RE: Idealism is more Rational than Materialism
February 2, 2015 at 7:41 am
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2015 at 7:46 am by Rational AKD.)
(February 2, 2015 at 7:24 am)Alex K Wrote: Yes, I'd say I amway to answer one of my four questions while ignoring the rest...
(February 2, 2015 at 7:24 am)Alex K Wrote: You claim it is not gone, without evidence.way to claim it is gone without evidence.. all we can conclude definitely with what we observe is we appear to lose consciousness in a coma. to say anything further is making an assumption based on your metaphysical view on reality.
(February 2, 2015 at 7:24 am)Alex K Wrote: I'm not drawing a hard conclusion here. We are however talking about Occam's razor, and if you try to advocate that consciousness is still there even when it apparently isn't, you better have evidence for that very strong claim that makes it survive the razor.my claim is merely a defense for idealism. you try and provide coma's as evidence against idealism, and I merely have to provide a possibility for consistency in what we observe and the postulation of idealism. if I've already shown idealism is more reasonable based on the fewer assumptions and proof of mind by Cartesian Skepticism, then this explanation is adequate to satisfy the objection of what we observe in the apparent physical reality.
(February 2, 2015 at 7:24 am)Alex K Wrote: Again, I didn't try to prove anythingisn't that a problem. in my OP, I proved that idealism makes fewer assumptions than materialism. you need to prove something to prove me wrong.
(February 2, 2015 at 7:24 am)Alex K Wrote: It is lost by definition when you are unconscious.the definition is developed from the observation of someone's physical condition. it is not descriptive of someone's mental state as that cannot be observed. we are also said to be "unconscious" when we are dreaming. does this mean we have no mental state when we dream?
(February 2, 2015 at 7:30 am)robvalue Wrote: Well you answered all the questions yourself, so I guess I don't need to.
It doesn't answer my question. You seem to be appealing to, "How else could things work without a soul..."
But I still don't know what a soul is. Saying what it is not, does not help me know what it is. I know what it is as a metaphor of course.
Methodological materialism/naturalism. That is what I subscribe to. I don't assume there is only the material, but I don't assume that there is anything else either, until such time as there is evidence for it.
It's like a-nonmaterialism.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
Im not going to carry on with this too much longer, because these non-material things tend to go on indefinitely with assertions covering assertions, and vague definitions covering other vague definitions, while the whole thing is unfalsifiable. So unless there is something to get my grubby mits on, I don't see the point of such speculation. But feel free to prove me wrong
what I am saying is it is impossible for us to exist without mind. it is possible for us to exist without matter (IE dream world). we cannot confirm what is beyond our mental states. therefore it is not necessary and unverifiable to postulate the existence of anything that is not mental in nature. do you have an objection to this reasoning?
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
-Galileo
