Total Posts:203|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why believe in a non-mental reality?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 10:09:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Some people believe a non-mental reality is necessary to explain why our perceptions are orderly and coherent.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 10:56:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 10:09:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Some people believe a non-mental reality is necessary to explain why our perceptions are orderly and coherent.

Those people would be mistaken I would think. In my view, the reason our experiences are consistent and intelligible is because we are all "sharing God's day-dream", if you will. An intelligent and logical unified field of mind/ consciousness producing experiences that fall under our direct focal awareness seems perfectly sufficient to explain these orderly and coherent perceptions; it also doesn't violate Parsimony (only a mental reality would be needed with no unnecessary non-mental reality being required).
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 10:53:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

What dylan said. That seems to be the most common argument. "We all experience the same reality, so there must be something out there independant of us!" and then I suppose they would apply Occam's razor, and argue that it doesn't have to be a mind or produced by a mind.

But then of course, that would have to be a non-mental substance, which is problematic for further reasons.
"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
9/10/2014 11:02:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 10:53:58 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

What dylan said. That seems to be the most common argument. "We all experience the same reality, so there must be something out there independant of us!" and then I suppose they would apply Occam's razor, and argue that it doesn't have to be a mind or produced by a mind.

Ya, as I explained, that argument is not convincing. Also, Occam's Razor does not favor the position of a non-mental reality, as Idealism only assumes a mental reality. The non-Idealist has to assume not only a mental reality (nobody can doubt the mind exists no matter what ontology you chose), but a non-mental one unnecessarily.

But then of course, that would have to be a non-mental substance, which is problematic for further reasons.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:13:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 10:56:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/9/2014 10:09:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Some people believe a non-mental reality is necessary to explain why our perceptions are orderly and coherent.

Those people would be mistaken I would think. In my view, the reason our experiences are consistent and intelligible is because we are all "sharing God's day-dream", if you will. An intelligent and logical unified field of mind/ consciousness producing experiences that fall under our direct focal awareness seems perfectly sufficient to explain these orderly and coherent perceptions; it also doesn't violate Parsimony (only a mental reality would be needed with no unnecessary non-mental reality being required).

That's more or less correct. For essentially logical reasons, the universe is self-perceptual in nature, and since we are parts of the universe, our perceptions amount to the universe perceiving itself. Physicals laws are just a set of rules to ensure that these perceptions remain consistent with each other. These laws are mental insofar as they are mental descriptions. Any so-called "objective" (non-mental) aspect of reality would be inconceivable, and as such, unreal, since any notion of "real" is necessarily mental.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:15:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
However, by "mental", I don't necessarily mean the human kind. I'm talking about generalized cognition (information processing).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:27:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Q: I do not see why perception of "the universe" necessitates a link between the perceiver and the perceived. The very fact that one object perceives another seems to necessitate a disunion between them. Can you clarify? - Joshua Freeman

A: Here's a little background on the logical structure of relations. Consider the relation x R y, meaning "object x relates to object y (in such and such a way)". R has two aspects, one predicating the sameness of x and y ("x and y share the property of being relatable by the relation R") and one predicating difference. In other words, although x and y are "different" (at least typographically), R represents a structured set to which x and y both belong, and to that extent, x and y share the same description ("are the same").

Now let's narrow the context. "Perception" refers to a mapping between the mind of the perceiver, which is by definition internal to the perceiver, and some aspect of "external" reality. This perceptual mapping relates the structure of mind to that of reality in a way amounting to mutual containment: while the mind perceives itself as part of the content of reality, reality is the content of perception. Because the perceptual mapping is a containment mapping, and a containment mapping predicates coincidence, perception predicates coincidence and is therefore a similarity mapping (homomorphism).

So the perceptual similarity mapping "Joshua R Universe", where R denotes perception and mutual containment, is an assertion of similarity regarding Joshua and the Universe.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:29:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

When you look at a rock, does it exist inside or outside your head?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 11:34:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:29:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?


When you look at a rock, does it exist inside or outside your head?

A "rock" is a definition, and since definitions are mental constructs, it exists inside your head. But that's not to say all conceptions are equally "objective" - some conceptions map to general (and therefore to distributed) predicates which can be observed by multiple observers, and which cannot be "thought away", since they are representions of reality's syntax, and our brains are embedded in this syntax.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:39:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:34:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:29:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?


When you look at a rock, does it exist inside or outside your head?

A "rock" is a definition, and since definitions are mental constructs, it exists inside your head. But that's not to say all conceptions are equally "objective" - some conceptions map to general (and therefore to distributed) predicates which can be observed by multiple observers, and which cannot be "thought away", since they are representions of reality's syntax, and our brains are embedded in this syntax.

So are you defining something objective to your mind or subjective? Although the definition may be subjective, The question is what you are defining, is it objective or subjective?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:44:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Because that's what it appears to be and there doesn't appear to be any reason to consider it's not what it appears to be.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 12:45:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:39:29 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:34:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:29:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?


When you look at a rock, does it exist inside or outside your head?

A "rock" is a definition, and since definitions are mental constructs, it exists inside your head. But that's not to say all conceptions are equally "objective" - some conceptions map to general (and therefore to distributed) predicates which can be observed by multiple observers, and which cannot be "thought away", since they are representions of reality's syntax, and our brains are embedded in this syntax.

So are you defining something objective to your mind or subjective? Although the definition may be subjective, The question is what you are defining, is it objective or subjective?

It is both (if you are defining something real). But you cannot separate the definition from the definiendum (that which is defined) without defining it, and thus, you cannot separate them period.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 1:07:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:45:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:39:29 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:34:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:29:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?


When you look at a rock, does it exist inside or outside your head?

A "rock" is a definition, and since definitions are mental constructs, it exists inside your head. But that's not to say all conceptions are equally "objective" - some conceptions map to general (and therefore to distributed) predicates which can be observed by multiple observers, and which cannot be "thought away", since they are representions of reality's syntax, and our brains are embedded in this syntax.

So are you defining something objective to your mind or subjective? Although the definition may be subjective, The question is what you are defining, is it objective or subjective?

It is both (if you are defining something real). But you cannot separate the definition from the definiendum (that which is defined) without defining it, and thus, you cannot separate them period.

I believe it is both, It exists inside my head as my own subjective definition and outside my head as something objective.

The subjective definition is not exactly the reality, only the objective. There is only one reality, but many versions of it.

The same as if we both simultaneously look at a rainbow, both of our subjective definitions of the rainbow will differ slightly or even vastly, but the reality is that the rainbow exists objectively.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 8:24:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 12:44:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Because that's what it appears to be and there doesn't appear to be any reason to consider it's not what it appears to be.

How is that what it appears to be though? I would totally disagree that it seems as if there is a reality outside mind. Most people may erroneously assume that there is a reality outside of mind (I did too before becoming an Idealist), but now I am baffled as to why someone would posit such a thing.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 8:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 11:29:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?


When you look at a rock, does it exist inside or outside your head?

What you visually identify with as a "rock" is just a bunch of shapes and colors that are aspects of your conscious experience. If you touch it, the "feeling" is a conscious experience, same with the "smell". It is all experience inside mind that you can identify. Why posit something completely non-mental? Seems to violate Occam's Razor.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 8:29:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 8:24:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:44:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Because that's what it appears to be and there doesn't appear to be any reason to consider it's not what it appears to be.

How is that what it appears to be though? I would totally disagree that it seems as if there is a reality outside mind. Most people may erroneously assume that there is a reality outside of mind (I did too before becoming an Idealist), but now I am baffled as to why someone would posit such a thing.

Well, if you're baffled as to why almost everyone believes something that you, yourself once believed, I can't help you.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 8:31:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 8:29:45 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:24:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:44:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Because that's what it appears to be and there doesn't appear to be any reason to consider it's not what it appears to be.

How is that what it appears to be though? I would totally disagree that it seems as if there is a reality outside mind. Most people may erroneously assume that there is a reality outside of mind (I did too before becoming an Idealist), but now I am baffled as to why someone would posit such a thing.

Well, if you're baffled as to why almost everyone believes something that you, yourself once believed, I can't help you.

I am baffled that I used to believe it too. All it takes a little bit of digging deeper to realize why belief in a non-mental reality is fundamentally flawed.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 8:33:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 1:07:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:45:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:39:29 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:34:51 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/10/2014 11:29:26 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?


When you look at a rock, does it exist inside or outside your head?

A "rock" is a definition, and since definitions are mental constructs, it exists inside your head. But that's not to say all conceptions are equally "objective" - some conceptions map to general (and therefore to distributed) predicates which can be observed by multiple observers, and which cannot be "thought away", since they are representions of reality's syntax, and our brains are embedded in this syntax.

So are you defining something objective to your mind or subjective? Although the definition may be subjective, The question is what you are defining, is it objective or subjective?

It is both (if you are defining something real). But you cannot separate the definition from the definiendum (that which is defined) without defining it, and thus, you cannot separate them period.

I believe it is both, It exists inside my head as my own subjective definition and outside my head as something objective.

The subjective definition is not exactly the reality, only the objective. There is only one reality, but many versions of it.

The same as if we both simultaneously look at a rainbow, both of our subjective definitions of the rainbow will differ slightly or even vastly, but the reality is that the rainbow exists objectively.

If we both have experiences of a rainbow that is only because we are both sharing the same dream (reality is a collectively shared dream inside mind). However, because there are different localized states of consciousness, the dream will be experienced differently by different people. I see no reason to posit a reality outside mind, it is a useless and problematic assumption.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:19:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 8:31:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:29:45 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:24:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:44:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Because that's what it appears to be and there doesn't appear to be any reason to consider it's not what it appears to be.

How is that what it appears to be though? I would totally disagree that it seems as if there is a reality outside mind. Most people may erroneously assume that there is a reality outside of mind (I did too before becoming an Idealist), but now I am baffled as to why someone would posit such a thing.

Well, if you're baffled as to why almost everyone believes something that you, yourself once believed, I can't help you.

I am baffled that I used to believe it too. All it takes a little bit of digging deeper to realize why belief in a non-mental reality is fundamentally flawed.

So realty never appeared to you as having a non mental component, and yet you believed it did anyway?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:55:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:19:55 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:31:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:29:45 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:24:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:44:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Because that's what it appears to be and there doesn't appear to be any reason to consider it's not what it appears to be.

How is that what it appears to be though? I would totally disagree that it seems as if there is a reality outside mind. Most people may erroneously assume that there is a reality outside of mind (I did too before becoming an Idealist), but now I am baffled as to why someone would posit such a thing.

Well, if you're baffled as to why almost everyone believes something that you, yourself once believed, I can't help you.

I am baffled that I used to believe it too. All it takes a little bit of digging deeper to realize why belief in a non-mental reality is fundamentally flawed.

So realty never appeared to you as having a non mental component, and yet you believed it did anyway?

I believed it as I thought it was the only way to explain why all of our experiences cohere, which I now know is completely false. Now, reality cannot appear non-mental as the only reality we have access to is mental. For example, what do you call a red car? If you were to point me to a red car, all you would be showing me is a bunch of shapes and colors (which are aspects of visual experience). If you asked me to take a whiff, I would have a smell experience. What about the sound experience of a roaring engine? These are all experiences which can only exist within conscious mentality. How could it "appear" as if there is a non-mental reality?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 9:59:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:55:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:19:55 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:31:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:29:45 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:24:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:44:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Because that's what it appears to be and there doesn't appear to be any reason to consider it's not what it appears to be.

How is that what it appears to be though? I would totally disagree that it seems as if there is a reality outside mind. Most people may erroneously assume that there is a reality outside of mind (I did too before becoming an Idealist), but now I am baffled as to why someone would posit such a thing.

Well, if you're baffled as to why almost everyone believes something that you, yourself once believed, I can't help you.

I am baffled that I used to believe it too. All it takes a little bit of digging deeper to realize why belief in a non-mental reality is fundamentally flawed.

So realty never appeared to you as having a non mental component, and yet you believed it did anyway?

I believed it as I thought it was the only way to explain why all of our experiences cohere, which I now know is completely false.

Ok. Well, I don't know that. So, there you go. You understand my position.

Now, reality cannot appear non-mental as the only reality we have access to is mental. For example, what do you call a red car? If you were to point me to a red car, all you would be showing me is a bunch of shapes and colors (which are aspects of visual experience).

No. That's not all I'd be showing you. To deny that those shapes and colors together form a car is akin to denying that letters form words.

If you asked me to take a whiff, I would have a smell experience. What about the sound experience of a roaring engine? These are all experiences which can only exist within conscious mentality. How could it "appear" as if there is a non-mental reality?

Because it does. My experience says so.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2014 10:05:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 9:59:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:55:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:19:55 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:31:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:29:45 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:24:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:44:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Because that's what it appears to be and there doesn't appear to be any reason to consider it's not what it appears to be.

How is that what it appears to be though? I would totally disagree that it seems as if there is a reality outside mind. Most people may erroneously assume that there is a reality outside of mind (I did too before becoming an Idealist), but now I am baffled as to why someone would posit such a thing.

Well, if you're baffled as to why almost everyone believes something that you, yourself once believed, I can't help you.

I am baffled that I used to believe it too. All it takes a little bit of digging deeper to realize why belief in a non-mental reality is fundamentally flawed.

So realty never appeared to you as having a non mental component, and yet you believed it did anyway?

I believed it as I thought it was the only way to explain why all of our experiences cohere, which I now know is completely false.

Ok. Well, I don't know that. So, there you go. You understand my position.

Read my response to Dylan's first post. Then you will know that...


Now, reality cannot appear non-mental as the only reality we have access to is mental. For example, what do you call a red car? If you were to point me to a red car, all you would be showing me is a bunch of shapes and colors (which are aspects of visual experience).

No. That's not all I'd be showing you. To deny that those shapes and colors together form a car is akin to denying that letters form words.

I'm not not saying the shapes and colors don't form the car. Those shapes and colors are what we identify as a car as visually. However, shapes and colors are self-evidently aspects of visual experience (experiences exist within conscious mentality). Ergo, what we call a "car" seems to be mental. The smell experience, feel, sound experience and visual experience are all conscious experiences. Where is the non-mental reality exactly?


If you asked me to take a whiff, I would have a smell experience. What about the sound experience of a roaring engine? These are all experiences which can only exist within conscious mentality. How could it "appear" as if there is a non-mental reality?

Because it does.

No it doesn't.

My experience says so.

No it doesn't. Experience proves what I am saying, as I have explained above.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 5:51:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/10/2014 10:05:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:59:17 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:55:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 9:19:55 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:31:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:29:45 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/10/2014 8:24:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/10/2014 12:44:37 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Because that's what it appears to be and there doesn't appear to be any reason to consider it's not what it appears to be.

How is that what it appears to be though? I would totally disagree that it seems as if there is a reality outside mind. Most people may erroneously assume that there is a reality outside of mind (I did too before becoming an Idealist), but now I am baffled as to why someone would posit such a thing.

Well, if you're baffled as to why almost everyone believes something that you, yourself once believed, I can't help you.

I am baffled that I used to believe it too. All it takes a little bit of digging deeper to realize why belief in a non-mental reality is fundamentally flawed.

So realty never appeared to you as having a non mental component, and yet you believed it did anyway?

I believed it as I thought it was the only way to explain why all of our experiences cohere, which I now know is completely false.

Ok. Well, I don't know that. So, there you go. You understand my position.

Read my response to Dylan's first post. Then you will know that...

But the question here is why I don't believe in a purely mental reality. Now you know.

Now, reality cannot appear non-mental as the only reality we have access to is mental. For example, what do you call a red car? If you were to point me to a red car, all you would be showing me is a bunch of shapes and colors (which are aspects of visual experience).

No. That's not all I'd be showing you. To deny that those shapes and colors together form a car is akin to denying that letters form words.

I'm not not saying the shapes and colors don't form the car. Those shapes and colors are what we identify as a car as visually. However, shapes and colors are self-evidently aspects of visual experience (experiences exist within conscious mentality). Ergo, what we call a "car" seems to be mental. The smell experience, feel, sound experience and visual experience are all conscious experiences. Where is the non-mental reality exactly?

It's where I'm pointing my finger. Something I wouldn't be able to do if it the car only existed in your head.

If you asked me to take a whiff, I would have a smell experience. What about the sound experience of a roaring engine? These are all experiences which can only exist within conscious mentality. How could it "appear" as if there is a non-mental reality?

Because it does.

No it doesn't.

My experience says so.

No it doesn't. Experience proves what I am saying, as I have explained above.

Well, no, my experiences don't prove what your saying. My experiences lead me to the believe in a non-mental reality. I'm not sure why you think you're in a position to contradict me regarding my own experiences.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:15:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Your idealism is merely confusion resulting from the commonly-held notion that the mind is a soul inhabiting the body. You attempted to resolve that problem and instead of simply concluding that if that which is mental cannot interact with that which is physical then the mental must only be a product of the physical you have concluded that nothing is physical, obliterating the reality from which the mental emerges. A purely mental reality is just a castle built on a cloud.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 12:54:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 12:15:21 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Your idealism is merely confusion resulting from the commonly-held notion that the mind is a soul inhabiting the body. You attempted to resolve that problem and instead of simply concluding that if that which is mental cannot interact with that which is physical then the mental must only be a product of the physical you have concluded that nothing is physical, obliterating the reality from which the mental emerges. A purely mental reality is just a castle built on a cloud.

Quite the opposite. The physical - including our bodies and brains - are mental, since they are concepts.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 1:02:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 12:54:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/11/2014 12:15:21 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Your idealism is merely confusion resulting from the commonly-held notion that the mind is a soul inhabiting the body. You attempted to resolve that problem and instead of simply concluding that if that which is mental cannot interact with that which is physical then the mental must only be a product of the physical you have concluded that nothing is physical, obliterating the reality from which the mental emerges. A purely mental reality is just a castle built on a cloud.

Quite the opposite. The physical - including our bodies and brains - are mental, since they are concepts.

I was playing devil's advocate for that whole truth thing, but I'm serious about this. You could have just said that if nothing is true then that very assertion must be false, but anyway... I fail to see how you've responded to me here aside from stating that I'm wrong. 'No Dylan, you're wrong. Brains are physical parts of reality, since they're things'. You didn't actually address the problem of your imaginary universe being causa sui.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 1:09:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 1:02:08 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/11/2014 12:54:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/11/2014 12:15:21 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/9/2014 8:42:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Physicalists and Substance Dualists both adhere to the existence of a reality which is not mind, or not in mind. As an Idealist, I would ask; why? Why believe in such a thing?

Your idealism is merely confusion resulting from the commonly-held notion that the mind is a soul inhabiting the body. You attempted to resolve that problem and instead of simply concluding that if that which is mental cannot interact with that which is physical then the mental must only be a product of the physical you have concluded that nothing is physical, obliterating the reality from which the mental emerges. A purely mental reality is just a castle built on a cloud.

Quite the opposite. The physical - including our bodies and brains - are mental, since they are concepts.

I was playing devil's advocate for that whole truth thing, but I'm serious about this. You could have just said that if nothing is true then that very assertion must be false, but anyway... I fail to see how you've responded to me here aside from stating that I'm wrong. 'No Dylan, you're wrong. Brains are physical parts of reality, since they're things'. You didn't actually address the problem of your imaginary universe being causa sui.

You can't point to something and say it's non-mental, since "it" is necessarily a concept. If not, then it is unidentifiable and inconceivable. This is self-evident insofar as all definitions are by definition definitions.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 1:12:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 1:02:08 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/11/2014 12:54:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You didn't actually address the problem of your imaginary universe being causa sui.

I did earlier.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2014 1:20:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/11/2014 1:12:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/11/2014 1:02:08 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/11/2014 12:54:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You didn't actually address the problem of your imaginary universe being causa sui.

I did earlier.

Hah. My thoughts are mental? Such a profound observation, Dylly-Dyl. I have a [conception of a physical world] which is mental, which does absolutely nothing to preclude the existence of a physical world.You're a terrific sophist. As far as I'm aware this hilarious distortion of language is your only argument. It's up there with 'I know Dyl. I don't know this masked man. Therefore this masked man is not Dyl'.

"A "rock" is a definition, and since definitions are mental constructs, it exists inside your head" = You're thinking about a rock. That's a thought.

"you cannot separate the definition from the definiendum (that which is defined) without defining it" = You can't think about a rock without having a thought about a rock, and thoughts about rocks are mental.