Contra Metaphysical Idealism

[bennyboy]

The third substance is an obsolete objection from the mechanistic notions of 19th century physics.

Okay. So how is it that the physical substance and the mental substance interact?

[Chas]

---

Why qualify "experience" with "physical"? It sounds like you're trying to piggyback one philosophical context onto another one.


Let me clarify-- I'm not trying to replace physicalist objectivity and the concistency of our shared physical knowledge with a pseudo-solipsistic idealism. I'm saying that physicalism may be seen as a child node of idealism, but not vice versa: i.e. that it's possible to resolve all we can experience, including physics, down to concepts, but not vice versa. All the things we know about the universe, including brain function and its relationship to thought, can be ideas. However, the idea that consciousness, which is intrinsically subjective, is a child node to a physical monism, which is intrinsically objective, is absurd.

Ironicially, it is largely science which leads me to idealism. Science serves very much to undermine our normal view of what things ARE. For example, the idea that a table is 99.999999% empty space, and that even that .00000001% which is "stuff" is slippery, ambiguous, possibly-random stuff that can only be represented statistically, makes much more sense in a universe of ideas. This is because ideas can be both abstract and concrete, both well-defined and ill-defined. Physical "stuff" isn't supposed to be all those things, at least not in a definition where an objective reality is supposed to really have meaning.

Let me put it this way: where can something be both a wave and a particle? Where can a cat be both alive and dead at the same time until Schrodinger opens its box? I'd contend a mental reality would accomodate that kind of paradox and ambiguity much better than a physical one.

---

If everything is thought, what was the universe before there were homo sapiens? Or before there were any sapient beings?

---

The argument in the OP fails with the first premise.
"2) For every X, if X exists, then X is thought of. [premise 1]"

There is absolutely no justification of this. We discover things unthought of repeatedly.

---

And note that Schroedinger came up with his cat as an example of the absurdity of that interpretation. He believed it was always either dead or alive, not in some overlapped state.

And things are not "both wave and particle"; that is a completely erroneous understanding of 'wave/particle duality'. The duality is that some things exhibit behaviors that are like our concepts of waves or particles. Those things so described are what they are - they are neither waves nor particles, they are never 'being both'.

[archangle]

change the axioms change to conclusion. period.

Good for mind bending, that's it. But some people seem to enjoy it. So literal bible ... philosophy mind bending ... that's cool.

Until you push it off on people by intellectual bullying or the sword that is. They aint my thing.

[bennyboy]

If everything is thought, what was the universe before there were homo sapiens? Or before there were any sapient beings?

You are still treating ideas as objects of physical entities. In an idealistic reality, reality itself is purely composed of ideas and concepts. Asking what thougth up all those ideas is like asking where the Big Bang came from-- it's an unapproachable question. I've already said in another thread that idealism doesn't solve all the mysteries and paradoxes of cosmogony. The main advantage is that it makes the problem of consciousness go away. Since ideas are seen as flexible, and the physical universe as inflexible (possibly deterministic), then the physical universe can possibly be seen as a subset of all experience/ideas, whereas it makes much less sense to say that the mind, which is obviously subjective, is a subset of the physical universe, which is defined as objective.

---

The argument in the OP fails with the first premise.
"2) For every X, if X exists, then X is thought of. [premise 1]"

There is absolutely no justification of this. We discover things unthought of repeatedly.

Are you sure? Even in a physicalist model of the brain and mind, by the time something is experienced, it has been broken down and mentally reassembled completely. Name one thing you've ever discovered on a physical level but not on a mental level. It can't be done-- the moment of discovery is a mental experience.

---

And note that Schroedinger came up with his cat as an example of the absurdity of that interpretation. He believed it was always either dead or alive, not in some overlapped state.

And things are not "both wave and particle"; that is a completely erroneous understanding of 'wave/particle duality'. The duality is that some things exhibit behaviors that are like our concepts of waves or particles. Those things so described are what they are - they are neither waves nor particles, they are never 'being both'.

Fine. What does an electron look like? Where, exactly, is it located in space? How about a photon? When a photon is behaving like a wave, or like a particle, what are its dimensions in space?

[Chas]

If everything is thought, what was the universe before there were homo sapiens? Or before there were any sapient beings?

---

You are still treating ideas as objects of physical entities. In an idealistic reality, reality itself is purely composed of ideas and concepts. Asking what thougth up all those ideas is like asking where the Big Bang came from-- it's an unapproachable question. I've already said in another thread that idealism doesn't solve all the mysteries and paradoxes of cosmogony. The main advantage is that it makes the problem of consciousness go away. Since ideas are seen as flexible, and the physical universe as inflexible (possibly deterministic), then the physical universe can possibly be seen as a subset of all experience/ideas, whereas it makes much less sense to say that the mind, which is obviously subjective, is a subset of the physical universe, which is defined as objective.

There is absolutely no justification of this. We discover things unthought of repeatedly.

Are you sure? Even in a physicalist model of the brain and mind, by the time something is experienced, it has been broken down and mentally reassembled completely. Name one thing you've ever discovered on a physical level but not on a mental level. It can't be done-- the moment of discovery is a mental experience.

---

And note that Schroedinger came up with his cat as an example of the absurdity of that interpretation. He believed it was always either dead or alive, not in some overlapped state.

And things are not "both wave and particle"; that is a completely erroneous understanding of 'wave/particle duality'. The duality is that some things exhibit behaviors that are like our concepts of waves or particles. Those things so described are what they are - they are neither waves nor particles, they are never 'being both'.

Fine. What does an electron look like? Where, exactly, is it located in space? How about a photon? When a photon is behaving like a wave, or like a particle, what are its dimensions in space?

---

None of that was in the least responsive to what I wrote.

You are the one denying physical reality, not I. Ideas are not distinct, physical objects, they are patterns in brains. No brains, no ideas - but there is still the physical universe.

Everything ever discovered was something new to our knowledge, therefore new thoughts.

I don't believe an electron or a photon looks like anything at all; certainly nothing in our experience. They are too small to be seen by our senses.

Photons only behave sort of like what we conceive of as waves and particles - it's a freakin' metaphor, a descriptive device

[bennyboy]

You are the one denying physical reality, not I. Ideas are not distinct, physical objects, they are patterns in brains. No brains, no ideas - but there is still the physical universe.

I'm not denying the physical universe as a collection of ideas about ultra-consistent relationships among the things we experience. I'm denying the physical monist interpretation of what underlies it. I think that as far as we're concerned, the universe resolves down to ideas, not to locatable, existent things. Now, if you're insisting on a physical monism, you have a problem-- all your models and interpretations of physicality are ideas, and you cannot even show the elemental particles which those ideas are said to represent. And that's just for the supposedly physical stuff; now add in the philosophical problem of mind, and it's time to really start tap-dancing.

In an idealistic world view, that problem doesn't exist-- we make our ideas about the interactions between properties, and the underlying "reality" upon which those properties stand-- be it a physical universe, the Matrix, a BIJ, or the mind of God-- really doesn't matter to the work at hand.

Everything ever discovered was something new to our knowledge, therefore new thoughts.

Right. Discovery is an experience, and experiences can only be had where there is a mind.

I don't believe an electron or a photon looks like anything at all; certainly nothing in our experience. They are too small to be seen by our senses.

Like angels on the pin of a needle? You are talking about things we can neither see, nor directly interact with, nor even prove to exist except as representative concepts. At what point does scientific knowledge cross the line into metaphysical faith?

Photons only behave sort of like what we conceive of as waves and particles - it's a freakin' metaphor, a descriptive device

It's a metaphor, a descriptive device, a concept, an abstraction, an. . . IDEA. But an idea about what? About the relationships between properties of the things we experience. It's an idea which describes how things happen, not, in an absolute sense, what they are or where they come from. This is the irony of physical monism-- it is represented completeley in the realm of ideas.

[archangle]

You are the one denying physical reality, not I. Ideas are not distinct, physical objects, they are patterns in brains. No brains, no ideas - but there is still the physical universe.

I'm not denying the physical universe as a collection of ideas about ultra-consistent relationships among the things we experience. I'm denying the physical monist interpretation of what underlies it. I think that as far as we're concerned, the universe resolves down to ideas, not to locatable, existent things. Now, if you're insisting on a physical monism, you have a problem-- all your models and interpretations of physicality are ideas, and you cannot even show the elemental particles which those ideas are said to represent. And that's just for the supposedly physical stuff; now add in the philosophical problem of mind, and it's time to really start tap-dancing.

In an idealistic world view, that problem doesn't exist-- we make our ideas about the interactions between properties, and the underlying "reality" upon which those properties stand-- be it a physical universe, the Matrix, a BIJ, or the mind of God-- really doesn't matter to the work at hand.

Everything ever discovered was something new to our knowledge, therefore new thoughts.

Right. Discovery is an experience, and experiences can only be had where there is a mind.

I don't believe an electron or a photon looks like anything at all; certainly nothing in our experience. They are too small to be seen by our senses.

Like angels on the pin of a needle? You are talking about things we can neither see, nor directly interact with, nor even prove to exist except as representative concepts. At what point does scientific knowledge cross the line into metaphysical faith?

Photons only behave sort of like what we conceive of as waves and particles - it's a freakin' metaphor, a descriptive device

It's a metaphor, a descriptive device, a concept, an abstraction, an. . . IDEA. But an idea about what? About the relationships between properties of the things we experience. It's an idea which describes how things happen, not, in an absolute sense, what they are or where they come from. This is the irony of physical monism-- it is represented completeley in the realm of ideas.

Particles/energy decide what the mind thinks. if they work in a pattern then that pattern is the limit to what can be thought. It is real simple. Without out humans the universe goes on. Unless there are more humans out there. then without humans there is no human universe.

The real question is can we have "awareness" and the universe not? What also is funny is that a human would think that a human "creates" the universe. It is more probable The universe "thought about us." and we are here. It would take a giant leap of faith to reverse that.

We really can't separate "mind" from brain yet. Unless of course its mental masturbation. Just keep a napkin around.

[Chas]

You are the one denying physical reality, not I. Ideas are not distinct, physical objects, they are patterns in brains. No brains, no ideas - but there is still the physical universe.

I'm not denying the physical universe as a collection of ideas about ultra-consistent relationships among the things we experience. I'm denying the physical monist interpretation of what underlies it. I think that as far as we're concerned, the universe resolves down to ideas, not to locatable, existent things. Now, if you're insisting on a physical monism, you have a problem-- all your models and interpretations of physicality are ideas, and you cannot even show the elemental particles which those ideas are said to represent. And that's just for the supposedly physical stuff; now add in the philosophical problem of mind, and it's time to really start tap-dancing.

In an idealistic world view, that problem doesn't exist-- we make our ideas about the interactions between properties, and the underlying "reality" upon which those properties stand-- be it a physical universe, the Matrix, a BIJ, or the mind of God-- really doesn't matter to the work at hand.

Everything ever discovered was something new to our knowledge, therefore new thoughts.

Right. Discovery is an experience, and experiences can only be had where there is a mind.

So what? Physical reality exists independent of our minds.

I don't believe an electron or a photon looks like anything at all; certainly nothing in our experience. They are too small to be seen by our senses.

Like angels on the pin of a needle? You are talking about things we can neither see, nor directly interact with, nor even prove to exist except as representative concepts. At what point does scientific knowledge cross the line into metaphysical faith?

We cannot see electrons, but we can detect them. You asked what they looked like. Please show me your angel detector.

Photons only behave sort of like what we conceive of as waves and particles - it's a freakin' metaphor, a descriptive device

It's a metaphor, a descriptive device, a concept, an abstraction, an. . . IDEA. But an idea about what? About the relationships between properties of the things we experience. It's an idea which describes how things happen, not, in an absolute sense, what they are or where they come from. This is the irony of physical monism-- it is represented completeley in the realm of ideas.

No, it is not represented completely in the realm of ideas - its existence is verifiable independently by anyone and everyone.

[bennyboy]

We cannot see electrons, but we can detect them. You asked what they looked like. Please show me your angel detector.

As I have already said, idealism doesn't undermine the concepts about relationships of properties. The transfer of energy via photons, etc., and the existence of electrons, are perfectly acceptable. The issue is whether those things are all existent objects, of which our ideas are representative, or whether they are reducible ONLY to ideas.

For example, is a particle represented BY a wave function, or is it actually a wave function brought into relation with other wave functions in a space-time framework? Answer this if you're feeling confident-- all matter is made up of elemental particles. And for something to be said to exist physically, it must take up volume and be located in space. So what's the volume of an elemental particle?

(quickly Googled): http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/27337...ical-size/

No, it is not represented completely in the realm of ideas - its existence is verifiable independently by anyone and everyone.

Not quite right-- there are some experiences which seem to be shareable with others, and because they are common to all, they are considered to have some underlying objective truth. However, that underlying truth may be purely idealistic (for example, a collection of mathematical relationships), with no loss.

Take, for example, any of the surfaces that you can see around your computer. Do they exist as more than ideas? No. Even in science, there is nothing but particles, with 99.999999% space between them. So what is that solid book you're looking at right now? It's an idea-- that contiguous surface is no more solid than the Milky Way. Now take a dream book. You can dream objects in HD, as though you were really seeing them. Is your mind recreating a gazillion particles? No. You are imagining the idea of book-ness-- the qualia describing what a book IS LIKE.

That's our reality.

[Chas]

We cannot see electrons, but we can detect them. You asked what they looked like. Please show me your angel detector.

As I have already said, idealism doesn't undermine the concepts about relationships of properties. The transfer of energy via photons, etc., and the existence of electrons, are perfectly acceptable. The issue is whether those things are all existent objects, of which our ideas are representative, or whether they are reducible ONLY to ideas.

For example, is a particle represented BY a wave function, or is it actually a wave function brought into relation with other wave functions in a space-time framework? Answer this if you're feeling confident-- all matter is made up of elemental particles. And for something to be said to exist physically, it must take up volume and be located in space. So what's the volume of an elemental particle?

(quickly Googled): http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/27337...ical-size/

No, it is not represented completely in the realm of ideas - its existence is verifiable independently by anyone and everyone.

Not quite right-- there are some experiences which seem to be shareable with others, and because they are common to all, they are considered to have some underlying objective truth. However, that underlying truth may be purely idealistic (for example, a collection of mathematical relationships), with no loss.

Take, for example, any of the surfaces that you can see around your computer. Do they exist as more than ideas? No. Even in science, there is nothing but particles, with 99.999999% space between them. So what is that solid book you're looking at right now? It's an idea-- that contiguous surface is no more solid than the Milky Way. Now take a dream book. You can dream objects in HD, as though you were really seeing them. Is your mind recreating a gazillion particles? No. You are imagining the idea of book-ness-- the qualia describing what a book IS LIKE.

That's our reality.

If reality were reducible to thought, then we dreamed up 13.78 billion years of the universe that existed before we did.

For your contention to be true, ancient Homo sapiens would have to have dreamt up a universe that acts like the universe modern man has dreamed up.

Your concepts are self contradicting, essentially incoherent.