On Idealism, repeated

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

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#101  Postby Frozenworld » Dec 18, 2020 4:01 am

Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#102  Postby Hermit » Dec 18, 2020 4:20 am


Oh, "the enigmatic nature of the relationship between the brain and the consciousness". Good luck with finding a track for that in conjunction with solipsism and quantum mechanics. Especially in a forum whose entire membership has mastered the ins and outs of the latter.
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: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#103  Postby Spearthrower » Dec 18, 2020 4:37 am

Frozenworld wrote:I'd rather get this back on track:

https://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu/super ... m%E2%80%9D



How does dropping a link with no further input or contribution get anything on track?

Ok, well then I rebut your contentions thus:

https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article ... 37/2680515

See how valuable that is?
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: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#104  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 18, 2020 1:19 pm

"the enigmatic nature of the relationship between the brain and the consciousness"

Translation: "I eat glue"

Do they also have an article on the enigmatic nature of the relationship between noses and boogers?
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 14599
Age: 41
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#105  Postby zoon » Dec 18, 2020 3:14 pm

Frozenworld wrote:I'd rather get this back on track:

https://prizedwriting.ucdavis.edu/super ... m%E2%80%9D

The author of that piece claims that the main reason for non-acceptance of quantum consciousness is that it feels weird, even though, in his view, it’s good science. I would say the same about the usual reasons offered by those who want to reject ordinary scientific determinism for idealism or solipsism: the problem is that the scientific model can feel weird in our own case, my own experiences and decisions feel compellingly real and my own, not the outcome of the laws of physics.

Humans have evolved to be good at mindreading each other, using our own brains to predict what the other person's very similar brain may do. It’s guesswork and far from perfect, but it’s reasonably effective. The immediate evolutionary payoff for guessing what another individual is thinking, is increased control over that person. Mindreading is primarily competitive, not cooperative. It’s an ability which has led to humans’ uniquely extensive cooperation, because it enables the calculation of costs and benefits for others as well as oneself, so that both parties can work out when cooperative action leads to greatly increased benefits for both, but the inherent competitiveness is still there. Any individual in our ancestors’ generations who let themselves be over-controlled by another probably passed on fewer genes; we are descended from the controllers rather than the controlled. Ceding a carefully limited amount of control over oneself to other people often enhances cooperation and evolutionary success: the total control which the scientific model suggests is possible, is another matter.

We actively resist even the idea of being wholly controlled by others, I think this is at least in part why my conscious experience feels inherently and inescapably my own and nobody else’s, even though, on the scientific model, it isn’t. By contrast, it’s not too difficult for most of us to imagine being able to understand other people as mechanisms; this would give us control. So far, modern science is hopelessly less effective than evolved Theory of Mind for predicting people in ordinary life, so we are operating simultaneously with two different models of what we are.

Kin altruism is the driver for the evolution of social behaviour within a species, mindreading evolved in that context. Like all living things, we’ve evolved as if designed to further the survival of our genes; the charge often levelled by religious thinkers that evolutionary theory suggests we are purely selfish on an individual level, is incorrect. I’m pointing out in this post that evolved mindreading is primarily and in origin useful at the level of individual advantage, but it’s the cooperation with networks of both kin and non-kin which human Theory of Mind makes possible, which greatly increases that advantage.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3230

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#106  Postby Frozenworld » Dec 30, 2020 1:44 am

Hermit wrote:

Oh, "the enigmatic nature of the relationship between the brain and the consciousness". Good luck with finding a track for that in conjunction with solipsism and quantum mechanics. Especially in a forum whose entire membership has mastered the ins and outs of the latter.


Well it's similar to what the guy mentions in the shroomery thread about how we presuppose the existence of a thing when referring to experience and quantum mechanics shows us that things are not really solid at all or real.

So why do we presuppose that we are experiencing a thing when we refer to experience itself? Huh?
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#107  Postby Hermit » Dec 30, 2020 3:39 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Hermit wrote:

Oh, "the enigmatic nature of the relationship between the brain and the consciousness". Good luck with finding a track for that in conjunction with solipsism and quantum mechanics. Especially in a forum whose entire membership has mastered the ins and outs of the latter.


Well it's similar to what the guy mentions in the shroomery thread about how we presuppose the existence of a thing when referring to experience and quantum mechanics shows us that things are not really solid at all or real.

So why do we presuppose that we are experiencing a thing when we refer to experience itself? Huh?

Ask someone who thinks metaphysical debates are of any use. I have made it abundantly clear that I am not among them, and I repeatedly explained why.

In this thread I implied (post #37) it might be those "who will step into the path of a fast moving truck because they think the truck only exists in their mind."

In the other thread you started on the same topic I explained similarly (post #12) that "this particular assertion, that colour and sound only exist in our minds, once again serves to demonstrate the irrelevance and utter uselessness of solipsism. True or not, it makes no difference to your behaviour. When you approach a red traffic light (which solipsism insists doesn't exist except in your mind), you do not keep driving regardless because colour is just in your mind, or because your perception of red may differ from that of other people (who also don't even exist except in your mind). When you look like going through the red light, and a passenger in your car screams "Stop!", you do not ignore it because the sound (and passenger for that matter) only exists in your mind."
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: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#108  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 30, 2020 7:11 am

Hermit wrote:
In this thread I implied (post #37) it might be those "who will step into the path of a fast moving truck because they think the truck only exists in their mind."

In the other thread you started on the same topic I explained similarly (post #12) that "this particular assertion, that colour and sound only exist in our minds, once again serves to demonstrate the irrelevance and utter uselessness of solipsism. True or not, it makes no difference to your behaviour. When you approach a red traffic light (which solipsism insists doesn't exist except in your mind), you do not keep driving regardless because colour is just in your mind, or because your perception of red may differ from that of other people (who also don't even exist except in your mind). When you look like going through the red light, and a passenger in your car screams "Stop!", you do not ignore it because the sound (and passenger for that matter) only exists in your mind."


Artfully explained. This adequately contrasts the experience of sitting in an armchair imagining driving into the path of an oncoming express train, and experiencing driving into the path of an oncoming express train.

FW is playing the role of the guy in the armchair imagining experiences behind the wheel, and you're playing the role of the passenger sitting beside him in another armchair, screaming, "Stop!"
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: 29545
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#109  Postby Hermit » Dec 30, 2020 7:24 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Hermit wrote:
In this thread I implied (post #37) it might be those "who will step into the path of a fast moving truck because they think the truck only exists in their mind."

In the other thread you started on the same topic I explained similarly (post #12) that "this particular assertion, that colour and sound only exist in our minds, once again serves to demonstrate the irrelevance and utter uselessness of solipsism. True or not, it makes no difference to your behaviour. When you approach a red traffic light (which solipsism insists doesn't exist except in your mind), you do not keep driving regardless because colour is just in your mind, or because your perception of red may differ from that of other people (who also don't even exist except in your mind). When you look like going through the red light, and a passenger in your car screams "Stop!", you do not ignore it because the sound (and passenger for that matter) only exists in your mind."

This adequately contrasts the experience of sitting in an armchair imagining driving into the path of an oncoming express train, and experiencing driving into the path of an oncoming express train.

It would be irrelevant if it did, and you know that. At least I hope you do.
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: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#110  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 30, 2020 7:34 am

Hermit wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Hermit wrote:
In this thread I implied (post #37) it might be those "who will step into the path of a fast moving truck because they think the truck only exists in their mind."

In the other thread you started on the same topic I explained similarly (post #12) that "this particular assertion, that colour and sound only exist in our minds, once again serves to demonstrate the irrelevance and utter uselessness of solipsism. True or not, it makes no difference to your behaviour. When you approach a red traffic light (which solipsism insists doesn't exist except in your mind), you do not keep driving regardless because colour is just in your mind, or because your perception of red may differ from that of other people (who also don't even exist except in your mind). When you look like going through the red light, and a passenger in your car screams "Stop!", you do not ignore it because the sound (and passenger for that matter) only exists in your mind."

This adequately contrasts the experience of sitting in an armchair imagining driving into the path of an oncoming express train, and experiencing driving into the path of an oncoming express train.

It would be irrelevant if it did, and you know that. At least I hope you do.


It's all experience, man.

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: 29545
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#111  Postby Hermit » Dec 30, 2020 7:58 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
It's all experience, man.


That explains my lack of intelligence. I've driven trucks full time for many years, clocking up 45 to 65 hours a week as a subcontractor for 15 of them.

Or maybe in my imagination I've driven trucks full time for many years, and imagine having clocked up 45 to 65 hours a week as a subcontractor for 15 of them.

Same difference, though.
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: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#112  Postby romansh » Dec 30, 2020 8:27 pm

Hermit wrote: I've driven trucks full time for many years, clocking up 45 to 65 hours a week as a subcontractor for 15 of them.

Oh my God ... it must have been your truck I imagined smashing into whilst sitting in my armchair.

I find this bit of metaphysics is dead simple for me ... I am forced to assume that my experience is a reflection/product of a reality. Can't prove it, but it's not a problem to worry about.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2776

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#113  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 31, 2020 5:40 am

romansh wrote:
Hermit wrote: I've driven trucks full time for many years, clocking up 45 to 65 hours a week as a subcontractor for 15 of them.

Oh my God ... it must have been your truck I imagined smashing into whilst sitting in my armchair.


What happened after that? Did the chair survive intact? If a chicken crosses the road, does it make a sound when the truck hits it? Sure. The sound is "sklursh", or "thwap". That's an experience, but not one the chicken is going to want to repeat.
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: 29545
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#114  Postby Hermit » Dec 31, 2020 6:15 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
romansh wrote:
Hermit wrote: I've driven trucks full time for many years, clocking up 45 to 65 hours a week as a subcontractor for 15 of them.

Oh my God ... it must have been your truck I imagined smashing into whilst sitting in my armchair.

What happened after that?

I want to know too. Also, my imagined friend, please tell me what that truck looked like. I assume you would have seen it as your armchair made its way towards it.
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: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#115  Postby felltoearth » Dec 31, 2020 4:20 pm

I guess that’s why my imagined delivery never arrived.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14006
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On Idealism, repeated

#116  Postby Hermit » Dec 31, 2020 7:52 pm

felltoearth wrote:I guess that’s why my imagined delivery never arrived.

Or you placed the order only in your imagination.

Imagination all the way down.

Image
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: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#117  Postby BWE » Jan 02, 2021 4:59 am

romansh wrote:For me, there is a chasm between the world might not be as we perceive it, to the world being a result of our perception.

I can't get there from here either
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2498

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#118  Postby Frozenworld » Jan 03, 2021 3:52 am

Hermit wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Hermit wrote:

Oh, "the enigmatic nature of the relationship between the brain and the consciousness". Good luck with finding a track for that in conjunction with solipsism and quantum mechanics. Especially in a forum whose entire membership has mastered the ins and outs of the latter.


Well it's similar to what the guy mentions in the shroomery thread about how we presuppose the existence of a thing when referring to experience and quantum mechanics shows us that things are not really solid at all or real.

So why do we presuppose that we are experiencing a thing when we refer to experience itself? Huh?

Ask someone who thinks metaphysical debates are of any use. I have made it abundantly clear that I am not among them, and I repeatedly explained why.

In this thread I implied (post #37) it might be those "who will step into the path of a fast moving truck because they think the truck only exists in their mind."

In the other thread you started on the same topic I explained similarly (post #12) that "this particular assertion, that colour and sound only exist in our minds, once again serves to demonstrate the irrelevance and utter uselessness of solipsism. True or not, it makes no difference to your behaviour. When you approach a red traffic light (which solipsism insists doesn't exist except in your mind), you do not keep driving regardless because colour is just in your mind, or because your perception of red may differ from that of other people (who also don't even exist except in your mind). When you look like going through the red light, and a passenger in your car screams "Stop!", you do not ignore it because the sound (and passenger for that matter) only exists in your mind."


That doesn't really answer my question though. Also doesn't science itself operate on the metaphysical assumption of an external reality and matter? Isn't matter unproveable? Is your only response to his points to just say "meh" because you can't counter them?

Also found a proof for solipsism, though my gripe about it is that unborn is not a state: https://qr.ae/pNJ0s7
Frozenworld
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 44

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#119  Postby Hermit » Jan 03, 2021 4:29 am

Frozenworld wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Frozenworld wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Oh, "the enigmatic nature of the relationship between the brain and the consciousness". Good luck with finding a track for that in conjunction with solipsism and quantum mechanics. Especially in a forum whose entire membership has mastered the ins and outs of the latter.


Well it's similar to what the guy mentions in the shroomery thread about how we presuppose the existence of a thing when referring to experience and quantum mechanics shows us that things are not really solid at all or real.

So why do we presuppose that we are experiencing a thing when we refer to experience itself? Huh?

Ask someone who thinks metaphysical debates are of any use. I have made it abundantly clear that I am not among them, and I repeatedly explained why.

In this thread I implied (post #37) it might be those "who will step into the path of a fast moving truck because they think the truck only exists in their mind."

In the other thread you started on the same topic I explained similarly (post #12) that "this particular assertion, that colour and sound only exist in our minds, once again serves to demonstrate the irrelevance and utter uselessness of solipsism. True or not, it makes no difference to your behaviour. When you approach a red traffic light (which solipsism insists doesn't exist except in your mind), you do not keep driving regardless because colour is just in your mind, or because your perception of red may differ from that of other people (who also don't even exist except in your mind). When you look like going through the red light, and a passenger in your car screams "Stop!", you do not ignore it because the sound (and passenger for that matter) only exists in your mind."


That doesn't really answer my question though. Also doesn't science itself operate on the metaphysical assumption of an external reality and matter? Isn't matter unproveable?

Also found a proof for solipsism, though my gripe about it is that unborn is not a state: https://qr.ae/pNJ0s7

The question is irrelevant because whether there is an external world or it's all in your mind makes no difference to your behaviour. The same applies to science. We cannot prove or disprove metaphysical propositions that are supposed to have universal applications.

The so-called proof of solipsism you linked to is utter nonsense. How do we test that we have woken up? I had a dream once in which I repeatedly dreamt that I had woken up.
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: 4332
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: On Idealism, repeated

#120  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 03, 2021 5:58 am

Frozenworld wrote:
That doesn't really answer my question though.


I don't think that's a faithful response - for me, it reads as 'that doesn't conform to the operational biases I tried to bake into my question'. Actually, it dispels the question because the question was based on a poor understanding.


Frozenworld wrote:Also doesn't science itself operate on the metaphysical assumption of an external reality and matter?


No.


Frozenworld wrote:Isn't matter unproveable?


Incoherent wibble. If you want to discuss science, you don't talk about 'proof', and no one remotely capable of discussing science would be asking to provide evidence of evidence. Even allowing for the sloppiest language possible, you 'prove' ideas, not things.


Frozenworld wrote: Is your only response to his points to just say "meh" because you can't counter them?


My response to anyone jabbering witlessly is to dismiss their 'points' until they garner a clue and start playing the game by universal rules.


Frozenworld wrote:Also found a proof for solipsism, though my gripe about it is that unborn is not a state: https://qr.ae/pNJ0s7


:lol:

A proof for solipsism. Talk about batshit.

And it just gets better:

1) it's on QUORA! :lol: - not in a credible journal reviewed by experts, but posted by some dude on the internet.
2) The alleged proof explicitly says it's not a proof but an attempted analogy.
3) The supposed 'proof' resides on a 'let's imagine X is like Y' - but there's no reason given to assume that X is indeed like Y. We could as easily imagine that life is like strawberry jam and contrive any old argument we like within that metaphor.
4) Even reading it on good faith, it doesn't even amount to a discussion of solipsism - it literally has zero bearing whatsoever. If anything, it would be an attempted argument for an afterlife or the existence of consciousness outside of a material substrate, but that doesn't in any way infer that a single consciousness exists.

You seem so desperate to believe in solipsism that you will grasp any straw you can find. Bad ideas should be jettisoned, not cosied up and comforted.
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: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest