|
Idealism is more Rational than Materialism
|
Can Rational just get to the part where the Super Conscious decided to write books and become man so that our miniature consciousness could be spared from the black hole of masturbation through his death and resurrection? That's where his bastardization of Plato is supposed to lead us eventually, right?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
 RE: Idealism is more Rational than Materialism
February 2, 2015 at 12:17 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 12:18 pm by Chas.)
(February 2, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:(February 2, 2015 at 12:03 pm)Alex K Wrote: We've read it. It's just such a heap of entirely unjustified assumptions, which you seem to make out of prejudice, but which you try to convince us are logically necessary. Distinct yet similar minds, part of a greater consciousness. Once you're at that level of complication, it's more parsimonious to adopt materialism.so it's more parsimonious to postulate a substance we do not perceive that is behind the substances we do perceive? such a view is unverifiable. we only experience mental perceptions. why suggest a new substance that we don't experience to explain this experience? if mental substances are all that exist, then reality is something we perceive. materialism assumes a substance that is not how we perceive, full of color and other qualia, suggesting our perceptions can't help us know what reality is. What substance? Do you not understand that mental processes are not a substance, they are the structured interaction of known matter and energy? You are trying to make a process a thing. Processes exist as change.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.  (February 2, 2015 at 12:10 pm)Chas Wrote: No, it is corroboration that we perceive the same thing.and a corroboration that we perceive the same thing doesn't verify that it's accurate... it just verifies it's collectively consistent. (February 2, 2015 at 12:10 pm)Chas Wrote: Then what are we perceiving?we are perceiving mental states. these mental states are either caused by brain interpretation responding to stimuli, or they are caused by mind creating them. we have no way to verify one or the other, but materialism unnecessarily postulates a world full of material to which our mental perception is modeled after. we know mind exists, and it is the most fundamental part of our perception. why assume something is more fundamental when it would be impossible to perceive it and unnecessary to postulate it?
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo RE: Idealism is more Rational than Materialism
February 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 12:38 pm by Chas.)
(February 2, 2015 at 12:22 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:(February 2, 2015 at 12:10 pm)Chas Wrote: No, it is corroboration that we perceive the same thing.and a corroboration that we perceive the same thing doesn't verify that it's accurate... it just verifies it's collectively consistent. It corroborates its existence external to and separate from our minds. Quote:(February 2, 2015 at 12:10 pm)Chas Wrote: Then what are we perceiving?we are perceiving mental states. Perception is mental states. It is the processing of external signals from the material world. Quote:these mental states are either caused by brain interpretation responding to stimuli, or they are caused by mind creating them. we have no way to verify one or the other, but materialism unnecessarily postulates a world full of material to which our mental perception is modeled after. Unnecessary? I again ask, what are we perceiving? Perception is mental process of external stimuli. Quote: we know mind exists, and it is the most fundamental part of our perception. why assume something is more fundamental when it would be impossible to perceive it and unnecessary to postulate it? No, mind is not fundamental, mass/energy is. Mind emerges from the ordered structure and interaction of the matter and energy of the brain. Mind evolved.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method. (February 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm)Chas Wrote: It corroborates its existence external to and separate from our minds.how does that follow? many minds have a common perception, therefore this perception is something distinct from these minds? all it shows is that the minds have a commonality causing the same perception. for all you know this could be anything from a physical world, a computer program or a greater conscious we are all a part of. you have no way of knowing what this commonality is. but to assume it is a physical world causing the mental perception is assuming physical substances exist. we already know mind exists, so we aren't assuming anything we don't know by saying mind is fundamental to reality rather than matter. (February 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm)Chas Wrote: Perception is mental states. It is the processing of external signals from the material world.yes, perception is mental states. and we therefore don't perceive anything but mental states. to postulate material causing mental states is unnecessarily postulating something more fundamental than what is most fundamental in our perception. this is in violation of Occam's Razor which is the point I've been making. (February 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm)Chas Wrote: Unnecessary? I again ask, what are we perceiving? Perception is mental process of external stimuli.I agree that perception is a mental process. but you are the one assuming it is of external stimuli. I am postulating it is simply of mental constructs. we already know the color red is a mental construct as it doesn't actually appear in reality. is red a process of external stimuli? or is it mentally constructed as a representative of such? all we perceive is qualia. nothing more. (February 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm)Chas Wrote: No, mind is not fundamental, mass/energy is. Mind emerges from the ordered structure and interaction of the matter and energy of the brain. Mind evolved.indeed that is your materialistic belief... but I said mind is most fundamental to our perception... not most fundamental period. if can't be denied mental states are fundamental to perception. we only debate on what is fundamental behind that perception. is it material? or is it still mind? perhaps mind extra to your own but still mind. why postulate the existence of material when only mind is necessary to explain experience? you can't verify material is real because all you have is a mental perception of material. you don't actually perceive matter.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo  RE: Idealism is more Rational than Materialism
February 2, 2015 at 1:11 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 1:11 pm by robvalue.)
Is this all a segway into christianity may I ask? It's all very fascinating and all, but really solipsism is here to stay. I even tried my chainsaw on it, no dice.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum (February 2, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: You are playing some silly word game with 'perception'. We perceive something, perception is the process. You can't loop it back on itself and claim that is all that is necessary.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method. RE: Idealism is more Rational than Materialism
February 2, 2015 at 1:31 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 1:47 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Perhaps going forward, we should cut our differences into tiny chunks, so these exchanges don't get too cumbersome? I could suggest a succinct starting point. I've described my "mental states" as being, literally and reductively - the machine. Not a product of the machine...not a generation or a projection, not some "other" - no homonculous....-the machine-. Is this what you take issue with? If so, could you describe why? Or, perhaps, what extraneous assumptions must be made...as I have removed an assumption of a projection, and also the assumption of something to project -to-, so I;m not sure I understand what you're driving at? We both accept "consciousness" - and we both accept that our descriptions may not be wholly (or even at all) accurate, even if only for the sake of the discussion, yes? My explanation is -the machine- your explanation is.....? To explain my further issue (with your constant retreat to solipsism), and maybe I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to think that there is no reason to assume anything beyond our individual "consciousness"(whatever that's supposed to be) - okay....but when -you- die....will -I- cease to exist? If some consciousness elsewhere has no knowledge of me (or us)...does that mean that I (or we) don't exist? I think we're both accepting the existence of some external "something"......it's just that one of us is okay with owning up to that. Who are you talking to..AKD...yourself?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
 (February 2, 2015 at 3:24 am)Rational AKD Wrote:(February 2, 2015 at 3:16 am)Alex K Wrote: Can I ask you a question? What is, in your idealism, the role of the human brain? A whirlpool is water behaving in a certain way because of physics. Quote:you cannot say the whirlpool produces water just because it affects water much like you cannot say the brain produces consciousness because it affects mind. this is the mind brain interaction I conceive in my idealism. Consciousness and mind are the outputs of a working higher order brain. There is no need to invoke any of the woo you have tried to foist on it. You can see brain function, you can measure it's output and to a certain extent interpret it. You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
these back and forths are getting tedious and so I am going to address core misunderstandings here instead of every tedious point.
(February 2, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I've described my "mental states" as being, literally and reductively - the machine. Not a product of the machine...not a generation or a projection, not some "other" - no homonculous....-the machine-. Is this what you take issue with?yes I take issue with this. namely that there are obvious signs that consciousness is not equivocal to "the machine" which I will assume you are referring to the brain. namely that even materialists acknowledge not all brains are conscious, only functioning brains are. for example the brain of a dead person cannot be said to have consciousness even though it has all the same material contents as a functioning brain. so according to Leibniz Law of indiscernibility of identicals, if we have a scenario where brain B is different from mind M; then these two are not identical. the state of B where B is not functioning causes an absence of M within B... therefore they are not equivocal. you can only conclude that M is a function or process of B or M is a separate entity than B. (February 2, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: as I have removed an assumption of a projection, and also the assumption of something to project -to-, so I;m not sure I understand what you're driving at?unfortunately for you, you have not done so coherently as we see scenarios where B is without M. (February 2, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: To explain my further issue (with your constant retreat to solipsism), and maybe I'm misunderstanding you, you seem to think that there is no reason to assume anything beyond our individual "consciousness"no... I think there is no reason to assume anything behind "consciousness" in general. I think solipsism has some problems of its own, mainly the problem of self conscious control. if your mind is all there is, then there should be no reason you don't have full control over it as nothing else exists to have that control. no one has such control over the reality we experience, meaning it must not be our personal mental construct. but that doesn't mean it's not mentally constructed. I stated quite clearly in the OP my idealistic view and I've stated many times I do not advocate solipsism. (February 2, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: okay....but when -you- die....will -I- cease to exist?as I said in the OP, idealism provides the possibility if not probability of an afterlife. if the world is a mental construct, there is no reason why it necessarily terminates your mind. you mind is only terminated when the for it is terminated or reversed. in your materialist view, this would be the termination of the brain. in my idealist view, it is contingent upon the super conscious, since this is where your consciousness emerges from. (February 2, 2015 at 1:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I think we're both accepting the existence of some external "something"......it's just that one of us is okay with owning up to that.and you would be correct. however, what I accept as external (multi consciousness including a super conscious) is due to logical consistency and what you accept as external is purely assumption which can be shaved by Occam's Razor to arrive back at idealism. other questions you have are based on your confusions of what I have just answered so I'll leave those out. (February 2, 2015 at 1:59 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Consciousness and mind are the outputs of a working higher order brain.way to state your dogma as if it were common ground between us... it is not. (February 2, 2015 at 1:59 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: There is no need to invoke any of the woo you have tried to foist on it.there is no reason to invoke foreign concepts of material when we only perceives the mental construct which is at most modeled after material but obviously has interpretation added to it IE qualia. what reason is there to believe material exists as a concept foreign to what we perceive? why not believe our perception of material reality is all there is to it?
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
