On Idealism, repeated

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#81  Postby Thommo » Dec 07, 2020 7:35 am

BlackBart wrote:Bad news if solipsism is true. It ain't you, it's me. :smug:


Indeed, it's a valid point. There isn't one solipsism that we can agree on. Your solipsism is different to mine.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#82  Postby zoon » Dec 07, 2020 10:33 am

Thommo wrote:
BlackBart wrote:Bad news if solipsism is true. It ain't you, it's me. :smug:


Indeed, it's a valid point. There isn't one solipsism that we can agree on. Your solipsism is different to mine.

Yes, I think this is where the logic of solipsism becomes shaky. According to solipsists, every person thinks their own experiences are the only reality, but every person except "me" is mistaken and under an illusion. But if a solipsist thinks that it's possible for everyone else's brain to create a mere illusion of reality, then why should the solipsist think they alone are immune to being mistaken?

Scientifically, I think I accept that my sense of myself as an experiencing consciousness in a real external world is almost certainly an evolved illusion. This way of thinking, although it's an illusion, is useful because it helps me to think of other people as separate experiencing centres of consciousness, I can then track their possibly false beliefs to help myself predict them, and I keep those false beliefs sharply separate from my model of the "real" world.

I'm still not clear how to come to terms with the view that my own consciousness is an illusion: if it's an illusion, what's the non-illusory model? Perhaps accepting that my experiences are not necessarily only "mine", in that if someone else (a scientist of the science-fiction future) were tracking my brain, my experiences could become theirs as much as mine?
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3238

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#83  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 07, 2020 10:39 am

zoon wrote:
I'm still not clear how to come to terms with the view that my own consciousness is an illusion:


Well, then, what is it to "come to terms" with anything you experience, including that your own consciousness is an illusion? This presupposes that somebody infected you with the idea that your consciousness is not an illusion. It doesn't have to be either/or unless you're a binarist about most ideas, especially illusions. Maybe consciousness is a term that nobody has bothered to specify. You know, like "god".

How much "coming to terms" can one mind achieve when it comes to such bananashit? Leave it to the filosofeezers to figure that one out. Is 'coming to terms' some sort of philsophical/psychological red badge of courage? Some folks will never bome to terms with anything. Filosofeezer, heal thyself. If you can't come to terms with that, at least enjoy your suffering.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29564
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#84  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 07, 2020 12:34 pm

Thommo wrote:
BlackBart wrote:Bad news if solipsism is true. It ain't you, it's me. :smug:


Indeed, it's a valid point. There isn't one solipsism that we can agree on. Your solipsism is different to mine.


That sounds like ontology to me, when it should be epistemology.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29564
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#85  Postby zoon » Dec 07, 2020 3:25 pm

On the scientific model, the mistake of solipsism isn’t the claim that other people’s experiences are unreal, it’s in the two underlying assumptions:
1) that my own experiences constitute some sort of primary and irreducible reality, and
2) that each person’s experiences are inherently private.

1) If accurate prediction is taken as the criterion for the “reality” of what a model represents, then the scientific model of “me” as a collection of organic molecules following the laws of physics is the model which potentially best represents my reality, however strongly I may feel that the “reality” of my thoughts and decisions is impossible to question.

2) On the scientific model, which all the evidence suggests is correct, everything a human (or anything else) does follows the laws of physics. It follows that our thoughts and decisions are correlated precisely with events in the brain, and since brain events are publicly observable, one person’s experiences and decisions can in principle be tracked (and also predicted) by another person.

For the time being, while neuroscience is still not able to predict human brains except at a rudimentary level, both of the underlying assumptions of solipsism still hold in practice: I can predict myself far more accurately than anyone else can, and experiences are private to the individual. For the time being, it also remains the case that evolved Theory of Mind enables us to predict other people more accurately than science can.

While science remains far behind Theory of Mind as a predictor of humans, I can still reasonably assume in practice that my own thoughts are private, and that my decisions are the best predictor of what I will do. However, my experiences and decisions, and my sense of self, are perhaps (on the scientific model) most accurately thought of as ongoing constructions of my brain, they are fallible and potentially public predictors rather than the essentially private immediate contact with undeniable reality which Descartes supposed he had reached with his Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am).
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3238

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#86  Postby Frozenworld » Dec 07, 2020 11:21 pm

I'm more concerned with the claims that solipsism is a logically perfect argument:

I dont think that solipsism states that nothing exists besides our consciousness, it merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness because we will never experience anything other than our consciousness. which means there is no reason to believe other people are actually other minds, or to believe that the external world's contents will 'continue to exist' when we are not experiencing them.

but solipsism does not deny that what we are experiencing is caused by external ripples.. this is still within possibility. It can simply never be determined true or not.

solipsism is logically flawless.. but it is also uninformative in the strictest sense of the word.


I believe it (or at least respect it) because there is no hard evidence to suggest an alternative viewpoint (other than personal comfort and social convenience), it is seemingly impossible to disprove, and it is the final product of Occam's razor.
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 67

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#87  Postby jamest » Dec 08, 2020 1:52 am

It's nice to see SOMEBODY trying to instigate a serious conversation here on idealism especially when they don't categorise themselves as an idealist. Note the negative press here for Frozenworld though. You cannot fart the concept of idealism in this forum without being exectuted in here, even if you're not an idealist.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for your closed-mindedness, Frozenworld apart of course. It's fucking disgusting.*

* Idealism is a PHILOSOPHY, not a religion. It's a concept based upon reason and contemplation, not holy books.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18588
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#88  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 08, 2020 5:28 am

This is what FW gives us:

Frozenworld wrote:I'm more concerned with the claims that solipsism is a logically perfect argument:


FW has a problem with someone else's claims. There's nothing validating the claims, either. FW doesn't care. What if the claims are true? Oh, wow, man.

This is the kind of shit FW churns out in an apparently inexhaustible supply:

because there is no hard evidence to suggest an alternative viewpoint (other than personal comfort and social convenience), it is seemingly impossible to disprove


There's no evidence against adopting an alternative viewpoint, either. Nor has the solipsist a response to the alternative viewpoint that solipsism is just idiotic. Wash, rinse, repeat.

There is no burden on anyone else to disprove it. Solipsists are welcome to make their claims and become objects of scorn to anyone who recognizes a claim that is immune to analysis or collection of evidence.

Some asshole on the internet claims something is a "logically perfect argument" or brooks no evidence pro or con. So what?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29564
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#89  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 08, 2020 5:56 am

jamest wrote:Idealism is a PHILOSOPHY, not a religion. It's a concept based upon reason and contemplation, not holy books.


The stuff I emphasised with bold font is a sentence about idealism. So what? I'm persuaded by evidence that can be contemplated and reasoned about. I can contemplate sentences about idealism and say, "so what?" Without evidence to contemplate, they are just sentences about idealism. See? I can write sentences about idealism, too!

Here's a sentence about solipsism:

solipsism ... merely states that we can never know anything about what exists outside our consciousness


It's not even really a statement of solipsism. It's merely a statement about solipsism, and there is nothing that requires acceptance of such an assertion about solipsism if unsupported by sources. It might as well be a statement made by somebody wholly untrained in such discourse. Mostly if calls forth the response, "fuck off, then".
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29564
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#90  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 08, 2020 6:42 am

I found something that contrasts testable and tested claims with unevidenced claims that their adherents insist cannot be disproved. The latter nonsense (logical perfectionism) is clearly now in play in this thread. The segment of the video about flying saucers around the 3-minute mark is incisive. While we can't disprove that flying saucers exist, what is more likely, says Feynman, in the video linked, is that claims about flying saucers are the products of defective human cognition rather than the products of advanced extra-terrestrial cognition. Idiots who have trouble sifting evidence often gravitate toward processing claims "logically" (so they say). It's likely that analysis of defective human cognition can lead some claimants who suffer from 'logical perfectionism' to doubt anything but their own cognition, which could be why FW is so fixated on claims based on solipsism. That's unfortunate, because the indication from that sort of idiocy is that the cognition of people who doubt any but their own cognition is defective. This distrust in the concept of other minds does not emerge because their cognition is superior, but because it is so ineffective.

Here is a valuable 10-minute video clip of a lecture by Richard Feynman:

Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29564
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#91  Postby Frozenworld » Dec 11, 2020 3:47 am

jamest wrote:It's nice to see SOMEBODY trying to instigate a serious conversation here on idealism especially when they don't categorise themselves as an idealist. Note the negative press here for Frozenworld though. You cannot fart the concept of idealism in this forum without being exectuted in here, even if you're not an idealist.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for your closed-mindedness, Frozenworld apart of course. It's fucking disgusting.*

* Idealism is a PHILOSOPHY, not a religion. It's a concept based upon reason and contemplation, not holy books.


I don't think idealism is based on reason or contemplation. I think one would have to be pretty whack to consider or argue for it, especially looking at Berkely's arguments.

But not as crazy as someone trying to suggest solipsism through superposition: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-pos ... ent_type=2
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 67

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#92  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 14, 2020 7:49 pm

Thommo wrote:The closest we ever come here are inept narcissistic ramblings that degenerate into name calling in short order.


Wrong!


jamest wrote:When I start my own blog on arseholeism and retardedness, to say the least, I will be referring frequently to this thread.


Zero inept narcissistic ramblings prior to degeneration into name-calling.


Oh and jamest - I think you should clearly be reprimanded for that. You need to stop it before you get banned for life.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28847
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#93  Postby Frozenworld » Dec 14, 2020 10:16 pm

I'd like to submit this alleged evidence for solipsism:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-pos ... ent_type=2
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 67

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#94  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 15, 2020 12:53 am

That might be useful if your link contained any evidence at all. But of course, it contains nothing of the sort.

evidence (noun)
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.


Evidence, definitionally, makes things evident, apparent, clear and compelling.

Your link is basically some dude saying stuff. And not even very interesting stuff - a lot of unjustified assertions, appeals to nonsense, and a general smattering of make-believe.

If you're going to try to play the game, you need to be playing by the same rules as everyone else.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 28847
Age: 45
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#95  Postby Hermit » Dec 15, 2020 3:56 am

Frozenworld wrote:I'd like to submit this alleged evidence for solipsism:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-pos ... ent_type=2

That is not evidence. Evidence is supposed to be testable observation. All I see is hypothesis - speculation devoid of testable support.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4657
Age: 68
Male

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#96  Postby zoon » Dec 15, 2020 1:58 pm

Frozenworld wrote:I'd like to submit this alleged evidence for solipsism:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-pos ... ent_type=2

There is a failure of logic in that piece, Bert Leysath contradicts himself. He writes:
What is the problem with solipsism? It seems you are looking for a solution without a problem.

Philosophically, I am a solipsist and a panpsychist.

My position (super) is that we are all solipsists in superposition with each other and so the only mind that exists that we can know for certain is our own.

From that standpoint (mine), all the other entities (solipsists) might as well be p-zombies (7.5 billion at least – from fully fleshed examples fading to abstract conceptual entities. I believe that the others to themselves are fully fledged solipsists in their own right and not p-zombies but from each of our individual existences, the all the others are p-zombies....

He's starting with Descartes' line that "I" am certain of the existence of my own consciousness, there's no way I can doubt it. Then Bert Leysath (not following Descartes) says he believes each other person is a p-zombie, with a brain and body following the laws of physics, but without consciousness. Then there is a failure of logic, where he claims that everybody else is as certain of the real existence of their own consciousness as he (Bert Leysath) is, but that they are all mistaken. If he is saying they are as certain as he is, but they are still mistaken, then he is acknowledging that his own certainty can be equally mistaken, he is denying his own (and Descartes') original "evidence" that the subjective feeling of certainty is so impossible to doubt that it has to be true. He has contradicted himself and his logic fails.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3238

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#97  Postby Thommo » Dec 15, 2020 2:40 pm

Both good points. It's reasoning, not evidence. And it's poor reasoning at that.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#98  Postby Blackadder » Dec 15, 2020 4:34 pm

Idealists always remind me of the old saying:

"It may well work in practice, but it will never work in theory."

This, fundamentally, is their objection to methodological naturalism and the scientific approach. And leads most of them toward a fascination with peering up their own sphincters for enlightenment, rather than outwards at the world around them.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3803
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#99  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 16, 2020 1:49 am

jamest wrote:It's nice to see SOMEBODY trying to instigate a serious conversation here on idealism especially when they don't categorise themselves as an idealist. Note the negative press here for Frozenworld though. You cannot fart the concept of idealism in this forum without being exectuted in here, even if you're not an idealist.

Playing the victim card rather early, aren't you jamest? As usual, you blame everyone else for your inability to construct a reasoned argument.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for your closed-mindedness,

Jamest, everyone gets that closed-mindedness for you is people not genuflecting before the brain farts you like to blast all over this forum. You should be ashamed for being unable to distinguish between closed-mindedness and not just accepting any old thing that anyone decides to put out there.

* Idealism is a PHILOSOPHY, not a religion. It's a concept based upon reason and contemplation, not holy books.

Your poorly formed concept of philosophy is your religion -- you'll accept whatever appeals to you, dismiss anything that doesn't, and tie yourself in knots to reach your foregone conclusion. There might be reason involved in philosophy in general, but certainly none in whatever self-serving crap you're selling.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14774
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#100  Postby felltoearth » Dec 17, 2020 2:06 pm

jamest wrote:You cannot fart the concept of idealism in this forum without being exectuted in here, even if you're not an idealist.


A. Thank you for acknowledging that when articulated, the concepts of Idealism are indistinguishable from the sound (and possibly scent) of a fart.

B. Shooting oneself in the foot is not the definition of an execution.

Thank you for playing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14295
Age: 54

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests

cron