Total Posts:174|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why believe in a reality outside of mind?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
We all know what minds are. It is in our minds that we dream, it is mind we examine when we introspect... But the question is, why believe in anything else outside of mind, or minds? Is there any good reason to believe in a reality outside mind?
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:56:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the simple answer is because we must interact with reality outside the mind. There is no other reality to blieve in. And this reality is shared.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:59:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:56:52 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I think the simple answer is because we must interact with reality outside the mind.

Why must we though? I don't really see a reason to believe that.

There is no other reality to blieve in.

Yes there is, a reality with only mind.

And this reality is shared.

What if reality is akin to a collectively shared dream?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:02:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sense experience. Why the heck should we believe reality exists only within the mind? Such a notion is certainly counter intuitive.
Nolite Timere
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:05:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:02:44 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Sense experience.

How does sense experience support the idea there exists a reality outside of mind?

Why the heck should we believe reality exists only within the mind?

Why the heck should we believe in a whole other category of reality that is non-mental? Why unnecessarily add to reality?

Such a notion is certainly counter intuitive.

What is intuitive to one may not be intuitive to another?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:09:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:05:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:02:44 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Sense experience.

How does sense experience support the idea there exists a reality outside of mind?

It would seem that we sense outside of our mind. Our mind then processes sense information.

Why the heck should we believe reality exists only within the mind?

Why the heck should we believe in a whole other category of reality that is non-mental? Why unnecessarily add to reality?

Why believe only the mind exists? Why not believe that only the physical exists? Why make an unnecessary addition to reality?

How does one even acquire knowledge if all is mental?

Such a notion is certainly counter intuitive.

What is intuitive to one may not be intuitive to another?
Nolite Timere
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:15:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For the record, I find idealism much more plausible than physicalism but it just comes down to explanatory adequacy for me.

"When it comes to explanatory adequacy, however, the situation is much different. Consider againt he situation of several people observing the same mountain for a period of time. According to realism, there is a single object which they are all perceiving " namely, the mountain " and it is this single object which, impinging on the sense organs of the various observers, causes them to have the perceptions they do have. Some changes in the perceptions are caused by changes in the mountain itself: There is an avalanche, or the summit is obscured by clouds. Other changes in perceptions are caused by changes in the observers: They look away, they become tired and go to sleep, their eyes become fatigued and unable to focus, and so on.

Now compare this with same situation as described by idealism. On this view there is no physically existing mountain, nor do the observes have any physical sense organs. When there is an avalanche, it is God himself who brings this about by adjusting each individual observer"s perception as if an avalanche were occurring. When an observer becomes weary, God adjusts that observers perceptions as if her eyes were fatigued and incapable of focusing correctly. And so on.

Is it not evident that the eplanation offered by realism is superior? Not everyone would agree to the existence of God, as required by idealism. But even assuming that God exists, why should he bring about our experiences by such a contrived and artificial method as is postulated by idealism? Instead of so meticulously manipulating our perceptions as if they were the result of independently existing physical objects, why didn"t god just create the objects themselves and be done with it? The hypothesis of realism (supplemented by scientific investigation) promises to account for the perceptions with both their accuracies and their inaccuracies in terms of a unifed, coherent conceptual scheme, while the idealist is reduced to saying of each individual perception merely that it is so because God decided that it should be so."

William Hasker
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:34:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:59:48 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:56:52 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I think the simple answer is because we must interact with reality outside the mind.

Why must we though? I don't really see a reason to believe that.

There is no other reality to blieve in.

Yes there is, a reality with only mind.

And this reality is shared.

What if reality is akin to a collectively shared dream?

The reality of your mind does not exist outside of this shared reality. It is part of it. You don;t create a bubble of reality when you dream or think. Even if reality was akin to a collective dream it wouldn't change the nature of how we exist in it. Be it dream, 3d hologram, or a program in some super genius alien kids computer, there is no other reality to choose from. The real question is why wouldn't you believe in it?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:34:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:09:25 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:05:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:02:44 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Sense experience.

How does sense experience support the idea there exists a reality outside of mind?

It would seem that we sense outside of our mind. Our mind then processes sense information.

How so? Have you ever Hallucinated? I have after three days of being awake, you see and you hear things just as you would if there was out external stimuli. There is no distinguishing between the two. So, how can it seem as if there is this external stimuli when there would be no way to tell the difference if it was all in your mind? Either way, as Bernardo Kastrup points out, people confuse the aspect of mind they identify themselves with, with their mind as a whole. When you are in a dream, you only identify yourself with a segment of your mind, the one with direct control over your avatar body, but the rest of the landscape and what not you do not identify yourself with... But it is certainly within mind.


Why the heck should we believe reality exists only within the mind?

Why the heck should we believe in a whole other category of reality that is non-mental? Why unnecessarily add to reality?

Why believe only the mind exists?

Because that model of reality doesn't try to add things to reality without good reason, like a non-mental world. If adding things to reality without good reason is ok, then why not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too? In my opinion, if you want to add to reality you should have a good reason.

Why not believe that only the physical exists? Why make an unnecessary addition to reality?

It's not unnecessary lol A mental/ conscious reality is the only thing we can be sure of exists, it is the non-mental reality that is unnecessary. As neuroscientist Sam Harris points out:

"Consciousness is the one thing in this world that cannot be an illusion. Consciousness is the fact of experience, the fact that something is happening, the fact that the lights are on in some basic sense even if we don't understand anything... So, I think consciousness cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris


How does one even acquire knowledge if all is mental?

How would this be a problem? In fact, it would be a problem if reality is not all mental, because you have to have this completely different metaphysical category interacting with the mind, instead of something mental like itself.

Such a notion is certainly counter intuitive.

What is intuitive to one may not be intuitive to another?
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:36:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We all know what minds are. It is in our minds that we dream, it is mind we examine when we introspect... But the question is, why believe in anything else outside of mind, or minds? Is there any good reason to believe in a reality outside mind?

What is outside mind, is outside because mind perceives it so. In that sense that is indirectly in Mind. Is there anything left to ponder on?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:37:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:34:01 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:59:48 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:56:52 AM, Df0512 wrote:
I think the simple answer is because we must interact with reality outside the mind.

Why must we though? I don't really see a reason to believe that.

There is no other reality to blieve in.

Yes there is, a reality with only mind.

And this reality is shared.

What if reality is akin to a collectively shared dream?

The reality of your mind does not exist outside of this shared reality. It is part of it.

Even if this was the case, that only means that our minds are part of a much larger mind (God's perhaps?) .

You don;t create a bubble of reality when you dream or think. Even if reality was akin to a collective dream it wouldn't change the nature of how we exist in it.

Dreams are mental. If reality is a collectively shared dream there would be no reason to posit a non-mental reality.

Be it dream, 3d hologram, or a program in some super genius alien kids computer, there is no other reality to choose from. The real question is why wouldn't you believe in it?

I wouldn't believe in it because there is no reason to. The same reason you do't believe fairies are in your backyard dancing until someone looks.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:59:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What if reality is akin to a collectively shared dream?

The reality of your mind does not exist outside of this shared reality. It is part of it.

Even if this was the case, that only means that our minds are part of a much larger mind (God's perhaps?) .

No it deosn't. That is one possibility. But it sounds like you are already assuming you know what reality really is. And no one does. So that doesn't really hold true.

You don;t create a bubble of reality when you dream or think. Even if reality was akin to a collective dream it wouldn't change the nature of how we exist in it.

Dreams are mental. If reality is a collectively shared dream there would be no reason to posit a non-mental reality.

You don't know that reality is a shared mental dream. Everything your saying is pure conjecture. You can't logically say that, if you can't provide logic evidence that this is all some kind of dream.

Be it dream, 3d hologram, or a program in some super genius alien kids computer, there is no other reality to choose from. The real question is why wouldn't you believe in it?

I wouldn't believe in it because there is no reason to. The same reason you do't believe fairies are in your backyard dancing until someone looks.

I just gave you multiple reason to believe it. You just aren't accpeting them. I don't believe faries are dancing in my backyard because I havn't seen them. No one has. Everyone, and I mean literally everyone, has seen and experienced this reality. Infact, you are seeing and experiencing it now. For what reason would you not believe you are doing what your are doing? And or that matter, what does not believing in reality outside the mind even mean?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:59:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:15:16 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
For the record, I find idealism much more plausible than physicalism but it just comes down to explanatory adequacy for me.

"When it comes to explanatory adequacy, however, the situation is much different. Consider againt he situation of several people observing the same mountain for a period of time. According to realism, there is a single object which they are all perceiving " namely, the mountain " and it is this single object which, impinging on the sense organs of the various observers, causes them to have the perceptions they do have. Some changes in the perceptions are caused by changes in the mountain itself: There is an avalanche, or the summit is obscured by clouds. Other changes in perceptions are caused by changes in the observers: They look away, they become tired and go to sleep, their eyes become fatigued and unable to focus, and so on.


Now compare this with same situation as described by idealism. On this view there is no physically existing mountain, nor do the observes have any physical sense organs. When there is an avalanche, it is God himself who brings this about by adjusting each individual observer"s perception as if an avalanche were occurring. When an observer becomes weary, God adjusts that observers perceptions as if her eyes were fatigued and incapable of focusing correctly. And so on.

Are you basically saying:

"Why believe there is someone fiddling around making it look as if X is happening, behind our backs, when we can just believe X is happening" .

The problem is that I would deny the premises that it seems or looks like "X is happening" (a non-mental event), as would most Idealists. How does it seem as if there is a non-mental avalanche occurring outside of mind? That may be one hypothesis to explain the coherence of experience, but I don't think it actually seems that this non-mental event is occurring. How could that even be possible?

Is it not evident that the eplanation offered by realism is superior? Not everyone would agree to the existence of God, as required by idealism. But even assuming that God exists, why should he bring about our experiences by such a contrived and artificial method as is postulated by idealism? Instead of so meticulously manipulating our perceptions as if they were the result of independently existing physical objects, why didn"t god just create the objects themselves and be done with it? The hypothesis of realism (supplemented by scientific investigation) promises to account for the perceptions with both their accuracies and their inaccuracies in terms of a unifed, coherent conceptual scheme, while the idealist is reduced to saying of each individual perception merely that it is so because God decided that it should be so."

William Hasker

The problem is that Idealism, at least not the Idealism I believe in (which is Bernardo Kastrup's Idealism essentially), does not believe that God is just sitting there making all all of our experiences cohere individually simply to explain coherence of experience. It happens naturally, as Bernardo talks about the sea of consciousness. If there is a sea it is H20 everywhere. Similarly, if we all share a dream, it is because we all share the same sea of consciousness with the same codes of information and ideas. Therefore, the coherence happens naturally, it isn't because of some ad hoc postulate of God just "making it so" that all of our experiences cohere. However, each ripple in the sea of consciousness is unique, which is why a color blind person would view the avalanche completely different than I would, or why someone who just ate mushrooms might see something completely different. However, it is still the same sea of consciousness which accounts for the coherence naturally.

Dualism is a terrible explanation because it posits two metaphysical substances the the mental/ conscious/ soul" and the "non-mental physical world". Only one is needed to sufficiently explain reality, making it completely non-parsimonious.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 1:05:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:59:04 PM, Df0512 wrote:
What if reality is akin to a collectively shared dream?

The reality of your mind does not exist outside of this shared reality. It is part of it.

Even if this was the case, that only means that our minds are part of a much larger mind (God's perhaps?) .

No it deosn't. That is one possibility. But it sounds like you are already assuming you know what reality really is. And no one does. So that doesn't really hold true.

Well, let me rephrase... It could mean that our minds are just part of a larger mind. It is a better explanation, because at least everything is neat and in one category; the mental:


You don;t create a bubble of reality when you dream or think. Even if reality was akin to a collective dream it wouldn't change the nature of how we exist in it.

Dreams are mental. If reality is a collectively shared dream there would be no reason to posit a non-mental reality.

You don't know that reality is a shared mental dream. Everything your saying is pure conjecture. You can't logically say that, if you can't provide logic evidence that this is all some kind of dream.

I don't know it to be true for sure, you are right. I just find it a better explanation... Either way, you are switching the burden of proof. This thread is about providing reasons to believe in a non-mental reality, not to provide reasons why reality is only mental. This is a thread for people to defend their position, not for me to defend mine.


Be it dream, 3d hologram, or a program in some super genius alien kids computer, there is no other reality to choose from. The real question is why wouldn't you believe in it?

I wouldn't believe in it because there is no reason to. The same reason you do't believe fairies are in your backyard dancing until someone looks.

I just gave you multiple reason to believe it. You just aren't accpeting them.

I rebutted all your reasons.

I don't believe faries are dancing in my backyard because I havn't seen them. No one has. Everyone, and I mean literally everyone, has seen and experienced this reality.

Yes, everyone has experienced this reality. The problem is that there is no good reason to believe this reality is non-mental.

Infact, you are seeing and experiencing it now. For what reason would you not believe you are doing what your are doing?

I do believe that I am doing what I am doing now, I just don't believe that anything I am doing entails a non-mental reality.

And or that matter, what does not believing in reality outside the mind even mean?

Exactly what it states. Do you not understand the English language well?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 1:06:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:15:16 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
For the record, I find idealism much more plausible than physicalism but it just comes down to explanatory adequacy for me.

"When it comes to explanatory adequacy, however, the situation is much different. Consider againt he situation of several people observing the same mountain for a period of time. According to realism, there is a single object which they are all perceiving " namely, the mountain " and it is this single object which, impinging on the sense organs of the various observers, causes them to have the perceptions they do have. Some changes in the perceptions are caused by changes in the mountain itself: There is an avalanche, or the summit is obscured by clouds. Other changes in perceptions are caused by changes in the observers: They look away, they become tired and go to sleep, their eyes become fatigued and unable to focus, and so on.

Now compare this with same situation as described by idealism. On this view there is no physically existing mountain, nor do the observes have any physical sense organs. When there is an avalanche, it is God himself who brings this about by adjusting each individual observer"s perception as if an avalanche were occurring. When an observer becomes weary, God adjusts that observers perceptions as if her eyes were fatigued and incapable of focusing correctly. And so on.

Is it not evident that the eplanation offered by realism is superior? Not everyone would agree to the existence of God, as required by idealism. But even assuming that God exists, why should he bring about our experiences by such a contrived and artificial method as is postulated by idealism? Instead of so meticulously manipulating our perceptions as if they were the result of independently existing physical objects, why didn"t god just create the objects themselves and be done with it? The hypothesis of realism (supplemented by scientific investigation) promises to account for the perceptions with both their accuracies and their inaccuracies in terms of a unifed, coherent conceptual scheme, while the idealist is reduced to saying of each individual perception merely that it is so because God decided that it should be so."

William Hasker

Correction:

"...at least the Idealism I believe in"
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We all know what minds are. It is in our minds that we dream, it is mind we examine when we introspect... But the question is, why believe in anything else outside of mind, or minds? Is there any good reason to believe in a reality outside mind?

Holy crap. I would have thought after dozens of topics of your creation on this that you would have gotten bored of this.

Okay, anyway...

1. Inference to the best explanation (to exit solipsism) e.g. problem of other minds
2. Dependency of aspects of consciousness on "physical reality"
3. Corruptibility of consciousness (tied in with 2)
4. The continued existence of reality through unconscious states (sleep, coma, etc.)
5. Time-dependency of consciousness

Some are deductive, others are just much better explained by proposing physical reality (forms of model-dependant reality ontologies follow) so they would just be inferences to the best explanation.

For example, in idealism, there is no inherent reason for mind to be linked to brain. That is not to say it's impossible, but that ontologies that require this connection (such as naturalism) explain this fact much more effectively.

If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 1:55:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dreams are mental. If reality is a collectively shared dream there would be no reason to posit a non-mental reality.

You don't know that reality is a shared mental dream. Everything your saying is pure conjecture. You can't logically say that, if you can't provide logic evidence that this is all some kind of dream.

I don't know it to be true for sure, you are right. I just find it a better explanation... Either way, you are switching the burden of proof. This thread is about providing reasons to believe in a non-mental reality, not to provide reasons why reality is only mental. This is a thread for people to defend their position, not for me to defend mine.

I think thats what I am doing. I am not providing reasons why reality is only mental. I am literally answering the question you proposed. I answered your question and you questioned my answer. Thus the debate. Surely you knew that having this question answered would require you to defend you own position. Besides, you are the one claiming reality inside the mind is separate then outside. That burden off proof fails on you my friend.

I wouldn't believe in it because there is no reason to. The same reason you do't believe fairies are in your backyard dancing until someone looks.

I just gave you multiple reason to believe it. You just aren't accpeting them.

I rebutted all your reasons.

Yes you did. Thus the debate

I do believe that I am doing what I am doing now, I just don't believe that anything I am doing entails a non-mental reality.

And or that matter, what does not believing in reality outside the mind even mean?

Exactly what it states. Do you not understand the English language well?

Im sorry did I offend you some how? I assumed you wanted to debate this topic intelligently not be childish. The question is valid. If you want me to explain I can. You can't literally think I'm asking what those words mean.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 2:21:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

For example, in idealism, there is no inherent reason for mind to be linked to brain. That is not to say it's impossible, but that ontologies that require this connection (such as naturalism) explain this fact much more effectively.

This line of reasoning presents an interesting question too. Under idealism, why do we even have brains? There is nothing ontologically special about my brain than a cupcake near me or my feet. Why does it seem there is some central point of the mind? Under Physicalism and even Dualism it makes sense why there would be a brain as the physical exists and there needs to be a point at which the mind exists or interacts with. But with idealism, there is no need. This seems to give us a Prima Facie case for the existence of something non-mental.

If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.

I would love to see it happen!
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 2:26:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We all know what minds are. It is in our minds that we dream, it is mind we examine when we introspect... But the question is, why believe in anything else outside of mind, or minds? Is there any good reason to believe in a reality outside mind?

Learning and the broadening of horizons.

Reality is far more unimaginable than even our imaginations.

Since, you know, it's unimaginable and all.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 2:38:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.

I've been trying to set one up for a while.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 2:45:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 2:21:25 PM, n7 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

For example, in idealism, there is no inherent reason for mind to be linked to brain. That is not to say it's impossible, but that ontologies that require this connection (such as naturalism) explain this fact much more effectively.

This line of reasoning presents an interesting question too. Under idealism, why do we even have brains?

One can flip the same type of question on Physicalism, but in reverse. Under physicalism you have brains, but why have minds and experiences?! This just presents the P-Zombie problem. In a physicalist universe, why is there consciousness? Basically, there is nothing about a Physicalist universe which necessitates consciousness, but you say it just exists anyway. Why can't I say that there is nothing about an Idealist universe that necessitates a brain, but it does anyway? At least my view necessitates the only thing we know cannot be an illusion .

There is nothing ontologically special about my brain than a cupcake near me or my feet. Why does it seem there is some central point of the mind? Under Physicalism and even Dualism it makes sense why there would be a brain as the physical exists and there needs to be a point at which the mind exists or interacts with. But with idealism, there is no need.

Dualism doesn't make sense of it, because under Dualism (at least of the Theistic sort), you don't need a brain for there to be consciousness.

This seems to give us a Prima Facie case for the existence of something non-mental.

I already responded to this. Yes, under Idealism, a brain is not needed, but under Physicalism, consciousness is not needed. People's bodies could move guided by the laws of physics and move just like we do, but there is no need for any experiences or consciousness. Yet, it exists, no?


If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.

I would love to see it happen!

Sounds fun!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 2:46:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We all know what minds are. It is in our minds that we dream, it is mind we examine when we introspect... But the question is, why believe in anything else outside of mind, or minds? Is there any good reason to believe in a reality outside mind?

Holy crap. I would have thought after dozens of topics of your creation on this that you would have gotten bored of this.

Okay, anyway...

1. Inference to the best explanation (to exit solipsism) e.g. problem of other minds

You still have the P-Zombie problem. We both have our problems... You would say the same thing I would, P-Zombies are possible, but I don't think that is the best explanation. I would say the same thing with regards to Solipsism.

2. Dependency of aspects of consciousness on "physical reality"

This begs the question by assuming a non-conscious physical reality.

3. Corruptibility of consciousness (tied in with 2)

It isn't consciousness being corrupted, just the networking of it. The substance itself remains regardless of if you knock me out.

4. The continued existence of reality through unconscious states (sleep, coma, etc.)

That reality could just exist in other minds though.

5. Time-dependency of consciousness

Many scientists believe time to be emergent or illusory.


Some are deductive, others are just much better explained by proposing physical reality (forms of model-dependant reality ontologies follow) so they would just be inferences to the best explanation.

For example, in idealism, there is no inherent reason for mind to be linked to brain. That is not to say it's impossible, but that ontologies that require this connection (such as naturalism) explain this fact much more effectively.

If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 2:50:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 2:21:25 PM, n7 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

For example, in idealism, there is no inherent reason for mind to be linked to brain. That is not to say it's impossible, but that ontologies that require this connection (such as naturalism) explain this fact much more effectively.

This line of reasoning presents an interesting question too. Under idealism, why do we even have brains? There is nothing ontologically special about my brain than a cupcake near me or my feet. Why does it seem there is some central point of the mind? Under Physicalism and even Dualism it makes sense why there would be a brain as the physical exists and there needs to be a point at which the mind exists or interacts with. But with idealism, there is no need. This seems to give us a Prima Facie case for the existence of something non-mental.

If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.

I would love to see it happen!

I think the brain, under Idealism, could be viewed is a filtration system in God's mind which allows us to experience reality from a localized point of view. At least, this is similar to Bernardo Kastrups view. So, while the brain isn't necessary for consciousness in general, it could be necessary for localized consciousness! In fact, science supports this, as when the brain dies many people experiencing their consciousness expanding (de-localizing).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 2:51:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 2:38:21 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.

I've been trying to set one up for a while.

You want to debate specific arguments, I want to debate the subject in general.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 3:11:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 2:46:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We all know what minds are. It is in our minds that we dream, it is mind we examine when we introspect... But the question is, why believe in anything else outside of mind, or minds? Is there any good reason to believe in a reality outside mind?

Holy crap. I would have thought after dozens of topics of your creation on this that you would have gotten bored of this.

Okay, anyway...

1. Inference to the best explanation (to exit solipsism) e.g. problem of other minds

You still have the P-Zombie problem.

Which runs into an argument ad ignorantum via. the problem of other minds...

We both have our problems... You would say the same thing I would, P-Zombies are possible, but I don't think that is the best explanation. I would say the same thing with regards to Solipsism.

Depends on how you formulate it. No, I wouldn't accept they are possible, presupposing such just begs the question.

2. Dependency of aspects of consciousness on "physical reality"

This begs the question by assuming a non-conscious physical reality.

No, it doesn't matter what the reality is since it assumes idealism is true to form a reducio. It shows idealism is incoherent hence. The reason is that you perceive but you are not perception, you think, but you are not thought, etc (that's what "reality"is in idealism),

3. Corruptibility of consciousness (tied in with 2)

It isn't consciousness being corrupted, just the networking of it. The substance itself remains regardless of if you knock me out.

Then consciousness is not fundamental... And you literally just concede that a substance exists when consciousness doesn't exist. In idealism there is no 'substance', all that exists is consciousness.

4. The continued existence of reality through unconscious states (sleep, coma, etc.)

That reality could just exist in other minds though.

1. Multiplies complexity
2. Is not necessarily entailed by idealism, but is necessarily entailed by other ontologies, so idealism is weak at explaining this
3. Runs into a plethora of problems of interaction, and coherence of an omnipresent mind (which is your position).

Also runs into big problems of the difference between the conceptual and the actual. E.g. When dreaming, etc.

5. Time-dependency of consciousness

Many scientists believe time to be emergent or illusory.

It doesn't matter what the nature of time is, the point is we can only experience consciousness as a series of states. We cannot think, or comprehend without the passage of time. Ergo, consciousness is contingent on something that is itself not conscious.

"You" exist as a sequence of states, the only manner in which you can meaningfully describe any experiences with consciousness is by presupposing consciousness (You) moving in a dimension.


Some are deductive, others are just much better explained by proposing physical reality (forms of model-dependant reality ontologies follow) so they would just be inferences to the best explanation.

For example, in idealism, there is no inherent reason for mind to be linked to brain. That is not to say it's impossible, but that ontologies that require this connection (such as naturalism) explain this fact much more effectively.

If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.

So... Debate?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 3:13:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How many times are you going to make this thread lol? I made a thread on this topic a while ago: http://www.debate.org...

I'm not sure if you saw it. I'd like to hear your opinion on it.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 3:14:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 2:51:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 2:38:21 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.

I've been trying to set one up for a while.

You want to debate specific arguments, I want to debate the subject in general.

I'm interested in debating whether or not physics supports your thesis because that's what initially drew me into reading your posts on this. We could debate the subject as a whole, but I doubt we'll be able to dignify it given the character restraints and the audience we'll have. I'd rather us discuss one aspect of the debate on a very deep and non-superficial level rather than go a "mile wide and an inch deep", so to speak.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 3:22:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 2:45:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 2:21:25 PM, n7 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

For example, in idealism, there is no inherent reason for mind to be linked to brain. That is not to say it's impossible, but that ontologies that require this connection (such as naturalism) explain this fact much more effectively.

This line of reasoning presents an interesting question too. Under idealism, why do we even have brains?

One can flip the same type of question on Physicalism, but in reverse. Under physicalism you have brains, but why have minds and experiences?! This just presents the P-Zombie problem. In a physicalist universe, why is there consciousness? Basically, there is nothing about a Physicalist universe which necessitates consciousness, but you say it just exists anyway. Why can't I say that there is nothing about an Idealist universe that necessitates a brain, but it does anyway? At least my view necessitates the only thing we know cannot be an illusion .

Anthropic Principle, Natural Selection as for why it's necessary (it would essentially be impossible for us to ask the question if we were not conscious), and this applies even if p-zombies were possible. More relevant is just a case of first person vs third person perspective., I.e. Nothing more special about the subjective experience of consciousness than your point of view (third person vs first person).

Also this is just a tu quoque fallacy.

There is nothing ontologically special about my brain than a cupcake near me or my feet. Why does it seem there is some central point of the mind? Under Physicalism and even Dualism it makes sense why there would be a brain as the physical exists and there needs to be a point at which the mind exists or interacts with. But with idealism, there is no need.

Dualism doesn't make sense of it, because under Dualism (at least of the Theistic sort), you don't need a brain for there to be consciousness.

They have their own ad-hoc reasons, as does idealism.

This seems to give us a Prima Facie case for the existence of something non-mental.

I already responded to this. Yes, under Idealism, a brain is not needed, but under Physicalism, consciousness is not needed.

Tu quoque fallacy, lottery fallacy.

People's bodies could move guided by the laws of physics and move just like we do, but there is no need for any experiences or consciousness. Yet, it exists, no?

If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.

I would love to see it happen!

Sounds fun!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 3:59:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is there any good reason to believe in a reality outside mind?

I think a better question to ask is "is there any good reason to believe a non-mental reality is a meaningful concept". The answer, of course, is no. That which lacks cognitive expression is beyond identification even in principle.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 4:56:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 3:11:29 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 2:46:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:16:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:51:34 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We all know what minds are. It is in our minds that we dream, it is mind we examine when we introspect... But the question is, why believe in anything else outside of mind, or minds? Is there any good reason to believe in a reality outside mind?

Holy crap. I would have thought after dozens of topics of your creation on this that you would have gotten bored of this.

Okay, anyway...

1. Inference to the best explanation (to exit solipsism) e.g. problem of other minds

You still have the P-Zombie problem.

Which runs into an argument ad ignorantum via. the problem of other minds...

The point is that the problem of other minds holds whether or not you believe in a non-mental reality or not! If there exists a non-mental reality, that doesn't mean other minds exist. So, this problem you speak of isn't just a problem for Idealism but any worldview.

We both have our problems... You would say the same thing I would, P-Zombies are possible, but I don't think that is the best explanation. I would say the same thing with regards to Solipsism.

Depends on how you formulate it. No, I wouldn't accept they are possible, presupposing such just begs the question.

Presupposing they are possible may beg the question in favor of what I am saying, but presupposing they are impossible begs the question just as much against. If you don't know, then at least epistemologically, P-Zombies are possible for all you know.


2. Dependency of aspects of consciousness on "physical reality"

This begs the question by assuming a non-conscious physical reality.

No, it doesn't matter what the reality is since it assumes idealism is true to form a reducio. It shows idealism is incoherent hence.

No it doesn't show Idealism incoherent at all, it shows is that you beg the question by assuming a physical non-mental reality in the first place when you formulated that statement. You haven't even come close to showing Idealism is false from a reductio.

The reason is that you perceive but you are not perception, you think, but you are not thought, etc (that's what "reality"is in idealism),

The mind is not a perception, but it perceives. The mind thinks, but it is not thought. The mind and its contents aren't necessarily the same.


3. Corruptibility of consciousness (tied in with 2)

It isn't consciousness being corrupted, just the networking of it. The substance itself remains regardless of if you knock me out.

Then consciousness is not fundamental...

False. Consciousness is fundamental, it is the networking of that consciousness which is not fundamental. You fallaciously equate the two.

And you literally just concede that a substance exists when consciousness doesn't exist.

No I didn't, that is a straw-man. Consciousness exists even if they networking of it is compromised, is what I said.

In idealism there is no 'substance', all that exists is consciousness.

Yes, conscious substance. That's why Idealism is Substance Monism lol


4. The continued existence of reality through unconscious states (sleep, coma, etc.)

That reality could just exist in other minds though.

1. Multiplies complexity
2. Is not necessarily entailed by idealism, but is necessarily entailed by other ontologies, so idealism is weak at explaining this

How is it not entailed by Idealism, but entailed by other ontologies?

3. Runs into a plethora of problems of interaction, and coherence of an omnipresent mind (which is your position).

The problem of interaction only is a problem if there is a non-mental reality. How does something completely non-mental interact with the mental? If all is mental, then interaction is easy.

Also runs into big problems of the difference between the conceptual and the actual. E.g. When dreaming, etc.

Lol How is that a problem? The difference between a dream and what we call the waking empirical world is that one is privately experienced and they other is collectively shared. Reality is a collectively shared dream, what we call "dreams" are sub-dreams that are privately experienced.


5. Time-dependency of consciousness

Many scientists believe time to be emergent or illusory.

It doesn't matter what the nature of time is, the point is we can only experience consciousness as a series of states.We cannot think, or comprehend without the passage of time. Ergo, consciousness is contingent on something that is itself not conscious.

False. If Time doesn't exist then there are only timeless thoughts and experiences, the passage of time would just be an illusion. In fact, most Quantum Gravity models support emergent spacetime models.


"You" exist as a sequence of states, the only manner in which you can meaningfully describe any experiences with consciousness is by presupposing consciousness (You) moving in a dimension.


Some are deductive, others are just much better explained by proposing physical reality (forms of model-dependant reality ontologies follow) so they would just be inferences to the best explanation.

For example, in idealism, there is no inherent reason for mind to be linked to brain. That is not to say it's impossible, but that ontologies that require this connection (such as naturalism) explain this fact much more effectively.

If you are free in a week I can debate you on this... I need to finish my Death Star debate first.

So... Debate?