Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Philosophy Of Mind

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 8:49:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

I'm curious. How does monistic idealism account for:

1. Each individual seems to have very personalized conscious experience. I can't experience your thoughts and you can't experience mine.

2. Despite being very individualized if our mind gives or lends to the arise of the physical how can our experiences be so similar. IE: you and I can sit at the same table and experience the same physical interaction with the table.

If our consciousness if very personal why is our physical world not?
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 10:45:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?
I go with dualism. I seem to experience both a physical reality and a spiritual reality and I think that's sufficient for me to think dualism is true. I also haven't seen a good objection to dualism that might cause me to reassess my belief.
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.
"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."
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:50:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

But the debate is pretty much solved
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:51:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:50:05 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

But the debate is pretty much solved

No it's not.
"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."
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:53:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:51:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:05 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

But the debate is pretty much solved

No it's not.

Do you even neuroscience?
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:53:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:51:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:05 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

But the debate is pretty much solved

No it's not.
Behovorism is the only proven philosophy of mind. It is solved!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:54:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:53:46 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:51:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:05 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

But the debate is pretty much solved

No it's not.
Behovorism is the only proven philosophy of mind. It is solved!

No it's not.
"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."
Jedi4
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:56:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:54:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:53:46 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:51:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:05 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

But the debate is pretty much solved

No it's not.
Behovorism is the only proven philosophy of mind. It is solved!

No it's not.

Brillaint refutation.

Behavorism is true

/thread.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 1:57:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:56:01 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:54:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:53:46 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:51:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:05 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

But the debate is pretty much solved

No it's not.
Behovorism is the only proven philosophy of mind. It is solved!

No it's not.

Brillaint refutation.


Thank you. As you noticed, I merely asserted the opposite of your assertion. You can make assertions, and so can I. Two can play that game.

Behavorism is true


No it's not. You're not even spelling behaviorism correctly....

/thread.
"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."
TheMatt
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:02:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have recently taken great interest in this as well. I would probably classify myself as a metaphysical dualist. At the same time, I do however, think that non-material things like consciousness, the soul, our thoughts, and morality all come from God. This, seems to best explain the reality of non-material characteristics in human beings.
TheMatt
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 2:05:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:57:43 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:56:01 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:54:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:53:46 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:51:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:05 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

But the debate is pretty much solved

No it's not.
Behovorism is the only proven philosophy of mind. It is solved!

No it's not.

Brillaint refutation.


Thank you. As you noticed, I merely asserted the opposite of your assertion. You can make assertions, and so can I. Two can play that game.

Behavorism is true


No it's not. You're not even spelling behaviorism correctly....

/thread.

It would seem that the reality of consciousness goes beyond Science and into philosophy.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 3:56:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I had the power to do something physical to your brain or body and it caused thoughts, how would that change your view points of the philosophy of the mind?

And does it matter what kinds of thoughts? IE: Make you feel sad, see the color blue versus make you remember something from when you were a kid or obtain knowledge of something that you never had before?

Would it change anything?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 3:59:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

Want to debate when you have more time on the topic:

"Idealism is most likely false"?
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 4:12:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

As a note, non-reductive physicalism is vastly more popular than reductive physicalism.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 5:48:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 3:59:53 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

Want to debate when you have more time on the topic:

"Idealism is most likely false"?

I think I'd be up for that. You'd take the burden I assume? I'm not sure when I'd have the chance though. I've been working alot lately, and haven't even had time to check my emails everyday.... I'll see if I have time once I start school though.
"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."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 5:49:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 5:48:19 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 3:59:53 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

Want to debate when you have more time on the topic:

"Idealism is most likely false"?

I think I'd be up for that. You'd take the burden I assume? I'm not sure when I'd have the chance though. I've been working alot lately, and haven't even had time to check my emails everyday.... I'll see if I have time once I start school though.

Good things can wait :-)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 6:47:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 1:53:46 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:51:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:50:05 PM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

But the debate is pretty much solved

No it's not.
Behovorism is the only proven philosophy of mind. It is solved!

LMAOOOOO!! When you want to get rekt while trying to defend behaviorism let me know.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 8:35:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 3:59:53 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/21/2014 1:49:25 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 8/21/2014 11:41:45 AM, Jedi4 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

You've posted this topic a million f*cking times.

Because it's a fascinating and important topic, which is pretty big in philosophy, and causes alot of debate. And that's what this website is about.

Want to debate when you have more time on the topic:

"Idealism is most likely false"?

I'll debate that with you.... Set it up.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 9:11:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 8:49:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

I'm curious. How does monistic idealism account for:

1. Each individual seems to have very personalized conscious experience. I can't experience your thoughts and you can't experience mine.

2. Despite being very individualized if our mind gives or lends to the arise of the physical how can our experiences be so similar. IE: you and I can sit at the same table and experience the same physical interaction with the table.

If our consciousness if very personal why is our physical world not?

Very good questions! In my view, we all collectively share a grand mind's dream (we can call it "God" for conceptual ease, but not necessarily the God of Abraham or any religion). Since we all collectively share this grand mind's dream, we are all going to agree on the things that occur within it. For example, if we both drive by a McDonald's, we will both see the golden arches. If we both look up, we will both see the Sun. If we both look at a clock, we will both see the same time (I think you get the point). However, within this universal field of consciousness there are localized states of mind. This is analogous to how in a stream of a river there can be localized states of water; like a whirlpool. Because each localized state is different, then there will be differences in conscious states as well. For example, I might be hallucinating a leprechaun in the corner that you don't see. Or, perhaps, you may be happy at 2:30, while I might be sad at 2:30. That doesn't negate the fact that we all collectively share God's daydream and agree on certain things, just because there are differences in localized states of the universal field of consciousness.

I hope that answers your questions sufficiently :)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 9:20:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 10:45:38 AM, Toviyah wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?
I go with dualism. I seem to experience both a physical reality and a spiritual reality and I think that's sufficient for me to think dualism is true. I also haven't seen a good objection to dualism that might cause me to reassess my belief.

"One thing has come up several times in arguments against my position which is monistic Idealism. The argument is this; our perceptions of the word are evidence that there is a world outside mind. This argument is based on a logical misunderstanding. Our perceptions are a modality of our flow of subjective, conscious experiences. They are only evidence for that modality of conscious experiences, which happen, obviously... in mind. The only thing that perceptions of the emperical world prove is that there is a part of our flow of subjective experiences that we do not identify ourselves with. We identify ourselves with our thoughts and emotions; not our perceptions." - Dr. Bernard Kastrup
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:50:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 9:11:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 8:49:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

I'm curious. How does monistic idealism account for:

1. Each individual seems to have very personalized conscious experience. I can't experience your thoughts and you can't experience mine.

2. Despite being very individualized if our mind gives or lends to the arise of the physical how can our experiences be so similar. IE: you and I can sit at the same table and experience the same physical interaction with the table.

If our consciousness if very personal why is our physical world not?

Very good questions! In my view, we all collectively share a grand mind's dream (we can call it "God" for conceptual ease, but not necessarily the God of Abraham or any religion). Since we all collectively share this grand mind's dream, we are all going to agree on the things that occur within it. For example, if we both drive by a McDonald's, we will both see the golden arches. If we both look up, we will both see the Sun. If we both look at a clock, we will both see the same time (I think you get the point). However, within this universal field of consciousness there are localized states of mind. This is analogous to how in a stream of a river there can be localized states of water; like a whirlpool. Because each localized state is different, then there will be differences in conscious states as well. For example, I might be hallucinating a leprechaun in the corner that you don't see. Or, perhaps, you may be happy at 2:30, while I might be sad at 2:30. That doesn't negate the fact that we all collectively share God's daydream and agree on certain things, just because there are differences in localized states of the universal field of consciousness.

I hope that answers your questions sufficiently :)

I think it does. Thanks. One last question. In your opinion do you feel that the mind state can ever be shared between two or more individuals if there is a universal field of consciousness and the normal state is for each individual section of that field?

I have a friend who is very much in the same opinion as you. He would answer that there are moments in our current lives where individuals' slice of the universal field can overlap. He has a story where it seems he took over the pain of his wife while they were at the hospital and she was in agonizing pain.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:14:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 7:50:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 9:11:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 8:49:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

I'm curious. How does monistic idealism account for:

1. Each individual seems to have very personalized conscious experience. I can't experience your thoughts and you can't experience mine.

2. Despite being very individualized if our mind gives or lends to the arise of the physical how can our experiences be so similar. IE: you and I can sit at the same table and experience the same physical interaction with the table.

If our consciousness if very personal why is our physical world not?

Very good questions! In my view, we all collectively share a grand mind's dream (we can call it "God" for conceptual ease, but not necessarily the God of Abraham or any religion). Since we all collectively share this grand mind's dream, we are all going to agree on the things that occur within it. For example, if we both drive by a McDonald's, we will both see the golden arches. If we both look up, we will both see the Sun. If we both look at a clock, we will both see the same time (I think you get the point). However, within this universal field of consciousness there are localized states of mind. This is analogous to how in a stream of a river there can be localized states of water; like a whirlpool. Because each localized state is different, then there will be differences in conscious states as well. For example, I might be hallucinating a leprechaun in the corner that you don't see. Or, perhaps, you may be happy at 2:30, while I might be sad at 2:30. That doesn't negate the fact that we all collectively share God's daydream and agree on certain things, just because there are differences in localized states of the universal field of consciousness.

I hope that answers your questions sufficiently :)

I think it does. Thanks. One last question. In your opinion do you feel that the mind state can ever be shared between two or more individuals if there is a universal field of consciousness and the normal state is for each individual section of that field?

I haven't really thought about that. However, I see no issue with aspects of two localized state of consciousness "overlapping", if you will.


I have a friend who is very much in the same opinion as you. He would answer that there are moments in our current lives where individuals' slice of the universal field can overlap. He has a story where it seems he took over the pain of his wife while they were at the hospital and she was in agonizing pain.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:15:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 7:50:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 9:11:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/21/2014 8:49:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/20/2014 10:41:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
This subject here has really fascinated me as of late. After doing a lot of research I have come to the conclusion that Monistic Idealism is the best way to explain the mind (and reality itself). However, the most popular position it seems to be in the Philosophy of Mind is either reductive or non-reductive Physicalism. Dualism definitely isn't that popular (but then again neither is my position). What position on the philosophy of mind do you take, and why?

I'm curious. How does monistic idealism account for:

1. Each individual seems to have very personalized conscious experience. I can't experience your thoughts and you can't experience mine.

2. Despite being very individualized if our mind gives or lends to the arise of the physical how can our experiences be so similar. IE: you and I can sit at the same table and experience the same physical interaction with the table.

If our consciousness if very personal why is our physical world not?

Very good questions! In my view, we all collectively share a grand mind's dream (we can call it "God" for conceptual ease, but not necessarily the God of Abraham or any religion). Since we all collectively share this grand mind's dream, we are all going to agree on the things that occur within it. For example, if we both drive by a McDonald's, we will both see the golden arches. If we both look up, we will both see the Sun. If we both look at a clock, we will both see the same time (I think you get the point). However, within this universal field of consciousness there are localized states of mind. This is analogous to how in a stream of a river there can be localized states of water; like a whirlpool. Because each localized state is different, then there will be differences in conscious states as well. For example, I might be hallucinating a leprechaun in the corner that you don't see. Or, perhaps, you may be happy at 2:30, while I might be sad at 2:30. That doesn't negate the fact that we all collectively share God's daydream and agree on certain things, just because there are differences in localized states of the universal field of consciousness.

I hope that answers your questions sufficiently :)

I think it does. Thanks. One last question. In your opinion do you feel that the mind state can ever be shared between two or more individuals if there is a universal field of consciousness and the normal state is for each individual section of that field?

I have a friend who is very much in the same opinion as you. He would answer that there are moments in our current lives where individuals' slice of the universal field can overlap. He has a story where it seems he took over the pain of his wife while they were at the hospital and she was in agonizing pain.

And if you have any more questions about my position, I don't mind answering.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:52:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Either non-reductive physicalism or some type of neutral monism.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 8:45:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 7:52:25 PM, n7 wrote:
Either non-reductive physicalism or some type of neutral monism.

Neutral Monism is unnecessarily mysterious. Why assume the mental and the physical are really made up of this unknown fundamental substance which is neither mental or physical; What could it be? The only substance I could think of is information, but as many argue, even that leads to Idealism itself. Physicalism is still problematic as it requires the existence of reality that is not mental (which is a completely vacuous assumption), and views the mind as non-fundamental. Also, The Inverted Spectrum Argument by David Chalmer's shows that non-reductive Physicalism, which seems to entail the mind supervenes on the brain, is at the very least Prima facie false.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 10:39:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 8:45:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/22/2014 7:52:25 PM, n7 wrote:
Either non-reductive physicalism or some type of neutral monism.

Neutral Monism is unnecessarily mysterious. Why assume the mental and the physical are really made up of this unknown fundamental substance which is neither mental or physical; What could it be?

Why assume anything? It seems to be able to explain reality. Some have proposed it's unknown, some have proposed it's qualia.

The only substance I could think of is information,
Maybe

but as many argue, even that leads to Idealism itself.

I don't see how.

Physicalism is still problematic as it requires the existence of reality that is not mental (which is a completely vacuous assumption),

Well I wouldn't call it vacuous. It's not like it's self-evident that reality is mental.

and views the mind as non-fundamental. Also, The Inverted Spectrum Argument by David Chalmer's shows that non-reductive Physicalism, which seems to entail the mind supervenes on the brain, is at the very least Prima facie false.

I thought Chalmers was a type of non-reductive physicalist. I've heard him say before that the mind is an emergent property. The inverted spectrum argument seems to be an argument against reductive physicalism anyway.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.