When one is having a dream, let us say of a car, that car does not exist except in one's mind. What makes the actual physical car in the 'real' world any more real than the same car in the dream world? The mind perceives all the same information whether 'real' or dream.

(January 30, 2015 at 9:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 9:47 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Yes, because just like physical monism is about reducing consciousness to a physical explanation, then so too, can you attempt to reduce the physical world to an explanation of consciousness.

The trouble here, is explaining why stuff happens in the absence of a consciousness, or even explaining how a consciousness arises in the first place for stuff to mystifyingly happen in the absence thereof.

I think both positions will have things that are fundamentally unanswerable. Like, for example, why is there matter rather than no matter? Whatever the *true* reality might be, it just seems like things were bound to exist one way or another (i.e. in a physical sense or idealistic).[/quote]

Quote:

Quote:But it is one foot in front of the other, just in the other direction.

Meh, doesn't seem like it to me. I like to take things one variable at a time. Why assume that everything we know is wrong, in order to argue that one thing we have evidence for is wrong? Can't it be the only thing we have wrong? Can't we have things mostly right, or close to right, and this one thing be in error (and won't we need -something- to be right to even attempt the argument that some other thing is wrong)? If we turn everything into a variable all at once there is absolutely no solution, no way to assign confidence to our conclusion if we simply assert one. Define these variables for me. x+t=y? Now try it with x+t=6.

I see that 6 as Plato's cave. But it sounds like you'd insist on filling in "what we know" from a different starting point, one that doesn't acknowledge our inability to be connected with reality one a one-to-one basis.

---

(January 30, 2015 at 10:15 pm)IATIA Wrote: When one is having a dream, let us say of a car, that car does not exist except in one's mind. What makes the actual physical car in the 'real' world any more real than the same car in the dream world? The mind perceives all the same information whether 'real' or dream.

The "dream car" exists in your mind. The "real" car doesn't. The real car is defined by things other than your own thoughts like in your dreams. Solipsists would argue both cars are of the same nature though, perhaps. Or w/e the position is called that postulates you are the creator of your own world.

(January 30, 2015 at 9:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There are no people or cars, sure..but there -are- bits...and that is still a physical thing, understand?

We can talk about the specific mechanism of generating/holding information later. Please just address my point: that information about a "thing" does not prove the existence of that thing as more than information.

In the Matrix, if you see person, you have information about a person: size, shape, color, movement. But none of that information represents an actual person. The coherence comes from the IDEA of the thing, which is sufficient to generate the information. The information you see exists-- of course it does, you are experiencing it. But that doesn't mean there is a real Agent Smith in any real universe. Whether or not the idea is encoded in physical hardware somewhere, Agent Smith himself is still not more than an idea.

Pretty sure I didn't have to warp anything to explain that people living in a machine experienced the physical states of that machine. If I'm being asked to imagine that this is a matter of fact statement about our reality that's a matter of fact statement about their experience. Some other thing, not "The Matrix" and I'd answer differently....

Should I have imagined some other thing..and then responded to that pother thing..as though I was responding to Bennys question....there's a term for that.

....for example, if Benny had asked me, what if "we were living, in a non material world" -Then I would be a non material girl.
(but that begs the question, huh?)

(January 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)bennyboy Wrote: We can talk about the specific mechanism of generating/holding information later.

No, we can't, because I'm not talking about generating or holding information (you keep insisting that it is some discrete thing itself - it isn't), I'm explaining to you that information isn't generated or held -by- things...., it is a description of a state -of- things.

Quote: Please just address my point: that information about a "thing" does not prove the existence of that thing as more than information.

which begs the question...what is information. So....see above.

Quote:In the Matrix, if you see person, you have information about a person: size, shape, color, movement. But none of that information represents an actual person.

It represents some other physical thing (and can stand in for some third thing). That's how and why abstraction works both in our reality, and conceptually, in a physical monism (assuming for the sake of argument there is or could be a difference).

Quote: The coherence comes from the IDEA of the thing, which is sufficient to generate the information.

See above.

Quote: The information you see exists-- of course it does, you are experiencing it.

see above.

Quote: But that doesn't mean there is a real Agent Smith in any real universe.

Except that there -is- a "real agent smith", except he's not a person. He's a description of the state of a machine or collection of machines.

Quote: Whether or not the idea is encoded in physical hardware somewhere, Agent Smith himself is still not more than an idea.

The "idea" -is- the hardware.

Now...FTR...you were saying something about me stretching a metaphor.....?

(January 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Pretty sure I didn't have to warp anything to explain that people living in a machine experienced the physical states of that machine.

Okay, well let's not call it "warping". Let's go with its formal name - the strawman.

Quote: If I'm being asked to imagine that this is a matter of fact statement about our reality that's a matter of fact statement about their experience. Some other thing, not "The Matrix" and I'd answer differently....

Idealism doesn't postulate anything responsible for "the Matrix"/hologram/simulation/consciousness as far as I know. It's on par with physical monism in that respect.

Quote:Should I have imagined some other thing..and then responded to that pother thing..as though I was responding to Bennys question....there's a term for that.

....for example, if Benny had asked me, what if "we were living, in a non material world" -Then I would be a non material girl.
(but that begs the question, huh?)

Ha! That made me chuckle. I'm glad I wasn't the only one having that thought this entire thread.

A strawman, FTR, would be the term for my not answering the very question he asked within the framework that he asked it, instead suplanting my own, or assuming my own (even if innocently, thinking that he couldn't have possibly meant to ask -that- question in -that- framework). Turns out he did...in case you missed that. So it's a good thing I answered the question as asked, or I might have straw-manned him...huh? I had occasion to explain that even though Agent Smith wasn't a "person"..he was still a physical thing. Thus explaining why invoking "The Matrix" isn;t an issue for physical monism..even if it is an issue for trusting our perceptions to their utmost ( a point on which he and I are in perfect agreement, btw). Benny and I have history, in this particular conversation...lol.
(course, he knows, from repeated conversations along the periphery, that in my particular brand of explanation, "Agent Smith" is just as much a person as he is, or as I am..but that's beside the point)

(January 30, 2015 at 9:33 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 10:49 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Because we know that our consciences, ideas, or concepts do not dictate what we obsserve unlike in the imaginary world. This is a problem that idealism doesn't address, and my biggest complaint about it.

"Imaginary" isn't on the same plane as "idealism" at all. In an ideal world, everything is still real. It's just not what you think it is i.e. you aren't made of matter. But just because consciousness is all there is doesn't mean you can now start "imagining" away the world and change it to your liking.

If I'm not made out of matter, what am I made out of? Ideas, concepts, consciousness? It cannot be conscoiusness because consciouness processes concepts. It can't be ideas because concepts make up an idea. Unless I missed one, I should be made out of concepts. My consciousness can create concepts using my imagination. What makes my consciousness generated concepts less real than the ones I observe elsewhere?

---

@Rhythm
I pose an interesting question only to come back to 3 pages worth of discussion between you and benny. You're stealing my fun.

(January 30, 2015 at 10:15 pm)IATIA Wrote: When one is having a dream, let us say of a car, that car does not exist except in one's mind.

Which...as far as we can tell, is a physical place, with weight and mass. To say that something "only exists in ones mind" is not to say that it isn't a real thing, it's only to say that it's not the same as the thing one is thinking of. This shouldn't be all that surprising, there isn't enough room in one's head for a dodge.

Quote: What makes the actual physical car in the 'real' world any more real than the same car in the dream world?

Nothing at all....within the context of this conversation. They're both..the thought of the car and the car, examples of an actual thing(even though they obviously aren't -the same thing-). We just aren't used to thinking about it this way, why would we be? It's only recently that we realized wtf our brains were doing. Think of all the misleading language regarding thoughts and feelings.

Quote: The mind perceives all the same information whether 'real' or dream.

Meh, not quite, but I'd wager the process is similar enough to say that in a pinch.

@Surge...My bad, my bad..tell you what though, I'd like to hear how paint dries myself...if anyone ever gets around to it. Pretty good question.

I'm just teasing