GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
Not really undivided awareness is a model not something that I said is real. Did I ever say it is real?
Or are you assuming I said that?

Undivided awareness is a model of reality - this is what I actually say

Undivided awareness is a concept. I say that too
All concepts must be dropped is another thing I say
Undivided awareness exists is not something that I said ( I believe )
Undivided awareness is reality is not something that I said ( I believe )

See post 1000 just before your post for evidence - me clarifying what I say about this

I think the only reason you cannot say it is real is because you simply cannot demonstrate this
However you clearly have investigated so much time and energy in it that you wish it was real

Then you think wrongly.
The reason I can't say any concept is reality, including my model which is a set of concepts, is that all concepts belong to the wrong category and it is a category error to equate concepts with reality.

Equating concepts with reality does look like an error, but isn't that just what you propose? What is "World Idea" if not a conceptual world that is the reality of the physical world?

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I think the only reason you cannot say it is real is because you simply cannot demonstrate this
However you clearly have investigated so much time and energy in it that you wish it was real

Then you think wrongly.
The reason I can't say any concept is reality, including my model which is a set of concepts, is that all concepts belong to the wrong category and it is a category error to equate concepts with reality.

Equating concepts with reality does look like an error, but isn't that just what you propose? What is "World Idea" if not a conceptual world that is the reality of the physical world?

I don't equate my concept of a tree with a physical tree.

World Idea is a human concept used to label something. The thing labeled is not a human concept. The thing labeled is the reality of the physical world and the source-information used to form the experience of the PW (by externalising the information ).

GrahamH wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
The reason I cant say any concept is reality including my model which is a set of concepts is that all
concepts belong to the wrong category and it is a category error to equate concepts with reality

Yes it is but we know that representations of reality are not reality itself. The map is not the terrain
The laws of physics are written in mathematical form. But that does not mean the universe is maths
So as long as the concept is not mistaken for the thing it is describing then it is perfectly acceptable

For LI I think the (mental) map IS the terrain. There is no terrain except that which WM imagines.

It's all contradiction. One big undivided category error.

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
The reason I cant say any concept is reality including my model which is a set of concepts is that all
concepts belong to the wrong category and it is a category error to equate concepts with reality

Yes it is but we know that representations of reality are not reality itself. The map is not the terrain
The laws of physics are written in mathematical form. But that does not mean the universe is maths
So as long as the concept is not mistaken for the thing it is describing then it is perfectly acceptable

For LI I think the (mental) map IS the terrain. There is no terrain except that which WM imagines.

It's all contradiction. One big undivided category error.

To try untangling your representation of what I say - the imagination of the world mind is the physical world. Is the terrain.
The ( mental) subjective experience of the individual is the map.

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

Then you think wrongly.
The reason I can't say any concept is reality, including my model which is a set of concepts, is that all concepts belong to the wrong category and it is a category error to equate concepts with reality.

Equating concepts with reality does look like an error, but isn't that just what you propose? What is "World Idea" if not a conceptual world that is the reality of the physical world?

I don't equate my concept of a tree with a physical tree.

World Idea is a human concept used to label something. The thing labeled is not a human concept. The thing labeled is the reality of the physical world and the source-information used to form the experience of the PW (by externalising the information ).

So "world idea" is NOT an idea in a "World mind"?

What else are you going to deny as "not what it's description suggests"?

The reality of the physical world in NOT an idea in a mind, not "mind-made" (since that's your definition of unreal" NOT something any awareness is aware of. Ideation but not ideation.
What a mess.

So, what is a tree?

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Yes it is but we know that representations of reality are not reality itself. The map is not the terrain
The laws of physics are written in mathematical form. But that does not mean the universe is maths
So as long as the concept is not mistaken for the thing it is describing then it is perfectly acceptable

For LI I think the (mental) map IS the terrain. There is no terrain except that which WM imagines.

It's all contradiction. One big undivided category error.

To try untangling your representation of what I say - the imagination of the world mind is the physical world. Is the terrain.
The ( mental) subjective experience of the individual is the map.

So you ARE equating concept with physical world. Still looks like a category error, as you wrote.

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

For LI I think the (mental) map IS the terrain. There is no terrain except that which WM imagines.

It's all contradiction. One big undivided category error.

To try untangling your representation of what I say - the imagination of the world mind is the physical world. Is the terrain.
The ( mental) subjective experience of the individual is the map.

So you ARE equating concept with physical world. Still looks like a category error, as you wrote.

And will continue to do so as long as you insist on misreading me.

A human concept is not the physical world. ideation of WM is the physical world.

GrahamH wrote:I thought the idea was to start with something you felt certain about: "there is experience" and extrapolate from there with a minimum of assumptions to "reality". But it turns out that nothing about "there is experience" survives the giant leap and "reality" is all assumptions that are wildly diverhgent from the starting point.

From here to God...
"There is (human) experience"
Experience can't account for a world, so assume a different sort of "mind" - WM that is unlike the known mind.
Then assume that the physical world is an idea in the WM, but not an idea like any known idea.
The WM is "awareness" but not like known awareness
WM can generate ideas that are not concepts by hidden means that are entirely unlike know ideation.

Therefore God!

Or, the short version:
To God...
Therefore God!

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Hmm. Little Idiot. You did say that undivided awareness is not taken to be true. Curious.

I probably didn't say exactly that, (maybe somethig suggestive of that, but it may have been context dependent) and I would be more likely to say undivided awareness is not reality rather than not true.

I have never claimed mentalism, including the concept undivided awareness to be more than a model for reality and I would never claim it to be what reality actually 'is'.
However, since I define true as 'an accurate description of reality in a human language' then I think undivided awarenss does meet this criteria for an accurate description.

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

To try untangling your representation of what I say - the imagination of the world mind is the physical world. Is the terrain.
The ( mental) subjective experience of the individual is the map.

So you ARE equating concept with physical world. Still looks like a category error, as you wrote.

And will continue to do so as long as you insist on misreading me.

A human concept is not the physical world. ideation of WM is the physical world.

Ah, so WM == "undivided Awareness is utterly different to "Individual Awareness"? The first has "ideas" that are nothing like what we mean by "ideas", doesn't experience, isn't "aware" in any sense that we mean by the word. An yet this utterly different thing "UA" is somehow "undivided" from IA?
The physical world is an idea, but not an idea, a concept, but not a concept, mind-made, but not mind-made, "in awareness" but unknown in awareness.

I read what you write. If you write nonsense naturally we will read it as nonsensical.
Come on!

Little Idiot wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
I have never claimed mentalism including the concept undivided awareness to be more than a model for reality

I am on a mission to establish that mentalism is the metaphysical system not a metaphysical system

Do you see a conflict between being a model for reality in 1 and a metaphysical system in 2

Or is it that numerous posters have given me a mission to produce evidence

I definitely see a conflict between claiming that mentalism is nothing more than a model for reality and that it is the metaphysical system implying that all others are invalid. And you should already have a system that is both logically
consistent and compatible with observed reality. You should not have to be consistently asked to demonstrate this

How about 'the' metaphysical system simply means the most accurate and useful model.
That clears up any contradiction you may see - doesn't it?

BWE wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
Not really undivided awareness is a model not something that I said is real. Did I ever say it is real?
Or are you assuming I said that?

Undivided awareness is a model of reality - this is what I actually say

Undivided awareness is a concept. I say that too
All concepts must be dropped is another thing I say
Undivided awareness exists is not something that I said ( I believe )
Undivided awareness is reality is not something that I said ( I believe )

See post 1000 just before your post for evidence - me clarifying what I say about this

I think the only reason you cannot say it is real is because you simply cannot demonstrate this
However you clearly have investigated so much time and energy in it that you wish it was real

Then you think wrongly.
The reason I can't say any concept is reality, including my model which is a set of concepts, is that all concepts belong to the wrong category and it is a category error to equate concepts with reality.

This I can agree with. I suspect that there are more similarities than differences between the various systems.

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:...
What a mess your thinking about my thinking is.
...

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

For LI I think the (mental) map IS the terrain. There is no terrain except that which WM imagines.

It's all contradiction. One big undivided category error.

To try untangling your representation of what I say - the imagination of the world mind is the physical world. Is the terrain.
The ( mental) subjective experience of the individual is the map.

So you ARE equating concept with physical world. Still looks like a category error, as you wrote.

And will continue to do so as long as you insist on misreading me.

A human concept is not the physical world. ideation of WM is the physical world.
(Edit to scratch a couple of words for less agro)

GrahamH wrote:I thought the idea was to start with something you felt certain about: "there is experience" and extrapolate from there with a minimum of assumptions to "reality". But it turns out that nothing about "there is experience" survives the giant leap and "reality" is all assumptions that are wildly diverhgent from the starting point.

From here to God...
"There is (human) experience"
Experience can't account for a world, so assume a different sort of "mind" - WM that is unlike the known mind.
Then assume that the physical world is an idea in the WM, but not an idea like any known idea.
The WM is "awareness" but not like known awareness
WM can generate ideas that are not concepts by hidden means that are entirely unlike know ideation.

Therefore God!

Or, the short version:
To God...
Therefore God!

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Hmm. Little Idiot. You did say that undivided awareness is not taken to be true. Curious.

I probably didn't say exactly that, (maybe somethig suggestive of that, but it may have been context dependent) and I would be more likely to say undivided awareness is not reality rather than not true.

I have never claimed mentalism, including the concept undivided awareness to be more than a model for reality and I would never claim it to be what reality actually 'is'.
However, since I define true as 'an accurate description of reality in a human language' then I think undivided awarenss does meet this criteria for an accurate description.

post 46

Little Idiot wrote:

I am not saying awareness of something is an assumption, its an observation.
I am saying its an assumption that awareness must always be divided.
I agree undivided awareness is not a known, but I do not agree it is an assumption simply because an assumption is 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.' Undivided awareness is not taken to be true, it is part of a metaphysical model - what's more as discussed it's a reasonable extension of a model to extend the scope of the earlier model without contradicting known facts.

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Hmm. Little Idiot. You did say that undivided awareness is not taken to be true. Curious.

I probably didn't say exactly that, (maybe somethig suggestive of that, but it may have been context dependent) and I would be more likely to say undivided awareness is not reality rather than not true.

I have never claimed mentalism, including the concept undivided awareness to be more than a model for reality and I would never claim it to be what reality actually 'is'.
However, since I define true as 'an accurate description of reality in a human language' then I think undivided awarenss does meet this criteria for an accurate description.

post 46

Why not quote the section?
I assume you mean

Little Idiot wrote:

I am not saying awareness of something is an assumption, its an observation.
I am saying its an assumption that awareness must always be divided.
I agree undivided awareness is not a known, but I do not agree it is an assumption simply because an assumption is 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.' Undivided awareness is not taken to be true, it is part of a metaphysical model - what's more as discussed it's a reasonable extension of a model to extend the scope of the earlier model without contradicting known facts.

maybe in the context of it being an assumption I should have said (added red)
'Undivided awareness is not taken to be true without evidence (metaphysics doesn't do 'proof'), it is part of a metaphysical model - ...

Which would have made my point, in the discussion about assumptions, that undivided awareness is not an assumption slightly more clearly.

However, if you think that this is me 'worming my way out' (of something) by talking about the context of 'assumption' while you want to be talking about if it is true or not then I will say;

I would have been more precise to say
Undivided awareness is not taken to be Reality, it is part of a metaphysical model ....

(Swapping out true for reality).

Little Idiot wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:

jamest wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:
If I were surrep I wold have would have answered like this

On realism facts about the physical world are explained by real objects out there. On mentalism these same facts are explained by God. While God can be said to be numerically parsimonious God is also metaphysically extravagant. Against this real objects out there in the world are are numerically less parsimonious but also metaphysically less extravagant

Impasse?

The realist can say this: a lack of numerical parsimony tells less against a view than does metaphysical extravagance
Why? Because lack of numerical parsimony might not obviously tell against a view unless the views in question are otherwise
equal. Metaphysical extravagance on the other hand suggests to us that the space in which philosophical problems can arise is significantly broader. Insofar then as we should prefer the less problematic view we have a prima facie ( if defeasible ) reason
to prefer realism

Firstly, this merely evades addressing why skepticism (not idealism) should be the default metaphysical position when beginning a metaphysical enquiry.
Secondly, not all alternative metaphysics to physicalism necessarily involve God, so believing physicalism merely as a means to avoiding theism is rather silly and naive.
Thirdly, incredulity alone should never form the basis of any rejection of an idea.
Lastly, the metaphysical see-saw carrying theism and physicalism does not hinge solely upon incredulity and parsimony. That's also a silly and naive notion.

Surreptitious predictably applauded your post, but I'm afraid that I'm going to have to throw rotten tomatoes at you instead.

1. Well, no. It starts where we find ourselves in the thread.
2. The two views set up as rivals here are realism and mentalism. The only reason I called the entity "God" is that surrep was addressing you rather than L.I. You can substitute it for world mind. That's as far as this is meant to reach. It's modest.
3. I didn't use incredulity as a basis as far as I can see. Incredulity at metaphysical extravagance isn't the basis for the objection. The space that such extravagance opens up for philosophical problems is. Even that was conditional.
4. The strategy doesn't pretend to weigh every issue. Hence the prima facie and defeasibility stuff.

If I were jamest I would have would have answered like this

'Numerically parsimonious' is insignificant when compared to parsimony of types, by which I mean the awareness of the objects is one type and your (supposedly real) objects are a second type, bringing in duality. Where as explaining the awareness of the objects in terms of undivided awareness is not a second type (since the individual awareness, and the objects it is aware of are all hosted by it) and remains a monist position.

Little Idiot wrote:Not only is this metaphysically more parsimonious but introducing the so-called real objects introduces a group of unnecessary questions to explain or account for the interaction between types. Unless there is some significant reason to assume this additional type, apart from 'it sure looks that way' then doing so should clearly be avoided.