Little Idiot wrote:

BWE wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

BWE wrote:Can you just give me a preview?

I am willing to try.
If you can give me a guide what you want me to attempt to offer, you'll be more likely to get it.
What exactly would you like me to spout about preview? Undivided awareness or the whole show?

Either is fine but I'd like the whole show.

OK I will knock something together. Any guide for ideal word count, or you'll take what ever you get.

Here is a proposal, how about I expand the sections on my position from the overview I already did (originally in post 357) but without the forced notation?

Little Idiot wrote:...
Nobody is agreeing about a meaningless concept. You may think it is meaningless, but that does not mean it is a meaningless concept.

What we are agreeing about is does it or does it not contradict any known facts.
If you want to say 'no and it doesn't matter because it is meaningless', then I will accept the no and endeavor to establish a meaning for the term.
If you say it does contradict known facts I ask which ones and why?

Little Idiot wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:
A fly just landed on my screen and shat on this post.

Synchronicity, it must be!

Nope, just shit.

Regarding your, does the concept of "undivided awareness contradict anything," I'd say, no, it doesn't. You've defined it so it doesn't, so no surprise there. Mind you, my earlier definition regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't contradict anything either.

And if you can go on to a reasonable model of the cosmos and the human situation from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm all ears.
The more accurate models we have, the better off we are.

But I am glad you have the gumption to agree it doesn't contradict the known facts, the herd instinct being what it is hereabouts, ya know.
A good definition should avoid contradicting known facts, of course.

Little Idiot wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
I also do agree that the physical world is independent of the individual awareness because as you say the
individual cannot imagine a different world. The individuals experience of the world is however clearly dependent on
the individual awareness. This does not dismiss my idealism as I claim only the individual experience is dependent on
the individual awareness

I do not accept your claim because your undivided awareness is supposed to be outside of time
and space. Something which cannot exist and is therefore in contradiction of accepted fact

I point out that you deliberately chose not to say known fact. This shows the difference in our approach - I am not contradicting known facts but you are uncomfortable because I am contradicting accepted fact whatever that means. I dont accept that fact

Of course undivided awareness does not exist in space and time but that does not mean it is not the source of space and
time. It is not contradictory to say the source of space and time is outside space and time
But it would be contradictory to say the source of space and time is inside space and time. The logical conclusion of your objection to it being outside space and time is of course it being inside which is contradictory

SpeedOfSound wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
As was clearly stated this is the start of a portfolio of metaphysical evidence - a supporting argument if you wish
As was also clearly stated the first part of this is that the concept does not contradict any known facts. This is an
important pre requisite to my case if undivided awareness can be shown to contradict known facts I will be in lots
of trouble

Just remember that any position you adopt can not be in contradiction of known facts. Which was something that you were previously considering. That would invalidate any position which did this. Furthermore I have already in the post above this one demonstrated the false correlation between the dream world and the physical world which you think exists. And so you therefore need an entirely different argument to justify your position

Its a known fact that we cant read each others minds. Yet somehow I am going to guess that you and I could within four messages find a point in the world where we could have a cup of coffee or tea. That sounds like metaphysical evidence
for divided minds. What do you think

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
I also do agree that the physical world is independent of the individual awareness because as you say the
individual cannot imagine a different world. The individuals experience of the world is however clearly dependent on
the individual awareness. This does not dismiss my idealism as I claim only the individual experience is dependent on
the individual awareness

I do not accept your claim because your undivided awareness is supposed to be outside of time
and space. Something which cannot exist and is therefore in contradiction of accepted fact

I point out that you deliberately chose not to say known fact. This shows the difference in our approach - I am not contradicting known facts but you are uncomfortable because I am contradicting accepted fact whatever that means. I dont accept that fact

Of course undivided awareness does not exist in space and time but that does not mean it is not the source of space and
time. It is not contradictory to say the source of space and time is outside space and time
But it would be contradictory to say the source of space and time is inside space and time. The logical conclusion of your objection to it being outside space and time is of course it being inside which is contradictory

I am not uncomfortable with you denying accepted fact. However you cannot conveniently choose to ignore what is accepted fact. You have to work within the limitation of what is known to be true or accepted to be true [ I do accept that there is a difference ] If however you are going to deny accepted fact then you have to provide a sound reason as to why it should be denied. Merely dismissing it because it contradicts your idealism is not good enough

If nothing exists outside of space and time then the source of it has to come from within it. There is nothing contradictory about this. You have to establish that the concept of something outside of space and time is actually a valid one. Merely asserting it because it is compatible with your idealism is also not good enough

Little Idiot wrote:
I am on a mission to establish that mentalism is the metaphysical system not a metaphysical system

Arnold Layne wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
If nothing exists outside of space and time then the source of it has to come from within it. There is nothing contradictory about this. You have to establish that the concept of something outside of space and time is actually a valid one. Merely asserting it because it is compatible with your idealism is also not good enough

Good point about it being outside of space and time surr
I keep forgetting about that assertion amongst the smoke and mirrors. I mean how do you get round that one

Little Idiot wrote:Of course undivided awareness does not exist in space and time, but that does not mean it is not the source of space and time. It is not contradictory to say the source of space and time is outside space and time.
But it would be contradictory to say the source of space and time is inside space and time. The logical conclusion of your objection to it being outside space and time is of course it being inside, which is contradictory.

Little Idiot wrote: I am on a mission to establish that mentalism is the metaphysical system not a metaphysical system

Spinozasgalt wrote:

jamest wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

jamest wrote:
It might be the default position for the naive realist who doesnt ever think about metaphysics but the default position for any one wanting to engage in metaphysics the default position must be one of skepticism on all levels. Further there is no reason to believe that the physical world exists beyond the experience of it so it should not be the default position that it does so anyway

There is every reason to think that the physical world really exists

There is not even one reason

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

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:What we are agreeing about is does it or does it not contradict any known facts.
If you want to say 'no and it doesn't matter because it is meaningless', then I will accept the no and endeavor to establish a meaning for the term.
If you say it does contradict known facts I ask which ones and why?

Go on then. establish the meaning then ask about contradictions.

In the meantime can you tell me if furiously sleeping Colorless green ideas contradict any known facts?

Yes, obviously it does, it self-contradicts. For a start green cant be colourless, nor can a colour sleep, nor can any sleeping be furious (- that is 3 contradiction of known facts right there).

As I stated in my original post, in order for a metaphysical concept to be meaningful it should not contradict any known facts. Undivided awareness contradicts only the working assumption that awareness must be divided. It is not known.

Look, its as simple as this, let me try spell it out for you.
Do you know there are any other sentient human observers apart from yourself?
Honest answer has to be; no, not know with certainty. You only know contents of your own awareness with certainty, and others is no more than a very good working assumption.
Therefore, you do not know with certainty that awareness is divided even into different humans.

You just don' get it. If you have a coloureless green experience your would know!

Colourless green is small potatoes compared to divided undivided awareness, experience without subject and others.

And now you are going for solipsism?

Spinozasgalt wrote:

jamest wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

jamest wrote:
It might be the default position for the naive realist who doesnt ever think about metaphysics but the default position for any one wanting to engage in metaphysics the default position must be one of skepticism on all levels. Further there is no reason to believe that the physical world exists beyond the experience of it so it should not be the default position that it does so anyway

There is every reason to think that the physical world really exists

There is not even one reason

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

jamest wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:

jamest wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
There is every reason to think that the physical world really exists

There is not even one reason

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.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

jamest wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:

jamest wrote:
There is not even one reason

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.

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