(February 4, 2015 at 11:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: you are not just saying matter exists, but you are saying something about the fundamental nature of matter. that it is fundamental. this is not something you prove by observation as you obviously can't tell the difference between a material object and a material object you are Hallucinating.

I am saying that matter exists regardless of consciousness. So, yes, matter is more fundamental than consciousness.

Unless you are advocating Solipsism or mass hallucination, then my observations are confirmed by others' observations of the same and similar matter.
That matter exists is the more parsimonious and coherent explanation.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: this still doesn't require material to have such a world you can experience...

Lol what? Yeah, I'm afraid all indication says it does.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: yes because one always uses physical examples in order to prove metaphysical concepts... you do know this is philosophy, not science right? science can't prove anything about the metaphysical, which means it can't prove materialism or idealism.

Perhaps you know that for metaphysics to have any weight it must be informed by the evidence of the physical world, otherwise it's just pulling shit out of one's ass? Nah, you probably don't, since that's exactly all you've done 10+ pages in.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: or you experience behavior similar to data processing within physical processes. but i'm not about to get into the idealism from quantum mechanics argument. the only thing I've said on this thread is idealism is more parsimonious and more reasonable to accept. we already must postulate the existence of consciousness, so why postulate other unnecessary substances?

Who's doing that? I didn't posit any unnecessary substances... like a Super Duper Conscious Disconnected From Any Material Entity And That Presumably Floats In A Vacuum. Nope, that stupid idea was all yours, bud.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: what part of it is ad hoc? you simply can't make accusations without substantiating them or at least directing them so we know what you're talking about.

See above.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: no you are not aware of any materials that exist independent of minds. all you have is mind, so you can't think of something without postulating mind. exactly what part of introspection implies materialism?

The part that says all evidence of physics demands that a lot of material objects are, oh, just some billions years older than my mind.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: if that were true, then you shouldn't be fooled by hallucinations because they can't have any characteristics of matter...

No idea what you're babbling about here.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: how would you know? you can't verify anything beyond your perception which matter is beyond the scope of.

The same way I would know that my parents were born before I was. Is this hard for you or something?

(February 4, 2015 at 11:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: "I am right because I am right" good argument... i'm impressed...

I'm sure it doesn't take a lot to impress a Jesus nut.

(February 2, 2015 at 6:30 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 5:53 am)Alex K Wrote: It's the thing you lose when you are in a deep coma.

it is apparently lost, though not necessarily. when you look outside in the daytime, you can see the sunlight. you also receive light from stars, but you do not notice it because it is being glared by the sun. similarly in a state of what we call unconsciousness, we still have consciousness but it is being glared making it appear that it is not there. just because something apparently is not there doesn't mean it truly isn't.

That is meaning tortured beyond recognition.

Whatever it is that you're describing, it isn't consciousness.

(February 3, 2015 at 1:16 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: 1. if metaphysical solipsism is true, then all that exists is your mind and everything else is derived.
2. a consciousness that is truly fundamental would be in control of everything given 1.
3. "I" am not remotely in control of everything.
4. therefore my mind must be derived from something else.

Am I in control of my body, or is this something else in control of my body?

Shhhhhh! I'm quite certain that asking an idealist to describe the mechanism of how this shit works is against the rules.

(February 4, 2015 at 6:02 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Am I in control of my body, or is this something else in control of my body?

Depends on your proclivities and desires. ;-)

(February 4, 2015 at 11:57 am)AFTT47 Wrote: I had never heard of idealism, solipsism or monism.

I'm sure you heard of monism. it's simply the belief that there is only 1 fundamental substance. materialism is a form of monism. idealism is the other.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:57 am)AFTT47 Wrote: Where do animals fit into this? Are they also individual minds under the super-consciousnesses?

I honestly don't know. it's possible some of them do, though many of them seem to primitive to have consciousness. it's hard to tell outside yourself what is truly conscious and what is just bio machines with programmed instinct. I think it's fair to say humans are conscious, but it's hard to tell without communication if other animals are.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:57 am)AFTT47 Wrote: why the existence of simple brains like that found in a worm?

brains are still capable of many things even without mind. of course worms don't show anything resembling sentience. but of course everything within this apparent physical world requires physical mechanics including the physical mechanics that allow us control over our bodies. so worms have brains so they can fulfil their intended role and have complete defined physical mechanisms.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:57 am)AFTT47 Wrote: I understand that under idealism, the worm and everything else is just a projection but why project such a thing?

it has a physical role in the physical world we observe. to put it plainly, God wasn't lazy as to put us in a 64 bit simulation. the world is very detailed.

(February 4, 2015 at 11:57 am)AFTT47 Wrote: The human brain has been described as a "kludge", basically a tangle of complex machinery layered on top of much simpler machinery. It makes sense assuming an evolved brain but none at all for a brain designed from scratch. Why would such a brain be projected?

as to give the simulated physical world whole physical descriptions and governing mechanisms. a simulation is supposed to be detailed, or it's not a good simulation after all.

(February 4, 2015 at 12:02 pm)Chas Wrote: Unless you are advocating Solipsism or mass hallucination

solipsism, no. mass hallucination, sort of. more like we're all in a simulated reality.

(February 4, 2015 at 12:02 pm)Chas Wrote: then my observations are confirmed by others' observations of the same and similar matter.

which would be consistent with the proposition we are all in a simulated reality. and this eliminates the need for a foreign non-conscious substance that we can't observe.

(February 4, 2015 at 12:02 pm)Chas Wrote: That matter exists is the more parsimonious and coherent explanation.

except you already gave alternatives that were more parsimonious and coherent which you detracted because you didn't like them.

(February 4, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Lol what? Yeah, I'm afraid all indication says it does.

indications from what exactly? your perception of the outside world? news flash, you can't use your perception to justify what you think your perception is. to justify a source you must use a different source. the only thing we have besides perception of the world is introspection. and this shows ideas, thoughts, and information is what's most fundamental in all of our mental processes. so why postulate something more fundamental when mind is all we need to explain experience?

(February 4, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Perhaps you know that for metaphysics to have any weight it must be informed by the evidence of the physical world, otherwise it's just pulling shit out of one's ass?

except you can't get evidence from the physical world. all you can get is evidence derived from assembled information that resembles a physical world, which makes up your perception. you can't use what you perceive as evidence for statements about your perception. like I said, this evidence was either gathered from a foreign substance compiled into information in terms of mind, or it just comes from mind.
which makes fewer assumptions?

(February 4, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Who's doing that? I didn't posit any unnecessary substances

except matter... you don't think in terms of matter, you think in terms of consciousness. why postulate anything else?

(February 4, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: like a Super Duper Conscious Disconnected From Any Material Entity And That Presumably Floats In A Vacuum.

not disconnected from material... he is the source of material. material is projected information within the mind of God. what do we presume here? the existence of mind (already known), the existence of information (known), and the existence of a conscious source of it. so really idealism only makes one postulation you don't already accept. but it seems more parsimonious to accept a conscious source than non-conscious material we can only perceive with abstract descriptions (which should bare no meaning if non-existent).

(February 4, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The part that says all evidence of physics demands that a lot of material objects are, oh, just some billions years older than my mind.

again, you're trying to use perception to justify perception. you know science operates necessarily on assumptions like "the world wasn't created recently with an appearance of age." if consciousness is fundamental, then objects are only there when we look at them. they are the sum of the possibilities governed by defined probabilities that aren't actualized until observed, and only give basic information for the observer's perspective. so when something is observed, it becomes definite as one of the possibilities and loads a back history to simulate past behavior as if it was always physically defined, even though it wasn't. a simulation of physical worlds has defined physical laws. and of course, the simulated world would always appear older than the person perceiving the simulation. like when you play a game and it loads the resolution as you perceive different areas. they weren't there until you looked at them then they loaded.

(February 4, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: No idea what you're babbling about here.

that we already know mind can create illusions that make us think to be real... indicating we can't tell the difference between mental projection from our senses or just mind.

(February 4, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The same way I would know that my parents were born before I was. Is this hard for you or something?

which only attests to your consciousness. I'm talking about consciousness as a whole. how do you know consciousness isn't the source of everything?

(February 4, 2015 at 3:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I'm sure it doesn't take a lot to impress a Jesus nut.

and obviously you don't get sarcasm that is made painfully obvious. and you don't even defend yourself that you are question begging.

(February 4, 2015 at 6:02 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Am I in control of my body, or is this something else in control of my body?

you control your body... but your body isn't everything.

So, to sum your argument up and make sure I understand it:

I experience my own consiousness.
I experience matter, through my own consiousness.

Therefore it is more likely that my own consiousness exsits, rather than matter. Is that right?

If that is correct, then I'd have thought that the fundamental thing is your own consiousness, not consiousness in general. Which means you don't get to start implying this means afterlives and God.

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote:

(February 4, 2015 at 11:57 am)AFTT47 Wrote: I had never heard of idealism, solipsism or monism.

I'm sure you heard of monism. it's simply the belief that there is only 1 fundamental substance. materialism is a form of monism. idealism is the other.

No, monism is a form of materialism. Materialism is the more general term.

Quote:

(February 4, 2015 at 12:02 pm)Chas Wrote: Unless you are advocating Solipsism or mass hallucination

solipsism, no. mass hallucination, sort of. more like we're all in a simulated reality.

Is that really Idealism? Not really. Where is this simulation hosted?

All that the concept of simulation does is to push back the definition of reality one level. It doesn't explain anything.

Quote:

(February 4, 2015 at 12:02 pm)Chas Wrote: then my observations are confirmed by others' observations of the same and similar matter.

which would be consistent with the proposition we are all in a simulated reality. and this eliminates the need for a foreign non-conscious substance that we can't observe.

No, it requires a substance on which to host this simulation.

Quote:

(February 4, 2015 at 12:02 pm)Chas Wrote: That matter exists is the more parsimonious and coherent explanation.

except you already gave alternatives that were more parsimonious and coherent which you detracted because you didn't like them.

No, I don't believe I did any such thing.

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote: indications from what exactly? your perception of the outside world? news flash, you can't use your perception to justify what you think your perception is. to justify a source you must use a different source. the only thing we have besides perception of the world is introspection. and this shows ideas, thoughts, and information is what's most fundamental in all of our mental processes. so why postulate something more fundamental when mind is all we need to explain experience?

See, you keep deifying individual perception, but then when someone asks the next obvious questions, such as, "Did the Egyptians build the pyramids before your perception of them came into being?" or "Is the earth the same age as your mind?", to avoid looking like you belong in a nut house, you instead just opt to appear silly: ad hoc asserting that mind is really a substance that is MUCH MUCH BIGGER than YOUR mind, though you have no evidence that such a universal mind exists, nor what it even means for a mind to exist independent of a material brain. That's not parsimonious. Furthermore, you can change your perceptions by influencing your material brain by injecting material chemicals. Strange, since, you know, you claim mind is non-material and more fundamental.

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote: except you can't get evidence from the physical world. all you can get is evidence derived from assembled information that resembles a physical world, which makes up your perception. you can't use what you perceive as evidence for statements about your perception. like I said, this evidence was either gathered from a foreign substance compiled into information in terms of mind, or it just comes from mind.
which makes fewer assumptions?

The fewest assumptions demands that the "assembled information" is the atomic "materials" that we can identify entering our sense organs and affecting our brain states. Nowhere does fewest assumptions = cosmic mind that exists outside of a brain and does everything, but nothing more, than the physical world can be understood to do.

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote: except matter... you don't think in terms of matter, you think in terms of consciousness. why postulate anything else?

Because the universe is not so simple that every configuration of matter results in the same properties, which consciousness is. It's like asking, "Why think in terms of liquid when things can be explained as solid?" Different productions require distinct terms and concepts, which is why we talk of mental experience in connection to brain states and not to rocks or ghosts that watch over the world.

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote: not disconnected from material... he is the source of material. material is projected information within the mind of God.

Which you have zero evidence for, and is only necessary to avoid the ridiculous conclusions I mentioned above, (all of which is avoided by physicalism). Note that your not using "mind of God" in a metaphorical sense for something like "principle of order." By mind you explicitly mean a person with feelings and intentions. You might as well call it the mind of Zeus.

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote: what do we presume here? the existence of mind (already known), the existence of information (known), and the existence of a conscious source of it. so really idealism only makes one postulation you don't already accept. but it seems more parsimonious to accept a conscious source than non-conscious material we can only perceive with abstract descriptions (which should bare no meaning if non-existent).

And then came science, and we discovered that the "information" is not at all like we thought, and that the only evidence of minds to have been in existence (at least on our planet) is negligible in comparison to the age of matter (remember, rocks aren't conscious, and we have no reason to postulate your mind of Zeus that lives in a castle in the sky).

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote: again, you're trying to use perception to justify perception.

As you also must do, since we have nothing else but perception upon which to do metaphysics. (I hope you will not say next, "you are trying to use being human to justify being human.... This proves that we were created by cosmic human being!).

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote: you know science operates necessarily on assumptions like "the world wasn't created recently with an appearance of age." if consciousness is fundamental, then objects are only there when we look at them. they are the sum of the possibilities governed by defined probabilities that aren't actualized until observed, and only give basic information for the observer's perspective. so when something is observed, it becomes definite as one of the possibilities and loads a back history to simulate past behavior as if it was always physically defined, even though it wasn't. a simulation of physical worlds has defined physical laws. and of course, the simulated world would always appear older than the person perceiving the simulation. like when you play a game and it loads the resolution as you perceive different areas. they weren't there until you looked at them then they loaded.

So your parents weren't physically defined until you were born? Remember, you don't mean from your individual perspective, you mean in a metaphysical sense. Their ontology depends on you.
Okay, you are a fucking nut.

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote: that we already know mind can create illusions that make us think to be real... indicating we can't tell the difference between mental projection from our senses or just mind.

Strange that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference and yet still be able to identify the phenomenon of illusions? How do we do this? By philosophy? Or by the empirical method perhaps?

(February 6, 2015 at 9:08 am)Rational AKD Wrote: which only attests to your consciousness. I'm talking about consciousness as a whole. how do you know consciousness isn't the source of everything?

I don't know. But I have every reason to believe that to be the case, and only solipsistic skepticism to think otherwise. When I write something in stone, why should I think the stone with its inscription disappears when I turn my head, and then re-appears exactly as it was before I looked away, never reverting back its original condition, prior to my tampering, even when I try to change my mind about it? When a child is born, I know that child may think it brought me into existence, just as your thinking you brought the world into existence (But wait, you have your ad hoc deity to solve that), but my experience (and everyone else's) testifies that the child is wrong, just as it testifies you are wrong.