Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[FreeTony]

I don't think it matters if you want to label the universe as either material, or consciousness. A bit like trying to label an electron as a particle or wave or field. It is none of these things, but by modelling it as such we can better predict how it will act.

We observe the universe, and can see that it follows certain laws, and we mostly agree on these laws. You can say there is no material and only consciousness, but these laws still apply.

It doesn't mean that you can then invent things that don't follow these rules.

[Rational AKD]

I don't think it matters if you want to label the universe as either material, or consciousness. A bit like trying to label an electron as a particle or wave or field. It is none of these things, but by modelling it as such we can better predict how it will act.

We observe the universe, and can see that it follows certain laws, and we mostly agree on these laws. You can say there is no material and only consciousness, but these laws still apply.

It doesn't mean that you can then invent things that don't follow these rules.

I already explained in the OP why it matters.

materialism implies determinism (we have no free will), atheism, and the absence of an afterlife. idealism implies libertarian free will, theism, and the possibility if not probability of an afterlife.

[Mudhammam]

I don't think it matters if you want to label the universe as either material, or consciousness. A bit like trying to label an electron as a particle or wave or field. It is none of these things, but by modelling it as such we can better predict how it will act.

We observe the universe, and can see that it follows certain laws, and we mostly agree on these laws. You can say there is no material and only consciousness, but these laws still apply.

It doesn't mean that you can then invent things that don't follow these rules.

I already explained in the OP why it matters.

Yeah Tony, didn't you realize that "idealism provides the possibility if not probability of an afterlife"? Maybe the Super Conscious will reincarnate you into a bird or a rabbit in your next life! Wouldn't that be fun!

[FreeTony]

materialism implies determinism (we have no free will), atheism, and the absence of an afterlife. idealism implies libertarian free will, theism, and the possibility if not probability of an afterlife.

I'm not sure how it implies these things, or how you have managed to calculate a probability.

[Rational AKD]

materialism implies determinism (we have no free will), atheism, and the absence of an afterlife. idealism implies libertarian free will, theism, and the possibility if not probability of an afterlife.

I'm not sure how it implies these things, or how you have managed to calculate a probability.

well, if we are material objects then our thought processes are purely caused by material means. we have no control over these material processes since obviously matter can't control something it is controlled by. this means our thoughts are determined by material causations beyond our control which leads to hard determinism. a material God is incoherent since one of the necessary quality of God is primacy. so God cannot exist in a purely materialistic world which implies atheism. and if we are material objects, we cannot sustain existence if broken down which means we cannot have an afterlife.

as for idealism: since consciousness is fundamental, it controls everything. as conscious beings, it is coherent to have librarian free will, and the only way we wouldn't is if our thoughts are determined by another conscious being. since the physical reality as we experience it would be fundamentally mental, it could not terminate our consciousness since it is not the source of it. as for theism, I also explained that in the OP in objection 1.

---

1. Monistic Idealism does not necessarily imply theism. it is perfectly compatible with atheism.
actually, it is not and this can be shown with epistemic investigation. there are essentially 2 different monistic idealist views, poly-consciousness and mono-consciousness. poly-consciousness representative of the general idealistic view that there are many distinct yet similar minds all experiencing the same world and are able to interact with one another. mono-consciousness is representative of the metaphysical solipsist view that your own personal mind is all that exists and any other minds that may exist are merely constructed from your own mind. concerning the poly-consciousness view, there is a need for explaining how distinctly separate yet similar minds can interact in a commonly shared world. the only coherent answer to this is they all have a fundamental commonality. given monistic idealism, this commonality between consciousness can only be a greater consciousness or super conscious to which we are all a part of. this super conscious would contain all minds and project the apparently physical world we experience enabling our interaction with it and each other. since this super conscious contains everything that exists in accordance with monistic idealism, it would therefore have full control over its own conscious states which in essence is full control over everything which would make it omnipotent. it would also contain all knowledge which would make it omnipotent. as you can see this super conscious is looking more and more like God and in fact they are ontologically indistinguishable. investigating the mono-consciousness view, or solipsist view, you can see striking similarities between that world and the poly-consciousness world. the only difference is in a solipsist world, you are the super conscious which is essentially saying you are God. I would say such a view is not reasonable since you don't have control over the world you experience or even all your conscious states; but that's another topic. the point is both views of idealism imply theism and there is no coherent alternative.

---

[FreeTony]

First off, I don't think we can ever know if we have free will or not.

I struggle with some of these concepts, having being brought up as a scientist and I'm used to having clear definitions of things. I however think you are muddling individual consciousness with what you describe as some sort of grand consciousness.

If I throw a ball, and myself and a friend watch it travel, neither of us can change the path of the ball by thought, and if one of us touches the ball the other will notice this. So we are still both bound by the laws of this consciousness, and our own individual consciousness can only affect the grand consciouness under these laws. So I'm not sure these circumstances are any different to a material universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I don't think this is going to end up where you want it to.

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.

It doesn't, if it did.... it would be difficult to explain why it was dead, and the other alive, don't you think? I guess the rest falls apart right there so I'll let it ride.

no... I think there is no reason to assume anything behind "consciousness" in general.

Strange, you keep speaking to me as though you do.

I stated quite clearly in the OP my idealistic view and I've stated many times I do not advocate solipsism.

Then perhaps you should retreat to it a little less?

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.

Not even remotely what I asked, and I think we might want to make one silly claim at a time, rather than lumping them all together. But that's just me.

and you would be correct. however, what I accept as external (multi consciousness including a super conscious) is

-undemonstrated.......two massive and extraneous assumptions. Meanwhile, I'm saying -machine-. I think you might have lost your shit, if you think that you're reducing assumptions by invoking ghosts, "multi consciousness" and a "super conscious". But whatevs, I'm game - this is the point that you demonstrate the existence of any of those things...right? I'm assuming, of course, that I don;t need to demonstrate to you that your brain exists (and if I do...I think I'd be more likely to agree with your doubts, in the case of your brain, particularly).

[Rational AKD]

It doesn't, if it did.... it would be difficult to explain why it was dead, and the other alive, don't you think? I guess the rest falls apart right there so I'll let it ride.

you can have a dead person with a perfectly in tact brain just like how you can have a dead person with perfectly in tact organs that are even viable for transplant. a dead person doesn't necessarily have brain damage or missing components from the brain. it is merely unable to function because the body system fails.

Strange, you keep speaking to me as though you do.

to say "we cannot get behind consciousness" is not to dissolve to solipsism. it dissolves to "mind is fundamental" which is general idealism which includes the many minds interpretation I stated in the OP.

Then perhaps you should retreat to it a little less?

way to redundantly beat your dead point by completely ignoring my reasons to reject solipsism and why idealism is more reasonable. you clearly have no intention of honestly addressing points of view outside your own.

Not even remotely what I asked, and I think we might want to make one silly claim at a time, rather than lumping them all together. But that's just me.

excuse me, I confused your pronouns. if I die will you cease to exist? as I said, in my view you and I are part of a greater consciousness that brought us into existence. so your existence is in no way contingent upon mine.

-undemonstrated.......two massive and extraneous assumptions. Meanwhile, I'm saying -machine-. I think you might have lost your shit, if you think that you're reducing assumptions by invoking ghosts, "multi consciousness" and a "super conscious". But whatevs, I'm game - this is the point that you demonstrate the existence of any of those things...right? I'm assuming, of course, that I don;t need to demonstrate to you that your brain exists (and if I do...I think I'd be more likely to agree with your doubts, in the case of your brain, particularly).

*sigh* if only you could listen without assuming I mean what you want me to mean... lets break down the steps I used to reject solipsism in favor of idealism.
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.

after concluding this, you can postulate that your mind is in direct control of another mind, which would make your mind as well as the world you experience is emergent from it; or you can postulate a completely new and foreign substance of "non-consciousness" and believe that somehow a world of this non-conscious substance caused consciousness to emerge from it. which makes fewer assumptions? we already experience consciousness, so why postulate non-consciousness to explain it when this isn't parsimonious or verifiable? the only thing we can observe is consciousness and conscious experience. given the above argument solipsism has problems but it's a huge jump to go from that to materialism and less of a jump to go to idealism.

First off, I don't think we can ever know if we have free will or not.

that doesn't address the logical implications of materialism and idealism in regards to determinism or libertarianism. if your claim is "we cannot know this" then either it is because we cannot know if materialism or idealism is true or because they do not have these implications. which do you think it is?

I however think you are muddling individual consciousness with what you describe as some sort of grand consciousness.

well I do arrive at this "grand consciousness" at some point in my epistemology. but I do give reasons for doing so in my responses to rhythm in this post.

If I throw a ball, and myself and a friend watch it travel, neither of us can change the path of the ball by thought, and if one of us touches the ball the other will notice this. So we are still both bound by the laws of this consciousness, and our own individual consciousness can only affect the grand consciouness under these laws. So I'm not sure these circumstances are any different to a material universe.

well, the circumstances are not different... but that's the point. both are adequate at explaining what we observe. but materialism assumes there is a substance distinct from what we observe and our conscious experience is a model that tries to be descriptive of (though appears to place interpretations upon at the very least) the reality beyond our perception. but idealism only assumes there is another consciousness greater than your own that yours is derived from, and the world you experience is also derived from this greater consciousness. idealism makes fewer assumptions, so is more reasonable given Occam's Razor.

[The Grand Nudger]

you can have a dead person with a perfectly in tact brain just like how you can have a dead person with perfectly in tact organs that are even viable for transplant. a dead person doesn't necessarily have brain damage or missing components from the brain.

Yeah, they necessarily do..if you die, your brain will be damaged by this, and will be missing components.

it is merely unable to function because the body system fails.

yeah...fails to provide it with its material requirements...so saying that the brain of a dead person and the brain of a living person are the same, or jacking your meat about it being "intact" - as if taking chunks out is the only way to alter it's physical composition.....is idiotic.

to say "we cannot get behind consciousness" is not to dissolve to solipsism. it dissolves to "mind is fundamental" which is general idealism which includes the many minds interpretation I stated in the OP.

Strange, because I can remove your brain and you won't show any signs of consciousness, but if I knock you the fuck out you'll return to consciousness and at no point will your brain vanish from observation from there to here.

you clearly have no intention of honestly addressing points of view outside your own.

That's it, solipsist...poison that well real good...lol.

excuse me, I confused your pronouns. if I die will you cease to exist? as I said, in my view you and I are part of a greater consciousness that brought us into existence. so your existence is in no way contingent upon mine.

So I guess I'm not dependent on your consciousness...your consciousness is not fundamental to my existence. You have to assert a mysterious and un-evidenced third party to continue further. Why isn't your consciousness or my consciousness powerful enough to achieve the effect of this third consciousness?

1. if metaphysical solipsism is true, then all that exists is your mind and everything else is derived.

-continue....

2. a consciousness that is truly fundamental would be in control of everything given 1.

Sorry, nope. That something is derived from a thing or truly fundamental to it does not imply or establish that the thing from which it is derived possesses control of it. Whiskey is derived from corn, corn is fundamental to whiskey - and yet corn doesn't control whiskey.

3. "I" am not remotely in control of everything.

Granted, and unsurprising, since your machinery isn't capable of controlling even a tiny fraction of everything, don't you think?

4. therefore my mind must be derived from something else.

"Therefore" is reserved for things that follow from a logical statement.

1 doesn't establish 2, even if given, and so can't be used to establish your conclusion by reference to 3 - even if true.

So... guess, since I'm not concluding what you do...the rest is doa? Eh?

[Rational AKD]

Yeah, they necessarily do..if you die, your brain will be damaged by this, and will be missing components.

obviously saying "nuh uh" doesn't gain any ground between us. what components are missing between a functioning brain, and a non-functioning in-tact brain?

yeah...fails to provide it with its material requirements...so saying that the brain of a dead person and the brain of a living person are the same, or jacking your meat about it being "intact" - as if taking chunks out is the only way to alter it's physical composition.....is idiotic.

the body can no longer replenish nutrients of the brain, but that doesn't mean these are missing from the brain upon a person's death.

Strange, because I can remove your brain and you won't show any signs of consciousness, but if I knock you the fuck out you'll return to consciousness and at no point will your brain vanish from observation from there to here.

as I said, the brain end up being the self localization of mind within space in an idealist view. obviously this self localization is dependent upon a functioning brain. so anything that can affect the brain's function also effects mind's self localization. and the material that comprises the brain is not itself contingently related to the consciousness it is localizing. so it doesn't 'disappear' just because this localization is disrupted.

That something is derived from a thing or truly fundamental to it does not imply or establish that the thing from which it is derived possesses control of it. Whiskey is derived from corn, corn is fundamental to whiskey - and yet corn doesn't control whiskey.

this is a false analogy because even though we can use corn to get whiskey, this doesn't mean corn comprises all that is whiskey. we have corn, and we have whiskey and we cannot hold they 2 in our hands and say they are the same as different corn was used to make the whiskey you have in your hand than the corn you have in your other hand. here's a better analogy that i'm sure you can be familiar with.
rocks are made of matter/energy. matter/energy has certain properties and behaves accordingly with predictable laws. therefore rocks are controlled by matter and behave accordingly with predictable laws just like matter. likewise you can say the same about consciousness... unless you want to claim rocks don't behave accordingly with the same predictable laws matter behaves by.

1 doesn't establish 2, even if given, and so can't be used to establish your conclusion by reference to 3 - even if true.

that was actually a labeling mistake on my part. 2 isn't derived from 1, rather it should be considered an independent premise. premise 2 is actually derived from the definition of control, which is the ability to directly influence something. if your consciousness is fundamental, then there is nothing outside your consciousness to influence your thoughts. therefore only you can have control over your thoughts in a metaphysical solipsist world. since in such a world everything is derived from your thoughts, it would then follow that everything is controlled by your thoughts. which brings us to premise 2.