.

What are some good objections to idealism?

That it takes us far away from common sense, and it undermines the reliability of our belief-producing cognitive faculties in regard to synthetic a priori knowledge.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:43:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 4:05:48 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/3/2014 11:35:09 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
What's your opinion of idealism?

Ideally, nobody would be an idealist. It's not an ideal philosophy.


Oh don't punish me with those puns...

I started reading Berkeley's The Principles of Human Knowledge, and I must admit, I'm pretty impressed. I think it's got alot going for it as far as explanatory power goes, Occam's razor, and good arguments.

I haven't read it in over 15 years, but I remember Occam's razor being about the only thing it had going for it.


I thought the idea of something existing while nobody perceiving it being a contradiction of terms was interesting. He pretty much argues that "mind-independant matter" always contains some sort of contradiction and is thus inconceivable.

What are some good objections to idealism?

That it takes us far away from common sense, and it undermines the reliability of our belief-producing cognitive faculties in regard to synthetic a priori knowledge.

I'm not sure that it does though. He repeatedly says that he does beleive in a reality, just that there isn't a completely imperceptible "matter" or "prime matter."
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 4:49:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If we had no physical brain, or body, but still could sense and interact by some form, would this make idealism more plausible?

Because it's just the simple fact that we appear to have brains, and it appears that effects on the brain exhibit every change imaginable in the minds of others, that begins to fulfil the BoP for 'more complicated explanation'.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:01:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 4:49:24 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
If we had no physical brain, or body, but still could sense and interact by some form, would this make idealism more plausible?

Because it's just the simple fact that we appear to have brains, and it appears that effects on the brain exhibit every change imaginable in the minds of others, that begins to fulfil the BoP for 'more complicated explanation'.

Well as a point, you don't know for sure that affecting someone's brain is affecting their mind. You only know your own mind, and assume that they have a mind like yours.

But the point is that under idealism with Berkeley's God, there would be a perfect integration between mind and body. Essentially your argument is..

P1: IF all that existed was mind, THEN we wouldn't see the precise integration between mind and brain.
P2: We do see an integration between mind and brain.
C: Not all that exist is mind.

But under idealism, there is supposed to be a perfect integration between the two. Or at least, it's very possible. The way Berkeley solves the problem is that there is a higher mind, and that's why things make sense.

Now this might sound crazy, but if you defend the other premises that mind-independent reality is always some sort of contradiction, and that we wouldn't be able to interact with such a completely different substance, then it's an inescapable conclusion. Either that, or we get to true hard solipsism.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:03:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I guess the point is that, if all that exists is something of the same substance as our minds, and there is a reality independent of our minds, then this reality is either supported by a mind, or IS a mind.

And I take the position that it's supported by a mind. This doesn't necessarily mean a "higher" mind, but I think further argument can support that.

I think the main idea is that mind is most fundamental, and is needed before you can talk about anything else. So to say "I have a mind... ok, now I discovered matter. Now I find out that my mind IS matter" is self-defeating in a way, since you're reducing your mind to something mind-less.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:26:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 3:14:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/3/2014 12:35:17 PM, n7 wrote:
10$ RT is going to post in this thread.


Probably. ;) He seems to be more familiar with idealism via QM though.

He argues for it deductively too. I think the deductive argument is better than the QM arguments. Just because of the fact that it's much more simpler.

Anyway, I haven't really seen any knock-down objection to it. Some can be made like you can't escape solipsism. I have thought about it and maybe you can make an objection based on the absurdity of occasionalism. There are still interactions in Idealism. God's mind and your mind. Basically how would that work without going into some form of occasionalism or pseudo-dualism?


Hmmm... I don't see how that's an interaction problem though, ebcause they're essentially the same "type" of thing.

I think it's wrong to say it's an interaction problem like the way dualism has. They are the same type of thing, but that thing is mental. Meaning there is some sort of mental interaction, some sort of mental placement the big mind does to the little mind. Which is essentially occasionalism. Not a knock-down argument, but if you agree occasionalism is absurd(which it seems like it), you would have to say idealism is.

I've also seen John Searle poke fun at it. He says to an idealist, jump out of 2 story building and tell me gravity is just some mental construct. Nothing really knock-down, but I'm not sure there can be a knock-down argument. It seems to make all the predictions of realism.

Hm. Yes, that doesn't seem like a good objection to me. I think that idealism isn't as counter-intuitive as it may sound actually.

When you think about it, you only see, hear, feel, ect qualia. In that sense, it doesn't seem counter-intuitive. But prima facie it seems silly.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:30:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 5:01:07 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:49:24 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
If we had no physical brain, or body, but still could sense and interact by some form, would this make idealism more plausible?

Because it's just the simple fact that we appear to have brains, and it appears that effects on the brain exhibit every change imaginable in the minds of others, that begins to fulfil the BoP for 'more complicated explanation'.

Well as a point, you don't know for sure that affecting someone's brain is affecting their mind. You only know your own mind, and assume that they have a mind like yours.

But the point is that under idealism with Berkeley's God, there would be a perfect integration between mind and body. Essentially your argument is..

P1: IF all that existed was mind, THEN we wouldn't see the precise integration between mind and brain.
P2: We do see an integration between mind and brain.
C: Not all that exist is mind.

But under idealism, there is supposed to be a perfect integration between the two. Or at least, it's very possible. The way Berkeley solves the problem is that there is a higher mind, and that's why things make sense.

Now this might sound crazy, but if you defend the other premises that mind-independent reality is always some sort of contradiction, and that we wouldn't be able to interact with such a completely different substance, then it's an inescapable conclusion. Either that, or we get to true hard solipsism.

I'm gonna bite now and risk making a fool of myself :-p.

If your mind can be described, it's attributes and a mechanism understood for how it manifests in the 'physical' reality perceived. The it seems to follow that it's an inductive way of reasoning that the 'physical reality' perceived is the foundation upon which my mind manifests. And I'd go further to say the manifestation is entirely physical.

Therefore, if mind and physical reality are synonymous, then it seems that it seems to be pretty much in line with Idealism, except everything being mental phenomena is restated as everything is physical phenomena.

Maybe that's the difference in our positions? In where we place the basis of reality.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 5:33:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 5:03:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I guess the point is that, if all that exists is something of the same substance as our minds, and there is a reality independent of our minds, then this reality is either supported by a mind, or IS a mind.

And I take the position that it's supported by a mind. This doesn't necessarily mean a "higher" mind, but I think further argument can support that.

I think the main idea is that mind is most fundamental, and is needed before you can talk about anything else. So to say "I have a mind... ok, now I discovered matter. Now I find out that my mind IS matter" is self-defeating in a way, since you're reducing your mind to something mind-less.

Ah, I didn't read this before I posted my last comment. So it's true then, the difference in our positions is where we place the foundation of everything. With my saying it's physical reality and our minds are a manifestation of physical stuff, and your position is that it's all mental phenomenoa. Right?

And matter is only the constituent of stuff, I don't see how your self-defeating argument works.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 6:02:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 4:43:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

I thought the idea of something existing while nobody perceiving it being a contradiction of terms was interesting. He pretty much argues that "mind-independant matter" always contains some sort of contradiction and is thus inconceivable.

That's just a confusion of ontology and epistemology if I remember right.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 7:57:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 5:33:43 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 5:03:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I guess the point is that, if all that exists is something of the same substance as our minds, and there is a reality independent of our minds, then this reality is either supported by a mind, or IS a mind.

And I take the position that it's supported by a mind. This doesn't necessarily mean a "higher" mind, but I think further argument can support that.

I think the main idea is that mind is most fundamental, and is needed before you can talk about anything else. So to say "I have a mind... ok, now I discovered matter. Now I find out that my mind IS matter" is self-defeating in a way, since you're reducing your mind to something mind-less.

Ah, I didn't read this before I posted my last comment. So it's true then, the difference in our positions is where we place the foundation of everything. With my saying it's physical reality and our minds are a manifestation of physical stuff, and your position is that it's all mental phenomenoa. Right?


Pretty much. :P I don't mean that all that exists is "minds" necessarily, only that all that exists is "mind" type. So I do think there is a reality, I just think that it's not a completely different type of substance.

Think of it like everyone is a car. Now imagine that all the windows are TV screens. And there's a bunch of other people in cars. They can drive around, and bump into each other, and the "simulation" is mental phenomena caused by God.

And matter is only the constituent of stuff, I don't see how your self-defeating argument works.

Well what is matter to begin with? Matter cannot be anything "mental" so any of our experiences already go out the window.

Point in case: If "mind" is reducible to matter, then you need to first know what matter is. But you can't know what matter is without mind. So "mind" is much more fundamental than matter. Now if you say that mind just IS matter, then this consciousness isn't really "mind" and is an illusion (because matter is completely imperceptible). But you're then cutting out your supports.

I think I might be confusing you with Wylted, because him and I were having a similar discussion...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 7:58:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 6:02:55 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:43:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

I thought the idea of something existing while nobody perceiving it being a contradiction of terms was interesting. He pretty much argues that "mind-independant matter" always contains some sort of contradiction and is thus inconceivable.

That's just a confusion of ontology and epistemology if I remember right.

Hmmmmm... You may be correct.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 7:58:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For one, Idealism is the simplest ontology that doesn't veer off from clear a priori knowledge about the mind (it is immaterial). Physalicalism or materialists have a simple ontology as well, as it is a form of monism, but it has to resort to things like epiphenomenalism, property dualism, or saying consciousness is an illusion or what not in order to stay in line with this simplicity. Dualism is just ontologically messy, because not only do you have mind, but matter, and you have to explain how its possible for them to even interact when they are so fundamentally different, which leads to metaphysical contradictions. So, Idealism is clearly "cleaner".

Also, all the images you see when you look at the screen in front of you are in your mind. You assume there is an actual object "out there" which is causing these mental sensations, but there isn't (at least in my Idealistic view).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 7:59:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As far as Berkeley is concerned; I definitely reached Idealism though different forms of argument. I definitely don't agree with all his routes to his conclusion, but I agree with the conclusion.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:10:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 6:02:55 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/3/2014 4:43:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

I thought the idea of something existing while nobody perceiving it being a contradiction of terms was interesting. He pretty much argues that "mind-independant matter" always contains some sort of contradiction and is thus inconceivable.

That's just a confusion of ontology and epistemology if I remember right.

But isn't describing something always assuming you're there to describe it? I mean the actual being of anything we think of only exists insofar as we think it.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 8:20:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 7:57:07 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/3/2014 5:33:43 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 5:03:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I guess the point is that, if all that exists is something of the same substance as our minds, and there is a reality independent of our minds, then this reality is either supported by a mind, or IS a mind.

And I take the position that it's supported by a mind. This doesn't necessarily mean a "higher" mind, but I think further argument can support that.

I think the main idea is that mind is most fundamental, and is needed before you can talk about anything else. So to say "I have a mind... ok, now I discovered matter. Now I find out that my mind IS matter" is self-defeating in a way, since you're reducing your mind to something mind-less.

Ah, I didn't read this before I posted my last comment. So it's true then, the difference in our positions is where we place the foundation of everything. With my saying it's physical reality and our minds are a manifestation of physical stuff, and your position is that it's all mental phenomenoa. Right?


Pretty much. :P I don't mean that all that exists is "minds" necessarily, only that all that exists is "mind" type. So I do think there is a reality, I just think that it's not a completely different type of substance.

Think of it like everyone is a car. Now imagine that all the windows are TV screens. And there's a bunch of other people in cars. They can drive around, and bump into each other, and the "simulation" is mental phenomena caused by God.

Sure, and here the 'simulation' itself appears to show our minds (as far as I know) are materialistic. So either Idealism is false, or it's true but a far-fetched conspiracy. That's the way I see it.

And matter is only the constituent of stuff, I don't see how your self-defeating argument works.

Well what is matter to begin with? Matter cannot be anything "mental" so any of our experiences already go out the window.

That's the difference, I argue that mentality is matter, and not the other way around. And I don't see how knowing what matter is relevant to the point. And probably the best thing to say is 'I don't know'

Point in case: If "mind" is reducible to matter, then you need to first know what matter is. But you can't know what matter is without mind. So "mind" is much more fundamental than matter. Now if you say that mind just IS matter, then this consciousness isn't really "mind" and is an illusion (because matter is completely imperceptible). But you're then cutting out your supports.

I'm open to whether or not it can be regarded as an illusion or manifestation. But in either case I do not see how that undermines my own position on being capable of making that conclusion. And there is pretty good reason to believe minds are reducible, and is not a simple is/is not dichotomy just by looking at members of our own species, and amongst other species.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2014 10:02:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/3/2014 8:20:59 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 7:57:07 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/3/2014 5:33:43 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/3/2014 5:03:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I guess the point is that, if all that exists is something of the same substance as our minds, and there is a reality independent of our minds, then this reality is either supported by a mind, or IS a mind.

And I take the position that it's supported by a mind. This doesn't necessarily mean a "higher" mind, but I think further argument can support that.

I think the main idea is that mind is most fundamental, and is needed before you can talk about anything else. So to say "I have a mind... ok, now I discovered matter. Now I find out that my mind IS matter" is self-defeating in a way, since you're reducing your mind to something mind-less.

Ah, I didn't read this before I posted my last comment. So it's true then, the difference in our positions is where we place the foundation of everything. With my saying it's physical reality and our minds are a manifestation of physical stuff, and your position is that it's all mental phenomenoa. Right?


Pretty much. :P I don't mean that all that exists is "minds" necessarily, only that all that exists is "mind" type. So I do think there is a reality, I just think that it's not a completely different type of substance.

Think of it like everyone is a car. Now imagine that all the windows are TV screens. And there's a bunch of other people in cars. They can drive around, and bump into each other, and the "simulation" is mental phenomena caused by God.

Sure, and here the 'simulation' itself appears to show our minds (as far as I know) are materialistic. So either Idealism is false, or it's true but a far-fetched conspiracy. That's the way I see it.


Well I don't think there's "matter" in the first place. However, I do think our minds are related to certain mental phenomena such as our brain. They're essentially connected in some way or another. I don't have this part worked out yet.

But if mind is the fundamental type of thing, and interaction with completely different substances is impossible, then idealism is true.

Due to the possibility of solipsism, I find it pretty convincing, even if it's not entirely worked out in all areas.

And matter is only the constituent of stuff, I don't see how your self-defeating argument works.

Well what is matter to begin with? Matter cannot be anything "mental" so any of our experiences already go out the window.

That's the difference, I argue that mentality is matter, and not the other way around. And I don't see how knowing what matter is relevant to the point. And probably the best thing to say is 'I don't know'


Yes, that's true, because if you "knew" what matter was, I would say that's not matter. :P

Point in case: If "mind" is reducible to matter, then you need to first know what matter is. But you can't know what matter is without mind. So "mind" is much more fundamental than matter. Now if you say that mind just IS matter, then this consciousness isn't really "mind" and is an illusion (because matter is completely imperceptible). But you're then cutting out your supports.

I'm open to whether or not it can be regarded as an illusion or manifestation. But in either case I do not see how that undermines my own position on being capable of making that conclusion. And there is pretty good reason to believe minds are reducible, and is not a simple is/is not dichotomy just by looking at members of our own species, and amongst other species.

But if it's an illusion, then how do we know matter even exists? The only way we know anything about the world is through a posteriori knowledge.

Point in case, we can't know that matter exists, because..

If it's known a posteriori, then it's not matter, since we only experience perceptions.
It also seems implausible how we can know what it is a priori, but I'm drawing a blank atm.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:12:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well I don't think there's "matter" in the first place. However, I do think our minds are related to certain mental phenomena such as our brain. They're essentially connected in some way or another. I don't have this part worked out yet.

But if mind is the fundamental type of thing, and interaction with completely different substances is impossible, then idealism is true.

So we agree, albeit from two different perspectives that 'matter' and 'conciousness' are manifestations of the same thing. The difference is the dependency of which on which. From which it appears that indeed, 'mind' is dependant on 'matter', and not the other way around.

Due to the possibility of solipsism, I find it pretty convincing, even if it's not entirely worked out in all areas.

Possibly, but if everything we perceive as the natural world, following natural laws which allow for other conciousness' to form akin to a light bulb turning on, then it seems reasonable to conclude that our own minds are a sub-manifestation within whatever this reality is, and not the other way around.

It also seems to run into the obvious issue of my lack of omniscience, since if solipsism is true then I should have knowledge about everything in the universe (as everything is just my own mind), but I do not. In fact my own conciousness is limited essentially as would be expected by my brain capacity and features.

Since we have no idea whether or not solipsism is even possible in any metaphysical universe, the corresponding deduction that naturalism must be false can't be a sound conclusion.

And matter is only the constituent of stuff, I don't see how your self-defeating argument works.

Well what is matter to begin with? Matter cannot be anything "mental" so any of our experiences already go out the window.

That's the difference, I argue that mentality is matter, and not the other way around. And I don't see how knowing what matter is relevant to the point. And probably the best thing to say is 'I don't know'


Yes, that's true, because if you "knew" what matter was, I would say that's not matter. :P

-.-

Point in case: If "mind" is reducible to matter, then you need to first know what matter is. But you can't know what matter is without mind. So "mind" is much more fundamental than matter. Now if you say that mind just IS matter, then this consciousness isn't really "mind" and is an illusion (because matter is completely imperceptible). But you're then cutting out your supports.

I'm open to whether or not it can be regarded as an illusion or manifestation. But in either case I do not see how that undermines my own position on being capable of making that conclusion. And there is pretty good reason to believe minds are reducible, and is not a simple is/is not dichotomy just by looking at members of our own species, and amongst other species.

But if it's an illusion, then how do we know matter even exists? The only way we know anything about the world is through a posteriori knowledge.

Induction.

Point in case, we can't know that matter exists, because..

If it's known a posteriori, then it's not matter, since we only experience perceptions.
It also seems implausible how we can know what it is a priori, but I'm drawing a blank atm.

Huh? Seems irrelevant, just an application of the law of identity to specific patterns of mental phenomena.

I wonder if it's actually possible to test for this, for example you could take a split brain patient, which we argue are 2 'people', or personalities in one body, and reconnect the brain halves. If upon reconnection the resulting mind realized that both had independent realities that manifested in the same material reality, then it would make Sollopsism and Idealism more unlikely, no?

Also I'm not convinced that a constructed clone of myself atom for atom could not be known to be concious or not. The only way it could possibly be unconscious is if Sollopsism is true AFAIK.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 11:42:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:12:46 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Well I don't think there's "matter" in the first place. However, I do think our minds are related to certain mental phenomena such as our brain. They're essentially connected in some way or another. I don't have this part worked out yet.

But if mind is the fundamental type of thing, and interaction with completely different substances is impossible, then idealism is true.

So we agree, albeit from two different perspectives that 'matter' and 'conciousness' are manifestations of the same thing. The difference is the dependency of which on which. From which it appears that indeed, 'mind' is dependant on 'matter', and not the other way around.


They're the same *type* of thing, but they're not the same thing. "Matter" is a mental phenomena which exists IN the mind, aka, qualia. So they are the same type of thing (as in they're not completely different substances) but aren't the same thing.

Well how do you know that mind is dependent upon matter?

Due to the possibility of solipsism, I find it pretty convincing, even if it's not entirely worked out in all areas.

Possibly, but if everything we perceive as the natural world, following natural laws which allow for other conciousness' to form akin to a light bulb turning on, then it seems reasonable to conclude that our own minds are a sub-manifestation within whatever this reality is, and not the other way around.


I'd disagree. I think that our minds are caused by the mind of God, not by the existence of the matter.

It also seems to run into the obvious issue of my lack of omniscience, since if solipsism is true then I should have knowledge about everything in the universe (as everything is just my own mind), but I do not. In fact my own conciousness is limited essentially as would be expected by my brain capacity and features.


Well that's why it's not entirely solipsism. If there's some mental phenomena that I can't control, that mental phenomena must come from a *higher* mind. I can control my thoughts, but I can't control my sensations. So my sensations must come from another mind.

Since we have no idea whether or not solipsism is even possible in any metaphysical universe, the corresponding deduction that naturalism must be false can't be a sound conclusion.


There aren't any explicit contradictions in it. It's not blatantly impossible. It's also very easily conceivable... I mean all you really do know is your mind, and nothing else. Is it possible that this reality is all just a projection from your subconscious, and that nothing else other than your mind exists?

And matter is only the constituent of stuff, I don't see how your self-defeating argument works.

Well what is matter to begin with? Matter cannot be anything "mental" so any of our experiences already go out the window.

That's the difference, I argue that mentality is matter, and not the other way around. And I don't see how knowing what matter is relevant to the point. And probably the best thing to say is 'I don't know'


Yes, that's true, because if you "knew" what matter was, I would say that's not matter. :P

-.-

Point in case: If "mind" is reducible to matter, then you need to first know what matter is. But you can't know what matter is without mind. So "mind" is much more fundamental than matter. Now if you say that mind just IS matter, then this consciousness isn't really "mind" and is an illusion (because matter is completely imperceptible). But you're then cutting out your supports.

I'm open to whether or not it can be regarded as an illusion or manifestation. But in either case I do not see how that undermines my own position on being capable of making that conclusion. And there is pretty good reason to believe minds are reducible, and is not a simple is/is not dichotomy just by looking at members of our own species, and amongst other species.

But if it's an illusion, then how do we know matter even exists? The only way we know anything about the world is through a posteriori knowledge.

Induction.


But induction is based upon premises about the natural world, which we could only know through consciousness.

Point in case, we can't know that matter exists, because..

If it's known a posteriori, then it's not matter, since we only experience perceptions.
It also seems implausible how we can know what it is a priori, but I'm drawing a blank atm.

Huh? Seems irrelevant, just an application of the law of identity to specific patterns of mental phenomena.

I wonder if it's actually possible to test for this, for example you could take a split brain patient, which we argue are 2 'people', or personalities in one body, and reconnect the brain halves. If upon reconnection the resulting mind realized that both had independent realities that manifested in the same material reality, then it would make Sollopsism and Idealism more unlikely, no?


Well you wouldn't ever really know if there's a mind inside of them... All you really experience are sensations.

Also I'm not convinced that a constructed clone of myself atom for atom could not be known to be concious or not. The only way it could possibly be unconscious is if Sollopsism is true AFAIK.

Well it seems entirely plausible for it to be possibly non-conscious. I mean, it's prima facie true. There's also nothing explicitly contradictory. So it's just more plausible to accept it as a possibility. Unless, of course, you could show that there is either a necessary connection between mind and matter, or that mind IS matter. Then it would turn out to be inconceivable after all.

This is also confusing because we're dealing with two meanings of "matter". In one case, it's the philosophical definition, which is utterly imperceptible, in the other case it's a sort of thought/qualia thing.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 12:10:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 11:42:40 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/4/2014 1:12:46 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
Well I don't think there's "matter" in the first place. However, I do think our minds are related to certain mental phenomena such as our brain. They're essentially connected in some way or another. I don't have this part worked out yet.

But if mind is the fundamental type of thing, and interaction with completely different substances is impossible, then idealism is true.

So we agree, albeit from two different perspectives that 'matter' and 'conciousness' are manifestations of the same thing. The difference is the dependency of which on which. From which it appears that indeed, 'mind' is dependant on 'matter', and not the other way around.


They're the same *type* of thing, but they're not the same thing. "Matter" is a mental phenomena which exists IN the mind, aka, qualia. So they are the same type of thing (as in they're not completely different substances) but aren't the same thing.

So we're both monoists, instead of dualists?

Well how do you know that mind is dependent upon matter?

Explained in the next sentence.

Due to the possibility of solipsism, I find it pretty convincing, even if it's not entirely worked out in all areas.

Possibly, but if everything we perceive as the natural world, following natural laws which allow for other conciousness' to form akin to a light bulb turning on, then it seems reasonable to conclude that our own minds are a sub-manifestation within whatever this reality is, and not the other way around.


I'd disagree. I think that our minds are caused by the mind of God, not by the existence of the matter.

Hitchens Razor, BAM! :-p

It also seems to run into the obvious issue of my lack of omniscience, since if solipsism is true then I should have knowledge about everything in the universe (as everything is just my own mind), but I do not. In fact my own consciousness is limited essentially as would be expected by my brain capacity and features.


Well that's why it's not entirely solipsism. If there's some mental phenomena that I can't control, that mental phenomena must come from a *higher* mind. I can control my thoughts, but I can't control my sensations. So my sensations must come from another mind.

What makes you think you can control your thoughts? Do you deny determinism? And I'd be inclined to agree on sensations, but from a purely materialistic perspective :-p

Since we have no idea whether or not solipsism is even possible in any metaphysical universe, the corresponding deduction that naturalism must be false can't be a sound conclusion.


There aren't any explicit contradictions in it. It's not blatantly impossible. It's also very easily conceivable... I mean all you really do know is your mind, and nothing else. Is it possible that this reality is all just a projection from your subconscious, and that nothing else other than your mind exists?

I will concede that it's possible that it's possible (two possibles in that sentence), but I don't concede that it's possible, we just don't know as far as I understand.

And matter is only the constituent of stuff, I don't see how your self-defeating argument works.

Well what is matter to begin with? Matter cannot be anything "mental" so any of our experiences already go out the window.

That's the difference, I argue that mentality is matter, and not the other way around. And I don't see how knowing what matter is relevant to the point. And probably the best thing to say is 'I don't know'


Yes, that's true, because if you "knew" what matter was, I would say that's not matter. :P

-.-

Point in case: If "mind" is reducible to matter, then you need to first know what matter is. But you can't know what matter is without mind. So "mind" is much more fundamental than matter. Now if you say that mind just IS matter, then this consciousness isn't really "mind" and is an illusion (because matter is completely imperceptible). But you're then cutting out your supports.

I'm open to whether or not it can be regarded as an illusion or manifestation. But in either case I do not see how that undermines my own position on being capable of making that conclusion. And there is pretty good reason to believe minds are reducible, and is not a simple is/is not dichotomy just by looking at members of our own species, and amongst other species.

But if it's an illusion, then how do we know matter even exists? The only way we know anything about the world is through a posteriori knowledge.

Induction.


But induction is based upon premises about the natural world, which we could only know through consciousness.

I'm not convinced that we could only know via. conciousness. Because it seems even 'matter' alone is aware of the 'natural world', even though it's not self-aware. You only need a system capable of making deductive modelling of the world, and I'm not convinced that it necessarily need be conscious. Maybe a boltzman super-computer.

Point in case, we can't know that matter exists, because..

If it's known a posteriori, then it's not matter, since we only experience perceptions.
It also seems implausible how we can know what it is a priori, but I'm drawing a blank atm.

Huh? Seems irrelevant, just an application of the law of identity to specific patterns of mental phenomena.

I wonder if it's actually possible to test for this, for example you could take a split brain patient, which we argue are 2 'people', or personalities in one body, and reconnect the brain halves. If upon reconnection the resulting mind realized that both had independent realities that manifested in the same material reality, then it would make Sollopsism and Idealism more unlikely, no?


Well you wouldn't ever really know if there's a mind inside of them... All you really experience are sensations.

I'm not convincing myself with this thought experiment, I need to think it through some more.,

Also I'm not convinced that a constructed clone of myself atom for atom could not be known to be concious or not. The only way it could possibly be unconscious is if Sollopsism is true AFAIK.

Well it seems entirely plausible for it to be possibly non-conscious. I mean, it's prima facie true. There's also nothing explicitly contradictory. So it's just more plausible to accept it as a possibility. Unless, of course, you could show that there is either a necessary connection between mind and matter, or that mind IS matter. Then it would turn out to be inconceivable after all.

This is also confusing because we're dealing with two meanings of "matter". In one case, it's the philosophical definition, which is utterly imperceptible, in the other case it's a sort of thought/qualia thing.

It contradicts the laws of physical reality as perceived, which seem to absolutely necessitate that it be conscious. If mind can be shown to arise from ever increasing manifestations of matter then it is a reasonable conclusion. Also one can apply occums razor to this as well I think as an all mental or all physical reality makes one less assumption than a duelist one, No?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 12:38:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Premise of idealism is only mental properties exist. It can be summarized as following:
1.Mental properties exist.
2.Mental and material properties don't/cannot interact.
3.Therefore material properties do not exist.
The second premise is assumption, it is like saying, we do not know, therefore it is not. The realism is more rational choice.
Idealism itself is problematic, you have to choose between Solipsism (Solipsism is more crazy than Fictional Realism) and Theistic Idealism (Matrix has An Architect).
This is red.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 12:58:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 12:38:37 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Premise of idealism is only mental properties exist. It can be summarized as following:
1.Mental properties exist.
2.Mental and material properties don't/cannot interact.
3.Therefore material properties do not exist.
The second premise is assumption, it is like saying, we do not know, therefore it is not. The realism is more rational choice.

Actually, P2 is just basic philosophy and metaphysics. Shared properties are what allow for interaction between two substances in the first place. The reason I can pull back a rubber band on a sling shot is because "pressure" is physical (or material), and my "finger" is physical (or material). However, if you have a rubber band trying to be moved by something completely non-physical, it will just move through it like a ghost.

It is sort of like how something cannot come from nothing, or how you need time for change; needing shared properties for interaction is just a basic metaphysical principle, which can be known a priori based on simple reflection.

Essentially, if the mind can interact with an actual physical world, then the mind would have to have physical properties, and the physical world would have to have mental properties. My friend who has a physics degree and is a philosophy major said:

"Let's suppose your arm wiggles due to a neural impulse of half a volt, that was triggered by one bit of mental stuff M. So we set up an equation. M + whatever voltage was there before (B) = half a volt. Now just subtract B from both sides, and you have just established that because M caused the voltage, that therefore M must have a voltage too. It's very elementary." - Johanan Raatz

So, the problem of interaction is that the mind is non-physical (you cannot weigh a thought), and doesn't have physical properties. However, if the mind interacts with a physical world, then this would be false. Since it is not false, the mind cannot interact with a physical world.

Everything being mental makes the most sense. This view is compatible with Christianity or Islam.

Idealism itself is problematic, you have to choose between Solipsism (Solipsism is more crazy than Fictional Realism) and Theistic Idealism (Matrix has An Architect).

How is that problematic? Theistic Idealism is what I adhere to. I take the view of the father of Quantum Mechanics, Max Planck:

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." " Max Planck
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 1:08:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is a cool video by Johanan, explaining that our reality is described by math that is surprisingly consistent with the idea that we are inside God's daydream.
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 2:43:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:08:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is a cool video by Johanan, explaining that our reality is described by math that is surprisingly consistent with the idea that we are inside God's daydream.

"Shared property for interaction" is also assumption.
This is red.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 3:02:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 1:08:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is a cool video by Johanan, explaining that our reality is described by math that is surprisingly consistent with the idea that we are inside God's daydream.



That's pretty cool. Essentially he's saying that if the world were information in a higher intellect, it would look exactly the same as the world we're in now, correct?

Glad to see my fellow Wisconsinite is up to good work though. But doesn't the whole thing kindof affirm the antecedent?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 3:03:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 2:43:07 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
At 4/4/2014 1:08:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is a cool video by Johanan, explaining that our reality is described by math that is surprisingly consistent with the idea that we are inside God's daydream.

"Shared property for interaction" is also assumption.

Unless you want to go into epiphenomenalism , Parallelism, or Occasionalism, it's not. There needs to be some sort of link.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2014 3:03:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/4/2014 12:58:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/4/2014 12:38:37 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Premise of idealism is only mental properties exist. It can be summarized as following:
1.Mental properties exist.
2.Mental and material properties don't/cannot interact.
3.Therefore material properties do not exist.
The second premise is assumption, it is like saying, we do not know, therefore it is not. The realism is more rational choice.

Actually, P2 is just basic philosophy and metaphysics. Shared properties are what allow for interaction between two substances in the first place. The reason I can pull back a rubber band on a sling shot is because "pressure" is physical (or material), and my "finger" is physical (or material). However, if you have a rubber band trying to be moved by something completely non-physical, it will just move through it like a ghost.

It is sort of like how something cannot come from nothing, or how you need time for change; needing shared properties for interaction is just a basic metaphysical principle, which can be known a priori based on simple reflection.


Wait what!? You changed your mind on ex nihilo nihil fit?

Essentially, if the mind can interact with an actual physical world, then the mind would have to have physical properties, and the physical world would have to have mental properties. My friend who has a physics degree and is a philosophy major said:

"Let's suppose your arm wiggles due to a neural impulse of half a volt, that was triggered by one bit of mental stuff M. So we set up an equation. M + whatever voltage was there before (B) = half a volt. Now just subtract B from both sides, and you have just established that because M caused the voltage, that therefore M must have a voltage too. It's very elementary." - Johanan Raatz

So, the problem of interaction is that the mind is non-physical (you cannot weigh a thought), and doesn't have physical properties. However, if the mind interacts with a physical world, then this would be false. Since it is not false, the mind cannot interact with a physical world.

Everything being mental makes the most sense. This view is compatible with Christianity or Islam.

Idealism itself is problematic, you have to choose between Solipsism (Solipsism is more crazy than Fictional Realism) and Theistic Idealism (Matrix has An Architect).

How is that problematic? Theistic Idealism is what I adhere to. I take the view of the father of Quantum Mechanics, Max Planck:

"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force"We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." " Max Planck
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."