I must admit, I have a morbid fascination with solipsism. Morbid? Is that the right word?

Probably an unhealthy fascination. I don't know.

(September 20, 2015 at 7:56 am)Rhythm Wrote: The bridge isn't "only there because you observe it" - you've made the most common and ridiculous mistake on the periphery of QM.  The way you take the word "observe" to mean, in your everyday life, -is not- what is meant by observation in QM.  The bridge is there -regardless- of whether or not you observe it.

Something is there.  But not the bridge AS you perceive it.

The bridge as you perceive it is a collection of supervenient properties which we filter and perceive as ideas, I'd say.  But what is really, really there? Nothin', so far as we can tell, except some math.  And if ANYTHING counts as an idea and not a physical thing, I'd argue numbers fit the bill.

The bridge isn't there -as I perceive it- even when I'm observing it.  I could explain, very easily, why this is...but my explanation is going to be decidedly material in nature..lol. Do you think that you might be able to explain why this is without a stolen concept? How do we "filter and perceive as ideas" ?

(numbers only count as ideas..and -not- physical things..if you quietly presuppose, against all available evidence and explanation, that ideas -are not- physical things..lol, btw)

(September 20, 2015 at 8:57 am)Rhythm Wrote: The bridge isn't there -as I perceive it- even when I'm observing it.  I could explain, very easily, why this is...but my explanation is going to be decidedly material in nature..lol.  Do you think that you might be able to explain why this is without a stolen concept?  How do we "filter and perceive as ideas" ?

That's right, it isn't there -- as you perceive it-- even when you're observing it.

Quote:(numbers only count as ideas..and -not- physical things..if you quietly presuppose, against all available evidence and explanation, that ideas -are not- physical things..lol, btw)

You use that word evidence like it means something, but I think the idea of evidence in this sense pretty much begs the question (I mean that as a description of the logic as I see it, not as an insult to you or your thinking process). Show me that numbers exist in the universe, outside our idea of them. Sure, you can point to the brain and talk about neural networks, etc. but at best you'll find a representation of "two-ness," not a physical thing which is equivalent to two. And yes, you can point to the brain, and say, "when physicist X talks about QM particles, this set of neurons lights up" (or at least in theory, you could). But what you haven't done is shown that a QM particle, or the numbers that describe it, are more than ideas.

And here's where your vision doesn't work for me: since the brain is made up of QM particles, and since these are better represented as ideas than as things, then evidence supports the position that the brain, however solid-seeming, is nonetheless supervenient on ideas and nothing else. So even your "two-in-the-brain-somewhere" is a manifestation of idea, rather than of a substance independent of idea.

I agree, numbers don't exist independently. There is no "number four". There are things which we abstractly model as being four of something. Pure mathematics is not required to relate to reality at all in fact.

We have the abstract notion stored in our brain. But even that notion is not "number four".

(September 20, 2015 at 9:35 am)bennyboy Wrote: That's right, it isn't there -- as you perceive it-- even when you're observing it.

A point upon which we agree, that I can offer an explanation for...that you, apparently, cannot.  You know my line on this...I don't know which of those two wordviews (if either) is true...I only know which offers better explanations.  

Quote:You use that word evidence like it means something, but I think the idea of evidence in this sense pretty much begs the question (I mean that as a description of the logic as I see it, not as an insult to you or your thinking process).

What question does it beg, and is that -at all- relevant?  I'm not attempting to prove anything, and didn't lay claim to any proof of anything...and frankly, I don't know how a person would go about proving materialism -or - idealism.  So, if we're talking logic...you've just gone the route of informal fallacy.  Gratz. The moment, however, that you have to argue that evidence doesn't mean -anything- is the moment you lose all credibility with me, even "pure reason" needs evidence with which to determine true conclusions......hell, it's a system -built- on evidence (as is the system of "numbers" case-in-point).

Quote:  Show me that numbers exist in the universe, outside our idea of them.  Sure, you can point to the brain and talk about neural networks, etc. but at best you'll find a representation of "two-ness," not a physical thing which is equivalent to two.  And yes, you can point to the brain, and say, "when physicist X talks about QM particles, this set of neurons lights up" (or at least in theory, you could).  But what you haven't done is shown that a QM particle, or the numbers that describe it, are more than ideas.

I don't need to talk about any of that.  I can just type "4".  There she is, existing, in the universe, in both of our experience, undeniably and in-arguably.  I get that you want there to be "more" there....but there may not be.  In any case, there's no need to show that "numbers are more than ideas" because...as before, it wouldn't matter if they weren't...unless you quietly presuppose that ideas are not physical things. From another angle, the idea that the number four is an abstract notion is a bit like the elephant in our minds. That the elephant in our minds is not actually the elephant doesn't mean that the abstract "elephant of mind" isn't stuff.....it just means that it's not the -same- stuff as the elephant "out there" - if there is an "out there", of course. We already knew that, though..didn't we....we couldn't fit all the elephant stuff in our skulls.....while there is ample room for brain stuff - which, conveniently, is what I think ideas are made of - and I think this, of course..because I can at least explain how ideas can be made of stuff. Good luck explaining the reverse.

Quote:And here's where your vision doesn't work for me: since the brain is made up of QM particles, and since these are better represented as ideas than as things, then evidence supports the position that the brain, however solid-seeming, is nonetheless supervenient on ideas and nothing else.  So even your "two-in-the-brain-somewhere" is a manifestation of idea, rather than of a substance independent of idea.

That they are "better represented as ideas" is, firstly...not a statement of their nature...but also a non-statement in every sense of the word.  All things human beings experience are "represented by ideas".  It's inescapable in our circumstances as we understand them, and this is why solipsism, for example, is inescapable.  Nevertheless, we find the notion that these ideas are referent to have explanatory power....as we find the notion that these ideas are referent to matter to have explanatory power.....and while I've been giving you answers to these questions you've asked me...as best I can, you've not yet begun to attempt an answer to the only question I asked of you.  Not that this omission should be taken as any proof that my worldview is correct and yours is not - of course...but as above...I'm not sure that we're discussing something that -can be- proven unless our circumstances change. Until we can articulate how to go about proving either..I go with the one that explains.

(September 20, 2015 at 10:02 am)Rhythm Wrote: That they are "better represented as ideas" is, firstly...not a statement of their nature...but also a non-statement in every sense of the word.  All things human beings experience are "represented by ideas".

I believe the physicalist world view is one in which, because our experiences supervene on a "real" objective world with certain unambiguous rules, that underlying world is NOT considered an idea. Because if you are saying that physical or mechanical terms are just convenient labels for something NOT more than ideas, then we agree, and we can go play LoL.

Quote:Nevertheless, we find the notion that these ideas are referent to have explanatory power....as we find the notion that these ideas are referent to matter to have explanatory power.....and while I've been giving you answers to these questions you've asked me...as best I can, you've not yet begun to attempt an answer to the only question I asked of you.  Not that this omission should be taken as any proof that my worldview is correct and yours is not - of course...but as above...I'm not sure that we're discussing something that -can be- proven unless our circumstances change.   Until we can articulate how to go about proving either..I go with the one that explains.

There's no doubt that the physical world view has great utility. It explains how bridges can be built, and how drugs can change the nature of experience. It has caused us to discover much about the worlds of the very small and the very large, to create fantastical things like computers and flying machines, and to see opportunities for interest in everything we can observe.

But there's nothing about this degree of utility which is incompatible with an idealistic view. All the good you say about physicalism can be extended to an idealistic world view, with all our shared observations falling under the umbrella of a sub-set of ideas which we can call "physicalism," but as a category of idea rather than as an assertion about the foundation of reality.

There -is- incompatibility...and you might be able to see it more clearly if you ever attempted an explanation from the perch of idealism (which is why I'm always asking you to make the effort).  Not that this incompatibility, again, demonstrates that one is true and the other is not. Simply that -claiming- all of materialism's explanations -for- idealism is the business of the stolen concept, and no explanation at all. You've essentially recused yourself and let idealism hang out to dry as a bare assertion. It may or may not be true, but you aren't doing it any justice in doing this, nor is what you -are- doing a reasonable justification for a dismissal of materialism,or acceptance of idealism.

(I'm updating, btw...been awhile..you'll need to carry me)

(September 20, 2015 at 10:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: There -is- incompatibility...and you might be able to see it more clearly if you ever attempted an explanation from the perch of idealism (which is why I'm always asking you to make the effort).  Not that this incompatibility, again, demonstrates that one is true and the other is not.

I say that a physical world view is a collection of ideas about a subset of all ideas-- that subset composed of sharable observations consistent enough to allow the inference of rules, mathematical or otherwise.  So any explanation you make, whether via direct observation, or through the experiences of reading books or listening to college professors, is subsumed by the greater set of ideas.  And I'd include QM in that greater set, by the way, rather than in the set of ideas properly referred to as "physical."

Google stolen concept. You're being unreasonable - and still offering no "how". I don't know how to proceed beyond that. As I never tire of reminding you..I'm not telling you that you're wrong...just that if you're right, it isn't for the reasons you've given.