Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No Good Reason To Affirm A Non-Mental Reality

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 3:32:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

A material reality is still mental. Non-mental basically means "that which the mind cannot perceive or conceive of." There is no evidence, nor could there ever be, of a non-mental reality. One of the biggest evidences of theism (in my opinion) is that reality is fundamentally mental. if reality is fundamentally mental (of mind) a non-contingent mind must exist.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 5:53:45 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I think the problem is that anything that casts doubt on 'reality is an illusion' can be dismissed as part of the illusion, so I am not keen on presenting any counter to monistic idealism!

Intuitively, an external reality (ER) exists. Of course, we all know that intuitions are often mistaken so the apparent existence of ER is not proof ER exists, but the unreliabilty of intuition is not a good reason to espouse the precise opposite of that intuition to be the truth, i.e asserting ER definitely does not exist.

I take the view that given that there appears to be ER, ER's existence can be accepted, unless there is positive evidence to the contrary. I do not accept that being able to dismiss anything inconvenient to idealism as part of the illusion as 'positive evidence'!

My less than rigorous rejection of idealism based on a) I can't see why anything or anyone would go to all the trouble of creating such an illusion. If I am creating reality out of my consciousness I seem to be wasting a lot of effort on creating details like specks of dust and the detailed pattern of theads on the tablecloth when I could be imaging having a lot more fun. The fact that Beyonce is not waiting for me in the bedroom - alas - is not due to any failing of my consciousness or imagination but by the brute facts of ER. And if my reality is not of my creation but of some third party, I find little to thank them for in my disty, tablecloth dominated and Beyonce-less existence.

and b) - even if idealism was true, we would have to continue acting and thinking as if it wasn't because the illusion is so overwhelming. If an idealist breaks his leg then his leg, the break and the pain might all be illusions, but that is of scant comfort.

So as far as I can see, idealism is almost certainly not true, but even if it was it would make no difference.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 12:43:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 5:53:45 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I think the problem is that anything that casts doubt on 'reality is an illusion' can be dismissed as part of the illusion, so I am not keen on presenting any counter to monistic idealism!

Intuitively, an external reality (ER) exists. Of course, we all know that intuitions are often mistaken so the apparent existence of ER is not proof ER exists, but the unreliabilty of intuition is not a good reason to espouse the precise opposite of that intuition to be the truth, i.e asserting ER definitely does not exist.

Even if an ER exists, that wouldn't mean the ER is non-mental in nature. That would be fallacious. Also, all our intuitions tell us is that that there are objects that are external to the aspect of mind we identify ourselves with; not that these objects are non-mental in nature.

I take the view that given that there appears to be ER, ER's existence can be accepted, unless there is positive evidence to the contrary. I do not accept that being able to dismiss anything inconvenient to idealism as part of the illusion as 'positive evidence'!

The problem is that non-Idealism entails a purely speculative form of reality; a non-mental reality. We know that minds exist, it's not like we can doubt it (doubt is a mental state and requires a mind), but a non-mental reality is just made up. It is much safer to assume reality is of one type of thing we know for sure to exist, than to make up a whole other category of reality.


My less than rigorous rejection of idealism based on a) I can't see why anything or anyone would go to all the trouble of creating such an illusion. If I am creating reality out of my consciousness I seem to be wasting a lot of effort on creating details like specks of dust and the detailed pattern of theads on the tablecloth when I could be imaging having a lot more fun. The fact that Beyonce is not waiting for me in the bedroom - alas - is not due to any failing of my consciousness or imagination but by the brute facts of ER. And if my reality is not of my creation but of some third party, I find little to thank them for in my disty, tablecloth dominated and Beyonce-less existence.

You assume that the reality you are experiencing is stemming from your consciousness and your's alone.

and b) - even if idealism was true, we would have to continue acting and thinking as if it wasn't because the illusion is so overwhelming. If an idealist breaks his leg then his leg, the break and the pain might all be illusions, but that is of scant comfort.

The pain is real, pain is in the mind. Idealism doesn't say there is no reality, just that reality is in mind. In Idealism when one sees a tree, it doesn't mean that tree isn't real... It means the tree is real, but mentally.

So as far as I can see, idealism is almost certainly not true, but even if it was it would make no difference.

There is no reason to assume this made up non-mental category of being, therefore, anything non-idealistic is purely speculative at best.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 1:02:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Hi RT.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 1:36:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 5:53:45 AM, keithprosser wrote:
but even if it was it would make no difference.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 1:45:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

He's back...........
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 3:39:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
if reality is physical, why does RT keep posting the same topic over and over again? This iteration is know as a loop. Loops are computational (https://en.wikipedia.org...) that means reality has been programmed (and that means the program is the programmer somehow). QED reality isn't material.
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
6/17/2016 6:04:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
It doesn't matter how many time I post the same topic, I always get different responses and new ideas to ponder. So there may be a repepition in the question, but the answers and discussions that stem from them seem to be colourful enough.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 6:55:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I'm trying - but failing - to imagine what an 'monist idealist' world would be like. Is there one mind that supports all of us, or do we all have our own mind? Should I imagine that mind/minds existing with spatial extent (surely not if space is only mental), or even existing in time (if time is mental).

Such a uber-reality (devoid of matter, space and time) would be one we could not usefully ponder, It is too alien and too bizarre. It is incomprehensible to the minds it - allegedly - supports. As far as we are concerned, our mental reality would be the totality of reality we could ever know or contemplate.

I suspect that monist idealism is not disprovable in the strictest sense. But it seems to me that the reality we appear to have provides an ample supply of problems to solve and we can safely and more usefully leave the issue of whether there is an inaccessible (and irrelevant?)reality beyond that to another time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 8:01:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 6:55:45 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I'm trying - but failing - to imagine what an 'monist idealist' world would be like. Is there one mind that supports all of us, or do we all have our own mind? Should I imagine that mind/minds existing with spatial extent (surely not if space is only mental), or even existing in time (if time is mental).

Exactly reality as you experience it is how it would be. I would like to think of it as one grand mind that supports our sub-minds. Also there is no spatial extent (this is implied by Special Relativity and quantum entanglement), and time is most likely non-existent as well (if we assume the Wheeler-deWitt equation in it's most non-ad hoc form).


Such a uber-reality (devoid of matter, space and time) would be one we could not usefully ponder, It is too alien and too bizarre.

This is, of course, not true. When you dream you can experience objects, but of course these objects aren't material, and the space isn't physical; it all all mental. Reality is merely a collectively cohered dream, so even though you can smell, touch, and sense objects that wouldn't make them any more material than an object you sense in imagination, a hallucination, or dream. It's all mental, only the "waking" state is a collectively experienced and cohered mental reality instead of a private one.

It is incomprehensible to the minds it - allegedly - supports. As far as we are concerned, our mental reality would be the totality of reality we could ever know or contemplate.

I don't see how it is incomprehensible in the least.


I suspect that monist idealism is not disprovable in the strictest sense. But it seems to me that the reality we appear to have provides an ample supply of problems to solve and we can safely and more usefully leave the issue of whether there is an inaccessible (and irrelevant?)reality beyond that to another time.

A non-mental reality is inaccessible. If you see a chair, that is a visual experience (which resides within consciousness). If you touch it, that is a sensation (which again, resides within consciousness). There is no reason to posit this made up non-spiritual reality, it's just a hypothesis.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 8:44:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I see what you mean rather clearer! But my problem remains.

if we consider how things appear to be in 'our reality' first, just to introduce the issues:
Dreams happen when our consciousness operates without sensory feedback. Conscious experience is largely manufactured by the brain even in the waking state - sense data acts to keep the brain on track in its constant production of experiences; sense data doesn't produce conscious experience.

So the underlying substrate of dreams is a material brain with neurons firing away as they do all the time. My experience of a chair - awake or dreaming - is underpinned by something - by neurological events in my brain. I experience a chair but what is 'really happening' is that neurones are firing away in my brain.

Now let's leave 'our' reality and consider the idealist one.

What is 'really happening' to produce 'apparent reality'? If apparent reality is analogous to a dream, what is analogous to its substrate of the brain and its neural activity? It seems to me the only way it could work is that reality (which level of reality I have lost track of)must be self-creating and self-sustaining, in a spacetime of its own making - but in that case how does it differ significantly from the regular physical universe?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2016 11:36:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 8:44:22 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I see what you mean rather clearer! But my problem remains.

if we consider how things appear to be in 'our reality' first, just to introduce the issues:
Dreams happen when our consciousness operates without sensory feedback. Conscious experience is largely manufactured by the brain even in the waking state - sense data acts to keep the brain on track in its constant production of experiences; sense data doesn't produce conscious experience.

The problem with this is we still sense things in dreams. You can sense a chair in a dream when you look at it, you can touch it, if you cliff dive in a dream you can feel it in your chest. Also, you assume the brain just isn't an aspect of a larger conscious system (God's Day Dream if you will). If so then even if it did produce our finite conscious systems that would just be consciousness stemming from consciousness.


So the underlying substrate of dreams is a material brain with neurons firing away as they do all the time. My experience of a chair - awake or dreaming - is underpinned by something - by neurological events in my brain. I experience a chair but what is 'really happening' is that neurones are firing away in my brain.

There is no reason to believe the brain is material though, if you assume this then you have to solve Chalmer's Hard Problem.


Now let's leave 'our' reality and consider the idealist one.

Our reality is an Idealist one, at least, the proposition makes the most sense.


What is 'really happening' to produce 'apparent reality'? If apparent reality is analogous to a dream, what is analogous to its substrate of the brain and its neural activity? It seems to me the only way it could work is that reality (which level of reality I have lost track of)must be self-creating and self-sustaining, in a spacetime of its own making - but in that case how does it differ significantly from the regular physical universe?

It differs as a physical universe doesn't reside within consciousness. Another way to look at it would be not to deny the physical world, but posit that the Unified Field everything reduces to is consciousness itself. What we call the physical manifests itself through mental activity, like a hallucination does. Here are some videos to watch if you are interested.

http://m.youtube.com...
http://m.youtube.com...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 1:35:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Yep RT, it's still all in your head.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 12:18:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 1:35:01 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Yep RT, it's still all in your head.

Idealism doesn't say everything is all in my head, it would be nice if you knew what you were arguing against.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:49:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

You're back!! :D
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:50:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Please do more debates.
"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."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 8:38:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 12:18:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:35:01 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Yep RT, it's still all in your head.

Idealism doesn't say everything is all in my head, it would be nice if you knew what you were arguing against.

That's all in your head too.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:20:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Shouldn't the existence of anything at all be a good enough reason for non-mental reality?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 1:55:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 3:20:38 AM, difference wrote:
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Shouldn't the existence of anything at all be a good enough reason for non-mental reality?

No, because in Idealism all objects of empirical reality are mental in nature, just like objects of imagination, hallucinations, and dreams are mental in nature. The main difference being that they are part of a collectively cohered reality, instead of a purely privately experienced one. This view is the safer bet as it sticks with a category we know exists (mentality), instead of making up some additional category (non-mentality) which is nothing more than a bad idea made up to explain reality.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 2:13:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 5:36:15 AM, BlueDreams wrote:
I've been trying to debate you on your quantum mechanical arguments for a while.

I have a child on the way, a renovation needs to be done in the apartment me and my girlfriend have, and a full time job that makes it next to impossible to do full length debate anymore. Although I will say that now that arguments for Idealism using quantum mechanics alone are rather weak, it should be coupled in with arguments for why our reality is virtual and not classically physical, and why this virtual reality is simulated in a mind and not a computer. However, I find that even those arguments are not needed. The best reason to not believe in a non-mental reality is that it there is no reason to believe in a non-mental reality. It's a made up category, and a useless one at that. The world of consciousness (visual experiences, sensations, love, happiness ect.) is enough to explain our reality, the existence of non-mental substances is a useless posit to try and add to reality considering there is 0 evidence of anything non-mental.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 2:14:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 1:55:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:20:38 AM, difference wrote:
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Shouldn't the existence of anything at all be a good enough reason for non-mental reality?

No, because in Idealism all objects of empirical reality are mental in nature, just like objects of imagination, hallucinations, and dreams are mental in nature. The main difference being that they are part of a collectively cohered reality, instead of a purely privately experienced one. This view is the safer bet as it sticks with a category we know exists (mentality), instead of making up some additional category (non-mentality) which is nothing more than a bad idea made up to explain reality.

https://www.youtube.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 2:18:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 2:14:30 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 6/19/2016 1:55:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:20:38 AM, difference wrote:
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Shouldn't the existence of anything at all be a good enough reason for non-mental reality?

No, because in Idealism all objects of empirical reality are mental in nature, just like objects of imagination, hallucinations, and dreams are mental in nature. The main difference being that they are part of a collectively cohered reality, instead of a purely privately experienced one. This view is the safer bet as it sticks with a category we know exists (mentality), instead of making up some additional category (non-mentality) which is nothing more than a bad idea made up to explain reality.

https://www.youtube.com...

I highly doubt Berkely or Kant were on Cocaine (both Idealists). Nice failed attempt at ridicule though :)
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 2:25:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 2:18:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2016 2:14:30 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 6/19/2016 1:55:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:20:38 AM, difference wrote:
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Shouldn't the existence of anything at all be a good enough reason for non-mental reality?

No, because in Idealism all objects of empirical reality are mental in nature, just like objects of imagination, hallucinations, and dreams are mental in nature. The main difference being that they are part of a collectively cohered reality, instead of a purely privately experienced one. This view is the safer bet as it sticks with a category we know exists (mentality), instead of making up some additional category (non-mentality) which is nothing more than a bad idea made up to explain reality.

https://www.youtube.com...

I highly doubt Berkely or Kant were on Cocaine (both Idealists). Nice failed attempt at ridicule though :)

Humor me with something...........

I met you in person, and record our interaction.

You maintain that the physical does not exist, I slap you.

You say that proves nothing........

I slap you again...........

Repeat process 100 times.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 8:02:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 2:25:08 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 6/19/2016 2:18:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2016 2:14:30 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 6/19/2016 1:55:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:20:38 AM, difference wrote:
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Shouldn't the existence of anything at all be a good enough reason for non-mental reality?

No, because in Idealism all objects of empirical reality are mental in nature, just like objects of imagination, hallucinations, and dreams are mental in nature. The main difference being that they are part of a collectively cohered reality, instead of a purely privately experienced one. This view is the safer bet as it sticks with a category we know exists (mentality), instead of making up some additional category (non-mentality) which is nothing more than a bad idea made up to explain reality.

https://www.youtube.com...

I highly doubt Berkely or Kant were on Cocaine (both Idealists). Nice failed attempt at ridicule though :)

Humor me with something...........

I met you in person, and record our interaction.

You maintain that the physical does not exist, I slap you.

You say that proves nothing........

I slap you again...........

Repeat process 100 times.

How would slapping me indicate anything physical exists in the slightest? lol I think you might be on cocaine.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 11:54:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 2:25:08 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 6/19/2016 2:18:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2016 2:14:30 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 6/19/2016 1:55:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:20:38 AM, difference wrote:
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Shouldn't the existence of anything at all be a good enough reason for non-mental reality?

No, because in Idealism all objects of empirical reality are mental in nature, just like objects of imagination, hallucinations, and dreams are mental in nature. The main difference being that they are part of a collectively cohered reality, instead of a purely privately experienced one. This view is the safer bet as it sticks with a category we know exists (mentality), instead of making up some additional category (non-mentality) which is nothing more than a bad idea made up to explain reality.

https://www.youtube.com...

I highly doubt Berkely or Kant were on Cocaine (both Idealists). Nice failed attempt at ridicule though :)

Humor me with something...........

I met you in person, and record our interaction.

You maintain that the physical does not exist, I slap you.

You say that proves nothing........

I slap you again...........

Repeat process 100 times.

Also pain is a conscious experience, so how would the pain I experience be evidence of anything outside of consciousness? It would just be your consciousness interacting with my consciousness with a visual conscious experience of your arm coming towards me (from my perspective), and your arm moving away and hitting my face. These are just all conscious experiences, where is non-mental material reality in all of this? Also ridiculing Idealism is absurd, considering so many great minds in Philosophy and Physics adhered to it, such as Max Planck, the Nobel Prize winner who fathered Quantum Theory itself.
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 11:52:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/17/2016 1:42:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As someone who leans towards Monistic Idealism as an ontology, I sometimes try to think of reasons to affirm a material (non-mental) existence but struggle as there is no evidence of one or good reason to affirm one. Are there any reasons I may be missing? Discuss.

Welcome back to you too.

I'd go with the line of thought that all things are caused. thoughts require a brain to evolve for example. Physical objects do not have an existence contingent upon the existence of something else, whereas consciousness does. It's simply not logical to believe that your existence is self-caused, that's circular logic. therefore you are forced to believe in an external reality that caused the reality you perceive.
For Mother Russia.