Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[bennyboy]

I suggest you take some lessens in epistemology and metaphysics as you do not understand the difference between materialism and idealism.

Your tone seems unnecessarily hostile for a thread that's only a few posts in. Did a materialist do a demonstration on you with a baseball bat or something?

[Rational AKD]

Explain how it is not semantics?

I just did... you say material is fundamental and I say consciousness is. if material is fundamental then the universe consists of physical processes that eventually created conscious life forms. there would be no God or afterlife. if consciousness is fundamental, then the universe was created by consciousness, the apparent physical world only exists when we're observing it, God would exist as a super conscious, there would be no reason to think the termination of our brains is the termination of our minds.
you think there are no immortal God's, there are no immortal souls. all that exist are atoms and the void. I think there are no atoms, there is no void. all that exists are immortal souls and God.

---

Your tone seems unnecessarily hostile for a thread that's only a few posts in. Did a materialist do a demonstration on you with a baseball bat or something?

any hostile tone you are interpreting I assure you is not being conveyed. I am simply using some passive aggressive back and forth expressing my disagreement while also issuing a jab similar to what you might call a PWN. it is often used in fair debates and is not particularly hostile.

[Alex K]

Explain how it is not semantics?

I just did...

No you didn't.

you say material is fundamental and I say consciousness is.
if material is fundamental then the universe consists of physical processes that eventually created conscious life forms.

"the universe consists of physical processes", I dare you to tell me what this means. Saying "A is more fundamental than B" is utterly meaningless, basically a restating of the premise in different words, unless you tell me what it means.

there would be no God or afterlife.

I think you have a very narrow notion of what a physical process can do. It could be that a physical force uploads our minds into something that is preserved after we die. It's just not very likely, there is no evidence for it.

if consciousness is fundamental, then the universe was created by consciousness, the apparent physical world only exists when we're observing it, God would exist as a super conscious, there would be no reason to think the termination of our brains is the termination of our minds.

It is difficult to properly define consciousness, but I'm going to use something like self-awareness, the fact that we can think about our state of mind. It's the thing you lose when you are in a deep coma, or even just asleep. And that's precisely where your picture falls apart completely. I would think it too trivial a point to make it, if people didn't so blatantly ignore it. You lose consciousness if you interrupt brain function. It is not fundamental. If you want to make it fundamental you have to fudge so much that you make Occam violate the conservation of angular momentum.

you think there are no immortal God's, there are no immortal souls. all that exist are atoms and the void.

I think it's unlikely, so I come down on the side of no.
But "all that exists is atoms and the void" is a very simplistic picture.

I think there are no atoms, there is no void. all that exists are immortal souls and God.

You go on and on about how rigid your reasoning is, Occam's razor, want to send me to philosophy 101, and then you want to sell me immortal souls and God, as if you had any good reason to think that any of that exists.

[robvalue]

What de fuq is a soul? What de fuq is a God?

It's like playing chess against people who claim they have invisible pieces.

[Rational AKD]

"the universe consists of physical processes", I dare you to tell me what this means. Saying "A is more fundamental than B" is utterly meaningless, basically a restating of the premise in different words, unless you tell me what it means.

physical: descriptive of matter, energy, space, and time. good enough for you? mind: descriptive of thoughts, emotions, qualia, and a sense of awareness that includes a sense on ones self. are we good on these defining terms?

I think you have a very narrow notion of what a physical process can do. It could be that a physical force uploads our minds into something that is preserved after we die. It's just not very likely, there is no evidence for it.

we have not observed a "force" that uploads into anything. according to materialists, brains produce consciousness. when brains are destroyed, so is consciousness. in idealism, brains are not necessary for consciousness. they are simply there as an interface with this apparent physical world. it is so our minds can be localized in space rather than nowhere in space.

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.

I think it's unlikely, so I come down on the side of no.
But "all that exists is atoms and the void" is a very simplistic picture.

then what exists apart from matter, energy, space, and time in your view?

You go on and on about how rigid your reasoning is, Occam's razor, want to send me to philosophy 101, and then you want to sell me immortal souls and God, as if you had any good reason to think that any of that exists.

I explained how idealism entails theism, which you did not address and therefore I assume you have no issue. if you don't think idealism entails theism, then I suggest you explain why I'm wrong. the only issue you've taken so far is my use of Occam's Razor and Cartesian Skepticism. so you are in no position to mock my position of theism as you have not objected to my steps between idealism and theism.

---

What de fuq is a soul? What de fuq is a God?

It's like playing chess against people who claim they have invisible pieces.

soul: what is associated with the essence of one's self.
God: what was already referred to in the OP as the super conscious that contains all other conscious and the apparent physical world, which is in essence, all that exists.
are you good on the terms?

[robvalue]

The soul is the essence? What is the essence?

God is everything? OK. God exists by that definition, sure. Or god is something that is thinking about everything? It's very vague.

[Alex K]

"the universe consists of physical processes", I dare you to tell me what this means. Saying "A is more fundamental than B" is utterly meaningless, basically a restating of the premise in different words, unless you tell me what it means.

physical: descriptive of matter, energy, space, and time. good enough for you? mind: descriptive of thoughts, emotions, qualia, and a sense of awareness that includes a sense on ones self. are we good on these defining terms?

Ok, for now. But my question was: what means "A is more fundamental than B"

I think you have a very narrow notion of what a physical process can do. It could be that a physical force uploads our minds into something that is preserved after we die. It's just not very likely, there is no evidence for it.

we have not observed a "force" that uploads into anything. according to materialists, brains produce consciousness. when brains are destroyed, so is consciousness. in idealism, brains are not necessary for consciousness. they are simply there as an interface with this apparent physical world. it is so our minds can be localized in space rather than nowhere in space.

And here you start making stuff up without justification.

It's the thing you lose when you are in a deep coma.

it is apparently lost, though not necessarily.

This is exactly what I mean. It is apparently lost, and in order to keep up your idea of the primacy of consciousness over matter, you have to start making excuses and hedging that go counter the observation. No. Consciousness as we know it is lost when you are unconscious.

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.

Spoken like a true follower of Occam. Not.

[Rational AKD]

The soul is the essence? What is the essence?

do I really have to go through the whole dictionary? it is the aspect of yourself outside of physical description. abstract. something that materialists assert doesn't exist outside of your head.

[bennyboy]

soul: what is associated with the essence of one's self.
God: what was already referred to in the OP as the super conscious that contains all other conscious and the apparent physical world, which is in essence, all that exists.
are you good on the terms?

I have to say I like this definition of God more than that of God as Sky Daddy.

[robvalue]

ADK:

So what makes you think such a thing exists? If you subtract the physical what is left? The term "abstract" refers to concepts, which manifest as physical brain configurations.

Why should I believe in any of this? It's an extremely vague description of something. Just because you describe it, doesn't mean it's real.

---

It's like me saying to you a car has a soul, it's the part of the car that makes it the car, the part that isn't just the physical things the car is made from. The essence of the car.

You'd say I was trying to define things into existence, presumably. Or do cars have souls too?